The binding itself will fit. There's no adult length or width ski that will cause problems with or will prevent you from mounting these bindings on them. Where you will run into issues is the brakes. Even the wider brake option is too narrow. To fix this you could do one of two things. You could bend the brakes to fit. Or you could remove the brakes and ride the ski without them. Many people choose not to use the brakes on wide skis as they are pretty much useless except for holding the skis together when carrying them. Also without the brakes you do save some weight.

As far as burliness and stiffness, the Mobe ranks up there with the best of them. But be careful with sizing. Scarpa sizing runs differently. A 26.5 and 27 have the same size shell and bsl. Whereas most companies a 26 and 26.5 have the same size shell and bsl. So if you order the 26.5 you might run into the same problems you did with the endorphins. Definitely try them on and go see a bootfitter to see if they are right size for you so you don't run into the same sizing problems later.

I don't know the exact numbers but it is only a few millimeters. It is a very small number and a very low stack height. If i were to venture a guess from eyeballing it on memory I would say about 3mm. It really is very low.

David's right about using AT boots. If you are going to use an AT boot with this setup, make sure it has an ISO DIN sole, since you will be using your alpine bindings. At this point, marker bindings are NOT compatible with the MFD Alltime. Only Salomon/Atomic bindings, Look/Rossignol bindings, and Head/Tyrolia/4frnt bindings. Maybe in the future, MFD will make a hole pattern for marker bindings, but with marker making the Duke/Baron, I don't think that will happen.

Not at all. People swap liners all the time. Aftermarket liners have so many positive attributes to them that bootmakers are starting to use them in their boots as the "stock liner" most commonly seen with Intuition liners being used with Full Tilt, Dalbello, and Scarpa boots. People take Intuition liners and swap them into their Radiums, and their Black Diamond boots quite frequently, they are higher performing, better molding, and warmer than the stock liners. It is a great idea that many already implement...Go for it!

With more metal, the dukes are going to be slightly more durable over time. I know plenty of people who have similar time on snow to you and have had the barons for a couple seasons now. They are a very durable binding, especially now that Marker has worked out the kinks. You really can't go wrong with either. If something does go wrong though, Marker has a great warranty program.

If you're looking for a one ski quiver, I would recommend the Hardside over the Sideshow. It is almost identical in every regard but has a slightly wider footprint making it better in variable snow and in powder. The Sideshow is a great ski and super versatile. But if you only want to have one ski, I would go slightly wider to make sure that you have better floatation in the pow, and better stability in variable conditions.

The F10 has had some serious durability issues that reared their ugly head last season. There have been a whole slew of bindings that have had broken toe pieces. Marker has a great warranty program, but that doesn't help you when you are on the mountain or on vacation. I know someone who's toe piece broke, he sent it back, received a new pair and it broke again a short while later. The second time he sent it back, he spoke to marker and asked about durability, long story short, after that conversation the replacement pair he received was a pair of barons. The baron is slightly heavier but has much better performance and durability. For what you're looking to do with the binding, you would be much better off getting the baron.

A size 22 boot works out to having a bsl of around 265. The size small Freeride Pro accomodates a 260 - 315 bsl, so it should work for you. I would check your boot and look for what the bsl. It stands for boot sole length. I would check on the sole of your boot or on the side of the heel block right before the arch in the center of the boot. You should see something stamped on the boot that says something like 265mm. It will probably be somewhere between 260mm - 270mm. As long as it is 260 or greater, you should be fine.

Same ski, different graphics. Rossi shifted themes, and each ski is no longer a member of the 7 Deadly Sin Series, where each ski was emblematic of one of the seven deadly sins (S1, S2, S3, S4, S5, S6, & S7). So to go along with the new name, there is a new graphic too. Same ski construction wise and dimensionally too. I don't know the specs of the rocker, but I doubt they would increase or decrease the rocker from last year.

Basically the taller you are, the longer the ski should be. You also adjust size based on ability. It used to be that short skis were in, but with technology the way it is, and modern sidecuts, you can ski longer skis without sacrificing anything. At your height and weight if you are an advanced intermediate skier or better you should go for the largest size, the 183. If you are an intermediate, you should go for the 178. If you are a beginner go for the 173.

Yes they are all built on a 100mm last, so the fit is going to be the same in terms of width. The key difference is the flex rating changes from the 1 to the 2 to the 3. They also have different liners. The 1 having the most performance based liner (i.e. less foam).

