# sizing question....



## SKIQUATTRO (Feb 11, 2008)

so the wife turns to me yesterday while skiing some great pitched ungroomed boot to shin deep pow at Ascutney and says...."i need wider skis!!"....ughhh ok.....shes skiing 160cm K2 One luvs (68 underfoot), shes an agressive upper advanced (loves the steeps, ungroomed and spaced trees)  so I'm looking at something in the 80-88cm range...anyone have any experience with the K2 Phat Luv (95 underfoot) which might be too much for EC skiing..any suggestions?

She gave me the green light as well...any suggestions for me?  Looking at Dynastar 8800 (88), Dynastar Big Trouble (92), K2 Outlaw...I am skiing on Atomic M10's (78 underfoot)  I'm 5'10" 185lbs looking to add to the quiver


----------



## Hawkshot99 (Feb 11, 2008)

Girl I work with has the Phat Luvs,and she loves them.  Unfourtanetly   that is the 1 ski in the K2 line I have never demoed so I have no opinion.


----------



## SKIQUATTRO (Feb 11, 2008)

help me out here....I dont know what size would be best for me:  Heres what is avail to me:

DYNASTAR 8800  158 OR 168
DYNASTAR BIG TROUBLE 186
K2 OUTLAW 174
HEAD MONSTER 186


----------



## tjf67 (Feb 11, 2008)

My fatties which are 98 under foot are 177 and they work for me.  I am 5'7" 175.

Any longer and it would be hard for me to wield around in the tight trees here in the north east.


----------



## twinplanx (Feb 11, 2008)

I Think the K2 Public Enemy is about 80? underfoot the 176? I'm on (5'10/180lbs) seems plenty wide 'round hea.  I've only had the pleasure of these skis for three(3) days  but this is the ski I have should have been rockin for the past 5-10yrs just try to see beyond the wacked out graphics. This ski does it all(on a demo binding) IMHO


----------



## andyzee (Feb 11, 2008)

I got the Phat Luvs for my wife last year when we went to Utah, she loved them. Loved them so much, she refuses to ski anything else, even on the EC. They also made a big improvement in her form, great ski!


----------



## Grassi21 (Feb 11, 2008)

andyzee said:


> I got the Phat Luvs for my wife last year when we went to Utah, she loved them. Loved them so much, she refuses to ski anything else, even on the EC. They also made a big improvement in her form, great ski!



Once you go fat, you never go back.  I went from 67 underfoot to 78.  Hardpack, bumps, whatever, I feel so much better on the 78s.


----------



## SKIQUATTRO (Feb 11, 2008)

hey Andy,,,,,have your wife jump and and have her give me a detailed report...what was she skiing prior to the Phats?


----------



## SKIQUATTRO (Feb 11, 2008)

there is a pair ok K2 PHats with Look NX demo bindings...whats the story with these bindings??


----------



## highpeaksdrifter (Feb 11, 2008)

Grassi21 said:


> Once you go fat, you never go back.  I went from 67 underfoot to 78.  Hardpack, bumps, whatever, I feel so much better on the 78s.



Grass,  78 is the new 67 for recreational skiers like us. ;-) A 78 is a mid-fat. IMO 90 and over would be considered fat. The trend is wider and wider so I'm sure it will change again.


----------



## Grassi21 (Feb 11, 2008)

highpeaksdrifter said:


> Grass,  78 is the new 67 for recreational skiers like us. ;-) A 78 is a mid-fat. IMO 90 and over would be considered fat. The trend is wider and wider so I'm sure it will change again.



Very true.  Going from an intermediate ski with a 67 waist to the Nitrous was a big step for me.  Love the ski.  Its my full time ride.

PS - My next ski will be the Jah.  ;-)


----------



## Hawkshot99 (Feb 11, 2008)

twinplanx said:


> I Think the K2 Public Enemy is about 80? underfoot the 176? I'm on (5'10/180lbs) seems plenty wide 'round hea.  I've only had the pleasure of these skis for three(3) days  but this is the ski I have should have been rockin for the past 5-10yrs just try to see beyond the wacked out graphics. This ski does it all(on a demo binding) IMHO



Every size of the PE is 85 under foot.  The graphix of them are horrible.  Kept me from buying another pair this year.

Next year the PE does not exist.  It is replaced by the *Extreme*.  Almost the same ski, but the edges dont stick out behond the sidewall.  They are now black with neon graphics.  80's style!:lol:


----------



## SKIQUATTRO (Feb 11, 2008)

So back to the question.....I am 5'10"  185-190  could i do a 90 underfoot in a 168cm ski or should i go longer??


