xwhaler
Active member
Mine are the 182 with no rocker, same as Green Lifes other than the graphics.
-
Welcome to AlpineZone, the largest online community of skiers and snowboarders in the Northeast!
You may have to REGISTER before you can post. Registering is FREE, gets rid of the majority of advertisements, and lets you participate in giveaways and other AlpineZone events!
How wide is too wide?
- Thread starter rocks860
- Start date
Mine are the 182 with no rocker, same as Green Lifes other than the graphics.
How tall are you? How much do you weigh? Maybe you already posted that information. It's not really a question that can be answered without that information.
bigbog
Active member
Yeah,
Agree with all that's been said.. Think looking at the intended environment of the particular ski...along with their length table should help. Just haven't skied that many soft-snow skis in the last 5 years..;-)
Agree with all that's been said.. Think looking at the intended environment of the particular ski...along with their length table should help. Just haven't skied that many soft-snow skis in the last 5 years..;-)
Last edited:
rocks860
Active member
6'1 ~240 (I'm a fatass). I ski the 182s right now.
mishka
New member
I disagree. This information may or may not be relevant. good example my skis MR87, 100 and MR110 has been tested by different people ranges from 5' to 6' 5" and 130Lb to 250+ with who same results. you included btw
to OP you can possibly make your non-rocker skis into rocker skis if that is your goal
skis under 110 under foot can be daily driver. imo 120 and up is specialty skis for pow just like under 70 race skis or mogul skis
as a ski maker I can have anything and I mean ANYTHING even 160 underfoot. My daily drivers MR87 and MR100
bdfreetuna
New member
Which Rossignols and which new 100mm skis if you don't mind me asking. Reason is I have 80mm Rossignol Phantoms. Love these skis, but they're getting a bit beat up. I'm thinking I might go around 90mm for my next skis. "Rocker" tips and camber underfoot like I have already.
Can you really make quick turns in woods and ski bumps as well going from 80mm > 100mm?
rocks860
Active member
I've demoed some bigger skis in the past not sure if I'll have a chance this year. FYI if anyone is looking at any surface skis I've got a promo code for 40% off. The all mountain blanks (basically the skis I have now) at 172cm are like $167 right now with the code.They didn't tell me not to give it out but I want to make sure it goes through for me first
You are proving my point. I'm 5'8" and 210# (though normally in the 185-190 range). My Nordica Vagabonds are 107 underfoot and about 180 length. I would not want the 185. Too long. If I were the OPs size, I'd go with the longer length Vagabond, as someone his size wouldn't get the same float out of the 180 as I get.
When I tested your MR110, which I believe are 186? I thought, "nice ski, but too long for me." Depending on the size of the skier, that extra 5-7cm in length will make a HUGE difference in performance IMO. It's a very noticeable increase in overall surface area of the ski, which affects quickness edge to edge and more importantly than that, swing weight. Swing weight is a very big deal in steep, tight Eastern trees when you've got minimal room to execute a jump turn or you'll end up eating bark or rock.
Now, you might say you've seen me ski both on my 180cm Vagabond and your 186cm MR110 and think to yourself, "I skied both skis equally as well." I did ski pretty well on the MR110, but they were a lot of work for someone my size. I would begin to struggle on that ski much earlier in the day than I would on my Vagabonds. That's not to say the MR110 isn't a great ski, it is. But, I think they're designed for someone 6'+ and 220#+.
My only thought regarding the OPs initial query is that 120 is absolutely too wide for a daily driver. I've been using my 107mm Vagabond as a daily driver this year, but that's only because I've been very lucky and 75% of the time I've been out, I've had fresh snow to ski. They're a fantastic ski that I can ski everywhere, but for certain they are too wide for a daily driver in the East. I would think a perfect NE daily driver is 88-100, with camber underfoot, tip rocker and maybe a little in the tail depending on preference. If you're someone who is highly critical of a skis bump and carving performance, go to the low end of that scale. If you prefer more float and crud smashing ability, go to the wider end of that scale. Bump performance is a big deal to me. I'd probably choose a ski around 90 underfoot for that reason. For me, something like a Nordica Steadfast would be the perfect east coast ski.
rocks860
Active member
Looking at the rossignols I had I think they were actually skinnier. They were the pow airs from several years ago
BenedictGomez
Well-known member
Agree 100%.
I also believe many are on skis that are longer than necessary, a holdover from the days when longer skis = better skier.
rocks860
Active member
So my question is if I've been skiing 182s with no rocker is 181 with rocker going to feel too short
mishka
New member
if rocker small probably not if rocker big specially with very short running length possibly ski will feels short. imo individual experience might be different. meaning to try something similar to what you want to get.
I don't know what else to tell you except...... if you're looking something specific and can't find it I can make whatever you want.
fbrissette
Well-known member
Nearly impossible to say. Depends on too many variables - ski, skier and terrain related. Demoing is the only sure way to answer this.
jrmagic
New member
People on skis too long generally do it to themselves. There are many others on skis way too short as well and those are often recommendations from sales reps at ski shops which is a gold er from when the ski industry was pushing stupid short skis. My buddy is one case. He was sold AC40 or 50 in a 161. He's 5'8 and close to 200 :what:
Scruffy
Active member
Too many variables to answer your question. There is not a lot of information out there on Surface Green Life skis. EVO gear says they are on the stiff side. The Daily skis are medium flex. Right there you have and issue. Because of the both tip and tail rocker, the running length of the Daily is much shorter and the flex is softer, than your current ski. Just because they are both Surface skis, don't expect them to ski the same; they will most likely ski entirely different. At 181cm, and your size and weight, they could feel not only short, but like noodles too.
Does that mean you go with the 191? You could take a chance, but you may hate them. Better to demo if you can, or take a chance, and be prepared to sell them for pennies on the dollar on ebay if you don't like them.
jrmagic
New member
Given that the OP can get them for under 400, I'd think the markdown he'd have to swallow to sell on ebay shouldn't be horrendous but it's definitely a risk. That type of ski could probably fetch low 300s on TGR if only used a couple of times.
rocks860
Active member
Apparently they're the same ski as the previous live lifes. I haven't seen any reviews of that ski suggesting that it is too soft
rocks860
Active member
On an unrelated note any recommendations on bindings? I currently have the rossignols axial2s on my green life's and the seem to work fine. The din is set at 8.5 I believe. Again I'm 6'1 and about 240. Thanks guys
jrmagic
New member
Salomon sth 14 bindings are pretty bomber. You can probably find last year's model for under 200.
rocks860
Active member
What's the difference between the 12 and the 14?
Similar threads
