or Connect
EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › Ski Gear Discussion › HELP!!! Big Guy needs new skis - what to choose?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

HELP!!! Big Guy needs new skis - what to choose?

post #1 of 26
Thread Starter 
Okay, how to phrase this. I'm a big guy, 6" and between 250 and 275 pounds, very strong, especially in the legs.

I have just moved to Fresno, CA from Washington, DC. I skied 10 times last year and expect to do that this year. I have really only skied Maryland and Pennsylvania ice and crud and am confident on blues and about ready to go to black.

This California snow will, I assume be a whole new experience for me.

I could go another year on my 5 year old skis, but I'm itching to get something new.

What would you all suggest? I prefer to buy new old stock - 1 -or 2 years out, proven skis.

Because of my size, I was steered to Rossignol 9X Ovsersize.

I am also looking at:

Fischer AMC 70
Atomic C:9 Puls
Fischer Big Stix 7.2
Fischer RX6
Head iM77
Rossignol z5 Oversize
Atomic Metron 11

Some of these are probably overkill, but it is difficult to find reviews for my ski level it seems.

Any help you all can give I would greatly appreciate.
post #2 of 26


I would look into this ski, and go for the stiffest version.

www.pmgear.com
post #3 of 26
Thread Starter 
Lloyd,

Thank you. There shipping now is 50 days out - I don't want to wait that long.
post #4 of 26
I'm a big guy also, I was 245 lbs and I am now down to 220.

I demoed several skis last year. I ended up with the Head Monster i.M 88.

I would consider;

Head Monster i.M 77 in a 181cm, this ski has been out for a few years and might be a good value: http://cgi.ebay.com/06-Head-Monster-...QQcmdZViewItem

If cost is secondary;

Volkl AC4 in a 184cm This will be more $ but its a great ski.

http://cgi.ebay.com/VOLKL-AC4-UNLIMI...QQcmdZViewItem

Cheers,

Michael
post #5 of 26
HardHeadMan,

If you are interested, I have a pair of Volkl P50s (183 cm) with Marker bindings that I would be willing to pass along to you for nothing as long as you were willing to pick up the cost of shipping.

Mike
post #6 of 26
Thread Starter 
Mike,

I am interested. I really feel ignorant though. Both you and Michael are suggesting 180+ skis when the folks in town are recommending 165 - 170.

I also don't know much about these Vokl's. How old are they and in what condition are they?

I am very interested, as the price is excellent! ;-) I'd like to know a little more though.

Thanks.
post #7 of 26
hhm:

In broad strokes, you sound like an intermediate skier. At your weight, you will need a stiffish ski and that usually won't translate to an intermediate model like the RX-6, AMC 70. C-9.

Two good choices from your list are the Rossi Z-5, and the Head iM77. You don't need, and will be handicapped by a ski any wider than these. My first choice of these two would be the Rossi, and I would suggest the 170.

SJ
post #8 of 26
Quote:
Originally Posted by hardheadman View Post
...Both you and Michael are suggesting 180+ skis when the folks in town are recommending 165 - 170...
Hi again HH,

You could go as short as a 170cm on a very stiff midfat like the Monster i.M 77. You could also go as long as a 181cm.

The answer depends on you. How much have you skied? Do you ski the steepest runs on the hill or stick to the intermediate level goomers? Do you plan to ski natural conditions?

Even the largest skier can use a small ski; if they stay on the groomed and keep speeds moderate.

What is your intended use?

Cheers,

Michael
post #9 of 26
Thread Starter 
Michael,

Thank you. I have skied on and off, mostly off, for years. I have two young kids now, 9 and 6, who both started skiing 2 years ago, so I did too. I have skied about 20 times in the last 2 years and sometimes feel like I'm a strong intermediate and sometimes a low intermediate - it's probably somewhere in the middle. I have mainly skied mid-Atlantic places that are not too steep and full of groomed crud and ice.

I have now moved to Fresno, CA and will begin skiing whatever the Sierra Nevadas provide this winter.

I'd love to ski natural conditions, but it is probably a few years off as my kids grow up and I try to keep up with them.

Does that help?

Brian
post #10 of 26
Thread Starter 
SJ,

Thank you for that input, it helps a lot. I have been wondering whether or not wider would really work for me or not.

Brian
post #11 of 26
Quote:
Originally Posted by hardheadman View Post
SJ,

Thank you for that input, it helps a lot. I have been wondering whether or not wider would really work for me or not.

Brian
In your situation, there is just no need for a fat ski. When you see typical Sierra Summit conditions, you'll know what I mean.................

