Advise on newer ski fitting

If there is a decent FAQ, pls just point me at it...

Looking to pick up a relatively new pair of all-mountain skis this season.
I'm an old-school geezer who used to log tons of vertical but hasn't skied
more than 1-2 days a year now for almost a decade.

I'm late 40's, 160 lbs, kind of a technical slalom skier. Learned and did
most of my skiing on hardpack/icy eastern stuff. Have gradually dropped
from 205's to 194's, current pair is K2 Merlins, circa 2000 (?). They seem
a decent ski, and I believe are from the early shaped ski era.

Anyways, I hope to get out more this season, and am wondering if the move to
shorter, more dramatically shaped skis is worthwhile for someone like me?
I am now located in Portland, Oregon, so will be skiing mainly Cascades
snow, typically heavier stuff. I rarely ski bumps anymore, but like
terrain and mild glade skiing when available.

Found a few "fitting" charts online, but they seem to be unrealistic. One
would have me on 165s, which is shorter than the bump/aerial skis I used as
a kid! I'd rather hear from real skiers on what works for them in similar
conditions. While I understand this is highly subjective, inputs are
appreciated.

Cheers
Gary

GWood wrote:

Looking to pick up a relatively new pair of all-mountain skis this season.
I'm an old-school geezer who used to log tons of vertical but hasn't skied
more than 1-2 days a year now for almost a decade.
....

Found a few "fitting" charts online, but they seem to be unrealistic. One
would have me on 165s, which is shorter than the bump/aerial skis I used as
a kid! I'd rather hear from real skiers on what works for them in similar
conditions. While I understand this is highly subjective, inputs are
appreciated.

It's really up to you to decide what you like. But you owe it to
yourself to try some of the really short shaped skis that are out there.
160 cm is not too short for you, although you may find that you like
longer boards. The only way to find out for sure is to get out and demo.

BTW, if you're only getting in a couple of days a year, it's more cost
effective to rent than buy. Break even point is around 10 days a year.

//Walt

In article ,
"GWood" wrote:

If there is a decent FAQ, pls just point me at it...

Looking to pick up a relatively new pair of all-mountain skis this season.
I'm an old-school geezer who used to log tons of vertical but hasn't skied
more than 1-2 days a year now for almost a decade.

I'm late 40's, 160 lbs, kind of a technical slalom skier. Learned and did
most of my skiing on hardpack/icy eastern stuff. Have gradually dropped
from 205's to 194's, current pair is K2 Merlins, circa 2000 (?). They seem
a decent ski, and I believe are from the early shaped ski era.

Anyways, I hope to get out more this season, and am wondering if the move to
shorter, more dramatically shaped skis is worthwhile for someone like me?
I am now located in Portland, Oregon, so will be skiing mainly Cascades
snow, typically heavier stuff. I rarely ski bumps anymore, but like
terrain and mild glade skiing when available.

Found a few "fitting" charts online, but they seem to be unrealistic. One
would have me on 165s, which is shorter than the bump/aerial skis I used as
a kid! I'd rather hear from real skiers on what works for them in similar
conditions. While I understand this is highly subjective, inputs are
appreciated.

Cheers
Gary

My background isn't much different than yours, Gary. I grew up skiing in
southern Ontario on the hardpack, and I'm in my early 40s and about 180.

Currently, I have a pair of Salomon Crossmax 10s that are (checking...)
185cm, and my next pair are likely to be shorter (especially so if I
break down and buy a pair of slalom racing skis g). I'm probably
looking at a pair of 175s or thereabouts for my next pair, and I think
you should be looking for something a little shorter than that (given
your weight).

What looks especially good to me these days are the designs that combine
a relatively short radius sidecut with a medium waist. My brother has a
pair of Atomic BetaCarv 9.22s that are pretty much like that, and it
seems like there isn't anything that they don't do pretty well.

So 165s? Yes, I think they are definitely in the ballpark for you.

--
Alan Baker
Vancouver, British Columbia
"If you raise the ceiling 4 feet, move the fireplace from that wall
to that wall, you'll still only get the full stereophonic effect
if you sit in the bottom of that cupboard."

"Alan Baker" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"GWood" wrote:

If there is a decent FAQ, pls just point me at it...

Looking to pick up a relatively new pair of all-mountain skis this
season.
I'm an old-school geezer who used to log tons of vertical but hasn't
skied
more than 1-2 days a year now for almost a decade.

