EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › Ski Gear Discussion › Volkl AC4 affirmation for out West
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Volkl AC4 affirmation for out West

post #1 of 23
Thread Starter 
Thanks to everyone here who pointed me in the direction of the AC4s. I'm going with that ski over the Allstars. I went to a ski shop yesterday and after checking out each it's easy to see that the Allstars would have been a big mistake. That ski would not work very well in the soft stuff.

Here's my dilemma. I need skis by the end of this month and there's no way to demo AC4s in all conditions at both 170cm and 177cm. Being 5'11.5" and a skinny (I prefer svelte) 160lbs which size should I choose for all conditions? Would I lose much float by going 170? Right now my gut is telling me that 177 is the safe choice.

Thanks again. This board rocks.
post #2 of 23
You need a 177 to get enough fore/aft stability in powder and crud. You could go 184 if most of your skiing would be straighter, higher speeds in soft. IMO, you want to ski groomers with the family and have reserves to go off-piste. The 170 is too short for a Mammoth ski. Go 177 and you will be right on with Volkl's sizing recommendations to maximize versatility.
post #3 of 23
Quote:
I went to a ski shop yesterday and after checking out each it's easy to see that the Allstars would have been a big mistake. That ski would not work very well in the soft stuff.
I wouldn't be too sure about that. Yesterday I decided to try my Volkl Superspeeds (which are just a tad narrower in the tip & tail than the Allstars) in powder & crud. Most of the powder I skied was at least boot-top deep with pockets up to knee deep & the Superspeeds worked well, much better than I expected. They were an absolute blast in the crud piles. I had planned to go back in and switch to my Beasts at lunch but ended up skiing the Superspeeds all day.
post #4 of 23

177

I'm your height and 172 lbs.
Having a ball with my 177s.
post #5 of 23
Rio, I used to ski pow with 6 Stars and thought that was great fun. It is, but a wider ski makes a huge difference. The Montana ski areas yesterday were in the zeros to 10s F for temperature. You can't compare boot top cold-smoke powder in Montana to Mammoth mank. The guy is definitely going in the right direction for where he skis.
post #6 of 23
Cirquerider -

I agree a fatter ski makes soft stuff easier and better. On the other hand most people that go west for a vacation end up mainly skiing on groomers due to the conditions or personal choice. For them it would be better to pick a ski that is fun on the groomers but can also be suffice in powder instead of the other way around.

BTW - It was a balmy 5 to 7 degrees at Bridger yesterday which did a good job of keeping the crowd in the lodges away from the powder.
post #7 of 23
Rio,

The irony of our battling signatures....

Facts are meaningless. You could use facts to prove anything that's even remotely true!

"Truth springs from argument amongst friends."


Enjoy that cold smoke. Wish we could get some of the motherlode here. You guys are definitely in the crosshairs this year. But a high of 5 to 7 degrees is cold in my book!:
post #8 of 23
I would probably go with the 177cm if I were you.
post #9 of 23
Quote:
Originally Posted by fyton2v
Thanks to everyone here who pointed me in the direction of the AC4s. I'm going with that ski over the Allstars. I went to a ski shop yesterday and after checking out each it's easy to see that the Allstars would have been a big mistake. That ski would not work very well in the soft stuff.

Here's my dilemma. I need skis by the end of this month and there's no way to demo AC4s in all conditions at both 170cm and 177cm. Being 5'11.5" and a skinny (I prefer svelte) 160lbs which size should I choose for all conditions? Would I lose much float by going 170? Right now my gut is telling me that 177 is the safe choice.

Thanks again. This board rocks.
Try to keep your original question in perspective. You were concerned that a 175 AS might be too long. Also, you were not considering the AC-4 because you were concerned that it might be reluctant in moguls. (to some extent, any ski this wide IS reluctant in moguls)

Now you are considering a much wider ski in a longer size. I'm glad that you have gotten over your initially stated resistance to the wider ski and I'm not really telling you what to do but.................

