or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

AC4 length advice?

post #1 of 12
Thread Starter 
Greetings Powder Heads and Skiers of Other Conditions. I've been lurking here for a couple of weeks and must say this the THE PLACE to get info about skiing. Awesomeness.

I am looking to buy a pair of skis and believe I've settled on the AC4. My challenge is length. About me: 5'9", 195 lbs. (oink) 54 year old male. Been skiing about 18 years, generally one week a year with a few little day trips to White Tail, Seven Springs or Blue Knob some years. I don't know what my numerical rating is because I don't know how to figure that out. I ski the Blues, but I must say they can burn out my legs and I get a little bored with them. My wife and I like moguls. I'm not a "straight down the fall line" mogul skier. Don't have the technique or legs for it. But I don't traverse all over the place either. I tend to take a line relatively straight down and turn turn turn. I try to turn on the tops, if the moguls are friendly enough and if they're not I at least try to stay out of the ruts. Love powder, duh. I don't do chutes, real cornices, cliffs, etc. But I will do double blacks without much problem, except for that first turn. I definately like a slalom ski. On the Blues I like to turn turn turn loading up the tails and then letting them pop over to the next turn, when the skis and my technique will allow. Last purchased pair was about 12 years ago. Volkl Explosiv. Pre-shaped era. Completely and totally awesome ski, once I learned how to ski them. They kicked my butt at first. I've been demoing the shaped skis for about the last 6 or 7 years, whenever the Ranger came out. I don't think I'm a new shcool skier because I don't know exactly what that means. I like keeping my feet together. I want an all moutain, energetic ski, hence the AC4.

I've read posts that have indicated that some people have seen little difference between the 163 and the 170. I would like stability on the Blues in terms of busting crud, but I don't want to compromise turning in the steeps and moguls. I skied the Metron M9 (157, too short but all they had) and M11 (162) over Presidents Day weekend in Utah. I liked them OK and if either were mine I'd probably be happy. However, I found they got pushed around a bit in the messy stuff on the groomers. Worked fine in the moguls, if the snow wasn't too chunky, nice in the powder. M11, especially, felt heavy.

Does this give anyone enough info to help me? I know I should demo but I'm going to JH week after next and demoing for another week just pushes up the ulitmate cost. After all the research I've down, it seems like the AC4 is it.

Thanks in advance for your help, BTW.
post #2 of 12
170cm. I'm 27, 6'0", 205. Demoed them (AC4) in Breckenridge, in that length, and really ejoyed them. I also tried the M9, but in the 171, and liked it so much that I bought it. I'm also a midwestern skiier who take 1 - 2 western trips annually, so I wanted a short-turner to stretch my local 400' vert. You might also like the K2 Apache Recon. I only got to try it in 167cm (would have preferred 174), and enjoyed them as well.
post #3 of 12
Snoweel,

I demoed the 163 and 170 AC4. I preferred the 170 as an overall length for west coast big mountain skiing. However I only weigh 135 pounds. I would think that you at 195 would be better served with the 170 than the 163. I would actually suggest you demo the 177. However since you prefer bumps and have concerns of waning leg strength, the 170 may be fine for you.

Keep in mind the AC4 turns quite quickly compared to its all mountain competitors so the 170 and 177 should not be feared.

Best of luck.
post #4 of 12
Quote:
Love powder, duh. I don't do chutes, real cornices, cliffs, etc. But I will do double blacks without much problem, except for that first turn. I definately like a slalom ski. On the Blues I like to turn turn turn loading up the tails and then letting them pop over to the next turn, when the skis and my technique will allow. Last purchased pair was about 12 years ago. Volkl Explosiv. Pre-shaped era. Completely and totally awesome ski, once I learned how to ski them. They kicked my butt at first. I've been demoing the shaped skis for about the last 6 or 7 years, whenever the Ranger came out. I don't think I'm a new shcool skier because I don't know exactly what that means. I like keeping my feet together. I want an all moutain, energetic ski, hence the AC4.
I say go for 177cm, it's better as all-around ski than 163 or 170, specially if you are planning on skiing the pow and crud.
post #5 of 12
Thread Starter 
Hi all, and thanks for taking the time to write something. I got in touch with Volkl's customer support and this is the reply they sent me.

"Volkl has adopted a "use your head" standard when it comes to sizing
skis. The key to this standard is simplicity. For a type 1 (novice)
skier, size the skis with the tip at 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. If you do this, you can't go wrong.

There are only a few exceptions to be aware of - Slalom racing skis
like the P50 SC Carver will be sized considerably shorter. Powder
specific skis like the Vertigo G4 and the V Explosive will be sized
longer, mainly for expert skiers. Most of these skiers already have
an idea about what size they want anyway.

Skiers who are far below average height will probably allow the ski
to creep slightly longer than the guideline, and extremely tall
customers will, conversely, go a little shorter than the guidelines.

If you use the "use your head" guidelines, you'll be sure you're
making the right choice about length for Volkl skis, outside of a few
obscure exceptions."

I'm 69 inches tall, so if I take off two to get about a forehead height that gives me 170.2 cm. So that would indicate 170 is the right length for me. But I'm also 195 lbs, which I suspect is a bit heavier than most 5'9" skiers, though I could be wrong as this is America and we do like to lard up for the winter. Insulataion purposes, don't you know. So I'm not quite sure yet, though this would suggest that the 163 is certainly too short. Skyrocket101, you suggest the 177. How good are you in the moguls? I have to admit that at times I need to throw the skis around as sometimes rolling up on edge to turn just isn't going to work in time. I definately see your point about the crud. Do you or have your skied the AC4?
post #6 of 12
I ski the 177s.
71.5", 176lbs.
post #7 of 12
I will say this, you'll be far more content with a ski that is slightly shorter than you prefer rather than a ski that is longer than you'd prefer.
post #8 of 12
Thread Starter 
Ahh so, Forrester is most wise grasshopper. Very insightful point. Thanks. 71.5 inches converts to 81.6 cm. Interesting.
post #9 of 12
SnowEel
71.5 inches equals 181.61 cm.
I'm 5'11.5".
post #10 of 12
Lean toward going shorter if you prefer moguls and short turns, lean toward going longer if you prefer powder and long turns.
post #11 of 12
Thread Starter 
Hi Carbonissimo. Yeah, sorry, left off the one. I guess I would have had a hard time getting the AC4 in an 81 CM length. Probably have to get the hacksaw out for that. But hey, I'd only have to buy one ski! So I took the leap, so to speak, and got the 170. It's the longer of the two lengths I was originally considering and when I first posted I was heavily leaning toward the 163. But looking back I think I should really have been considering the 170 and the 177. You all were very helpful. Thanks.
post #12 of 12
Congrats SnowEel!
Welcome to the Club.
You will love those skis!:
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Ski Gear Discussion