SJ
post #12 of 26
Thread Starter 
LOL! I see. Hmmm while that does not bode well in general, it is bound to be far superior to what I had in the DC area. Just probably not up to your Tahoe expectations.

From Sierra Summit, as the kids grow, I expect to move onward and upward!

Thanks again,

BRian
post #13 of 26
Disagree a fair bit with SJ on this one... Anyone who is north of 250 pounds can probably use a fat "expert" ski as a day to day ski. Even if they are basic intermediates. I can't imagine someone at that weight going with a ski under 90mm at the waist given the excellent options available today. As noted above, something like an im88 (almost 90 ) in the 170s comes to mind as a baseline ski. Gun Lab (this year's gun)? Mantra? Lots of options once you settle on what you want in terms of dimensions, stiffness, etc.

My view is that someone that height/weight will be handicapped by a narrower ski. As soon as you hit a day where ski surface area matters (off piste, "heavy powder" - on or off the trail, mashed taters, slush), you'll be an unhappy camper with a narrower ski. Without getting into a short vs long philosophical debate - the absolute truth is that you can't make up such a big surface area per pound of skier differential by going longer. More and more, I'm seeing folks rail skis that are 90+, 100+, etc. At 250+, I don't buy that these kinds of widths are handicaps when you look at the total picture.
post #14 of 26
If you are going to Mammoth Mtn. I suggest you demo the Volkl's before you buy them. I weigh 180 and have skied for 45 years off and on. I tried the Volkl unlimited ac4's last year. 184's were to much for me. the 177 or 174 were better. The 170's were wonderful and I just received my mail order for the 2007 model. I ski black diamond and bumps even at my advanced age (68) and the Volkl's are wonderful but unforgiving. Good luck. Try and keep up with your boys because the grow like weeds.
post #15 of 26
I was heavier than you last year, and slightly lighter than you now. Don't go for the AMC 70 ifyou are going west. I ski the AMC 76 in the east, and it does a great job (length 176). It is not very demanding. When I want a better carve, esepecially on ice, I go with the RX-8 in length 165. I skied at moderate speeds all least season, tryingto pass an exam which required a lot more precision than speed, so I would be pretysure that you could apply intermediate technique to the AMC 176 and get excellent results, with room to grow (let us both hope not in weight).
post #16 of 26
Quote:
Originally Posted by spindrift View Post

My view is that someone that height/weight will be handicapped by a narrower ski. I'm seeing folks rail skis that are 90+, 100+, etc. At 250+, I don't buy that these kinds of widths are handicaps when you look at the total picture.
Take a mental snapshot of the folks "railing" fat skis.........note the high edge angles..........then ask a realistic question.........are these folks intermediates????

Not even close..........................

SJ
post #17 of 26
Hardhead, you will probably be doing most of your skiing at Sierra Summit. Check out their web site. They have a bus that picks up at Herb Bauers in Fresno and I bet there are some people who work there that can help you. Also consider demo skis at the mountain. I too am large and ski on the Volkl 724 Pro and this year the Mantra both in 184. I am 6'2'' and go about 240#.
post #18 of 26
If you go with the rossignol Z, I would suggest the Z9. The Z5 might be too soft. I have the Z9's, ski mostly intermediate runs, and weigh anywhere from 210-230 during the season. Anyways, they never feel too stiff.
post #19 of 26
I prefer a narrower waisted ski for groomed runs, and if the tips & tails are wide, they also work fine in shallow unpacked snow. I don't dig out my fatties until the new snow is over a foot deep. I'd suggest a ski that is no more than 70 mm under foot if you'd like to get from edge to edge the easiest & quickest.

If you can, demo skis. Excellent skis from different makers, all said to be good on the same snow for the same skiers do ski very differently. I feel that the cost of demo skis is money very well spent.

You have a very experienced ski, boot, and instructional coach in Fresno that is not affiliated with a shop, and can give you very good advice. Maria Fermoille is a physical therapist and othopedic specialist for her day job. She made me the best footbeds I've ever had.


Ken
post #20 of 26
Quote:
Originally Posted by spindrift View Post
Disagree a fair bit with SJ on this one... Anyone who is north of 250 pounds can probably use a fat "expert" ski as a day to day ski. .
And you are how big?
post #21 of 26
Depending on the ski season, I tend to be anywhere between 200 and 230. And I stand by my statement. Jim may have way more ski experience - I've only been skiing about six years. But I know what it is like to be a clydesdale. And being a gearhead, I've played with and used skis ranging from 68mm to 113mm at the waist since I started. Unless I were to end up skiing ice all the time, I doubt very much that I'd buy a general purpose ski under 90mm at the waist again. (Although I confess my 76 waisted MB5s still keep me amused)

Others are obviously welcome to their preferences. And I am aware my opinions are just that. But I am confused as to why people would suggest skis where the design center is aimed at people almost a hundred pounds lighter than hardhead??????
post #22 of 26
There are many factors and compromises to ski design. And, the skier's ability and skiing style are important.

