Ski Size Going Smaller

My friend just bought a pair of Atomic R-11 skis. He wanted an off road ski
what was stiff. He weighs 190 and bought a 170. He asked me if he had
gotten them too short and my thinking was that this is a wider ski and very
stiff so it probably will be stable and work fine for him. Any other
opinions on this? He has 30 days to return them since he hasn't had the
bindings put on. He was skiing an Atomic Beta Race ski in a 190 with great
stability. He wanted the smaller ski to turn faster in the trees.

Houseslave wrote:

My friend just bought a pair of Atomic R-11 skis. He wanted an off road ski
what was stiff. He weighs 190 and bought a 170. He asked me if he had
gotten them too short and my thinking was that this is a wider ski and very
stiff so it probably will be stable and work fine for him. Any other
opinions on this?

Many people his size are skiing on sticks that short. So, no, they're
not a priori too short. He might be happier on 180s, or he might be
happier on 160s - only he could tell us for sure. But 170 isn't out of
the range of reasonable.

He has 30 days to return them since he hasn't had the
bindings put on. He was skiing an Atomic Beta Race ski in a 190 with great
stability. He wanted the smaller ski to turn faster in the trees.

A friend who is ~250lbs and an aggressive skier went from Beta Race 9 20
in 190cm to a SL 11 in 170 with no regrets. Stop worrying, go skiing.

--
//-Walt
//
// The Volkl Conspiracy

Walt wrote in message ...
Houseslave wrote:

My friend just bought a pair of Atomic R-11 skis. He wanted an off road ski
what was stiff. He weighs 190 and bought a 170. He asked me if he had
gotten them too short and my thinking was that this is a wider ski and very
stiff so it probably will be stable and work fine for him. Any other
opinions on this?

Many people his size are skiing on sticks that short. So, no, they're
not a priori too short. He might be happier on 180s, or he might be
happier on 160s - only he could tell us for sure. But 170 isn't out of
the range of reasonable.

He has 30 days to return them since he hasn't had the
bindings put on. He was skiing an Atomic Beta Race ski in a 190 with great
stability. He wanted the smaller ski to turn faster in the trees.

A friend who is ~250lbs and an aggressive skier went from Beta Race 9 20
in 190cm to a SL 11 in 170 with no regrets. Stop worrying, go skiing.


Yeah no problem. This year I moved from a 186 gs ski to 174. I also
have a 160 slalom ski. If you want to turn faster in the trees then
get a 170.

In om, John typed:
Walt wrote in message
...
Houseslave wrote:

My friend just bought a pair of Atomic R-11 skis. He wanted an off
road ski what was stiff. He weighs 190 and bought a 170. He asked
me if he had gotten them too short and my thinking was that this is
a wider ski and very stiff so it probably will be stable and work
fine for him. Any other opinions on this?

Many people his size are skiing on sticks that short. So, no,
they're not a priori too short. He might be happier on 180s, or he
might be happier on 160s - only he could tell us for sure. But 170
isn't out of the range of reasonable.

He has 30 days to return them since he hasn't had the
bindings put on. He was skiing an Atomic Beta Race ski in a 190
with great stability. He wanted the smaller ski to turn faster in
the trees.

A friend who is ~250lbs and an aggressive skier went from Beta Race
9 20 in 190cm to a SL 11 in 170 with no regrets. Stop worrying, go
skiing.


Yeah no problem. This year I moved from a 186 gs ski to 174. I also
have a 160 slalom ski. If you want to turn faster in the trees then
get a 170.

I'm 6'1" about 240lb and race on 168's The really serious racers in my club
told me to go to 155s (last years minimum length for slalom) but I wanted
skis to last more than one season and this years minimum is 165.

I demo'd some 171 1080s last season and they where so much fun I bought a
pair. So 170's should be fine for him.


--
Chris *:-)

Downhill Good, Uphill BAD!

www.suffolkvikings.org.uk

"Houseslave" wrote:
My friend just bought a pair of Atomic R-11 skis. He wanted an off road
ski
what was stiff. He weighs 190 and bought a 170. He asked me if he had
gotten them too short

You're seeing how changing technology is affecting ski design. The wider,
more shaped skis will behave differently than the straight-profiled narrow
boards of 10 years ago (duh).