This boot is pretty comfortable. Even thought this boot has a tight last, at 98mm it doesn't feel excessively tight. The flex is designed to be responsive but not overly stiff. For someone who's going to be ripping the groomers or just charging in general, and needs a ski to transfer energy and not feel dead, this is a great boot. I would classify it as an advanced intermediate to expert boot. If you're looking for a comfortable boot without sacrificing performance, this is a pretty good choice. Also, take a look at some of the offerings from full tilt and dalbello.

Even though you're not trying to win by hundredths of a second, the base material still matters. Sintered bases are a little bit softer, but faster. Extruded bases are cheaper, more durable, but are slower. Does faster and slower matter in pow, yes. The same properties that make a base faster or slower also translate to less drag and better glide, both of which you want and will appreciate in the long run, especially with pow that is higher in water content (i.e. denser). At the end of the day, skis are skis, meant to be used and have fun on, but why not do it as fast and easily as possible.

It depends on how big you are, and what type of ski you're used to skiing. For me, the 188 S7 did feel a bit short, but the megawatts felt fine in 188. Could they benefit from having a bigger size, probably, but the 188 is a great ski for what it's designed to do, and it does it pretty well. For me, the 188 seemed to work really well.

These are the softest of the three skis you listed. The JJ and the BentChetler are similar in flex. It's hard to say which is stiffer, but I would probably say the JJ is just a hair stiffer than the BentChetler

I would go with the BentChetlers. They are less floppy and more versatile than the Opus. The Opus is softer and more soft snow specific. It isn't as versatile. If you like Line skis and are looking for something to do it all, try the Sir Francis Bacon. If you like Atomic, the BentChetler is a sick ski. The camber underfoot and the 19m turn radius lets you carve up the hardpack, and the rocker and wide dimensions allow awesome floatation in the pow. Another great ski to check out is the Moment Bibby Pro.

It depends on your ability, and what you're primarily riding. I know a lot of the pros ride slightly smaller skis for slopestyle and jibbing, and slightly longer skis for halfpipe. It really depends. My park skis are definitely my shortest skis in my quiver but are about forehead high on me. It boils down to preference, comfort level, and ability.

If you're looking for a one ski quiver and you're living out west, I would recommend the stoke. It has a wider footprint, 106mm vs 95mm, and more rocker so you will get better floatation. It is also easier to break trail. It is also more big mountain based, so it is going to be more stable when skiing some bigger lines. You're not sacrificing that much weight but moving up to the stokes, but you're gaining a lot more ski, and that's a good thing.

Depends what you're interested in doing. The BentChetler is more of a backcountry jib ski. Where the Night Train is more of a big mountain ski. Both have rocker and twin tips, but the BentChetler has more of a center mount, where the Night Train is mounted a little bit further back and is more directional. Both great skis, just different purposes. I will see this though, Moment's build quality and durability is definitely top notch.

It makes it easier to break trail, as the tip sits higher up. You lose a little bit of traction on firmer snow due to the tail rocker, but other than that there is no real difference. There are a ton of backcountry specific skis that have tail rocker...4Frnt Renegades, DPS Lotus 120, Moment Bibby Pros, Volkl Nantuq, just to name a few.

You see it mostly affecting the downhill part of your tour. It makes it more fun!

Go with the 185. These skis have a ton of rocker in the tip and tail and feel like snow blades unless you're in very deep snow. These skis have a small running surface, so you want as much ski as you can get. I'm about your size, just slightly heavier, and the 185 felt a little short for me. And a lot of people share that opinion, which is why they came out with a 195cm version this year. It's a very easy ski to ski with a turning radius the size of a slalom ski. I've never seen you ski, but based on your description "fast and love the pow" you will be disappointed with the 175 and will be kicking yourself wishing you got the bigger size. The 185 is more stable, has a longer running surface, and has an ever so slightly longer turn radius. You'll appreciate the 185 when you're charging the pow.

It's definitely not overkill. 12 din is what recreational/intermediate alpine bindings max out at. If you're setting your din at 10, the FT would be the better choice. Even though bindings are designed to work properly throughout the entire din range, you're always better off not maxing it out if you don't have to. If you were smaller/lighter, I would say go with the ST you'll be fine. But you're not, and you'd be better off, and probably feel more comfortable on the FT.

