Is there really a right size?

MDB1056

I don't know the answer to this so coming to the much more knowing experts here. The whole ski sizing question seems up in the air. To start we have all the major manufacturers with their size charts based primarily on weight. We all know that those generally say the more you weigh the longer ski you need (yes some increased width too). OK but then we've all seen the Nate story about based on his weight he'd be on a 66 but long ago he hopped on a 67 and instantly picked up a full pass and has never gone back. So he's gone longer. Now going the other direction in one of the recent MB interviews Freddie Winter said even at 185-190 he's riding a 66, so he's gone shorter. Now consider the Adam's mantra that short ski's rock, and Denali's one length for all regardless of weight (yes width variances). Considering the rave reviews of Denali's C75 is this now the new leaning of one length for all? Kind of hard to argue when we've got world talent at both ends of the spectrum and everywhere in between. Personally at only skiing 34 and 155 lbs and riding a 67 GTR I've always flirted with trying shorter (66 or even 65) to see the difference, but Connelly's feel shorter to me so I haven't yet. So looking to the forum gurus here as to what we might expect to see going forward. Not sure it's getting any clearer, or that there even is one best (length) platform. Logically I'd expect there to be some level of consistency on length, as always has been for water and snow.

oldjeep

Not sure there has ever been a level of consistency for snow skis. So much more than overall length goes into picking a length of a particular ski, turn radius in particular - and a lot of times it is just how it feels to you. With snow skis it has been relatively easy to test out different lengths of the same ski if you are willing to go to where ever the demo days are - waterskis seem like it would be tougher to try out multiple sizes in the same day.

Clydesdale

I’m no expert but have a story re ski lengths. A used to have big weight swings depending on my ability to run (or not). Low of 178 high of 237. During this time i skied on 2 senates, a short one and a long one. (Like how some people have fat clothes and skinny clothes.) In the middle weights I preferred the shorter one, but at my fattest the short one was unskiable. Just not fun. At my lighter weights both were skiable, but I preferred the shorter. Based on this experience if I’m between 2 ranges I always go long. Your results may vary.

Clydesdale

Correction-178 was a long time ago. Over this time period 190 was probably my lightest.

aupatking

You’re just underscoring the importance of the manufacturers size recommendations on each individual ski. They designed their ski, so know how it should perform at different weight ranges. Now, if you’re skiing short line and you want to rip turns right off the backside of a buoy, maybe you go a little shorter, but you know you aren’t going to carry the same outbound speed as with a longer ski. Maybe that’s what you like, but really, when you’re at that point, you already know.
So, if that particular thought is worth salt, maybe the best idea is to contact a pro riding the particular ski you are asking about, even better if they’ve seen you ski.

BraceMaker

@aupatking - there is one other issue that I do think exists, and this is my perception of the process only and not insider knowledge - so correct me if I'm off.

In the development stage I feel most of the brands aren't building an "exactly" 66" or 67" ski - they are making the ski for their pro testing team. Once a theory on a shape or a rocker or a bevel reaches maturity they are in some way shape or form scaling that, clearly if you compare a 65 and a 69" ski they haven't applied a 5.97% change to all dimensions of a 65 and called it good. There is some stretch/skew/scale going for each size.

I have a bunch of old 66" skis and when you pop off their fins and push the tail up against the wall it is very clear that they are much different in length and rocker, flat spot and side contour. The story of its a measurement along the rockerline or from the tip to the tail against a wall or from the tip to the tail straight across the top sheet from different brands - it just doesn't matter in the least they are all much different from brand to brand and are all the recommended size from their manufacturer.

aupatking

@BraceMaker you going down the rabbit hole of “why is 66 not 66”?

lpskier

Weight relates to flex. Heavier skier can ski on a stiffer ski (assuming all other factors being equal). That’s why sizing relates to weight instead of height.

DanE

@MDB1056
@155 You could go with a 66" GTR no problem, would probably be the " correct " size even.