EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › Ski Gear Discussion › Volkl AC4, Allstar, 5 Star, Fischer RX8 for a lightweight
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Volkl AC4, Allstar, 5 Star, Fischer RX8 for a lightweight

post #1 of 20
Thread Starter 
Looking for some smaller guys to comment on selecting the correct All Mtn Expert ski choices. I am 145 lbs 5 ft 4 inches, 47 years old and very atheletic. Ski 50% East, 50% west. Like carving fast , trees, moguls and when lucky enough, powder out west. My concern is most reviews in mags and posts are for heavier skier's and may not reflect the ski characteristics for folks my size. Comments /recommendations?
post #2 of 20
Well...........I'm not a guy, but how about an opinion from a girl who's skied on 3 of the 4 skis you listed?

My experience on these skis is on Michigan groomers.
The allstar and the 5 star have very similar properties but the Allstar picks up the performance a notch. Because of that, it is more demanding, and may wear you out on a long day on the slopes, but not necessarily, depending on your conditioning.
Both of those skis are great on groomers, and okay in moderate crud and powder.

The AC4 is awesome! I was surprised at how well you can ski on these given the shape and width underfoot.
The edge to edge transfer is decent, and these things go through spring crud like it's not there.
post #3 of 20
I'm light-ish (165), and I've skied and/or owned all of those skis. Of the ksis you mention, 160-165cm RX8, others not even close for a lighter skier. It's livelier, happier in short radius turns, easier to tip, gives more feedback during the carve (thus a better game improvement ski), friendlier in bumps. It's also half the price at the moment if you can score a 05-06 at Ski Depot etc. Only downside is that it won't handle ice or chop or high speeds quite as securely as the Volkls you mention. OTOH, if you want something that gives up a bit of quickness for a lot more float, stability, look at a AMC 76 or Dynastar Legend 8000 rather than an AC4.
post #4 of 20
Thread Starter 
Thanks for the feedback and I apologize for the lack of PC sensitivity. I have 2 teenage daughters and a wife and a female dog so I call everybody guys to compensate. Based on your comments, it looks like the AC4 is the way to go and the overall comparisons remain intact for lighter skiers. I have seen some posts that say the AC4 is best for >170 lb skiers and wondered if I should backoff to the allstar or other less wide ski based on my height/weight to get the same performance. I generally ski opening chair to last chair aggressively (it's too expensive not to!).
post #5 of 20
Quote:
Originally Posted by drivensnow View Post
Based on your comments, it looks like the AC4 is the way to go and the overall comparisons remain intact for lighter skiers. I have seen some posts that say the AC4 is best for >170 lb skiers and wondered if I should backoff to the allstar or other less wide ski based on my height/weight to get the same performance.
You might consider the 2007 AC3 (and not the Allstar) as an AC4 alternative.

Cheers,

Michael
post #6 of 20
Hmmmm. AC4, Allstar, 5 Star, RX8. Which of these things is not like the other? Why the three carving specific skis and then the mid-fat AC4? I would also recommend the RX8s out of that bunch, although I have not skied the AC4s. Like someone else said, the RX8 definitely offers the most bang for your buck; they can be had for pretty cheap.
post #7 of 20
Quote:
Originally Posted by drivensnow View Post
Thanks for the feedback and I apologize for the lack of PC sensitivity. I have 2 teenage daughters and a wife and a female dog so I call everybody guys to compensate. Based on your comments, it looks like the AC4 is the way to go and the overall comparisons remain intact for lighter skiers. I have seen some posts that say the AC4 is best for >170 lb skiers and wondered if I should backoff to the allstar or other less wide ski based on my height/weight to get the same performance. I generally ski opening chair to last chair aggressively (it's too expensive not to!).
No worries about the PC-ness of your post. We're all happy bears(and lady bears)
The AC4 I skied on was my brother in laws 170cm.
I would prefer it a bit shorter but had fun on it just for kicks!


Quote:
Originally Posted by barrettscv View Post
You might consider the 2007 AC3 (and not the Allstar) as an AC4 alternative.

Cheers,

Michael
I'd second that motion. I've not been on it but it's something I'd like to give a whirl!
post #8 of 20
I will second the observation that your concern about stiff skis vs. weight is a valid concern. However, I'll also second that your model alternatives don't make sense. If you think that the AC-4 is too much (it might well be), then why drop to a different category of ski like all those carvers?

There are plenty of 80 (ish) waisted skis that will work great for a light skier no matter how good you are.

If you want a Volkl mid-fat that takes less agressiveness than the AC-4, try the '07 AC-3. It is a way better ski than the '06 AC-3.

Your terrain choices indicates that the wider models are a better fit. Stick with that category.

SJ
post #9 of 20
Quote:
Originally Posted by SierraJim View Post

If you want a Volkl mid-fat that takes less agressiveness than the AC-4, try the '07 AC-3. It is a way better ski than the '06 AC-3.

Your terrain choices indicates that the wider models are a better fit. Stick with that category.

SJ
Thats three votes for the 2007 AC3.

Cheers,

Michael
post #10 of 20
Four....cuz I'm voting twice.......

SJ
post #11 of 20
Quote:
Originally Posted by SierraJim View Post
Four....cuz I'm voting twice.......

SJ
Jim,

I didn't know that your from Chicago, the home of: "Vote early & vote often" :. We also believe in life after death, and vote to prove it!

Cheers,

Michael
post #12 of 20
Quote:
Originally Posted by barrettscv View Post
Jim,

I didn't know that your from Chicago, the home of: "Vote early & vote often" :. We also believe in life after death, and vote to prove it!

