Yep, same skis as last year, just a different topsheet. Same dimensions, base material, core material, etc. Just updated with a new graphic.

The S7 (with the exception of the 195cm length) is a softer, more playful ski. It is a more versatile ski. The S7 has a much wider tip compared to its tail, and has a lot of sidecut. It is much turnier ski. The EHP is a much straighter ski with very little sidecut. It is also considerably stiffer. Both are great in pow, but the EHP is a much better crud ski, as it is stiffer, and meant to be more of a big mountain charging ski. The EHP is also easier to smear and slash turns with, and skis, in the soft stuff, more similarly to a reverse camber/reverse sidecut ski. The S7 has a lot more camber, so it skis a lot better on firmer snow. Both are great skis, but it really comes down to what conditions you ski most often, and what conditions you plan on skiing them in.

Yes. Unlike some of the other skis rossignol makes (the seven deadly sins skis), this ski is very traditional, and meant to do one thing, charge! So there is only one mount point. On other skis like the S6 or S7 Rossi has several mounting points for people's specific preferences. Some people who buy those skis do more jibbing, some people do more traditional skiing, so they offer mounting points best suited for those styles of skiing. This ski is not as versatile. It is designed to ski big lines, and ski them fast. Because of this there is only one, traditional, recommended mount point. Of course you could always mount it a centimeter or two forward if you feel more comfortable with a more forward mount, but there is only one recommended mounting point on this ski.

Same mold, same press, same core, same ski. The skis are identical in every aspect except for the graphic on the topsheet and the name on the base. Other than that, the skis are identical.

This is a touring boot for those who value downhill performance and edge control over comfort and ease on the way up. They are a fairly stiff, burly boot, more in tune with alpine boots than AT/touring boots. These fall under the touring category because they have a vibram sole (rubber sole to aid in traction and grip), their weight is relatively light, the forward lean is pretty neutral and not that aggressive, and Scarpa doesn't make alpine boots, only alpine touring and telemark boots. Having seen the boots in person and knowing people who use them, they are kind of a hybrid, but despite the lack of walk mode, they are more ideal for touring than as an everyday inbounds/resort boot.

Don't wreck your skis, or you bindings. Ski equipment is expensive enough, let alone dynafit products. Copy and paste this link into your browser http://www.backcountry.com/outdoorgear/Dynafit-Crampons/DNF0030M.html or type in DNF0030M into the search window on any backcountry.com page and you will find the solution to your crampon search.

You can't take switch modes without taking the skis off. The skis have to be removed in order to switch from ski mode to tour mode, and tour mode to ski mode. It is actually a positive thing. By having the lever that switches from one mode to another underfoot, you ensure that the binding will not switch into touring mode by accident while skiing. A somewhat common worry with other touring bindings. It is a pain sometimes, but it is beneficial more than a pain. This design helps make the binding feel more solid, and ski more like an alpine binding. It isn't as delicate or wobbly. Also more than 90% of the time, you are going to have to take the skis off anyway after touring before you start skiing to put your skins away, check snow conditions/assess avy danger, refuel with food/water, catch your breath, etc. The only time I've found that this design is a pain, is when there are very short downhill sections of your tour, where it doesn't make sense to take your skins off and switch modes. In those situations it can be a little sketchy.

Don, at the end of the metal climbing bar, that the heel piece is attached to there is a screw. Click your boot into the binding. Then adjust the screw so that is flush. If it is further in the climbing bar, the forward pressure will be off. If it sticks out past the climbing bar, the forward pressure will also be off. Make sure it sits flush with the plastic. You can check both visually and press your fingertip against it to feel that it is flush. It is very simple to adjust/set. Make sure your boot is clicked in, and the bindings is adjusted to the right size. If the boot isn't clicked in, you cannot properly adjust it.

