Sizing? I'm 147 pounds (skinny and tall) and an expert-ish (mostly do nordic track skiing) skier. Any advice on 163 vs. 173 cm? (I'm also new to the world of mega-wide skis, so not sure how that plays into it.)

Thanks, Jon

I'm also about 147-150# and would say that the 173 is the way to go. Much more versatile than going to 163 for all the already mentioned reasons. Good advice from the other posters.

John is right. Keep that heel down closer to the ski, and tighten up your stance. Stay high and give yourself somewhere to go when you get into the bumps. Short skis suck, but you shouldn't be crossing the tip behind your opposite heel- that's just poor form, and getting longer skis isn't going to help much with that. All said, though, I'd go for longer skis, as longer will seem good going from nordic boards. These skis would be good for almost any relatively modern boot and binding combo that isn't totally floppy. I'd recommend T2's with Hammerheads. G3's and BD's would be fine, too, but I think Hammerheads are far superior.

i would go for 173 myself 5'8 165 lb. The major problem with crossing the back ski over the front is more of a a technique problem of not enough weight on the back ski. You can't weight it when the knee is bent 90 degrees. this was what they did in the 80's. Modern tele now stand taller and not much between front heel and back toe. less energy. better edge control and true two ski carving.

How tall are you? Conventional wisdom matches ski length to weight. But for Tele, I've found that really short skis (relative to your leg length) make it annoyingly easy to get one ski crossed behind the other. But for what it's worth, I'm 5'11, 160lbs, and I ski on 173cm Janaks. So I'd guess that 163 would be a good length, unless you're over 5'10.