Revision ski really wide

Lou.

Lou.

Active member
Hey NS,

So I am in the market for an inexpensive park ski from 161-166ish. I love the price point (199) of the new Revision Talisman but they are kind of wide... I've never skied a park ski that wide or taken it into the park. I would use these as a dedicated park ski, would I be better off just getting like the surface blanks or another cheaper park ski that wasn't so wide?

Thanks,

Louis
 
it's the same width as the al dente, arv, and several other skis that are used in the park all the time by park skiers..?

it's personal preference but..personally i love high 90s waist skis in the park
 
13083683:Espen519 said:
I'm on 102's in the park, you'll be fine. And line chronics are 90' something too aren't they??
Click to expand...

Ayyy kung Fujas! Yeah anything from 102 under shreds the park op (my opinion)
 
96-102 is the perfect width for park ski, it will take you maybe 3 laps to get used to the added width and then you'll prefer it.
 
To help yourself decide you need to ask your self. Few questions. What do you want to do in the park? Are to looking to be the next slope star? If you are looking to do big spin on big jumps and tech rail tricks you will probably find a narrower park dedicated ski will make more sense and allow you to progress faster. But if you want to more do slower buttery tricks and lots of rail swaps ect you may find you like a wider ski as you may fin them more stable.

Narower ski.

pros.

Fast edge to edge so nimble and easy to carve

lighter

lower swing weight

cons.

Need more precision to stomp tricks

Not much fun in fresh snow

wider skis

pros

Stable for butters and presses

more surface area for swaps

better in fresh snow

cons

heavier

heavier swing weight so spins need throwing harder

can feel weird on rails if you like to angle your feet

can be easier to wash out on jumps.
 
13084308:tomPietrowski said:
To help yourself decide you need to ask your self. Few questions. What do you want to do in the park? Are to looking to be the next slope star? If you are looking to do big spin on big jumps and tech rail tricks you will probably find a narrower park dedicated ski will make more sense and allow you to progress faster. But if you want to more do slower buttery tricks and lots of rail swaps ect you may find you like a wider ski as you may fin them more stable.

Narower ski.

pros.

Fast edge to edge so nimble and easy to carve

lighter

lower swing weight

cons.

Need more precision to stomp tricks

Not much fun in fresh snow

wider skis

pros

Stable for butters and presses

more surface area for swaps

better in fresh snow

cons

heavier

heavier swing weight so spins need throwing harder

can feel weird on rails if you like to angle your feet

can be easier to wash out on jumps.
Click to expand...

Thank you everyone for the input I really appreciate it because ive never skied a wider ski.

Im very worried about swing weight. By no means am I any good at park haah, I'm a very strong skier who is on year 2 in the park. Just started throwing 3s (with my 161 narrow skis haha). Im kind of more progressed at rails, I can front swap, front and back 2 out, kinked rails, ski slides, I love nollies eveywhere. But all in all what do you guys think I'd be more suited for? Thanks again. And the price point of the 199 really is a turn on so if you think Im not suited for a wider ski give a rec on another on sale or inexpensive narrow 1. Thanks guys for helpinga park ski noob
 
How old are you and how much do you weigh? The age is te big factor as it will indicate how strong you are. But if you have only been skiing two seasons an your still learning I may suggest a narrower park ski for you simply as it will be easier for you to throw around.

You ou could prob find some decent skis from a few years ago cheap or if you could save up to say 400 you could get some really nice skis.
 
13084421:tomPietrowski said:
How old are you and how much do you weigh? The age is te big factor as it will indicate how strong you are. But if you have only been skiing two seasons an your still learning I may suggest a narrower park ski for you simply as it will be easier for you to throw around.

You ou could prob find some decent skis from a few years ago cheap or if you could save up to say 400 you could get some really nice skis.
Click to expand...

Hello! Im 16. Ive skied my whole life Since I was 4. I weight 145 and a 6 8. In good shape. Rn I ski salamon threat 161s... a narrow beginner park ski. They are slightly back mounted. Im looking to buy park skis that are inexpensive and will be a bit longer like 166ish. Thanks for the Input
 
13084673:Lou. said:
Hello! Im 16. Ive skied my whole life Since I was 4. I weight 145 and a 6 8. In good shape. Rn I ski salamon threat 161s... a narrow beginner park ski. They are slightly back mounted. Im looking to buy park skis that are inexpensive and will be a bit longer like 166ish. Thanks for the Input
Click to expand...

If you were on threats last season that will be a big jump The threat I a foam core all mnt ski so they are very light. Now if you upgrade to. Wood core ski which is also much wider you will notice a big weight difference.

Personally i I would recomend looking for a more park dedicated ski rather then an all mnt park ski. Take a look at the atomic infamous. Nice and cheap but ski really well.
 
13084695:tomPietrowski said:
If you were on threats last season that will be a big jump The threat I a foam core all mnt ski so they are very light. Now if you upgrade to. Wood core ski which is also much wider you will notice a big weight difference.

Personally i I would recomend looking for a more park dedicated ski rather then an all mnt park ski. Take a look at the atomic infamous. Nice and cheap but ski really well.
Click to expand...

I was actually looking at those earlier! Thanks man!
 
13084695:tomPietrowski said:
If you were on threats last season that will be a big jump The threat I a foam core all mnt ski so they are very light. Now if you upgrade to. Wood core ski which is also much wider you will notice a big weight difference.