----------



## highpeaksdrifter (Feb 11, 2008)

SKIQUATTRO said:


> So back to the question.....I am 5'10"  185-190  could i do a 90 underfoot in a 168cm ski or should i go longer??



I'm 5'8" and about the same weight. A ski I have that I really like is the Nordica Hellcat    (  132-90-118 ) in a 170. At that length it is a R17. I use it as my all mountain ski on soft snow days. I ski bumps with them and take them into trees so I like it at that length. It is sandwich construction with 2 sheets of metal so at 170 I feel very stable at speed and they have very good edge hold when the snow is not so soft.

I like these skis so much that I find my defination of soft snow days evolving. I've been skiing them alot lately.


----------



## kbroderick (Feb 11, 2008)

Anything under 85mm is narrow.

85-100 mm is a midfat.

105+ is starting to get fat.

More to the point, I've been spending some days on a pair of 174cm, 98mm-waisted K2 Anti Pistes (the 06/07 model).  I wouldn't go any narrower than 90mm for anything except a purpose-bought race ski or zipperline bump ski (and I can definitely ski bumps on the K2s).  I clock in around 170lbs and wouldn't mind having the next size up except when in tighter trees.

A high-70s-waisted ski is okay, but something in the upper 80s or low 90s gives a lot more float without a lot of downside.  (I did also ski powder Sunday on a pair of 68mm-waisted slalom skis, but that just proves that powder is better than the alternatives, even if you don't have the ideal tool for the job.)


----------



## GrilledSteezeSandwich (Feb 11, 2008)

SKIQUATTRO said:


> So back to the question.....I am 5'10"  185-190  could i do a 90 underfoot in a 168cm ski or should i go longer??





longrt..you should be on around a 180


----------



## andyzee (Feb 11, 2008)

SKIQUATTRO said:


> hey Andy,,,,,have your wife jump and and have her give me a detailed report...what was she skiing prior to the Phats?


 
Before the Phats, she was skiing Atomic C9s and Salomon Scarambler 7. The C9s are in the mid 60s under foot, and the Salomons are 75. Since I got her the Phats, regardless of snow and conditions, she doesn't want to bother with the other ones.







You could see her in action the first week I got her the Phats, and that's right, she ain't gone back


----------



## highpeaksdrifter (Feb 11, 2008)

GrilledSteezeSandwich said:


> longrt..you should be on around a 180



Why, cause you're an unquestionable authority? Give him your reasons why, just writing what you did is useless.


----------



## GrilledSteezeSandwich (Feb 11, 2008)

highpeaksdrifter said:


> Why, cause you're an unquestionable authority? Give him your reasons why, just writing what you did is useless.



based on height and wait..derrrrrrrrrr


----------



## BeanoNYC (Feb 11, 2008)

Grassi21 said:


> Once you go fat, you never go back.  I went from 67 underfoot to 78.  Hardpack, bumps, whatever, I feel so much better on the 78s.



Agreed.  I just sold my AC3's because I love my PE's so much (85mm.)  I knew I wouldn't use the AC3's often enough to justify having them around.  I may get another pair of PE's and retire these ones for Rocks and Loaning (Demo Bindings.)


----------



## BeanoNYC (Feb 11, 2008)

andyzee said:


>



Nice guido music, Jersey Boy.


----------



## andyzee (Feb 11, 2008)

BeanoNYC said:


> Nice guido music, Jersey Boy.


 
Always easy to criticize, a bit tougher to produce. Show us what you got tough guy!  :roll:

Oh, and my wife did the video, you don't want me to tell her what you said! :-x


----------



## BeanoNYC (Feb 11, 2008)

andyzee said:


> Always easy to criticize, a bit tougher to produce. Show us what you got tough guy!  :roll:
> 
> Oh, and my wife did the video, you don't want me to tell her what you said! :-x



Well, If your wife did the video, I like it then...because I like her.  It's you I'm not so hot on.


----------



## andyzee (Feb 11, 2008)

BeanoNYC said:


> Well, If your wife did the video, I like it then...because I like her. It's you I'm not so hot on.


 
Hey likewise queen boy!


----------



## SKIQUATTRO (Feb 11, 2008)

the hunt is on for new sticks!


