Should lightweight skiers ski intermediate skis?

Hi - Probably less about weight per se than hours on the slopes. If you "largely carve rather than skid" your turns, you are a mid to high intermediate, actually. If you felt fatigue in your quads, you were probably sitting back some. That's a natural reaction on hardpack if you feel a bit out of control. Moreover, the "vigorous" weight transfer may have unsettled the ski; modern carvers are designed to be skied without all that stomping on the outside/downhill ski. The CX80, from what I've heard, is aimed more at aggressive advanced to expert skiers, likes forward pressure, lives to carve. So it might well have been a handful.

I'd suggest looking for a ski that can grow with you a bit more. Blizzard 7.6 Magnums, Rossi Avenger 82 Ti's, Salomon Tornado Ti's, Fischer Motive 80's are all great piste skis for lighter skiers that can handle soft snow when needed, will accept some skids, can accommodate you as you get better. 

No, intermediate skiers should.

I remember reading on TGR about some 5'4'' 120 lb euro chick that was destroying on 194 rossi B squads, which would kick my ass at 240 lb.

I have two guesses.

Maybe the skis were not sharp, and the resulting lack of grip caused you to ski differently.

OR maybe you are muscling the ski around a bit instead of controlling it and letting it do the work, which would be indicated by the shorter ski being easier.

Did things improve if you skied faster?

OK, sorry if I misjudged your abilities. But I'd second Ghost's ideas. Particularly the second. Not my impression WC skiers distribute weight like they did a decade ago, and also not my impression that they're the most useful model of how to ski modern shaped skis (since theirs tend to be less so, and they ski them at speeds civilians don't). I have a feeling that you're being overly aggro with your edge changes, too much weight shift before the ski's ready. So it feels squirrelly.  In softer snow, we all get away with technique issues, but on ice, even small problems get magnified. Ghost's totally right about carvers like the CX80; they're designed to do the work for you.

As far as the Tornado, I'm a light guy, and I liked them a lot. Several sites have given them high marks. And here is PK's actual summary:

 "'Much improved," wrote one skier in the 2010 test. "Compares favorably to Volkl's AC30," offered another.

"This is a strong ski for strong skiers who mix it up between the groomed and off-piste. Top end 1-ski-quiver for top end skiers. Requires skill, strength and energy, but certainly worth considering for strong level 8 skiers, level 9 semi pros and actual pros." Didn't check the blogs, perhaps that's where you read the stiffness comment. 

Don't see that he's criticizing its stiffness. The AC30 comparison (which is aimed at high intermediate to expert skiers also) seems apt. It's a ski that requires being driven, with a big upside. But I'm not wed to the Tornado; actually like Blizzards better. Or if you have the $$$, a Kastle MX78. Stocklis in the 70's are sweet too. 

Oh, and a language bit: The CX80 is not a GS ski. It's actually a typical midfat rec carver, sidecut closer to a SL than a GS (think 13 m vs. 27 m). Rec skiers stopped having to choose between toned down SL's and GS's in the late 80's, far as I can recall. But yep, a narrower ski would have given you more bite on the ice. 

Next time you get a chance, try some expert womens skis.

I have a pair of womens dynastar lengends 172's super fun skis.

They have all the charecteristics of the stiffer mens ski, just lighter and softer.

I also have a pair of dynastar course 66's 184's , that tear trenches in boilerplate.

The way you descibe yourself sounds exactly like me weight and ability wise. Myself having a weight outside the normal range for my height stuffs the ski shop guys no end as they just look at you and go 170 plus which isn't always ideal as unless I ski really fast the pressure side of things gets a bit tricky.

I had the same problem when deciding to buy the the Head Titans recently so went for the 163 length as I'm only 140 pounds and 6ft tall as well (not so good for the ladies buts works really good for MTB racing though). I chose these as a I wanted a wider ski underfoot than the 64mm Dynastar Omecarves I'm on now but with a small radius sidecut as I like slalom like turns and for my weight small radius skis are easier to set a carve on and get the resultant sharp turn. Haven't skiied them yet but will know in 2 weeks if i got it right. Was considering trying an aggressive womens ski for the same reasons as you have said above just for referance but never got the chance.

