EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › Ski Gear Discussion › New pair of skis, its hard to choose....
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

New pair of skis, its hard to choose....

post #1 of 24
Thread Starter 
Hey all so I'm new at this forums and I've been reading a lot of posts by you guys and have learned a good amount. I am 18 years old, 5'10", 150lbs and I've been skiing since I was 3. I'd say that I'm no expert downhill skier but I can go on any trail that you throw at me easily and especially enjoy flying down diamonds and doubles. I'm mostly an east coast groomed trail skier with the occasional mogul/tree(very occasional)/terrain park, and go out west to colorado once every couple of years. I've gone to a couple of ski shops locally although im not near a mountain so i can't demo anything and was looking for last year model ski's since those are a lot less expensive and i can't imagine technology improving in one year.
I've been recommended 2 pairs of ski's:
K2 Stryker's
Volkl Supersport S5

Both i can get anywhere from 400-600$ online with bindings.
As far as boots go, i have a somewhat narrow foot and i found that technica's fit me best and was looking into the technica mega 10's. I was curious what you guys thought of these ski's and boots and if they are up to the level of skiing im interested in. Also, which pair of ski's would you recommend between those two, or possibly any other pair.
Also what size ski's would you recommend?

Thank you in advance!
post #2 of 24
You need more ski than that for "flying down blacks and double blacks".
Something like SS Speed, Atomic SX11, SX12 (there's a pair of 170 SX11 in my local shop for 899 with bindings), Fischer WC, or similar from other manufactures.
post #3 of 24
Quote:
Originally Posted by dsaber View Post
As far as boots go, i have a somewhat narrow foot and i found that technica's fit me best and was looking into the technica mega 10's. !
if you are right about having a narrow foot, then you are wrong about the Mega boots from Tecnica fitting well. That is a high volume 'bucket boot'.
post #4 of 24
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ghost View Post
You need more ski than that for "flying down blacks and double blacks".
Something like SS Speed, Atomic SX11, SX12 (there's a pair of 170 SX11 in my local shop for 899 with bindings), Fischer WC, or similar from other manufactures.
I'm definitely no racer though, you don't think the Volkl supersports would be good enough?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Whiteroom
if you are right about having a narrow foot, then you are wrong about the Mega boots from Tecnica fitting well. That is a high volume 'bucket boot'.
I thought i had a narrow foot at least... the mega's seemed to feel pretty good, i also tried on some nordicas i believe and my arches felt pretty pinched by them

Do you think the mega 10's are a suitable boot? or do you have any other suggestions
post #5 of 24
Thread Starter 
Also, what length do you think would be suitable for me?
post #6 of 24
Quote:
Originally Posted by dsaber View Post
Also, what length do you think would be suitable for me?
Something around 180. Think something bigger and stiffer for "flying down diamonds", something that isn't an intermediate ski.
post #7 of 24
Quote:
Originally Posted by dsaber View Post
I'm definitely no racer though, you don't think the Volkl supersports would be good enough?
Probably if carving round turns all day is what you like. I had them a couple of days - I thought they were a one trick pony. They did it well, but that's all they did. Got pretty boring pretty fast.

And there are some dramatic improvements sometimes in the course of a year (and some dramatic unimprovements too), depending on the brand and the year.
post #8 of 24
Go with some high end mid-fats mid-low 80's. Forget anything less, trust me for all around skiing the SX11's and Supersports are dinosaurs. You lose nothing and gain a lot.
For crissakes you've been skiing since 3 go wider.
post #9 of 24
Quote:
Originally Posted by dsaber View Post
I've been recommended 2 pairs of ski's:
K2 Stryker's
Volkl Supersport S5

Both i can get anywhere from 400-600$ online with bindings.
That is a REALLY high price for those old Volkls. Check out Evogear.com and sierraskis.com for much better prices on much better skis.
post #10 of 24
Quote:
Originally Posted by Treewell View Post
Go with some high end mid-fats mid-low 80's. Forget anything less, trust me for all around skiing the SX11's and Supersports are dinosaurs. You lose nothing and gain a lot.
For crissakes you've been skiing since 3 go wider.
He is on the east coast.

that = boilerplate. Ghost was much more on point.

180 is too long for a guy who weighs 150 lbs. That is the Max. length of many consumer Gs skis nowadays.

i ski on a 177 Gs type ski most of the time and weigh 188. I dare you to keep up with me! My fatter ski is 175cm.

the SX11 was a fabulous ski for it's time and the longest length was a 180.

The OP should check out a Head Monster i.m78 in a 171cm. Great versatitly East-West or either, decent float and great edge grip for a 78mm ski. almost perfect combo of off-piste power and on piste nimble!
post #11 of 24
Quote:
Originally Posted by Atomicman View Post
He is on the east coast.

that = boilerplate. Ghost was much more on point.

180 is too long for a guy who weighs 150 lbs. That is the Max. length of many consumer Gs skis nowadays.

i ski on a 177 Gs type ski most of the time and weigh 188. I dare you to keep up with me! My fatter ski is 175cm.

the SX11 was a fabulous ski for it's time and the longest length was a 180.