If you're on 178s right now with regular camber, 184 sounds like a good size for you in a rockered ski. Depending on how much rocker the ski has 5 to 10 cm is the usual sizing jump switching to rockered skis

The adjustment moves the entire binding forward or backwards, not just part of it. The purpose of this is that you can have center mounted binding for freestyle skiing, and regularly mounted binding for the rest of the mountain without having to redrill your ski. It is not meant to adjust just part of it for sizing. For that you would need a demo binding which most retail stores do not carry for sale. With that being said the binding with the most travel is the jester/griffon. They have a huge range of adjustment for size, more than any other binding. Most bindings adjust to fit about 3 different sizes. The jesters adjust to fit more than that. Not sure exactly, but I want to say around 4 to 5 different sizes.

Spoke to Black Diamond about how they measure the length. They told me it was from the very top of the axe head to the very tip of the bottom. They said it should be 2 cm shorter than the advertised length. So my 55 cm axe should actually measure 53 cm. They said they do this to incorporate an effectual swing weight, so that when you are swinging it and using it, it will feel like you have 55cm there. Similar to running length on skis, where even though it says 185cm its closer to 170cm.

The Kung Fujas isn't exactly a park ski anymore. At 102 underfoot it is now a legitimate all mountain ski. K2's in general tend to be on the heavier side. If you are looking to fly in the park, you'd be better off looking at something narrower and lighter. Something that fits in the park/pipe category, not the all mountain category.

The Coomback has a softer tip and no metal. It would be a better ski in softer and/or fresher snow.

I've seen quite a few people on the tram with the older version of this ski and tele binders, mostly mounted with Hammerheads or G3 Targas. You're probably going to have to adjust your style of skiing as these skis have absolutely massively wide tips. I can't say for sure if you're going to have trouble as I've never seen you ski. Since the ski continuously tapers from tip to tail, you would be best off with a 130mm or 140mm skin. You would get full coverage underfoot and in the tail, and you would have some base exposed at the tip. But since there is so much rocker in the tip, that doesn't really matter as you will not be getting any traction from the tip while skinning anyway. K2 also makes a custom cut skin for this ski. This ski is designed as part of the K2 Backside series which means it's meant to be used in the backcountry on the way up and down as a tele and alpine touring ski, as well as with alpine binders. It has a tail notch for skin hooks, so that's a clear indication of it's purpose. I can't say for sure if you will like it, or how comfortable you will be with these skis mounted tele, but there are plenty of people that ski them with tele binders.

4frnt deadbolt bindings are rebranded tyrolia bindings. Same exact binding but with a different color scheme and logo, they will definitely work. Tyrolia Peak 15, 4frnt Deadbolt 15, and Head Mojo 15 are all the same binding.

I would recommend the 130, dynafit brakes aren't as easy to bend as some of the alpine brakes. Also 130mm on a 115mm ski means you have .75mm or 3/4 of a cm on each side in between the edge and the brake, not really a whole lot of room. It will be a cleaner look too.

No problems at all. The binding is designed to work properly throughout the full range in the din setting. The thing you need to worry about with the binding properly is getting the forward pressure adjusted properly. These bindings are pretty finicky to set up. So make sure you take them to a good ski shop, with a good shop tech. If the forward pressure is off you'll be releasing when you don't want to.

If this is only for the resort I would recommend the Marker Jester. If this is for a mix of inbounds and backcountry skiing I would recommend the Marker Duke. If this is going to be a backcountry ski, I would recommend the Dynafit FT12 or the new Dynafit Radical.

The mounting point isn't really that far back from center to begin with. I don't know of anybody who has mounted them at true center. I would imagine that doing that would make them ski really funky, as the spot being pressure during turns isn't the sweet spot/center of the sidecut/turn radius. Keep in mind too that this isn't meant as a backcountry jib ski like the moment bibby or the pb & j. If you are looking into center mounting both of those would be much better options. This is more of a big mountain pow ski.

The structured top sheets serve several purposes. They are less likely to have snow clump and stick. They are more abrasion resistant and don't chip or splinter as easily from the edges clipping the ski when you turn. Plus they also look ridiculously cool.

You definitely want at least the 180s if not the 188s. These are a very soft, fun, playful ski and they are very easy to ski and throw around. Plus with the rocker you can definitely go longer than you would on a regular cambered, traditional ski. The 172 is going to be way too short for you. You want at least the 180.