If you click on the sizing chart it will display the percentage of light transmission and what situation it is ideal for. I find that with Oakely lenses, Persimmons is the best lens if you are only using one lens for all condition. It provides good visibility in all conditions. There are better lenses for bright sun, and better lenses for flat light. But for one lens to perform well in all lighting conditions, the Persimmon lens fits the bill. It has an orangeish/amber tint to it. This helps brighten things up in a little when it is dark or snowy, and reduce brightness and glare on really sunny days. It also performs well in all the conditions in between those two extremes.

The main difference is the way they attach to the tail. The clipfix uses two clips in the corners of the skin. The sts, has a leash with one clip. It offers more adjustability/customizability for using the skin with different skis, and you can create more tension depending on where you put the clip in the leash, so you get a better more secure fit throughout the life of the skin.

Jules, the onyx was meant to be an ultra lightweight touring binding to compete directly with Dynafit. Dynafit's 1 flaw, if they have any, is that in order to switch modes you have to step out of the bindings. So when G3 was creating this binding they wanted to create a binding that in theory does everything better/easier than Dynafit. Dynafit is the standard in the industry, and since the Onyx is a new binding, G3 is doing everything in their power to try to outdo Dynafit. With the Onyx, G3 has figured out a way that you don't have to do step out of the binding to change modes. You can stay in the bindings and change from one mode to another. Not a very commonly used feature, but it can be advantageous at times.

Yeah, you're pretty spot in your comparison. The Seth is more dexterous with better feel. It does this however by sacrificing some warmth. It is a thinner glove than the vertical cuts. If you look at this year's Seth, it is thicker, warmer, more beefed up glove. The vertical cuts on the other hand are still very dexterous, and provide great feel, but are a little thicker and warmer than the Seths. What it boils down to is how cold do your hands get and what temps will you be skiing in?

This helmet is compatible with all goggles, and will work well with the spy goggles. However Smith helmets are designed for seamless integration with Smith goggles, and although the Spy's will work really well, the perfect fit would be with Smith goggles.

Check out my review below. This is one of the top rated probes on the market. The combination of aluminum and carbon fiber makes it very light, sturdy, and durable. It is really easy to assemble and the added length over many other probes is definitely a bonus. When disassembled it is no bigger than most probes and packs really well into your pack. You should go for it. It's a great deal on one of the best probes out there.

The park fit is the baggier of the two fits and the free fit is the less baggy of the two fits. The free fit is a pretty standard fitting pant, roomy enough for freedom of movement, but not overly baggy. The park fit is more of a park inspired fit, more of a modern, baggy cut, not that you're swimming in it, but baggy enough so you don't look like you just came from the race course. The free fit sounds like the one you're looking for if you're looking for less baggy.

The size 30 and 31 waist pants have a 32" inseam.

It depends on what size your chest is, how long your arms are and what type of fit you are looking for. I am 5'8" 160 with an athletic/muscular build, 39.5" chest, 33" sleeve, and the medium fits me perfectly. Not to tight, not too loose. As a matter of fact, North Face fits pretty true to size, and I wear medium in all of their products. Also, not sure if you looked, but there is a sizing chart 2 lines under the price. Sometimes those can be helpful too.

It's not necessary fresh out of the bag. But after some use, the DWR starts to break down, and since they are leather, they do start to take on water. Snoseal (by Atsko) works best. Nikwax works pretty good as well. I noticed that after about 25-30 days of continuous use (I was skiing in them everyday) I needed to use snoseal. Once I did though, they were just like new, if not better.

You won't find any, and you will be very lucky if you do. It is a brand new ski for this year. And lib tech isn't very big on giving skis to magazine ski testers. Something to keep in mind is that the lib tech nas freeride recurve is really just a narrower version in every aspect of its big brother the nas pow recurve. So if you find some reviews on that ski, it should be pretty accurate as to how the freerides will ski, with the exception of being lighter and more nimble. I think this ski is going to be amazing, and one of the best ski out there. Magne-traction provides the most ridiculously good edge hold you've ever seen. I was amazed the first time i used them. The carve up hardpack like a samurai sword. The recruve helps keep the tips from digging in deep pow, make the ski more nimble, while still providing snappiness in the turn due to the small amount of camber underfoot.

