EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › Ski Gear Discussion › Short fat ski for a short fat girl
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Short fat ski for a short fat girl

post #1 of 25
Thread Starter 

Okay, I am not really fat but I am 5' 140 lbs.   I'm looking for my first skis and I would appreciate any advice anyone has for me.

 

I am an intermediate skier and do about 50% on/off-piste but probably more off as I learn my way around a bit better.  I'm comfortable skiing on anything groomed in the rental skis but my friends like to ride in the deep stuff and I want to ski with them!  I have had a difficult time keeping the rental skis from getting bogged down.

 

I am not an aggressive or fast skier.  I like to chill and have fun but I would like to be able to keep up with my pals.

 

I have been looking at the Icelantic Scout Sft, the Line Celebritys, the K2 Bad Apples and the Rossignol S7 Youth skis.

 

Does anyone have any suggestions for me?  My budget is $400 or less for the skis.

 

I'm leaning towards the Scout Sft but I'm worried that it won't be enough ski to grow into as I improve and that it might not be fast enough to keep up.

 

Thanks!

post #2 of 25

At 140lb, any of junior skis will fold under you like a cheap card table. You need an adult ski. May I suggest the Icelatic Pilgram in a 152, a 90mm waisted ski that WILL ski well and you should be able to find leftovers in the "Low 300's" plus shipping to AK. Line Afterbang is another option. 

post #3 of 25

My 10 yo lad is around about the same as you (same weight but 2' taller). Kids skis just don't cut it as mentioned so I recently purchased him some used Troublemakers @155. HIs skiing and confidence jumped dramatically. we just got back from a weeks Spring skiing and he was hitting icy steeps in the morning, hitting every little jump that he could find and smashing through heavy slush in the arvo. He was doing stuff that he never did before on his kids skis. Almost bought him some Afterbangs but went with the Troublemakers.

post #4 of 25

Afterbangs???  I must disagree.  Afterbangs were designed as a jib specific ski.  It doesn't sound to me like she's looking for a park ski for rails.

post #5 of 25
Quote:
Originally Posted by JsNeagle View Post

Afterbangs???  I must disagree.  Afterbangs were designed as a jib specific ski.  It doesn't sound to me like she's looking for a park ski for rails.


Have you skied it? Even with it being a symmetric twin, it skis well past it's price point. It is also one of the most environmentally friendly skis out there with the most minimal use of plastics and dyes. 

post #6 of 25

At the risk of pissing off Daveluri....  I'd suggest my 169 Nordica Enforcers.  A great ski for crud and powder that also is pretty good on the groomed.  I skied Them about 6 times and was forced to conclude they were too short for me.  They may be too advanced for you.  They are in great condition and come with PX12 bindings for $300.  Well inside your budget.  If they are what you want, they are a great deal on a virtually new ski.

post #7 of 25
Thread Starter 

Thanks for the suggestion.  I have been looking at the Pilgrims but I worried that they wouldn't be fat enough.  I'm not sure where I got the idea that my skis needed to be at least 95 underfoot to work in the deep heavy snow but after looking around I'm a bit skeptical that I'd be able to get something that fat up on edge if it were icey or even hard-packed out.

post #8 of 25

I think the Enforcer is 98 under foot.  For me that is not too wide to get good edge angles.  It has a nice sidecut which helps with carving.  There are lots of opinions out there about ski width and versatility.  My one quiver ski would be my Gotomas at 105.  I ski in JH which is not the same as the east coast or AK.  If I had bought the Enforcer in a 177 or a 183? I would not have the Gotomas.  I personally think many people ski on skis that are too wide because they are fashionable.  It comes down to personal preference and experience.  Any ski that is intended as a one quiver ski will have biases towards one thing or another.  If you have the time and ability to demo or use some friends skis you should quickly learn what you like.  Good luck with your search.

 

BTW  169 may be too long for you, but the ski is a twin tip so it skis a bit shorter than that.  I weigh 165 so I think your weight may be appropriate for that length.  

post #9 of 25
Thread Starter 

Thanks for the info.  I think 169 would be too long for me.  I am very short (5') and I don't ski very fast. 

 

You are right that it would be good to try things out but where I am is pretty limited.  Actually I asked to rent a pair of fat skis (they have a few different demos for people to rent out at our mountain) but they didn't have anything short enough for me.  I think they started around 160 and I'm looking for something 155 or shorter.

 

I agree with what you say about people skiing on fat skis because they are fashionable but my experience has been a lot of time being bogged down in deep snow and trying to figure out how to simultaneously lean forward into my turns and lean back out of the snow without losing control.  Is this just user error or will fatter skis help?  At the same time I do not want to lose the confidence I have on the groomers, I like to be in control where there are a lot of people and we often have hardpack and icey conditions.  I'm sure there are skis out there that do it all!

