I've outgrown my first Skis, important next step as a real skier! (need advice)

[JohnnyL]

Hello everyone. New to the forum. I am here hoping for advice as am looking to make the big decision to move on from my first pair of skis as I have outgrown my first pair.

I always loved to ski just rarely did it. Once a season with rentals. 7 years ago after some advice and research I bought Rossignol Experience 78s. I believe it was the 2014 edition. They came with bindings. 158 cm, I actually went shorter than what was recommended at the time but still at the time had a bit of fear of turning at speed. I felt when I rented if I kept them short they were so much more manageable but I was still skiing somewhat defensive at the time. 5'8, 185 lbs somewhat athletic, was very athletic playing many different sport. 43 now. I also was fitted for boots and my goodness it make all the difference. The boots and the skis together transformed me.

On the Rossi's I have really grown as a skier. I mainly ski east coast couple inches snow, harder snow ice underneath type. I like skiing groomers mainly I don't go off piste much. I pretty much go full speed down blue's and single blacks now I embrace the speed. I am usually passing most skiers. On double blacks I will be cautious on the steepest parts depending on conditions still. Also not one for moguls much I'll dabble but not my thing.

I just feel now that turning is no issue and the skis can get chattery at speed. I feel like I want to go faster and they get unstable. I understand now why the pro was pushing me to go longer but I wasn't ready then. I am really unsure with now going with 78/80 again or 84/85 or even 88 width. The width is another thing I have read differing things on. Should I just go 78 again with a newer longer ski? 165-175cm??

I think if I want it to be a front side ski (mostly) which I do, then I should keep it narrow yes? But, at the same time, I want the ski to help me not so much demanding to be on edge. All honesty I can maybe be a touch lazy at times and not focused on each and every turn so in truth I enjoy the feedback yet don't want to work so hard each run. Try to stay fresher later in a session as I will ski all day.

Open to suggestions. I don't feel it has to be an all ski wonder. So wide enough to handle a moment here or there off piste or in poorer conditions. Looking for the balance between stability without too much weight and to keep the idea of the ski easy to use and turn quickly if necessary.

Thanks for taking the time to read, I've read through many threads on this issue but would be nice to have direct advice to my particular situation as everyone is different..

JohnnyL

 

[Philpug]

How fast they grow up. I think you are on the right trail looking in the 80-90 mm range. If you are planning on adding a wider ski, 100 mm plus, I would err to the 80-85mm range. Length wise, it really depends on the rocker/rise of the tip and tail, less rise, low 170's, a lot of rise, mid to upper 170's. It sounds like you are pretty strong and athletic and I am surprised that you have been on the 158 as long as you have and hearing that you are having trouble with control with speed makes sense.

Take a look around our handy dandy Ski Selector and see if anything tickles your fancy then we can help you maybe narrow it down.

 

[JohnnyL]

Will check out the selector for sure thanks. I think down the road if I venture out west I'll either rent wider skis for the time or try to find a deal and own two pair.

My focus now is nailing the ski for the type of skiing I am mostly doing which is as described. More front side easy turning/carving but with easy stability for at higher speeds is there such a balance or will there always be a bit of trade off.

 

[François Pugh]

For width, if you were skiing out west, 80mm to 90 mm would be fine. If you are skiing Quebec, keep it around 70 mm. East Coast? Not sure, but I would keep it under 80 mm.

For side-cut radius stick to 13 to 15 if you mostly skiing smaller hills (<400 ' vertical) or love making small turns. 15 to 27 if you mostly ski bigger hills, longer side-cut radius is for higher speeds (that you can't reach for more than a couple of seconds on a small hill).

If you like skiing fast you should get a level of ski that is one step below the FIS racing skis.

All major brands make a good ski in that category that works; they just feel different.

For length, the recipe is find where you fit in the range of skier weights, and choose your length at the same point in the range the ski comes in, e.g. if you weigh next to nothing choose the shortest, if you weigh a tonne choose the longest and if you are in the middle choose the middle length. I like to go with the 2nd longest length the ski comes in; I weigh 150 lbs and like skiing very fast.

 

[JohnnyL]

How fast they grow up. I think you are on the right trail looking in the 80-90 mm range. If you are planning on adding a wider ski, 100 mm plus, I would err to the 80-85mm range. Length wise, it really depends on the rocker/rise of the tip and tail, less rise, low 170's, a lot of rise, mid to upper 170's. It sounds like you are pretty strong and athletic and I am surprised that you have been on the 158 as long as you have and hearing that you are having trouble with control with speed makes sense.

