ski selection guide/help site

[puckoach]

I'll admit I haven't done a real thorough search. About an hour or so.

but, has anyone run accross a web site that you can enter your info, and have it answer the types of ski that fit you.

height, weight, style of skier, terrain = answers

 

[St. Bear]

If you don't mind, I'd like to piggyback onto your question.

Does skier size/weight affect what is considered mid-fat? Is it reasonable to say that someone who is 6' 170lbs might consider 80mm midfat while someone who is 6' 230lbs should probably look at 90+mm?

 

[wa-loaf]

Here's a guide:
http://www.skinet.com/skiing/gear/2009/09/find-the-right-skis

A few of the manufacturer sites have ski selectors: K2, Elan, Volkl. You are better off deciding what kind of ski you want, research a few options and then DEMO.

 

[billski]

No, I've not seen such a site. I think wa-loaf is on the right track: hit each mfr's web site and parse...
skis can be a fickle thing.once you start demo. You might find a ski in an entirely "wrong" category that you fall in love with.

Lisa Feinberg Densmore (2x US Masters Alipne Skier, 4x National Combined Ski Champion), makes some interesting observations. In summary, she indicates that if the ski has not been reviewed by a magazine, it raises a red flag. Notice how the mags give great reviews to all the published skis? That's cause most of the losers are dropped on the editorial desk floor. They don't dis those that pay the bills. They just exclude them.
I've been saving magazine buyers guides for years. It helps me when I go to buy used.
Well, that's kind of a list.

When I was demoing last time, most of them all felt the same to me. There were only two that really stood out, especially once I figured out what I wanted and didn't want. A lot of those opinions formed on the trail.

 

[billski]

If you don't mind, I'd like to piggyback onto your question.

Does skier size/weight affect what is considered mid-fat? Is it reasonable to say that someone who is 6' 170lbs might consider 80mm midfat while someone who is 6' 230lbs should probably look at 90+mm?

Can't answer that question, but I understand the width of mid-fats has been creeping up in the past several years, now it's in the 80s.

 

[riverc0il]

If you don't mind, I'd like to piggyback onto your question.

Does skier size/weight affect what is considered mid-fat? Is it reasonable to say that someone who is 6' 170lbs might consider 80mm midfat while someone who is 6' 230lbs should probably look at 90+mm?

No, width is not dependent on weight or height but rather intended use and desired feel/response. I am sure there eventually is some point at which a feather weight person can have better float than a heavy person with the same waist ski... but the term "mid-fat" versus "fat" versus "super fat" is all just industry marketing lingo based on width and what the market is pushing in each category. Get the ski that matches your needs rather than what the market is trying to sell you on with their category labels.

Length; however, is effected by weight. However, it could vary depending on the ski's natural flex so no one has one "right" length. You see a lot of reviews mention this type of thing with wording like "go longer than you think" or "go shorter than you think" which is really a bunch of BS because how do people know what is their "right" size?

This can get really difficult when the size you think you would be best on is actually "in between" the actual production sizes. I have discounted candidates due to falling "in between" sizes. So how do I know my length? I have tried a lot of skis and kind of have a feel for what I like and what combination of attributes give a ski my desired personality. I have skied a couple different skis in different lengths and the difference is significant but individual (non-universal).

The best option is ultimately a demo day with lots of different vendors. Vendors do break up their line ups by terrain and style of skier. But every vendor has at least one or two options that would meet most skier's needs. Then the length issue comes into play. Don't even get me started on mounting point.

I am not sure which is worse for fitting for gear, golf or skiing? Both activities have a gear habit and insidious effort and money required to obtain the gear that best matches your style, physique, and needs. Both push people towards custom fitting (expensive) and demoing (inconvenient and limited in options/scope compared to available selection) as the best options. Wish there was a better solution for ya, puckoach. The gear guides are at least a somewhat good place to start. If you can find a trusted and knowledgeable ski shop employee (good luck), they could steer you in the right direction as well.

 

[eastcoastpowderhound]

Lisa Feinberg Densmore (2x US Masters Alipne Skier, 4x National Combined Ski Champion), makes some interesting observations. In summary, she indicates that if the ski has not been reviewed by a magazine, it raises a red flag. Notice how the mags give great reviews to all the published skis? That's cause most of the losers are dropped on the editorial desk floor.

could also mean the magazine didn't have a category that a particular ski in a vendors line up fit into. Look at the skiing mag gear guide this year, narrowest ski was 78mm. EVERY major ski company has a number of skis narrower than 78mm. ..the european companies have dozens of models below 78mm. Ski Mag test only took 2 unisex and two ladies skis from each company in skis over 100mm...but most of the companies have four, five, plus skis wider than 100mm...doesn't mean those other models sucked, just means they had to pick between a few models. Its kind of like choosing your favorite child, just because you picked one doesn't mean the other isn't just as great. Freeskier and Powder barely test/review anything narrower than 90mm. There are plenty of great skis from each ski company that don't ever show up in a magazine. Like you said, you don't know until you ski on them...either before you buy (ideally of course) or after.

 

[puckoach]

Many thanks for the responses to date. All have helped lead me up the learning curve.

K2 site and Elan sites were not that great. Blizzard took awhile to figure out, but was okay once I did. Rosignol and Solomon sites were very easy to use. Need to check out a few others.

Am coming to grips with what I am, in correct lingo. So, the process is moving along.

At this moment, I am looking for All Terrain, 80 % on Piste, Advanced Intermediate. Using advice posted here, as a 5'10" 240 guy, am looking at sidewall construction.

Any further help is appreciated.