OK, a serious post.? Gary says one size shorter, and it makes sense to me, but one size shorter than what.? I generally find I like the second longest ski in the ski family, but that is a changeable length.? And, in general, I would expect Gary to prefer a ski one size shorter than me (cause I'm fat and overweight at around 190 lbs. and he ain't).? (Also, I am 5'11.83256" inches tall, but that makes less difference).
I currently have a pair of iM78's (that I really like) in the 177 length, but they come in 165,171,177,183.?
I also have a pair of Head SuperShape Magnum's that I bought in 170, but they only came in 156,163,170,177.? I haven't skied these yet, but this guideline has worked well for me in the past.
My gut feel (pun intended) is that there is a rough correlation between weight (because weight is a primary component of the force that winds up bending the ski) and manufacturer intended ski lengths (and that's not to say that individual skiers might feel more comfortable one size off from that).
200+ pounds? ? ? ? ? ? ? = longest in the family
180-200 pounds? ? ? ? ? = second longest in the family
160-180 pounds? ? ? ? ? = third longest in the family
less than 160? ? ? ? ? ? ? = fourth longest in the family
Other examples.? my prior pair of carving skis was the Head i.SL chip in a 165.? It came in 150,155,160,165,170 so obviously designed to be skied shorter than either of my current pair.? I also think I could have been happy on the 160 length with this ski, but that was too short to overcome psychologically.
Head Supershape circa 2006 came in 155,160,165,170,175? (170 was a very popular size.? If i was skilled enough to use this ski I would have bought the 170, but I think Gary is happier with the 165 and I think that is the right length for his size).
Home
Login
Register