New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Changing Skis With Age - Page 2

post #31 of 55
Quote:
Originally Posted by crgildart View Post
Maybe K2 could cater to older folks with a targeted PE...

Public Enema

Cool idea.

Question is: What would the graphic be?

a) a smiling photo of Ike Eisenhower?
b) a graphic of the menu at Country Kitchen?

At my age, 50+, a peace sign with an image of Bob Marley smoking a splif may do.
post #32 of 55
What is the DIN for over 50? 5 or 6 for an average size guy.
post #33 of 55
Quote:
Originally Posted by crgildart View Post
Maybe K2 could cater to older folks with a targeted PE...

Public Enema

Quote:
Originally Posted by Trekchick View Post
I'm sure the graphix would look like shit
Yeah, but watered down.
post #34 of 55
Quote:
Originally Posted by slider View Post
What is the DIN for over 50? 5 or 6 for an average size guy.
5 or 6 doesn't hold much.

They always set mine at 7 (legally required), although I usually bump it to 8.
post #35 of 55

How many of you actually ski on the industry recommended DIN?

When I hit 50 they wanted to drop me a point, which would put me 2 points lower than what I normally ski. I let them do it, and I was practially walking out of my skis. In deference to my age I have dialed back 0.5 point on the settings, so Im running at 1.5 above the recommended on all my skis. I'm a big guy and haven't needed a DIN of 10 to keep my boards on since I was young, wild and skiing on 210s. Can't figure out what all these guys are doing now buying bindings that go up to 14 for fat 180s.
post #36 of 55
Mudfoot, I don't.
Admittedly, I tend to ski a bit more athletically, than technically. This will often "use" the din up(for lack of a better term).

The din charts and age references are set by generalizations.
BUT............(I have told this story before), when I upgraded my life insurance a year ago, I was rated as a 41 year old midwest woman. After I had my physical, they refunded me 1/3 of my premium. Generalizations don't always fit the situation. Thankfully, I'm not the average, now, 42 year old midwest woman!

If the din were set lower automatically due to a generalization, then it would/could fail the individual.
post #37 of 55
Trek now that is something I actually know something about. I have sold alot of Life insurance over the years. Thats pretty impressive
post #38 of 55
Quote:
Originally Posted by BushwackerinPA View Post
What ever you do brian dont mount them with markers .
Gonna be eating those words forever:

BWPA -First ride up the tram: Any problems with those Markers on your Nordicas?

Me: Nope, never had a release.

BWPA: What the hell happened? You slid like halfway down Regulator Johnson. Now we can't get to Great Scott.

Me (sheepishly): Dunno...damn ski just came off for no reason.

Later in the day....

BWPA: If you're going to follow him, you'd better not fall. There's a cliff below the rollover (Upper Cirque).

Me: I'm good.

I chickened out and went skiers right to avoid the cliff and blew out again. Even though the snow was soft and I didn't slide, I was still 50 feet below the offending Afterburner - damn it's steep in there. Took me 10 minutes of scrabbling to make it halfway when a very cool 12-year old cruised past and grabbed my ski for me. I had already sent BWPA on his way so I didn't have to face the shame and scorn

So...I have a pair of Look Turntable Bindings (prior to Axial2 or PX or whaever they're called these days) with 105mm brakes sitting in the gear locker. Those are going on the Scotts. Next spring Josh.....
post #39 of 55

Go Shorter young man

I am years and 5'6" male. I demoed some of these new fangled new curved jobs a few years ago, but I can't say that I was to impressed. I stuck with my dynistar 196, which are about say 25 years old or so. Last year I borrowed a pair of 154 cm Volkl 5 stars. They were sweet! Way easier to push around than the 196, and the bindings aren't death traps either. I found a new pair at Al's ski barn, and now I'm set for the next 25 years. I ski in the west, and these are supposed to be eastern skis. but I am used to the narrow pattern, so these are ok for me. Anyway to end the ramble, try shorter, you might like it.
post #40 of 55
Quote:
Originally Posted by oldschool1 View Post
I am years and 5'6" male. I demoed some of these new fangled new curved jobs a few years ago, but I can't say that I was to impressed. I stuck with my dynistar 196, which are about say 25 years old or so. Last year I borrowed a pair of 154 cm Volkl 5 stars. They were sweet! Way easier to push around than the 196, and the bindings aren't death traps either. I found a new pair at Al's ski barn, and now I'm set for the next 25 years. I ski in the west, and these are supposed to be eastern skis. but I am used to the narrow pattern, so these are ok for me. Anyway to end the ramble, try shorter, you might like it.

