New skis for my wife - strong intermediate

[AmyPJ]

I’ll pipe in again and recommend a full-cambered ski. Having been on a few different ones now, yowza the precision is delightful and will help her progress.

 

[charlier]

I’ll pipe in again and recommend a full-cambered ski. Having been on a few different ones now, yowza the precision is delightful and will help her progress.

Everyone’s comments are super helpful and friendly. I completely agree with @AmyPJ, we are looking for a cambered ski. All of her other skis are rocker/camber/rocker.
We narrowed the skis down to
Elan Wildcat Black 76
Head V8 75
Fischer RC One 82

Now we have to decide on length. She is 5’7”/5’8” and 135lbs.

 

[Tricia]

Everyone’s comments are super helpful and friendly. I completely agree with @AmyPJ, we are looking for a cambered ski. All of her other skis are rocker/camber/rocker.
We narrowed the skis down to
Elan Wildcat Black 76
Head V8 75
Fischer RC One 82

Now we have to decide on length. She is 5’7”/5’8” and 135lbs.

I'd say a Fischer RC One 82 in 166 would be just about perfect.
Head V8 75 is a little trickier because she's between sizes. 163-170?
2023 Head Shape E-V8

 

[François Pugh]

163 is right size at her weight in that ski.

 

[Lauren]

Now we have to decide on length. She is 5’7”/5’8” and 135lbs.

What size are her Sheevas and Ripsticks?

 

[Tricia]

Now we have to decide on length. She is 5’7”/5’8” and 135lbs.

163 is right size at her weight in that ski.

But at her height, her leverage is going to make a difference and this ski may be squirrely at a shorter length

 

[charlier]

What size are her Sheevas and Ripsticks?

Sheeva 9, 164. I thought that the 172cm was a bit long. Elan 102, 162. These lengths might not be optimal.

 

[Lauren]

Sheeva 9, 164. I thought that the 172cm was a bit long. Elan 102, 162. These lengths might not be optimal.

Agreed that they’re probably not optimal, I would go up a size in both skis for her size/weight/ability. In my opinion, this short length might be holding her back more than the width.

However, a narrower ski is still a good idea for skill development, I would probably stick to low to mid 160s for the type of ski you’re considering. Closer to 160 for stiffer and more camber, and closer to 165/66 for a slightly softer all-mountain front-side ski.

 

[Tony S]

Sheeva 9, 164. I thought that the 172cm was a bit long. Elan 102, 162. These lengths might not be optimal.

A full 10cm too short. I'm her size - or was, for many years - and have long settled on mid-170s as a good length for off-piste skis.

 

[AmyPJ]

I agree those lengths are short, but if she’s skiing then well and likes them, then don’t sweat it too much.

 

[François Pugh]

It's time to inject a little reason into this thread.
The correct length for any given skier in a given ski depends on the skier, and the ski's purpose. Ski manufacturers know this. That's why skis come in different lengths. The A quick google search tells you the Sheeva 9 comes in 148, 157, 165 and 172 cm. The 172 is for the heaviest strongest people (assuming women skiers here) using that ski. For it's intended purpose. From OP's description (130 lbs, 5'9"), That does not sound like the OP's wife. That length is too long for OP's wife in the Sheeva 9.
The Head v-Shape V8 comes in 149, 163, 170, 177, and 184 cm. for all skiers including men and women. At 130 lbs, 5'9, I would say she is less than median size amongst all skiers, which makes the correct length 163.

The V8 is 75 mm, has rocker in the front, so not as good a teacher as say a Lazer SC or Fischer SC, but on the other hand it's a lot more forgiving (read if she is not already fully commited to learning and willing to put up with a stern teacher, more likely to keep her playing along).

 

[Tricia]

Sheeva 9, 164. I thought that the 172cm was a bit long. Elan 102, 162. These lengths might not be optimal.

Agreed that they’re probably not optimal, I would go up a size in both skis for her size/weight/ability. In my opinion, this short length might be holding her back more than the width.

However, a narrower ski is still a good idea for skill development, I would probably stick to low to mid 160s for the type of ski you’re considering. Closer to 160 for stiffer and more camber, and closer to 165/66 for a slightly softer all-mountain front-side ski.

This.
When she has a chance to get some time on the Fischers I think you'll see a need t "up" her game

 

[charlier]

It's time to inject a little reason into this thread.
The correct length for any given skier in a given ski depends on the skier, and the ski's purpose. Ski manufacturers know this. That's why skis come in different lengths. The A quick google search tells you the Sheeva 9 comes in 148, 157, 165 and 172 cm. The 172 is for the heaviest strongest people (assuming women skiers here) using that ski. For it's intended purpose. From OP's description (130 lbs, 5'9"), That does not sound like the OP's wife. That length is too long for OP's wife in the Sheeva 9.
The Head v-Shape V8 comes in 149, 163, 170, 177, and 184 cm. for all skiers including men and women. At 130 lbs, 5'9, I would say she is less than median size amongst all skiers, which makes the correct length 163.

The V8 is 75 mm, has rocker in the front, so not as good a teacher as say a Lazer SC or Fischer SC, but on the other hand it's a lot more forgiving (read if she is not already fully commited to learning and willing to put up with a stern teacher, more likely to keep her playing along).

@François Pugh - I agree with your post. My wife is 5’7” (measured now) and tops out at 135lbs. My friends at Blizzard agree that the 172 cm Sheeva is too much of a ski for her. That ski is designed for a strong and highly skilled female skier. Many people say, ‘go big’ without considering their height, weight, and skill level. Trish suggests that the Fisher RC ONE 82 at 166 cm is an appropriate length. The shorter 158cm seems a bit short for her.

