New Posts All Forums:Forum Nav: Rossignol BC 125: 165 length too short for 5'-11" & 150 pound guy?

[Fishnaked]

According to Rossignol's size chart, I should go with 175. Most of what I'm reading around the net suggests the same.

However, I can get a brand new pair of 165s for $150. An attractive price when I consider my modest income and a retail price of $440.

For what it's worth, I would only be using them for transportation, to and from a backcountry yurt. 5 mile round trip of rolling terrain and one hill climb. No downhill turns. There's a fair bit of brush and trees on the way to maneuver around. 24"-30" of powdery snow is common.

I'm currently using 185s with a 90 underfoot. They float me well, perhaps sinking ~4-5".

I'm 5'-11" tall and barely 150 pounds....soaking wet. My pack weight is around 5-8 pounds.

Would the 165 length work for me? Or will they not offer enough floatation?

http://www.rossignol.com/US/US/bc-125-- ... ml?b=41945

[Woodserson]

Mike: surface area analysis time!

[lowangle al]

For what you want to use the ski for I don't think it's worth spending an extra 300 bucks. The shorter ski might not be optimal but I think it is enough to get you to the yurt even in deep powder and will be a step up from snowshoes.

If you ever decide to start making turns the short length will make it easier. I have never used a ski too short for making turns and I've skied a few that were shorter than the recomended for my weight.

[MikeK]

Say what? It's just multiplication. Wake me up when we get to the calculus and beyond.

Seriously though... I actually already thought about what I was going to reply, but I didn't write it... but I've been trolled in, so here goes:

If I were to say that ski is good enough, someone would probably say, no no, you really should have the longer one... and if I would have said, get a longer one, someone would have said this is OK... and you would have been none-the-wiser than you are now. That's just how the internet works

But actually I thought about it, and you should probably just use that rig you have together if it's working and save up for a pair of skis you actually want/need/like rather than just jumping on whatever random deal comes by... unless of course you really want these skis, in which case I'd say they'll be fine. If you sink another inch more than what you are using, is that the end of the world (I know we make it sound that way sometimes, but in the grand scheme of things, it's small)?

[Fishnaked]

Thanks for the replies, everyone. Appreciated!

MikeK - My initial thoughts was to do as you suggest: Keep using the set-up I have. Works. However, my wife got herself last years Rossignol BC 110s which I noticed were considerably lighter than my skis. Hmmmm. Then, after her success with them and doing more research, I thought if I were to replace mine, I'd opt for their larger brother, the Rossignol BC 125. Right after, I stumbled on the BC 125s in the 165 length at a local shop. When the owner said $150, my wheels began spinning.

Someone mentioned the camber wouldn't support me, causing the scales portion of the ski to be felt all the time, slowing me down.

Anyone have thoughts on that....or any other additional thoughts?

[lilcliffy]

Hey Fishnaked,

While I can certainly understand the lure of a good deal- especially when it comes to Nordic ski gear - I have to say my initial intuition is that you may not notice any difference with a 165cm BC125 and what you are currently skiing on...Which is what? 195cm, 90mm waist- what ski? A 195cm, 90mm waist is a BIG Nordic ski by any measure...

Quick rough dirty math:

1) 165cm BC125: 0.186m2 of surface area
2) 175cm BC125: 0.198m2 of surface area (approx 6% increase)
3) 185cm BC125: 0.209m2 of surface area (approx 6% increase)

4) Even if your current ski has no sidecut; 195cm x 90mm = 0.176m2. So if your current ski has a wider tip and tail, it could easily offer as much effective flotation as the 165cm BC125.

The BC125 is only 5mm wider at the waist than what you are currently skiing on...

As far as weight-length-camber relationships- the current BC125 is a soft-flexing single-cambered Nordic touring ski designed for deep, fresh snow. There is no wax pocket on a ski like the BC125. The waxless scales will be dragging in the snow no matter what length you choose. The 185cm will offer more flotation than the 165cm- the 165cm will be more manoeuvrable and offer a tighter turning radius.

That being said- I am very pleased with the upgrades to the BC110 and BC125- they are beautiful powder XCD skis.

[anemic]

They may be slower than hoped. I also weigh 150 and I have had fun on my wife's 160-something similar crowns. Upside? You'll enjoy plenty of grip! Worst case scenario is your wife may like them. Should be worth what you paid in the resale market if neither of you wants the ski. Great price, worth mounting them up. Did we hear what your boot & bindings are?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Fishnaked]

Thanks, Anemic and Lilcliffy!

Anemic - My boots are Alpina BC 1550s on NNN BC bindings. If I were to get the new BC 125 skis, I'd go with the BC Magnum bindings that Rossignol recommends and continue using my Apina boots (at least for a bit. They're showing a fair amount of wear at the front pin area).

Lilcliffy...I appreciate your reply, but in my sleep deprived state, I'm not sure I fully comprehend. My current skis are older Rossignol B3 Bandits, 185cm long and 122/94/112 (skis in pic). They have very little camber compared to the 165cm BC 125's I'm looking at, and not as much rocker. The BC 125 numbers are 123/95/120.

In looking at the pics, my old Rossignol skis appear to have a wider footprint than either the pics or numbers would indicate on the BC 125's. Plus, my old skis are 8" longer with less rocker which would equal even more surface area to contact the snow. Of course, all of this is so new to me, I really don't know.

Would love to hear more input from you folks. Thanks!
[img]

[/img]

[lowangle al]

After seeing that you are using light boots I am more convinced you would be happy with the shorter ski.

[MikeK]

Again my 0.02...

If you are skiing with NNN-BC, you might be better off to look for a pair of touring oriented skis. Lighter, better gliding, but given your locale, you may want to err to the side of a bit fatter for flotation.

I'd say anything up to a Madshus Annum or Fischer S Bound 112 would do you well. Then go to like a 175 or 185 and take advantage of the NNN efficiency.