Demo ski recommendations for rapidly advancing beginner?

So, now that the boots fit, I'm thinking of getting skis. Part of me
wants to keep renting, since I know that my needs will be changing
rapidly, but on the other hand, there's something to be said for
learning on a consistent ski, and since I plan to ski at *least* 15-20
more days this season, it could save some money.

I'm 33, male, 5'9", 180 pounds but losing weight, wear tightly-fitted
size-26 X-Wave 8's (in 2004 blue, because blue is faster), and have
skied 8 days so far in my life: a weekend last season at Sunday River,
and another this season, followed by three days at Sugarloaf and this
morning at Stratton. When I got to Sugarloaf, I was utilizing the
"flail and scream" technique, but I took some private lessons there, and
I'm now comfortable with fairly sharp, linked, completed parallel turns
at a decent clip - faster than granny, slower than a snowboarder.

The two ASC resorts rented me Rossignols; they looked like Bandits but I
can't imagine that they were. I don't remember the Sunday River
lengths, but at Sugarloaf I was on 150s. Today at Stratton I demoed
some K2 Omni 5.5's, and was fairly impressed - I could really feel the
mountain. (Of course, this was my first time without numb feet, thanks
to the boot issue from the other thread..) At first they put me in
167's, but between poor posture today, tired quads, and newly positioned
feet, I found it difficult to make right turns - I kept catching the
inside edge of my right ski. The same skis in 153's solved that.

Bill (the GMOL pedorthist) recommended that I not even think about
buying 150s or 160s - it's better to keep renting until I overcome the
stance issue that makes 170s not work for me. I'll buy that; do you all
agree?

That said, what other skis should I demo? I have absolutely no idea
what makes one particular model more or less suitable for me than
another, and ski magazines and web sites have been no help either - I've
yet to find more than a paragraph on any particular model. Even
usenet's not too useful since the model names change every year. But if
I were to look at K2's web site (say, with special peril-sensitive
sunglasses and some Pepto Bismol), I'd never have picked the Omni 5.5,
because they call that a "blue-black" ski, and I'm squarely in the
greens. Everyone I ask says "just try a few", but how am I even
supposed to pick which ones to try? Color scheme? I look good in blue,
and I have combination skin.

--
Jay Levitt |
Wellesley, MA | Hi!
Faster: jay at jay dot eff-em | Where are we going?
http://www.jay.fm | Why am I in this handbasket?

Jay Levitt wrote:

When I got to Sugarloaf, I was utilizing the
"flail and scream" technique, but I took some private lessons there, and
I'm now comfortable with fairly sharp, linked, completed parallel turns
at a decent clip - faster than granny, slower than a snowboarder.

Good work.

At first they put me in
167's, but between poor posture today, tired quads, and newly positioned
feet, I found it difficult to make right turns - I kept catching the
inside edge of my right ski.

Your posture is just a symptom.
167 is too long and heavy for you.
You were probably tired and sitting back
from horsing them around.

The same skis in 153's solved that.

That sounds about right. About up to the mouth.
That's what I ski.

Bill (the GMOL pedorthist) recommended that I not even think about
buying 150s or 160s - it's better to keep renting until I overcome the
stance issue that makes 170s not work for me. I'll buy that; do you all
agree?

Not about the length.
I agree that you should demo more that one pair of skis
that you like before you buy.

That said, what other skis should I demo?

Demo whatever 153's you can get your hands on.
I like K2 and Volkl, but everyone is different.

-- Mike Treseler

In article ,
says...
Your posture is just a symptom.
167 is too long and heavy for you.
You were probably tired and sitting back
from horsing them around.

Interesting - I definitely was doing that, but someone I talked to there
said that, if my stance is proper, longer skis shouldn't be
significantly more work, since it's all lateral movement. Disagree?

--
Jay Levitt |
Wellesley, MA | Hi!
Faster: jay at jay dot eff-em | Where are we going?
http://www.jay.fm | Why am I in this handbasket?

Jay Levitt wrote:

I'm 33, male, 5'9", 180 pounds but losing weight, wear tightly-fitted
size-26 X-Wave 8's (in 2004 blue, because blue is faster), and have
skied 8 days so far in my life: a weekend last season at Sunday River,
and another this season, followed by three days at Sugarloaf and this
morning at Stratton. When I got to Sugarloaf, I was utilizing the
"flail and scream" technique, but I took some private lessons there, and
I'm now comfortable with fairly sharp, linked, completed parallel turns
at a decent clip - faster than granny, slower than a snowboarder.

