im 78 for lighter skier

[Sam Snead]

Great comments on the IM78 in 171/177. Most of you are in the average weight class, or like Harald, although lighter, way above my skill level.

What about for someone 145-150 lbs 5-8"? Would the 165 cm 78 be a better choice? or maybe a watea 84 in 167?

Diana put me on 160 SS's which work well, but I'm looking for something for when the soft snow get's deep up here in PNW (Whistler - mostly). that can work the groomers and particularly the soft bumps and cut up getting to the deeper stuff.

Thanks
Paul

[jbotti]

Sam, I have been on the Watea 84 in a 176 length and I am 6 3" and 180-185. I really like that ski. It skis short so the 176 for me was about as easy to manuever as the 171 IM 78. I definitely liked the IM 78 better on grommers and as a carving ski, where it is wonderful, but the Watea was pretty awesome in fresh snow, chop, crud and soft bumps (so is the IM 78). They are both great skis.

As for length, I think the bulk of what the manufacturers say and the bulk of what the shops say (and almost all of what is said in the gear section on Epic) is a bunch of hooey. If I listened to the standard reccomendations, I would be on 185-195 CM skis for everything but slalom carvers. The biggest problem with listneing to this "conventional wisdom" is that it comes from people that don't aspire to the same approach to technique as those that learn with PMTS. In my opinion all one picks up with longer skis is the ability to go faster and straighter with less deflection over chop. crud and small bumps. This can be quite useful if you wish to ski this way, and many peopole do. Once you want to add in some turning without steering, sidecut and a tighter turn radius is your friend, and it is always easier to engage shorter skis than longer ones.

My guess is that the shorter size in the IM 78 and the Watea 84 would be perfect for you.

[Max_501]

A bit of extra length is nice in pow and crud as it gives a bigger fore/aft sweet spot. That's why I liked the 177cm IM78.