EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › Ski Gear Discussion › Volkl Supersport T50, What size is best for me????
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Volkl Supersport T50, What size is best for me????

post #1 of 22
Thread Starter 
I am interested in buying the Volkl Supersport T50 5 Star. I want to know what size is best for me. I'm 5'08 175lbs. I skiied on the Volkl Vertigo G30 188cm the last two years. This ski was probably too big for me and kicked my butt in moguls and steep chutes. Any advice on what size is best for me is greatly appreciated.

Thanks Mark
post #2 of 22
I have also been trying to decide which length of the Supersports to buy. From what I hear, these skis can be skied shorter than usual (even for shaped skis). I am 6' and weigh 220lbs and am thinking of getting 175s. It still seems like this may be a little short for me though since I grew up racing on skis around 200s. Maybe we can attract some attention to this topic and get some good advice from some of the Southern Hemisphere skiers who have skied these skis this season.
post #3 of 22
[ September 02, 2002, 07:42 AM: Message edited by: RAGNAR ]
post #4 of 22
[quote]Originally posted by RAGNAR:
[QB][quote]Originally posted by double down 11:

I just went through the same dilemma. Decided on 175's (coming off Solomon Exscreams at 188). My ski shop doesn't even carry the 182's, and I can't immagine going shorter than 175.

[ September 02, 2002, 08:14 AM: Message edited by: RAGNAR ]
post #5 of 22
I'm 235 pounds and 5'11" and ski the Volkl G3 in 177 and have had no problems. I tried the G3 in 184 and found that while it wasn't overpowering, it wasn't as manuverable in short turns. I'm primaraly an East coast skier who likes to ski everything on the mountain so I like a shorter ski for the trees and other tight spots.
post #6 of 22
Thanks for the input Laseranimal. I'm not familiar with the G3's...are they a similar ski in sidecut/waist width stiffness to the T50s?
post #7 of 22
Thanks for the input Laseranimal. I'm not familiar with the G3's...are they a similar ski in sidecut/waist width stiffness to the T50s?
post #8 of 22
A good friend of mine skied the T50 as a Demo late in the Season at the Nastar championships. He is between 5'6.5" and 5'8" and probably about 160. He skied at least a 170 because he prefers a longer ski and everyone kept trying to put him on something shorter. He absolutely loved the ski at that length. However, he spends much more time running flat out than in the steeps and bumps that would surely lend itself to a shorter ski.
post #9 of 22
[quote]He is between 5'6.5" and 5'8" and probably about 160. He skied at least a 170.

I am thinking of getting the 175s even though I am quite a bit bigger than 5'8" 160lbs. I am still pretty wary about skiing on a ski that's shorter than anything I have skied since I was about 13. Does anyone have any other suggestions? Should I go longer?
post #10 of 22
I LOVE THESE SKIS !!!!!!!!!!!!
[img]smile.gif[/img] [img]tongue.gif[/img] [img]smile.gif[/img] [img]tongue.gif[/img]
Just spent a week on them at Thredbo (Australia). Fine Sunny days of around 10 degrees (celcius) with overnights of -3 gave us hard fast slopes tending to heavy at the bottom where the man-made stuff was turning to sand/slush. Lots of nice bumps dveloping on the drier, upper slopes and also some chopped up, windblown crap to navigate in areas as well. And these skis were really quite cosy on every condition.

Not to mention every turn type. Zip 'em in quick snappy shorts, practise technique in perfectly rounded mediums and scrape your hip on carve turns that cut like butter. The front edge was super responsive, millimeter adjustments changed the turn radius dramatically. No mucking around. Be on top, in control and drive the front like a shiny red Jaguar.

Wide tips floated to the top of heavy slush and sand like conditions resulting from melting man made snow on the lower slopes.

Narrow waist made it seem like you just cruise down the fall line of a bumps run.

Torsional rigidity allowed super stability at mach speeds.

In short they just rip!!!!!!!!!

As for length, I have no idea about inches and pounds, remember when uskin' us yokels down 'ere you need to provide metric unless you want response from the over 55's. I am 168cm, female (heavy set but sorry you don't get my weight I used to ski on 190cm straights, moved down to 185cm for my Lacroix shaped skis (though now looking at them I am hard pressed to find a curve at all on these match sticks), then after much convincing moved down to 178cm for my K2 Fours. Salomon Equipe Series 10 3V I had for a week in 178ish something but thought they were too long. I am an ex-instructor and tech who prefers fast technical turns but of course wants the dit it all ski.

So what did I get? Well the sales assistant was trying for 154 but that was just tooooo bizarre, even 161 I had to be talked into but I think that was the perfect choice. Other reviews I have read of this ski mention it being nervy at the tip and maybe too short, all I can say have you ever seen someone who thought they were a bit of the shit but were actually in the tails relying on the length of the ski to keep them up, take a ride on snow-blades and can't understand why the tips wobble around so much. As I said earlier you must be on the tips of these ALWAYS, and remember that every millimeter adjustment translates as a huge adjustment in turn radius. I read about some people saying that they should de-tune the front of the skis. Yeah right. Buy a Jag then put some bald tyres on the front, alternatively buy a Honda and stay under speed limit.

Anyone with anymore questions about these skis I am happy to gabble lots more.

Oh, and also love the binding system that you can change in about 3 minutes. My partner bought the Vertigo Motions with the same binding system and we kept talking about swapping all week. Problem was we were both just too much in love with our own skis and they suited our styles so much we didn't want to waste a run. Maybe we'll head up this weekend and give it a go.

