The Nela 88s are a rocker camber rocker profile so I don’t see why they would ski that much shorter. Perhaps in bumps and trees, shorter is preferable but in an actual all mountain ski? Hmmm. I would be inclined to say that when someone generally likes a ski in the 158-163 range and doesn’t enjoy that in a a specific ski … it’s probably just not her flavor. @VickiK if you sell them, you should probably demo and try to find something you love.
The Nela's ski longer, not shorter. I can take pics if you'd like as they are hanging in my garage. I'm telling you, the rocker is only in the front and is minimal. If the turned up tail is considered "rocker" then it's about 1cm's worth. I've seen the description on various sites as both, but the tails are not rockered. I have stood them up next to all my other skis for comparison and the contact points are far longer even though they are the shortest skis I own. When I squeeze the camber together on them, the tails do not have any rise past the slight upturn. My Rossi's have a lot of tail rise AND some rocker with it. They are a very precise ski and respond very positively to precise input, and I think the small amount of rocker is why.
I would do the same. It's a complete cliché, but we really are all so different in terms of our subjective experience of things, not to mention our physical size, condition, experience and simply our preferences. I'm certain that the only way I found the skis I currently love (Stöckli SCs) is that I demoed. What's funny is that I nearly bought a different pair of Stöcklis without demoing — after not liking the first pair of skis I bought without demoing two years ago, after a 25-year skiing hiatus. Hope you find something you love soon!
Makes total sense as they are quite an investment. I don’t foresee any more of them in my future; I can’t justify the cost especially since they’ve gotten even more expensive.