I haven't skied this particular model, only the bigger brother the nas pow recurve, but like I said, they are fairly identical, just narrower. Here is my review of the nas pow recurve, the fatter version. On the nas pow, the recurve is fairly subtle. It really aids in the maneuverability of the ski, and makes it more nimble. I'm 5'8", 160 and the ski was 191, so for me to say that really is a credit to the skis design, i think anyway. The subtle recurve teamed with the magne traction allows the ski to initiate easily and rail on the hard stuff, while still being able to pivot and smear in the soft snow. The ski didn't exactly float in pow. It sunk and was kind of like a shark cutting through water, it never hooked or dug, just plowed through everything. The only time I really noticed the recurve paying dividends was when hucking stuff. The tip kind of just hung up there as I was skiing away, until I started driving the ski, and went back to shark mode. It wasn't soft or stiff, but a good medium flex great for use all over the mountain and all conditions. I was even able to take a lap in the park and do some spinny stuff with them off some bc booters. They do ski a bit shorter than the 191 length on them. I felt like it was a lot of ski on hard snow, but they still railed it. It felt like I was back on gs skis again, albeit really wide ones.

I really wouldn't hesitate about getting this ski.

The prophet 100 is one of the easiest skis to ski in every condition i've ever been on. It floats well in powder due to its really wide tip and waist. It has a layer of titanal (the metal matrix) and has quite a bit of camber, that combination makes it bite really well and makes it really responsive on hardpack. Either length won't have that issue of gettin squirrely in crud, because they are a much more stable ski than your bandits. The 186 with the added length is obviously going to be more stable. According to line the running surface is 155cm for the 186 and 148cm for the 179. So the extra 7 cm of length does equate to 7cm more of running surface. Also, the turn radius is 18.9m on the 186 versus 17.2m on the 179. Both are relatively tight, so you will be able to make a variety of turn shapes. If you are coming from a 177, you will probably be more comfortable on the 179. But at your height and weight, you are better suited for the 186 and will probably feel the 179 is too short over time. One of the most common complaints about this ski is when opting for the shorter models (172, 179) people say they should have gone longer. I've skied both lengths and liked them both. The 179 was more fun, and definitely more nimble. It was easier to throw around in the woods and off windlips, cat tracks, etc. The 186 was more stable, floated better in pow, and absolutely tore up wide open terrain. My only complaint about the 186, was that for me at 5'8" 160, as responsive as it was, 186cm was still a lot of ski (for me) to turn well(it was hard work), when the bumps and trees got tight.

Completely different skis, meant to do and ski very different things.

The lord was meant as a frontside/on piste, all mountain tool. It is fairly narrow, with very minimal tip rocker to aid in maneuverability and softer snow performance. It is a great tool as an everyday ski on the east coast, or for firmer snow on the west coast.

The XW lab was designed for their competition skiers, and is a stiff, burly, big mountain tool. A lot of the Salomon riders were using this ski on the Freeride World Tour, skiing some of the sketchiest, gnarliest terrain in the world. It is meant to plow through any type of snow, at high speed, making long turns or just going straight and stomping cliffs.

Based on what you are describing Jamey is right. It sounds like you need something that meets somewhere in the middle, and the Shogun would be perfect. It skis everything well, and is really a versatile ski, a quiver of one if you will. It rips on the groomers and firm stuff, yet at 101 underfoot with some rocker, it will float and slay the pow. It's an awesome ski, that is the talk of the ski industry at the moment. It took salomon a long time to come out with a good ski in that segment, but they nailed it with the shogun.

No this is a regular cambered ski, with no rocker. The smallest ski in the BD lineup that uses rocker is the zealot. In addition to the zealot, the justice and megawatt use rocker as well. All the skis smaller underfoot than the zealot, are meant to maximize versatility and perform well on all terrain, so they do not implement any rocker in the construction.