Both are great skis, when it comes to skiing in the bc. If you like to carve your turns, and are going to be playing off the terrain features (spinning and stuff)I would go with the VCT. If you like to slash/slarve your turns, and are going to be skiing and airing stuff out facing forwards, I would go with the EHP. The main difference I felt between these two skis is the way that they turn. The VCT turns like a GS ski, you can make short or long turns and really arc them out and lay them on their side. The EHP skis like a reverse sidecut ski, where it's really hard to lay them over, most of your turning is going to be sliding out your turns or slarving. The EHP is much better in powder though because of the shape and rocker.

Well for starters, the slant is slated two spots down in the BD Efficiency lineup. The Quadrant is their top end boot, followed by the Prime, and then the Slant. It has a softer flex, only 110 versus the Quadrant's 120 flex. Also, the Quadrant has a BOA liner versus just a regular lace up liner in the Slant, which I actually think is plus for the Slant, as BOA's are a pain to operate, and you're in bad shape if it breaks on you. Finally the Slant has a urethane liner versus the Quadrant's pebax liner. Both are very strong durable plastics, the main difference being that pebax's performance is not affected by temperature as much as urethane is. The colder it gets, the stiffer urethane gets, and the warmer it gets, the less stiff urethane gets. Pebax's stiffness stay pretty consistent regardless of temperature. Finally the slant only has 3 buckles, while the quadrant has 4. If you really like these boots, I would go with the Prime, it's a slightly softer, 3 buckle version of the quadrant. I think it's the best of both worlds. Great deal, similar performance to the quadrant.

It's a difficult call. I don't think this is the ski that you are looking for. Because of the rocker, the pin tail, and the long turning radius, these skis don't really carve a turn at all. They ski very similarly to a reverse sidecut ski in which you have to slarve and slide the tails out on all of your turns. In terms of the tail not hooking at low speeds you don't have to worry as the tail really doesn't engage at all. You can actually arc turns with the zealot, where as this ski you do more of a sliding/slarving turn. I was kind of disappointed when I skied them. The zealot skied like a fat gs ski, where it loved making long arcing turns. The EHP was really hard to get the edge to bite at all. On the other hand the bases are pretty bomber and hold up well to abuse. So it's a tough call. If I was looking for a ski that skied similarly to the zealot, this would not be the ski I'd consider.

It really depends on the binding and what the mount pattern is on that binding. Because the ski is pre-drilled with inserts, unless that binding has the same hole pattern as dynafit bindings, you are probably going to run into issues with the holes interfering. I can't say for sure, but I would try to look at a non-dynafit branded ski.

Of those three skis I would recommend the Manaslu. It is the widest of the bunch at 95mm undefoot, plus it has a little bit of tip rocker. That combination is really going to help you out breaking trail and skiing in fresh snow. All three of these skis are really light, and the heaviest of the three will still feel paper light. The advantage to the two Dynafit skis is they are predrilled so you can swap your dynafit bindings in and out. A huge advantage if you have multiple skis and when traveling to save on weight. The manaslu is one of the most versatile touring skis out there when it comes to skiing in various snow conditions. The manaslu is the way to go.

This would be a great choice. It's a very versatile and fun ski, with the right dimensions, and shape to ski any type of snow. Narrow enough to still carve the groomers, wide enough plus rocker to shred the deeper stuff. If you're looking for one ski to ski everything with, everywhere this is a great choice.

The shogun is only 100ish mm underfoot depending on what size you get. By most standards that is the width most all mountain skis are being classified as these days (maybe slightly on the wide side for some people though). So as far as it being a powder specific tool, there are much better options with much wider tips, waists, and tails, and much more rocker in the tips and tails as well. This ski does have some tip rocker though, so in a few inches of fresh it's going to float really well. Does it do well in powder, yes, and it's a great choice if you're looking to only have one ski to ski everything. But for deeper powder there are much better options that will float, slash, and smear way better.

What size ski do you normally use? This ski has quite a bit of rocker so you should size up about 7-10 cm. It is also a really soft and playful ski with a tight turning radius, so it is not hard to ski or throw around at all. As a matter of fact most people were so upset this ski was so small that Atomic made a 192 version. I honestly wouldn't be afraid of sizing up and going with the 183.

I think on the line is the best spot. It may seem a little forward at first, but it is very balanced. The tail rocker and tip rocker, start very deep into the ski. Keep in mind this is a backcountry jib ski, so it is meant to have a lot of tail to it. I had them mounted on the line, and absolutely loved them. They were really balanced in the air and when spinning, and when sending it, there was plenty of tail to support you when you land. I have a friend who them mounted 1.5cm back from the line is more of a traditional skier (only skis forward, no freestyle at all) and he like that mount point a lot. This was one of my favorite skis I've ever been on, and had ZERO issues with mounting them on the recommended line.

