GOODE announces 66-inch NANO ONE

[Horton]

Source http://goode.com/blog/?p=1991

 

http://www.goode.com/images/ImperialTesting.jpg

Dave Goode (right) testing the new 66-inch NANO ONE earlier this month with Paul Donatt (left) and Dave Miller in Imperial, Calif.

GOODE Skis today announced an addition to its world-record breaking NANO ONE lineup; a 66-inch length model.

 

The ski joins the previously released 65.25- and 66.75-inch models, offering skiers who may have found themselves in between those two sizes a perfect ski.

 

“Testing the original 65.25-inch NANO ONE showed us that a vast range of skier heights and weights could ski great on it. And we saw that immediately when it hit the market,” said Dave Goode, president and founder of GOODE Skis. “Skiing on the 65.25-inch model, Bailey Austin won the Girls 2 U.S. national title, Regina Jaquess won every tournament she entered on it and set a new world record, Chad Scott won the Houston Big Dawg, Todd Ristorcelli won both Big Dawg Canada and the Big Dawg Finals, and at 217 pounds, Mike Munn earned the 4th qualifying spot at the 35+ World Championships. Skiers from 100 to 217 pounds had great success on the ski.”

 

From there, the continuous evolution of design and testing resulted in the 66.75-inch model that was released late last summer.

 

“It’s proven to be a great length for the larger skiers, but again, it retains the versatility that the NANO ONE line has become known for,” Dave commented. “Dave Miller ran 39-1/2-feet off on it and he weighs less than 160 pounds.”

 

Even with a ski that was as big of a hit as the NANO ONE, the GOODE team, as always, felt there was room for improvement. Extensive testing concluded that sizing a ski in between 65.25 and 66.75 inches would be ideal for skiers who weigh between 170 and 200 pounds.

 

“I’m at 180 pounds and the new 66-inch model is the best ski I have ever skied on,” said Dave.

 

As with most slalom ski product lines, there is some overlap in sizes that ultimately depends on skier preferences. But GOODE’s 30-day guarantee makes it easy for skiers to find the right size for them.

 

“If you buy one size, but after skiing on it feel that another size would be better, just ship it back to us within 30 days and we’ll get you on a different length,” said Dave. “Ultimately, we want people to be on the size and model that works best for them. That’s what the R and D process is all about.”

 

Recommended ski selection guide for the NANO ONE

 

65.25″ - up to 195 pounds

66″ - 165 to 220 pounds

66.75″ - 195 pounds and up

[FrankS]

So the whole "1 size fits all" theory ended up not completely working? Also those look like small ski lengths for bigger skiers. Most companies have 68 or 69 inch skis for skiers in the 200 range.

[Dirt]

Marketing! I didn't buy the one size fits all "claim" from the beginning. Ingenius if you only have one size ski ready for market.

[Horton]

@OB Don't we have adjustable fins that we manipulate DFT to make the ski feel slightly shorter or longer?

 

Not the same as changing the size of the ski

[KM]

@Scot Chipman. Can you find out the surface area of the 66" Nano One?

[Than_Bogan]

Yep. I actually called this in my "review." Maybe I'll bother to dig up the quote to pat myself on the back with...

 

Btw, do they have to change the name to the Nano Three now? :)

 

No change for me, though. I've always leaned toward a shorter ski when I'm between two, so at a mid-season weight of under 170, I'll stick with the 65.25.

 

And no matter how many of them there are, I am looking REALLY looking forward to an entire season on mine!

[Razorskier1]

Sooo tempted to try one! At almost 50 I came to realize (while thinking in the shower) that I don't have forever to run 39 in a tournament, which is one ticket I'd really like to punch before I'm through. While other new skis have gotten some buzz from the pros, none except the N1 have had so many regular folks running PBs, or just running buoys much easier than before. So while the new Mapple 6.0 and A3 also have appeal, this one seems to have the most data behind it in terms of more buoys run. I'm not getting any younger. At 6 feet and 195, I think the 66 would be the right stick. I've run 68 inch skis for the last 10+ years and they feel about right.

[Horton]

Do it!

[Chef23]

@scotchipman do you have the surface areas of the smaller and bigger N1s?

[FrankS]

.

