Quote:
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.