Cheers,

Michael
All of this while I'm watching a news report on the failure of electronic balloting:


AC3 it is
post #13 of 20
Quote:
Originally Posted by barrettscv View Post
Jim,

I didn't know that your from Chicago, the home of: "Vote early & vote often" :. We also believe in life after death, and vote to prove it!

Cheers,

Michael
I'm not from Chicago but I did spend a week there one day.

SJ
post #14 of 20
Thread Starter 
Ok ,thanks for all the support, so the 2007 AC3 seems to have the most consensus. Should I get the 156 CM or 163 CM. I am 5' 4", 145 # and ski agressive and fast on the grommers but spend 50% in the moguls/trees. I'm thinking the 163 CM should keep the chatter down at higher speeds...correct?...without too much loss of quickness in the moguls/trees.
post #15 of 20
Quote:
Originally Posted by SierraJim View Post
I'm not from Chicago but I did spend a week there one day.
In March of 2005, I flew to Chicago for work, and called home from the cab on the way to the hotel. First on the line was one of my then-four-year-old twins.

Dad: Guess what? There's snow on the ground here!
Son: Are you in Tahoe?
Dad: No, I'm in Chicago.
Son: Are you near Tahoe?
Dad: No, actually, you're closer to Tahoe right now than I am.
Son: Are there people skiing there?
Dad: No.... Well, it's basically flat, and the snow is kinda dirty and gross, so you really wouldn't want to.

[silence]

Son: Why do people live there?
Dad: Ummm, well, it's got nice architecture, and good colleges, and good places to work, and museums and stuff.
Son: No -- why did they start living there?

[silence]

Dad: Well, I guess they were kind of heading West and figured they'd stop there.
Son: They should've kept going.

I have raised total California kids. Sorry.
post #16 of 20
Quote:
Originally Posted by drivensnow View Post
Ok ,thanks for all the support, so the 2007 AC3 seems to have the most consensus. Should I get the 156 CM or 163 CM. I am 5' 4", 145 # and ski agressive and fast on the grommers but spend 50% in the moguls/trees. I'm thinking the 163 CM should keep the chatter down at higher speeds...correct?...without too much loss of quickness in the moguls/trees.
163 cm
post #17 of 20
I'm a volkl guy, and I'd recommend you go with the RX8. If you can find short AC3's they might work for you also. But I bet you can find last years RX8's cheap.
post #18 of 20
Quote:
Originally Posted by alpinedad View Post
In March of 2005, I flew to Chicago for work, and called home from the cab on the way to the hotel. First on the line was one of my then-four-year-old twins.

Dad: Guess what? There's snow on the ground here!
Son: Are you in Tahoe?
Dad: No, I'm in Chicago.
Son: Are you near Tahoe?
Dad: No, actually, you're closer to Tahoe right now than I am.
Son: Are there people skiing there?
Dad: No.... Well, it's basically flat, and the snow is kinda dirty and gross, so you really wouldn't want to.

[silence]

Son: Why do people live there?
Dad: Ummm, well, it's got nice architecture, and good colleges, and good places to work, and museums and stuff.
Son: No -- why did they start living there?

[silence]

Dad: Well, I guess they were kind of heading West and figured they'd stop there.
Son: They should've kept going.

I have raised total California kids. Sorry.
Hi AD,

LOL;

...From the mouths of babes.

I have a long story to tell about how I almost made it out west, see http://forums.epicski.com/showthread.php?t=43664 post #23.

Chicago has been good to me & my family. However, if I had not attended a School with an Alpine racing team in New Hampshire and lived in SLC one winter, I would definitely be a poorer man.

Cheers,

Michael
post #19 of 20
Quote:
Originally Posted by barrettscv View Post
...From the mouths of babes.
Indeed. Bear in mind, though, this is the same kid who, now that he's six: (a) would often rather watch ski porn than Dragon Tales; (b) has, in the past month alone, chosen an article about ski mountaineering in the Himalayas and the Freeskier Buyer's Guide issues as his bedtime reading; (c) started complaining in late July that waiting until Thanksgiving to go skiing again was too long ... after skiing July 4th weekend at Mammoth; and (d) spent half an hour last weekend showing my mother and stepfather the Alpine Meadows trail map, pointing out the places he wanted to take them when they come visit this winter, and telling them the attributes he likes about each run.

In short, the kid is obsessed.

Fortunately, soccer season is helping keep him occupied until winter. And fortunately, once winter hits, it's just a drive away.
post #20 of 20
Quote:
Originally Posted by drivensnow View Post
Looking for some smaller guys to comment on selecting the correct All Mtn Expert ski choices. I am 145 lbs 5 ft 4 inches, 47 years old and very atheletic. Ski 50% East, 50% west. Like carving fast , trees, moguls and when lucky enough, powder out west. My concern is most reviews in mags and posts are for heavier skier's and may not reflect the ski characteristics for folks my size. Comments /recommendations?
I'm your clone (only a few years younger), give or take 5 lbs depending on the day of the week. I ski the 6 Stars in a 161 cm and would probably opt for one step up in length in a 5 Star. My "mid-fats" are Atomic M:EX in 165 cm and are perfect for me despite so many people's claims that the lengths that Atomic recommends are too short for this ski.

My personal length choices would be:

Volkl AC4: 163 if it were my only ski / 170 if I have a "carver" in the quiver
Allstar: 161
5 Star: 168
Fischer RX8: 165
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, Allstar, 5 Star, Fischer RX8 for a lightweight