This year I tried the K2 Rictors, and Rossignol Zenith 76 Carbons and Ti's, in 172/170 lengths and founds both of them not difficult to ski although they are probably rated as intermediate skis. The Rossis were more fun than the K2's as they seemed a bit bland. The Rossi in Ti version did feel just a bit sharper than the Carbon equivilant too which i guess makes sense. My friend who is shorter but heavier than me bought the 76Ti's in 170 but the shop mounted the bindings an inch forward for him on those although he's more a skidder than a carver so hopefully that helps him a bit.

The one thing that makes me think it's all achievable was a while back an Asian ski team were playing at Cardrona off piste videoing themsleves bombing a steep slope down over a cat track and then down another slope. A small women did it with perfect technique, carving and jumping on Fisher race skis and she would weigh less than us so it is achieveable. 

I really wonder if the question is "should lightweight skiers ski advanced skis short or intermediate skis"?

I own a ski rental, 20 years now. It has always been my mission to upsell my clients to expert skis at the earliest opportunity. Raw beginners, no, but anyone else certainly. The trick is go go up-spec but stay short in length. Send an intermediate out the door on a high spec, short ski and wait to see the smile on their face when they come back in the door.

I love it.

Light skier here - though at 135lbs and 5' 7" I'm not as thin as some of you even stringier beans. It might sound like a cop-out, but the real answer is that "book knowledge" only takes you so far in this arena as elsewhere: You can't really know; you have to demo.

For people like me who are somewhat but not WAY off the normal height/weight ratio, I think just going one size down can be good solution. For true stick figures, a longer ski with a softer flex - i.e. a more "intermediate" model - can sometimes be a better way. However, if you go too far toward the lower-performance end, you will be on something that simply can't support the speed and torsional forces that a good skier - even a skinny one - generates. This is why another poster said, basically, "buy to your ability." You also risk quality-of-materials issues. For example, the base quality on anything but top-end skis is often horrendous. Women's skis - even if you can tolerate the graphics and are not worried about female-specific binding placement, etc - are generally only a realistic solution for shorter men, since the range of sizes offered often tops out on the short side.

I recently bought a pair of 165cm skis aimed at accomplished skiers - that I had demo'd last year and liked a lot - from a guy significantly bigger than I am. He complained that they were "too stiff." Others have described this ski as "solid" and even "burly." This mystifies me, as I find their flex right in the sweet spot for an all-mountain ski - i.e., much softer and more bump-friendly than my carving boards. This is an example of where knowing the stats doesn't paint the whole picture for me. For all-mountain skis, these would probably be considered slightly on the short side for my height and ability, but they work for me, presumably because I'm light and aggressive.

The all-mountain skis I had before I bought the current pair were a more "intermediate" level ski @ 172cm. I started out on the 165s in that model, but decided after just a couple days on them that there wasn't enough "there there" and traded them in for the 172s, which suited me far better. After several years I switched to this slightly beefier ski in a 165 just because the length suits the kind of terrain I use it in better than the longer, softer model. But the point is, both options were good in their own way.

Meanwhile, I've disliked all the "fat carver" class of skis I've ever tried at any length, even in the 160cm range - they are just way too rigid to be skied properly at my weight and strength. Volkl AC 50s are the classic example.

