> The other Gs skis I was looking at had a sidecut of about 17m.
> Would this be any better?
My 184 xp100 has a measured sidecut of 123-68-107 giving an average sidecut radius of 13.9 m. I don't know the measurements of the 163 and 170 ic200's, but to give you an idea, if the dimensions remained exactly the same, then a 163 xp100 would have an average sidecut radius of only 10.9 meters. Since the dimensions probably change a bit, the actual number for the 163 is probably somewhere between 11 and 14 meters.
So, a 17 m. ski is definitely a step in the right direction for GS. BTW, FWIW, I thought most true GS skis were in the 19-22 m range, but my info could be a couple of years old. There are a bunch of people on Epic who are knowledgable racers, and might hopefully chime in on this.
> ...I read that the ski is very stable, is this true?
If you are referring to the xp100 / ic200, they are indeed extremely stable. This is because of their high swing weigh, stiffness, and damping. This was discussed at length in the threads I cited above.
There is an optimum level of stability for each person and their skiing preferences/abilities. If you go too far on either side of this optimum, you will hate the ski. There is a good chance a 130 lb'er might find these skis overly stable - ie, a real handful. To calibrate you, in one of the threads I mentioned above, somebody commented that he thought a person would need nothing short of tree-trunk legs and world-cup status to enjoy the 184. I assure you that I have neither, but his comment should at least give you an idea that this is not your average ski. You either should demo it before you buy, or realize that there is a good chance you won't like it and will take a loss when you have to resell it.
Before you plunk down any cash, I *really* encourage you to read all three threads I mentioned above and realize that weight is a very important factor in picking the optimum ski for yourself.
Just my $0.02,
Tom / PM