New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Undersized midfats

post #1 of 22
Thread Starter 
It try to ski the shortest ski size thats still stable for my weight on hard snow. I have found that a top quality 170cm or 175cm carving ski can be very stable at 45 mph or more. I am happy with the added agility of a shorter ski. Since I would need to be in a tuck to exceed that speed, why go longer?

On soft snow, I see the merit of a longer ski; larger sweet spot, more float, better ability to ride over drifts and crests.

I'm considering a Volkl AC4 or Head Monster iM 77 for on-piste/off-piste use in places like Alta. This would be used on a typical day of groomed/crud/boot-top deep snow, I would rent a wider ski for deep untracked powder. Can I use a 170cm length? I demoed these skis in a 177cm last year and they felt very solid with no stability issues or edge grip issues. I did not use them in deeper snow. I will weigh 200 Lbs by ski season and I am 6'0".

Cheers,

Michael
post #2 of 22
Quote:
Originally Posted by barrettscv
It try to ski the shortest ski size thats still stable for my weight on hard snow. I have found that a top quality 170cm or 175cm carving ski can be very stable at 45 mph or more. I am happy with the added agility of a shorter ski. Since I would need to be in a tuck to exceed that speed, why go longer?

On soft snow, I see the merit of a longer ski; larger sweet spot, more float, better ability to ride over drifts and crests.

I'm considering a Volkl AC4 or Head Monster iM 77 for on-piste/off-piste use in places like Alta. This would be used on a typical day of groomed/crud/boot-top deep snow, I would rent a wider ski for deep untracked powder. Can I use a 170cm length? I demoed these skis in a 177cm last year and they felt very solid with no stability issues or edge grip issues. I did not use them in deeper snow. I will weigh 200 Lbs by ski season and I am 6'0".

Cheers,

Michael
Max Capacity skis a 170 AC4 and he is about 6' and close to 200. With having the M11 B5's I have a 170, I am really thinking about swapping them for 176's
post #3 of 22
I've had a chance to demo the 06 AC4 in a 170 and I own the 06 im77 in a 170. In my opinion, the im77 feels more solid and stable at the expense of some liveliness/quickness and float of the ac4. At your weight, the 176 im77 should be a good bet.

For reference, I'm 5'10", 160lb.
post #4 of 22
My free advice::
Get 177 AC4s and you won't need to rent anything for deep powder.
I'm 6', 173 lbs and use 177s.
They love Alta.
post #5 of 22
Quote:
Originally Posted by barrettscv
It try to ski the shortest ski size thats still stable for my weight on hard snow. I have found that a top quality 170cm or 175cm carving ski can be very stable at 45 mph or more. I am happy with the added agility of a shorter ski. Since I would need to be in a tuck to exceed that speed, why go longer?

On soft snow, I see the merit of a longer ski; larger sweet spot, more float, better ability to ride over drifts and crests.

I'm considering a Volkl AC4 or Head Monster iM 77 for on-piste/off-piste use in places like Alta. This would be used on a typical day of groomed/crud/boot-top deep snow, I would rent a wider ski for deep untracked powder. Can I use a 170cm length? I demoed these skis in a 177cm last year and they felt very solid with no stability issues or edge grip issues. I did not use them in deeper snow. I will weigh 200 Lbs by ski season and I am 6'0".

Cheers,

Michael
I guess this post was triggered by the $350 offer on '06 AC4 in Peak Performance, which was in itself triggered by my post of '06 AC4s at Sport Conrad for $330.

My 2 cents: For your intended use at 200 lbs., it will not work for you.

I bought the 170cm AC4s at Sport Conrad for $330 but I am 5'10" 160 lbs. That's 40 lbs difference. Same intended use: an all-mountain on/off piste, groomed/crud/boot-top deep snow. The eternal quest for the quiver-of-one, great for flying to your ski destination. If they only had 163cm available I wouldn't have buy it. You can try to rationalize it anyway you want it, but 170cm will still be too short for you. I would say 177cm minimum.
post #6 of 22
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alpinist
I guess this post was triggered by the $350 offer on '06 AC4 in Peak Performance, which was in itself triggered by my post of '06 AC4s at Sport Conrad for $330.

