66.5" Nano 1?

[jayski]

Anyone have insight as to when they may release a longer size?

[ForrestGump]

Goode already has them in production. Dave Miller skied on it at Imperial last weekend.

[Chuck_Dickey]

I thought the 66.75" was for 200+ pounders? Wonder why Dave Miller would ride the 66?

[TomD]

I've been on one for almost a month. Tried the 65.25 and it felt like I was skiing on a ski that was too small for me. It turned great on both sides, but I really felt unstable crossing the wake. Called Goode and they sent me the 66 (after I returned the 65). It turns just as good and feels much more stable. I'm 6 foot 197 and ski 34 mph. This ski turns best when I don't try to make it turn, just get it on edge and let it carve. Neither the 65 or 66 feels "fast" but as others have said, it just seems to get you where you need to be.

[jcamp]

@jayski They are available now at http://store.goode.com/nano-one/

[ForrestGump]

@Chuck_Dickey Because MIller is strong as an ox and can pretty much swing anything he wants around. He moves around so much that he probably wants the stability of the bigger stick. He ran 5@39 at imperial first set on it, I believe.

[Dirt]

It is interesting that the smaller ski works for so many skiers. You guys/gals probably read the WS Magazine interview with Bob Lapoint. R&D. He said if in doubt go with the larger ski. He also talked about all the skiers riding short skis back in the day.

I almost forgot. He also said, "Horton is right. MS is wrong."

Ok that is not exactly what he said but it is what he meant. He said for 90% of the skiers the wing hurts their skiing.

[slalomboy96]

I tried for 4 weeks to get along with my 65.25 nano one, some times ok most of the time worst ski ever, I'm 195lbs ski at 34 mph, after lots of help and patience from the team at Goode, they sent me a 66.75, and holy smoke what a difference, ,best ski ever, it's stays in front easier, that offside Turn is amazing, and the speed across course and through the turn wicked, after 3 sets on it I'm 8 buoys better than the 65.25. My most favourite ski of all time.... Thanks Goode,

[BraceMaker]

@Dirt - I would get around the concept of it being a short/small ski.

 

What Goode has focused on with the ski is a turning radius - we all ski the same course, and if we view there as being a "perfect run" it would have a certain turn. So you build the ski to make that turn naturally, which is where the length has come from. You can design the bevels to give more lift, you can sneak some extra width in to give the ski some support on the water. And you can make certain aspects of the ski longer than other skis in that size catagory, which is how I suspect it all works.

[Dirt]

@BraceMaker I understand what you are saying. Have you ever ridden snow skis that are too short for your height? When I did, I felt like I could not press them properly or I would go over the front of them.

Did you see the Parsons crash video from Imperial that suddenly disappeared from the internet? Same principal IMO.

I have a circa 1980ish Connelly Concept that I could probably sell for two grand if I market it correctly. Don't believe everything you read, especially advertising.

Skiers have been riding shorter skis forever. Some like them and some don't. BLP has been doing this for a while. He is certainly an expert on skis. Read the WS Mag article.

I am not Goode bashing. I ride one about half of the time.

[Horton]

I matched my personal best first time out. I am 190. This ski is a different design philosophy. It breaks convention.

 

@Dirt how long is your mid? Where is your front binding ?

[Dirt]

@Horton 66" & binding 29.5 I think. Might be 29. I weigh 185. 6ft 4in

A shorter ski can help if you pull long and crank a turn. Repeat.

I am not saying the ski does not work. I think there are a lot of skiers that would pick up buoys on a shorter ski.

[Horton]

@Dirt

29.604?

 

I am at 29. Most skiers on the short N1 are are 28.75. Since the N1 is a little wide under foot it is not really that much less ski than a normal ski at 67 inch. You also have to remember that Goode measures skis differently. I am to lazy to figure out what marketing from another brand would call it but you get the idea.

 

And yes it makes space. Not ball to ball. In fact it does, sort of, suck if you try to ski ball to ball in it. I guess I think all skis such like that.

 

It may not work for you... have you tried it? (I forget if you already told me) It will not work for everyone but holy crap does it work for me and the guys I have loaned my ski to.

[Horton]

Going back to the original Q from a few weeks ago. That 66 that Miller had was an R&D ski. I rode it. It was ok. I thought the settings were maybe wrong. Miller is trying new stuff all the time so tracking his ski as what you should get is totally the wrong idea.

[skidawg]

Ski should feel small JTH since ur a tweener

[Horton]

@skidawg as long as @dirt is wrong I agree

[Dirt]

@Horton does that ski make it look like you are going slower than 40mph? ;)

I said you were right and @MS was wrong when I first commented. Why can't MS be the only one who is wrong?

[Horton]

Looks like I go fast because I am 4' tall

 

Yes you are right. @MS is wrong

[BraceMaker]

@dirt - with snow skis, you are using the edge all the way up to the tip of the ski, in fact it is all edge, from tail to tip. http://media-3.web.britannica.com/eb-media/21/91821-004-E4EC76F4.jpg

 

So if you have shorter or longer skis on a downhill ski, you have changed how much lever arm you have from binding to ski tip. Its not every slalom skier cranking turns with the whole siderail wet.

 

[Dirt]

You mean like this?

 

 

 

[Razorskier1]

Back in the day it seemed like everyone skied shorter. When I got my original red/blue sixam AM told me to get the 69 inch (I am 6ft, 195-200). I did, and it skied great, turned great, and was very stable. At the time it seemed a lot of the buzz in skiing was that people were going back to longer skis with the new shapes and materials contributing to their success. I'm now on the 68 inch Razor A-flex. Love that size. I think if I were ever to try the Goode I'd have to do the longer ski.

[BraceMaker]

Exactly, forwards of that the length doesn't matter. You'd have to actually compare running surface, which brings up that whole thread about wetted surface area, and dynamic surface and blah blah blah.

 

I had a 65.5 goode for a few years, I was a few pounds lighter then, but still use 66" skis.

[slalomboy96]

For me the 65.25 was great when I was great but had no room for error, the 66.75 has given me all the good points of the 65.25 but doesn't punish me when I ski like a plonker. Yeah boooy

[ForrestGump]

@OB I'm almost positive that the are no longer measuring chord length on the Nano One.

[SkiJay]

I measured 65.25" along the running surface of the base of my Nano 1.