Phat Luv length

[bio-smear]

Today I picked up a pair of new Phat Luv 160cm's for my woman. I was torn in the shop between the 167's and the 160's. She is 120 lbs, 5'5", intermediate-expert, loves powder, and has descent skiing technique. The 160's are *almost* as tall as she is. Her current ski is a 161 Salomon 1080, mounted a squeak forward(1 cm) but the Phat Luv seems a bit longer as it's not as twinny.

For a powder/bc ski, is this the right size? Too short? Will she get good enough float by virtue of the width alone, or should I run down and pick up that 167?

My personal powder ski is a Karhu Jak 190, which is a little taller than me, and that's my only reference for length/height with a phatty.

WhuhshouldIdo. Thanks.

[The Dad]

So not only did we buy our respective wives the same skis at the same place, but we had the same dilemma.

K2s run long for the stated length.

My wife is 5'4" and has been skiing Salomon Verse 8W 160s (70-something mm waist) for a few years without major mishap. I think yours will be fine with the 160s.

[spindrift]

At 120 pounds she probably would have gotten enough float from the 153cm. Just do the thought experiment - for example, if you weigh 180, it would take a similarly proportioned ski (ie 95 underfoot, etc) at a length of 225 to give you a roughly equivalent weight to surface area ratio to what she'd get from the 153... While I would not be overly stuck on this one metric, it is interesting to think about it - and to scale that for the 160 and the 167.

[jed peters]

Wifey has 153s at 5'2" and 125. They keep her floatin'.

[Dr. Crash]

The 160s will be perfect for her. It is a sweet ski.

drC

[altagirl]

I'd think they would work out fine. I'm 5'8" and have 167 Phat Luvs for my easy on the knees/tight terrain skis, 174 Phat Luvs for touring, and 183 Gotamas for powder. If nothing else, she can decide later that she wants a longer ski for big days and add something else to the quiver.