Author Topic: Head Rock'n Roll Sizing  (Read 496 times)

dan.boisvert

  • 100 Posts
  • *
  • Posts: 102
Head Rock'n Roll Sizing
« on: December 03, 2012, 08:29:44 pm »
Likely due to the hideous graphics, these things seem to just keep getting cheaper, and I might not be able to resist for much longer.  Any suggestions on length?  I'm torn between the 180 and the 187.  My plan is to mount them up with Dynalook plates so I can swap alpine bindings for touring ones at will and be one step closer to a touring setup I like.  My intended uses would be fresh snow at home and as a travel ski.

I'm 5'7", 170lbs.  I looooove the Monster iM78 in 178, but am looking forward to a bigger radius for going faster and a little more float for going slower.  I've read that the early rise makes these ski shorter than the sticker size, but am not sure by how much.

Help?


Liam

  • Ski Shop/Ski Patrol
  • 200 Posts
  • **
  • Posts: 399
Re: Head Rock'n Roll Sizing
« Reply #1 on: December 04, 2012, 06:49:33 am »
Dan,

I've laid my pair on the floor next to a pair of 178 dynastar 4x4's and so far as I can tell, the early rise is barely perceptible.

The 180cm is the money size for medium sized guys like yourself...though, if you really want it to shine in big open western spaces at speed going longer is a good idea.

The Rock n Roll, is more of my everyday crud ski, i have a longer/ wider ski for powder.

What are the dynalook plates??  sounds cool.


dan.boisvert

  • 100 Posts
  • *
  • Posts: 102
Re: Head Rock'n Roll Sizing
« Reply #2 on: December 04, 2012, 08:40:41 pm »
Thanks, Liam!

I doubt I'll spend enough time traveling to make a wide-open-spaces ski worthwhile for me, so it sounds like the 180 is the better idea.

Here's the info on the plates: http://bindingfreedom.com/Plates_c2.htm

The idea is that you mount the plate to your skis, then can swap bindings at will.  He's got versions that'll let you mount Dynafit&Look, Dynafit&Salomon, or Dynafit&Duke.  The inserts would be lighter, but I figure my odds are better of screwing those up, and I don't think I'll mind a touch of lift on a wider ski that could see some firmer surfaces as stuff gets scraped off or while traveling.

I like to buy well behind the technology curve on skis, because everything is cheaper and other people get to figure out what works and doesn't.  I'm not ready to commit to a dedicated 100+ powder ski yet, both because I don't ski that much powder and because what I do ski has been working fine with my 78mm Monsters.  I think if I was planning on spending a lot of time noodling through the trees, I'd want something wider but, for the speeds I like to ski, I get plenty of float with the 78's, so a 95 should feel positively luxurious.  :D

Johnny2R

  • 1 Year Member
  • <100 Posts
  • *
  • Posts: 46
Re: Head Rock'n Roll Sizing
« Reply #3 on: January 25, 2013, 07:21:58 am »
For a lightweight (145lb) skier, would the 170 length be good with these? That's what I normally go for when skiing mixed on/off piste.

jim-ratliff

  • 6+ Year Member
  • 1000 Posts
  • ******
  • Posts: 2739
Re: Head Rock'n Roll Sizing
« Reply #4 on: January 25, 2013, 07:27:04 am »
I would think so, but they may feel shorter than other 170's on hard surfaces, depending on how much of the "early rise" is in contact with the snow.  But I would still think that 170 is the size.  And, as Liam said, the early rise isn't very perceptible so may not be any effect at all.
"If you're gonna play the game boy, ya gotta learn to play it right."

Johnny2R

  • 1 Year Member
  • <100 Posts
  • *
  • Posts: 46
Re: Head Rock'n Roll Sizing
« Reply #5 on: January 25, 2013, 07:55:23 am »
I would think so, but they may feel shorter than other 170's on hard surfaces, depending on how much of the "early rise" is in contact with the snow.

Well, if they ski like a 165 on piste, that's OK - I've skied many a 165cm ski happily on piste.