Okay, I've searched the forum and can't find the answer, so....
I'm buying skis for my sister-in-law for her 50th birthday this year, and I need some advice. She is an avid skier who normally only gets to ski approximately 4 weekends a year (primarily East Coast with occasional trips to the West). She mostly skis groomers, but loves it when there's a bunch of fresh snow on top of of a previously groomed trail. She adores groomed blacks. She is a cautious skier who likes to stay in control and goes for perfect linked turns over speed.
She bought some great advanced/expert skis for an excellent price at skis.com last year, but when she took them to the shop at Sierra-at-Tahoe to have the bindings mounted, the guy (older guy who clearly knew his stuff) refused to do it because she had 170s and he said they were way too long for her. She was disappointed because she had spoken to several people at skis.com trying to decide on what length to purchase, and had decided on longer skies based on her weight and skill despite her short height. The ship guy was so sure about this that he comped her demos for the day and told her to try skis between 146 and 160. She demoed several, including the new K2 Superfree in 146 and 153, and she loved the 146s.
So my question is, does the new ski technology now essentially make weight irrelevant? If so, I'm going to buy her the 2012 K2 Superfree 146 skis since that's what she fell in love with. It's just that this whole ski length thing is driving me crazy, and I really want to understand.
(Secondary question, not that important: can tell me if the 2011 K2 Free Luv is the same ski, in which case I might get her those, but I think they come in 142 and 149 so I don't know what I would get).
Thanks for your input!