 

On the other hand since I haven't really tried any fatter skis and I'm just learning I will probably adjust to whatever I get and chalk any poor performance up to my own learning curve.

post #10 of 25

A 169 Enforcer is way too much for a 5; 140lb intermediate girl

post #11 of 25

Yeah she's 152 cm herself.  You're offering her a ski 17 cm taller than her?

post #12 of 25

Line Celebrity 90 in a 151 or 158. You might be able to find older models for a good price. They'll work well on groomers and like to go off piste! And they are a forgiving ski. 

 

Or you could try the K2 Missdemeanor in a 159: http://www.the-house.com/8954k2mdw9zz-k2-missdemeanor-skis.html?utm_source=froogle&utm_medium=ppc&utm_campaign=shopcomparefeed&CAWELAID=211468778 .

post #13 of 25

No Problem...  The length is long.  Too long for your height, but OK for your weight.  Definitely too much ski if you aren't feeling aggressive.  If you go to demo again and they only have 160s I would suggest taking them out for a spin.  It won't hurt you and will broaden your base of experience as to how you feel about the width and shape of the ski.  Remember most twin tips will ski shorter than non-twins because of less running length.  While 17 cm taller than your height can be a lot....  5 cm is about 2" and not a deal killer for a demo.  When you do buy then getting the "right" length will be more important as the deal becomes permanent.  IMO weight is as important as height in ski selection

 

Powder is confusing and frustrating until you learn how.  At least it took me a long time to get it.  There is currently another thread about it and there have been many others before and there will be many more.  At it's most basic it uses the same movements and skills as other snow conditions.  Fat skis make it easier beyond any doubt, but are not necessary.  What is the most helpful IMO is solid basic skiing skills.  You need to be centered over your skis.  Neither leaning forward into your turns nor leaning back out of the snow.  Fatter skis will help, but the problem is user error.  There are skis out there that can do it all, but they don't do all of it well and they generally won't do all things for every skier.  If you are spending a lot of time skiing in deep snow with some groomer days then something in the 90s is probably a good choice.  If your skiing is more groomer oriented with smaller dumps then something in the 80s might be a better fit.  

 

In the 90-100 range I like the Enforcer more than most other skis I have tried.  I find the original Gotoma to be a bit softer and slightly wider than the Enforcer.  My wife skis the Gotoma in a 168 and weighs about the same as you, but is 7" taller.  I also like the K2 Coomback.  In the 80-90 range I like the Dynastar Sultans, the Fischer Wateas, and the Rossi Phantoms.  I have no personal experience with Line skis, but they are very popular here on Epic.  I would recommend listening to Philpug as he has been selling skis for a long time.

  
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by alligator View Post

Thanks for the info.  I think 169 would be too long for me.  I am very short (5') and I don't ski very fast. 

 

You are right that it would be good to try things out but where I am is pretty limited.  Actually I asked to rent a pair of fat skis (they have a few different demos for people to rent out at our mountain) but they didn't have anything short enough for me.  I think they started around 160 and I'm looking for something 155 or shorter.

 

I agree with what you say about people skiing on fat skis because they are fashionable but my experience has been a lot of time being bogged down in deep snow and trying to figure out how to simultaneously lean forward into my turns and lean back out of the snow without losing control.  Is this just user error or will fatter skis help?  At the same time I do not want to lose the confidence I have on the groomers, I like to be in control where there are a lot of people and we often have hardpack and icey conditions.  I'm sure there are skis out there that do it all!

 

On the other hand since I haven't really tried any fatter skis and I'm just learning I will probably adjust to whatever I get and chalk any poor performance up to my own learning curve.

post #14 of 25
Thread Starter 

Thanks for all your help guys!  My friend skis the Line Celebritys so I will see if she will let me try them.  I'm going to investigate the Icelantic Pilgrims too as I've seen some good deals for those and I like the company.

 

I can't wait for the snow to start!

post #15 of 25
Quote:
Originally Posted by alligator View Post

Thanks for all your help guys!  My friend skis the Line Celebritys so I will see if she will let me try them.  I'm going to investigate the Icelantic Pilgrims too as I've seen some good deals for those and I like the company.

 

I can't wait for the snow to start!



Line now makes a Celebrity 100 as well, so you might check that out. Looking at the specs, it seems quite similar to the Prophet 100, just with a shorter length (and probably softer flex).

post #16 of 25
Quote:
Originally Posted by alligator View Post

Thanks for all your help guys!  My friend skis the Line Celebritys so I will see if she will let me try them.  I'm going to investigate the Icelantic Pilgrims too as I've seen some good deals for those and I like the company.

 

I can't wait for the snow to start!


The Pilgrim, while it might be shorter in length in a 152, it is towering in spirit. And yes, it is a great company and a very good product. 

post #17 of 25

a good ski that my family used when I had a kid who needed a powder ski. We found the original Rossi B-3, 95 or 98 waisted in a 158. Then there was the B-4 (or this years equivalent if you don't find an early model on sale) would be the SC or Phantom 87 or 94, in that range. I bet they make it in a 158 or around there. It would be ideal, a very damp, forgiving ski and fat enough for powder. Icelantic originally was a niche company for smaller skiers, making powder skis in shorter lengths that other companies wouldn't take a chance on, a good company to support.

