New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Heavyweight skier - Page 2

post #31 of 47
Thread Starter 
and what lenght? 190?
post #32 of 47
Thread Starter 
i can't spell...hahahahah
post #33 of 47
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rhino 300 View Post
better than racetiger gs? Just as long as they don't get squirrley at higher speeds. I need my skis to stay stable at my weight.

so what is the verdict? if you were me? whcih ones for hardpack skiing in the east(pa-vermont).
Like I mentioned before, I have NOT SKIED THE RACETIGER, so I cannot comment on them.

My Mag 14's are not squirrely AT ALL. They work well on ice here in MN - and I imagine they'd be a BLAST on something a little softer. With that said, I prefer skis with waists at or above 75. I just like the substantial feel under foot, and can carve as well with 75 as 69. You give up a littel quickness edge to edge, but that's a sacrifice I'm willing to make for stability at speed in Mach turns. I'm happiest with mid to long radius turns. Slalom is fun too, but gets boring after a few runs.

But I'm not you, so my best advice to you is to demo a few before you buy any. That also goes for the length you were asking about for the Gots - if you can, try before you buy. I never do, but considering you're looking at skis you know little to nothing about, I'd probably rent some first, or demo if you can. Keep in mind that a 183 Got is going to seem more like a ski more around 175 or so due to the twin design - you lose length because of the upturned tail. a 190 is going to be more like a 182-ish ski. I have some Rossi Scratch BC's in a 178 and I really wish I had gone 182 or so. But they are nice in trees.
post #34 of 47
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rhino 300 View Post
i can't spell...hahahahah
EDIT button...hahahahah

:
post #35 of 47
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by axebiker View Post
Like I mentioned before, I have NOT SKIED THE RACETIGER, so I cannot comment on them.

My Mag 14's are not squirrely AT ALL. They work well on ice here in MN - and I imagine they'd be a BLAST on something a little softer. With that said, I prefer skis with waists at or above 75. I just like the substantial feel under foot, and can carve as well with 75 as 69. You give up a littel quickness edge to edge, but that's a sacrifice I'm willing to make for stability at speed in Mach turns. I'm happiest with mid to long radius turns. Slalom is fun too, but gets boring after a few runs.

But I'm not you, so my best advice to you is to demo a few before you buy any. That also goes for the length you were asking about for the Gots - if you can, try before you buy. I never do, but considering you're looking at skis you know little to nothing about, I'd probably rent some first, or demo if you can. Keep in mind that a 183 Got is going to seem more like a ski more around 175 or so due to the twin design - you lose length because of the upturned tail. a 190 is going to be more like a 182-ish ski. I have some Rossi Scratch BC's in a 178 and I really wish I had gone 182 or so. But they are nice in trees.
very good advice. Thank you very much for taking the time to help guide me. I was in fact wondering what would be better for stability- wider or narrower underfoot. I think you answered my questions. Here in PA and NY(Hunter)- I am trying to pick the best ski and it is down to the mags and the racetiger(or tigershark), I also think you are right about the got-190 for sure.
post #36 of 47
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rhino 300 View Post
very good advice. Thank you very much for taking the time to help guide me. I was in fact wondering what would be better for stability- wider or narrower underfoot. I think you answered my questions. Here in PA and NY(Hunter)- I am trying to pick the best ski and it is down to the mags and the racetiger(or tigershark), I also think you are right about the got-190 for sure.
Glad to help.

One thing to consider - wider doesn't necessarily equal more stable. It has alot to do with the build and sidecut of the ski. Some food for thought. The Mag 14 gets better with speed. I'm about 185#, and I'm on the 176cm. If I were using them on bigger mountains, I'd have probably gone with the Mag 12 in the 184cm because the Mag 14 in a 184cm would be a bit too much to handle.

BTW - I'd love to try the TigerShark some day. That's a pretty intersting ski.
post #37 of 47
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ullr View Post
Not at all. It's just a different type of boards that's all. I personally prefer it there to here, but that's just me. Thing's get just as nasty here, just in a little more, "I make superior turns, and use proper rotation, blah, blah, blah" instead of, "You're a JONG not STFU"! Many people (including most of the mods here) post on both site's.

Ya, 190's definatly .
post #38 of 47
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rhino 300 View Post
i have salomon x-wing tornadoes, but at high speeds, the tips move back and forth and they don't feel stable.

Please give me some advice
I'd take ski advice with a grain of salt from people who don't weigh north of 250 and there aren't all that many of us. You really need to demo before you buy because you're going to see completely different performance from some 175 pound guy.

I'm quite a bit taller than you but similar weight. In my opinion, the current model Salomon X-Wing Tornado isn't enough of a ski for guys who don't miss many meals. I recently tried the 2009 version that's been beefed up and I think you'd like it better. It's quite a bit more stable and I didn't over-power it like the current model. Like any shaped ski, you have to keep it on edge and it will feel unstable if you ride it completely flat on the snow. You'll have to wait a year to find it steeply discounted but it's worth considering the 2009 model.