Cheers
From the Extremely blissed out one.
: :
post #11 of 22
Thinking about the metric/imperial problem, I would say buy the ski that is between your chin and your eyebrow. Wierd I know but they grip like supermagnets at speed because of the torsional stability.
post #12 of 22
Just got my wife a pair of T50's in 168. She is 5'9" and a strong skier. She has been skiing P50 Motions in 178 and G31's in 178 and loves both of them. Maybe she won't like the T50's and I will HAVE to ski them......THINK SNOW
post #13 of 22
Thread Starter 
Thanks BEC, keep the good info coming. I had to get out the tape measure to figure out that 5'08" tall means i'm approx. 173 cm.

Good work BEC
post #14 of 22
Thread Starter 
I am leaning towards the 175 cm. I can't imagine skiing anything shorter than that. However, before I buy I think I will demo the 168 cm. This way I can say I tried to go shorter.
post #15 of 22
Quote:
Originally posted by double down 11:
I am leaning towards the 175 cm. I can't imagine skiing anything shorter than that. However, before I buy I think I will demo the 168 cm. This way I can say I tried to go shorter.
Check out this thread which also covers the topic of length for the Supersports http://www.epicski.com/cgi-bin/ultim...c;f=1;t=003105
post #16 of 22
What I read here is an assumption that ski length is some sort of absolute quality. It's very difficult to become accustomed to the idea that a serious Atomic slalom ski can feel way longer at 160 cm than, say, the Rossignol Rebel X feels at 177 cm. To get the best out of today's skis, we need to let go of any prior conceptions of ski length in general. Every model speaks for itself. As I've reported elsewhere on EpicSki, I've demoed many, many, many skis, mostly for reporting purposes. Among them have been the Rossignol Bandit X and also the Rossignol Bandit XX. The single X was just too squirrely for me in 170 cm but not too shabby in 177. The XX was a horrid experience for me in 177, but I fell in love with them in 170 and bought them in that length. I tried those Atomic slalom skis in 160, and they felt like dump trucks. Apparently, according to Atomic, the better length for me - IN THAT MODEL OF SKI - is 140 cm.

Moral of the story: Forget previous notions of ski length; try them out, it's the only way to know.

[ September 09, 2002, 04:48 PM: Message edited by: oboe ]
post #17 of 22
Quote:
Originally posted by Bec:
Buy a Jag then put some bald tyres on the front, alternatively buy a Honda and stay under speed limit.
my honda (S2000) would rip your bloated jag a new one at the track. bad analogy. :

[ September 10, 2002, 04:13 PM: Message edited by: Adema ]
post #18 of 22
Whatever Adema. :

We are not talking about cars, it was a metaphor. I don't have a Jag nor do I have a Honda. I have a pair of Volkls which I think are really nice and it would be a shame to de-tune such a fine piece of equipment.

Go hang out at a motor head site.
post #19 of 22
Quote:
Originally posted by Bec:
Whatever Adema. :

We are not talking about cars, it was a metaphor. I don't have a Jag nor do I have a Honda. I have a pair of Volkls which I think are really nice and it would be a shame to de-tune such a fine piece of equipment.

Go hang out at a motor head site.
get bent
post #20 of 22
Thread Starter 
Based on what everyone is telling me, the 175 cm is the best size for me 5'08"-175lbs or 79kg-172.7cm. Now I need to decide if the motion system bindings is the best way to go. Any suggestions???
post #21 of 22
Hey double down! I was fortunate enough to get the chance to ski the T50's at the end of last season. I'm about 6'3, 230lbs, and like to ski pretty fast. I rode the 168 length. The conditions were a combination of about 8 inches of our thick pac.NW snow and groomed trails. They were awesome. They did not shake at speed as long as they were up on edge which now days is pretty much all the time. They also floated pretty well in the deeper stuff. The only thing I didn't like was the stopping power. There is a lot less effective edge contact with the snow than what were all used to. These skiis belonged to the local Volkl rep and he is a little larger than yourself. I agree very much with the gentleman who said you have to do away with all preconceived notions about length ie, chin height, brow, forhead. What you need to ask is what do you want this ski to do. Will it be your only pair of skiis? maybe a little longer (175) is it going to be a second pair of skiis to supplement what you have? go shorter 168 or even less. The shorter the ski the shorter the turning radius. Are you a cruiser? Or do you want to lay down some serious trench warfare and try and screw yourself into the ground? Don't be afraid of these shorter lengths. What are world cup men skiing in slalom these days? 157's and 160's. This ski is a highbrid concept born out of slalom technology. As far as motion or not to motion? If you are a cruiser the motion will make the ski feel a little smoother/silkier and you will have to buy markers. If you want something a little lighter/snappier/crisper and the liberty to choose your own binding go without. Hope this helps. English majors need not reply. I cant even spell owe cay.
post #22 of 22
Thread Starter 
Thanks DS-I like your thinking. I really wanted to buy a pair of the T50's before the ski season began. However, I think that would be foolish since there are some good arguments out there for skiing on shorter ski's. Even though the 168cm scares me a little, i'm going to try them. I like to ski the Lake Tahoe area. I like fast groomed runs, moguls, and tree skiing when there is powder. Thanks for everyones advice. Happy skiing
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 › Volkl Supersport T50, What size is best for me????