Importance of skier 'weight' category with new ski purchase

[Dorm]

Sooo ... in Jan-Feb, I demoed a few different skis. I mention 'skier weight' in the Subject line for a couple reasons: one ... I've not seen a 'ski selection guide' out there which includes consideration for skier weight, especially the heavier skier (~250lbs) and two - I'm mostly unsure if skier weight is hugely important given certain snow conditions. I'm trying to say that, given softer snow, I could probably ski both a stiffer or softer ski and do fine ... but not so much given firm or hard ice. And overall, I'd rather have one ski I feel comfortable with in either situation.

At Grand Targhee, I demo'd: Nordica Enforcer 100 - 179cm and Blizzard Rustler 10 - 180'ish length. The GT staff were very helpful and willing to discuss and had categorized the Rustler as a more 'playful' ski. A couple more recommendations were made as well, but the ones available for demo were all too short. So it mainly boiled down to what they had in an available length.

The Enforcer worked ok for me ... good edge hold, good dampening, easy turn initiation and good control. I did feel the length was short ... especially compared to my current Volkl Ninety-Eight (184cm).

The Rustler on the other hand ... after a couple runs down the 'Sac' chair, I simply could not return them fast enough. I tried every way I knew to ski them: over the tips, flat and/or off the tail a bit, but never got a feeling of control. The edge hold just wasn't there, especially on hard ice (which was present); they just felt really all over the place. This ski seemed to be way less stiffer than the Enforcer, which to me brings 'skier weight' into question.

On the other hand, years ago, I recall trying a pair of the Rossi B2's ... a fairly noodley ski ... and having a really good day.

I guess I'm trying to understand the impact skier weight has on a ski's performance, and why this seldom is mentioned - especially a 250lb guy like me. Some of the Blister Gear Selection Guides do note that certain skis are good for "heavier" skiers in their selection guides. Maybe it would good to have a "flex or stiffness" category, similar to ski boots. But to me, understanding which ski performs better for the heavier skier would certainly narrow the list of ones I would demo and ultimately purchase.

I look forward to the comments ...

Ciao ... Dorm

 

[Philpug]

A ski does not know how tall you are but can feel how heavy you are. Now starting with that premise, height can create leverage, aggressiveness and strength can create force. We talk a lot about 11/10th skiers, some of our testers like @DoryBreaux and @Drahtguy Kevin, big skiers that can not only pound a ski into submission but also (literally) snap them in half. If you look at our Ski Selector, you will see a Power/Finesse scale for all of the skis, I would err to the skis that are on the power side.

 

[Pete in Idaho]

Can a big guy, weight/muscle mass overpower a ski today? I am only 200lbs and can definitely oveerpower certain skis. I really don't know the scientific reason why but thought this could add a little to the question you made.

 

[Pdub]

As a 135 pounder I can tell you that skier weight is hugely important. In fact the Nordica Enforcer 100 @ 177 cm was for me the classic example of a ski I could only bend at supersonic speeds. Interestingly I get along just fine with the Enforcer 88 @ 172 cm. Reviewers here and at Blister have improved but I still have to read between the lines when I read reviews.

My first question for any ski reviewer is "How much do you weigh?"
Second question is "How fast do you ski?"

 

[fatbob]

As a big guy it's not all about picking the most powerful charger. Intended speed also comes into it definitely. I once skied a Soul 7 and Cochise back to back and found them equally fun in their own ways. Which would I have bought in the end? - probably the stiffer Cochise because it felt like I wouldn't beat the life out of it as fast.

One thing I have found is that besides the ease of deciding on length in any model - (What's the longest they make? - OK I'll have that) - is that now many skis come in width variants of the same basic model scaling up a width size can get you towards a lot of the same feel of a skinnier skier.

 

[Dorm]

Can a big guy, weight/muscle mass overpower a ski today? I am only 200lbs and can definitely oveerpower certain skis. I really don't know the scientific reason why but thought this could add a little to the question you made.

I agree absolutely. With the few lessons I've had over the years, several instructors commented on my power; how I'd just bust thru stuff, et al. Their comments were aimed at getting me to ski a bit more technical; a bit softer on the skis and overall improve. I always seem to revert back ... just 'use what I brought to play'

 

[Mike Thomas]

I would add that "skier weight" is... well, let's just say a 6'5" 250lbs former NFL tight end and a 5'6" 250lbs accountant are... not. the. same. As Phil said, a ski can't tell how tall you are. It also, I would say, can't tell how heavy you are, just how much force you can apply. That combines height, weight, strength, technique and speed.

