Welcome to the Newschoolers forums! You may read the forums as a guest, however you must be a registered member to post.
Register to become a member today!
Does 5mm make that much of a difference?
Posts: 5926
-
Karma: 598
alright so this past season my friend had the 175 arv. i dont know what the waist but this year it is 92. this year i am looking to get the 170 msp and last year the waist on those was 87. me and him pretty well ski the exact same stuff and he never complained at all that they were bad for powder. so i was just wondering, if he doesnt have problems with his 92 waist in powder, would a 5mm less waist difference make a difference skiing?
Posts: 11052
-
Karma: 113
It never hurts to go fatter, but going slim? Well...
Posts: 11052
-
Karma: 113
Damn, I managed to mis out the most important part lol. If you ski powder often (or even semi-often) it's probably better to go a bit wider. 87 isn't much.
Posts: 5926
-
Karma: 598
i know but the fat skis i was looking at , the seth, arv, and the vct are all way to tall for me.
i was kind of looking into the chronic blend though but i dont think thats much bigger either
Posts: 11052
-
Karma: 113
Posts: 3469
-
Karma: 42
Posts: 5926
-
Karma: 598
Posts: 11052
-
Karma: 113
I'm 5'6 too, this coming season my powder skis will be 180... I normally ski them around my height... so 170-ish
You're 5'6, which is around 170cm. K2 Seths (98mm) come in 169, Armada ARV's in a 165 (89mm). Line Chronic Blends come in 165 and 172 (90mm) and could suit you. The Moment Tahoe (96mm) comes in a 170. Bluehouse MR (93mm) will come in a 171, and it's $250.
This is all assuming that you like skis the similar height as you. You see, we may be short, but there are plenty of great skis out there for you. Definitely take a look at the Seths & ARV's, and the rest are fantastic skis too.
Posts: 761
-
Karma: 38
line anthems might be a goodd choice as well.
Posts: 4801
-
Karma: 868
djdavex had some good advice. If your going to be skiing alot of powder i would deffinately consider a wider waist. My park skis are 85 for comparison. 87 isn't too bad for a do everything ski though. consider rossi bc wrs or this years equivlent in addition to his suggestions
Posts: 1448
-
Karma: 14
Dude, why would you get a ski thats not fat if your skiing mad powder? Get something at least 95mm, if not more man. What are you a woman, can't handle a ski with some beef?
Posts: 12973
-
Karma: 500
the MSPs are way stiffer than ARVs, that will be a bigger difference than the waist.
if you ski that much powder, get something like 179 made'ns. it's worth it to go fat, and a 179 seems like it would be a manageable length.
Posts: 7540
-
Karma: 59
yah that sounds perfect. the flew patern is going to be similar to the arv as well.
Posts: 1914
-
Karma: 16
People always talk about width as if it is the end all be all for powder skis. Absolutely not true. It is simply a question of surface area, and flex/shape. Those Msps are shorter, skinnier, and stiffer than the ARV's, I think it is a no brainer which I would choose as a powder ski... Also remember that the way a manufacturer measures their skis (especially in lengths) can vary significantly. Try to find the actual running surface of the ski as that will give you a better idea of how long the ski will actually ride. Example: I think K2 is pretty conservative with their overall lengths. A 169 Seth is probably actually around 174 in length, and would probably be a sick ski for you. Let's get real here, 90 waist is not a powder ski. That is shit for powder. even the 98 waist on a Seth is not that fat for a powder ski. Did my ARV's ski well in powder? Yea, kind of, but not noticeably better than my Scratch fs. I don't think you will notice a huge difference in float till you get 95+ and 100+ would be prime.
Posts: 5926
-
Karma: 598
well i was loooking at getting seths for the longest time but when i was on twintip nation they only had seths in 179 and 189 i think.
but if they are making a 169 seth i will probably get those
Posts: 4489
-
Karma: 272
look into VCTs? 104 waist i think?
Posts: 11149
-
Karma: 1,415
look at the seths if you want to go softer, or the nordica enforcers for a stiffer feel.
Both are 98 mm(or around I think) underfoot, and they both rip it.
Posts: 1602
-
Karma: -3
yeah, moments tahoe's 170. ribbaraw!
Posts: 11976
-
Karma: 296
hahahahaahahahahahaahahahahaahahahahahahahah
Posts: 3116
-
Karma: 76
Posts: 620
-
Karma: 25
A 172 Prophet 100 would rock for you if you are going to be using it as a powder/all mountain ski.
Posts: 11052
-
Karma: 113
Don't wory about getting a ski a bit big, e.g. 175 because remeber youll be wearing ski boots too.
the longer it is and/or the wider it is all adds up to more surface area = more flotation.
Posts: 1914
-
Karma: 16
word, I have to agree with this 100%. Unless the ski is way to big for you, I guarantee you will get used to the bigger size pretty quickly. Another option is to get the longer length, and move your mount a little farther forward then you normally would. This will make the ski more manageable in the trees and such. Also, where do you ride by chance?
Posts: 5926
-
Karma: 598
thats for all the suggestions guys.
and i ride at lake louise and sunshine village mostly.
thats in alberta for those who dont know
Posts: 2679
-
Karma: 33
bahaha my park skis are 112. pwned.
Posts: 15967
-
Karma: 11,026
Posts: 11052
-
Karma: 113
its true dat. 112. i can vouch for him
Posts: 10471
-
Karma: 2,182
i am 5'6 and was on 179 hellbents, if you are a good skiier than u can ski just about anything
Posts: 11052
-
Karma: 113
Yeah, I'm 5'6 skiing on 180 moment rubys next year.
Posts: 5926
-
Karma: 598
i was reading the review section and was looking at the prophet 100's and everybody who rated gave them a 10.
so i might look into getting 170 prophet 100's
All times are Eastern (-5)
