|Originally posted by exnyerinmontreal:
Can I ask your height/weight? I just picked up a new pair of T- Power Viper S Twin Deck in a 167. I'm 6' and 175 lbs. I demo'ed the 174 last season and although I loved the ski, I felt I could go shorter. I was toying with the 160, but settled on 167. Just wanted to see how that compares to others on this ski.
I'm 5'10" and 180 lbs. A summer of mountain biking has gotten me in shape, but apparently hasn't caused me to lose weight. I think I was a little lighter last ski season (and I still hope to get a little lighter before this one!). I know a lot of people put so much stock in weight/ski length comparisons, but personally I'm finding that to be not so important. This past season, I saw so many top ski instructors, of every size, skiing 160s. And they're not just skiing that length because it's an easy length on which to teach.
Of course, I'm also a firm believer that what's right for me may be absolutely wrong for you. As Oboe writes, his favorite ski and mine may be absolutely different, for good reasons. For instance, I've never liked skiing mid-fats. I demoed a bunch of skis last season. So many people here love skiing Atomics short, but I couldn't find a pair of Atomics that I liked at all. They're great skis, just not for me. Same idea about different favorite ski lengths for different people. I didn't find any difficulties skiing a 160 vs. 167 length, and I found lots of advantages skiing a 160 (increased fun!!!). You're mileage may vary.
I know it's not always possible, but I think it's best if you can demo the exact ski in the exact length before you buy. Those magazine reviews really are just personal opinions, and those opinions vary so much from person to person.
By the way, the most difficult thing about having 160s is figuring out how to carry them. They're almost too small to lift over your shoulder, and it looks a little weird holding them between thumb and index finger [img]smile.gif[/img] .
How's that for a long-winded response to a simple question!