Help me buy men's skis...

[MRGisevil]

Please won't you help me pick out skis for my husband???


Took Tim out to a couple of ski shops in our area to look at leftovers tonight and found a couple within budget (which is around $400) that he seems to like... was wondering if you gents might tell me what you think.



Found these at our LSS for $350

.

These were on sale at the same store for $399.

Tim is a high intermediate/low advanced skier who likes skiing bumps but not necessarily tight moguls. Likes groomers, doesn't do much out-of-bounding. Wants to go with a shorter ski because his knees have been bugging him over the past few years (Is 6'0/ 185 and looking at 160s).

Do you think this'd fit him well or am I going in entirely the wrong direction here? Any advice would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks guys

[bvibert]

160 sounds awfully short for a guy his size to me. Other than that I have no idea...

[severine]

I have no idea how accurate this is, but food for thought... this is a chart with recommendations for length of ski based on weight. As Trekchick will say, a ski doesn't know how tall you are...only your weight. But based on the info you've given, I think 160 is too short.
http://www.alpineskicenter.com/skisizes.htm

ETA: Here's another chart:
http://www.backcountry.com/store/new...-size-ski.html

[Greg]

I'm 6'1", 165 lbs., probably middle advanced skier, and I would never go below 170 cm. At 20 lbs. heavier than me I also think 160 cm is way too short. I don't know much about those particular skis but they look pretty radically shaped and probably would hook too much in the bumps. What are the tip/waist/tail dimensions?

You should have him demo skis before committing, although I've bought skis without demoing based on reviews and such and have not been disappointed. Tough to demo the exact ski you want in all conditions you might ever encounter anyway.

What's he skiing on now?

[MRGisevil]

Well, the guy at the ski shop told him 170s would be better for his height, but 160s would be much easier on his knees, so that's why we're looking at the shorter ones...any input?

Demoing's a great idea, but don't have the dough to pony out for a new pair this year, so even if he found something he really liked we wouldn't be able to pick them up... or are there sales I just don't know about.

His old skis...I know they are Atomics, but they're also 8 years old and on their way out. 180s and have been giving his knees a hard time... so if anything, probably wouldn't want to go any higher than 170 tops depending on what we do.

Also, the Contact 8 are 123-71-105 but I can't find the dimensions for the Blizzards.

[Greg]

Aim for 170-175, more based on his weight than height. He'll be happier on a ski more suited for his size than one he probably will end up over-skiing. At those dimensions, the Contacts are going to be way too hooky in the bumps, but if his knees are hurting him, he probably won't be spending too much time there anyway.

Might sound like a silly question, but what kind of turner is he, mostly? Short quick turns, medium sized turns or fast big turns? It sounds like his preference is mostly groomed trail skiing?

[skidbump]

Ok here we go,
230 5'8" ski average 75 days a yr
162 metron b5
167 k2 phat luv
169 movement kamasutra's
176 line prophet 80's

[Beetlenut]

Originally Posted by MRGisevil

His old skis...I know they are Atomics, but they're also 8 years old and on their way out. 180s and have been giving his knees a hard time... so if anything, probably wouldn't want to go any higher than 170 tops depending on what we do.

My two cents...
Two things, Shaped skis have come a long way in eight years, specifically in length. I had a pair of Atomics from 2000 in a 180cm and man were they heavy compaired to the newer models of the past year or two. I think a 170 or maybe a 168 would be as short as he might want to go.

Width of the ski is another factor, a shorter but fatter ski would distribute his weight better IMO. Also a fatter ski 80mm-90mm in the middle, wouldn't be so squirrely if skiied shorter.

Is Matts Ski Shop still around down on Route 20?

Bill

[Marc]

Originally Posted by MRGisevil

Well, the guy at the ski shop told him 170s would be better for his height, but 160s would be much easier on his knees, so that's why we're looking at the shorter ones...any input?

Demoing's a great idea, but don't have the dough to pony out for a new pair this year, so even if he found something he really liked we wouldn't be able to pick them up... or are there sales I just don't know about.

His old skis...I know they are Atomics, but they're also 8 years old and on their way out. 180s and have been giving his knees a hard time... so if anything, probably wouldn't want to go any higher than 170 tops depending on what we do.

Also, the Contact 8 are 123-71-105 but I can't find the dimensions for the Blizzards.

Right away you can go ahead and disregard what the shop guy told you then. Ski length should be based only on weight. The flexed ski is basically a big spring. The more weight you have, the bigger spring you need. Just like leaf springs on a truck.... the size of the leaf spring has nothing to do with length or height of the truck, only the weight of the load, right? Naturally one should fine tune length choice based on the type of ski being bought and the intended use, but weight gives you a good ball park. I'd go 175-185 cm for his weight, on average.

I tend to question whether the swing weight of the ski is what is putting stress on his knees or if it's his technique. Perhaps it would be a good idea to find a sports doctor with experience working with ski teams, or an athletic trainer maybe.

In any case, I'd be more concerned with the radius of the ski. A shorter radius ski requires less torque input from the skier to turn, as it tends to turn on its own when put on edge and flexed. My advice would be to look for a relatively lightweight ski and keep it to a 15 m sidecut or less.

[Greg]

Originally Posted by Marc

Ski length should be based only on weight.

I don't know about that. I do agree that weight is most important and any shop that makes a ski length suggestion based solely on height should be questioned. Still, doesn't it seem like a taller skier may be able to leverage a ski more than a similar weighted shorter skier?