or Connect
EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › Ski Gear Discussion › Newbie Volkl Length Question
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Newbie Volkl Length Question

post #1 of 30
Thread Starter 
Greetings All-

I am 50 yrs old and an expert skier, 5'11" and 165 lbs. I like to ski fast and aggressive (I probably ski groomers 75% and off-piste 25% - but that's just because I haven't seen much deep snow lately) - all my skiing is in the west. I have been skiing on K2-Fours 188cm for the last four to five years. Last Feb. at Sun Peaks B.C., I demo-ed a pair of Volkl EXPs in a 177cm and really enjoyed them (my only experience with shape skis) but many people I have talked to since then think I should be on a 170cm EXP. I have an opportunity to buy a pair of '05 EXPs with the motion AT in a 170cm or 177cm for a great deal ($400.) and I am torn as to which length to grab hold of cuz I can't demo the 170cm. Your insights would be greatly appreciated.

Thank you for entertaining yet another length question from a shape-newbie.
post #2 of 30
It would be a shame to get 170s, only to outski them. There are many people who still believe that if you like skiing fast, especially in soft snow, a little length is a good thing. It's all about ability and comfort.
post #3 of 30
It sounds like 177cm would be the better choice.
post #4 of 30
Quote:
Originally Posted by skyrocket101
It sounds like 177cm would be the better choice.
I agree, tho I think either would work at your weight..$400 is a sweet price....maybe harkinbanks and cirquerider can chirp in....

good luck and welcome

btw I still have two pair of k2 fours 178 with propulse bindings, I still ski em quite a bit - still a great ride, along with a pair of 2001 volkl platinum p40's with marker mrr's 177cm....I am 6'0 190///next year I will be on volkl supersport allstar 168, they wait for me in the closet ....so the trend is short for sure....
post #5 of 30
Thread Starter 
Thanks Canyon, that is my concern too but I have such limited experience with shape skis... as with hrstrat57, I've skied the snot out of my K2-4s and have had a blast and it seems like such a leap from 188cm (K2s) to 170cm (EXPs). But then I read what MaxCapacity is saying and I start to think that short might be the way to go.

The thing of it is, I have to make a decision by tomorrow morning. Nothing like waiting till the last minute...
post #6 of 30
OK, you can ski either length. Good experience on a 177 trumps advantages on a 170. That said, the shorter ski may make trees, tight turns and controlled steeps easier. The 177 is already a known factor for speed and manuverability. Based on what I hear here, I stick with 177 without convincing evidence a shorter ski is an advantage. IMO EXP is better skied longer than the SuperSport series which is best at short lengths.

In reality, we are only talking about 2.7 inches. Unless we are talking about gender, this couldn't possibly be that significant.
post #7 of 30
Quote:
a pair of 2001 volkl platinum p40's with marker mrr's 177cm....I am 6'0 190
In my opinion that is way too short, cause Platinum was made as GS ski with a single layer of titanium. I also have pair of P40 GS F1 in 193 and I'm 5'11, 180lbs and never had a problem with the ski being too long.

Once again, I would go for 177, but not shorter.
post #8 of 30
you skiied the 177. you liked the 177. you are a big aggresive skier.

BUY THE 177!!!!
BE THE 177!!!!
LOVE THE 177!!!!
post #9 of 30
The consensus is the 177s, which I wholeheartedly agree with.

The 170's would be too short for you.

The EXP is an 04-05 model, not an 05-06 model. So a closeout price of $400 is a good price. Ask them to throw in the mounting and boot adjustment for that price.

HB
post #10 of 30
Quote:
Originally Posted by skyrocket101
In my opinion that is way too short, cause Platinum was made as GS ski with a single layer of titanium. I also have pair of P40 GS F1 in 193 and I'm 5'11, 180lbs and never had a problem with the ski being too long.

Once again, I would go for 177, but not shorter.
Had Rossignol 7gk 208 up over 40mph with no wobble, had 2001 p40 platinum p40 over 40mph no wobble, retired volkl carver plus 191 once I tried (mint condition sell em cheap anybody wants em)the K2 four 178 and subsequent Platinum....sooo too short? I think not, at least not for me. But I check my ego at the door now. I finally gave in to the short ski revolution. Took me a while. I was the ultimate short skis sxxx guy. Even had the bumper sticker. Had the disco sxxx bumber sticker on the other side. The Rossignol 7gk in truth was my last ego ski. Looked cool, had to have it, shoulda left it on the race course..went back down to a 205 slalom ski after being humbled a bit...(OLIN RTS) Big ego can ruin a lot of good ski days.