I ski the current model X-Wing Fury in a 184 with 40 days on them this year and I just picked up a 2nd pair on eBay. Salomon revamped the ski for the 2007-2008 model year and it went from a fairly wimpy performer to something more akin to the old Xtra Hot. I tried the original version and hated it because it skied just like your Tornado. The current model Fury is a much beefier ski than the current Tornado. More stable. Adequate edge grip. Far better on the ungroomed. I think it's a good choice as a 1 ski quiver for big guys who ski a 50/50 groomed/ungroomed mix. From the description of how and where you ski, this probably isn't the best choice since you give up some edge grip on the eastern bullet-proof by going wider.

The integral Salomon binding is fine other than the well-documented durability problem with the toe bushings if you are a big guy and ski them on a light setting where the toe is moving all the time. The binding dies when the ski dies and you won't be transferring it to another ski.
post #39 of 47
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by axebiker View Post
Glad to help.

One thing to consider - wider doesn't necessarily equal more stable. It has alot to do with the build and sidecut of the ski. Some food for thought. The Mag 14 gets better with speed. I'm about 185#, and I'm on the 176cm. If I were using them on bigger mountains, I'd have probably gone with the Mag 12 in the 184cm because the Mag 14 in a 184cm would be a bit too much to handle.

BTW - I'd love to try the TigerShark some day. That's a pretty intersting ski.
yeah, the tigershark was my original choice.
post #40 of 47
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by axebiker View Post
Glad to help.

One thing to consider - wider doesn't necessarily equal more stable. It has alot to do with the build and sidecut of the ski. Some food for thought. The Mag 14 gets better with speed. I'm about 185#, and I'm on the 176cm. If I were using them on bigger mountains, I'd have probably gone with the Mag 12 in the 184cm because the Mag 14 in a 184cm would be a bit too much to handle.

BTW - I'd love to try the TigerShark some day. That's a pretty intersting ski.
What do you mean "too much to handle"? I am 260lbs(without equipment). I think I am going with the mag 14 184, unless you think 12?
post #41 of 47
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rhino 300 View Post
What do you mean "too much to handle"? I am 260lbs(without equipment). I think I am going with the mag 14 184, unless you think 12?
The Mag 14 is too much for ME at 184cm, as I weigh about 180-185#. The 176 is about right, but if I weren't an advanced skier, they'd probably take me for a ride!! At 260#, I can't imagine the skis are going to throw you around.

If I wanted to ski the Magfire at a 184, I'd need to get the Mag 12.

Sorry for the confusion.

Again, if you can demo first, you really should.
post #42 of 47
Thread Starter 
I'm gonna try and demo, but you are not the first to tell me the mag 14 would be a good ski for me. I think that if I need to make a decision, that mag 14 @ 184 is fpr me.

Again, my issue is the skis staying stable and tight at high speeds, due to my weight and ability- sounds like this ski is it for me. THanks again
post #43 of 47
you might want to PM Dawgcatching. He's got some Magfire 14's at blow out prices. Based on my conversation with him on the Magfire 14, it is probably a good fit. (only heavy skiers liked the ski.)


http://forums.epicski.com/showthread.php?t=68109
post #44 of 47
Quote:
Originally Posted by StormDay View Post
you might want to PM Dawgcatching. He's got some Magfire 14's at blow out prices. Based on my conversation with him on the Magfire 14, it is probably a good fit. (only heavy skiers liked the ski.)


http://forums.epicski.com/showthread.php?t=68109
Absolutely!! That's where I got my 3 sets of Elan's. Awesome guys. He also has a set of the Elan Mag 82's, but I can't remember the length - maybe 176??

BTW StormDay - at 185#, I don't know that I consider myself "heavy" (), but I do like this ski ALOT.
post #45 of 47
Quote:
Originally Posted by axebiker View Post
Absolutely!! That's where I got my 3 sets of Elan's. Awesome guys. He also has a set of the Elan Mag 82's, but I can't remember the length - maybe 176??

BTW StormDay - at 185#, I don't know that I consider myself "heavy" (), but I do like this ski ALOT.
You are a bit below (actually, quite a bit) the weight level Scott had mentioned to me. We were discussing the 184 and using for a hard snow/bump ski.
post #46 of 47
Quote:
Originally Posted by StormDay View Post
You are a bit below (actually, quite a bit) the weight level Scott had mentioned to me. We were discussing the 184 and using for a hard snow/bump ski.
Hard snow - YES!

Bumps - :::
post #47 of 47
Quote:
Originally Posted by axebiker View Post
Hard snow - YES!

Bumps - :::
Probably better than my 194 LPs or 191 Mantras.


Kind of thinking about waiting for next years 82X.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Ski Gear Discussion