My 2 cents: For your intended use at 200 lbs., it will not work for you....I would say 177cm minimum.
Hi Alp,

Yes & yes. Even if I avoid deep snow; the 170cm is too short.


Cheers,

Michael
post #7 of 22
If you want to get a handle on float in deep powder, just compare the ratio of skier weights to the ratio of base areas.

Alpinist weighs 160, you weigh 200, ie, a factor of 1.25 more than him.

To get the same loading on the snow (in pounds per square inch) as him, assuming the width of the ski is constant, you would have to increase the length from 170 to 1.25 x 170 = 212.5 cm. Obviously, you aren't going to increase the length this much. It's much more feasible to increase the float by increasing the width than by increasing the length.

There are lots of other factors involved, but the simple concept of keeping the number of pounds per square inch constant is the single largest factor in float.

HTH,

Tom / PM

PS - One day, several years ago, in about a foot of new, relatively wet new snow, thinking like you that length could make up for width, I tried out a pr. of 188 G4's (predecessor to the AC4) back-to-back against my 190 Explosives. The 95 mm wide Explosivs were vastly superior to the ~83 mm wide G4's. The G4's probably kept me a few more mm more off the hardpacked base than my 70 mm wide regular groomer skis, but the difference was minor at my wt, 215 lbs.
post #8 of 22

width v length?

Quote:
Originally Posted by PhysicsMan
If you want to get a handle on float in deep powder, just compare the ratio of skier weights to the ratio of base areas.

Alpinist weighs 160, you weigh 200, ie, a factor of 1.25 more than him.

To get the same loading on the snow (in pounds per square inch) as him, assuming the width of the ski is constant, you would have to increase the length from 170 to 1.25 x 170 = 212.5 cm. Obviously, you aren't going to increase the length this much. It's much more feasible to increase the float by increasing the width than by increasing the length.

There are lots of other factors involved, but the simple concept of keeping the number of pounds per square inch constant is the single largest factor in float.

HTH,

Tom / PM

PS - One day, several years ago, in about a foot of new, relatively wet new snow, thinking like you that length could make up for width, I tried out a pr. of 188 G4's (predecessor to the AC4) back-to-back against my 190 Explosives. The 95 mm wide Explosivs were vastly superior to the ~83 mm wide G4's. The G4's probably kept me a few more mm more off the hardpacked base than my 70 mm wide regular groomer skis, but the difference was minor at my wt, 215 lbs.
Hi Michael:

I think PM/ Tom has the right idea.

Eventhough the 177 ac4 will be better in the soft and deep than the 170, it still is more of a carving ski (82mm is just not that wide at your size).

I think you should cosider the Volkl Mantra 177, Head IM88, Rossi scratch BC, and Nordica Supercharger generation of skis to give you what would be a everyday Alta ski.

The 2007 ac4, while beefier than the 2006 and a great all rounder, wont give you a dramatic increase in float. I find my 170 ac4, float wise, to be about the same as my 162 Metron B:5 and its 82 v 76mm in the waist.


Respectfully,

G
post #9 of 22
Two things:

1 - Having skied the AC4 in 170 cm in powder, at 5'9" / 175 lbs, I agree with above posts that 170 is not enough ski for you.

2 - Bit of a highjack but this makes a HUGE amount of sense:

Quote:
Originally Posted by PhysicsMan
If you want to get a handle on float in deep powder, just compare the ratio of skier weights to the ratio of base areas. ...
There are lots of other factors involved, but the simple concept of keeping the number of pounds per square inch constant is the single largest factor in float.
And in my dreams, some genius would post a spreadshett like PhysicsMan's radius calculator (a really cool tool -- thanks PM!) that could calculate out PSI for a given weight skier on different sidecut and length skis. I guess that's what the Metron calculator does but it always says to buy Metrons. And personally I'd go withthe AC4.
post #10 of 22
Quote:
Originally Posted by ts01
...And in my dreams, some genius would post a spreadshett like PhysicsMan's radius calculator (a really cool tool -- thanks PM!) that could calculate out PSI for a given weight skier on different sidecut and length skis...
Guess what: It's pretty much already done for you by the calculator. Column "I" gives a good estimate of the load bearing area of any ski in square cm. once you type in the length and sidecut dimensions.

