Thread on 8K's in reviews ended up arguing over whether heavier skiers could provide good judgements on skis for lighter skiers, and vice versa. Thought it deserved its own thread, so credit to Ski-Ra, Skier219, Tromano for the idea.
Here's my hunch: Some skis "scale," meaning that a shorter version will produce the same feeling for an equivalently lighter skier, (or put in a more technical way, the various flex patterns are linear relative to the length). And no, some don't. Which I assume means that they are non-linear; hard to predict how a different length will feel. What would be more useful IMO is to try to agree on which models scale and which don't. If there were a consensus on some, maybe Tromano could read more reviews.
So the rule is, you have to have skied the model in at least two lengths. I'll start. 163 lbs, for the sake of argument, here are seven popular skis that I have skied in different lengths and I did not think scaled well: AC4/40 (and I suspect 50), 8K, Mantra, Mach 3, 6*, Blizzard 8.1, Rossi Z9.
And here are seven that I found did scale well: Goats, Sollie Fury, Head Mojo 90, Volkl Karma, Stockli XL, Afterburner, Blizzard Cronus.
Can't see much of a common factor except that 6/7 of the "scalable" skis lacked metal, while all the "non-scalable" skis had it. Yet far as I know, metal is not responsible for stiffness so much as the glass wrap is. And metal should be more uniform as a material than wood. Meanwhile, feedback, other nominations?