New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

280 pound skier

post #1 of 21
Thread Starter 

So heres the deal. I have been skiing for about 1 year.

 

I am lucky and get to ski about 2 to 3 times a week, for a long ski season (we easily have another month or two left). I got into it last year and have progressed significantly, as I am comfortable on all black runs with the exception of hard icy bumps, although I am working at  this and getting better. I am comfortable with steep soft bumps and tree runs, and thanks to some good coaching, I seem to have pretty good technique. I ski the east, mostly hardpack and ice but it even has been not a bad year for powder (at least for us).

 

At the start of this season I bought my first pair of skis-used 177 bandit X's. I like them and they are really growing on me. However, I dont feel like they give me any pop out of a turn..although, I have never really felt this with any ski before perhaps because, I weigh about 280 and am 6'2. I am a competitive weightlifter and am very strong. I am in good shape and have been an athlete (played football) for alot of my life. And now I love to ski.

 

Anyhow, its the end of the season for most and I am looking at picking up new skis while there are sales going on and I have a few questions.

 

Is anybody on here this big? What do you ski?

 

Will a newer ski be a significant step up? Or should I keep skiing these for another year. I don't mind them, but I wonder if I am missing something.

 

I have asked some sales people about my predicament. They seem to point me to the stiffest skis that they know of. I have had recommendations of AC50's, AC30's and Tigersharks. Is this too much ski for me?  These skis were a little more than I wanted to spend, but I dont mind spending money for a good pair of skis. Demoing skis like this is really not a possibility this year.

 

Any thoughts on this? I would appreciate any help-Red

post #2 of 21

Skis get stiffer as you go up in the performance level (with many exceptions) and skis get stiffer within any model line as they're made longer.

 

With your height, weight, and strength, you need a very stiff ski to avoid overpowering the ski.  This is just what you're describing.  You will need a high performance ski in the longest (stiffest) length made in that line of skis.  Your ability level may suggest an intermediate level ski, but with your evident natural athleticism, number of days on the snow, and strength, you might outgrow one of those soon.

 

You really need to demo skis.  Or, just find a very good deal on a top line, max length ski in that line, and buy it knowing that you might recycle it for something else next year.

 

Peter Keelty's realskiers.com $20 subscription web site has the most useful ski reviews I've found.  His reviews have been very helpful to me for picking skis that best suit my style.  Peter personally replies to questions from his subscribers, including questions exactly like yours.  That would be money very well spent.

 

 

post #3 of 21
Thread Starter 

Thanks for the reply. That is pretty much what I thought.

 

I guess I would rather save the money this year and put it towards skis that I have demoed and liked next year rather than just blow cash this year and hope. Thanks for the advice on the website; I will check it out.

post #4 of 21

Hey Red,

 

I'm 6'2 and 240 so I can relate I think.

In my experience the moment I went from rental ski's to my first bought GS boards, I made a huge leap in progress! So, yes it would make a big difference for you also I think. Bought several ski's the last couple of years, Atomic GS, Volkl race tigers, and own currently the Volkl supersport 5 star ti in 175. I really like this ski as a groomer ski. (I also have the Katana's 197 as a powderboard). The supersport is no longer made and replaced by the Tigershark series. Even in 175 this ski performs really well and I have no trouble whatsoever. No chatter or anything. It is in retrospective a little short though. I guess I would go for around 185 if I'm gonna replace the 5 *.

Demo if you can in several lengths and you'll find the tigersharks a blessing I think. So no, they are not to much ski for you!

post #5 of 21

Hi Red,

I'm 6'05" 280 and can ski the whole mountain. I've skiied in all conditions with Volkl AC 30's or last years AC 3's.  I've tried other skis and all were to soft. These skiis will serve your needs quite well in everything.  Deep powder is a bit of a challenge because at our weight we don't float as easy as somebody 100 pounds or more lighter.  When it's deep rent fatties, that's what I do.

 

post #6 of 21

I'm 6'3" 285 skied 34 years. Was always on GS skis due to my size and strength. Now skiing Nordica Hot Rod Top Fuels. Would never go back. Try some. 

post #7 of 21

I sort of know what you mean -- 6'1" here, maxed out around 235 lbs a couple years ago and settled around 195-200 lb right now.  I definitely overpowered skis when I was heavier, and even now I have a hard time getting comfortable on a shorter ski -- often times there is not enough "ski" up front when I really work them.  Two factors you definitely want to keep in your head are the ski build and the length you choose, because both affect how much ski is supporting you.  In your case, I think you can automatically look towards the longest ski of whatever model you are interested in, so that simplifies things a bit!