 

[Dorm]

One thing I have found is that besides the ease of deciding on length in any model - (What's the longest they make? - OK I'll have that) - is that now many skis come in width variants of the same basic model scaling up a width size can get you towards a lot of the same feel of a skinnier skier.

I feel its more than that ... 'width and/or length'. There are certain models which are inherently stiffer, given the same length and width. I feel I could easily overpower a Line Vision 108 in any length. It'd simply be helpful to have some sort of data, up front, to help with narrowing the selection and point me in the direction of the stiffer ski.

 

[anders_nor]

noodles are fun, when you know they are noodles and accept them for what they are (swerve gang)

noodles are not fun when you thought you were on a powerfull ski, especially when the longer lengths of a ski, is not scaled, and the 185 is better than say a 193


Weight is a huge thing, not only because of weight, but because of the speed it gives, I've been from 207 to 262lbs last 10 years, the 262 was actually muscle and "lift every day", 207 was super super lean touring-/climbing mode me , and now currently slightly corona fat, 242lbs.The speed difference on same slope, same conditions, and same FIS GS (I have an older referanse ski) is quite a bit different. So in turn the amount of force you can load up a ski width changes as your not only loading it with your weight, but with extra speed.

At current 242lbs, there are very few non race skis I can just load up at speed, with confidence of them not folding and acting weird.

 

[fatbob]

Yeah it's useful to go with a brand/model that scales up for stiffness with length. You usually know about that when the reviews tell the reader to not go too long.

 

[oldschoolskier]

When I was younger (20’s) I was 125lbs now older I’m 180lbs, I was harder skis when I was younger, needed to be to get them to flex, now I can use finesse (it is also the reason why I still prefer stiff skis now).

The importance here beside weight is how you ski, which can greatly influence what you need.

When you read reviews select a reviewer that matches you in style (if you’re lucky and same wt) see what skis they recommend.

 

[fatbob]

At current 242lbs, there are very few non race skis I can just load up at speed, with confidence of them not folding and acting weird.

Did you ever get to ski the Movement Superturbo? That was a Viking marauder of a ski and available in lengths up to 202.

Crap 10 years on - skis just don't seem to have moved on that much in the last 10 years as they did the 10 before

 

[cantunamunch]

Did you ever get to ski the Movement Superturbo? That was a Viking marauder of a ski and available in lengths up to 202.

Crap 10 years on - skis just don't seem to have moved on that much in the last 10 years as they did the 10 before

It would be interesting to see what layup the Original+ AI would devise for @anders_nor

 

[ScottB]

Skier weight is real important when selecting a ski. I use the term "over powering" a ski. Meaning I can apply enough force to the ski to make it contort and do bad things, or just deflect torsionally and loose its edge grip. It also contributes to what length to select. You do have be knowledgeable about skis like SL race skis are made to be skied short and can support a heavy person at 165 cm lengths (this is not the norm). Reviews from Blister, do typically mention what skier weight it works for, but not always. I discount their lighter reviewers comments both for skier weight and for skier style. When most people say a ski is too stiff, that typically means it will be perfect for you. A heavy person does not have to ski a stiff ski, but you will have to accept the limits of what a soft ski can do, or suffer the consequences (loss of control). You have to read between the lines when it comes to ski reviews and Clydes.

 

[Tony S]

You have to read between the lines when it comes to ski reviews and Clydes.

It works the same way on the other end, too.

 

[DanoT]

It works the same way on the other end, too.

This is one of the reasons that the TalkSki reviews' feature "Who this ski is for", "Who this ski is not for" are so useful.

 

[François Pugh]

From an engineering perspective it's pretty simple. The ski is a beam that transfers force from under you feet along the ski. The force under your foot in a turn depends on our mass and your speed squared. Go twice as fast, you need four times the force to the same size turn. Weigh twice as much, you need twice as much force to make the same size turn. This is true whether you are a fat desk jockey or a lean mean fighting machine.

At 250 lbs, you should be on the longest length whatever model ski you're on comes in, like @fatbob posted above.

Yes, soft snow skis will be softer than hard snow skis, so the longest soft snow ski will be softer than the longest GS ski. You still need the longest ski in whatever model you choose. Choose model based on purpose, choose longest length. When it comes to choosing which ski that is focused on your particular application, err on the stiffer side. e.g. for a groomer zoomer ski choose cheater GS/SL even if you don't ski at racing speeds, GS/SL if you do ski fast.

