or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Dimensions vs ski type

post #1 of 12
Thread Starter 
Does it matter what a ski is designated for if the dimensions are the same? For example, would a carving ski, an "all mountain" ski or a twin tip all perform pretty much the same going down a hill if they were all the same length with the same tip/waist/tail dimensions?

Is there any reason why a small woman couldn't use a junior ski - wouldn't they perform the same if the dimensions are the same?
post #2 of 12
The ski's would not all feel the same, different flex , weight ,balance all contribute to making a ski's performance
Go ahead and ski what ever ski you like, , don't let anything hold you backk from trying something new
Just have FUN
post #3 of 12
Many of the junior skis are very soft and the flex of the ski may not support your level of skiing.

Sounds like the cost may be the attraction here?
post #4 of 12
There was a day when all skis were 85-65-75, or pretty darn close. People still had quivers of skis and testers still expounded ad nauseum about the nuances between them. Well, the differences were nothing like we see today with all the shapes available to us but flex pattern, stiffness dampening etc, add up to make some significant variations.
post #5 of 12
Here are a few things to consider.
  • The dimensions are not necessarily the most important factor in determining feel. Don't fret about a mm or two here or there. Choosing the proper flex for your weight and agressiveness is more important.
  • Watch out for terminology like "all mountain" and "carving" For a skier that almost never gets off the groomers and seldom visits deep snow, a "carving" ski is a perfect "all mountain" choice. The common connotation of "all mountain" is a model that may be wider than necessary for some skiers.
  • A Jr. race ski depending upon the model can make a reasonable on trail choice for an adult woman but may not be any better, worse, or cheaper than an intermediate adult ski.
post #6 of 12
Hi P3,

What models are you considering?


post #7 of 12
Thread Starter 

What I'm looking at today...

You probably read my other posts so you know I am an out-of-shape beginner. (5'4", 110lbs, skiing the bunny runs). I've read the posts that suggest reanting is an option, but the last time I rented I was so miserable, I will never do it again.

There are no ski shops near here and I'm not planning on making skiing my full-time hobby (I've got a job, kids and school for that)

My friend that would like me to go skiing with her is giveing me a set of Look bindings that are a couple of years old but have only been used a couple of times (she has several sets of skis and doesn't like the ones the bindings are on).

So here's what's on ebay at present:

2004? Dynastar Exclusive 8 142cm 104/67/93 $80 (too short? too narrow?)

2005 Volkl Energy Gamma 320 149cm 105/65/93 w/ Marker M1000 $199

Atomic Beta Race 9 16 150cm $99

2005 Dynastar Sweet Trouble 148cm $199 (probably more than I want to spend without bindings)

2006 Dynastar Team Trouble Jr 148 cm 103/68/92 with Look Nova 7 Max Plate $179

2005 Atomic C 8 150 cm with Atomic Device 310 binding $190

2006 Volkl Attiva S 149 cm 112/66/99 with Marker Motion bindings $249

What do you think - any keepers here?I'm leaning toward the Exclusive 8's because the folks here seem to think shorter skis will be easier to learn on and if I outgrow them in a year or two they are cheap enough that it wont matter.

Thanks for your input!
post #8 of 12
No way do you want the Atomic 9.16. That is an old race ski.

I doubt you'll go wrong with the Exclusive 8. My niece used some short soft skis like that until she was skiing black diamonds anywhere.
post #9 of 12
Thread Starter 
They aren't too short or too narrow? i notice the trend is for 112/72/104 or therabouts. Holding a tape measure on the floor, 142 cm comes to about a half-inch below my chin.

post #10 of 12
Originally Posted by Phoebe3
They aren't too short or too narrow? i notice the trend is for 112/72/104 or therabouts. Holding a tape measure on the floor, 142 cm comes to about a half-inch below my chin.

Short skis are fine for firm snow and lower speeds. If you want a ski that can be used at higher speeds and/or varying conditions, you will probably need to spend about $300 or more for a close-out.

http://cgi.ebay.com/05-Head-Lightning-i-M-Super-RailFlex-II-Skis-163cm-NEW_W0QQitemZ8798066525QQcategoryZ58363QQrdZ1QQcmd ZViewItem


post #11 of 12
Originally Posted by Phoebe3
Holding a tape measure on the floor, 142 cm comes to about a half-inch below my chin.
The ski doesn't much care how tall you are, only how heavy, how strong, and how fast you go.

Someone may get into a discussion of lever arm length etc. at this point, but that's what make this board fun.

Anyway, at 110 lbs on the bunny hill it is hard to find a ski to short, soft or narrow.
post #12 of 12

http://cgi.ebay.com/BRAND-NEW-K-2-SKI-T-NINE-X-SMU-153CM_W0QQitemZ8801550707QQcategoryZ58363QQrdZ1QQc mdZViewItem
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Ski Gear Discussion