I sent out about 30 demo rides last spring on AC-4's, the overwhelming preference was the 170 among folks under 180 lbs. I am 5-10" 195# and like longer(ish) skis. My preference on the AC-4 and others in this category is in the 177 range.

Of course, as always,.................. YMMV

SJ
post #10 of 23
Thread Starter 
Damn SJ, you're killing me. I was set on the 177s until I got to your message .

My initial inclination on the Allstars was to go 175 until I read the advice on this forum... And after getting to touch them you can see that it's a pretty stiff ski. I know I'd fair pretty well on 175s, but a 168 would be more fun. That being said, the AC-4 is a much better single ski for my needs. I'll have more fun. It looks fun just sitting in the rack. As far a bumps go I'm not real concerned. I'm a fall line skier on steep mogul runs, but I don't try to set speed records. I just go with the flow and use the bumps to control my speed.

I've always had skis that were probably a bit too long for me. 203 Rossi 4Ms, 7Ss (when I was 20) and for the last several years I've been on Volkl Crossrangers at 190cm. They work, but are HEAVY and slow.

The idea of getting 170s sounds fun, but I'm afraid I'll kick myself later since this will be the ski I use in 3 feet of fresh snow.

You'd think somebody would make spending this kinda dough easier.

p.s. It took me 30 minutes to figure out the meaning of "gaper". Don't see much of this at Mammoth. Maybe I just don't pay attention. Is it more of an Eastern phenomenon?
post #11 of 23
Quote:
p.s. It took me 30 minutes to figure out the meaning of "gaper". Don't see much of this at Mammoth. Maybe I just don't pay attention. Is it more of an Eastern phenomenon?
You're kidding. Just go to the terrain park at Mammoth and you'll see plenty of gapers. I would say its more a western thing than an eastern thing.
post #12 of 23
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rio
You're kidding. Just go to the terrain park at Mammoth and you'll see plenty of gapers. I would say its more a western thing than an eastern thing.
"My mother used to tell me that there's always one crazy guy on every bus... I could never find him." I'm probably a gaper and don't realize it.
post #13 of 23
[quote=fyton2v]Damn SJ, you're killing me. I was set on the 177s until I got to your message .


The idea of getting 170s sounds fun, but I'm afraid I'll kick myself later since this will be the ski I use in 3 feet of fresh snow.

You'd think somebody would make spending this kinda dough easier.

quote]

...............Sorry

Some folks are into longer skis and some aren't. For sure, there is no free lunch, but your weight and preference for the fall line would indicate to me that a 170 is enough ski. Would the 177 be better in 3 feet of new? sure it would, but the rest of the time a 170 might be a better choice.

Like that turn in the bottleneck of hangman's f'rinstance.......:

SJ
post #14 of 23

problem solved?

Buy the 177 ac4

and the 161 or 168 allstar....

see how easy this stuff is?



oops, guess you'd need the mantra too right?:
post #15 of 23
Hey, we could really mess with him and suggest the Karma! With that he can ski backwards with the family on groomers, and still bomb the pow. The AC4 SHOULD be skied quite a bit longer than an Allstar. These are completely different skis.

Fyton, you are only talking 2.75 inches of ski between the 170 and 177. You are at the light end of your height, and I wish I was. Any of these skis are going to be much better performing for you than what you had before, so you probably can't make a wrong decision. Look at it this way. Make your decision based on what you do off-piste, the groomers are not a problem. If long turns and higher speeds make you clench (want to throw the skis sideways), or you expect to spend time in tight trees and steep moguls, you may want the shorter ski. Shorter skis are easy to drive and a lot of fun. Might be a great choice.

