Playful Skis for an Oompa-loompa?

[Marty McSly]

Just out of curiosity...

Due to my weight - 260lb at 5'9", I've tended to choose burly skis, which usually are regarded as needing speed to come alive. The general run of advice that I've been given in the past has been that skis without metal would wilt under me. This generally rules out skis which are regarded as "playful" at lower speeds.

Nonetheless I'm curious about this elusive quality of playfulness. Can any of the larger skiers here suggest skis that might have that playful quality and be able to stand up to my weight? I'm thinking conditions similar to east coast hardpack, and working on technique in bumps at slower speeds.

 

[Ken_R]

Just out of curiosity...

Due to my weight - 260lb at 5'9", I've tended to choose burly skis, which usually are regarded as needing speed to come alive. The general run of advice that I've been given in the past has been that skis without metal would wilt under me. This generally rules out skis which are regarded as "playful" at lower speeds.

Nonetheless I'm curious about this elusive quality of playfulness. Can any of the larger skiers here suggest skis that might have that playful quality and be able to stand up to my weight? I'm thinking conditions similar to east coast hardpack, and working on technique in bumps at slower speeds.

I would check out the Head Monster 88's or the 83's. (I own the 88's and I ski in Colorado and NM exclusively basically). Super well made, damp and can charge but IMHO easy to cruise at slower speeds. Even in moguls. They are fun skis for heavier skiers no question. I would at the very list demo them. Of course I am assuming you have your boots taken care of. Super important.

 

[Mickey]

Skis don't know how fast they are going; they react to how much force they see. Skis that "come alive" only at higher speeds for the average Joe do so because the average Joe only starts putting large forces into them as the velocity adds up. For heavier skiers, the force needed to flex the skies comes at lower speeds. There is a chance that you have experienced "playfulness" in skies that others have to mach schnell on.

Maybe you should list a few of the "burly" skies you have skied?

 

[Tricia]

Hi Marty. Cool to see you getting excited to ramp it up a little.

IIRC you were skiing Head's at Whistler, but I'm not sure I'm remembering correctly.

 

[Marty McSly]

Your memory is fine Tricia, yes I was on 170cm 2016 Monster 88's at Whistler. They're an inch and a half below the top of my head. My instructor at Sun Peaks the week before suggested that I should consider the next size up to have more edge under me. @Ken_R!

Other burly skis I have are 2011 Blizzard Magnum 8.7ti in 174cm, exactly my height, and 2015 Salomon X-drive 80ti (the ones with dual titanal sheets) in 177cm.

 

[Ken_R]

Your memory is fine Tricia, yes I was on 170cm 2016 Monster 88's at Whistler. They're an inch and a half below the top of my head. My instructor at Sun Peaks the week before suggested that I should consider the next size up to have more edge under me. @Ken_R!

Other burly skis I have are 2011 Blizzard Magnum 8.7ti in 174cm, exactly my height, and 2015 Salomon X-drive 80ti (the ones with dual titanal sheets) in 177cm.

I own the 184cm Monster 88's but the 177cm's should be perfect for you if you are unsure you cant handle longer skis well. (I am 6-2 185 lb) I am used to my 112mm wide 190cm long Moment Deathwishes even in tight trees so the 184cm Monsters felt really nice even though they have a longer effective edge and basically no rocker compared to my Moments. Demoed the Salomon QST 92's (in 185cm) and they were good skis but I much preferred the Monsters. The salomons are lighter, stable but not as stable fun or easy to turn in a wide range of conditions as the Heads (for me at least). The QST had a somewhat limited sweet spot in regards to turn radius when carving although I could make them do anything I wanted they were not as refined feeling as the Heads. When in the sweet spot and on smoother snow the Salomons felt great. For tricky, rough snow the Heads are just better. I also loved the Bonafide in 187cm but I found the Heads better for typical on trail conditions.

Having extra edge length at your weight might be a good thing.

 

[Guy in Shorts]

I'm the 260# 6' guy that skied my way thru four pairs of Mantra's then jumped to the Renoun Endurance 98,s in 184 length to move to a more playful lighter weight ski last December. Previous attempts to find a playful ski that did not fold under my weight did not go well. Renouns have seen action 69 days with 915,00 vertical feet on snow so far this year. Skis have worked well under every possible Eastern snow condition at Killington. Did spent some demo time on the Armada Invictus 99TI and loved that ski also.