 

I will throw out a recommendation -- Head iM88 in 186cm.  I just bought a pair after demoing them several times over the years, and find they are more than enough ski for my needs. This is the first ski I have tried in a while that doesn't have a speed limit I can find, and never seems lacking for support.  It has a racy GS feel to it, yet it does amazingly well in powder and crud (where the snow bends it fairly well).  The ski easily takes on a variety of turn shapes, which I found really enhances its overall versatility.  I finally jumped on the iM88s now because next year's replacement model -- the Peak 88 -- apparently lost a lot of its beef and character.  Head removed the metal layers and dumbed down the ski for a wider audience, which is a pity.

 

I think you are smart to demo, but if you decide to go for a pair of the iM88s, let me know -- a relative of mine is selling his new ones cheap (too much ski for him) and they look brand new to me -- I don't think he put more than 3-4 days on them.  He will sell them with the bindings or flat.  I can send pics if you're interested.

post #8 of 21

6'3", 225 in summer, 245 after Thanksgiving. 

 

My concrete blades are 178 Atomic M2tron 9+'s, best all mountain in my mind.

 

Well constructed for truck drivers, give 'em all ya got, they'll take it.

 

 

post #9 of 21
Thread Starter 

Thanks for the advice everyone. It really is nice to talk to people that have experienced the same things as me, as I cant find any people that I ski with who are my size. And its a little frustrating since I am relatively new to this and have never skied at a lighter weight, so I don't really know what it is "supposed" to feel like. You have all helped out greatly.

 

For the most part, all of your advice seems to point to me demoing a pair of the skis you mention.

 

And thanks for the tip young5797 about renting powder skis. You are right, I dont float well. But then again, for all the powder skiing I do in a year, it makes sense to rent on the days that I do get to powder ski and put the cash into a ski that can deal with crud and ice well. Thanks

 

I just saw a great deal on year old new 185 AC20's, which I might take a chance on at the price, but I am worried about it being too soft. Is this ski going to be too soft for me?

 

Skier219, send me a pm and we can talk about those skis.

post #10 of 21

Yeah, the AC20s are probably too soft -- that's a lower level ski.  I'll PM you about the 88s. 

post #11 of 21
Thread Starter 

Just an update for everyone. Demoed the AC30's today in 170. Definitely not too much ski for me, in fact I thought that they were surprisingly soft. Would have liked to tried a longer one. They were alot of fun and they edged like crazy. Today was a classic eastern day:icy with hardpack.

 

Tried some Salomon ski in a 177..Mostly Black, stiff as hell. I have no idea what it was, but I and everybody else who skied it hated it. I heard that it was a tornado or a torrent. Does anybody have an ideas?

 

Tomorrow, AC-50's and tigershark. Should be a good day.

 

 

 

 


Edited by RedRoast - 3/15/2009 at 12:46 am
post #12 of 21

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by RedRoast View Post

 

Just an update for everyone. Demoed the AC30's today in 170. Definitely not too much ski for me, in fact I thought that they were surprisingly soft. Would have liked to tried a longer one. They were alot of fun and they edged like crazy. Today was a classic eastern day:icy with hardpack.

 

Tried some Salomon ski in a 177..Mostly Black, stiff as hell. I have no idea what it was, but I and everybody else who skied it hated it. I heard that it was a tornado or a torrent. Does anybody have an ideas?

 

Tomorrow, AC-50's and tigershark. Should be a good day.

 

 

 

 


Edited by RedRoast - 3/15/2009 at 12:46 am

 

170 is too short for your height/weight. I'm 6'4 down to 205 from 245 and I cant even imagine anything that short. Make sure the AC50 is at least the 177 if not the 184.

 

Just my 0.02

 

J.

post #13 of 21

another stiff ski, and you want a stiff ski, Dynastar Legend Pro 184.

but this is wider than what you are enjoying as demos. my bad.

 

all the german/austrian/swiss manufacturers produce a stiff ski in their lineup. check them out.

post #14 of 21

Agree on the length -- should be at least nose height. 

post #15 of 21

i am 6' and 165 pounds, and i would never trust a marker biometric toe (the integrated binding on volkl's ac line of skis) to hold me in at MY weight. yes, i know dropping hate on marker somehow works it's way into EVERY conversation, but this is a LEGIT concern for someone of YOUR size and strength. i have been skiing for almost 20 years and am an aggressive skier. i typically ride rossi axial2 bindings on a din of 10, and have had some SCARY crashes (like straightlining a 45* slope on 193 gs skis) on marker bindings with the same din where the sequence of events went: (1) lose ski, (2) crash. if you are going to be held hostage to a binding, i would seriously recommend not going with some chintzy 12 or 14 din maker biometric toe. check out the dynastar contact 4x4 or rossi cx80 for skis with race-ski-like grip and added width for versatility (the 4x4 being a little more off-piste and the cx80 being a little carvier). and the kicker? at least both skis hold you hostage to axial2 bindings.

