EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › Ski Gear Discussion › Nordica Top Fuel ski length
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Nordica Top Fuel ski length

post #1 of 15
Thread Starter 
Hi all, this is my first post here. Thank you for your input.
I am looking to buy nordica top fuel ski. I am 5'8" and 160lbs and 30 years old. I've been doing mostly groomed trailes and are looking to venture into off piste more this season.
For those who skied the top fuel before, if you go longer on this particular ski (I was looking at 170 but there's a used pair at 175), how hard is it to ride and control?:
When I demo'ed these skies before, they are heavier than other mid-fat skies, I am wondering will it be too much for me to ski on if I go longer.
And for those who own this particular ski, if you don't mind post your ski length and your build, I really appreciate it.
post #2 of 15
5'8" 170, 31.
not quite the same ski, but;
Jet fuel 186. (126-84-112; r=20) wood/metal

Only deemed too long when visibility is low and speed is not allowed. I tend to ski fast with medium radius turns and personally wouldn't like anything under the 175.
post #3 of 15
Quote:
Originally Posted by SwamptoRocky View Post

how hard is it to ride and control?:

When I demo'ed these skies before, they are heavier than other mid-fat skies, I am wondering will it be too much for me to ski on if I go longer.
And for those who own this particular ski, if you don't mind post your ski length and your build, I really appreciate it.
I am 205#, 5'10" 53 years old, and I'd say, a strong skier, one who likes a substansial ski. I love the bumps and crud and the woods. I ski the 170 on the East coast. The next size up is a 178. I would suggest that the 178 would be too much for your weight and size if you intend to ski bumps and tight spots. For some that would not be the case but you would need to be powerful and solid on the ski.

I have skied with other people who were on the 178 Top Fuel and the Modified who should have gone shorter.

In my opinion the ski is an animal. It's performance is impressive. The only other suggestion is to consider the Modified in a 170, if you have any doubts about the power of the Top Fuel. You are on the right track, either would be a great choice.
post #4 of 15
Thread Starter 
Thank you for your response. The two replies on this post so far are kinda split recommendation.
Samurai is about my size and weight but skies way longer than what I thought I should be skiing on.
From what I can interpret from your post, Paul Jones, to be truly "All-mountain", shorter ski might give the ability to get in the trees and bumps a little better.
From what I read in this forum and my own experience, Top Fuel eats crud for breakfast. So skiing it would be easy regardless the size. And the heaviness of the ski was no problem at all on all groomed surfaces.
I was only looking at the longer ski since a great deal came up, I was just wondering if I would have trouble with it since I didn't demo the longer version of this ski.
Thanks again for your responses!!


Quote:
Originally Posted by Paul Jones View Post
I am 205#, 5'10" 53 years old, and I'd say, a strong skier, one who likes a substansial ski. I love the bumps and crud and the woods. I ski the 170 on the East coast. The next size up is a 178. I would suggest that the 178 would be too much for your weight and size if you intend to ski bumps and tight spots. For some that would not be the case but you would need to be powerful and solid on the ski.

I have skied with other people who were on the 178 Top Fuel and the Modified who should have gone shorter.

In my opinion the ski is an animal. It's performance is impressive. The only other suggestion is to consider the Modified in a 170, if you have any doubts about the power of the Top Fuel. You are on the right track, either would be a great choice.
post #5 of 15
yes, with today's technology and glues you can go shorter. Shorter is turnier but not as comfortable once the speeds picks up. Also, this site is very biased towards shorter skis. Ask the same question over at TGR and you'll get advice to go longer.

like I said, in low visibility conditions, I wish I it was shorter. But I didn't buy it to satisfy me at low speeds in low vis. I bought it mainly to open up and gauff at crud. the top fuel you're looking at is a narrower version of the jet fuel. More info about yourself will get more responses here too. I am your size, but that doesn't mean as much as other factors.

Where do you ski? what snow? (east/west)
what size turns do you like? short, med, long?
Are you inclined to take them into the bumps?
What is your previous ski?
post #6 of 15
Go for it!
I know I know......not the same thing but I demoed the Afterburner, which is the same as the jet fuel without the metal, and bought the Nitrous same as the top fuel without the metal, Demoed and bought in 170 length.
I'm 5'6" 130 lbs, strong legs and aggressive skier. Can't imagine being on something less than 170 in those skis.
post #7 of 15
I also think a lighter person will get more out of the Afterburner. I think the Afterburner in a 170 would be a great ski for you.
post #8 of 15
5' 8"...#225.....