When sizing up a skin for a ski you want as much coverage as possible. With that being said, we're working in millimeters, a very small measurement, and most of the traction you get when skinning up comes from the last 3/4 of the ski. The tip really doesn't help generate any traction. A 115 skin will obviously get you great coverage underfoot, and in the tail, you'll have 2 mm on either side of the skin, which is basically the thickness of the edge, and material you would have trimmed away anyway if you were cutting the skin to size. And in the front, you will end up about 5 mm on either side, hardly a large amount.

It appears that by getting the 115, you end up with an almost perfectly fitted skin without having to do any trimming except in the middle part of the ski to fit the waist. If you went for the next size up, you would be spending more money and cutting away a lot of material. The 115 is the perfect size. Go for it.

Here is g3's guide for choosing a skin. You will see the 115 fits in perfectly for the size ski you will be using: http://www.genuineguidegear.com/service/g3-learning-centre/skins

There are two waist width options. One is 92 the other is 110. The 92 definitely will not fit. The 110 will work really well actually, as there will only be about 2.5 mm or .25 cm on either side of the ski. Go for the 110, should work out really well for you.

You should go with the 195. The ski, skis really short as it is due to the massive amount of rocker. The 188s are going to look and feel like snowblades for you. Just for reference I'm 5'8" 160 and the 188 was the version I was on. I am an expert skier and for me the ski length felt just right. I know a lot of people my size or just a little bigger who thought the 188 was too small. So at your height and weight, you shouldn't consider anything but the 195.

Other than the graphics, the only other difference is the mounting point. The S7 has 3 mounting points based on what type of terrain you ski, and what your style preference is. The Mancini Pro Model only features one, tele specific mount point.

The rule of thumb with rockered skis is to go 5 to 10 cm bigger than what you normally ski, because on hard snow there is less edge contact making it a smaller ski, and in soft snow, you get better floatation due to the rocker and more surface area. Since the 178s are your everyday ski, the 10 cm rule works perfectly with the 188. The S7 is really fun and easy to ski. When you think about it, 10 cm is only like 4 inches, so you're adding like 2.5" in the tip and 1.5" to the tail. That's hardly an outrageous amount of extra length to deal with. I would definitely go with the 188.

The skis are identical with the exception of two differences. The topsheets feature different artwrok. And the recommended mounting points differ. The S7 features multiple mount points depending on what you're ski style/terrain preference is, while the Mancini Pro Model features a tele-specific mount point. In terms of dimensions, features, etc. they are the same. Just like the Ravyn and the S6.

The outer material is different. The concourse also has more pockets. Also, although similarly sized, the concourse is much bigger. It is an inch and a half wider, and comes in a 185 and 200 vs. the 175 and 190 of the fall line double. I'm not sure if this is still the case, but the concourse used to come with compression straps on the inside to tighten your gear down. With all that being said, I'd go with the fall line. I think it's a better value, and with airlines charging as much as they do, you'll be less likely to overpack, and have to pay extra fees for being overweight.

Information is only as readily available as a manufacturer makes them. Dynafit doesn't list the weight either, but knowing them, I'd bet these skins are the lightest on the market. This skin is SPECIFICALLY meant to fit the Mustagh Ata ski. So the dimensions on the skins match those of the ski.

The 169 skin's dimensions are: 116-86-109
The 178 skin's dimensions are: 118-88-110
The 187 skin's dimensions are: 122-88-111

If you don't have the Mustagh Ata, I would look into a different skin.

No they do not. If you try to purchase it you will not be allowed to. Due to vendor agreements, North Face doesn't allow shipment outside of the U.S. There are several other brands that have a similar restriction. If you add it to your cart and try to purchase it, you will see a message that says something about international shipping, and that this product is not allowed to be shipped outside of the U.S.