 

Companies should not change the name if it's the same ski; needless confusion.

post #18 of 25
Quote:
Originally Posted by tetonpwdrjunkie View Post

At the risk of pissing off Daveluri....  I'd suggest my 169 Nordica Enforcers.  A great ski for crud and powder that also is pretty good on the groomed.  I skied Them about 6 times and was forced to conclude they were too short for me.  They may be too advanced for you.  They are in great condition and come with PX12 bindings for $300.  Well inside your budget.  If they are what you want, they are a great deal on a virtually new ski.



Well, I'm totally pissed. Now let me see why. That's it, 14cm too long, and the Enforcer is not a ski that gives that back anywhere in ease of use. Oh, and that you would accept profits from putting someone who knows less than you on the wrong ski. for shame.

post #19 of 25

It was a legitimate recommendation.  I have little to gain from ripping off any skier for $300.  I suggested it based on her weight, budget, and desired use.  As for the ski...  I liked it...  A lot.  I found it versatile and not hard to ski at all.  Then again I have not been an intermediate for many years and I have always been an aggressive skier.  I would always recommend that anyone buying anything do some research.  Not hard for anyone to google and see if the skis description is something that interests them.  I would never pressure someone to buy any ski.  A good deal is one where both party's are happy.  We are talking about a ski and binding with 6 days of use on them for $300.  If they were picked up in Jackson I would include a full tune and remount in the deal.  I'm not exactly profiting at that price.      

post #20 of 25

man, I'm totally kidding. the ski IS a little long, thas' all. your integrity is a given, otherwise I wouldn't mention anything. I guess the dude shaking his head is supposed to be used for true disdain, but I didn't mean it that way at all. I was trying to dig out the "at the risk of pissing....." reference.

post #21 of 25
Thread Starter 

It is a great deal on an awesome ski!  If only I were a little taller... 

 

I am leaning towards the Line Celebritys now.  My best friend has them and since I will mostly be skiing with her, I figure if they work for her they'll work for me.  She is close to my size, (5'3 and around the same weight) and she says the 151s seem a bit short for getting through the flats but pretty great most everywhere else. 

post #22 of 25
Quote:
Originally Posted by tetonpwdrjunkie View Post

It was a legitimate recommendation. 

 

A self described an intermediate woman is usually as technically proficient as a self described advanced bro and she lives in AK so its all relative. I thought the enforczar was as good recommend as anything posted so far and its a decent price.  Yea its a lot of ski for a true intermediate but if your goal is to keep up with friends in the deep stuff off trail you will need something stable. And at least its a ski that she can grow into. I don't anything that could be described as 150ish park ski will help the OP progress technique nor will they work for keeping up with anyone in the deep stuff off trail. But what do I know. Also I think that most women are sold skis that are much too short for them. Dear OP, have you tried any 160-165cm skis?

 

My recommend would be buy boots first or if you have them, get a good boot fitter to check your fit in them. This is key. Then get something like the noridca conquer: http://shop.starthaus.com/store/pc/viewPrd.asp?idcategory=&idproduct=3630

 

Probably as good of a compromise between carving and off trail performance as the OP will find. Enough carving to let her progress technique wise and enough stability to not make her friends wait quite so long off trail. For a true intermediate, you will never "keep up" with anyone "good" in the deep stuff no matter what skis you are on. 


Edited by tromano - 10/4/10 at 9:45pm
post #23 of 25

I like the Nordica Conquer.  It's the woman's version of the Jet Fuel Ti.  I skied the 170 Jet Fuel for a season as a one quiver ski.  It's pretty good overall, but it is a burly ski.  The 170 was perfect for me while I was working on technique.  I might buy the 178 now, but still use the 170 sometimes and it still feels stout.  I think the OP would be looking at something like a 152 for this one.  I would call it a wide carver with a strong hard snow bias.  It rips through crud, sinks a bit in the powder, rails on groomers, and can be a handful in the bumps.  The older ones had a graphic that looked like SEX in front of the toe piece.  One ski can do it all....  It just won't everything well, or for every skier.  I liked the 178 Mythic Rider I used last season better as a versatile mid-fat than the Jet Fuel.  $399 for a Conquer is a fantastic price.  Remember this price includes the binding.  Some people don't like system bindings.  One nice thing about them is that they are easily adjustable and that helps immensely with resale or friend swap. 

post #24 of 25

Correction...  The Conquer is the woman's version of the Jet Fuel Ca.  Not as burly as the Jet Fuel Ti that I have.  It's also only available in 162 from the link above.  162 might be good, but I would demo.

post #25 of 25

With respect to the length suggestions above, a 169 male ski is way too much ski for a 5' intermediate skier.  I am 5"8, 135, advanced skier and have K2 Phat Luvs in a 160 and Nordica Victory's in a 162.  Both of them work just fine.

A Conquerer in a 162 may work very well for the OP.   Skis that are too long are only going to hinder the OP's progress.   She may be in a transition period where she needs a ski that will do well for the next couple of seasons and then her skills may improve to the point where she wants a different ski.

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 › Short fat ski for a short fat girl