Ski Recommendations for a mini-Maggot
My 12 year old is outgrowing his current skis (2 yo 138 cm Scratch Jr). He lives for fresh pow and trees, but it seems like all of the Jr skis are geared towards beginners, racers or the park & pipe. He's still a bit under 5' and he probably weighs about 90 lbs now. In our last trip to Alta, he was in the level 9 kids class and they skied runs like Gunsight, Stonecrusher and Devil's Castle (in the chop) and he loved it all.
I'm hoping to get him something in an end-of-season sale this year, assuming I can find the right ski. I'd like him to have something a little wider under foot, given how much time he tries to spend in deep snow. From what I can tell, it's mostly the park & pipe skis that have wider waists, but they usually use advertising phrases that describe how they're designed to be soft for initiating tricks or landing on the tails. These still might be the right flex for him for all I know, but their advertising doesn't make it obvious to me.
So, until PMGear make *true* baby Bros does anyone have any suggestions? He'll mostly be skiing on these at Tahoe & Mammoth with the occassional trip to Utah.
My experience with kid skis
FWIW, when Seldon was a little guy, he skied some tiny Solomon X-Scream skis that did fine for him, and it was exactly like Alpinedad said - he floated even though the skis were dinky. I will NEVER forget skiing Fred's Trees at Alta after a 2 foot dump and seeing my 11 year old flying though stuff I was sinking in. After doing an approximation of Alpindad's math I can understand why.
As Seldon got older he kept pushing for bigger and bigger skis, until he finally convinced me to get him 186cm Legend Pros when he was only 5'9" and 130lbs. They took him for a SERIOUS ride, and he still skis them with a 5'10" and 175lb body that is about twice as strong.
My point is that for smaller people, it's possible to buy skis that are WAY bigger (in proportion) than you can if you're 6'2" and 212lbs. That has two effects. First, folks tend to buy skis that are actually much too large for kids, because the kids want 'em (reference Seldon), because their friends have bigger skis, and because some of our kids read the board and want to be Extreme Mountain Dudes like all of us (LOL). Second, it's not at all obvious that big skis actually help, when they are this much too big. Although I must admit that Seldon became a great skier, IMHO. I think he would have done that anyway and he might have actually had a bit more fun as a young teenager on something smaller and less stiff than 186 LPs.
The Second point, on why folks buy skis that are too big is perfectly explained by Aplinedad, it's all about surface area. Lots of folks buy skis by the length, up to the nose, eyebrows, top-of-head. Heck, when I was 16 my dad bought skis for me that were up to my wrist when my arm was held straight up. So, I was skiing on Head 205cm skis when I weight 130lbs and was 5'7". Thank god they were really narrow - I still have great memories of ripping groomed runs on those skis!
I think that, for the most part, there is one other important factor I'd include. As a fat-ski convert, I'd strongly suggest that one get the same surface area (AFI in Alpinedad's formula) by going with shorter and fatter skis. Two reasons. First, the fat skis have typically got less side cut and I think that some skis have gone for WAY too much side cut which leads to people spending too much time on goofy hills full of moguls or going around race gates. Something I don't personally like. Second, by making the skis shorter in length for a given surface area - thus fatter - you make it a LOT easier to spin them in the air during jump turns or to just whip them around where you want them. Given little-skiers generally don't have the leg strength of older-large-dudes this makes it much easier for them to get a 180 pulled off or to just helicopter turn down a chute. Thus, the push for shorter & fatter skis.
B-))