It's kind of hard to answer a question like that without ever seeing you ski, but based on your height, weight, and skill level, it sounds like that would be the right length for you. The 177s are obviously going to be quicker and easier to turn in the trees because they are shorter. Everywhere else on the mountain though, you will appreciate the added length and stability. Also the turning radii's are almost identical between the 177 and 185, so in terms of maneuverability, they are pretty similar. I would go 185 personally. I think 177 is going to be too short for someone who considers themselves an expert and skis expert terrain.

It's always hard to say what ski size works best for what person not knowing how they ski, or ever seeing them ski. I'm 5'8", 160, and an expert skier. And to ski the shogun for the terrain it was designed to ski, I would go with the 182 personally. It is a great length to balance stability with maneuverability, for me. It is a little bit stiffer than skis salomon has made in the past in this category. So if you are not a very strong skier, the shorter length will be easier to ski.

It depends on where you set you dins at. The baron goes upto 12, the duke goes upto 16. If you are anywhere from 10 on up, and don't mind the extra weight of the dukes, the dukes are the better choice. They are a little heavier, but some metal in critical areas that the barons do not. They are a more bomber binding for sure. But if you are not dropping huge cliffs, want your skis to stay on no matter what, and want to save a little weight, the baron is a great choice.

Although somewhat similar in their dimensions they are two very different skis. The shogun is more of a big mountain/all mountain ski. It is the type of ski that someone who wants an everyday ski out west or one ski to do it all, would get. The kung fujas is more of a freestyle all mountain ski. It is based off the original seth pistol, but modified slightly. It is more of an all mountain freestyle ski. Which ski to get really depends on what you plan on using it for.

The shogun has a fairly log turn radius, and a stiffer flex compared to the kung fujas. If you huck stuff, charge hard, straightline chutes, and ski pow, but still want a ski that does really well ripping all over the mountain even in firmer conditions. The shogun would be a great choice.

The kung fujas has a shorter turning radius and a softer more playful flex, especially compared to the shogun. If you ski mostly on piste but still hit up the glades every now and again, and are looking for the kind of ski you could use day in day out all over the mountain, regardless of conditions, including laps in the terrain park, then the kung fujas is the way to go.

Basically, both are all mountain skis but the shogun is a better big mountain ski, and the kung fujas is a better freestyle ski, not to say you can't spin and ski freestyle with the shogun, it is quite capable, after all Mark Abma and Mike Douglas designed it. So depending on what type of terrain you are more inclined to ski, should be the deciding factor on what ski to get. For me personally, I think the shogun is the better all around package.

Yes you can. You flip the left pocket inside out, and the jacket stuffs into it. Here's a picture of what it looks like when it's stuffed. I put it next to a hanger just for a size reference. It actually packs down even smaller if pressure is applied to it, so it would take up even less room in your pack. But just stuffed this is what it looks like.

The rockered tip and tail make this ski really smearable. It pivots really easily and allows you turn and slash on a dime. This ski is super fun in the trees thanks to its shape and flex.

This ski skis really well in all conditions. It does really well on groomers. Not as well as a carving ski would do, but for a ski this wide, it handles and carves on groomers really well. It depends on how quick you are edge to edge, and how well you ski bumps, but I enjoyed this ski in the bumps and found it quite competent. It's a really well rounded ski.

K2 hasn't put them up yet, but on their website, check out the athlete's profiles. They will tell you what size skis they use, and where they mount them. They did it last year, and will probably do it again this year once we get closer to the season. The +4 or +5 marks are pretty forward yet still versatile enough for all mountain riding. +7 is true center by the way.

The general rule of thumb with rockered skis is to go 5 to 10 cm longer than you normally go, because the rocker makes it more maneuverable and you have less edge contact on harder snow. This make it easier to ski in both pow and on the groomers. I would go with the larger size, you will get more floatation in the pow, and more stability in all conditions. The ski is really nimble, fun and easy to ski. The 188 is the way to go. I skied this ski for a little bit last season in the 188 and really enjoyed it. I would feel like a little awkward on the shorter version. I'm 5'8" 160, so roughly the same size as you.