 

[Philpug]

Metal does not make a ski stiff, it dampens a ski to make to smooth. One of the stiffest and burliest skis ever made, the K2 VO Slalom not only didn't have metal in it's construction, it was a foam core ski. What I am saying is don't get hung up on a ski having metal or not. If you are looking for playfulness, metal should also not be a top priority but it needs to be considered in the ingredients. I think turn shape and how the ski flexes is more important. I did get to ski with you a bit in Whistler and I think going to a 177 Monster is an option but not the answer, just the name alone.."monster" does not instill playfulness at all and of that is what you are looking for I think there are better choices for you. @Guy in Shorts mentions the Armada Invictus series, I like that suggestion a lot, they are playful skis and hold very well on firm conditions, look at the 89Ti or if you want to go wider, the 99Ti. I would suggest the Renoun Z90 over the Endurance 98 just for the tighter radius for you. I also like the Stockly Stormrider 88 as an option, the ski bends smoothly and has a nice turn built in. You need a ski that instills control thus confidence and these options will.

 

[cantunamunch]

Laser AX

 

[markojp]

Second the Z-90 and SR88 thoughts. FWIW my take on the Z-90 was that it's the love child of the Head Titan and SR 88.

 

[Tricia]

Your memory is fine Tricia, yes I was on 170cm 2016 Monster 88's at Whistler. They're an inch and a half below the top of my head. My instructor at Sun Peaks the week before suggested that I should consider the next size up to have more edge under me. @Ken_R!

Other burly skis I have are 2011 Blizzard Magnum 8.7ti in 174cm, exactly my height, and 2015 Salomon X-drive 80ti (the ones with dual titanal sheets) in 177cm.

I agree with your instructor. The 170 was probably fine when you were skiing more modest terrain, but I think you'd have experienced more stability if you had the next size up.
Also, please tell me you had your bindings reset to your new skill set.

As Phil said, going up a size may be good for you, but something completely different may also be a good move. The Armada Invictus 89Ti is a sweet ski.

 

[James]

@markojp is right on with the comment on the z-90. Much more playful than the Stocki 88 which is a very nice smooth flexing ski ya?
I guess the 174?

 

[Tony S]

Marty, I can't help with the skis. I can say, having met you at the gathering, that you already have the most important piece of equipment, which is a playful attitude. I'm sure you'll find something that suits.

 

[Marty McSly]

the Armada Invictus series, I like that suggestion a lot, they are playful skis and hold very well on firm conditions, look at the 89Ti or if you want to go wider, the 99Ti.

The Invictus 85 not so much? Too soft?

There are good pre-season deals on 2017 85 and 89Ti in Australia just now.

Just curious because the 85's are described as being well suited to bumps.

 

[Philpug]

The Invictus 85 not so much? Too soft?

There are good pre-season deals on 2017 85 and 89Ti in Australia just now.

Just curious because the 85's are described as being well suited to bumps.

You will want the 89Ti, the construction is beefier and the ski is a bit more stout.

 

[markojp]

@markojp is right on with the comment on the z-90. Much more playful than the Stocki 88 which is a very nice smooth flexing ski ya?
I guess the 174?

Honestly, I felt the Z-90 skis short. At his weight the 180 might be fine, but I think Phil would have a better grasp on that one.

 

[Tricia]

The Invictus 85 not so much? Too soft?

There are good pre-season deals on 2017 85 and 89Ti in Australia just now.

Just curious because the 85's are described as being well suited to bumps.

89 Ti is better for your needs. Its better for your size and still playful.
*Did I mention that the title of this thread made me giggle?

 

[Philpug]

...doopiity dee, I got a riddle
what ski is best chosen for me.

 

[cantunamunch]

...Hi diddle dee dee
Z90 is for thee
Pret helmet and a partner keen
8.5 on a P15
Hi diddle dee day
a skier's life in May
...

 

[Marty McSly]

89 Ti is better for your needs. Its better for your size and still playful.
*Did I mention that the title of this thread made me giggle?

I'm thinking about a new parka and pants in bright orange...