 

[charlier]

A full 10cm too short. I'm her size - or was, for many years - and have long settled on mid-170s as a good length for off-piste skis.

@Tony S - my wife does not have skills and she might weigh less you. A mid-170s off-piste for a general guideline seems a bit rigid.

 

[François Pugh]

A full 10cm too short. I'm her size - or was, for many years - and have long settled on mid-170s as a good length for off-piste skis.

Mid 170s in what Ski?

 

[Tony S]

A full 10cm too short. I'm her size - or was, for many years - and have long settled on mid-170s as a good length for off-piste skis.

@Tony S - my wife does not have skills and she might weigh less you.

For years I was exactly her height and weight. Many folks here have skied with me and can attest to that. (I'm now closer to 150, since the "Covid 15.")

I'm confused about the skills. She apparently works in a shop as a boot fitter. She teaches avi classes. And "She skis with a small posse of talented female skiers that all come from a racing background." But she doesn't have skills? Even if not, it sure sounds like she has ambition around acquiring them, if her other achievements and behaviors are any indication.

It's time to inject a little reason into this thread.

What have we been using? Chopped liver?

A quick google search tells you the Sheeva 9 comes in 148, 157, 165 and 172 cm. The 172 is for the heaviest strongest people (assuming women skiers here) using that ski.

Totally disagree with this. Women's skis are demonstrably not sized for all women. Look at any significant slice of reviews of women's skis by a representative set of strong female skiers. You will IMMEDIATELY start to see comments like, "It's too bad the longest length is only a 1xx, because I think I'd love this ski in a big girl size."

Women's skis are sized for women who find unisex skis - for lack of a better term - to be too much, or are put off the by the graphics. Manufacturers aren't making women's skis in > 170cm sizes because women who want those skis are probably buying unisex models anyway, not because women who need those sizes don't exist.

So, no, a 172 in a wide ski with rocker, designed to be skied off-piste by someone on the lighter side for her height (compared with men) is not the right size for only the largest and strongest women. On the contrary: It's absolutely not enough for the largest and strongest women.

If 5' 8" 135lb wife is timid and weak and her trajectory is much lower than DH has made out, then yes, maybe a 172 is too big. If she is the latent ripper it SOUNDS like she is, it's a disservice to set her up with "little lady" gear.

Let me re-frame @Lauren 's excellent question about what lengths she's skiing on now and ask this instead: What size 100mm off-piste skis are her "small posse of talented female skiers that all come from a racing background" skiing on - the ones that are her size? That's where she wants to be, right?

 

[Tony S]

Mid 170s in what Ski?

Any 100mm off piste ski like the Sheeva 9 or Elan 102. That was the context for that comment.

 

[François Pugh]

Except not the Shiva 9, because the Shiva 9 does not come in mid 170s.
Maybe the Shiva 9 is not the right ski for her . Maybe it's a Ripstick 96 (in a 174 )
If she needs a stronger ski, she needs a stronger ski. The wrong ski in a longer length is the wrong solution, IMHO.
Agree with @Tony S , I'm not sure what her level is.
Nevertheless, in a SL-ish carving ski below median length is the correct length.

 

[James]

I see we’re back to fat skis and off piste…
(When do we get to the safety bars and helmets?)
I would say that’s not the best way to acquire technical skills. Even different camps, each claiming “you don’t know jack!”, agree on that.

 

[charlier]

For years I was exactly her height and weight. Many folks here have skied with me and can attest to that. (I'm now closer to 150, since the "Covid 15.")

I'm confused about the skills. She apparently works in a shop as a boot fitter. She teaches avi classes. And "She skis with a small posse of talented female skiers that all come from a racing background." But she doesn't have skills? Even if not, it sure sounds like she has ambition around acquiring them, if her other achievements and behaviors are any indication.


What have we been using? Chopped liver?


Totally disagree with this. Women's skis are demonstrably not sized for all women. Look at any significant slice of reviews of women's skis by a representative set of strong female skiers. You will IMMEDIATELY start to see comments like, "It's too bad the longest length is only a 1xx, because I think I'd love this ski in a big girl size."

Women's skis are sized for women who find unisex skis - for lack of a better term - to be too much, or are put off the by the graphics. Manufacturers aren't making women's skis in > 170cm sizes because women who want those skis are probably buying unisex models anyway, not because women who need those sizes don't exist.

So, no, a 172 in a wide ski with rocker, designed to be skied off-piste by someone on the lighter side for her height (compared with men) is not the right size for only the largest and strongest women. On the contrary: It's absolutely not enough for the largest and strongest women.

If 5' 8" 135lb wife is timid and weak and her trajectory is much lower than DH has made out, then yes, maybe a 172 is too big. If she is the latent ripper it SOUNDS like she is, it's a disservice to set her up with "little lady" gear.

Let me re-frame @Lauren 's excellent question about what lengths she's skiing on now and ask this instead: What size 100mm off-piste skis are her "small posse of talented female skiers that all come from a racing background" skiing on - the ones that are her size? That's where she wants to be, right?

Confusion here. My wife does not guide or teach avi classes. Back to my original query - after very helpful suggestions, she will purchase a fully cambered 76-82 cm Head, Fisher, etc. ski for front-side skiing. Also, just because she can ski with talented skiers, does not mean that she has the skis or technique.