Divide your weight by this area, and you have the average pressure exerted by the ski on the snow (assuming you are not bouncing, accelerating, slowing down, turning, etc.).

If you're finicky, and don't like mixed units such as pounds per square cm, you can either convert pounds to newtons, or convert square cm to square inches to get pressure in proper units, ie, newtons per square cm, or pounds per square inch. If you are just comparing one ski to another, this step is unnecessary. Leave it in the original funky units: pounds per square cm.

Obviously, the pressure the ski exerts on the snow is not the same as you go from the tip back to the tail, but there is no way to figure this out without knowing the longitudinal flex distribution of the ski, something that is almost never available to the public. The average pressure over the whole length of the ski should be more than adequate for most purposes.

HTH,

Tom / PM

PS - BTW, I obviously could add a column in the spreadsheet for weight, and have the spreadsheet do the above calculation, but I think that including this would probably confuse too many people unless I put in all the above caveats and discussion. Even then, most people don't read the fine print, so I'm sure I'd still get questions.
post #11 of 22
About those cheap AC4s on SPORT CONRAD. They say (in german) that those are the "light weight" version of the AC4. The regular model is 379 euros. Any idea what 's the difference between the regular and lightweight? Less metal?
post #12 of 22
Quote:
Originally Posted by psy
About those cheap AC4s on SPORT CONRAD. They say (in german) that those are the "light weight" version of the AC4. The regular model is 379 euros. Any idea what 's the difference between the regular and lightweight? Less metal?
not "lightweight" but "slight imperfection".
post #13 of 22
I have the 724 Pro in a 170 and I feel that is too short for me.
post #14 of 22
Quote:
Originally Posted by Phil Pugliese
I have the 724 Pro in a 170 and I feel that is too short for me.
who much weight/height?
post #15 of 22
Thread Starter 
Yes, I've abandoned the idea of a 170cm ski.

However, I still think that a 82mm wide ski, such as an AC4 or a Monster iM 82 will be versatile enough for knee-deep powder. I realize that a wider ski will make truly bottomless conditions easier, but for every hour of 3D snow I ski, I will probably be on 2D snow for 10 hours.

The last time I was in truly bottomless snow my Salomon Supermountains & I did well. The original Supermountain is a 110-78-100mm ski, I have the 186cm size.

Using the PhysicsMan's Sidecut Radius Calculator I get 1618cm^2 for surface area on my old Supermountains. the 125-82-110mm AC4 has a 1661cm^2 area in a 177cm size and a 1727cm^2 in the 184cm size. I'm also losing weight, I'm down 25 Lbs since my last powder day and I want to be 185 Lbs by 2008. I will have substantially more float with my new ski at my new weight.

I do have a bias towards carving. I tend to be just as happy carving on hardpack as seeking out deep snow. I skied the Monster iM 88 and AC4 back-to-back at Alta in March. They both were great skis, the AC4 felt more like a race carver, while the Monster iM 88 was more versatile, but also a little more sluggish, IMO. Maybe a few lessons and deeper snow would change my opinion about wide skis...

Won't an 82mm wide ski do it for me?

Cheers,

Michael
post #16 of 22
Quote:
Originally Posted by barrettscv
...Won't an 82mm wide ski do it for me?...
Forgive me if you have already said this, but if this purchase is for a multiple ski quiver, have you ever actually tried a mid 90 mm ski? Given that you know that fatties are essentially guaranteed to work extremely well in soft snow, it's especially important to try them on a groomer with no new snow. They are not as bad as you might think for the few times (ie, having a quiver) you might be caught in this situation.

