or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Volkl AC30: 170 or 177

post #1 of 17
Thread Starter 
Hi all,

I was lurking around this forum and found a ton of info, but was hoping to get some specific advice for the ski I'd like to buy.

I'm 5'10, 176 lbs, and currently riding on Atomic Beta CarvX 9.18 in 180cm. I was really hoping to get a shorter ski, and have been demoing a few skis in 170 (Apache Recon, Nomad Blackeye, AC50, AC30).

The ski that I really liked was the AC30, but that was the one ski I actaully demoed that in a 177 and not 170 like the others(they didn't have the 170 available). I really liked it, and it didn't feel long. In comparison, my current Atomic's in 180 feel long when I ski them nowadays since demoing all the others in 170.

After researching the forums here and other guides on the net, it seems as though I could use either size. I ski mostly on-piste, but do go off on ocassion. I'm an advanced/expert ability level, but tend to not be overly aggresive.

Just wondering if I should go with the exact ones I demoed (177), or to go with the size I had decided to get previously (170).

Thank you so much in advace for any and all help.....
post #2 of 17
 I think you'll be happier with the 170.  I've got 1" and 10# on you, and my main skis are 168cm Volkl Tigersharks.  They work great on groomers, and handle crud and bumps very well.  I rarely wish they were any longer.  Since the AC30 are 7mm wider at the waist, 177 could be an overkill for your everyday ski. They would be better if you ski powder more than once a year, but for groomed, with occasional off piste, the 170cm will give you a more responsive ride.
post #3 of 17
How big is the mountian you ski the most on? If it is bigger than about 1500 vert, I say get the longest ski you are comfortable on. Better on the steeps and for overall stability. Unless you are on a small hill or like making tight turns all day, I advise longer length.
post #4 of 17
Thread Starter 
Thanks for the advice.

My main mountain is Mammoth, and it's over 3100 vertical feet.

I like the long for its stability and better for powder days, but was looking forward to the short for the lower turning radius and for moguls.....I guess i just have to decide which is more important to me.....
post #5 of 17
I am 160 and 5'9", and my next ski will be in the 170 range. My current ski is 163, but I want the increased surface area for when I ski in deeper snow (I demoed the AC50s and Mantras in 170 and loved them!). Since you are skiing Sierra cement, the 177s may be a bit better for you. However, if you're not comfortable on them, go with what you like.

Out of curiosity, why the AC30s and not the AC50s?
post #6 of 17
From past observations, it seems that
EPIC posts typically suggest to ski 'short'
TGR posts typically suggest 'long'

Perhaps it's due to terrain and type of skis that Posters are on.

There are just too many variables.  However, your original comment, 'I really liked it, and it didn't feel long.' may be an hint your answer.  Demo, and if you like them, buy them.

btw, I'm a much smaller guy than you, and ski mostly in the Sierra and Wasatch mountains.  My skis are in the 167 - 174 range, waist 77 to 101.
post #7 of 17
 ^^^What he said. If you ski faster, or prefer larger radius turns, or ski bigger slopes, go longer. If the reverse, go shorter. I've never skied the 30, but am 10 lbs lighter than you, tried the 40 few years back in both 170 and 177 out west. Ultimately preferred the stability of the 177 in chop and settled, but it was work in close quarters. I'd have chosen the 170 for back east.
post #8 of 17
Thread Starter 
Yeah, it doesn't seem that I could go too wrong either way.....thanks again for all the replies....

To answer the question above: Why the AC30 and not the AC50?

I just found the AC30 a lot more forgiving and it just made the turns seem more seamless than the AC50. I demoed them in back to back days in powder (some packed, some not) at Squaw, and the AC30 did a better job of holding my line. They were both great skis and I would be happy with either, but the AC30 just made the turns feel more natural (less effort I guess)...
post #9 of 17

I have a bought a set of 170,i am 168 tall and weigh 70kg.My personal opinion is i feel comfortable at high speeds and you can really dig the edges in for sharp turns.I ski in Australia at Mt Buller & Mt Hothem the ski surface is a bit of a mixed bag,hard packed,icy,crusty some powder and soft.I ski 95% on-piste,i am an advanced skier,i am very happy with them.

post #10 of 17

Wow this is a no brainer. Hope you went with the 170 I'm 5' 11" 195lbs and ski on 170's or shorter for most of my skis. I bought a pair of AC30's last summer in 170cm. I have been in 170's for 6 or 7 yeas now.

