EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › Ski Gear Discussion › Volkl Allstars at 175 too big?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Volkl Allstars at 175 too big?

post #1 of 17
Thread Starter 
I'm an expert skier who's 5'11 to 6'0 depending on the time of day. I weigh in at a whopping 160 pounds. 36 years old if that makes a difference. I prefer to ski the groomed as little as possible, but I find myself there more often than not these days with the family.

Seems like the Allstars might fit the best. I only ski out West so soft snow isn't scarce. With my body would 175 be too long? I'm moving from some older 190cm Volkl CrossRangers. I could carve those decently, but they were pretty clunky outside of powder. 175cm seems like a big jump down as it is and due to the snow conditions out here 7cm up from the 168s might help out a bit when it dumps (and when I get some "me" time in the trees).

Whaddya think? Thanks in advance....
post #2 of 17
Dude. You should prolly be on 161. What makes one an expert?
post #3 of 17
Thread Starter 

"Expert"

Generically, I suppose I would be an "expert" skier. Beats me what that really means. I've never raced. Never wanted to though. I've been skiing for over 30 years. How do they define it... "able to go down anything, anywhere, with confidence"? I guess so mostly. I draw the limit at anything where a simple slip would guarantee a trip to the hospital. :

Are you serious about the 161s? Man, that seems small. Also, how are the allstars in moguls?

Thanks!
post #4 of 17
i weigh just as much as you. i would personally not want to ski these boards any longer than 168. that's plenty.
post #5 of 17
Quote:
Originally Posted by fyton2v
Are you serious about the 161s?
Yes, I am. Volkl reps. have told me that 161s are meant for those weighing 150-170; 168s for those weighing 175-195. I am 6', 185. I have skied the 168. They were sweeeeet.
post #6 of 17
I'm 5'10" ex racer ex instructor and all that jazz...and I love the 175 All-Star. IMO for any given person there are three ideal sizes..in my case I have skied the 161, 168 & 175 and had a blast on each one of them. If I were headed for the trees or bumps a lot, I would probably take a 168. If I were skiing out west in more wide open spaces, I would definitely go with a 175. The Volkl reps I have talked to usually recommend head height for an expert skier.
post #7 of 17
Quote:
Originally Posted by Canyons
Yes, I am. Volkl reps. have told me that 161s are meant for those weighing 150-170; 168s for those weighing 175-195. I am 6', 185. I have skied the 168. They were sweeeeet.
This is correct.

161 is the crysal clear choice

I am 185 lbs....175 would have ski'd like a gs board for me....168 was perfect.

Tho they did look a bit funny...kinda like snow skates

If you are afraid you will look like a gaper: on a 161 choose another ski. I personally could care less.....I've spent entire seasons on 208's the new stuff is fun. Let em call me a gaper...with my itsy bitsy skis.

Nordica hot rod series 170/ 178 or Volkl AC3/AC4 170 or 177 come to mind. Or perhaps Elan m666. All might be a better one ski quiver choice for what you describe anyway anyway. I personally would not take my Allstars in the trees....I would rent or borrow some Mantras

btw, wanna see some gapers on really short skis? Check out these visuals...

www.amsao.it

You have to interpret some Italian (the link to the videos is on the left ) Warning this might change your mind about the 161's.

click on "oro avanzato"
post #8 of 17
I think 175 cm is good for you.

I'm 165lbs, and about 5'9". After trying out several of the new skis, I bought a 165 cm slalom-type ski for short turns on hardpack at small hills. Were I skiing out west in softer snow with bigger hills and longer turns I would be looking at 175 cm.
post #9 of 17
Thread Starter 

Maybe I need to look at the AC4s

I mostly ski at Mammoth Mountain in the Sierras. A lot of open space and a lot of soft snow, or crud that used to be soft snow. Too many decisions and not enough time to decide. : I'd be worried that the AC4 doesn't work well in bumps. I need one ski that can do everything. I don't ski enough anymore to justify the extra expense.
post #10 of 17
Ski length is a matter of personal taste, but IMO the shorter length thing can be overdone. I find this to be especially true in off trail skiing where rough conditions can knock you around a bit and some extra length can help significantly in maintaining fore and aft balance. The old saw about your ski not knowing how tall you are is true to a point but does not consider the extra leverage created by a fore/aft imbalance on a taller skier.

