Atomic C:9 sizing

Hi,

I am looking into buying a pair of Atomic C:9 Puls skis, however I am undecided between these two sizes: 170cm and 180cm.

My height: 6 feet
My weight: 149 lbs
My level of experience: advanced
My inteded use: mainly on-piste, carving

I should that I am not a very strong guy and a bit out-of-shape (age: 23).

I am leaning towards the 170cm, but the vendor tried to steer me towards the 180cm (he judged it by height). I've down my own research on the net and these days it seems that the consensus is that weight should matter more than height. And I don't weigh very much for my height; in addition, I prefer small, chained turns to high-speed or off-piste skiing. So I tend to lean towards the 170.

Could you give me some advice?

Thanks,
Catalin

catalind wrote:

Hi,

I am looking into buying a pair of Atomic C:9 Puls skis, however I am
undecided between these two sizes: 170cm and 180cm.

My height: 6 feet
My weight: 149 lbs
My level of experience: advanced
My inteded use: mainly on-piste, carving

I should that I am not a very strong guy and a bit out-of-shape (age:
23).

I am leaning towards the 170cm, but the vendor tried to steer me
towards the 180cm (he judged it by height). I've down my own research
on the net and these days it seems that the consensus is that weight
should matter more than height. And I don't weigh very much for my
height; in addition, I prefer small, chained turns to high-speed or
off-piste skiing. So I tend to lean towards the 170.

Could you give me some advice?

I have the Beta Carv 9:18, which I believe is the same ski by an earlier
name. I ski it in a 170, and I think -- assuming that this is indeed
the type of ski you want -- that you should probably go longer. You're
not heavy for your height, true, but you're not a lightweight by the
standards of that ski, either. If I were your height, I'd want the 180
-- no, height doesn't matter as much as weight, but it does matter.
Plus, the C:9 is not a super-stiff ski; an advanced skier such as
yourself should have no trouble bending it in a 180.

If you really prefer "short chained turns", however, you might think
about a different type of ski altogether...but that's another subject.

--
Mary Malmros
Some days you're the windshield, other days you're the bug.

catalind wrote:

I am looking into buying a pair of Atomic C:9 Puls skis, however I am
undecided between these two sizes: 170cm and 180cm.

My height: 6 feet
My weight: 149 lbs
My level of experience: advanced
My inteded use: mainly on-piste, carving

I should that I am not a very strong guy and a bit out-of-shape (age:
23).

I am leaning towards the 170cm, but the vendor tried to steer me
towards the 180cm (he judged it by height). I've down my own research
on the net and these days it seems that the consensus is that weight
should matter more than height. And I don't weigh very much for my
height; in addition, I prefer small, chained turns to high-speed or
off-piste skiing. So I tend to lean towards the 170.

Yes, weight is much more important than height in choosing a ski length.
And from your description of how you ski, I'd say you're correct to
lean towards the 170.

Of course the only way to know for sure is to ski on both lengths in a
variety of conditions and see which is more appropriate for you. If
that's not an option, unless you really know and trust the vendor, I'd
say trust your own opinion & analysis not his.

--
//-Walt
//
// There is no Volkl Conspiracy

"Mary Malmros" wrote in message
...
catalind wrote:

Hi,

I am looking into buying a pair of Atomic C:9 Puls skis, however I am
undecided between these two sizes: 170cm and 180cm.

My height: 6 feet
My weight: 149 lbs
My level of experience: advanced
My inteded use: mainly on-piste, carving

I should that I am not a very strong guy and a bit out-of-shape (age:
23).

I am leaning towards the 170cm, but the vendor tried to steer me
towards the 180cm (he judged it by height). I've down my own research
on the net and these days it seems that the consensus is that weight
should matter more than height. And I don't weigh very much for my
height; in addition, I prefer small, chained turns to high-speed or
off-piste skiing. So I tend to lean towards the 170.

Could you give me some advice?

I have the Beta Carv 9:18, which I believe is the same ski by an earlier
name. I ski it in a 170, and I think -- assuming that this is indeed
the type of ski you want -- that you should probably go longer. You're
not heavy for your height, true, but you're not a lightweight by the
standards of that ski, either. If I were your height, I'd want the 180
-- no, height doesn't matter as much as weight, but it does matter.
Plus, the C:9 is not a super-stiff ski; an advanced skier such as
yourself should have no trouble bending it in a 180.

If you really prefer "short chained turns", however, you might think
about a different type of ski altogether...but that's another subject.

--
Mary Malmros
Some days you're the windshield, other days you're the bug.

The C:9 is the new version of the Beta Carve 9:18 but it is a stiffer ski.
As Mary mentioned if you are into doing "short chained turns" you may want a
different ski. This ski is a great ski but works much better with larger
turns. As far as length goes if they have a ski in between the 170 & 180
that would be the one I'd recommend. The 170 maybe too short and you may
over power them as the 180 would give you a much more comfortable ride.
Weight is only important if you are at the extremes (really light or really
heavy) otherwise use your height in guaging what ski size to get unless you
had demo-ed the the different sizes and had a preference on a particular
size. The reason height is used is based off of leverage which in turn
enables you to flex the ski as you ski them. I'd advice you to demo the two
sizes before you buy and then make your decision.

JQ
Dancing on the edge