If your friend is having fun, he doesn't need to worry about how long or
short his skis are. As a very general rule, shorter skis are easier to turn
and carve smaller radiuses than longer skis, perhaps at a very minimal expense
of speed.

This should be ideal for your friend's penchant for trees.

hums the "George of the Jungle" theme

"Houseslave" wrote in message
et...
My friend just bought a pair of Atomic R-11 skis. He wanted an off road
ski
what was stiff.

Why would he want a stiff ski for off-road? Stiff skis are for racing. For
off-piste, most people prefer a soft shovel and a stiff tail for best
handling on changing conditions. JMHO YMMV.


snip

Schmoe,

His thinking was that his weight would preclude him from using a soft skis.
I have to agree. I've rented soft skis before and all they wanted to do was
to turn. I also felt very unstable at higher speeds. I always read about
stability at higher speeds but never understood what that meant until I
rented soft skis. I also ski on Atomics and couldn't wait to get back on
them after the rental/demo. If you weigh under 150lb you can get away with
lighter skis.

Thanks for all the responses. I'll temm my friend that his choice was a
wise one.

"Schmoe" wrote in message
t...
"Houseslave" wrote in message
et...
My friend just bought a pair of Atomic R-11 skis. He wanted an off road
ski
what was stiff.

Why would he want a stiff ski for off-road? Stiff skis are for racing. For
off-piste, most people prefer a soft shovel and a stiff tail for best
handling on changing conditions. JMHO YMMV.


snip

"Houseslave" wrote in message
t...
Schmoe,

His thinking was that his weight would preclude him from using a soft
skis.
I have to agree. I've rented soft skis before and all they wanted to do
was
to turn. I also felt very unstable at higher speeds. I always read about
stability at higher speeds but never understood what that meant until I
rented soft skis. I also ski on Atomics and couldn't wait to get back on
them after the rental/demo. If you weigh under 150lb you can get away
with
lighter skis.

Yes, softer skis at higher speeds are less stable. But you said your friend
was looking for skis for off-piste in-the-wild skiing. That doesn't usually
mean race speeds. I'm 185 lbs and ski anything and everything. I use a bump
ski because it allows me to handle vastly changing conditions by helping to
absorb terrain. The part I mentioned about having a stiff tail helps to
lessen the wobble at higher speeds (though they're still not fast skis) and
carve on less then powdery terrain (read: Vermont).

I guess I should have stated that he wanted an all mountain ski that would
let him turn quicker in the trees. He bought the Atomic R:11's. They have
Titanium lobes and are a bit stiff and have a wider shovel and waist for my
float then many skis. I ski Atomic GS 9.21. My skis are a tuned down race
ski. They are also descent in powder, bumps, etc. The only condition that
they didn't do well on is crud. I didn't get a lot of float from this ski.
I rented Salamon skis because the airline lost my Atmics. Sniffle, sniffle.
I can't recall the model of the Salamon's but they were way to soft and not
fun to ski. My wife is only 120lbs so when we bought her Atomics I bought
her a ladies ski. If she was a big lady then I would have considered a
man's ski. Personally I would rather have a stiffer ski then one that is
too soft. But that is just my taste. The only other ski have ever skies
on where the only pencil skis form Rossi. When I finally switched to
parabolic skis I was in heaven. I can now ski 5 days straight with no leg,
thigh, etc. strain. With my old pencil skis my legs would burn after the
second day. It's like having power steering. Can't say enough about
Atomics.

I went from 204 cm in traditional SL skis to 193cm K2 Merlin VI's.
Then a big drop to 174 cm K2 Axis XR's last season. I couldn't be
happier. The skis are incredibly stable and really rip. They felt odd at
first....or should I say looked odd. I'm used to seeing a lot more ski
out in front of me. BTW, I'm 6' and 225 lbs.

I guess I'd have to take that "short skis suck" bumper sticker off my
car...well I would if I still had that car.

Houseslave wrote:

My friend just bought a pair of Atomic R-11 skis. He wanted an off road ski
what was stiff. He weighs 190 and bought a 170. He asked me if he had
gotten them too short and my thinking was that this is a wider ski and very
stiff so it probably will be stable and work fine for him. Any other
opinions on this? He has 30 days to return them since he hasn't had the
bindings put on. He was skiing an Atomic Beta Race ski in a 190 with great
stability. He wanted the smaller ski to turn faster in the trees.