I would definitely get the sidestash based on what you're saying. It is a stiffer ski throughout because of the metal laminate in it. The coomback has a softer, flexier tip. If you're skiing it in the resort, you're not going to enjoy it when charging or on run outs. The sidestash is a great dual purpose ski, light enough for the bc, stiff enough for the resort. Based on what you're saying, the sidestash is what you want.

Length wise the fit will be the same. However this boot is built on a wider last, than the falcon so there will be a little more room in terms of width. I would highly recommend doing some research on the salomon quest before you buy it. It is a very dangerous boot and risky investment. If you enjoy skiing, I would avoid it.

I'd go with the 185. These skis are pretty light, and not very stiff. They also have some tip rocker to reduce running length and ease turn initiation. They're really easy to ski. I wouldn't hesitate about getting the 185.

Yes it will definitely work, you might have the tiniest bit of base exposed in the very tail of the ski, but it will definitely work. You want to have maximum coverage possible in the rear 2/3 of the ski as that is where you are generating most of your traction from, just little bit in front of the binding to underfoot to the rear of the ski. 130 will definitely fit underfoot, where you will have to trim, and the it should be just about perfect fit in the tail.

These skins don't come in specific legnths, only the custom sts' do. These are meant to trim down in both length and width to fit your ski perfectly. And if done correctly, they will.

basically unchanged except for the graphic. there is a rumor floating around that they have more rocker than in previous years. the other part of that rumor is that it's actually the rocker profile that 4frnt wanted these skis to have originally, but the factory had trouble with the mold in year's past. so the rocker on the old version turned out very subtle. whereas it's a little less subtle on these, but more in line to what it is really supposed to be.

You're good to go, I've seen quite a few people ripping these on tele binders, and they love them. If you're looking for something lighter and more versatile, then you should definitely go with the fujas'. If you're looking for a fat tele-board to do the same thing you're doing with these boards with your alpine binders, then get these again.

I agree the ascensions are a great skin choice, but you don't need the 140. The 125 will work perfectly. The ski has a ton of tip rocker, and is only 100mm undefoot. No sense paying more for all that extra skin material just to trim it off later. You generate the most traction from the rear 2/3 of the ski. And on the ski, especially with so much of the tip in the air, even in deeper snow, you will still have full coverage in the tail and underfoot. 125 is the way to go.

You definitely want AT LEAST the 175. Even though this ski has some stiffness to it, at your weight you are going to overpower and overflex the 165. You want the ski to provide some stability for you. You should definitely get at least the 175.

To the best of my knowledge the contour does not have any still picture capabilities like the gopro does.

This camera does not have a zoom feature. Unfortunately due to the compact size there is only so much hardware they can fit inside it. If you are looking for one with a zoom, go to a camera site, they sell all sorts of small camcorders these days with some zoom capability. If you are looking for something you can wear for some pov (point of view) footage, you are unfortunately going to have to sacrifice the zoom.

This camera does not have a zoom feature. Unfortunately due to the compact size there is only so much hardware they can fit inside it. If you are looking for one with a zoom, go to a camera site, they sell all sorts of small camcorders these days with some zoom capability. If you are looking for something you can wear for some pov (point of view) footage, you are unfortunately going to have to sacrifice the zoom.

The Duke/Baron are the most durable of the hybrid bindings. About midway through the season there started to be some durability issues with both the new freeride pros and the f12s, specifically with the toe piece. Because the toe piece was shifted forward to provide for a better/easier/smoother pivot when touring, the shift forward also made it more vulnerable, and there started to be quite a few broken toe pieces with both models. If you're looking for durability I would go with the Duke/Baron. Marker has pretty much eliminated all the kinks with broken afd's in those models.

If you are considering that many days in the resort, I would highly recommend the marker baron over the f12s. It is a more solid binding, with more of an alpine influence in design. In general there is a different feeling between AT bindings and alpine bindings. AT bindings typically feel a little but sloppier and are a bit more numb in energy feel/liveliness. With that being said, the baron (and the duke) probably do the best job of minimizing that feeling and making you feel like you're in an alpine binding.

There is no need for a din in the toe on a tech binding because of the way the bindings are meant to release under twisting motions. So even if there was one it wouldn't be advantageous.