 

[Ken_R]

Sooo ... in Jan-Feb, I demoed a few different skis. I mention 'skier weight' in the Subject line for a couple reasons: one ... I've not seen a 'ski selection guide' out there which includes consideration for skier weight, especially the heavier skier (~250lbs) and two - I'm mostly unsure if skier weight is hugely important given certain snow conditions. I'm trying to say that, given softer snow, I could probably ski both a stiffer or softer ski and do fine ... but not so much given firm or hard ice. And overall, I'd rather have one ski I feel comfortable with in either situation.

At Grand Targhee, I demo'd: Nordica Enforcer 100 - 179cm and Blizzard Rustler 10 - 180'ish length. The GT staff were very helpful and willing to discuss and had categorized the Rustler as a more 'playful' ski. A couple more recommendations were made as well, but the ones available for demo were all too short. So it mainly boiled down to what they had in an available length.

The Enforcer worked ok for me ... good edge hold, good dampening, easy turn initiation and good control. I did feel the length was short ... especially compared to my current Völkl Ninety-Eight (184cm).

The Rustler on the other hand ... after a couple runs down the 'Sac' chair, I simply could not return them fast enough. I tried every way I knew to ski them: over the tips, flat and/or off the tail a bit, but never got a feeling of control. The edge hold just wasn't there, especially on hard ice (which was present); they just felt really all over the place. This ski seemed to be way less stiffer than the Enforcer, which to me brings 'skier weight' into question.

On the other hand, years ago, I recall trying a pair of the Rossi B2's ... a fairly noodley ski ... and having a really good day.

I guess I'm trying to understand the impact skier weight has on a ski's performance, and why this seldom is mentioned - especially a 250lb guy like me. Some of the Blister Gear Selection Guides do note that certain skis are good for "heavier" skiers in their selection guides. Maybe it would good to have a "flex or stiffness" category, similar to ski boots. But to me, understanding which ski performs better for the heavier skier would certainly narrow the list of ones I would demo and ultimately purchase.

I look forward to the comments ...

Ciao ... Dorm

I have demoed both skis and loved them but they were different lengths, the Enforcer 100 was 185cm and the Rustler 10 was 188cm. I actually demoed the rustler on a pretty firm day at Loveland and they were awesome. Plenty of edgehold. I suspect the tune on the Rustlers you tried was garbage. The 180cm length is short for you in that ski though. The Enforcer 100 has a heavier feel but is still easy to ski. I think the Rustler 10 is a much better powder ski while still being awesome on groomers, again, in the 188cm length.

 

[LuliTheYounger]

I know some reviewers have gotten better & some charts do show weight, but I really do wish companies would get better at listing a weight range recommendation for their skis. I've talked to some intermediates who've been so frustrated, because the skis they've been given to demo in the past are perfect for them on paper - right length for their height, the ski is for an intermediate & they're an intermediate, the usual things that every guide will lay out as far as basic qualities to look for. Some of the bigger guys go out on those and just chatter their way around the whole time and have a miserable day, and unless they decide to ask questions, I feel like a lot of them do assume that it's bad technique on their part or that skis are just sort of like that by design.

 

[Noodler]

I have a different view regarding the skier weight consideration. I don't look at it from the perspective of being able to "flex" the ski, but rather how much ski "rebound" I'm willing to manage in the turn. When skiers state that they can't flex a ski when skiing that's typically more about technique than their weight. Even a WC FIS level ski will bend under low skier weight just by standing on the ski. Stand on a very stiff ski on a sidehill and you're going to fully decamber that ski until it hits the snow surface. A ski would literally have to be a thick steel beam to not bend under typical adult weight (male or female).

So a stiffer ski that is bent is going to want to return to its un-flexed normal condition more "violently" than a softer ski. When the ski is unweighted the skier has to manage those forces in the turn. Some skiers refer to this feeling of the ski rebound as "pop". Sometimes it's fun to ride a ski with a lot of pop, but it takes work and more focus to manage that ski as compared to a softer ski that smoothly arcs the turn without the violent need to return to its un-flexed state.

I mention all this because of course a skier will want to match their skiing preferences to the ski's flex stiffness, but that doesn't mean that there's only a small range of flexes that "match" the skier. Instead, the skier may choose a stiffer ski on some ski days and a softer on others; depending on the snow conditions, terrain that will be skied, or how they're generally feeling that day. I own lots of skis all having very different stiffness. Think about how you ski and what you want out of the ski and don't get caught up in the idea that you can't bend a ski or that you must match your weight to the ski (or it's length). It just doesn't work that way in my experience.