So...................While you are fairly light for your height, I think that you might find that a longer ski would smooth out the ride and give you a more secure feeling on that first turn up on Dave's or Hangman's.

In my own case, (5'10", 195#) I find a 170 Nordica SM 16 is fine for groomer zooming, but I prefer a 175-182 for most of my off trail stuff depending upon the ski.

BTW, I'll second the nomination of the AC-3 as a better all around choice for a western skier. (assuming that the AC-4 or others are too wide for your tastes)

SJ
post #11 of 17
Thread Starter 
This is sound advice. Taking a look at the AC4 reviews it seems like that ski could fit the bill, but it's pretty wide for an all mountain ski. It might feel like I'm wearing sleds 0" new snow days. Need to do some research.

Quote:
Originally Posted by SierraJim
BTW, I'll second the nomination of the AC-3 as a better all around choice for a western skier. (assuming that the AC-4 or others are too wide for your tastes)

SJ
post #12 of 17
Fyton, I am using a 184 cm Mantra with a 94 mm waist as an all mountian ski. The AC4 is hardly a radical choice. For western conditions (that can change a lot between the top and bottom), a longer, wider stable ski makes a lot of sense. I do use a short carver for days when we haven't had any fresh snow, and at areas that tend to groom alot. Not very descriptive of Kirkwood or Mammoth. I think an AC4 in a 177 would be a great choice for what you have described, but believe it or not, you might even like a Mantra. It just rocks through soft bumps, cornice jumps, chutes, powder, crud. About the only condition they don't really give 100% is hardpack and ice. After my first day out this season though, I must say, the softer the better. Like this:




I wish I was 36. Don't wait until you are 50+ to take advantage of all that this new equipment offers. You probably belong on a 168 Allstar for groomed/packed conditions, but you need a powder/crud ski like the Mantra or AC4 for everything else.
post #13 of 17
Thread Starter 
This pic would accurately describe the conditions I enjoy the most. Groomed runs are just something you gotta do to get around the mountain.

I have a wife and kids. My wife is a good skier, but has a tough time in off-piste with obsticles. Maybe a level 7 (I'm guessing at this "level" thing). My daughter is 8 years old. Groomed runs only. More often than not I'm skiing with one or the other so lots of groomed in my future.

That Mantra is a nice looking ski. You could probably waterski on them.

[/quote]
post #14 of 17
if the pictured terrain is what you like, the allstar is very likely not your ski...
post #15 of 17

Restricted to groomed?

If your 8 year-old daughter is anything like mine was, in two years she will insist on going off piste.
post #16 of 17
Quote:
Originally Posted by snowdan
if the pictured terrain is what you like, the allstar is very likely not your ski...
This could be one line of wisdom. As you probably know I bought allstars....but I see these conditions here in the land of hardpack....ummmm, nearly never:

Faced with that visual I certainly wouldn't spend $950 on allstars for a 1 ski quiver...

Again I would suggest your short list might include

Elan M666
Nordica Hot Rod series (modified or nitrous?)
Volkl AC4
others (western skiers?)chime in
All of these models you could go longer (176,177,178 depending on the brand)thus avoiding your gaper fears.

But in reality.....CR is correct

Those lines pictured scream "Mantra". If I moved out west, I would find a way to own a pair of either 177 or 184 Mantras. Put those with my allstars, then I would have it covered.

Again keep in mind a lot of ski's suggested here are likely to be in short supply....they are good skis.

Btw, someone just put up another glowing report on the Elan M666 this morning....also if memory serves me right those are Gonzostrike's current weapon of choice....he must have put up a review somewhere....

2 posts in this thread for me...I'm out

Others chime in please
post #17 of 17
Thread Starter 

We can let this thread die

This board has a pretty good search function.

You guys (gals?) are seriously helpful. I would've bought the wrong skis had I not stumbled across this place.

Thanks a bunch!
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 Allstars at 175 too big?