Originally Posted by Woodee
I know there is difference in flex/construction between a 155 and a 160, and between a 160 and a 165. If I had to guess I say the 168 is designed for more "gravitationally challenged" skiers, but I'd like to know the details.
Don't have this year's specs yet but when the 160 first came out, it was the 165 that was just shortened by 5 cm...no change to flex pattern & minimal change to dimensions.
It actually skied stiffer than the 165.
The 156 was proportionally smaller through key dimensions.
Originally Posted by skiii
For example... I am 5'7", 150 lbs, P/T instructor, 55 with perfect knees (void of superstition), quick and agile but not powerful. Never raced (hence the knees) but I was thinking of club racing so the guys told me I should get 155's and go (some even suggested women's FIS) but I feel more confident on the FIS 165. --I try to get season-old Rossi's so they are a bit forgiving.
The 165 is a 12.8m ski, the 156 is I think 11.5m or 11.8m. Key thing is that it's natural radius is shorter than the 165.
If you're going to race, there's a good chance you'll have courses with gates set at 10, 11 & 12 meters.
That means you've got to bend the 165 a fair bit tighter than it's natural radius.
This is something that takes a good amount of skill, strength, and weight (and generally in that order).
You'll likely have a lot more success bending the 156 to the course radius, rather than skidding out on the 165.
Only guessing at your skill level, and by no means intending to under-rate you :)
The 156 will be a somewhat specialized race SL ski, but if that's your goal, that's the ski.
As Ghost suggested, the 165 will give you more versatility for an all-round short radius ski.