....but this aside poaches the thread - back on topic. Hadn't noticed that you had demo'd the 177 and loved it. As cirquerider says, less 3"? Go with what made you smile.....the price is right and it is a good ski. Sirmack line is great..."be the 177" hey, buy that ski and you get a free bowl of soup, but looks good on you, gambling is illegal here at bushwood sir.
post #11 of 30
You won't be sorry, enjoy. Definitely throw in the mounting and such- I always ask for the first tune-up to be thrown in too.
post #12 of 30
You ski in the west, It seems like most western skiers like longer skis. More wide open spaces where you guys seem to need the longer edge to go faster. Don't get me wrong I like speed also. If you were here in the east I would say at your light weight the 170cm is what you should be on. I wish you could demo them back to back. When I buy the AC3 I will get it in 170cm I'm now 5'11" 180lbs. my ski weight, after the Holidays, hangs around 190lbs. Damn If only I could grow another couple of inches. But at 50, that ain't happen'n.

Another thing I've learned is that as my skills get better, I want a shorter and softer ski then I used to ski on. Or is that age related?
post #13 of 30
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cirquerider
OK, you can ski either length. Good experience on a 177 trumps advantages on a 170. That said, the shorter ski may make trees, tight turns and controlled steeps easier. The 177 is already a known factor for speed and manuverability. Based on what I hear here, I stick with 177 without convincing evidence a shorter ski is an advantage. IMO EXP is better skied longer than the SuperSport series which is best at short lengths.

In reality, we are only talking about 2.7 inches. Unless we are talking about gender, this couldn't possibly be that significant.
I agree 100% with this statement.
post #14 of 30
Here's a typical epicski response: go ahead and get the 177's --- and then check out a pair of real short skis to see what that's all about.

I'm in your general size range and started out several years ago on a pair of 170's. Now I tend to leave the 170's at home, and bring a 160 cm. slalom ski and a 176cm mid fat. It's real nice to have two tools that do two different tasks well, instead of one compromise.
post #15 of 30
Hi, I'm an "expert" skier. But I've never skied those dang "shape" skis.

LOL :
post #16 of 30
Thread Starter 
I want to thank all of you who have given me your insights on the best way to jump out of my dilemma. I'm going to stick with what I know and go with the 177s. I look forward to giving a little feedback once the blessed snow begins.

And Xdog, my friend, don't you find it wonderous that there were no expert skiers before the "shape" revolution? I guess five years ago everyone was an advanced-intermediate - after 44 yrs of skiing I certainly look forward to finally having a chance at being an expert (once I get the right equipment, of course). I thank you for your input as well.
post #17 of 30
Soarhead:
I am going to chime in here. I spent 4 years on K2 Four 88. I am 5'11 190-200/ Very aggressive FAST skier. And like the whole mountain depending on whats good that day. You are going to have a hard time improving on those skis. (Four 88)
I moved to Atomic XS11 @180 this past season. @ Mid speed 40-60MPH the SX11's can pull even harder turns than the Four 88 . They are about the same for crud/Bumps. Four 88's were better in Pow. (There longer) duh.
Now if you like ripping Groomers (chopped up or corduroy) @ Real high speed 60-75MPH approching SG Speed? The Four 88's are much more stable.
In STEEP chutes on Frozen or packed crust, the shorter shaped ski's (Like mine) are grabby, Tails hook up when you don't really want them to. Longer GS (Less Shape) skis are better in these conditions.

I am now going to buy a FAT ski (PM Gear Bro Model @188 Stiff) for steeps, powder and YES rip groomers @ high speed. And I am buying a pair of GS Ski's @188 to replace the rock solid sensation I had with the Four 88's (For those days when I feel like scaring the shit out of Ski Patrol)
So IMHO the ski's you are looking @ will bring some new sensations to your skiing. But you are going to miss the stability and manners of the Four 88's You might want to keep looking. Also really look Hard @ going Fat!! I though I would be the last person to go that way!! But the science and raves form the expert on the mountain is just too hard to explain away.

MTT
PS: The new technology has alowed us to get more performance from shorter skis. I have gone down from 200+ CM ski's down to a short 188CM ski with better maners.
post #18 of 30
Heres what they say about the EXP @ RealSkier
Less demanding than the Pro and probably a better choice for most non-pro skiers. Especially effective with traditional technique, but capable of modern high end performance, up to a point. Solid workhorse rather than flashy "free ride" ride. No surprises except instability at speed. Enjoyable at slow speed. OK in bumps. A good 1-ski-quiver choice for less aggressive skiers.

NOT A REPLACEMENT FOR the K2 FOUR 88
post #19 of 30
Thread Starter 
MTT, thanks for more info on the EXP. You have some excellent points and I am a little surprised that RealSkier gives them low marks for at-speed stability. It may be that I need to step back for a moment and attempt to blink the $$ from my eyes and really assess my 'great deal'.

I have to say that when I put the K2-4 hard-over it is a treat - a fine zoom! I do love rippin' the groomers with those things and I am always surprised how well they do in the deep and among the trees.

So how fat is the fat that you're considering? The EXP waist is 74 which is I think is middle of the road.

Soarhead
post #20 of 30
Soarhead:
Glad to be of help. I was going to keep my fingers off the keyboard (Mouth Shut) But I have been down this road. As to where I am going see below
I am also going to go with A/T bindings.

