I'm trying to make some sense of ski width and length, compared to the size of the people skiing. Take a Mantra for example, which comes in lengths from 170 - 191cm. I'm guessing that the 170 is aimed at a lighter guy, say 5'5/140 lbs, and the 191 is aimed at the larger end of normal, say 6'2/220 lbs. The difference in length between 171 and 191 is 10%. But the difference in weight between 140lbs and 220lbs is 37%, so hmm... maybe height is more relevant than weight. The difference between 5'5" and 6'2" is 9% - bingo! (I did not make these numbers up so the math would work out, really). But now comes my real question - width. All these are 96 under foot. But going by percentages if the 170 is 96 the 191 should be 106 underfoot in order for the big guy to have the same skiing experience as the small guy. So when you read a review about ski X holding great on groomers, maybe it's important to look at the size and weight of the tester and the length he was testing. A big guy may have no problem arcing turns on a 96, but he might have problems arcing on a 106, which is what that 96 will feel like to a small guy. I might be full of it, probably am. But how would you really know that the two sizes ski alike, since each tester is just whatever weight he is, you never really get a comparison of the 170 to the 191 by the same person. This all came about because I was thinking about the width of the Mantra Jr for my kid, who weighs 75 lbs, and I did the math and decided it would be like me skiing on something thats 140 underfoot - not exactly an all mountain experience. Please, make some sense of this for me. Thanks.
post #1 of 12
10/5/09 at 10:24pm