realskiers

Congratulations Lynn.? Good to hear that your demo experiences worked so well, and that you got to try what are now YOUR skis in such a variety of conditions.

Especially nice that others could see the difference in your skiing and provide feedback in addition to you being able to feel the improvement.

I know your iC160's had a waist of 64 or thereabouts and that the ET's (I like that abbreviation) are 72mm.? Do they take noticeably more effort to tip or get on edge than the narrower skis.?? At 110lbs, you only need a 55mm waist to have the same float as the "standard" 175lb guy on 85mm waists, so 72mm is like skiing on 95-100 mm waists??

From a Michael Barrett post out of the archives:
The following is copied over (with slight modifications) from http://www.epicski.com/cgi-bin/ultim...=000089#000016 , in the EpicSki Academy Planning forum:

One should be very careful about extrapolating from one's own experience using normal width skis in soft snow when making ski recommendations for people of substantially different weights. Here's why:

Lets assume that there is some validity to the oft-heard claim that mid-80's skis are the best thing since sliced bread for average weight guys (say, 175 lbs) in soft snow. Then, one can estimate the width of a ski that would give the same amount of float to a skier of a different weight. Here's a table that does this:

(lbs)..(mm)
100.....49
120.....58
140.....68
160.....78
180.....87
200.....97
220....107
240....117
260....126

Thus, if you are a little slip of a 120 lb woman, you will have the exact same float on a 58 mm wide pair of skinny boards that Mr. Average Guy (at 175 lbs.) has on his 85 mm "lite-fat" skis.