If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Dynafit FR 10s- ski length
So, I have been looking at buying new skis for ages, and been kicking around
tons of different models and lengths In the back of my mind I had sort of decided that I would end up buying something in the low to mid 170's for length (a decent drop from my current 185's, which i find too long). So here is my dilemma- I have decided on the Dynafit FR 10s, which come in 169 and 178, so I have to go either up or down from what I had hoped to buy. I am about 6ft10, 170 lbs. I have skied downhill my whole life, an advanced skier. I have been touring for the past 3 years, and do a mix of hiking for turns, and true touring. I have a pair of Atomic Beta something-er-others for resort skiing (185 inches), which I do alot of, since I ski patrol at a hill in Vancouver. So, the new skis will be exclusively for b/c touring. The 169s would be lighter, so I sort of prefer them for climbing purposes, but I worry that they might not be long enough for good runs on the descent, especially with a pack on. My current touring skis are an old pair of Hagen beaters (also 185) that I find way too long (the tips often get hung up when skinning through treed areas). I guess the other question I have involves bindings- any opinions on the Silveretta Pures, vs. the Dynafit Comforts? Thanks! -s- |
Ads |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
"Simon Isbister" wrote in message news:XhExf.79151$OU5.29163@clgrps13... So, I have been looking at buying new skis for ages, and been kicking around tons of different models and lengths In the back of my mind I had sort of decided that I would end up buying something in the low to mid 170's for length (a decent drop from my current 185's, which i find too long). So here is my dilemma- I have decided on the Dynafit FR 10s, which come in 169 and 178, so I have to go either up or down from what I had hoped to buy. I am about 6ft10, 170 lbs. I have skied downhill my whole life, an advanced Yeesh!! That should be 5'10" -s- |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Simon Isbister wrote:
I am about 6ft10, 170 lbs. I have skied downhill my whole life, an advanced Yeesh!! That should be 5'10" oh and I was about to suggest the 187cm length. 169 might be a bit short but it is a wide ski, about the same as a Rossi B3. If you have tight trails go shorter otherwise the 178cm might be right. Opinions seem divided - there has been a huge amount of hype from the press and armchair pundits but folks who have skied them have been less keen. There was a big test organized close to me last weekend, on the positive - great for big curves in 1 meter of light powder. Okay on hardpack, not good in forest tracks (we have a lot of woodland to climb through around here to reach the powder). Take some getting used to if you like tight "randonnee" style turns - one colleague compared them to snowblades! |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
In article , davidof wrote: Simon Isbister wrote: I am about 6ft10, 170 lbs. I have skied downhill my whole life, an advanced Yeesh!! That should be 5'10" oh and I was about to suggest the 187cm length. 169 might be a bit short but it is a wide ski, about the same as a Rossi B3. If you have tight trails go shorter otherwise the 178cm might be right. Opinions seem divided - there has been a huge amount of hype from the press and armchair pundits but folks who have skied them have been less keen. There was a big test organized close to me last weekend, on the positive - great for big curves in 1 meter of light powder. Okay on hardpack, not good in forest tracks (we have a lot of woodland to climb through around here to reach the powder). Take some getting used to if you like tight "randonnee" style turns - one colleague compared them to snowblades! They also seem to weigh quite a bit more than advertised. I.e. just about the same as any other BC ski with similar dimensions. The choice of length really depends on what you want to do, Shorter will be lighter which will be easier to climb with. Longer will do better in variable snow conditions and higher speeds, but shorter will be more fun in the trees. The shorter you go the lighter a boot you can ski them with. My personal preference is to go as short as I can feasibly stand for backcountry only skis, since they make the uphill so much easier. Either of those bindings would be fine in my experience. The silvretta has the advantage if you're changing modes a lot as it is a single pole flick to go from climbing to skiing and vice versa. Dynafits require more fiddling, but you save on weight. Pure has the advantage that it will work with more boots including standard alpine boots. (However it requires a "standard"[1] toe, it will not work any old welted boot like the Silveretta 500). _ Booker C. Bense [1]- either the AT or Alpine standards, which is pretty much every fixed heel ski boot but the Scarpa F1 and Dynafit tlt4. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 iQCVAwUBQ81GlmTWTAjn5N/lAQGUYwP/aH4hSDfvpPPwzGCtLZiCEm5baZDiNukp EyNi6Qv3h4uO0grh8Zg4wWDd7quaYt7ov0OBptWuDOJo26WHTY gPIZyBl0YQ4B5u rm4ndPRcdzNiiZxzosNPgBHULQTK9nnIvVJXKBjda9s+z1/UX+TRwRkz+9SB20zf mCu3ZwIR6RQ= =RQqm -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
"Booker C. Bense" bbense+rec.skiing.backcountry.Jan.17.06@telemark. slac.stanford.edu wrote in message ... They also seem to weigh quite a bit more than advertised. I.e. just about the same as any other BC ski with similar dimensions. The choice of length really depends on what you want to do, Shorter will be lighter which will be easier to climb with. Longer will do better in variable snow conditions and higher speeds, but shorter will be more fun in the trees. The shorter you go the lighter a boot you can ski them with. My personal preference is to go as short as I can feasibly stand for backcountry only skis, since they make the uphill so much easier. Yeah, I'm still a bit torn- I sent the order in for 178s, but they still have to contact me about a shipping fee, and I might still change it at that point. I have started to hear about that issue with their weight not being accurate... how's that happen? Either way, I was able to handle a pair at the MEC in Vancouver, and they certainly felt lighter... but definetely not as light as I had been led to believe. Either of those bindings would be fine in my experience. The silvretta has the advantage if you're changing modes a lot as it is a single pole flick to go from climbing to skiing and vice versa. Dynafits require more fiddling, but you save on weight. Pure has the advantage that it will work with more boots including standard alpine boots. (However it requires a "standard"[1] toe, it will not work any old welted boot like the Silveretta 500). My current touring skis (old Hagens) are mounted with a pair of 404s, so I will hang on to them as ice climbing approach skis. I have decided to go with a pair of the Dynafit Comforts for the new skis- I'll let you all know what I think of the set up once they arrive. -s- |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
pole length | steve | Nordic Skiing | 6 | December 22nd 04 04:21 AM |
Pole length for skate rollerskiing? | Everett Fee | Nordic Skiing | 7 | October 12th 04 10:03 PM |
Palm side exit point for pole length measure | -JP- | Nordic Skiing | 1 | March 22nd 04 03:02 AM |
pole length question | Nevalainen, Eric | Nordic Skiing | 8 | February 2nd 04 03:11 AM |
Dynafit binding problem | BT | Backcountry Skiing | 3 | October 19th 03 03:15 AM |