Other than graphics there are no changes to the prophet 90, except that they also make a prophet 90 flite, which does not have the metal matrix (titanal layer) so it is a softer flexing ski.

Marker Jester/Griffin would both be good choices. Great feel and energy transmission. Same could be said about the Look PX14, or the Salomon STH 14. All are great bindings for an all mountain expert. They all have excellent release and retention properties to keep you in when you need to be, and release when you need to as well.

I would definitely recommend NOT trying to this at home. Take them to a bootfitter that has an intuition oven. They are specially designed to distribute heat evenly. This is important because as the liner heats up, it expands. Then when you put it on, as it cools, it packs out in the shape of your foot for a perfect fit. Heating it at home may lead to inconsistencies in the fit. Also, it is really hard to fit them perfectly, even by the very experienced bootfitters. So once again, I would highly recommend NOT doing them at home.

It appears that there is Large in stock and 2 Extra Large's in stock.

This jacket is 3 layer Gore-Tex Pro Shell.

This jacket is extremely waterproof. It is rated at 20,000mm for both waterproof and breathability. It is an extremely high rating. Anything rated at or over 5,000mm is considered to be completely waterproof. The way those ratings work, is that way the jacket is constructed each pour is 20,000 times smaller than a drop of water. So I would say you're gonna stay dry, both from the elements, and you're own perspiration.

Like most Mountain Hardwear products, this product is extremely durable. The thing to keep in is mind is that this jacket is basically just a laminate, so the material is very light and thin, and not very abrasion resistant. So using it for rock climbing or skiing or other physical activities where there are obstacles that might come into contact with the jacket, might not be the best idea. On the other hand if you are using it for biking, running, cross country skiing, or ski-touring, you really shouldn't run into any problems with durability.

This jacket has a pretty streamlined, technical to fit to it. So if you plan on layering and still want a good range of motion, I would go a size up, i.e. the XL.

That depends on your chest and sleeve measurements. It sounds like you would need an XL, or even an XXL. If you are broad in the chest and shoulders the xxl, is probably going to be the better fit. This jacket is more fitted and has a pretty streamlined fit

Yes there are. If you look at the photo Gabe H. uploaded of him entitled "pinnacle of shasta in the Pinnacle" you can clearly see them.

The bag weighs about 8lbs.

The bag weighs about 8lbs.

The 170s will most likely fit. There is usually a tiny bit of extra room. With that being said though, it is nice to go a size up to fit some extra gear when travelling, like your helmet, goggles, etc. 170 should work for 170 skis though.

Length x Width x Height is how the dimensions are listed.

Read some of the reviews and you will see this is probably the simplest beacon on the market to use. Extremely straightforward, and you could probably figure out the basics without reading the directions. That being said though, you should read the directions, and you should practice. Practice makes perfect, and you can't settle for anything less in the backcountry.

In terms of size, it is a little bit bigger, and bulkier than other beacons on the market, but when actually wearing, you hardly notice it. Especially if you wear it on a regular basis.

There's a reason that so many pros use and recreational skiers use this beacon. It's a great value, and super easy to use.

Robert, the chronic would be a great choice. It has a very consistent mid-stiff flex, and is really responsive while still remaining playful. It is a very stable ski and kills it in the bumps. It would be a great choice for you.

Mike, based on what you're describing I would go with the 176. I have the 171 in the line anthems, and wish I had gone longer. 171 is fairly short, especially for an aggressive skier.

Even if you are using this strictly as your park ski, I would recommend 176 on the small end. Your weight is a very important factor as well. I'm 5'8", 160, expert skier, and I have the line anthem in 171, and wish I would have gone longer. 171 is on the short side.