Take a look around our handy dandy Ski Selector and see if anything tickles your fancy then we can help you maybe narrow it down.

The Ski selector pointed out the Head v-shape v10 among others. That is one sexy ski! Reviews are overwhelming positive on it. 85 underfoot..

 

[JohnnyL]

For width, if you were skiing out west, 80mm to 90 mm would be fine. If you are skiing Quebec, keep it around 70 mm. East Coast? Not sure, but I would keep it under 80 mm.

For side-cut radius stick to 13 to 15 if you mostly skiing smaller hills (<400 ' vertical) or love making small turns. 15 to 27 if you mostly ski bigger hills, longer side-cut radius is for higher speeds (that you can't reach for more than a couple of seconds on a small hill).

If you like skiing fast you should get a level of ski that is one step below the FIS racing skis.

All major brands make a good ski in that category that works; they just feel different.

For length, the recipe is find where you fit in the range of skier weights, and choose your length at the same point in the range the ski comes in, e.g. if you weigh next to nothing choose the shortest, if you weigh a tonne choose the longest and if you are in the middle choose the middle length. I like to go with the 2nd longest length the ski comes in; I weigh 150 lbs and like skiing very fast.

Thank you very much for the reply. See this is where width has confused me. You are saying keep it under 80 just like I have now with my 78's. Others say mid 80s is good if not preferable. I guess then it would come down to the other characteristics as you have pointed out. Interesting that I put all the data in and ski selector did not offer any ski under 80mm.

 

[François Pugh]

It comes down to where you ski, and what the surface is on which you ski.
I have a pair of 108 mm wide (at the waist skis). They are ideal for the soft snow found on Vancouver Island, off the groomed runs in tree glades. Even on the soft Vancouver Island snow, these skis are not optimal for on the groomed runs.

I have several pair of 68 mm wide skis. I ski them on marked runs in Ontario and Quebec, where the snow is hard, and most skiing is on groomed runs or mogul runs (e.g. Mt. Tremblant, Blue Mountain Collingwood).

Narrow skis beg you to tip them into a turn. Wide skis resist being tipped into a turn. It's not that you can't carve on a wide ski; it's not that hard; it's just that that a wide ski doesn't encourage you to do so.

You are getting advice for wider skis from people who ski soft snow out west. If you tip a ski up in soft snow the edge sinks into the snow. If you tip a ski up on hard snow (or ice) the edge doesn't sink in much and you have to lever your weight off the snow to raise the other edge. The wider the ski, the longer the lever arm. If you are staying on groomed runs or moguls that are well-skied, you have no reason to go wider than 70 mm (unless you have skills to tip to high angles and fat feet and boot out too often). If you spend time in deep snow off the groomed surface 82 mm to 96 mm works well while still being not too unpleasant on the groomed runs.

Where do you ski, more specifically?

 

[JohnnyL]

Ok understood thank you. Wow 68mm nobody has said to go that narrow not even the pro (at Corbetts). My current ski is a 78mm Rossi experience. It's listed as all mountain in the description. I ski mostly Blue as I live in Ontario so it's the closest. Been there many many times and will be going again in couple weeks. I've been out to Tremblant once and will be going to Stowe in Feb (very excited). I have never been out west or skied in what is considered powder conditions. I want to one day but I am not exactly of the jet-set type so flying all over to ski is not realistic for me. I'd rather have a ski that is optimal for the area I ski most and the type of skiing I do most.

 

[François Pugh]

Ok understood thank you. Wow 68mm nobody has said to go that narrow not even the pro (at Corbetts). My current ski is a 78mm Rossi experience. It's listed as all mountain in the description. I ski mostly Blue as I live in Ontario so it's the closest. Been there many many times and will be going again in couple weeks. I've been out to Tremblant once and will be going to Stowe in Feb (very excited). I have never been out west or skied in what is considered powder conditions. I want to one day but I am not exactly of the jet-set type so flying all over to ski is not realistic for me. I'd rather have a ski that is optimal for the area I ski most and the type of skiing I do most.

The reason narrow skis don't get recommended any more is that people want an "all-mountain" ski. "All mountain" means suitable for both, suitable for on the groomed runs AND suitable for off the trails. Skiing off the trails in fresh snow that is, say, a foot deep or deeper with a skinny ski is a whole different skill set, and a lot harder to do than skiing on groomed runs with skinny skis. Wide skis with some rocker make it almost as easy as skiing on groomers, so a compromise ski is recommended, something between 80 and 100 mm, depending on your weight.

