or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

170cm for 170 lbs?

post #1 of 19
Thread Starter 
I just talked to a guy at my local shop about demoing a Volkl G3 in a 177cm. When asked my weight (170), I was told a 170 cm would be more appropriate. In addition, the shop employee went on to add that he weighs 185 and doesn't ski anything longer than a 180cm. "People end up getting skis that are too long for them and then they are unable to flex them."

How do you suppose he can assess the appropriate length for me without at least asking about my ability, skiing style, etc? Perhaps I just needed to vent....
post #2 of 19
What did you end up doing. I'm in the same boat. I'm considering the G3 or P-50 in a 170 or 177. I'm an expert at 5' 10 1/2" and 160 lbs. One shop guy insists I should be on the 170 but it is also all he has left in the shop. Hmmmm. I think he's on the level though. Most of the shop guys seem to be recomending shorter and shorter.
post #3 of 19
I weigh 180+ and I ski the Vertigo Motion at 177. I also skied a 170 cm Vertigo through soft crud in Highland Bowl a few weeks ago. The 170 was fine for me, but I like the 177 a little better. If I were lighter than 180 I would defiitely go with the 170.

John
post #4 of 19
If you get to big hills (out West) and are a decent skier, there should not be any trouble with a 177. If you don't need to feed any speed "jones", then maybe a 170. Even with the extra layers of glass, the G3 is not a nuts stiff ski.
I guess people shorten up in relation to two footed skiing?
I tend to combine and like speed. I am on 191cm. My older daughter weighs about 125, stands 5'5" and skis on 178 midfats.
There are so many opinions. Try them out if you can.
Viking Ski shop is having a demo at Wilmot on Sunday.
post #5 of 19
Quote:
Originally posted by John J:
If you get to big hills (out West) and are a decent skier, there should not be any trouble with a 177. If you don't need to feed any speed "jones", then maybe a 170.
I think Highland bowl counts for "bog hills" and I thought the 170 was fine there.
post #6 of 19
John, as i said There are so many opinions.
post #7 of 19
Everyone ha and opinion, but I've skied them both.

John
post #8 of 19
One more opinion:

" Try'em.....before you buy'em !"
post #9 of 19
Thread Starter 
John J:

Viking is having their demo day on Sunday? I thought it was next weekend. I'll have to double check...was planning on a day trip tomorrow to Devil's Head or Alpine but would rather do a demo day even if it is at Wilmot.

As for length, I do need a speed fix (not the drug, that is) when skiing so I'm afraid the 170cm won't be stable enough. I do get out west once a year and I'm an accomplished skier so I think the 177cm would be more appropriate.
post #10 of 19
S.S. You're right, the demo is the 16th.
post #11 of 19
With the turned up tail on the latest G3, isn't a 170-cm more like a 165-cm? Boy, that sounds short to me. At 175-lbs. I used to ski the G30 in a 193-cm, and I admit, that was too long. If, I were going with the new G3, I would do the 184 (about a 180 with the turned up tail), but I do live out west and love speed. BTW, is the G3 a "shorty-slalom" carver? Oh, it is an all-mtn. stick! Funny that the 84's and 77's are the first to go out here in the west...I guess we still have long ski envy, though. [img]graemlins/evilgrin.gif[/img]
post #12 of 19
i think the uncertainty about length is a GREAT reason to demo. You might have a clear idea about shape and flex but do you want to take a guess on length and be wrong? Cool if the dealer will make the exchange....

btw, at my heaviest I'm about 200 and have no problems on my 177's.
post #13 of 19
So much depends on the side cut,flex construction and over all design of the ski.Today more then ever you have to demo a ski in many diffrent lengths to determine the right ski for you. For The past couple of seasons I have been demoing a lot of skis. I'm an advanced skier, 5'8" tall and about 190 lbs. I ski about 50 to 60 days a season. In some slalom skis a 160 would do just fine. In all mountain skis I have demoed from 170 on up to 190s. Here is what I've found. An Atomic 11:20 in a 170 is one of my favorite skis. The 180 was good but hard to do short swing turn or bumps. The Atomic 9:22 was fine in a 180. The 170 was to short. The K2 Axis X is to short in a 174, yet I still have a 181 and love that ski. The Atomic Rex is a chore to ski in a 184 yet the 177 is a lively fun yet solid ride in the most demanding conditions and speeds. The Rossi Banditt XX in a 184 felt dead The 170 was to short and squirrely at any speed. The 177 was a fine fit. Yet the 170 Rossi RMP felt pretty good and solid at speed. So You can see size does matter. Demo if you can. Remember keep an open mind when you demo. You might suprise yourself.
post #14 of 19
I'm 5' 7" and 175-185 pounds and I ski the Atomic 11.20s in 170.

If they were bigger I would have issues on steep bumps.
post #15 of 19
Dude stick with something in the 175-185 range. A shop guy is going to send people shorter, cause for most people that is the way to go. But if you can already ski pretty well, a 177 is not going to be hard to manuver at all; and neither is a 185 for that matter. I am 5'11", 170 and ski R:EX in 177 and sometimes it feels short (but she is stable). Don't go too short cause 177 is already short. Longer skiis are supposed to be stiffer but it doesn't always work out this way.
post #16 of 19
Thread Starter 
I'm all for demoing different skis and lenghts. Problem is, it's $40 a day to demo at my local shop (only one here in the city) and none of the local areas have anything other than rental skis ("what's a demo?" I was asked by a rental shop employee at the mountain/hill).

Also, the 177cm G3 I requested had been checked out already, so perhaps that may have influenced the shop employee to steer me towards the 170cm. Only others available for demo are Bandit XX and I think an Axis X- neither of which I'm too jazzed about.


Anyway, enough said...looks like I'll be on my 200cm straight skis tomorrow...thanks for all the input.
post #17 of 19
Even rental shops usually have performance packages (not that it will necessarily be the model you want, but you may find out that another model is just right for you.)

I am 5'9", 185 lbs, recreational racer. I ski on 170-cm Nordica Next 7.0. I discovered that I can make the skis feel longer or shorter depending on how I tune the edges. Works fine for me, on course and off. Maybe this model would have been better a little shorter, but oh well!

It all depends on what you want to do with those skis.
post #18 of 19
I'd give the 170 a shot - volkls tend to ski fairly damp and stable. I just skied some 170 Volkl V-Pros (probably shorter with the turned up tail), and they were surprisingly beefy-feeling for a short ski. No problem with speed or cut up powder (I'll get a review posted soon). BTW, I go 5-8, 170 lbs.

John
post #19 of 19
I ski the G3 170 using varizone bindings at 200+lb. Eastern conditions and crud. Thought the 177 was a bit like a limo with the 170 more lively. The varizone can put the 170 into "177 mode" by moving the binding around. I figure the 170 is the design length for the ski anyway (there are two sizes higher and lower) plus the radius obviously changes a bit when changing length.

Many times those shop boys know of what they talk because of reports from people who have skiied the stuff. In any event, when you get a 70mm waist ski you can't expect slalom performance, the G3 has crud crushing power even more manifest in the longer lengths ... can get addictive in longer lengths until you ascertain exactly what you want from it. The shorter length gives up a bit in crush but seems to add more control on the super hardpack. Boot setup is also very critical and changes in boot AFTER I got the ski smooothed out the rough edges.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Ski Gear Discussion