Member of the Month

KilaTsunami
October, 2024

Online

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!

Elizabeths to small????

profile picture
Aganist_Corey
Posts: 11 - Karma: 10

Im 6'1" and 150 pounds any adive people.

Oct 22 2008 9:43PM
0 0
profile picture
JakeC
Posts: 2160 - Karma: 101
what are you skiing, like deep pow or what? and do you mean small as in width or length?
Oct 22 2008 9:49PM
0 0
profile picture
Aganist_Corey
Posts: 11 - Karma: 10
yeah i ski pow and park and the skis are 172 and im 6'1" i want to know if thats gonna be small for my height
Oct 22 2008 9:57PM
0 0
profile picture
*kiwiNZ*
Posts: 249 - Karma: 13

Definitely too small!

For powder you need something at least 180 and even then that would be small

Oct 22 2008 10:09PM
0 0
profile picture
Dr.Rick_Marshall
Posts: 407 - Karma: 44
wayyyy to small to take in powder
Oct 22 2008 11:10PM
0 0
profile picture
no_steeze
Posts: 23992 - Karma: 4,272
yeah way way way too small, get bacons, very similar ski except more powder oriented and 10cm longer
Oct 22 2008 11:31PM
0 0
profile picture
SEABURN
Posts: 4859 - Karma: 2,752
I'm about that size
i ride 178 in park, 189 in pow
Oct 22 2008 11:44PM
0 0
profile picture
skisquaw@420
Posts: 1802 - Karma: 13
WAY to small, you should be on nothing smaller than a 190 for powder
Oct 23 2008 1:13AM
0 0
profile picture
quattro179
Posts: 464 - Karma: 54
I hope all these people that are responding have ridden lizzies. I weigh the same as you and have used them for they last two years and they are fine. I absolutely love these skis and I would never be without a pair. They have been great even up to waist deep. A 110 waist isn't exaclty small. Mine are like 3 back tho...
Oct 23 2008 2:51AM
0 0
profile picture
Fish_Sandwich.
Posts: 9108 - Karma: 16
Bacons would work better, no reason no to just get those.
Oct 23 2008 3:15AM
0 0
profile picture
*kiwiNZ*
Posts: 249 - Karma: 13

Yeah but how tall are you? He is 6'1" so they are obviously far to small for him.

A 110 waist isn't small but a 172 length is!

Oct 23 2008 8:50AM
0 0
profile picture
Twig
Posts: 6406 - Karma: 60,019
I'm 5'8 and 140 and I found lizzies too small for pow when it was really deep.. I'm on 181s this year.. I guess that answers your question.. go for Bacons at least.. 185-190 would be better..
Oct 23 2008 10:16AM
0 0
profile picture
skisquaw@420
Posts: 1802 - Karma: 13
dont believe this shit
Oct 23 2008 1:39PM
0 0
profile picture
quattro179
Posts: 464 - Karma: 54
First of all I dont think skis know how tall you are. But I could be wrong leverage or something could factor in but i dont think it would be much for a two inch difference.

Second, I wasn't lying. How do you think people skied before pocket rockets and motherships were introduced. There are a million old guys that could outski most people on some 90 waist volkls. It just depends on what you like.

That said my tips have NEVER dove on my lizzies but I do have EP pros for this year. You may want to go up to Bacons depending on your park to pow ratio.


Oct 23 2008 5:03PM
0 0
profile picture
MarkieR
Posts: 5337 - Karma: 98
yeah that's pretty much what i was going to say. they'll work for you just fine. it's just a question as to if there is anything out there that may work better. i would imagine that something a little longer will give you a much easier time. the bacon would probably be a good fail safe ski to choose. it won't be too big but it will be able to support you through some of the gnarlier stuff where the lizzies would fold.
Oct 23 2008 5:08PM
0 0
profile picture
*kiwiNZ*
Posts: 249 - Karma: 13

Yeah but those 90 waist volkls would be a lot longer than 172, your getting caught up with thinking the waist of the ski makes all the difference in powder, obviously it is important but length is just as important, its all about the surface area.

And a ski knows how tall you are

Oct 23 2008 8:40PM
0 0
profile picture
Lemuel
Posts: 14486 - Karma: 10,632
ever heard of icelantic? cause you just failed
Oct 23 2008 8:46PM
0 0
profile picture
*kiwiNZ*
Posts: 249 - Karma: 13

First how did i fail?

Second yeah i've heard of icelantic, have you actually skied them? and do you actually know anything about them? Because if you did know anything about them you wouldn't be trying to make the same point you are i.e they make short skis

Oct 23 2008 9:06PM
0 0
profile picture
skyabamba
Posts: 1144 - Karma: 10
yeah and icelantics are so short because of how fuckin fat they are! hence the reason he just said SURFACE AREA.
i think your the one that failed....to open your mind
Mar 22 2009 4:33PM
0 0
All times are Eastern (-5)