The two ASC resorts rented me Rossignols; they looked like Bandits but I
can't imagine that they were. I don't remember the Sunday River
lengths, but at Sugarloaf I was on 150s. Today at Stratton I demoed
some K2 Omni 5.5's, and was fairly impressed - I could really feel the
mountain. (Of course, this was my first time without numb feet, thanks
to the boot issue from the other thread..) At first they put me in
167's, but between poor posture today, tired quads, and newly positioned
feet, I found it difficult to make right turns - I kept catching the
inside edge of my right ski. The same skis in 153's solved that.

Bill (the GMOL pedorthist) recommended that I not even think about
buying 150s or 160s - it's better to keep renting until I overcome the
stance issue that makes 170s not work for me. I'll buy that; do you all
agree?

I agree for a slightly different reason. You're working through a lot
of beginner stuff, and your skiing will change a lot. That's not to
say, however, that 170cm is some kind of holy grail, and that your goal
should be to become comfortable in some ski at that length. A
reasonably proficient skier of your weight shouldn't feel that a 170 is
too much ski, which it sounds like it is for you, right now. But
whether a 170 is where you want to end up is another matter.

That said, what other skis should I demo? I have absolutely no idea
what makes one particular model more or less suitable for me than
another, and ski magazines and web sites have been no help either - I've
yet to find more than a paragraph on any particular model.

There are places where you can find more than a paragraph, but it
wouldn't necessarily mean anything to you, without more experience and a
standard of comparison. What I think I would do if I were you is to
look for the benchmark advanced-beginner-through-intermediate ski in
several product lines -- the Atomic C:7, Rossi Bandit or maybe Bandit
B1, Fischer RXsomethingorother.

--
Mary Malmros
Some days you're the windshield, other days you're the bug.

Jay Levitt wrote:

Interesting - I definitely was doing that, but someone I talked to there
said that, if my stance is proper, longer skis shouldn't be
significantly more work, since it's all lateral movement. Disagree?

It's a scripted dynamic balance, like walking.
It feels a lot different than it looks.
It's not all lateral.

Sometimes bending sideways to pressure the edge.
Sometimes falling over the skis to start a new
turn, then rotating the feet a little as you
fall into the channel.

Buy skis that feel right, right now.
Don't wait until everything is perfect, it never is.
Bet they'll cost less than one of your microphones

-- Mike Treseler

"Jay Levitt" wrote in message
...
In article ,
says...
Your posture is just a symptom.
167 is too long and heavy for you.
You were probably tired and sitting back
from horsing them around.

Interesting - I definitely was doing that, but someone I talked to there
said that, if my stance is proper, longer skis shouldn't be
significantly more work, since it's all lateral movement. Disagree?

--
Jay Levitt |
Wellesley, MA | Hi!
Faster: jay at jay dot eff-em | Where are we going?
http://www.jay.fm | Why am I in this handbasket?

There is still debate about short skis being marketing hype. Personally, I
have always purchased the longest ski for a particular model. Now, the pair
I use was the longest K2 made but is still to short. In my opinion, you are
correct thinking that once you learn how to use the edge properly, a few
extra cm isn't any more work to turn. More edge will allow you to hold
higher speed turns and be more stable at speed. But everybody here will
have a different opinion, some like short skis, some like long. Since you
are still learning, I would suggest you keep renting and try different skis
and lengths until you find something that seems to work for you. By all
means, ask questions but listen mainly to people who are your size, weight
and skiing ability.

snoig

In article ,
says...
What I think I would do if I were you is to
look for the benchmark advanced-beginner-through-intermediate ski in
several product lines -- the Atomic C:7, Rossi Bandit or maybe Bandit
B1, Fischer RXsomethingorother.

Thanks.. excellent advice, all of it.

--
Jay Levitt |
Wellesley, MA | Hi!
Faster: jay at jay dot eff-em | Where are we going?
http://www.jay.fm | Why am I in this handbasket?

The "long post" whiners are *really* going to go off about
this one, but I haven't posted for a while, so I got saved up K's.


"Jay Levitt" wrote in message

At first they put me in
167's, but between poor posture today, tired quads, and newly positioned
feet, I found it difficult to make right turns - I kept catching the
inside edge of my right ski. The same skis in 153's solved that.


First, understand this:. To turn left, your body must be on the
left side of the skis. To turn right, your body must be on the
right side of the skis. There is no more basic truth to skiing
than this. To continue now,

Not really. It's the turn, not the ski. Let me guess, you were
trained, or spent excessive time in the wedge/snowplow,
flattening and angulating skis, and steering around, trying to
let the parallel turn "develop on it's own"? Maybe by
"narrowing the wedge"?

It's time to get aggressive about this. Let's quit fooling around.