 

I have AC4, AC40's in 170cm my Got's I went longer 177cm

post #11 of 17

I bought the 177cm AC30s on post-season clearance. I'm 5'11, 195 Lbs. The skigenie.com site mentioned above suggests 176-178cm for me. Note to willski4food: The OP said he's 5'10, not 5'6.

post #12 of 17

Helpful thread - thanks! I'm looking at the AC30 for this season for a single-ski quiver because of its versatility and great reviews. I'm 5'8" 130lb and was leaning towards 163cm based on what I'd read here and elsewhere - basically bigger guys skiing 170's - until I plugged my stats into skigenie (thanks for the tip willski4food). With the All Mountain & 50/50 inputs it puts me in a 170, which seems long if you compare my height/weight to others skiing the 170. I classified myself as advanced (not expert though I do often ski challenging terrain) in skigenie, but even if I classify myself as intermediate in skigenie it puts me in 170's when I specify All Mountain & 50/50. I ski Tahoe area, mostly Squaw Valley, and ski the whole mountain. My form is not fantastic, but I do ski everything from groomers to powder to bumps to chutes. I really want to work more on my technique with shaped skis this season. I skied way back when on 190cm skinny skis (always have liked Volkls) and have gone shorter and shorter with the shaped ski trend. 163cm would be the shortest I've ever skied and I was leaning towards it but now not sure. The Volkl website also puts me in 170's based on their "ski tip at forehead rule" for advanced skiers (http://www.volkl.com/ski/faq.php).

 

So whaddya think?

post #13 of 17


 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chadman View Post

Helpful thread - thanks! I'm looking at the AC30 for this season for a single-ski quiver because of its versatility and great reviews. I'm 5'8" 130lb and was leaning towards 163cm based on what I'd read here and elsewhere - basically bigger guys skiing 170's - until I plugged my stats into skigenie (thanks for the tip willski4food). With the All Mountain & 50/50 inputs it puts me in a 170, which seems long if you compare my height/weight to others skiing the 170. I classified myself as advanced (not expert though I do often ski challenging terrain) in skigenie, but even if I classify myself as intermediate in skigenie it puts me in 170's when I specify All Mountain & 50/50. I ski Tahoe area, mostly Squaw Valley, and ski the whole mountain. My form is not fantastic, but I do ski everything from groomers to powder to bumps to chutes. I really want to work more on my technique with shaped skis this season. I skied way back when on 190cm skinny skis (always have liked Volkls) and have gone shorter and shorter with the shaped ski trend. 163cm would be the shortest I've ever skied and I was leaning towards it but now not sure. The Volkl website also puts me in 170's based on their "ski tip at forehead rule" for advanced skiers (http://www.volkl.com/ski/faq.php).

 

So whaddya think?


What do I think?......wellll.......you axed.

 

First thing is.....given you weight........................you don't want a stiff ski which the AC-30 is.

Second............given your terrain/conditions.......you want a versatile ski which the AC-30 isn't.

Third, you are not super accomplished...............so you want a versatile, medium flex ski and the AC-30 is neither.

 

So.......if you really want an AC-anything buy a 163. If you want versatile........read this....http://www.epicski.com/forum/thread/96369/the-crazy-88s-revisited-2011-mini-reviews and you may find some better choices.

 

SJ

post #14 of 17

Ax and ye shall receive. Thanks SJ, good info. Looks like I'm off-piste for this thread now.

CM

post #15 of 17

The extra length is required for float off trail on a ski of that width.  It helps with fore-aft stability too.  If you wer getting an AC 30 for on-piste groomers, then shorter would be better, but not for all mountain.

post #16 of 17

Hi Guys, must admit I'm a bit torn on this. Good thing it's still October :-). I spend at least 50% of my time off-piste, pretty aggressive, and want a ski that performs well in powder and crud. But when I get on the groomers I want a ski that I can flex and carve at my (lighter) weight. I thought the AC30 might be that ski being narrower and less stiff than the AC50, but still in the all mountain category. SJ, I looked at some of the skis in your link ... still in the market for suggestions ...

post #17 of 17

In case anyone is interested I demo'ed skis last weekend. AC30 is totally out for me - too stiff at my weight - good call SJ. They were fine for me on the groomers but in moguls and crud and tight turn situations they did not work so well. I liked the Rossignol S86 at 170cm. They do seem to be the all-round ski described by the latest marketing hype. I also tried other Volkls - Kendo and Mantra at 170cm. The Kendo worked best for me of all the Volkls and carved more cleanly for me than the S86's on groomers. But for bumps, shorter turns, and crud I was better off with the S86's.

 

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