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!
Will the Volkl Wall be too stiff for me?
Posts: 6409
-
Karma: 60,053
Right basically i'm looking to buy some new park skis this season and get more in to park skiing! I'm more of a backcountry skiier but i got the basics of jumps and pipe covered so i'm not a beginner.. I probably ski 50% Pipe, 35% Jumps and 10% Rails.. I'm 5ft 9 and 125 pounds..I was a ski instructor for a year and ski agressively.. I ski mostly in La Grave - France (but not park there obviously) and saas fee - switzerland but also in the rockies once a year! My instinct is to go for the Volkl Wall in a 161 but am worried it might be too stiff.. Other thoughts include Fujas, AR6, Pipe Cleaners and Thrusters..
Posts: 796
-
Karma: -53
Posts: 2497
-
Karma: 17
i dont know about stiffness, but whatever you get go longer.
Posts: 6409
-
Karma: 60,053
Yeh i guess that leaves 5% for getting from the lift to the park... so yeh i deliberately left that 5% :) Longer would mean going up to 169? I only weigh 125 pounds.. also having a shorter ski would mean more leverage on the tips for doing butters.. i def want to be able to nose and tail press easily cos thats just so fun..
Posts: 4634
-
Karma: 227
I'm also 5'9" 125 and I rode my friends 177s and they were amazing. I highly suggest them.
Posts: 6853
-
Karma: 75
Just from flexing them by hand and looking at the flex graph they are one of the stiffer park skis, but I don't think they'd be TOO stiff. You should really go with the 169 though, especially if you center mount them. If you want a more buttery ski get some armadas or somethin.
Posts: 796
-
Karma: -53
yeah but the longer the ski the more badass and more respct you get. dont get 161's ,thats like skiboarding, i rode 179 laast year and i was the same size as you only 10 pounds more
Posts: 521
-
Karma: 10
At 5 ft 9 in you would have no problem going with a little bigger skiing, 170 cm would be fine.
Posts: 521
-
Karma: 10
Posts: 6409
-
Karma: 60,053
Fair enough. I guess im looking at the 169 but it also has to be my bump ski? Anyone know if its any good in the bumps..since it's quite stiff it might not be..I only just thought of that sorry...
Posts: 796
-
Karma: -53
Posts: 1496
-
Karma: 10
They won't be that good for bumps probably, because there is too much tail. I could be wrong though.
Posts: 6409
-
Karma: 60,053
Yes as in moguls... before they snapped I used my Salomon Thrusters in the moguls and they were really good.. i dont wan't to be using 179 seths in moguls...
Posts: 692
-
Karma: 33
wow you have alot of diffrent riding types. This is a park ski. Not a mogul ski, So ask if the wall is good in the bumps is like asking if snow googles work under water. Just dosent work.
Posts: 796
-
Karma: -53
Posts: 206
-
Karma: 9
i've heard the walls are real stiff and they're not very durable. for park i would def get a more flexy ski.
Posts: 1437
-
Karma: 275
they are not that stiff. they are perfect
Posts: 6409
-
Karma: 60,053
What a stupid reply! Firstly, just because a ski is designed for one thing doesn't mean it can't be used for others. Skis aren't that different. A comparison similar to yours would be asking if the Wall is good for waterskiing! Secondly many if not most park skis make good mogul skis. As I said before my Solly 1080s were brilliant in the bumps. The Wall is both stiffer and wider so will be less good but I asked if anyone had tried them and thought they were any good in the bumps.. And yes I ride the whole mountain, variety is the spice of life.
Posts: 6409
-
Karma: 60,053
*Bump* Just because i felt like it.. also now thinking of 166 AR6.. wish I didnt hate the graphics!
Posts: 23
-
Karma: 10
166 are much to short. think about the 176 at least.
Posts: 6409
-
Karma: 60,053
There definately seems to be a new fashion for longer skis.. at 125 pounds 176 is a very long ski especially for moguls which will be one use.. given that im very light and no longer growing and my old skis were 161 i def wont go longer than 169 walls/166 armadas! given that im very light and no longer growing and my old skis were 161 but mounted at -3 from true.. which was a nice balance... how light are the volkl walls? i can't find the weight online..
Posts: 7845
-
Karma: 93
Wall's are relevively light, but also keep in mind, with the wall's, they're symetrical so you'll be centre mounting and will end up with alot of tail for the bumps. That's the only thing, and for everyone else saying they won't work in bumps, shut up, most skis will work in bumps when skied proporly. i take my skis into the bumps all the time.
Posts: 138
-
Karma: 10
hahaha stiff, long, hahaha... sorry couldnt help myself
Posts: 23
-
Karma: 10
haha no wonder many people want bigger skis
Posts: 606
-
Karma: 12
All times are Eastern (-5)
