NanoXT Ski Length Recommendations, Please

[PatRe]

My buddy wants to try the XT and is seeking recommendations regarding ski length.

 

He currently skis on the a 65.25" N1 with a (white cuff) Reflex front boot and an R-style rear setup on a single Reflex plate. At 175 to 180 pounds and about 6' tall he loves his current ski. He skis 34 MPH, runs 35s and wants better looks at 38.

 

Any recommendations with ski length would be greatly appreciated!

 

Thanks in advance.

 

Pat

[Horton]

Not everyone is going to agree but with a Nano One shape I say 65.25 or nothing.

 

[kfennell]

Horton, for everyone? When I was looking at skis, John travers, Trent Finlayson and Dave Goode all suggested the 66" for me at 195 lbs@36 mph.

[Horton]

@kfennell‌ wacky I know but yes 65.25 is my recommendation

[GOODESkier]

I wouldn't be afraid to try a 66 or a 66.75 in the XT....... I watched Cam White run 4.5 @ 38 on his 66.75 and he is likely 185 lbs and 6'3". I ran 2.5 @ 38 on my 66.75" and I am 6'3" and 180 lbs.

 

I feel the bigger ski carries more speed through the turn for some of the taller and maybe "less finesse" skiers like me.........

[Than_Bogan]

I think @GOODESkier may have hit upon a key aspect: More finesse skier like me probably leans to shorter ski; more power skier may benefit from longer ski. I have no real evidence to this effect, but it makes a little sense and matches my personal experience.

 

At 6' and 175-180, I'd think that's pretty much on the center of the 65.25 range, so I wouldn't be especially tempted to try longer unless have previously had a predilection for longer or bigger skis.

[David Miller]

I have skied on the 66.75 and the 66 all winter and I am 160 lbs. they all work great it comes down to preference. The 66 is definitely less work than the 65.25

[jayski]

@David Miller any preferred settings for the 66.75?

[PatRe]

I've skied with my friend for several years and have a "very strong hunch" of which ski length would be best for him. Input received thus far seems to support my hunch though I don't want to get into details as to not influence his decision. We appreciate all your help. It might come down to demo rides to see what best suites him.

 

@Horton much thanks for your excellent & unbiased reviews of various skis. And thanks to all for sharing their experience.

 

I'm hopeful we can resolve this soon and post his particular preferences and results. Any further thoughts are certainly welcome.

 

Pat

[RAWSki]

I was a 65.5" Goode Skier from the 9100-9500 until the 66.25" 9600 came out ----loved that ski and the same size 9800. Went to the Nano One 65" because of the 'new shape'. Just never felt completely comfortable on it....gave me a slow sinking feeling, I'm now on a 66" XT and it feels Just Right. (5'11" 190lbs LFF)

[GOODESkier]

@RAWSki‌ if you ever get the chance, try a 66.75 for comparison and get back to us and see what you think? Just curious if you might feel the same I did, since I never felt anything other than sinking on the 65.25 as well. I am 6'3" 180 lbs.

[PatRe]

First, thanks to all the Ballers for posting experiences here and in other discussions.

 

We were leaning towards a longer ski as most others seemed to favor as well. In all fairness, testing all three sizes would have been ideal. Due to practical constraints, we only tested the 66” ski.

 

@kfennell – You went direct to the source. Thanks.

 

@RAWSki – What speed are you skiing?

 

@Than_Bogan – Thanks for your input. I've watched you ski... I drove for one of your rounds at John's Lake last year. You were running a sweet 38 with a tail wind and I thought we were certainly coming back at 39. You appeared to be on schedule so you can blame me. Anyway, I think the XT would suite you well. Demo different lengths if possible. You can demo for 30 days!

 

@scotchipman – Yes, try the 66” and even the 66.75”, your instincts and experience always seem to be spot on.

 

@Dave Miller and @GOODESKIER – How would you compare the rides between the 66” and 66.75”? I'm 150 to 155 lbs and would like to demo should / when I start skiing again.

- - - - - - - - - - - -

Sorry, this is turning into a long post.

 

An update...

 

The settings as received appeared to be a good starting point. I only had an 11 degree gauge and could not check the initial wing angle. It looked to be about 9.5 degrees.

 

We used my original (calibrated), non-slot Goode caliper.

 

The numbers:

Boot → 29”

Length → 6.854” (Tips)

FB → 0.700 – 0.702” (Head, with horizontal ski)

Depth → 2.501” (Deepest side)

Wing → 10.5 Degrees

 

I could report my instant observations. I'll quote the skier (Mark Karpo) instead:

 

“Okay here goes ...

 

Just had my first session on a Nano 1 XT 66" Left Foot Forward ski and here's my two cents.

First off, I'm 175 lbs, 6ft, 51 years old, and last year I was on a Nano 1 65.25" running 35 off 50% of the time.  Loved the Nano 1 as it had a tight turning radius and kept going into hookup as compared to my prior Radar Strada that was prone to brake into the hookup after a tight radius turn.  Having completed 3 sets on the XT yesterday, here are my observations.  First set out I found myself very early at one ball ... and every ball thereafter.  Couldn't believe how much real estate was in front of me going into the buoy.  Second, my off side turn felt powerful and controlled like my on side turn as I easily made tight turns into a stacked position at hookup with great angle.  Third, I literally poofed from hookup to transistion ... its a very very fast ski.  Fourth, at transition, my hips and feet naturally and easily got out in front of my upper body to give me very wide (and did I mention early) setups for the turn.  I had previously run only one 32 this season (cold spring and late start) but I ran two 32s back to back my first set with the XT.  I felt so confident I went to 35 second set and though I didn't run it I found myself wide at 2 and 3 even though my hookup at 1 ball was less than optimal.  In short, I have high hopes I can run 38 this year with this baby.”

 

[RAWSki]

PatRe I'm skiing at 33 & 34mph, LFF rear of front boot 29" from tail, factory stock fin. but based on another thread today I might drop my 35' offs down to 32 mph and start trying to ski-right and actually make one!

[GOODESkier]

@PatRe‌ I found the 66.75 just carried more speed through the turn and ultimately felt like even less work than the 66. In my opinion it turns just as well as the 66 and is faster and less work just about every where. Not sure on your weight for that ski, but maybe @davidmiller can speak to that.

[Than_Bogan]

@PatRe Hah! Since that was my best score in 2013 and tied my second best of my life, a FAR better hypothesis would be that you were doing something RIGHT. All blame to me I'm afraid.