Jump to content

Ski Selection Thread

saltyant

By saltyant
in Gear

 Share

Recommended Posts

Recommended

Posted by GrilledSteezeSandwich,

It's a wash in my opinion..he didn't have to pay shipping and the shop he bought them from I assume included the mount in with the purchase price.    I still feel that Salty should buy Root at least a 5 pack of beer. 

Salty should buy Root at least a 5 pack of beer

Recommended by RootDKJ

  • Like

1 reaction

Go to this post
Recommended

Posted by GSSucks,

Did you buy the damn skis yet? This is the dumbest fucking thread on this stupid piece of shit site.  The second problem is that you're buying Volkl's, get a pair of Kastle BMX 115's with a set of pivots and be done with it. 
Recommended by RootDKJ
  • Thanks
  • Like

10 reactions

Go to this post
Recommended

Posted by enjoralas,

Buy them now. No reason to dilly dilly any longer. You loved 'em, Root found you a great price, just do it. Your biggest problem is going to be finding a fake ID to get into the beer store to buy Root his thank you sixer.  

Thread winner 🍻

Recommended by RootDKJ

  • Haha
  • Thanks
  • Like

3 reactions

Go to this post
Recommended

Posted by enjoralas,

Salty, nice purchase. The 177 probably would have been better, but you won't even notice it over the useful life of those skis to you. And you're not skiing on total crap now, so when you're ready for your next set you can afford to take your time and hit free demo days and test all kinds of brands and widths and lengths and really dial in on what you like best. In the meantime, these skis are gonna kick ass for you and you're gonna have a hell of a season. Also, I feel like you only purchased t

Agree 💯

Recommended by RootDKJ

  • Thanks
  • Like

5 reactions

Go to this post
saltyant Gold Medalist

saltyant

Posted
  • Author
Posted
1 minute ago, eaf said:

So seeing 170 again was kind of surprising.

Ok, honestly, how much of a difference is 170 vs 177 going to make? And I'm not being smart, I am asking seriously. I loved the 170s when I demoed them so that's what I went with.

  • Replies 431
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Popular Posts

GSSucks
GSSucks

Did you buy the damn skis yet? This is the dumbest fucking thread on this stupid piece of shit site.  The second problem is that you're buying Volkl's, get a pair of Kastle BMX 115's with a set o

NMSKI
NMSKI

The ignore button is a powerful function and has given me back many hours of my life.  

saltyant
saltyant

This and the sheer speed by which they came does not annoy me.  

Posted Images

saltyant Gold Medalist

saltyant

Posted
  • Author
Posted
3 minutes ago, GrilledSteezeSandwich said:

Did you mount the binders yourself??  

No.

2 minutes ago, RootDKJ said:

What shop?  What price?  Details are missing. 

Ski Valley in Danville for $599. They mounted the bindings and waxed them.

saltyant Gold Medalist

saltyant

Posted
  • Author
Posted (edited)
4 minutes ago, Shadows said:

Why wouldnt you post the real pics first lol

glad for you salty. Even if you make poor decisions its nice to have new gear.

I wanted to see if you guys would notice. Jeeze, I didn't mean to trigger you. =P

Thanks. I'm a little upset right now, but I think I'll live. I agonized a long time over buying a 56 cm vs. a 58 cm bike frame length. I have both now and I don't notice a difference whatsoever. So I based skis on the same logic. Whether it's ideal or not, it's too late now. All I know is that I demoed the 170's, skied like a bad-ass, and bought the same ones I demoed. You guys provided great advice on what type of ski I should get, so thanks a lot!

Edited by saltyant
eaf Super-G Racer

eaf

Posted
Posted
9 minutes ago, saltyant said:

Ok, honestly, how much of a difference is 170 vs 177 going to make? And I'm not being smart, I am asking seriously. I loved the 170s when I demoed them so that's what I went with.

I'm not blaming you for choosing 170 over 177. I said that I find it's interesting how you while listening pretty closely to what other people say and remembering that at the right times, held your ground and bought something else despite all the advice. Frankly, I have doubts that you've just started skiing. Some terminology, the infamous annual Vermont trips, you're not afraid to portrait yourself as a total noob... Just saying.

saltyant Gold Medalist

saltyant

Posted
  • Author
Posted
3 minutes ago, eaf said:

held your ground and bought something else despite all the advice

I am almost certain that Atomic told me to get something "170-175cm long, 80-90mm width". So I found a great deal within those ranges.

saltyant Gold Medalist

saltyant

Posted
  • Author
Posted
1 minute ago, RidgeRacer said:

And yes the 7cm does make a difference. Otherwise they wouldn't make them in different sizes.

Enjoy your new skis salty

Thanks. But what more of a difference can they make for me personally, if I found the 170s to perfectly cut through all the slop and ice last week? I don't think the skis could have been anymore stable, and I think they're the appropriate balance between stability and ease of making turns..

eaf Super-G Racer

eaf

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, saltyant said:

I am almost certain that Atomic told me to get something "170-175cm long, 80-90mm width". So I found a great deal within those ranges.

Nah, this is a very GS board. Big everything. You still sure you're getting that BM season pass?