I registered specifically for this topic, as I've been struggling looking for skiis as I fit this profile perfectly. I'm 5'10/11 and weigh around 130 +/- 5 pounds. When I was growing up my parents rented for me because we would only get out 10 or so times a year at most, when I got to high school and got a car I was driving myself up and easily making the 25 day mark a year if not more. Not making a lot of money I ended up buying my skis at a swap my senior year, luckily my uncle knew the person running the swap and got me in the night before and they helped me get first pick at everything there. When he heard my weight he gravitated towards womens skis, I ended up with a pair of 165 Dynastar Exclusive Legends (06s) they were a year or so old but in great condition. They have served me well, and helped me improve greatly  but I think I may have out grown them. At the time I wanted them short because they helped me take tighter turns in the trees and bumps which I was just starting to explore, but I feel now that I'm overpowering the ski. When I bought them I was probably around a low 6 and have improved to a high 7, possibly a 8. I can confidently ski anything on Cannon in NH where I regularly ski. I tend to spend a decent amount of time in the trees and on mittersill. I enjoy bumps a bit, I can run 5/6 of them together on a good day, but am still at the point where I have to stop after that and look at where I want to go through the next half dozen. I still dont have alot of money so I'm looking at last years and 09 models for the most part. The only thing that has stood out for me so far is the 170 Phantom SC80 from Rossi, which some heavier riders have said was too soft, which for my leightweight would probably be perfect.

I'm in New Zealand, so we have 'maritime' snow. I really can't point you at a certain ski without seeing you and discussing your hopes and needs, sorry. Many choices for many people.

J2R Quote "What do you send a more advanced, but lightweight, skier out the door with?"
 

Quote:

Originally Posted by sam clarkson 

I'm in New Zealand, so we have 'maritime' snow. I really can't point you at a certain ski without seeing you and discussing your hopes and needs, sorry. Many choices for many people.

I'm in NZ too Sam so as an example what would you have put me on this year? I'm 40 and 6 ft 140pounds, I like skiing carved short/medium turns at reasonable pace, smaller jumps (although you can jump on anything pretty much) with a bit of off piste on non icy days or after lunch, Ruapehu mostly with a week in the SI every year too, lower level 8 so same as J2R asked? 

Hey Snala

Try Head Supershape 160-165

Elan Waveflex (woops I forgot which model!)

Elan 82xti if you are feeling fast

I have some Fischer fire, what a blast.

Some nice Rossi carvers.

Ahh the list goes on..

Come see me @ Edge to Edge sometime and we can sort you out in much more detail.

@ J2R...

What sort of skier and what sort of snow?

the companies I ski make different skis for the different lengths. so, buy a ski that is your length and fits your ability. the construction put into a ski the correct length for your size should take care of the balance between ski and skier stature, the make and model should take care of your ability.

Quote:

Originally Posted by davluri 

the companies I ski make different skis for the different lengths. so, buy a ski that is your length and fits your ability. the construction put into a ski the correct length for your size should take care of the balance between ski and skier stature, the make and model should take care of your ability.

 

Well, yes, within limits. But what the OP may be saying, and that many of us lightweight skiers say, is that even ski makers who adjust flex for each length within one model don't necessarily end up with something that makes sense for those of us who are way outside the average physique. Flex appears to be calibrated for the height / weight ratio of the average male. Let's say your ski comes in the following lengths: 160, 167, 174, 181. If you are 6' 140lbs, like one of the posters in this thread, your WEIGHT probably puts you on the 160, but your HEIGHT probably puts you on the 174, depending on a bunch of factors. I think most of us agree that a 160 will feel short from a leverage-and-stability point of view to a six footer, no matter what the flex. (Obviously we're leaving out special cases, such as running a slalom course on a dedicated slalom ski.) On the other hand, the 174 is probably designed for a guy who weighs 190. If you weigh 170, that may not be a not a big deal, but I can tell you that if you weigh 130 it's a huge deal; you'll never be able to ski that ski the way it was meant to be skied, unless you are going about 40mph all the time and stay out of the bumps. The conversations that come up periodically about whether it would be better to get a woman's or intermediate's ski emerge from this experience of always feeling like you have to choose between a ski that's too short and a ski that's too stiff.