I'm late 40's, 160 lbs, kind of a technical slalom skier. Learned and
did
most of my skiing on hardpack/icy eastern stuff. Have gradually dropped
from 205's to 194's, current pair is K2 Merlins, circa 2000 (?). They
seem
a decent ski, and I believe are from the early shaped ski era.

Anyways, I hope to get out more this season, and am wondering if the move
to
shorter, more dramatically shaped skis is worthwhile for someone like me?
I am now located in Portland, Oregon, so will be skiing mainly Cascades
snow, typically heavier stuff. I rarely ski bumps anymore, but like
terrain and mild glade skiing when available.

Found a few "fitting" charts online, but they seem to be unrealistic.
One
would have me on 165s, which is shorter than the bump/aerial skis I used
as
a kid! I'd rather hear from real skiers on what works for them in
similar
conditions. While I understand this is highly subjective, inputs are
appreciated.

Cheers
Gary

My background isn't much different than yours, Gary. I grew up skiing in
southern Ontario on the hardpack, and I'm in my early 40s and about 180.

Currently, I have a pair of Salomon Crossmax 10s that are (checking...)
185cm, and my next pair are likely to be shorter (especially so if I
break down and buy a pair of slalom racing skis g). I'm probably
looking at a pair of 175s or thereabouts for my next pair, and I think
you should be looking for something a little shorter than that (given
your weight).

What looks especially good to me these days are the designs that combine
a relatively short radius sidecut with a medium waist. My brother has a
pair of Atomic BetaCarv 9.22s that are pretty much like that, and it
seems like there isn't anything that they don't do pretty well.

So 165s? Yes, I think they are definitely in the ballpark for you.


I've been using the all mountain 170's too 175's.
it's nice to have a little more stick under you when you POW.
getting on in the early 40's now I tend too not bash bumps , prefer tree
lines, and lots of soft stuff.
having the leg strength to carry a full stick makes a little longer,,,,
better in the back back country.
as said before though, if your only out a couple of times a year
rent till you find the love.
then buy it EG

In article ,
"LePheaux" wrote:

"Alan Baker" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"GWood" wrote:

If there is a decent FAQ, pls just point me at it...

Looking to pick up a relatively new pair of all-mountain skis this
season.
I'm an old-school geezer who used to log tons of vertical but hasn't
skied
more than 1-2 days a year now for almost a decade.

I'm late 40's, 160 lbs, kind of a technical slalom skier. Learned and
did
most of my skiing on hardpack/icy eastern stuff. Have gradually dropped
from 205's to 194's, current pair is K2 Merlins, circa 2000 (?). They
seem
a decent ski, and I believe are from the early shaped ski era.

Anyways, I hope to get out more this season, and am wondering if the move
to
shorter, more dramatically shaped skis is worthwhile for someone like me?
I am now located in Portland, Oregon, so will be skiing mainly Cascades
snow, typically heavier stuff. I rarely ski bumps anymore, but like
terrain and mild glade skiing when available.

Found a few "fitting" charts online, but they seem to be unrealistic.
One
would have me on 165s, which is shorter than the bump/aerial skis I used
as
a kid! I'd rather hear from real skiers on what works for them in
similar
conditions. While I understand this is highly subjective, inputs are
appreciated.

Cheers
Gary

My background isn't much different than yours, Gary. I grew up skiing in
southern Ontario on the hardpack, and I'm in my early 40s and about 180.

Currently, I have a pair of Salomon Crossmax 10s that are (checking...)
185cm, and my next pair are likely to be shorter (especially so if I
break down and buy a pair of slalom racing skis g). I'm probably
looking at a pair of 175s or thereabouts for my next pair, and I think
you should be looking for something a little shorter than that (given
your weight).

What looks especially good to me these days are the designs that combine
a relatively short radius sidecut with a medium waist. My brother has a
pair of Atomic BetaCarv 9.22s that are pretty much like that, and it
seems like there isn't anything that they don't do pretty well.

So 165s? Yes, I think they are definitely in the ballpark for you.


I've been using the all mountain 170's too 175's.
it's nice to have a little more stick under you when you POW.
getting on in the early 40's now I tend too not bash bumps , prefer tree
lines, and lots of soft stuff.
having the leg strength to carry a full stick makes a little longer,,,,
better in the back back country.
as said before though, if your only out a couple of times a year
rent till you find the love.
then buy it EG

A reasonable thought.