----------



## SKIQUATTRO (Feb 11, 2008)

considering my Metrons are 74 underfoot..would i be better of going to something like a Dynastar 8800 at 88underfoot or going for it and grabbing a Sugar Daddy at 99 underfoot??


----------



## andyzee (Feb 11, 2008)

SKIQUATTRO said:


> considering my Metrons are 74 underfoot..would i be better of going to something like a Dynastar 8800 at 88underfoot or going for it and grabbing a Sugar Daddy at 99 underfoot??


 
Depends what kind of skiing. I imagine the Sugar Daddy, as it's name implies, is a powder ski. Probably the Dynastars are a better choice. You may also want to consider the Nordica Jet Fuel or their latest ones, the Hellcat.


----------



## severine (Feb 11, 2008)

GrilledSteezeSandwich said:


> based on height and wait..derrrrrrrrrr


There's a lot more that factors in than that.

I switched to a pair of 2007 Marie Martinod pro model Dynastars (same as She's Trouble, different graphics) this season and I won't ever look back.  112-78-102 in 165cm length.  They're awesome.  What I was skiing before was... I don't know, 60-something mm waist.  Much shorter.  Feel squirrelly in comparison.  I bought the Maries without demoing thinking they would work well as a midfat, all-mountain ski and I've been very pleased with them.  Granted, they're thinner in the waist than what you're considering for your wife, but it's the only first-hand experience I can share.  

My only advice?  Don't go too short.  My first skis (4 yrs ago) were 140cm as a beginner.  I bought 154cm Dynastar Novas at the start of the season, figuring that was more accurate for weight/_ability_ (and was laughed at because they came to my nose - I'm 5'5").  The Maries are about as tall as I am, but they rock!  I can't imagine skiing them in a shorter length.

You can also ask Trekchick for advice.  She has a wide array of midfat to fat skis and she also skis longer than the height/weight ratio recommend for her.


----------



## Hawkshot99 (Feb 12, 2008)

severine said:


> The Maries are about as tall as I am, but they rock!  I can't imagine skiing them in a shorter length.



You ski a Twin longer than you do a normal ski.  When you hold them up to your face they need to be about 3 or so inches higher than a non-twin.  The reason is with a turned up tail you lose a lot of affective edge if you ski your normal length.  Companies do not measure what is on the ground, they measure tip-to-tail.


----------



## severine (Feb 12, 2008)

Hawkshot99 said:


> You ski a Twin longer than you do a normal ski.  When you hold them up to your face they need to be about 3 or so inches higher than a non-twin.  The reason is with a turned up tail you lose a lot of affective edge if you ski your normal length.  Companies do not measure what is on the ground, they measure tip-to-tail.


I know that.  But it's still more than 3 or so inches longer than my non-twin (remember 165 vs 154, the 154s supposedly being too long when I bought them :roll.  My point was just to make sure not to short change yourself on length.  It really sucks when you do.


----------



## SKIQUATTRO (Feb 12, 2008)

anyone have any experience with a 185cm VOLANT MACHETE  (94 underfoot)


----------



## Hawkshot99 (Feb 12, 2008)

SKIQUATTRO said:


> anyone have any experience with a 185cm VOLANT MACHETE  (94 underfoot)



Is it metal top sheet like all other Volants I have seen?  If so, they are the heaviest skiis ever created!


----------



## GrilledSteezeSandwich (Feb 12, 2008)

Fat twins ski shorter than skinny carvers..

My 182 Rossi Scratch BCs seem shorter than my 176 Elan S12s..


----------



## SKIQUATTRO (Feb 12, 2008)

got a line on a set of new, not mounted Line 90's at $300.00  good deal or not??


----------



## Hawkshot99 (Feb 12, 2008)

SKIQUATTRO said:


> got a line on a set of new, not mounted Line 90's at $300.00  good deal or not??



Phrophet 90?  If yes that is a awsome deal!  My boss has them and loves them.  A stiff, and fat twin.  (Has a sheet of metal running right under the skin).  Plus they look cool;-)


----------



## SKIQUATTRO (Feb 12, 2008)

would need to get some bindings...


----------



## Hawkshot99 (Feb 12, 2008)

SKIQUATTRO said:


> would need to get some bindings...



My vote is for Rossi Axials!


----------



## SKIQUATTRO (Feb 13, 2008)

coming down to the following:

-Rossi B3 174cm (124/88/111) with binding  $335
-Atomic Sugar Daddy 173cm (124/99/118)  with binding $500

suggestions?


----------

