Help me buy men's skis...

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

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

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/newsletter/s100000025/a232/What-size-ski.html

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?

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.

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?

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

MRGisevil said:

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.

Click to expand...

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

MRGisevil said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Marc said:

Ski length should be based only on weight.

Click to expand...

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?

He shouldn't be looking at anything under 170 at that weight. He'll outski his gear. When buying skis, always try and buy something that you can progress into a bit. Staying that small is gonna severely limit any progress he might make and completely prevent him from maintaining any kind of stability at any kind of speed.

Now, I know next to nothing about the types of skis it seems he likes nor have I seen him ski so I wouldn't feel comfortable recommending specific skis. Since it seems neither you nor he really has a definitive feeling about what kind of or size ski suits him I would say he should demo for a bit.

Not only will this allow him to find a ski he likes in a length that works for him, you should also be able to get a MUCH better deal later in the season on newer skis. Or you can save even more by finding a 06/07 in the same ski on the interwebs.


And get the hell away from any shop guy who recommends a ski based strictly on height....skis can't feel height, just weight. Which is why I ended up with 165 Blends, but that's a story for another day....although they did work out alright.


Just for reference I'm 5' 7 170lbs and will be skiing on:

179 K2 PE's
179 Bro Models
176 Armada Ar6
165 Line Chronic Blend (rock/urban ski)

Greg said:

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?

Click to expand...

100% on the money IMO.

Ideally it should be based purely on weight, but if you got a person with an abnormal height/weight ratio you hafta compensate for that.

Greg said:

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?

Click to expand...

When do you mean? And what's the lever arm and pivot point we're talking about?

Marc said:

When do you mean? And what's the lever arm and pivot point we're talking about?

Click to expand...

Don't go getting all technical on me now. I barely passed Physics in college. Just explain it to me. Does height play absolutely no part?

For example, I'm 6'1" and 165 lbs; pretty light for my height. Should a 5'7", 165 lb. skier be on the same length as me?

Greg said:

Don't go getting all technical on me now. I barely passed Physics in college. Just explain it to me. Does height play absolutely no part?

For example, I'm 6'1" and 165 lbs; pretty light for my height. Should a 5'7", 165 lb. skier be on the same length as me?

Click to expand...

From everything anyone's ever told me, and from the simple analysis of forces acting on a skier in my head, 1) no and 2) yes.

And congrats on passing physics, that's a lot more than can be said for a lot of people. The concepts involved require a lot of effort to understand, especially if you didn't inherit a more analytically oriented mind.

As far as the forces involved in a turn go, height will affect the placement of the center of mass of the skier, and where the skier can move his CM to his advantage to balance the forces induced by the angular acceleration of a turn. Remember, any time you change velocity, you accelerate, so when you arc through a turn, you're experiencing acceleration.

The force placed on the skier through a turn of like radii is shown by Newton's 2nd law, force is equal to mass times acceleration. For the same skier making a turn of the same radius, the mass of the skier is accelerated by the same amount, so the skier with the greater mass will experience a greater force, which he will exert back on the snow through his skies (3rd law).

Since it is force on the ski that causes it to deform (deflect), it is only the mass of the skier and the radius of your turn that affects the force on the ski. In general, a longer ski of the same model is not only scaled up to provide a bigger spring for the bigger force, but also gives more surface edge area that the heavier skier needs to maintain the no slip edge condition.

I think I can make it less technical than that if I need to, but if you passed physics it should make sense, yes?

Marc said:

And congrats on passing physics, that's a lot more than can be said for a lot of people. The concepts involved require a lot of effort to understand, especially if you didn't inherit a more analytically oriented mind.

Click to expand...

Thanks. As a requirement for my Biology degree, passing that class was quite an accomplishment, I guess.

Marc said:

I think I can make it less technical than that if I need to, but if you passed physics it should make sense, yes?

Click to expand...

I did say I barely passed, as in a D. It was also an 8 am class and as a hungover college student that can be brutal. It was also almost 12 years ago and anything I "learned" left this brain within seconds of finishing the final.

Thanks for the explanation though. Some of it might register after I read it about a half dozen more times... :lol:

Well, here's another instance that's easier to understand. Think of skidding down hill, as one often would do skiing moguls. Assuming that the skier isn't accelerating downhill, merely skidding down hill with constant velocity. To maintain a steady skidding velocity, the force of gravity pulling the skier down the hill must be balanced by the force of friction generated by the ski edge pushing the skier "up" the hill (in reality just acting against the direction of travel). Heavier skier means bigger force of gravity, which means he requires a bigger opposing frictional force. A bigger opposing frictional force can be accomplished by having more ski edge length in contact with the snow, i.e., a longer ski. Again, height never comes into play here.

Well, while my head is still spinning somewhat, I do appreciate all the advice and it makes some good sense. I'm not sure it's bad technique, because up until he took a few years off he was a much better skier than he is today and his knees were bugging him back then too. I think it has to do more with 10++ years of skiing, mountain biking, soccer & mixed martial arts that just took a toll on the poor guy.

I'd say he's a medium turner right now, nothing too wide, but nothing short and fast either at this point. Likes places like Magic where it gets naturally bumped out, but also likes his fair shair of groomers. I'm sure I'm selling him short though, I'm probably not one who should be judging other peoples' techniques.

I think after hearing this from you all, I'm going to take him out to some demo days (think there's 1 @ Hunter on the 8th?) and then if he finds something he likes try to search for an older model of it. I'd wait until end of season to grab a deal on this year's skis, however, I'd find it a miracle should his current skis happen to wait that long. If I'm going to be taking him out every weekend with me (which is my grand scheme, and he also seems to be ok with this for the time being) I'd like to have him in something a bit more reliable sooner rather than later.

I don't know about any places on Rte 20, so I don't think it's around anymore. There's a place in West Springfield & another in Holyoke but to tell you the truth, I'm not such a fan of either. The owners of both places have used car salesman syndrome and seem to want to stick you on whatever you're willing to pay the most money for (when I was searching for skis I told one of them I had a budget of $400-500 and he immediately redirected me to a group of skis in the 1000 range).

Thanks for the input, everyone I will throw both of those skis back into the perhaps pile and continue my search.

Well, I didn't mean to imply that he had bad technique. Good carving technique can put a big strain on one's knees. I just wanted to point out that knee pain, in my opinion, will probably not be alleviated by skiing a shorter ski rather than one that's the correct length for him.

i'm 5'10" 180lbs and was fitted on Atomics Metrons at 157cm (upper advanced/exp level).....i demod all the other lengths and the 157 just 'worked'