They will not be too wide, it's 120mm across. So you will have 5mm on each side. That's 1/2 cm on each side. A very small amount. Nothing to worry about. You'll be fine.

You can in theory bend any size brake to fit, it's just a matter of how functional it will be, and how clean it will look. What size brakes are you starting with? The 108s can easily be bent to fit a 115.

It should be compatible and there shouldn't be any problem. I haven't heard of any issues. The brake arms do come out and you can just swap those in if the stomp pad doesn't fit properly.

Due to the elevation from the climbing bar, there is some loss of energy transfer from boot to ski. Also there is a slightly "sloppy" feeling that you will notice especially if you're used to always skiing in alpine bindings. It isn't that bad though (speaking from experience) when both touring and skiing. They have kept the same basic shape/design, for several generations. Each generation benefitting from technology innovations. There have been several changes to the most recent version, this one. One is lower height, for better center of gravity and better energy transfer. Two, the moved the pivot point of the toe piece for better balance and touring motion. Three, everything just feels tighter and less "sloppy" than in previous versions. It's a great binding, that is very versatile. And still the only touring binding that you can switch from tour mode to ski mode and back to tour mode without ever clicking out.

If you're thinking of using a midlayer, I would definitely go with the small. With the extra small you're probably going to run into some issues with your movements being restricted.

no pockets on the inside. two big napoleon pockets on the outside that double as vents. I have this jacket, and wouldn't recommend it for skiing even in the spring. It's a fairly thin rain shell. It would do the trick, but you'd be better off in a softshell

The 25.5 and the 26 share the same shell, they are both a 296 bsl.

They fit pretty similarly. I'm not sure, but I believe they are built on the same last.

1) You cannot get rid of the walk mode unless you switch the cuff with a different boot.

2) The shell will not shrink but you can go to a bootfitter and they will add an ankle pad to snug up the fit around the ankle.

3) Scarpa uses intuition liners that are pretty good in all respects, especially after molding. However, there are other liners that Intution or Zipfit offer that may be more your style.

4) I've never heard, seen or experienced that happening to any scarpa boots, or on mine. You might have a lemon. Or the nut that secures it on the inside might be stripped. Take them to a ski shop or call up scarpa about that.

The used to sell the green monster in three buckle version: http://www.backcountry.com/dynafit-zzero-3-c-tf-alpine-touring-boot

It's not as stiff or supportive, but it does shave some weight off. The 4 buckle boots provide a better fit overall and lock in the foot better for more support. If you are really interested in it for the weight savings, my advice would be to get some of the higher end carbon boots like the tlt5.

Starting at 12 inches and up they use a metal buckle. The ones below, but not including 12 inches use plastic.

I have the praxis powderboards which are the same size as the spatulas. I use the 18" strap around the very center of the ski, and they fit perfectly. 18 inches is about 46 cm. the ski is 136mm underfoot or 13.6 cm. Back to back that's 27.2 cm together plus let's say 6cm of thickness to account for the sidewall of the skis. That's still under 34 cm or 13.4 inches. Leaving plenty of extra strap. I've been very happy with the amount of room and easy on and off with the 18 inch strap. You can use 24 for sure but there will plenty of extra strap hanging off.

Bob, for that size ski, the 110s would work perfectly. At 111 in the back, you're only losing 1/2 mm on each size, which you will probably have to trip a tiny bit anyway to make sure you have enough edge exposed. You will also have full coverage underfoot and ample coverage up front.

Mike, you want to go with the 125mm skins. That will help give you the best coverage. When sizing skins, especially when the tip and tail are close in size, going by the tail size is the best way to size skins. That is the case because you get the most traction from the rear 2/3 of the ski.

The 140mm skins is what you want for the best coverage. You'll have a decent amount to trim off underfoot, but you want maximum coverage especially underfoot and in the tail. So the 140 will help give you the most coverage.

I would go with the 125. The majority of the traction comes from the rear 2/3 of the skis. So having full coverage at the tip isn't really useful, plus it's a waste of money and skin material. Also, the gotamas have some pretty good rocker up front, so on any firm surfaces the tips won't even be touching. 125 is the way to go. Plus a the tip of the ski at 134mm, that's a difference of 9mm or 4.5mm on each side. That's less than 1/2 a cm. A really small inconsequential amount, especially considering you want the edge exposed anyway.

