EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › Ski Gear Discussion › what size ski do i need-- 5'11 180lbs
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

what size ski do i need-- 5'11 180lbs

post #1 of 25
4/19/07 at 7:07am
Thread Starter 
guys im buying a set of fischers rx 8 and im wondering whether i should go with the 165 or 170. Im a above average skier--thanks, pete
Reply
post #2 of 25
4/19/07 at 7:34am
Just went through the same decision. I'm 6' and 185 and went with the 170 for better performance at speed and on ice. Don't think you can go wrong with either choice.

Go 165 if you want a quicker turny ski or 170 if you want a ski that's better at high speeds and almost as quick and turny.

Mike
Reply
post #3 of 25
4/19/07 at 7:46am
5cm or 3 inches really doesn't make that big a difference. People make the difference out to be bigger than it is.
Reply
post #4 of 25
4/19/07 at 8:01am
170 sounds right to me, but the 165 isn't going to be a big enough difference to make you regret it.
Reply
post #5 of 25
4/19/07 at 9:29am
5cm is actually less than 2", so ski=free is even more right. I went 170 over 165, but it probably doesn't matter either way.

Mike
Reply
post #6 of 25
4/19/07 at 10:21am

Size

You do not say what tyoe of skiing you do or what type of terrian?? If you ski on a big mountain or somewhere with 300 feet of verticle it would make a difference. I purchased a pr of head monster 77's in 170cm a couple of years ago, they were really fun but they were to short in powder and were a little exciting at speed. I sold them and bought them in a 177. Big difference better in powder/chop and much more stable at speed. So I would disagree with the notion that you will not notice a one size difference, it was big in my case. Not having skiied the RX8's I would lean towards the 170's as being a more versitle all mtn ski.
Enjoy them
Reply
post #7 of 25
4/19/07 at 12:57pm
in a situation of this nature i'd demo both the 170 and the next size bigger.

i'm 5'11", down to 179.

last season I purchased a quiver of mostly 175 - 177cm long skis (Titan 8, Karma, Mantra).

this season they all felt way short (with the exception of the 175 T8, which is still unmounted).

i found that a ski in the 180-185 range suits my tastes best. I now have a 181 Titan 9 and a 180 King Salmon as the mainstays in my quiver with a 185 Spatula as my specialty powder ski.

best advice I can give is that given the opportunity to demo the same ski in various lengths, DO IT!!!
Reply
post #8 of 25
4/19/07 at 3:23pm
Typically, at your body size, you're going to want to be on a ~180 cm ski for all around freeskiing......depending on ablity, location, etc, etc. If you're carving all the time on a short icy hiil, those 170's might be ok, but consider something bigger if you ski at a decent sized mountain. If you're an intermediate skier, stick with the 170.
Reply
post #9 of 25
4/19/07 at 6:07pm
Couldn't agree LESS with the idea that 5 cm don't make much of a difference in a short carver.

1) Owned the RX8 in 170 (6', 165), demoed the 165. Very different feel to the two; the 165 was more of a fall line turner, very lively; the 170 was noticably stiffer, smoother, better in crud, liked medium and long radius turns more than short. Some who I respect on this forum even think these days length makes more of an impact on ski performance and feel than brand.

2) Or you can look at it like PhysicsMan: The relative flex of any ski will depend on your weight spread over the surface area. I used his spreadsheet, tried varying the length of a typical racing SL carver by 5 cm, divided the surface area each time by my weight. The difference between 165 and 170 was about the same as if I held the length constant and added 4 mm to the waist. Now I think everyone here would agree that a 63 mm waist will feel a lot different from a 67 mm waist, yes?

3) Or you can look at it like a ski company that makes 4 to 6 lengths for each model. If you look at a populational distribution of weight, divide it by say 5, you'll see that each increments is optimized for folks who are about 20-30 lbs lighter on average than the previous increment.
Reply
post #10 of 25
4/19/07 at 6:20pm
I would say at your weight you want at least 170 cm. I weigh 165 lbs and would be perfectly happy with 170 cm on small eastern hills.
Reply
post #11 of 25
4/19/07 at 7:30pm
I might not be qualified to give suggestion, but he's asking for the size of RX8, not fat/midfat freerider. Fischer doesn't make any RX8 in 180 I think.
Reply
post #12 of 25
4/19/07 at 7:31pm

170 or 175 unless you like short turns all the time

I own 170 and 175 RX 8's. The 175's are actually easier to ski, you might like them better at your weight which is about the same as me.

There is little difference tho in feel between my 170's and 175's. I would suggest buy whichever you find at the better price. I am keeping the 175's to use primarily as rock / early season skis...the 170 will be my main hard snow steed.

I have also ski'd extensively on a friends 165's. It is a completely different ski then the longer lengths. The difference is mind boggling. The 165 wants to do shortswing turns all the time and generally wants to stay within the short radius turn. Letting it run a bit it becomes wobbly at best with a very low speed limit. It is a shortswing carver, very easy to ski (as are all 3 lengths) but defin limited.

If you want to make playful short turns all the time and not much else the 165 is your steed....otherwise go 170 or 175....

I actually would like to try the 180's (out of production this past season tho)

My extensive ramblings on this topic can be found it the below thread....

pm me anytime with any questions.....

good luck

http://forums.epicski.com/showthread...eferrerid=8500
Reply
post #13 of 25
4/19/07 at 7:32pm
Nobody ever checks the Fischer website for advice, but they recommend 165, 170, or 175cm for your weight. Choose among that based on the kind of skiing you do. For high-speed big mountain use, go 175cm. For a fun short turn ski that would be good on small mountain trails, go 165cm. 170cm would fall in the middle, naturally.

