or Connect
EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › Ski Gear Discussion › Length for 2009 Blizzard Magnum 8.1
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Length for 2009 Blizzard Magnum 8.1

post #1 of 15
Thread Starter 
Looking at last season's Magnum 8.1 ski system.  I am trying to decide between the 165cm and 172cm length.  For anyone pretty familiar with these skis, can you suggest the best size for me?  47 years old, 165 pounds, Level 7/8, 5'10" tall, mainly Vermont skiing conditions.  Thanks for your help.
post #2 of 15
 I would say the 172 for you. I was between the 172 and 178 and I am 5'10, 195 and I would go with the 178. 
post #3 of 15

I have a pair of the 8.1's in the 172cm length (and I really like them.)  I'm 55, 175, and 5-8. Though I ski Utah and Colorado almost exclusively now,  I worked and skied in Vermont for many years.

 

I think the 172's will work VERY well for you.

post #4 of 15
 I agree with the 172 length. It will be plenty stable given your weight and a little quicker linking turns. My shop manager skis them in the 178. He is 6'0 - 210 lbs and loves them. You may want to check out this year's skis as well. They changed the toe piece of the binding so it is similar to the Wideride on the Volkl AC.
post #5 of 15
Thread Starter 
Thanks for the replies and advice.  I got a counterpoint opinion from a ski shop carrying the Blizzards.  The opinion of the rep. there (who had both 165cm and 172cm available) was to go with the 165cm.  His logic was that the ski is plenty stable and, as long as the stability is there, going with the shorter length will make bumps, glades and tighter spots more fun.  I am sure I could line up 10 ski experts and and get 10 different opinions on anything, but what are your thoughts regarding the rep's logic?  Thanks again ...as of now, I can get either length at a really nice deal, so I would like to make a selection and go with it.

Thanks again ... more opinions and information = better decisions = happier skier!!
post #6 of 15
Thanks for the replies and advice.  I got a counterpoint opinion from a ski shop carrying the Blizzards.  The opinion of the rep. there (who had both 165cm and 172cm available) was to go with the 165cm.  His logic was that the ski is plenty stable and, as long as the stability is there, going with the shorter length will make bumps, glades and tighter spots more fun.  I am sure I could line up 10 ski experts and and get 10 different opinions on anything, but what are your thoughts regarding the rep's logic?  Thanks again ...as of now, I can get either length at a really nice deal, so I would like to make a selection and go with it.

Thanks again ... more opinions and information = better decisions = happier skier!!

more opinions and information = information constipation = confused skier!! 

Now, if you are looking for more information (hence me clouding the decision) split the difference and go with the 8.7 in a 167cm. . As far as the reps reasoning (and I hope this isn't my rep because I am sure I will hear it later, sorry ), in a perfect world, yeah but in reality I do not recall too many situations that I was in that I said, if these skis were just 3" shorter...

In reality, I don't either ski is "wrong", myself along with the others here (3 out of 3 so far), think the 172 is the better choice.
post #7 of 15
Thread Starter 
Phil,

Thanks.  I am sold on the 172cm length for the 8.1.  I actually did consider going with the "tweener" size in the 8.7, so you are tempting me in that direction!  What's the best price around for the 8.7 system?  The deal on the 8.1 might be too good to pass up.

Thanks again for your advice!

Matt
post #8 of 15
The 8.7 ROCKS...  You should SERIOUSLY consider this ski...  Better than the 8.1 IMO... 
post #9 of 15
I think of the 8.1 as a primarily hard snow ski and that's not a bad thing at all. As a western shop, we carry the 8.7 rather than the 8.1. While I've skied both, I also prefer the 8.7 because it is a little softer in the tail and generally more versatile. FWIW....one can ski a primarily groomer oriented ski in fairly short sizes with no problem. Heck, many L-3 instructors ski on 165 slalom skis more or less everyday. Out here in Tahoeland it basically didn't snow from 12-26 to 2-5. During that time, I skied a bunch of skis in the 78-95mm range and the 8.7 was my favored choice.

I think I have a 167 left in the store. If so, I'll beat the best verifiable price by $25.
post #10 of 15
TAKE THAT DEAL!!!!!!!!!!    You Won't regret it.....   VERY fun ski....
post #11 of 15
Thread Starter 
OK all you Blizzard experts ... the more I look, the more I like the Magnum 8.7.  What are the main similarities and differences between that ski and the Titan Cronus IQ?  I am talking about the '08-'09 model for both skis.  I think the upper 80's width range might be a good choice for me and these both fall into that range.

Thanks for all your help!
post #12 of 15
Easy:

The 8.7 is a wide carver. For all it's width, it is still fairly stiff with top and bottom metal. Among it's peers, (AC-50, Jet Fuel, Hellcat) I like the 8.7 better than the others b/c it is not quite as stiff and feels more nimble.

Despite the similar dimensions, the Cronus is a different ski.The Cronus has more of a soft snow bias. It has no metal, is softer overall and lighter. It has less grip and power but is easier going as a western ski. One caution, the 180 Cronus is very good but the 174 is (IMO) a little too soft.

SJ
post #13 of 15
Thread Starter 
Jim,

Thanks.  Did you get the PM's I sent?
post #14 of 15
Nothing recently.................

SJ
post #15 of 15
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by SierraJim View Post

Nothing recently.................

SJ

I just sent another PM.  Not sure what happened to the others ........
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 › Length for 2009 Blizzard Magnum 8.1