All smith goggles work great with this helmet. I know it was designed for seamless integration with the phenoms, and i/o goggles. I use both of them, and the fit is perfect!

Yes, smith helmets are unisex. They go by size, and there is no gender scale for size. A 56cm head on a woman, is a 56 cm head on a man. There is no difference. There are plenty of females who use this helmet. I've seen Jenn Berg and Rachael Burks rocking this helmet on numerous occasions.

They fit differently. The giro helmet works better on a more oblong shaped head. The main difference between these two other than the fit is the visor. The variant is just a small brim, whereas the g10 is a full a full on visor. Although it is a pain to lift your goggles up and keep them with the variant brim it is possible. On the g10 it is impossible due to the huge visor. The visor also gets in the way when packing the helmet in your pack on tours and backcountry excursions.

I would go with the 200 cm bag for sure. The 185 isn't going to work.

Yes, all goggles will work and fit this helmet. Obviously smith goggles are designed to fit seamlessly and integrate with the helmet, but plenty of people I know use Oakley, Spy, Dragon, Scott and many other brands of goggles with this helmet.

The best way to measure is by having a sewing kit. the pliable measuring tapes they use easily wrap around your head. You need to wrap it around your head at about mid forehead level, continuing to right above the ears. Similar to where the helmet would sit, properly on your head, when you're wearing it. You could also just go to any ski shop near you, and they'll measure it for you if you pretend like you're planning on buying a helmet.

Yes the will fit. The brakes will be a little tight, the shop will definitely be able to bend them out a little bit for you, so that they work. You could always just use them without brakes. They will be lighter that way.

These bindings will work with any boots that have tech fittings. Those metal inserts in the toes and heels. Otherwise they will not work.

These will fit the stoke. They are designed to fit without having to drill the ski. They are predrilled for easy swapping in and out among different dynafit skis. The 92mm brake will not fit unless it is bent. You are better off using the 110, it will be a cleaner fit, but the 92 can be made to work.

These bindings will work with the bd methods, but you have to make sure you have the dynafit compatible tech fitting soles. The ones with the metal inserts in the toes and heels are the ones required.

The saws are designed to fit ski poles usually, not shovels. The only shovel/saw combo, might be made by BCA. It works better with poles anyway, as you get a longer length, to help cut out a block during an avy test.

This is a great shovel for that, and thankfully I've used it way more for that, than digging someone out after an avy. The telescoping handle means you don't have to bend over as far when digging, and less strain on your back means you can dig for longer. The D shaped grip, is way more comfortable than the T shaped handle. And the metal blade is solid and wide, and you can shovel quite a bit of snow with it. It's been great for building and shaping kickers. Definitely recommend it. As far as run-ins go, you wouldn't really be using a shovel, as much as your skis.

If properly sized and adjusted, they fit very well. Snug, tight, but not restrictive. Yes, it fits well with backpacks on, and I actually prefer it to the packs with the built in avalung. With regard to the beacon, it is a non-issue. They don't bother each other. If fitted properly I couldn't imagine it being ripped off. You would have to have your jacket lifted and torn up over your head while still zipped. And since the avalung is cinched down and buckled, I see this as being highly unlikely to impossible. The more probable scenario is the tube being ripped out of your mouth do to the force and turbulence of the avalanche. Check out the picture of the way the standalone avalung fits on me and my buddy Dalton behind me.

Yes, they are a very easy fix, and only take a few minutes to swap in and out. Just twist and pull. Just be careful which direction you have the pole tip pointed. They are pretty sharp.

Ryan, the best thing to do is contact Backcountry Access. They have a pretty good warranty department, and are really good about fixing things or replacing them. The one complaint is that it sometimes takes awhile to get things back. Your best best is to go through them.

The best beacon is the one you are most comfortable with and have the most practice with. Any and every avy instructor will tell you that. With that being said, the mammut beacon does have a lot more features, but the tracker is easier to use. If you like have the most technologically advanced stuff, and all the bells and whistles, than the mammut is the way to go. If you want something affordable, and easy to use, you can't ask for anything better than the tracker.

Mike, the traditional old school mount on these skis is the furthest back line, -2. This is a very traditional, I only ski forward, lots of tip, not a lot tail mounting position. The 0 mount is slightly more modern, progressive mount point, and is going to be the closest mount point to the standard line on your scratch bc's. If you like the way your scratch bc's are setup, that is where you should mount these. It will provide a more balanced feel on the ski, and add some versatility to the ski, although primarily still mounted for skiing forward only, it will offer more even tip to tail ratio. The next mount up +3 is a really forward, progressive mount, and designed for someone who wants an even equal swing weight, because they like to spin, or ski switch, but still want to rip big lines. And the +4 mount, is for someone who is going to use this ski primarily as a backcountry jib ski. Someone who will be skiing switch a lot, and spinning all the time. It is the true center mount on the ski.