I am 6'1" 185lb and ski the 180cm (no longer available in that length). That length still feels comfortable to me, but 175cm would probably be fine too. No way I would even consider the 165 or 170 -- they would feel like toys for the kind of skiing I do. I like the edge grip on ice and general stability the longer skis give.
Reply
post #14 of 25
4/19/07 at 9:52pm
175 at least. Where do you ski at?
Reply
post #15 of 25
4/19/07 at 10:55pm
My doubt was not only on RX8. What I don't understand is do we still need such length for a short radius SL like ski? I remember in last year when people talked about ski length, I used to heard: "for modern shaped ski, we don't need extra length, if you're not sure, go shorter." And I also read similiar things in Atomic's ski selection guide. Well, this year it seems people're always talking longer is better (at least that's my feeling).

I must missed something?
Reply
post #16 of 25
4/20/07 at 4:43am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vansnow View Post
My doubt was not only on RX8. What I don't understand is do we still need such length for a short radius SL like ski? I remember in last year when people talked about ski length, I used to heard: "for modern shaped ski, we don't need extra length, if you're not sure, go shorter." And I also read similiar things in Atomic's ski selection guide. Well, this year it seems people're always talking longer is better (at least that's my feeling).

I must missed something?
No. You did not miss something. My old skis were 208s. If I were buying an RX8, I would buy a 170. That's 38 cm shorter. My WC SCs are 165 cm (43 cm shorter), and I have no issues with speed wobbles. Though they can be a handful going through choppy small bumps at speed there are no vibration-induced instabilities. They are stable at speeds that could only be dreamed of with a sub 200 cm ski from the 80s.
Reply
post #17 of 25
4/20/07 at 7:20am
Thread Starter 

well guys, thanks for all the input

Well the 170 are no longer avail. So now i can only get 165 the deal that i was offered was compelte set, bindings installed for 399 shipped. But now all they have are the 165. I ski mostly on the east coast, killington being the ultimate 2 a year getaway. Anyways guys im not sure what to do now with all the opinions--i cant really demo them anymore but i feel its a pretty good deal and all. WHAT SHOULD I DO?
Reply
post #18 of 25
4/20/07 at 7:31am
There are a year old pair on eBay right now and ending today. Bid is currently $200.

Have you talked to Scott (Dawgcatching)? Got a pair of 170's from him last week for $399 + shipping.

Mike
Reply
post #19 of 25
4/20/07 at 7:54am
Thread Starter 

yea but u probably got the last pair in 170

hehehehehhe
Reply
post #20 of 25
4/20/07 at 9:00am
Oops, sorry!
Reply
post #21 of 25
4/20/07 at 9:25am
chk w dawg see what else he has......rx 9 170 maybe...there are other good skis and deals out there. Perhaps sierra jim...or www.untracked.com or ebay...If you want to make shortswing turns all day the 165 RX 8 is a fine steed....go for it.

If you want more versatility, don't do it...

Perhaps you can post a bit about what you like in a ski and type of turns preferd etc and the discussion can expand?

btw skimangojazz recently got a killer deal on 175 RX8's 2006/2007 model but I forget who he used. It was a bombproof transaction, he was quite happy....you might try a pm to him>
Reply
post #22 of 25
4/20/07 at 1:24pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by kielce23 View Post
Well the 170 are no longer avail. So now i can only get 165 the deal that i was offered was compelte set, bindings installed for 399 shipped. But now all they have are the 165. I ski mostly on the east coast, killington being the ultimate 2 a year getaway. Anyways guys im not sure what to do now with all the opinions--i cant really demo them anymore but i feel its a pretty good deal and all. WHAT SHOULD I DO?
BUY SOMETHING ELSE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Preferably a 175-180cm midfat freeskiing ski!!!!!!!!!!!
Reply
post #23 of 25
4/21/07 at 10:27am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Highway Star View Post
BUY SOMETHING ELSE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Preferably a 175-180cm midfat freeskiing ski!!!!!!!!!!!
I agree here-never get to set on any one ski--the all all purpose carving oriented ski is pretty much a ski every company does well-so check dawg's reviews of midfats or groomer oriented 70mm and under skis--
Reply
post #24 of 25
4/21/07 at 10:31am
Race SC is similar.
WC SC is a tad stiffer, but still works pretty well.
Reply
post #25 of 25
4/21/07 at 1:24pm
I'm in the odd position of agreeing with H.S. At your weight, you do NOT want a 165 for a do-everything ski.

1) Calm down. The gotta-buy-this-ski-or-my-life-will-be-over fever will pass.

2) As instructed, go check out stores of Dawgcatching or SierraJim. They know a lot, and they currently have great prices on a decent number of last season's skis. Other outlets on the web also have good prices, but fairly limited stocks of carvers. Cruise eBay, don't get into bidding wars.

3) For an eastern AM, and assuming you're high intermediate or above, think more about skis like: Fischer AMC 76, Volkl AC3, Salomon Tornado, Rossi Z9, Nordica Hot Rod Modified. Most will be around at good prices for another few weeks, they all carve well even in the 70's, they all will handle what heavy pow we're likely to get in the east (OK, with exception of last coupla weeks in NE).
Reply
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 › what size ski do i need-- 5'11 180lbs