Icelantic Keeper Ski

Absolutely 178cm. I'm 5'8" and wouldn't shy away from the 189 if I didn't live in the East. 350mm tip and 250mm of tail rocker means the actual cambered part of the ski unflexed is only 118cm. Flexed there is more active edge. The 178 is great and turny for the trees and are super trustworthy at speed. These skis wont disappoint.

I would go with the 178s if I were you...I'm 5'8" 155lbs, advanced skier. The 178s have been the perfect length for me with plenty of agility in the trees.

I have a pair of BD Ascension STS that I swap between these and my Line Prophet 100's. I'm extremely happy with their durability on east coast crunchy snow. Couldn't be happier with my choice in skins.

I really like my G3 alpinist skins.

These do ski big. Demo if you can. I demo'd a 178 and was hoping for something twitchier than I experienced. Ripping open powder should not be a problem. But demo the ski as the 50th guy down to be sure your satisfied.

I bought the 189 at 6' and 195 and don't reqret it. At this length it is still very agile in deep powder for trees and incredible in bowls (sking Gran Targhee and Brundage). If you are only going to ski tight trees you may want to go with the shorter length. You may have already made a purchased, but either length for your size should work well. I also looked at the Rossi S7 as they both have a similar shape. Decided to buy something made in the USA.

I think you will enjoy the 178. The 189 would be cool to have for bomber open bowl days, but i bet you enjoy the 178 in the trees. Hope this helps.

Got mine last season,the 189. im 6-3, 230. mounted with the Dynafit Vertical FT12. boot is the scarpa mobe. use BD skins. they tour awesome, u cant go wrong with the dynafits. incredible ski, can tear up everything

If you're doing a lot of resort skiing, you may choose a Marker AT binding, but they tour poorly (and are prone to icing, and you have to take your skis off to switch to ski mode, and you can easily break one with a knee fall touring) and are REALLY heavy. While I'm also on BD Factors, I'm putting Dynafit Vertical FT 12's on mine.

To anyone who claims that Dynafit's can't hang if you ski hard, I'd say watch an Eric Hjorleifson video (like this one http://www.earlyups.com/featured/eric-hjorleifson-pov/)

Dynafits don't have the same elasticity in the toe release as an alpine binding, and don't do well in backwards falls. Otherwise, they work REALLY well driving skis hard.

For "slackcountry" or mixed resort-bc bindings, Markers are a reasonable compromise. For (even really agressive) backcountry use, nothing works as well as a Dynafit.

I will be ordering the Duke for my 178cm Keepers as well. I'm a lightweight skier (130lbs) that needs the durability and performance of a high end binding like this. I have Dukes currently on a pair of Line Prophet 100's 172cm (9.5lb skis), with BD Factor boots. WIth that said its a heavy setup, yet I still manage to squeeze in 10-12K out of my tours with ease and can still have complete confidence in my bindings skiing zipperlines at the resort too. If you have a high fitness level (chances are you do if you are touring anyways), you likely will not have any problem.

If you want reliability in no fall zones and other areas when it really counts, go with the duke. For an alternative if you are planning much longer trips the F12 would be a good option due to the improvements made for the 11-12 season.

I just ordered a pair of Marker Dukes for mine, and it seems like thats what a lot of people are going with on this ski. Like any other ski, it depends if you are looking for strictly backcountry or slackcountry/sidecountry. For backcountry skiing the Duke may be a little too heavy. I will get back to you as soon as I try them out.