Personally, at 215 lbs, I now consider skis in the mid-80's as the proverbial, Jack of all trades, master of absolutely NONE.

OTOH, if this is for a 1 ski quiver, then you can either accept the above trade-off or treat yourself to a new carver for the hardpack and rent a fattie when it gets soft.

Tom / PM
post #17 of 22
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by PhysicsMan
Forgive me if you have already said this, but if this purchase is for a multiple ski quiver, have you ever actually tried a mid 90 mm ski? Given that you know that fatties are essentially guaranteed to work extremely well in soft snow, it's especially important to try them on a groomer with no new snow. They are not as bad as you might think for the few times (ie, having a quiver) you might be caught in this situation.

Personally, at 215 lbs, I now consider skis in the mid-80's as the proverbial, Jack of all trades, master of absolutely NONE.

OTOH, if this is for a 1 ski quiver, then you can either accept the above trade-off or treat yourself to a new carver for the hardpack and rent a fattie when it gets soft.

Tom / PM
Hi Tom,

I will continue to use my Fischer Worldcup RC on man-made snow. I travel to Vermont once or twice a year, and the RC will be my hard snow ski for those trips.

I also plan to ski Utah/Colorado/west coast twice a year.

The widest ski I have used is the Mantra, which I did not like. I demoed 4 skis at Alta in March, my review is at http://forums.epicski.com/showthread...light=Demo+day

I also wrote up my Vermont trip notes here http://forums.epicski.com/showthread...light=Stratton

I'm a long time skier, I skied annually at Breckenridge from 1966 to 1972, I was captain of my High School race team in N.H. and I lived in SLC for one year in 1978. I can make any ski do just about anything, ( I took NASTAR Gold on a pair of 193cm Volkl G30 three years ago) but I like a responsive partner that requires a minimum of finesse.

Thanks for your assistance, I've just changed jobs, and I'm celebrating with a new pair of skis for my western ski trips.

Cheers,

Michael
post #18 of 22
Quote:
Originally Posted by barrettscv
...The widest ski I have used is the Mantra, which I did not like. I demoed 4 skis at Alta in March, my review is at http://forums.epicski.com/showthread...light=Demo+day

...I've just changed jobs, and I'm celebrating with a new pair of skis for my western ski trips...
Ahhh. Flex issues are now rearing their head.

With respect to celebrating:



Tom / PM

PS - Check out the new thread in this forum I just started about mid-fats
post #19 of 22
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by PhysicsMan
Tom / PM

PS - Check out the new thread in this forum I just started about mid-fats
I should be looking for a pair of Spatulas.

Cheers,

Michael
post #20 of 22
Quote:
Originally Posted by PhysicsMan
Guess what: It's pretty much already done for you by the calculator. Column "I" gives a good estimate of the load bearing area of any ski in square cm. once you type in the length and sidecut dimensions.
Thanks PM. Should've looked before posting but the explanation is very helpful.
post #21 of 22
Having just demoed the AC4's for next year and owning a 177 Mantra, I'd urge you to think about demoing a 184 Mantra for a two ski quiver. Why?

I'm 165 lbs and the 177 Mantra is about as short as I'd ever want. I value it for its performance in tight spots. It's not even wonderful for ME on high speed jaunts through bumpy chop; I can only imagine what it feels like to a 200 pounder. I also find the 177 to scarve really well, hold a nice edge on hardpack, so again, maybe you would have enjoyed a 184 that you'd bend about the same as I bend my 177. Neither, obviously, are designed to cut railroad tracks. They're backside specialists with flip tails.

Also check the threads from Cirquerider about the 184 vesus 177, with a lot of input from guys your size.
post #22 of 22
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by beyond

Also check the threads from Cirquerider about the 184 vesus 177, with a lot of input from guys your size.
Hi Beyond,

Yeh, I'm thinking wide & long, 90mm plus wide and 184 plus long. I might just demo next winter.

Cheers,

Michael
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Ski Gear Discussion