 

oh, and seriously, your skis are way to short. my 125 pound, 16 year old sister rides skis in the high 160's to low 170's. granted, thoses are her freeride skis, which should be skied longer than groomer skis, and we ski out west, but still...

post #16 of 21
Thread Starter 

lukc, thanks for the tip on the 4x4's, they have been on my radar and I do want to check them out.

 

I do realize that the skis that I was demoing are too short for me. But, I am lucky to just get to try these skis out as I am on a small mountain in the east. Most dealers don't even stock stiff skis like the ones I have been trying, let alone in the bigger lengths. But, I figure demoing a ski in a shorter length is better than not demoing it at all.

 

Case in point. Today was 168 tigershark 8 foots and 170 AC 50s. The general consensus on the latter ski today is that it is way too stiff for most people.

 

I enjoyed the Tigershark. Alot of fun, very unlike what I normally ski. But I was way too big for it..they felt like toy skis.They could carve a pretty nice tight little turn though. Really werent that bad at speed though.

 

Now for the AC 50s. At first they felt like paddles on my feet after the tigershark morning. After I got used to them....Wow, I love the AC 50's. I really didn't expect to like them this much. They edge like crazy, carve on a dime and are rock solid at speed. And this is the first time that I felt like I could actually put some weight on the ski and flex it. It was a nice feeling, and I could load the tips up and get some spring out of them. Cool Cool Cool. By far my favorite ski so far. Even hard moguls were good. But yes, I would like to try them in a longer length. Alas, this is the only one the dealer has.

 

I would really like to try a bigger pair of 10 or 12ft tiger sharks. They just might be the ticket. I figure, I will keep this thread going as a public service to all the grizzly bears out there.

 

Thanks again for all the advice everyone!

post #17 of 21

If you liked the AC50s I think you should take a look at the Nordica Hellcat as well.  It is what I ski and I am 6'2 245lbs, similar build as you.

 

I ski it in a 178, however I ski primarily in michigan, east coast you probably will want the 185.  Its edgy for a mid fat with a 90 waist and it is very comfortable at speed.  Blasts through crud all day long also and does fairly well in deeper snow.  My favorite all mountain ski for sure.

 

I felt the same way about the tigersharks. I demoed the tigershark 12ft with the gimmicky power switch and did not like it all no matter what position the switch was in.  Too small of a ski for someone our size in my opinion.  It would edge well but it became rather unstable at speed as it would only do smaller radius turns for me.  Once I got up to speed I felt as if I was a trainwreck just waiting to happen.

 

 

I would not be afraid to demo or even buy skis short, especially being on a smaller mountain.  Riding a midfat ski in a shorter length (175-186) is a perfect compromise, it will give you more versatility and allow for shorter turns, but at the same time you will still be comfortable at speed and in crud.

 

 

post #18 of 21
Thread Starter 

Thanks for the tip on the Hellcats. I will look into them.

 

I am intrigued by the contact 4 x 4's. I hear they are a very stiff ski. Has any of the bigger people ever tried them?

post #19 of 21

RR,

 

Im similar weight height and build that you are. The Contact 4x4 is by far one of my personal favorites within this category for bugger guys. It is 75mm underfoot and plenty stiff for you to not feel under powered, a very nice GS feeling ski. I'd highly recommend checking out this review for the Dynastar Contact 4x4.

 

Cheer,

Sierra_canuck

post #20 of 21


 

Quote:
Originally Posted by RedRoast View Post

 

Thanks for the tip on the Hellcats. I will look into them.

 

I am intrigued by the contact 4 x 4's. I hear they are a very stiff ski. Has any of the bigger people ever tried them?


 Hi RR,

 

I demoed the 178cm 4x4 last year in Utah. A top ski and very beefy. I was 245 lbs at the time. I actually have been skiing a 172cm 4x4 that I purchased from Dawgcatching. I lost a few pounds, I'm now 220. The 172cm 4x4 is beefy enough for high speed skiing at major western resorts. The ski is great on ice.

 

I think you could easily go with the 178cm 4x4 without overpowering it. The ski will be more responsive than some of the midfats you've tried.

 

Michael

post #21 of 21

6'1" 200lb here, and I bought the 178cm 4x4.  I am selling them (skied 3 days, see gear swap, $410 shipped) because they are a bit too short-turning for my tastes -- they reminded my why I don't like short turning skis.  But otherwise, they are great skis and plenty of "ski" for my height/weight.  Normally, I can find the speed limit on my shorter skis, but not on these.  They feel like a longer ski underfoot and are stiff in the middle, yet the softer tips and tails allow you to go into variable snow without any problems.  I loved everything about the ski except for the 16m radius.

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Ski Gear Discussion