The problem is that you don't want to give up the big toe
edge of the inside ski. You're probably doing the same
thing in the shorter skis, you just don't really notice it as
much. It's probably not as simple as just "stance" either,
but it's likely not that *much* more complicated. If you
haven't been able to get *really* forward on the skis yet,
you might be very well advised to become so. A lot of
wedge addiction can be related to being a bit in the back
seat.

You don't turn on the back of them. You turn on the front
of them.

OK, try these: First, for drill, maybe lots of it, ski with effective
body position, *especially* hands *forward*, well in front of
your hips, start and continue a nice, full, round half circle turn,
halfway through the turn, pick up the tail of the inside ski,
(maybe six inches or more) leaving the tip on the snow, then
finish the turn in that fashion. Repeat.

Another thing you could try, start some turns with a lead
change. At the end of one turn, about the time you're ready to
cross your body over the skis to start the new turn, put the
*inside ski* into the lead, a little ahead of the outside ski. It
really frees things up for some people. Put the inside ski ahead,
pull the outside ski back, or do a bit of a scissors. Lead change.

Another thing, as you make turns, pull the skis back
underneath you as far as the boots will possibly let you, so
nearly all your weight is on the balls of your feet, as if you
were about to spring up to make a basketball jump shot. From
that position, just twist your legs in the hip socket in the
direction you want to turn. Then, for that matter, since you're
already in position to make a jump shot, why don't you make
just the teeniest little "hop" forward to initiate a turn and change
the edges, then steer the skis by turning the legs in the hip
sockets?

Just a note on this, you're trying to pressure the front of the
skis with the *feet*, not necessarily by pushing the legs into the
front of the boot. Flexing the ankles is the key here. You get
your weight on the balls of your feet by straightening the
*ankles* a bit. There may be some shin boot contact, but
hopefully no real *pressure* there. Just ignore the boots. Use
your feet and ankles.

170's should be just fine. The problem is, in cut up
crud, the shorter ski won't "surf" over and "cut through" all the
junk, so you get beat up and thrown around (*another* whole
problem you have to handle) by every little bump. With a
longer, "all mountain" ski, the faster you go, the more the ski
will begin to flop and pop up and down at tip and tail,
absorbing a lot of that stuff. It doesn't happen all that well on a
150 or 160.

Besides that consideration, a short ski won't float well in
powder, but most people might demo, or actually own
another ski for those conditions.

Shorter skis are obviously easier to turn and control at lower
speed, and can carve a shorter radius turn. But to be quite
honest, all in all they're a pain if they're your only ski.

foot2foot wrote:
The "long post" whiners are *really* going to go off about
this one, but I haven't posted for a while, so I got saved up K's.


"Jay Levitt" wrote in message


At first they put me in
167's, but between poor posture today, tired quads, and newly positioned
feet, I found it difficult to make right turns - I kept catching the
inside edge of my right ski. The same skis in 153's solved that.



First, understand this:. To turn left, your body must be on the
left side of the skis. To turn right, your body must be on the
right side of the skis. There is no more basic truth to skiing
than this. To continue now,

Not really. It's the turn, not the ski. Let me guess, you were
trained, or spent excessive time in the wedge/snowplow,

He's only been skiing eight days, so he probably hasn't been spending
excessive time doing anything. IOW, whatever he's doing wrong (or not
doing right) may not be too complicated and hard to un-learn.

[snip]
170's should be just fine. The problem is, in cut up
crud, the shorter ski won't "surf" over and "cut through" all the
junk, so you get beat up and thrown around (*another* whole
problem you have to handle) by every little bump. With a
longer, "all mountain" ski, the faster you go, the more the ski
will begin to flop and pop up and down at tip and tail,
absorbing a lot of that stuff. It doesn't happen all that well on a
150 or 160.

I ski a lot on 150s, and in fact, I spent a lot of time in cut-up crud
on crappy little 130s last weekend when I was teaching (I don't take my
good skis out when the kids are just gonna ski over 'em). I think that
how you ski and probably the ski's construction are bigger variables
than the length -- although, all other things being equal, I'm certainly
willing to believe that more length would make the task of skiing in
crud easier.

--
Mary Malmros
Some days you're the windshield, other days you're the bug.

"Mary Malmros" wrote in message

He's only been skiing eight days, so he probably hasn't been spending
excessive time doing anything. IOW, whatever he's doing wrong (or not
doing right) may not be too complicated and hard to un-learn.

There is no such thing as "wrong", no such thing as "right".
There are no such things as "unlearn" and "unteach". There is
no such thing as "correct" or "should". These are only
excercises in instructor arrogance and narcissism.

There is only what the skier does, and can do, and what
can be added to what the skier does and can do. There is
nothing else.

Didn't I get that point across to you before, Mary?