I found the 9.22s to be very good in everything from bumps to groomed to
crud. I didn't really get much of a chance to try them in deep powder,
but I suspect the combination of wider waists on shorter sidecut radius
skis is going to be really big.

--
Alan Baker
Vancouver, British Columbia
"If you raise the ceiling 4 feet, move the fireplace from that wall
to that wall, you'll still only get the full stereophonic effect
if you sit in the bottom of that cupboard."

Thanks for the replies

Alan, my "formative" years were spent skiing near Ottawa, on what we called
Gatineau (Hills) powder. After a few days without fresh, you could just
about see yourself in it ;-)

Can you clarify what a "medium" waist design is about? Is the "medium"
relative to the tip and tail measurement, or is it an absolute threshold
measurement?

From my googling, it seems that skis are classed now according to their turn
radius, which I guess is the 22 in the 9.22s? That's an interesting way to
group skis. I guess it presumes a certain level of terrain and competence?
I recall guys in my ski patrol unit who could probably cram 100 turns into a
short pitch on their parallel edged 205's. I figured it was all in the legs
and heart.

Between your post and others, I think I just might take some advice and rent
an all-mountain varient in the 170-175cm range. With the dumps going on
here right now, might even get out by month-end.

Cheers
Gary

"Alan Baker" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"GWood" wrote:

My background isn't much different than yours, Gary. I grew up skiing in
southern Ontario on the hardpack, and I'm in my early 40s and about 180.

Currently, I have a pair of Salomon Crossmax 10s that are (checking...)
185cm, and my next pair are likely to be shorter (especially so if I
break down and buy a pair of slalom racing skis g). I'm probably
looking at a pair of 175s or thereabouts for my next pair, and I think
you should be looking for something a little shorter than that (given
your weight).

What looks especially good to me these days are the designs that combine
a relatively short radius sidecut with a medium waist. My brother has a
pair of Atomic BetaCarv 9.22s that are pretty much like that, and it
seems like there isn't anything that they don't do pretty well.

So 165s? Yes, I think they are definitely in the ballpark for you.

--
Alan Baker
Vancouver, British Columbia
"If you raise the ceiling 4 feet, move the fireplace from that wall
to that wall, you'll still only get the full stereophonic effect
if you sit in the bottom of that cupboard."

In article ,
"GWood" wrote:

Thanks for the replies

Alan, my "formative" years were spent skiing near Ottawa, on what we called
Gatineau (Hills) powder. After a few days without fresh, you could just
about see yourself in it ;-)

Can you clarify what a "medium" waist design is about? Is the "medium"
relative to the tip and tail measurement, or is it an absolute threshold
measurement?

Let's start with narrow and work our way up. g

Here's a pic of Atomic's SL:11 pure racing slalom ski:

http://winter.atomicski.com/product_images/sk/race/large/SL-11.jpg

If you look closely at the tail, you'll see the tip, waist and tail
measurements, along with a radius: 109, 64, 94, giving a radius of 14m

Now let's look at what I'm talking about. Something like their Metron:

URL:http://winter.atomicski.com/product_...Metron&m=Metro
n%20B5

Happily, they just list the specs:

"Radius: 11m
Dimensions: 131-76-115 (162L)
Sizes: 152/162/172"

So as you can see, the radius is still still small (smaller, in fact)
but the entire ski has been made wider; wider at tip, waist and tail.

So you get more surface area to support you in soft snow.

Note, too, that this is the top of Atomic's Metron line -- most
definitely aimed at good skiers in all the sizes that skiers come in,
and it maxes out at 172cm in length.


From my googling, it seems that skis are classed now according to their turn
radius, which I guess is the 22 in the 9.22s? That's an interesting way to
group skis. I guess it presumes a certain level of terrain and competence?
I recall guys in my ski patrol unit who could probably cram 100 turns into a
short pitch on their parallel edged 205's. I figured it was all in the legs
and heart.

Sorry, didn't mean to mislead you. The radii I've been talking about are
the *physical* radii of the sidecut *itself*. Certainly that has an
effect on turn radius, but it isn't the same as turn radius.


Between your post and others, I think I just might take some advice and rent
an all-mountain varient in the 170-175cm range. With the dumps going on
here right now, might even get out by month-end.

I'd definitely rent if I hadn't tried them already, but you're gonna
like 'em. Reeeeeealllly, like 'em.