Peter, you will be fine. The Obsethed with the marker duke/baron is a really popular combination, and I've seen a lot of people with that setup. Rocker in firm conditions isn't ideal because you have less ski contact with the snow. However when skinning, the area where you generate the most traction and grip are form the last 3/4 of the ski anyway, so tip rocker really isn't that big of an issue. The obsethed has some rocker in the tail, but not a lot that it will really affect you a whole lot when skinning. Also, if you are skinning, you're probably doing so to get to better, deeper snow in which case you will appreciate the rocker, and the alpine binding feel of the baron on the way down. It's a good setup. Enjoy it.

The rails on those k2 skis are for some variation of marker's piston system bindings. They are system bindings and only mean to work with that ski and vice-versa. The baron is designed to be mounted flat and you will not be able to properly mount them on any ski with railings that is part of a ski/bindings system.

The early rise is in the tip only. The early rise on the prophet 130 and mo'ships is really subtle, and was added to increase float and maneuverability. It isn't even close to the amount of rocker on the ep pros. The ep pro and the mo'ship are really designed with two completely purposes in mind, and you can see it with the amount of camber and rocker in each. Very large and dramatic rocker for max floatation and playfullness in powder on the ep pros. And very minimal, and subtle on the mo'ships to make it a little more lively, easier to turn, and more stompable off cliffs to prevent tip dive.

If you're using the ski as your deep day/pow only tool the ep pro has more rocker, no camber, more width. Therefore it will be the better choice. If you plan on using this ski in other conditions than just untracked, fresh pow, the JJ is stiffer and has camber, and is more versatile overall. So it depends on what you're looking for. The JJ is definitely the more versatile of the two, but the EP pro will give you better float. So it's a matter of what exactly it is you're looking for.

Evan, if i were skiing primarily groomers, and all mt. i would want a stiffer ski. Something like the line prophet 100 if you want to stick with line. There is a difference between soft and floppy. The moment bibby pro is soft, the sir francis bacon is floppy. It works well in soft, untracked snow, but it deflects really is easily in crud, and is pretty chattery and not very stable on firm snow when skiing with any sort of speed. If you are looking for a ski for the groomers and to use as an all mountain ski, there are better choices (k2 obsethed, 4frnt vct, line prophet 100, moment tahoe, etc.).

I find d-grip shovels easier to use and more comfortable. After a lot of shoveling, I feel like there is less hand fatigue with a d-grip than with at t-grip. It's probably just personal preference though, and like any other gear, you should test it out first, if you can.

It is zip in compatible. Any Marmot full zip fleece, vest, or softshell should work.

Heatseeker is North Face's version of Primaloft. Just like Hyvent is North Face's version of Gore-tex. Primaloft is lighter, and warmer compared to any given amount of Heatseeker. So 100g of Primaloft vs 100g of Heatseeker, Primaloft wins. 100g of Primaloft vs 250g of Heatseeker, Heatseeker will be warmer. If you have the option of going for primaloft, I would go with it.

It is zip in compatible with only North Face jackets that feature "Zip in Compatability." If it is not a North Face jacket, and is zip in compatible, it will not work.

Yeah, this jacket is the ultimate cold weather tool. You can wear it causally around town all winter long. You can wear it under your shell on really cold days. And if you do any bc skiing/touring, it stuffs into its own pocket so it packs down super small to fit into your pack.

They are just about 2 cm wide. Just barely under the 2 cm mark when I measured.

Haven't had any problems with these in my ski boots (Dalbello Krypton Pros). As a matter of fact, these have been a savior for me, and my feet have hurt less using these footbeds than in my 22 years of skiing. And for the record, I drop 15-30 foot cliffs on a regular basis, in addition to backcountry booters. Not huge, I know, but big enough that it should cause a problem from "hard landings" if it is indeed a problem. I know people who use them in their ski boots and go even bigger than me, and haven't had any problems either.