A heavy skier on packed snow may find that the narrow waisted ski in a longer, stiffer version is better than a wider ski. The wider ski will be slower changing edge-to-edge and put more resistance on the leg and ankle...the lever from the edge to the center of the ankle is longer, so more effort is needed to achieve the same degree of edging. And for what purpose? In deep snow, the heavier skier certainly needs the width for flotation, but most of us don't spend as much time in deep snow as we do on pack. A skier that tries to carve turns will prefer the narrower waisted ski. A skier that skids all their turns might not notice much difference.

As always, the three best ways to choose skis are demo, demo, demo. Even if any of us can pick the best width, length, and type of ski for anyone, picking the brand and model of ski within that group that feels best under that skier's feet will make them a better skier with no other cost or effort.


Ken
post #23 of 26
People......stay focused here.

We are talking about an intermediate skier who will spend 90% (+) of his time at a central Sierra resort where snow quality is generally uhhhh.....firm and depth is generally uhhhhhh......not very deep.

So...........An intermediate typically steers his skis onto their edge with various rotary movements. A wide ski will certainly inhibit this skiers ability to find edge. Without adequate edge engagement, a wide stiff ski will not give this skier adequate control and will inhibit his ability to develop the confidence to ski better and maybe handle deeper snow down the road.

The ONLY benefit of wide skis in this case is for deeper snow which this skier will seldom encounter and does not yet possess the skill set to handle anyway. (Regardless of the tool on his feet) The proper tool for this skier is a conservative width in a stiffer flex to handle his weight.

SJ
post #24 of 26
Quote:
Originally Posted by SierraJim View Post
People......stay focused here.

We are talking about an intermediate skier who will spend 90% (+) of his time at a central Sierra resort where snow quality is generally uhhhh.....firm and depth is generally uhhhhhh......not very deep.

So...........An intermediate typically steers his skis onto their edge with various rotary movements. A wide ski will certainly inhibit this skiers ability to find edge. Without adequate edge engagement, a wide stiff ski will not give this skier adequate control and will inhibit his ability to develop the confidence to ski better and maybe handle deeper snow down the road.

The ONLY benefit of wide skis in this case is for deeper snow which this skier will seldom encounter and does not yet possess the skill set to handle anyway. (Regardless of the tool on his feet) The proper tool for this skier is a conservative width in a stiffer flex to handle his weight.

SJ
SJ- I may have to revise my thinking about taking advice from folks with a financial interest in the answer if you keep giving such good advice. This is really solid advice, folks. Just because a skier is heavy doesn't mean he needs boats on his feet. On the contrary, the really wide skis are really hard to ski on hardpack. My little boy (16) weighs something north of 300 and skis on Atomic race skis, which seem to bend even if he is not going at high speeds. The skis are older 11.20's, length 175, and have about a 65 mm wasit. No problems skiing skinny skis on-piste. I am just shy of 250, and was over it last season, and had no problem on RX-8's (165) or AMC 76's. I have also skied a host of other skis at weights over 250. Unless they are to soft torsionaly the narrow waisted skis work well in 95% of the conditions. The slightly wider waist of the AMC 76's is welcome when there is more than a slight coating of new snow, or when we get slush. When I skied at Snowbird I was demoing a wide range of skis, and anything between 76 and 80 mm width handled a wide range of conditions. The only problem was a section of powder more than 2 feet deep, where one pair of skis dived, perhaps because I was too far forward, leading to a somersault. The wider skis (98 mm) I tried were a disaster on a steep icy pitch, and took a lot of skill to keep edged and tracking. The RX-8s were tough to ski in some powder over one foot deep. Other than that the skis all worked well in all the conditions I faced.
post #25 of 26
I see that someone in here is selling a pair of Nordica Top Fuels at 178 cm for $500. It's a great ski, it's got good width, and it's stiff enough for a big guy. I don't think you could go wrong by buying that ski.

http://forums.epicski.com/showthread.php?t=46381
post #26 of 26
Fog:

Thanks for the compliment. I sell skis of course, (lots of 'em) but I have been doing this long enough to be careful about a reccommendation of something I sell when it's not the right tool for the job. In fact, the two skis that I suggested out of his original list are models that I don't sell.



SJ
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 › HELP!!! Big Guy needs new skis - what to choose?