Downhill ski recommendations
Hey all you ski bums. Can you give me some solid advice?
Fifteen years ago, in 1999, I purchased some K2 Mod 7/8 skis (174 cm), and I have used them ever since. They've been great: rock solid and good for everything short of serious powder. Now I'm ready to replace them. I have a few questions -- any help and suggestions are much appreciated.
Here's my info:I've demoed a few skis this year, and so far my favorite is the Rossignol Sin 7 skis. I rented a pair for the day at Copper Mountain last weekend and they were great. The tech at the ski shop recommended the 164 cm size and they seemed fine. After a few runs I was having a blast, and I did great on a long bump run. They seemed plenty fast, they turned easily and they were lighter than my old K2 skis.
I stopped by Colorado Ski & Golf last night. They were out of Sin 7 skis in any size at this location, but one of the other stores has a 172 cm pair that I can get. The tech at this store said he would recommend the 172 size over the 164 size for me anyway, especially since the ski surface is shorter on non-powder surfaces because of the big rockers at the front and back.
So what do you think? Which size is more appropriate and why?
The Soul 7 skis are more than half a pound lighter than the Sin 7 skis. What do you think: is it worth the extra money? They're also a bit fatter at the waist and I wonder how much different that will make in performance.
Any recommendation on bindings?
Any other models of skis that I should be trying out before I buy the Rossignols? I kept my last skis for 15 years and they are still in decent shape. I'll probably keep this next set for quite a while.
Thanks for any and all help!
I recently picked up a barely used pair of Elan Domino demos at http://www.powder7.com/ for $399. Love em. Huge online shop but physically located in Golden.
You should be fine on the 172cm. It will be slightly harder to turn but offer you more stability at speed. At your size I would also point you that way if you enjoy skiing aggressively.
For bindings I personally turn to the Look Pivots. They have been by far the best binding for me personally. I also ski a pair of Marker Duke's that I really don't have any complaints on.
For the record my favorite skis are Stockli's. I've owned a couple pairs out of the Stormrider series. My current ones are getting a little old now. But I'm on the 1st gen, Scot Schmidt Pro Models;)
I realize this probably won't help much but I'll throw it out there anyway. I personally feel like most ski equipment is a commodity now for most people until you get up into the pro level. As long as the skis are sized correctly for their type (shaped, all mountain, powder, full rocker, stiffness, etc) and to the rider height and style, that will put most skiers in a good spot without having to worry about brand.
The nice thing about that is that skis can now be purchased used craigslist, at sierra trading post, evo, etc. I've skied multiple brands and types 50+ days a year in the backcountry and front, and they all work just fine, IMHO. I usually buy whatever is cheapest and then ski the crap out of it :D
Now to your specific use. For a good all mountain type ski, I'd go with something with an 85-95 waist. That will be fairly stable in powder and crud but too difficult to get up on edge on hardpack. Those Sin 7 skis are on the upper range of that so I think they'd be just fine, albiet a bit more powder oriented.
Given that the sin 7's are a rocker'd ski, you can ski them longer than normal skis. The benefit to this is on hardpack, they have a short effective edge because the rocker doesn't touch the snow. Easier to turn, more nimble. But in the powder the rocker tip/tail provides more float. I think you'd be fine with a 172. You may also get by with the 164 but its personal preference (IMO the 164 is a bit short in that style of ski and won't feel as stable as the 172).
For your use I'd go with the sin7 over the soul, my general feeling is that anything over about 95mm waist (about the width of a ski boot sole) gets progressively harder to get up on edge. I've got a pair of BD Amperage with a 115 underfoot and its noticeable from my 92mm underfoot rossi's.
And no input from me on downhill bindings...I've no experience recently due to tele.
hth! Its a great year to get new powder skis, and we're not even to the snowiest month yet!
go big or go home, 160 something is too short ya gaper. might as well get some snowblades :D JK
i would stick with around 100 under foot. If you ski a lot of groomers then usually going alot more than 100 (like 110) they tend not to carve as well, great for pow and side stashes but less so for groomers. depends on how much of what you ski.
bindings for the most part are all the same except for the salomon sth12 13 16. Those are the big dogs and proven. I do have some marker duke/baron for side country. You probably don't care and can use whatever matches.
Those rossi's are nice, there are some good board with salomon, volkl, blizzard, etc.
volkl mantra has been an awesome board for a while. still one of my favorite
the blizzard bonafid and cochise are rippen too.
the rossi s series skies well though.
ah the old stormriders, scot taught me how to do smurf turns. I'm no where near as small as he is though
Sounds like you're being ushered to the 172's, but evo has the 164's on sale for $455.
Of they are rockered, your effective edge is a lot less. If you like to zoom it a bit on the groomers, your gonna want the 172s vs the 164s, no doubt.
If your boing it most and that is where you want to hang your hat, get then164s
I'm 5'7" 170 and ski on Head Monsters. I think they are like 174? I used to teach skiing and ski everywhere, reeeaaallly fast with a bunch of old CU racers. just like Davis said,rockers reduce your edge contact. I'm a carver and dig trenches, I want edges. :-)
My GS race stock skis are 184. now those are fun at 55MPH.
Thanks for the advice, guys. I ordered the 172 Sin 7 skis.
|All times are GMT -6. The time now is 03:42 PM.|
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.7.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.