There is a 1.5 shoe size range for each letter. They fit true to size, so if you're a women's 5.5 you would get the B. The reason this is done, is that one of the goal's of a footbed is arch support. A one size fits all footbed really doesn't allow for optimal arch support, because someone with a size 11 foot and someone with a size 5 foot when wearing a footbed, their arches would line up in different spots. So this is why there is such a narrow size range. This is a great thing though, because it allows for a very tailored fit to each person's foot, and really does what it is designed to do. Support your foot.

The issue is that the jester (unlike the duke) does not have a toe height adjustment. So for boots like the dalbello krypton series boots which have a slightly lower profile sole, there is tiny little gap in the toe, which allows for some play and at times premature release. You just have to make the sure that the forward pressure is set perfectly. So make sure you take it to a reputable shop when you get them mounted and set. As far as changes, they are some minor changes, but nothing with regard to this issue. The changes are mostly cosmetic. I use the dalbello krypton pros, and with the exception of touring bindings, I use some variation of Salomon 916s on all my skis, and have never had any trouble. I would go with the sth16s personally. They have an all metal heel, and I think overall, they are more bomber (less plasticy), and less prone to issues with fit and pre-release. There's a reason, they've stuck with pretty much the same format for over a decade. It works! And it works well.

The jester is a great binding for someone who skis anywhere on the mountain. If you ski park a lot, the binding works great. If you are stomping cliffs, the binding works great. If you are skiing trees, the binding works great. The wider platform of this binding means they transfer energy really well, and add to the stability of the ski. They are great for all mountain use. However, on a ski that small, it makes me think that you are a lighter weight person. This is a pretty beefy binding, with a high din, meant for heavier or very aggressive skiers. You might want to consider the Marker Baron. Almost identical binding, but with a lower din, meant for lighter riders.

I've worn mine in both 1/2 hour sidecountry treks, and 4+ hour long tours. With both lighter packs and heavier fully stuffed packs. It was never irritating, annoying, or painful. It was just there, and I didn't really notice it. It is no less comfortable then wearing a pack anyway. So if you're used to having a pack on you anyway, it's a non-issue.

I've skied these and no several people who have them. It seems that Marker Dukes, Marker Jesters, and Salomon STH 16s are the most commonly used bindings (of the new bindings, still in production). All would be great choices. Some of the people using these in comps have them mounted with Look P18s/Rossi FKS 185s, which should be in production again this year on a limited basis. It's a stiff, burly ski, that needs a tough bomber binding. How much do you weigh, what do you normally set your dins at, and how aggressively do you ski? Those are all important factors in deciding a binding.

I think stretch is the wrong word to describe what happens. The leather loosens up and becomes less tight as the leather softens and gets broken in. So they do become a little looser over time.

The default picture is for the phenom lens. If you click on the second picture where it says "4 more" it will display the prodigy lenses. Also if you click on the drop down bar under the price where it says "select options" the second option is for the prodigy.

It depends on the size of your face. Both are very high end goggles, and have the same technology. If you have a larger face, or like the gigantic goggle look, i'd go with the prodigy. If you have a smaller or medium face, I'd go with the phenom. I've used both, and prefer the fit of the phenom.

A single trekker weighs 20.81 oz (1.3 lbs). So that's an extra 2.6 lbs on the way up on your feet, and an extra 2.6 lbs in your pack on the way down.

I'm not sure what Marker bindings you have, but race bindings tend to be heavier than regular bindings to begin with. A single duke (with screws) weighs 47.1 oz (2.944), while a single trekker weighs 20.81 oz (1.3 lbs). I would assume that the marker + trekker combo is going to be heavier than the dukes, but at the same time, 189 hellbents are more ski and heavier than the sickbirds, so it might even out in the end. Its hard to tell.

Me personally I would go with the hellbent/duke combo unless it was very firm snow because in the end, dukes tour way better than trekkers, and ski really well too. I've never ejected or prereleased out of my dukes. They're pretty solid.