IF you 'pushing" your skis around then you are right shorter skis are better. If you know how to ski then you would be very wrong.
post #41 of 55
Quote:
Originally Posted by BushwackerinPA View Post
IF you 'pushing" your skis around then you are right shorter skis are better. If you know how to ski then you would be very wrong.
I have to agree with BushwackerinPA. 155 is too short. Stop pushing your skis around. Tip them and let the tips's edges guide them.

Quote:
Originally Posted by bjohansson View Post
Gonna be eating those words forever:

BWPA -First ride up the tram: Any problems with those Markers on your Nordicas?

Me: Nope, never had a release.

BWPA: What the hell happened? You slid like halfway down Regulator Johnson. Now we can't get to Great Scott.

Me (sheepishly): Dunno...damn ski just came off for no reason.

Later in the day....

BWPA: If you're going to follow him, you'd better not fall. There's a cliff below the rollover (Upper Cirque).

Me: I'm good.

I chickened out and went skiers right to avoid the cliff and blew out again. Even though the snow was soft and I didn't slide, I was still 50 feet below the offending Afterburner - damn it's steep in there. Took me 10 minutes of scrabbling to make it halfway when a very cool 12-year old cruised past and grabbed my ski for me. I had already sent BWPA on his way so I didn't have to face the shame and scorn

So...I have a pair of Look Turntable Bindings (prior to Axial2 or PX or whaever they're called these days) with 105mm brakes sitting in the gear locker. Those are going on the Scotts. Next spring Josh.....
Bjohansson,
Got any Marker Comp bindings you want to get rid of? I'll pay shipping. I like to live dangerously.
post #42 of 55

short

I am actually not that bad, not as good as back in the day, by I seem to be able to eek my way down the hill. Its just that my technique is not modern. I keep my skis close together, preessed together in fact, and unweight. I went with the shorter skis because they are easier to handle. Since I do not go really that fast, I do not need the length. I find the shorter models very enjoyable. I took a lesson last year at Steamboat to try to learn the new modern technique, and was not so sucessful. (By the way, they put me in level 8-9 so I couldnt have sucked that bad.) If you look around many older skiers ski in the low 150's and most of them are much taller than I am. Many of these guys are pretty good too.
post #43 of 55
Quote:
Originally Posted by oldschool1 View Post
I am actually not that bad, not as good as back in the day, by I seem to be able to eek my way down the hill. Its just that my technique is not modern. I keep my skis close together, preessed together in fact, and unweight. I went with the shorter skis because they are easier to handle. Since I do not go really that fast, I do not need the length. I find the shorter models very enjoyable. I took a lesson last year at Steamboat to try to learn the new modern technique, and was not so sucessful. (By the way, they put me in level 8-9 so I couldnt have sucked that bad.) If you look around many older skiers ski in the low 150's and most of them are much taller than I am. Many of these guys are pretty good too.
your post just proved my point BTW

what ever you mean by older guys I dont know, but most older guys I know dont ski on that short of skis. the oldest guy I know is 84 and skis on 165.

if you didnt push your tails around. you would be more efficient, have more control, and be easy on your body. with better control and without getting tired as much you will end up going faster. I dont care how old you are but you will end up going faster. Now that you have more control, arent getting tired as much, and you are going faster. You would soon find those skis are fairly short for someone who is 5'6.

this a really a discusion for the technique forum but pushing your tail around, with your feet together is pretty poor form, considering you have skis that will let you turn differently now.
post #44 of 55
Quote:
Originally Posted by slider View Post
Not me. 56 and I still like the SL skis. I just can't ski as long.
getcher some 155's then!

55 this year and i agree! they are fun!
post #45 of 55
Quote:
Originally Posted by BushwackerinPA View Post
your post just proved my point BTW

what ever you mean by older guys I dont know, but most older guys I know dont ski on that short of skis. the oldest guy I know is 84 and skis on 165.

if you didnt push your tails around. you would be more efficient, have more control, and be easy on your body. with better control and without getting tired as much you will end up going faster. I dont care how old you are but you will end up going faster. Now that you have more control, arent getting tired as much, and you are going faster. You would soon find those skis are fairly short for someone who is 5'6.

this a really a discusion for the technique forum
but pushing your tail around, with your feet together is pretty poor form, considering you have skis that will let you turn differently now.
Exactly. This guy posted in the Gear forum. So, stop picking on his technique.
Some kids like going to the sledding hill with a runner sled, some with a flying saucer. Both have fun.
post #46 of 55
oldschool, you are cool. Keeping it real. Short carvers are fine for me too. I'll ski them anywhere. I used mine for ten years, and replaced them last year with some that are slightly better (a little bit longer and wider, 170cm, 68mm waist), because the short ones are going out of fashion.

There is a lot that goes into whether or not you have fun. Weather, snowpack, equipment, clothing, skill, experience, who you are skiing with, fitness, and state of mind to name a few. If you are on equipment made during this century, you should be able to have fun.