We used to ski everywhere with skinny skis, but I recall the first time I tried skiing in deep snow (with 68 mm wide skis); it was like I didn't know how to ski. I considered myself a fairly good skier after skiing for about 15 years in hard-snow conditions, but I ended up spending three days falling every 50 feet before I learned how to ski in soft snow. Good hard-snow habits like putting most of your weight on the outside ski and pressuring the tips to tighten the turn, end up sinking (one of) your skis or driving the tips down into the snow with skinny skis. With skinny skis you have to balance on both skis as if it were a single platform and be gentle and patient with forces.

Now it seems that only carving fans want skinny carving skis, so unless you say you will only ski groomed runs and want to carve all the time, a skinny ski won't be recommended to you. The all-mountain ski is really so much easier to use when you go off the trail or when you encounter deeper snow.

 

[ThomasD]

Based on the information you provided I would suggest something in the high 70s to mid 80s underfoot. You can go higher but getting them up on edge on hardpack requires more effort and solid technique, this combined with your easy going style could lead to bad habits. Meanwhile the lower you go the more the ski wants to be on edge all the time.

As an all purpose east coast ski I'm partial to the K2 Disruption 82 Ti and our weights are similar, but I might be a bit more aggressive than you. Another option would be the Rossi Experience 82 Ti.

 

[Bluenose]

The ski has to suit what and how you ski, not what you want to ski.

For Ontario on piste that will be hardpack and narrow is better than wide, sub 80 in my book. Your knees will thank you. I ski the same conditions and my daily driver is 76.

If you do venture out you can rent locally for the trip or buy a second set for that purpose. My away skis are 88 and that is plenty even in a foot of fresh as I do not go off piste. As much as I like them for that purpose, I would not be happy with those as my daily driver.

If there is an opportunity to demo, grab it. You will learn a lot, not just about the skis but also about what you like.

 

[Jilly]

The Rossi Exp 78 is an all mountain ski, but it's a softer ski.

I ski Ontario and Quebec. My daily driver is a Rossi Hero ST Ti. It's 68mm under foot. And you see lots of them here at Tremblant. The MT version might be another for you to try, but it's soft or you might want to try one of the React's from Rossi.

For a western trip (or if I was going to be here Monday) I have an 88 underfoot. Anything wider just hurts my knees.

Blue should have some free demo days. There was one today here at Tremblant. (-20C was the high.....) Keep an eye on the website.

 

[JohnnyL]

The ski has to suit what and how you ski, not what you want to ski.

For Ontario on piste that will be hardpack and narrow is better than wide, sub 80 in my book. Your knees will thank you. I ski the same conditions and my daily driver is 76.

If you do venture out you can rent locally for the trip or buy a second set for that purpose. My away skis are 88 and that is plenty even in a foot of fresh as I do not go off piste. As much as I like them for that purpose, I would not be happy with those as my daily driver.

If there is an opportunity to demo, grab it. You will learn a lot, not just about the skis but also about what you like.

Thank you Bluenose. Great advise I will take.

I agree with you about ski waist width and the two ski approach.

Let me ask your opinion on length. Based on what you have read, 163cm or 170cm. Considering Head V-Shape V6 or Rossi experience. Trying to find, like most I am sure, that fine line between easy turning and max stability at high speed..

 

[Bluenose]

Not sue if I am qualified to answer, but I can say this and hope it will give you something to consider.

For you at 5”8” – 185 I recon you could pick either, but you already know that it seems. Pick the shorter if you want to do slalom on the steeps, or the longer if you want to have a more all-round ski.

For reference I am 6”1” - 210# and ski 179. I have tried shorter (and short radius) on demo days and like them as it makes short radius turns on steep terrain easier. This is not something I want to do all day long, so I prefer the longer length.

My son is 5”11” – 165# and skis 164. Stronger and more capable than I am, they serve him well for both short turns and longer turns at (high) speed. His skis are also quite stiff.

Others can weigh in on the significance of that last bit wrt stability at speed.

 

[newboots]

Do the shops near your mountain rent out daily demos? Try some different lengths. Two skis of the same length can ski differently, depending on the tip and tail rise. The ski will feel shorter if the tip and tail are actually off of the snow most of the time.

More ski underfoot will increase your sense of stability, reduce chatter, and minimize how much you get "tossed around" in chopped up snow.