EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › Ski Gear Discussion › best size skis - sorry i'm sure this has been asked before
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

best size skis - sorry i'm sure this has been asked before

post #1 of 18
Thread Starter 
Hi there,

im a fairly good skier, i ski black runs fairly fine. im 181cm in height and 78kg. i would say i am still learning though but past intermediate level.

I plan to buy a pair of Dynastar skicross 9's but do not know if i should buy the 162cm or 170cm ?

What difference would i notice?

Many thanks

S4S
post #2 of 18
Primarily a US site .... some conversions perhaps?

And, we don't have a clue (least most of us), how much "5 stone" are either!
post #3 of 18
Thread Starter 
i think i'm about 180 pounds

thanks
post #4 of 18
Thread Starter 
172 lb to be exact
post #5 of 18
Want to go fast and fairly straight? Ski "big mountains/off piste"? Buy something about 180cm.

Want to rip off a million short turns? Buy a 160cm? It won't do a whole heck of a lot else.

A 170 cm ski might well be a decent compromise.

I see a lot of folks suffering a great deal of angst making ski length decisions. It's not that big a decision. Unless you are skiing a very small mountain (<1000 ft vertical) I wouldn't own one ski and have it be 160 cm long. I often tell European customers the decision is akin to cars. An S class Mercedes will be a little more comfortable "all day" at high speeds and sweeping turns vs an E class vs a C class. You can substitute Audi A8 vs, A6 vs, A4. Conversely the smaller more nimble vehicles are probably better suited to quick turns at slower speeds on mountain roads or country roads.

Not that a ski instructor has ever ridden in any of the those vehicles.

I think turn radius, ski construction (metal vs non-metal), and width underfoot are far more important. Metal being sought for hard snow and perhaps not as desirable for skiing bumps all day.

Many companies are making skis that are >75mm underfoot with turn radii that would have been a slalom ski in years past. I spent the past six weeks on a 178 cm ski, with 78 mm underfoot and a 15 meter turn radius. It worked great in a wide spectrum of conditions.

My $00.02.....or two pence on the topic.
post #6 of 18
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yuki
Primarily a US site .... some conversions perhaps?
So how many inches long should my skis be? I am currently skiing on 72s but demoed some 61s the other day and they were fun.

post #7 of 18
Quote:
Originally Posted by kiwiski
So how many inches long should my skis be? I am currently skiing on 72s but demoed some 61s the other day and they were fun.

In the US skis are sold by cm's. Weight and height are done in English measure (feet, inches, and pounds). So the concern was that US Bears can't figure out length in cm's for you without knowing your height and weight in English measure. Stone and Kg's don't help much unless we know how to convert. This just points out why we need to convert to metric measure here in the USA.
post #8 of 18
Quote:
Originally Posted by pheft
In the US skis are sold by cm's. Weight and height are done in English measure (feet, inches, and pounds). So the concern was that US Bears can't figure out length in cm's for you without knowing your height and weight in English measure. Stone and Kg's don't help much unless we know how to convert. This just points out why we need to convert to metric measure here in the USA.
Yeah I know, I just think it is funny how the US uses such a variety of different measures for different applications.
post #9 of 18
Thread Starter 
Big thanks Rusty Guy, very useful information.
i just tried some standard rental ski's at the local www.snowplanet.co.nz (indoor ski centre) (not enough snow on the mountain yet.
i tried 160cm and 170cm, the 160's were a lot slower but i could turn turn turn turn turn. the 170cm were a bit more difficult and i found it harder to turn so fast/often, they were also a lot faster. Still it was very helpful to try them side by side.
i think im going to go the 170cm. It will probably bit a bit "tough" for me at first but hope to grow into them.
I'm not sure what type of material the SkiCross's are:
http://www.dynastar.com/pg/produit.p...=0&product=398

i think a mix. they are meant to be good all mountian skis and good for moguls.

Can't wait!!

Any other replies welcome- thanks everyone

S4S.

