New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

SKi length advice?

post #1 of 13
Thread Starter 
This is my first post so I'm not really sure what to include.

I'm about 6' and probably around 70ish kgs (don't know what that is in lbs). I would describe myself as an advanced intermediate skier possibly level 7-8? I ski mainly in NZ so for those unfamiliar with skiing here, it doesn't involve a huge amount of powder, although we can get the occasional dump. Skiing here it's not too important to have a fat ski to get off piste cos it's all pretty firm everywhere however, I'm heading to Canada for about 3wks and want something to get in the soft stuff over there.

I've found a pair of Volkl AC4's for reasonably cheap from last season that I'm quite interested in, but they are only in a 163cm, and I don't have the opportunity to take them out for a test run, so was wondering whether they would suit me/hold my weight?

Any advice on others to look out for would be great too.

Thanks heaps
post #2 of 13
Sept 11, 2007

Hi l8n:

70 kilos is 154 lbs. 75 kilos is 165 lbs and 80 kilos is 176 lbs. So, since you said 70ish kilos, I'll say 165ish lbs. As for the skis and length, I'll let others with more expertise comment on that. BTW (By the way), welcome to the Epic Ski. Hope you'll enjoy it here and find a lot of good friends and advice.


CP
post #3 of 13
I'm 6'2" 170 and ski skis in the 180-190 range. Most skis below 180 I have found to be too short for me.
post #4 of 13
Where in Canada will you be skiing?
I assume it is out west where the deep snow is given your choice of AC4. If so then 163 is way too short. I'm about 70 kg and like a 165 - 170 for making short to medium turns small eastern hills. Open spaces and wider turns at speed see me a lot happier with a length above 180.
post #5 of 13
I'm 6'2'' (187cm) maybe 190 (85kg) and I'm guessing close to you in skills. I bought the AC-4s at 170, and while I love'em I demo'd a pair of 180s last season and realized I loved those even more. My wholly uninformed and totally subjective opinion is that 163s would be too short for you.

(Hey, anyone out there looking to swap?)
post #6 of 13
at your size, I would definitely go for the 177 in that ski. It sounds like you can turn it, and you'd be more than fine in NZ on it, it's only 84 underfoot.

It feels longer than it is, but the 184 is pretty stinkin' huge. I'm 5'9", about the same weight as you, and I ski anywhere from 173 to 180, depending on the ski (other than slalom skis, they don't really count). The fatter and more big-mountain style the ski, the longer it goes, all mountain I run a tad shorter ... much below 173 and I feel like skis are getting squirrely at speed.

hope that helps
post #7 of 13

I am a NZ skier and have the AC4 2005 model in 177cm

and the 2006 model in 184cm. I am 181cm tall and find both models easily skiable with the177 length being more suited to bumpy conditions but the
184 is best for big mountain crud busting at speed eg Treble Cone or Mid Towers/Virgin Mile Mt Hutt. Both skis are good on ice and ok on the groomed although not as quick as a race ski but then race skis are limited as crud busters. 163 cm is definitly too short as others have said
post #8 of 13
Hey, are you my twin? same height and weight, similar level, same country, same length of time in Canada this summer. hehe.

I personally wouldn't go below around 168 except perhaps in a tight-turning little slalom-style ski for the ruapehu hardpack. In something for powder etc you wanna tend towards longer for more flotation etc etc.

I also wouldn't go up towards 180 unless I was getting a pair of big mountain fats. I just demoed some 176 magfires and found them a pain when trying to maneuver in tight spaces and lift queues etc.


If it's any indication, I'm looking at a pair of Elan Magfire 12s in 168 (82mm waist) or BD Machines in 174(78mm waist) for my trip to Canada. I have my eye out for something longer and fatter (maybe some Verdicts in 180 going cheap as a second pair, but otherwise if it's a huge pow day over there I'll rent some true fatties.
post #9 of 13
Quote:
Originally Posted by l8n View Post
This is my first post so I'm not really sure what to include.

I'm about 6' and probably around 70ish kgs (don't know what that is in lbs). I would describe myself as an advanced intermediate skier possibly level 7-8? I ski mainly in NZ so for those unfamiliar with skiing here, it doesn't involve a huge amount of powder, although we can get the occasional dump. Skiing here it's not too important to have a fat ski to get off piste cos it's all pretty firm everywhere however, I'm heading to Canada for about 3wks and want something to get in the soft stuff over there.

I've found a pair of Volkl AC4's for reasonably cheap from last season that I'm quite interested in, but they are only in a 163cm, and I don't have the opportunity to take them out for a test run, so was wondering whether they would suit me/hold my weight?

Any advice on others to look out for would be great too.

Thanks heaps
I am 6'2"/ 95 kg and used to ski this ski in 177cm. 163 is definitely too shrt for you.

3 weeks - I read somewhere that unless you are getting skis at super sale prices then you have to be skiing 40 days per season to make it worth while to buy your own. Most resorts in Canada have good high performance rentals (Affinity Sports for eg at Whistler) which means you can book a pair of skis but change to suit the conditions.

I spent most of my time on AC4s, a bit on Allstars (when there hadn't been any fresh for a while) and jumped on Head M88 175cm when the snow was in bound (take a risk and change the day before fresh is forecast as you will find everyone queuing for powder skis on powder days and you will miss the fresh tracks).

Enjoy your trip whatever you decide on.
post #10 of 13
Thread Starter 
Thanks heaps for all the advice, this has certainly steered me away from those skis! I demo'd this year's AC30's in a 170 a few week s ago, and loved those, so maybe I'll just head towards those. It's getting a little late in the season to demo anything now
post #11 of 13
Thread Starter 

Dynastar

I've also found out that I can get my hands on some 06-07 Dynastar 4800's, and 8000's but they aren't really stocked in many shops down here, so it's kinda hard to find somewhere to demo them. They are a pretty different ski from what I was looking at, but if they could do similar things then that would be great!

Has anyone got any thoughts on what these are like, or even how they would compare to volkl AC's, or maybe some metrons?

Thanks heaps
post #12 of 13
I have the 8000's and they rock, but the 4800's are more of an advanced-intermediate ski and pretty narrow underfoot, especially for all mountain. the 8000's are the narrowest ski I have but they stinkin' rock ... I ski the 178's

They'll be petty comparable to the AC's for performance, but you don't have to ski a Marker binding BIG bonus right there.
post #13 of 13
Thread Starter 

8000's

Ok cool thanks, yeah those were the ones I was tending to anyway. What are they like on piste? The only length I can get are 172's but I think that that should hopefully be ok.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Ski Gear Discussion