If your idea of a good time is to drop off the cornice into some soft snow, or bash crud and don't want to worry about going over the handlebars, the 177 should increase your confidence by giving you a larger sweet spot. You can make a mistake in variable conditions and keep upright, you just might have to work slightly harder if tight turns are your thing. If your idea of a good time is to figure-11 Star chute, just go straight to the 191 (just kidding). Actually i think "Physicsman" has two Explosivs, a 168 and a 181 or 190, I'm not sure. Keeps two different lengths for different purposes.
post #16 of 23
I am sure PM calculated the amount of ptex on the snow at various tempatures x the coefficient of various variations.....that dude can make a liberal arts guy like me actually understand what he is talking about....

PM is amazing....

Hey where's he been lately.....

TCS musta wore him out.

He should be chiming in on some of this stuff......
post #17 of 23
I am 5'6", 235lbs, and I ski the AC4 in 170. To tell you the truth, I wouldn't mind having a bigger size for deeper days, but I came off of 164 Head I.C.200s, so these are a nice in-between.

I am also picking up my 183 Gotamas some time in the next week or so. I will use those for the deep days.

I don't know a whole lot about skis, but from my experience with these skis, I'd say take the 177s if you're a strong skier. If not, go with the 170.

The AC4 is not a forgiving ski. When my legs are tired, these skis definitely do not ski themselves. Don't take that for granted

James
post #18 of 23
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cirquerider
You need a 177 to get enough fore/aft stability in powder and crud. You could go 184 if most of your skiing would be straighter, higher speeds in soft. IMO, you want to ski groomers with the family and have reserves to go off-piste. The 170 is too short for a Mammoth ski. Go 177 and you will be right on with Volkl's sizing recommendations to maximize versatility.
Yeah, what he said...
post #19 of 23
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cirquerider
You need a 177 to get enough fore/aft stability in powder and crud. You could go 184 if most of your skiing would be straighter, higher speeds in soft. IMO, you want to ski groomers with the family and have reserves to go off-piste. The 170 is too short for a Mammoth ski. Go 177 and you will be right on with Volkl's sizing recommendations to maximize versatility.
Where is Volkl's sizing recommendations? I am 6' 190, not overly aggressive and like to ski varied terrain. I went with the AC2 in 170's. I had Head 180's and thought they were a tad long. I leave for Colorado (so wanted to return to Utah, but.....) a week from today to try out the new quiver.
post #20 of 23
Volkl Sizing reccomendations............................

We recommend sizing skis with the "use your head" method. The key to this rule is simplicity. For type 1 (novice) skier, size the skis with the tip approximately chin height. For type 2 (intermediate), use approximately nose height. Type 3 (expert) skiers will be sized correctly when the ski tip is at forehead height. There are only a few exceptions to be aware of, such as expert skiers looking for a race fit or powder specific skis. For best sizing, its best to consult your authorized Völkl dealer.

YMMV.............................................. ..............

SJ
post #21 of 23
SJ, you have the manual . Your advice has been right on in this thread. The average skier 5-11 and relatively light would prefer the 170. OTOH, the average skier does not go off piste looking for crud and pow. So I gave the OP the benefit of the doubt and suggest the 177, which (for a guy 181 cm tall) is mid-forehead.
post #22 of 23
Thread Starter 
I'm gonna go with the 177s. SJ's advice is great, but I'm sure I can handle them. I could ski my 190 Crossdangers down the face of Lincoln Mountian (the bumps are ugly on an icy day) and through that little chute just below Hangman's so I'm not worried. Mammoth even has trees if you look hard enough .

Seriously, you guys are great.
post #23 of 23
Quote:
p.s. It took me 30 minutes to figure out the meaning of "gaper". Don't see much of this at Mammoth. Maybe I just don't pay attention. Is it more of an Eastern phenomenon?
I should point out that the two dreaded classification are poser and gapers. Westerners tend to be gapers. On the other hand, Easterners come out west and spend the day doing face plants in the soft snow. When the day is done they go to the bars and tell us Westerners that they are better skiers because of the ice they deal with back east which definitely puts them in the category of posers.
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 AC4 affirmation for out West