PS those sports cars dont even compare to flying down the mountian in fresh snow
post #10 of 18
Hi and welcome,
Look at the turn radius on the ski. For small mountains, I prefer a turn radius of about 13 or 14m. Different skis have a different relationship between length and turn radius. Make a note of the turn radius of the ski you demo. Quite often skis that are really good at making short turns suck at making high speed long radius turns and vice versa. For a big mountain you might want a GS ski. 15 or 16 m is a good compromise.
Making short turns is funner than it sounds; I tend to try to get as much g-force out of each turn I make. If you make short turns with an 11 m ski all day, you might find that your legs won't hold up.

Tell us what sort of skiing you will be doing.
post #11 of 18
Quote:
Originally Posted by slugchowder
172 lb to be exact
12 stone 4 lb then.
post #12 of 18
Quote:
Originally Posted by slugchowder
Big thanks Rusty Guy, very useful information.
i just tried some standard rental ski's at the local www.snowplanet.co.nz (indoor ski centre) (not enough snow on the mountain yet.
i tried 160cm and 170cm, the 160's were a lot slower but i could turn turn turn turn turn. the 170cm were a bit more difficult and i found it harder to turn so fast/often, they were also a lot faster. Still it was very helpful to try them side by side.
i think im going to go the 170cm. It will probably bit a bit "tough" for me at first but hope to grow into them.
I'm not sure what type of material the SkiCross's are:
http://www.dynastar.com/pg/produit.p...=0&product=398

i think a mix. they are meant to be good all mountian skis and good for moguls.

Can't wait!!

Any other replies welcome- thanks everyone

S4S.

PS those sports cars dont even compare to flying down the mountian in fresh snow
One last caveat.

In comparing, be sure you compare apples to apples in terms of how "easily" a ski turns. Much can be altered by the base/side bevel of a ski. If one ski turns on a dime it may be a different "tune" than the other ski.

Rental skis more than likely are beat to death with an occasional run through a machine. To use the car analogy many rental fleets are like metro taxis with 300k miles in the odometer.

I have long contended skis at "demo days" have high base bevels in order to prompt intermediate skiers to say.....oh, these skis turn so easily.
post #13 of 18
170
post #14 of 18
Quote:
Originally Posted by kiwiski
Yeah I know, I just think it is funny how the US uses such a variety of different measures for different applications.
I, for one, got the point. And it is, perhaps, absurd that one can talk about 181 cm skis without being able to picture how tall someone who is 181 cm tall is.

There aren't that many different measurements used in the US.

Okay, ski equipment is always metric, in all dimensions (except weight, if it's mentioned at all, which is never metric).

Oh yeah ... containers with alcohol in them are metric (except when mixing a drink, when it's in ounces, and beer, which is in ounces, except that a pint in a glass isn't always 16 ounces, which is less than English pint to start with), but soft drinks are metric in big sizes and English in smaller ones, and milk is English.

And the military uses metric distances.

And some guns are metric, and some aren't.

And track races used to be in yards, but now they're in meters, with some exceptions like the mile ... and the marathon, which doesn't make sense in any system.
post #15 of 18
I agree : at least 170cm. Dynastars Skicross are great, but on the 'soft' side for a 'cross-ski'. They are still managable in the longer size and go faster.
post #16 of 18
Perhaps change to a universal system will come. We were supposed to change to metric here in the US in the mid 70's .... fizzled out?

The Brits should set an example for us ..... by driving on the "correct" side of the road!
post #17 of 18
Thread Starter 
Hi everyone


Thanks for your advice i feel more confident now about the purchase of the Dynastar Skicross 9 170cm (110, 69, 98). They have a turn radius of 16m.


Also have autodrive technology but have no idea if this does anything, anyone know? Marketing bull or something useful?

Thanks again!!
S4S
post #18 of 18
Because you are from the UK (?), will you be skiing those on wide open Swiss and Austrian upper mountain areas?

Here in the US, the eastern trails tend to be narrow and more prone to ice and hard pack. A shorter ski is (IMHO) an advantage. Conversely, if I was to ski in the west I'd tend to favor a longer ski .... softer snow (real snow) and wider areas.

At our local hill I favor my SL's .... more turns for the $$ and you aren't down in 36 seconds.

My current skis are all between a yard and a half to almost two yards long ... or just shy a fathom ..... just kidding .... between 156 to 168's.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Ski Gear Discussion
EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › Ski Gear Discussion › best size skis - sorry i'm sure this has been asked before