DIMENSIONS: 125-99-114 (tip-waist-tail in mm)
LENGTH: 188 cm
CONSTRUCTION:
Super light laminated fir cores
Extra-wide Rockwell 48 edges
UHMW (P-Tex) sidewalls
2 layers of anti-vibration, dampening rubber
22 oz. triaxial fiberglass weave
P-Tex 4001 bases
Flared tail with full edge wrap
Handmade in limited quantities in the U.S.A.
Two flexes to choose from: soft and stiff (see below)
http://www.pmgearusa.com/bromodel/bromodelf.htm

And like I said I'm going to keep some GS skis around but those who know say that’s not even necessary with a competent FAT all mountain rig.

MTT
post #21 of 30
Quote:
had 2001 p40 platinum p40 over 40mph no wobble
I tried p40 platinum in 193 on the ice going with GS-type turns and let me tell you that ski was way softer than my P40 GS model.
post #22 of 30
Don't take my comments the wrong way hoss, I wish you all the best. It's just that we're a pretty modest bunch here. Most folks are hesitant to label themselves experts, even though they regularly perform amazing feats on skis.

In fact, I'd wager good money that if you participated in an EpicSki academy, you would voluntarily revoke your "expert" status by day 2.

The fact that you ski groomers 75% of the time tells me that you're limited on the hill in many ways that lots of "experts" aren't. Then the whole "shape" ski thing tells me that you're seriously out of the loop. People don't even say "shaped" or "parabolic" anymore, they're just "skis". If any distinction is made, it's to say "straight" skis.

That's all, carry on.
post #23 of 30
I have to agree with MTT here that the fat skis can really awaken a new horizon in skiing. I started skiing a Volkl Mantra (130-94-113) this year in March. Mostly it made a tremendous difference in my capability to easily take on terrain and snow conditions that I only "thought" I was handling well on mid-fats. Much greater speed, confidence and smile factor. I do not claim expert status, but these skis begin to make me believe its possible. I remember skiing with a couple 20 something youngsters (one on new EXPs) on a deep powder tree run. Well, see post #12 on the Volkl Mantra Review. I enjoyed carving and pulling Gs on the Supersport 6*, and even thought I was killing deep powder on them (even though I was getting my a$$ kicked by guys on those Line, PMGear, V-Explosives and even Pocket Rockets). Its just that I was never prepared for what a fat ski makes possible.

If you really have an interest in expanding your horizons, especially off-piste, the EXP is not going to do it. Don't get me wrong, its a great ski for what it does well. I still ski SuperSport 6* and even took the Dynastar 4X4 Powercarves out this year, but I was totally blown away by the V-Mantra, Fritschi FR, Garmont Adrenalin combo.

Warning! If you hang out here long enough it could be really bad for your budget. You actually need specialized skis (more than one pair); but that is what ts01 said. What did you say you wanted out of a ski?
post #24 of 30
Quote:
Originally Posted by skyrocket101
I tried p40 platinum in 193 on the ice going with GS-type turns and let me tell you that ski was way softer than my P40 GS model.
Sweet!

I'd like to debate 5 year old technology here with you but I don't think too many bears would find it interesting. Further, next year I'll be on 168 volkl allstars, thus going even shorter(even tho actually I believe they will displace more p tex on the snow ) But we already know I am not an expert. So thanks for sharing, but I am out on the debate on old school gear, I am gonna move on...maybe someone else can pick up on it. Search the forum, lotsa threads on old school skis, even P40's, you might find em interesting. Use Volkl p40 as keyword in your search. Kindest regards!
post #25 of 30
Soarhead, I agree with Cirquerider. You should consider owning two pairs of skis. If you only want one pair and you must only have one pair you should consider next years Volkl AC4s. I know I know that $400 for the EXP sounds like a good price. Its a good price because next years AC3s and AC4s are sounding like they will be even better then EXP and PRO. Go to www.volkl.com and click on sneak peak lower right corner.

I agree the length difference is not noticable. In deep over the knee powder the longer length will of course be a little better choice. I wouuld suggest 170cm length in the AC4 and don't look back. Then again I have not skied on them and only talked to different ski rep friends that have.
post #26 of 30
O Boy here we go, the secret is out, Hairybones and my son said that about the AC4 when we demoed it back in March. If you could only have one ski...
post #27 of 30
I have skied it too. My early season prediction is that the AC4 will be "The Ski of the Year."
post #28 of 30
Quote:
Search the forum, lotsa threads on old school skis, even P40's, you might find em interesting. Use Volkl p40 as keyword in your search. Kindest regards!


Well, thanks for sharing your advice, but I'm well aware how to use a search option. In my opinion you've been on the wrong gear in terms of the length and you are making another mistake by going even shorter.
post #29 of 30
177
post #30 of 30
Shouldn't this thread be in the ski gear forum?
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 › Newbie Volkl Length Question