The OP should check out a Head Monster i.m78 in a 171cm. Great versatitly East-West or either, decent float and great edge grip for a 78mm ski. almost perfect combo of off-piste power and on piste nimble!
yuor fat skis are too short for someone who is suppose to be as good as you say. but...

high 80s is much to fat for the OP, something in 70mm range would be perfect and around 170cm in lenght.
post #12 of 24
Quote:
Originally Posted by Atomicman View Post
He is on the east coast.

that = boilerplate. Ghost was much more on point.

180 is too long for a guy who weighs 150 lbs. That is the Max. length of many consumer Gs skis nowadays.

i ski on a 177 Gs type ski most of the time and weigh 188. I dare you to keep up with me! My fatter ski is 175cm.

the SX11 was a fabulous ski for it's time and the longest length was a 180.

The OP should check out a Head Monster i.m78 in a 171cm. Great versatitly East-West or either, decent float and great edge grip for a 78mm ski. almost perfect combo of off-piste power and on piste nimble!
I was referring to width stricktly... not length.
I skied the SX 11 in a 180 and "for it' time" was a great ski I agree. Too bad it lasted about 40 days till the core cracked
I'll challenge you anywhere anytime on any run if I'm ever on the West Coast and I'm sure you'll do the same if you ever travel East.
post #13 of 24
Quote:
Originally Posted by dsaber View Post
I'm definitely no racer though, you don't think the Volkl supersports would be good enough?

Supersport 6 stars = yes
Supersport 5 stars = no
S5= no
allstars ok.

170 cm is all you need for groomers.
Get a radius of between 13 and 17 m.

The skis I mentioned are old, but you are on a budget.

Midfats are like an all-season tire. A compromise. By going one step down from race skis you have alread compromised enough. If Midfats gave up nothing you would see folks racing on them in the WC; even Bodie isn't doing that.

If you want to go of piste, then get 176 cm, and a softer ski in slightly wider model, but don't expect to get the same performance out of it on groomers and boiler plate.
post #14 of 24
Quote:
Originally Posted by BushwackerinPA View Post
yuor fat skis are too short for someone who is suppose to be as good as you say. but...

high 80s is much to fat for the OP, something in 70mm range would be perfect and around 170cm in lenght.
Here we go. I know what length works for me. And remeber I've seen you ski.

I just said i.m78 and a 171cm can you not read?

I'd like to see you ski on a monster 88 in a 186 bucko, you know not what you say
post #15 of 24
Quote:
Originally Posted by Atomicman View Post
Here we go. I know what length works for me. And remeber I've seen you ski.

I just said i.m78 and a 171cm can you not read?

I'd like to see you ski on a monster 88 in a 186 bucko, you know not what you say
watching me ski on the net is not watching me ski,you havent seen me ski.
post #16 of 24
Quote:
Originally Posted by BushwackerinPA View Post
watching me ski on the net is not watching me ski,you havent seen me ski.
Coaches have a saying: Video does not lie!
post #17 of 24
Quote:
Originally Posted by Atomicman View Post

i ski on a 177 Gs type ski most of the time and weigh 188. I dare you to keep up with me! My fatter ski is 175cm.
You forgot the most important part - what's the base bevel on those snowlerblades?
post #18 of 24
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jer View Post
You forgot the most important part - what's the base bevel on those snowlerblades?
1/3!!!!!
post #19 of 24
Peanut butter.
post #20 of 24
Quote:
Originally Posted by Atomicman View Post
Coaches have a saying: Video does not lie!
Bushwacker has game. Until I see video of you skiing, I'm going to assume you don't.
post #21 of 24
Butterbean vs Kid Rock
post #22 of 24
Quote:
Originally Posted by telerod15 View Post
Bushwacker has game. Until I see video of you skiing, I'm going to assume you don't.
Look you Rod. I really don't give a F_ _K what you assume. first of all you are in Maryland! It's flat!

Secondly, Bushwacker just had to give me SH_T about the length of my skis. I did not start any of this!! !! Puswacker did. I was just trying to help out the OP with a thoughtfull legitimate suggestion.

No one weighing 150lbs and is 5' 10" should be on a 180 or longer ski.

My older son is 235Lbs. and is 6'1", raced for 10 years and is on a 186 Monster 88. (and guess what I have skied it!!! The 175 is the correct length for me in that ski) He outweighs the OP by over 1/2 of the Op's weight, 85 Lbs.

So you tell me Mr. Tel-a-rod, what ski and what length would you put this guy on????
post #23 of 24
I don't know much about skis, but I'll agree with you and Josh that 70mm x 170cm sounds about right. 18m sidecut. That's what my main pair measure.

Now, I'm bigger than this guy, so probably my skis are too short for me, but going longer (or wider) would give me less sidecut and I need my skis to be fun on groomers. If I had a quiver, I'd have some 160 slaloms. I ski in Maryland. It's flat. Never mind the 4 foot thick slab that slid to ground at Wisp last week.

Whatever length you enjoy, I wasn't getting into that debate.

The video BWPA posts show that he skis well. You are implying he sucks compared to you, and I'm not buying that.
post #24 of 24
I just sold some K2 Strykers -- they suck
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 › New pair of skis, its hard to choose....