Concerning the new technique, practice on very easy terrain until you can ski arc-to-arc then move up to easier blues. That's how I learned to carve but I never took it much beyond that, so maybe I don't know what I'm talking about. I do think I incorporate some elements of arcing into my skiing on steeper slopes. Your new skis will take you on a journey of discovery if you want to go. Enjoy the ride!
post #47 of 55

keeping at it

Howdy, I have tried the shoulder width apart carveing turn and it just does not seem to be for me. After a few attempts the skis and knees are firmly locked together. I like the shorter skis, they are fun and easy. I can turn very quickly with them, they work well on the moguls and the groomed. I guess I'm just old school. But to get back to the point, I aint no spring chicken any more, there is no denying it. For people who are in the mid to late 50s who ski the smooth elegant old fashioned way, I suggest that you give some shorter lengths a try. I have been enjoying them.
post #48 of 55
Right on, that's what I'm talking about.
post #49 of 55
Modern short skis have a lot going for them, even if you don't ski them the way they were built to be skied. My 165 cm Fischer WC SCs are much more stable than an old 200 cm SL ski at speed (even the ones with chicken hearts or VAS plates stuck on 'em). The added shape makes the front and rear of the edge grip harder and since those ends are closer to you they are easier to control for non-arced turns. The shorter length is easier to maneuver through tight moguls. The softer longitudinal flex is also easier in moguls. Mind you the added side cut doesn't help in moguls. So even if you ski without arcing, the new shorter shapelier skis do make it easier.

However, you really should learn to arc them on their edges, just for the fun of it. My advice: forget about how wide your stance is, don't worry if your knees and skis are together, just tip both skis up on their edges and ride the edges around in a few arcs. Then move on and experiment from there.
post #50 of 55
Yeah ride the edges. The bases are for standing in line.
I like short ones and I like long ones. I like skinny one and I like fat ones. But most of all I like the ones I get to ride.
post #51 of 55
Quote:
Originally Posted by Trekchick View Post
My husband is almost 52 and got a PE last year.
His fav skis are Blizzard Cronus 180cm, and Volkl RaceTiger(IPT) 180.
But then he still races dirt bikes too.
I'm almost 55 and have a pair, don't care what they look like actually!
post #52 of 55

Love This Thread!

Looks like I'm in good company here. I'm 58, 6 ft, 175 lb and didn't get serious about downhill until I hit 49, was a Nordic skier before that. I ski mostly blues, easy ungroomed and the smaller jumps in the terrain park on Dynastar Troublemakers, a nice forgiving twin-tip. I also have an old set of Salomon Pocket Rockets (soft, fat, fun, great in powder and slush), Dynastar Big Trouble (wide, stiff, probably too much ski for me, but a real blast in the morning when I actually have energy) and Rossignol Scratch Sprayer FS (beginner park ski and easy-handling twin-tip), my choice for mid-week night skiing when all I want to do is float down a few green runs before heading home. I used to ski on traditional straight boards, then decided to check out twin-tips because I heard they were easy to handle. As you can see by my "quiver", I am now a confirmed twin-tip addict. I highly recommend them for older skiers looking for a fun, forgiving ski. And it's kind of fun when the park rats stare at me in disbelief in the lift line.
post #53 of 55
I was looking for the over 60 post but this will due. Several years ago at age 52 myself and a friend of mine were cooking Killington for all we had. I had been on Volkl GS race skis for about 20 years, and had moved to a 198 G31 Vertigo. (yellow and black). The next year I hit Wistler and could not stop the burning in my legs and could not figure it out. Finally after a lot of trial I moved to the 194 G4. I could ski this all day and still had the edge grip and stability I wanted. Two years ago I started teaching again on a little but great hill in Ohio and needed a shorter pair. Went with the 178 G4s again and no problem staying on them all day. I also have mounted a pair of Volkl G3 Vertigo in size 181. (Gray and black and stiff) They are fat and stiff and I have not tried them yet. Cant wait for the ice for these babys. Now a shop manager has been beating on me to buy a pair of K2 Recons for 2 years. I bought them in 181 which measures a 184 no matter what the ski says. Never found a ski better then the upper end Volkls for the east. So my quiver is complete and at 61 that is about as short a ski as I can get myself to ski on. I will be going to Mt. Snow for New Years and we will see wich one can smoke the big GS turns and give me my need for speed.
post #54 of 55
I'm 62, 5' 10", 175 lbs, and been getting back into resort skiing for about 5 years after years of mostly backcountry. Currently on 170 ac4's, and 183 goats. I love both skis. Maybe improved technique has made up for an older body.
post #55 of 55
I look stupid on this skis too, and I'm only 52... yikes, I can't believe I'm 52...
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Ski Gear Discussion