Here is a table of factory suggested WEIGHT ranges for the new Rossignol B-Squad. Interesting to me because they're not worrying about height:

Ski Length Weight Range

164 120-159

174 140-179

184 160-199

189 180-219

194 200 +

Obviously the overlap allows for differences in use, assuming only strong advanced/experts should be looking at this ski. What's more interesting, using weight tends to produce a really different set of recommends than height cuz there's a lot more statistical variance in weight.

Exercise: Took 90% U.S. height range (61-75"), divided it by 5, got the following table for the B-Squads (rounded to half inch):

164 5'1 - 5'4

174 5'4 - 5'6.5

184 5'6.5 - 5'9

189 5'9 - 6'0

194 6'0+

Going by my height, (6') I could be on a 194!! Generally, I end up at the 3/5 or 4/6 mark for most length tables. But in truth, think my weight (165) is a far better predictor of the length skis I prefer. No way I'd handle even a 189 B-Squad. 174 would work best, as the weight table suggests. I might choose a 184 if I were looking for high speed blitzes, period. On the other hand, if you're 5'10 and 200 (not atypical males here), the tables agree on 189. You'd have to be 220 before Rossi would insist on a longer ski. So it looks like there's more disagreement for us thin guys.

Which sorta makes sense, because on other threads we've discussed the forces, and I think it's clear that mass has a lot more impact on ski response than leg length or stature. On the other hand, unclear about why it doesn't work the other direction (heavy-for-height's pushed toward longer than expected skis). Could be tables are assuming an increasingly heavier population. But not sure skiers (generally taller, lower %body fat, more muscle, and more athletic than norm) fit that assumption. Try to find data for another post.

Meanwhile, few questions for reps and dealers and other insiders: Mainly, how ARE these tables derived?

(Yes, I've read the other threads and yes, I know the links. None describe assumptions or even where they get the numbers for the size ranges. And often that means that years ago an intern was told to spiff up the home page, so he/she put them together using random stuff from a Google search, or cut and pasted a competitor's tables without checking further, or just made the stuff up on his/her laptop while having a beer, and now everyone cites the link as gospel. Said intern is now the pointy-haired boss at Dilbert, uh, Dynastar.)

So are the segments just stupid-simple cuts, like I did, of population data, or are they non-linear (compressed at the extremes or skewed; the Rossi tables keep the same weight increments as they shift to 5 cm length changes), and are they using U.S./European/Indonesian/intermediate/expert skier/bowler data?

And why aren't more manufacturers/dealers pushing weight tables?

Just wondered...

Ski Length Weight Range

164 120-159

174 140-179

184 160-199

189 180-219

194 200 +

Obviously the overlap allows for differences in use, assuming only strong advanced/experts should be looking at this ski. What's more interesting, using weight tends to produce a really different set of recommends than height cuz there's a lot more statistical variance in weight.

Exercise: Took 90% U.S. height range (61-75"), divided it by 5, got the following table for the B-Squads (rounded to half inch):

164 5'1 - 5'4

174 5'4 - 5'6.5

184 5'6.5 - 5'9

189 5'9 - 6'0

194 6'0+

Going by my height, (6') I could be on a 194!! Generally, I end up at the 3/5 or 4/6 mark for most length tables. But in truth, think my weight (165) is a far better predictor of the length skis I prefer. No way I'd handle even a 189 B-Squad. 174 would work best, as the weight table suggests. I might choose a 184 if I were looking for high speed blitzes, period. On the other hand, if you're 5'10 and 200 (not atypical males here), the tables agree on 189. You'd have to be 220 before Rossi would insist on a longer ski. So it looks like there's more disagreement for us thin guys.

Which sorta makes sense, because on other threads we've discussed the forces, and I think it's clear that mass has a lot more impact on ski response than leg length or stature. On the other hand, unclear about why it doesn't work the other direction (heavy-for-height's pushed toward longer than expected skis). Could be tables are assuming an increasingly heavier population. But not sure skiers (generally taller, lower %body fat, more muscle, and more athletic than norm) fit that assumption. Try to find data for another post.

Meanwhile, few questions for reps and dealers and other insiders: Mainly, how ARE these tables derived?

(Yes, I've read the other threads and yes, I know the links. None describe assumptions or even where they get the numbers for the size ranges. And often that means that years ago an intern was told to spiff up the home page, so he/she put them together using random stuff from a Google search, or cut and pasted a competitor's tables without checking further, or just made the stuff up on his/her laptop while having a beer, and now everyone cites the link as gospel. Said intern is now the pointy-haired boss at Dilbert, uh, Dynastar.)

So are the segments just stupid-simple cuts, like I did, of population data, or are they non-linear (compressed at the extremes or skewed; the Rossi tables keep the same weight increments as they shift to 5 cm length changes), and are they using U.S./European/Indonesian/intermediate/expert skier/bowler data?

And why aren't more manufacturers/dealers pushing weight tables?

Just wondered...