  • Confused 1
saltyant Gold Medalist

saltyant

Posted
  • Author
Posted (edited)
19 minutes ago, eaf said:

Nah, this is a very GS board. Big everything. You still sure you're getting that BM season pass?

What do you mean by this is a very GS board in terms of 170 vs 177? I am agonizing over this potentially wrong decision and having buyer's remorse. This is another time when I'll Google appropriate ski lengths obsessively to justify my purchase, and then decide I chose poorly, but will enjoy the skis anyway.

 I am not sure where I'm getting a pass next season.

Edited by saltyant
saltyant Gold Medalist

saltyant

Posted
  • Author
Posted (edited)

Toast suggested snowblades from the beginning so I averaged those in to all your other suggestions for length.

Case closed. Ski selection process complete, thanks everyone. Admins, you may now lock this thread and preserve it for posterity and future generations.

Edited by saltyant
AtomicSkier Gold Medalist

AtomicSkier

Posted
Posted
27 minutes ago, eaf said:

Nah, this is a very GS board. Big everything. You still sure you're getting that BM season pass?

It's because we're all pretty competent skiers.  If you can turn a 27m radius ski better than most can turn a 17m ski, why wouldn't you?  I'm a pretty decent slalom skier and can hold my own on my SL boards, but they're not a good Blue Mountain ski.  Too narrow, short, and turny for the variable conditions that one encounters at Blue. 

I skied WC race stock skis at Blue for years.  I now ski a 98mm underfoot ski.  I can tell you which one I have more fun on 99% of the days.

eaf Super-G Racer

eaf

Posted
Posted (edited)

What do you mean by this is a very GS board in terms of 170 vs 177? I am agonizing over this potentially wrong decision and having buyer's remorse.

What I meant is that long and fat skis are definitely in favor here.

As for 170 vs 177 you likely did the right thing. Ideally you should've tried 177 and perhaps other brands too, but since you haven't, sticking to what you know is the best.

Shorter skis will force you to keep your balance, so if you're truly an advanced beginner (or something along those lines) as GSS has called you, you'll benefit from this. Generally the longer the ski in a lineup the stiffer they are. This together with increased radius means they'll need higher speeds to be bent. People here come in the mornings when the mountain is empty, and they ski tall terrain of BM, so they have no problem with long and fat. But you on a busy weekend at CB may simply not have enough space to get up to speed to bend a longer ski. Hence my remark about a season pass at Blue.

Edited by eaf
saltyant Gold Medalist

saltyant

Posted
  • Author
Posted (edited)
8 minutes ago, AtomicSkier said:

It's because we're all pretty competent skiers.  If you can turn a 27m radius ski better than most can turn a 17m ski, why wouldn't you?  I'm a pretty decent slalom skier and can hold my own on my SL boards, but they're not a good Blue Mountain ski.  Too narrow, short, and turny for the variable conditions that one encounters at Blue. 

I skied WC race stock skis at Blue for years.  I now ski a 98mm underfoot ski.  I can tell you which one I have more fun on 99% of the days.

Right Atomic. But the truth is that I'm absolutely nowhere near your guys' ability. So I'll run these 170cm skis for a few years, and if I outgrow them I'll upgrade again.

Advice I picked up somewhere is that the ski length should be somewhere between your chin and the top of your head; unless you're an advanced or expert skier, which I am not. My newly purchased 170's fall almost exactly in the middle of that range.

Moving from beginner to intermediate skis, I immediately noticed a large difference in the effort it takes to turn. But I felt that at this point, the level of effort vs. stability trade-off seemed to work well for me on 170s. No, I did not test longer skis when I could have, but I chose to try 3 different brands instead of 3 different lengths.

Edited by saltyant
saltyant Gold Medalist

saltyant

Posted
  • Author
Posted
7 minutes ago, eaf said:

What I meant is that long and fat skis are definitely in favor here.

As for 170 vs 177 you likely did the right thing. Ideally you should've tried 177 and perhaps other brands too, but since you haven't, sticking to what you know is the best.

Shorter skis will force you to keep your balance, so if you're truly an advanced beginner (or something along those lines) as GSS has called you, you'll benefit from this. Generally the longer the ski in a lineup the stiffer they are. This together with increased radius means they'll need higher speeds to be bent. People here come in the mornings when the mountain is empty, and they ski tall terrain of BM, so they have no problem with long and fat. But you on a busy weekend at CB may simply not have enough space to get up to speed to bend a longer ski. Hence my remark about a season pass at Blue.

Ok. Maybe one day I'll upgrade to long and fat skis, if my abilities improve.

I skied the busiest weekends all season long last year at CB and had no collisions. Now that I'm skiing blues and blacks, I can get away from the ridiculously overcrowded green trails.

indiggio Silver Medalist

indiggio

Posted
Posted (edited)
7 hours ago, saltyant said:

What do you mean by this is a very GS board in terms of 170 vs 177? I am agonizing over this potentially wrong decision and having buyer's remorse. This is another time when I'll Google appropriate ski lengths obsessively to justify my purchase, and then decide I chose poorly, but will enjoy the skis anyway.

Should have got the 177s.

 

7 hours ago, saltyant said:

 I am not sure where I'm getting a pass next season.

I hear Camelback is a great place to get a season pass!

Edited by indiggio
  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1
  • Haha 1

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
 Share
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...