I ski on the Elan Magfire 10, 176cm with a turn radius of 14.9m.

I have always prefered a longer ski. I wouldn't consider anything under 170cm. But that's me.
post #9 of 15
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by samurai View Post
yes, with today's technology and glues you can go shorter. Shorter is turnier but not as comfortable once the speeds picks up. Also, this site is very biased towards shorter skis. Ask the same question over at TGR and you'll get advice to go longer.

like I said, in low visibility conditions, I wish I it was shorter. But I didn't buy it to satisfy me at low speeds in low vis. I bought it mainly to open up and gauff at crud. the top fuel you're looking at is a narrower version of the jet fuel. More info about yourself will get more responses here too. I am your size, but that doesn't mean as much as other factors.

Where do you ski? what snow? (east/west)
what size turns do you like? short, med, long?
Are you inclined to take them into the bumps?
What is your previous ski?
I ski the Rockies, I live in Denver and I go to Loveland, Copper, Winterpark, etc.
I currently ski on K2 5 com at 167cm (14m—119/72/103).
I typically cruise at medium to medium/high speed and make short and medium sized turns. My current ski is ALOT lighter than the TOP FUEL. And I enjoy the heavy feeling under my feet, it just feels more stable when I ski at high speed.
Occasional bump skier.
I feel more confident about my choice of the ski now with all the input on this post.
I am picking up the ski this afternoon.
I will post a followup on how I perform on these soon.
Thanks all for your suggestions!!!!!
post #10 of 15
Well, I'm late to this party but given your stats, skiing description, and especially what you are coming off of, I'd strongly suggest the 170. The TF is a lot of ski and going to a 178 from you previous ride would make the thing feel like a super G ski. On smooth groomers, you would find no speed limit but in bumps the long, stiff ski would take serious effort. Probably the area where you would be challenged the most would be in soft snow. Beyond a certain snow depth, the flex of the ski is mostly what turns it. The TF would have to be skied at fairly significant speeds to get the thing to come around.

I ski on Nordies a lot, and I ususally prefer the softer versions of each model. I like the Nitrous and AB in 178 (I'm 5-10 188#) I can ski the TF in a 178 but it's too much work for me as a steady thing. The Mach 3 Carbon is among my current favorite groomer Zoomers and I like the 170. If you were looking at the Nitrous I'd say the length might be debateable, but for the TF..............................170.

SJ
post #11 of 15
SJ,
If someone is looking for a zoomer groomer, would you recommend the mach three over say, a race tiger?
post #12 of 15
Quote:
Originally Posted by trekchick View Post
SJ,
If someone is looking for a zoomer groomer, would you recommend the mach three over say, a race tiger?
Mebbe............Mebbe not.

For me yes, no question. Although the M3 is not as snappy or nimble, it has more power and smoothness. The flex of the M3 is much more compliant than say the SM 14-16 of the past and I just don't need a stiff ski. I'd say that if a geeee-esssy feel is your thing then the Nordie might be the thing, but if firecracker turns are more to your liking, then the RT might be better.

SJ
post #13 of 15
Thread Starter 
Got the skies, they were advertised as 178cm but actually they are 170cm!! I was totally happy with it.
I will get it tuned this weekend since it's a one season old used pair, but it's in excellent condition. The only thing that needs a little work is one of the tip protector screw was missing. I ordered new tip and tail protector from nordica yesterday. Kinda pricey, but i will have some spares in the future, they ship two tip and tail protector in one package.
Next weekend all will be ready and tuned and ready to tear it up in the mountains!: : :
Thanks again for everyone's input!
post #14 of 15
I'm glad you went with the 170. This is a fantastic ski.

So whad'ya pay?
post #15 of 15
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Paul Jones View Post
I'm glad you went with the 170. This is a fantastic ski.

So whad'ya pay?
The ski was posted for $200. I got it for $150 since I will pay to have the skies tuned.
Great deal, ain't it?
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 › Nordica Top Fuel ski length