Personally i I would recomend looking for a more park dedicated ski rather then an all mnt park ski. Take a look at the atomic infamous. Nice and cheap but ski really well.
Click to expand...

I was actually looking at those earlier! Thanks man!
 
Ok im 5 8. I currently have 161s.. should I go 161 or 171 for the atomic infamous. It will be a dedicated park ski.
 
13083683:Espen519 said:
I'm on 102's in the park, you'll be fine. And line chronics are 90' something too aren't they??
Click to expand...

Pretty sure Chronics are 92.

If width is your only concern I'd go for it OP.
 
13085122:Lou. said:
Ok im 5 8. I currently have 161s.. should I go 161 or 171 for the atomic infamous. It will be a dedicated park ski.
Click to expand...

Go 171 I would think. I ride them in te 176 and I'm 5'11 and 165 and they worked great fir me.
 
13085122:Lou. said:
Ok im 5 8. I currently have 161s.. should I go 161 or 171 for the atomic infamous. It will be a dedicated park ski.
Click to expand...

Definitely go 171. I'm 5'9 and ride 179 Kung Fujas, and they measure out to be more like 182 or something, but they are more for all mountain. My dedicated park ski would be like 171 I think
 
13085877:tomPietrowski said:
Go 171 I would think. I ride them in te 176 and I'm 5'11 and 165 and they worked great fir me.
Click to expand...

13085904:Espen519 said:
Definitely go 171. I'm 5'9 and ride 179 Kung Fujas, and they measure out to be more like 182 or something, but they are more for all mountain. My dedicated park ski would be like 171 I think
Click to expand...

Alright! 171 it is! Another questipn because everyone is being so helpful ( k+ to all). How noticeable will the 10cm jump from 161 to 171 be?
 
13085943:Lou. said:
Alright! 171 it is! Another questipn because everyone is being so helpful ( k+ to all). How noticeable will the 10cm jump from 161 to 171 be?
Click to expand...

You'll be fine after a day. It may feel weird for first few runs, but you'll appreciate the length. Center mount I'm assuming?
 
13085956:Espen519 said:
You'll be fine after a day. It may feel weird for first few runs, but you'll appreciate the length. Center mount I'm assuming?
Click to expand...

Yes center mount. My Threats (161) are SLIGHTLY back because they were my all mntn and park ski. Will the dead center mount really feel any different?
 
13086028:Lou. said:
Yes center mount. My Threats (161) are SLIGHTLY back because they were my all mntn and park ski. Will the dead center mount really feel any different?
Click to expand...

tech tricks on rails are way easier with center mount skis and skiing switch will become much easier.
 
13086064:*TACO-DOG* said:
tech tricks on rails are way easier with center mount skis and skiing switch will become much easier.
Click to expand...

Bur my current skis are barely back. Will making them dead center do much?
 
13086191:Lou. said:
Bur my current skis are barely back. Will making them dead center do much?
Click to expand...

how far back? you may feel a bit of change the first few runs but after that they feel normal and more stable.
 
The infamous is a symmetrical ski so center mount is where it is designed to be mounted. It feels great on that ski. You will find switch carving so much easier compared to the threats. Going up in size may feel a bit odd at first you will need to adjust to the weight but after a few days you will like the extra stability they offer
 
I'm 6ft2 and used to ride a set of 185 el reys mounted -2.5 and they sucked in the park. Then changed to 171 thalls centre mounted and I ski them everywhere, it's personal preference. Obviously you have to take everything into account but if you feel 161's were too short and your ski's were too narrow, you'll find 166's and wider better, if you don't feel comfortable on the ski, no doubt changing it up will be an improvement.

Felt weird as fuck at first on the thalls but like it's been said, after a few runs you'll be used to it.
 
Getting the revision talismans, but would the 176cm or 182cm be better? I am 6 foot 1, 160 pounds, will likely gain a bit of weight in the next couple years. I am all mountain, getting more into park recently but nothing that ludicrous. I'd say level 2+ all mountain. Any thoughts?
 
13086577:tomPietrowski said:
The infamous is a symmetrical ski so center mount is where it is designed to be mounted. It feels great on that ski. You will find switch carving so much easier compared to the threats. Going up in size may feel a bit odd at first you will need to adjust to the weight but after a few days you will like the extra stability they offer
Click to expand...

Honestly we should just rename gear talk to "TomPietrowski gives you more legit information than anyone ever will"
 
13221348:mta1741 said:
Getting the revision talismans, but would the 176cm or 182cm be better? I am 6 foot 1, 160 pounds, will likely gain a bit of weight in the next couple years. I am all mountain, getting more into park recently but nothing that ludicrous. I'd say level 2+ all mountain. Any thoughts?
Click to expand...

I would say the 182. They will be 1 and 1/2 inched shorter than you, and with the rocker they have they should be about perfect.
 
13221348:mta1741 said:
Getting the revision talismans, but would the 176cm or 182cm be better? I am 6 foot 1, 160 pounds, will likely gain a bit of weight in the next couple years. I am all mountain, getting more into park recently but nothing that ludicrous. I'd say level 2+ all mountain. Any thoughts?
Click to expand...

Like Profahoben_212 said, 182cm would be ideal. They'll be short enough to whip around and make quick turns with but long enough to provide enough stability on jumps and big landings.

If you go shorter than 182cm you may find that they start to get speed jitters and wash out on big landings.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top