Quote:

Originally Posted by qcanoe 

Well, yes, within limits. But what the OP may be saying, and that many of us lightweight skiers say, is that even ski makers who adjust flex for each length within one model don't necessarily end up with something that makes sense for those of us who are way outside the average physique. Flex appears to be calibrated for the height / weight ratio of the average male. Let's say your ski comes in the following lengths: 160, 167, 174, 181. If you are 6' 140lbs, like one of the posters in this thread, your WEIGHT probably puts you on the 160, but your HEIGHT probably puts you on the 174, depending on a bunch of factors. I think most of us agree that a 160 will feel short from a leverage-and-stability point of view to a six footer, no matter what the flex. (Obviously we're leaving out special cases, such as running a slalom course on a dedicated slalom ski.) On the other hand, the 174 is probably designed for a guy who weighs 190. If you weigh 170, that may not be a not a big deal, but I can tell you that if you weigh 130 it's a huge deal; you'll never be able to ski that ski the way it was meant to be skied, unless you are going about 40mph all the time and stay out of the bumps. The conversations that come up periodically about whether it would be better to get a woman's or intermediate's ski emerge from this experience of always feeling like you have to choose between a ski that's too short and a ski that's too stiff.

Nicely written answer qcanoe. Sums the dilemma up nicely.

I've always wondered why skis don't have a universal flex index too, maybe in cm's of flex.

So regardless of a ski's length the distance that a ski flexes down with a uniform agreed amount of weight applied.

Say 75 kgs applied at the friction plate or boot centre while each end is supported off the ground at the max contact points?

This would at least give you an idea of how much one ski bends compared to another regardless of construction, length or sidecut etc and could be part of the ski's description just like the xx/xx/xx sidecut?

I'd put you on a better diet...

Quote:

Originally Posted by snala 

J2R Quote "What do you send a more advanced, but lightweight, skier out the door with?"
 

Quote:

Originally Posted by sam clarkson 

I'm in New Zealand, so we have 'maritime' snow. I really can't point you at a certain ski without seeing you and discussing your hopes and needs, sorry. Many choices for many people.

I'm in NZ too Sam so as an example what would you have put me on this year? I'm 40 and 6 ft 140pounds, I like skiing carved short/medium turns at reasonable pace, smaller jumps (although you can jump on anything pretty much) with a bit of off piste on non icy days or after lunch, Ruapehu mostly with a week in the SI every year too, lower level 8 so same as J2R asked? 

Quote:

Originally Posted by karpiel 

I'd put you on a better diet...

Quote:

I'm in NZ too Sam so as an example what would you have put me on this year? I'm 40 and 6 ft 140pounds, I like skiing carved short/medium turns at reasonable pace, smaller jumps (although you can jump on anything pretty much) with a bit of off piste on non icy days or after lunch, Ruapehu mostly with a week in the SI every year too, lower level 8 so same as J2R asked? 

 

If only it was that easy I can eat anything and makes no difference, same weight since I left school 20 years ago, killer metabolism I guess.

I’m 5’10” 147lbs, about a lvl7 skier and have had no problem with atomic/volkl race skis (consumer versions) or dynastar mythics (which have a stiff-ish reputation). I’ve tried slightly softer skis and they felt bendy and horrible.

As a lightweight I find I need to be more careful with boot stiffness rather than ski stiffness.

Quote:

Originally Posted by J2R 

Exactly! Actually, the choice I feel it boils down to is between a longer, softer ski, or a shorter, stiffer ski. That's assuming that stiffness decreases with length, which it normally (?) does. So I might ski a 165cm in a more 'advanced' ski, or a 170cm in an easier-going ski. So here's an ancillary question. Which is going to be better for me in soft snow - a 165cm ski with an 80mm waist, or a 170cm ski with a 72-75mm waist?

Rule of thumb is that you'll like a longer softer ski in soft snow. The length gives you stability, and the flex gives you the ability to bend it when there's no firm surface to push against. 

As far as lighter guys bending stiffer skis, obviously they/we can IF they/we produce the force necessary. That force comes from weight and acceleration. Less weight means more speed to achieve the same outcome. Complicated by form; lot easier to bend a ski if you're using your CM and edges in the correct way. If you're not on a surface where you can engage the edges, use some leverage, lot more speed is needed.