Check Out Our Shop
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 1 2
Results 26 to 33 of 33

Thread: Ski Recommendations for a mini-Maggot

  1. #26
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Denver
    Posts
    1,070
    I got a feeling alpine dad is an engineer.

  2. #27
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Redwood City and Alpine Meadows, CA
    Posts
    8,276
    Quote Originally Posted by dirtybryan
    I got a feeling alpine dad is an engineer.
    Nope. Geek lawyer.
    not counting days 2016-17

  3. #28
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Location
    The Cone of Uncertainty
    Posts
    49,304
    My kid just turned 11, weighs about 85 and is about 4' 7" or so. He absolutely loved the 153 cm Line Invader Minis I got him for Christmas (until they were stolen). They're true twins so they ski shorter than 153, ands they're 80 underfoot and very light.

    Backcountry Store had them on sale a couple weeks ago for about $180. I did a lot of research on this and I think it would be hard to do better than these.

    There was also a thread on this exact topic at the time, don't forget the search function peoples.

  4. #29
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    368
    My friends will tell you that being out-geeked when analyzing purchase options is a pretty tall order for somebody, but I think that alpinedad has fulfilled it. I'm not sure I can play up to his level, but I can take it up a notch...
    I've looked at the growth chart, in particular the 50 percentile line that he's been following pretty consistently, and he should be about 156 cm (45 kg) next year and 164 cm (50 kg) when he's 14. I'm a little concerned that next year a 159 cm ski (21 cm jump from this year) might be too big for the first year he's on it. This is making me have 2nd thoughts about the Maunga and Jeremy Nobis that mtnlion found. I'm going to be at Mammoth this week, so I'll look around to see if I can find the Dynastar trouble maker, and the Fischer Maunga in the same shop to compare flex. If trouble maker isn't a noodle, I'm leaning towards it, at this point.

    And iceman, I did search - I probably didn't articulate it very well, but one of my bigger concerns is that he's right between an adult and a kid in a lot of sizes right now (not just skis) and the choices are limited. I don't think this size is in the sweet spot for the kid specific models, and it's still light for the adult models. I searched and found your thread, and it didn't really address some of the questions I had (not that I necessarily asked them much better in this one). I looked at the Invader mini and mentally put this in the foam core pipe specific ski. As alpinedad pointed out, kids are a lot smaller, so this might not be as relevant, but I don't like the foam core skis I've tried, compared to the snapiness I get from a good wood core. He's getting into situations where edge hold can be pretty important, and I'd like him to have a ski with beefier construction, assuming he's still heavy enough to bend it.

  5. #30
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Location
    The Cone of Uncertainty
    Posts
    49,304
    Yeah that's a judgement call on the foam core and all, but the Invader is a pretty versatile ski, a lot of people here know Joey and he can ski anywhere with authority.

    After his skis got stolen we had him on some 153 sugar daddies with rental bindings which weighed about a ton-and-a-half and while he was fine the 100mm underfoot was overkill and the weight bothered him on the chairs.

    Kids skis are so much cheaper than adult skis that in my mind it's worth putting him on the kids ski even if it only lasts him one year, because you might get two years out of them and you won't end up buying something that's too much for him in hopes that he'll "grow into it" later.

    My .02

  6. #31
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Redwood City and Alpine Meadows, CA
    Posts
    8,276
    Quote Originally Posted by iceman
    Kids skis are so much cheaper than adult skis that in my mind it's worth putting him on the kids ski even if it only lasts him one year, because you might get two years out of them and you won't end up buying something that's too much for him in hopes that he'll "grow into it" later.
    Ditto. And add the fact that many shops have a trade-up program for kids skis.
    not counting days 2016-17

  7. #32
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    San Francisco, CA
    Posts
    257

    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-))
    Life's simple: Ski or Die

  8. #33
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    San Francisco, CA
    Posts
    257

    Forgot a point

    My son skied Park-like skis ( 17?cm Scratch BC) for a while as he grew. They were both too long for him and too wide, so they violated Alpinedad's "AFI" index thing, but they were soft. So, they skied really short, twins tip did that too. Eventually, he got sick of them slamming all around in the mank on Ballroom and the Castle and he insisted on the 186 LPs. But, the "soft" park skis were a great way to get the surface area without completely taking him for a ride.


    Quote Originally Posted by mday View Post
    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.
    Life's simple: Ski or Die

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •