Madshus fit longer than other skis; also, their size chart goes by skier height not weight. So the Glitterinds, 68-55-62, put me in a 190 ski; Rossi outback 68, identical dimensions, put me in a 169 ski. Fischer also puts me in a 169 for very similar tip/tail measurements. Their size charts are by weight. So I'm 5'9'' 140. My classic nordic skis are 193's.
I just bought a new pair of 2009 closeout glitterinds for very cheap at rei outlet. They are 170's. I couldn't resist the price. They are returnable. My thinking is that for my use--easy terrain, no telemark turns, day trips where glide and climb in mixed snow conditions are more important to me than carving downhill turns--I really just want to get down safely--this size Glitterind should work. Maybe I give up a bit of float and glide, but get ease of turn on the downhills?
And then, why the huge difference in length between Madshus and everyone else?
I'll be skiing around Tahoe. So often I'll be on compact snow where flotation is not an issue. But sometimes it will be!
I Nordic ski, but would like to branch out a bit into easy bc, as I said. Gliding through the snowy woods, not carving up big bowls. ( I used to Alpine a lot, so I'm not a novice on downhills with metal edges.)
Is my thinking on the Madshus sound, or should I return them and go longer/another brand?