Cheers
Gary

"Alan Baker" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"GWood" wrote:

My background isn't much different than yours, Gary. I grew up skiing in
southern Ontario on the hardpack, and I'm in my early 40s and about 180.

Currently, I have a pair of Salomon Crossmax 10s that are (checking...)
185cm, and my next pair are likely to be shorter (especially so if I
break down and buy a pair of slalom racing skis g). I'm probably
looking at a pair of 175s or thereabouts for my next pair, and I think
you should be looking for something a little shorter than that (given
your weight).

What looks especially good to me these days are the designs that combine
a relatively short radius sidecut with a medium waist. My brother has a
pair of Atomic BetaCarv 9.22s that are pretty much like that, and it
seems like there isn't anything that they don't do pretty well.

So 165s? Yes, I think they are definitely in the ballpark for you.

--
Alan Baker
Vancouver, British Columbia
"If you raise the ceiling 4 feet, move the fireplace from that wall
to that wall, you'll still only get the full stereophonic effect
if you sit in the bottom of that cupboard."

--
Alan Baker
Vancouver, British Columbia
"If you raise the ceiling 4 feet, move the fireplace from that wall
to that wall, you'll still only get the full stereophonic effect
if you sit in the bottom of that cupboard."

GWood wrote:

Can you clarify what a "medium" waist design is about? Is the "medium"
relative to the tip and tail measurement, or is it an absolute threshold
measurement?

A rough guide: A medium waist ski is in the 65 to 70 mm range. Below
that you're looking at a narrow waisted ski that'll be quick edge to
edge on the groomed/firm but lack floatation in powder/crud. 70 to
75mm and you're in the range of the mid-fat all mountain. 75mm and
above would be a powder ski.


From my googling, it seems that skis are classed now according to their turn
radius, which I guess is the 22 in the 9.22s? That's an interesting way to
group skis. I guess it presumes a certain level of terrain and competence?
I recall guys in my ski patrol unit who could probably cram 100 turns into a
short pitch on their parallel edged 205's. I figured it was all in the legs
and heart.

Think of the nominal turn riduis is what the ski would do if the rider
was almost completely passive and just put the ski on edge. You can
make shorter or longer turns by varying your technique.

Yes the 9.22 has a nominal turn radius of 22 meters, which is about half
of what a traditional "straight" ski would have, and almost twice as
large as some of thet more aggressive sidecuts.

Between your post and others, I think I just might take some advice and rent
an all-mountain varient in the 170-175cm range. With the dumps going on
here right now, might even get out by month-end.

Excellent choice, sir.

//Walt

GWood wrote:
[snip]

Anyways, I hope to get out more this season, and am wondering if the move to
shorter, more dramatically shaped skis is worthwhile for someone like me?

Yes.

[snip]
Found a few "fitting" charts online, but they seem to be unrealistic. One
would have me on 165s, which is shorter than the bump/aerial skis I used as
a kid!

It's also longer than Bode Miller races slalom on, and he's a good bit
bigger than you.

I'd rather hear from real skiers on what works for them in similar
conditions. While I understand this is highly subjective, inputs are
appreciated.

It is subjective, and you're going to have to demo some to get the best
input there is. My fave all-rounders, on which I skied everything from
bumps to crud to Eastern Loud Powder to real powder at A-Basin last
year, are a pair of 150cm Atomic slalom skis. It'll all probably feel
pretty strange to you at first, but you really ought to demo some of
these skis -- possibly with a lesson or clued-in friend to ride along
and show you the ropes with the new skis, so you don't waste your time
trying to ski them like your old skis. Give 'em plenty of time, because
it'll take some getting used to -- don't plan to try and demo half a
dozen models in a day. Find a shop that you can work with and that is
trustworthy, see what they carry, and select from their product lines,
because plowing through a gazillion different models is just too much
work.

Mary Malmros wrote:
GWood wrote:
[snip]

Anyways, I hope to get out more this season, and am wondering if the
move to shorter, more dramatically shaped skis is worthwhile for
someone like me?

Yes.

[snip]
Found a few "fitting" charts online, but they seem to be
unrealistic. One would have me on 165s, which is shorter than the
bump/aerial skis I used as a kid!

It's also longer than Bode Miller races slalom on, and he's a good bit
bigger than you.

Really? what does Bode Miller use for slalom then? and if they're shorter
than 165 how come he won anything at all?


--
Chris *:-)

Downhill Good, Uphill BAD!

www.suffolkvikings.org.uk