[Chef23]

It will be interesting to see how the 66" N1 compares to the Mid. The 66.75 has slightly more surface area. I know some people don't think that it is that relevant but I find it interesting.

[KM]

Based on the numbers above, the 66" should probably come in at around 360 sq. inches of surface area.

[6balls]

@razorskier1 yah, do it! I want to be there to ski it...er...supervise the initial effort. I don't think I will be able to coach you adequately, however, without knowing exactly how the ski performs so I will need a few sets before you ski.

All kidding aside, demo it in the spring. It's a 30 day money back guarantee. Maybe it gives you an edge to compliment what you recently picked up on the technical side.

The Razor rocks and maybe you stay on it in the end...but the clock is ticking and I'd like to see you on that big dawg senior tour thingy.

[Horton]

@scotchipman

Surface area compared to what? I will say it again.... if it was square inches behind your front ankle maybe it would mean something. If Dave was just messing with us he could just add 3/4" to the tip of the 65.25, call it a 66 and in terms of surface area it would be a bigger ski.

[MattP]

I'm scared to say it but I agree with @Horton on this one. It's about surface area yes, but more importantly it's about wetted surface area. I think wetted surface area is one if the most important things I have learned about in the past few years and it's placement along with it's affect on skis performance.

[Horton]

This all reminds me of the length of the CarbonPro. The story I heard was that they finished the boat and felt good about the design but to meet some state or federal regulation it needed to be a little longer. They added a few inches to the bow and the stern. The change is 100% of the the water and means ZERO.

 

I mean seriously look at the bow of a CarbonPro.

[ForrestGump]

Same thing happened with one of the mastercraft wakeboard boats. To get it to fit in lakes that had a length limit, they shortened the pickles on the front. Wetted hull surface area nor the weight rating didn't change.

[jayski]

I'm with @Horton and @MattP on this one, minus the 'wet' surface area, any surface area measurement is pretty much a useless figure, you can obtain same surface areas on differently shaped skis and it's not going to tell you how that ski acts on the water, what would be a better is four standardized width measuring points on skis, this would give you better insight as to the shape and more information for decision making than a surface area number...and a the flex numbers would be nice too, I realize most manufactures are not 100% accuracy in consistency with flex between all skis but a general number they try to obtain woulb be nice anyway.

[Horton]

Wetted? When? At apex? 2 feet before? 2 feet after? At the wakes.

 

[estrom]

In my simpleton's mind, I don't care how long the ski is, or what the surface area is, wetted or otherwise. What I want to know is which ski the manufacturer recommends for my size/weight. It seems that's what these measurements are used for, are they not?

 

Why not have an industry standard of classes or ranges. Call it A, B & C for lack of creativity at the moment. Class A skis are for folks up to 150lbs. Class B for 150-190. Class C for above that. I don't care how long the ski is, or surface area, just tell me which class the ski falls into. Just my .02 cents.

[Horton]

Every ski size already has a size chart

[estrom]

That's sort of my point. The chart is more important than length or surface area measurements in my mind. I don't think it's as simple as saying all 67" skis fit in the same size category.

 

I don't see what additional benefit there is to surface area measurements. It's just a number (like length) that doesn't tell me much.

[Chef23]

@OB the problem is many of us don't have access to lots of demos or a pro/coach to watch us. Frequently it is use a sizing chart then get a ski that you can send back if you hate it and you try it at your home site. If you ski better you keep it and you are never 100% sure if a different size or ski would have been better.

[Chuck_Dickey]

30 day trial offer worked for me. 170#, 5'-8" on a 65.25" best ski ever!

[KM]

I ordered the 65.25" at Nationals. By the time it arrived my water ski season was over. I will be trying it this spring.

 

Seems there is a large amount of overlap between sizes:

65.25" - up to 195 pounds

66" - 165 to 220 pounds

66.75" - 195 pounds and up

 

At 183 pounds, I am right in the middle of the 66" size and towards the high end of the 65.25" size. So I called Goode to see if I should exchange the 65.25" for a 66" to demo first. Dave recommended to stay with the 65.25" as this size is working well for lighter and heavier skiers alike. My current ski is a 65" 188 AMP Nano Twist Mid.

[MAD11]

@OB whats wrong with a 15 knot tail wind? We skied OK when you were here in that stuff once or twice.