Based on what you're describing, it sounds like the 0 mount is going to be the one you'd feel most comfortable on.

Not good. The masterminds are a park ski, that have a slightly stiffer flex, so they do well as an all mountain ski as well. However, they are only 85mm underfoot, which is very narrow. Great for the park, the bumps, and ripping up the groomers. But once you get into fresh, soft powder, you're going to sink. They really don't offer any sort of great floatation. If you like the mastermind, but want something that will do better in powder, check out the line blend. At 100mm underfoot, you will get much better floatation.

I really don't think any issues with speed is something you're going to have to worry about. This ski was designed for, tested by, and ridden by the man himself Seth Morrison. If you've seen any TGR movie in the past 4 years, than you know that he rips steep AK lines at really high speeds into 100 foot front flips. These skis can definitely handle speed in pow, chop, and on the groomers.

Moguls on the other hand might be an issue. At 105 underfoot, that's almost twice the waist width of a mogul ski. So they're not exactly ideal bump skis. That being said though, if you're technique is good, they're definitely more than manageable. The rocker makes them pretty maneuverable, for a ski this size.

If you want to rip moguls all day on your inbounds days, this definitely isn't the ski for you. If you're looking for an all mountain ski that will destroy everything in its path, this is definitely a good choice. Pretty versatile ski for all conditions.

I'm 5'8", 160 and I ski these in a 183. They are really versatile ski, and based on what you want to use them for, they'd be a great choice. They are a medium flexing ski, so at your height and weight, the 178 is probably going to feel really short, especially if you ever take them in powder. The ski is really easy to ski, and really fun also. It is based on the prophet 100, but with a more freestyle shape and feel to it. And one of the most common complaints about people who ski the prophet 100 is that they love it, but should have gone longer.

In terms of how they will ski, at your height and weight, you will definitely benefit from the extra length. The 178 has a turning radius of 19.8 m vs. 21 m in the 183. Almost identical, so its not going to be harder to turn. And even though the skis are 178 and 183 cm, due to the twin tips, the actual running surface (the length of base that contacts the snow) is only 144cm on the 178 and 148.3cm on the 183. Both relatively short. Overall, with the exception of maybe in the park, you are better off getting the 183.

There is a special version of the duke for the IQ system that has a different base plate than the standard, production model duke. It is meant to mount to the IQ track. I'm not sure if a regular duke will work or not if you decide to mount them up, or if any modifications need to be made to the ski or the binding. But there is an IQ Duke, or Duke IQ.

Dan, since this ski came out as the Rossignol Scratch Steeze a few seasons ago, it hasn't changed one bit. Good thing too. This ski kills it in all conditions. It has an awesome, poppy, playful, mid stiff flex, that makes skiing anywhere and everywhere fun and easy. Other than a different, new topsheet every season, it still the same ski.

The binding itself will fit. There's no issue with that. The problem is the brakes are only 90 mm and the ski is 115mm underfoot. What you will need to do is either order the larger brake size and swap them in, or bend the brakes. Bending the brakes is a pretty common procedure. You or the shop, when mounting the skis will have to bend the brakes out straight, and then back in, to match the width of the ski. I have an 85mm brake on a pair of salomon bindings bent to fit my pow skis that are 136 underfoot. Either option will work fine, it just depends on how clean of a fit/look you want.

Definitely go with the 90. They will fit just fine. The 110 is going to be really big and you will have some hangover that might get in the way. You want it to be close fitting. Go for the 90mm brake for sure.

BD's site says it has a horizontal snowboard carry system. I've seen the pack in person, and it is a pretty minimalist pack. Unlike other packs where you can strap the snowboard vertically to the outside of the pack, BD does something different. Basically, their way of horizontally carrying a snowboard in this pack is to put the board, bindings out, base facing your back, in between the arms against the part of the bag that would normally rest against your back. The pack is pretty narrow so it will fit in between your bindings. It isn't the most comfortable or ideal way of carrying a board, but on a small, minimalist pack like this one, it is actually very effective.

Yes that is correct. It is designed like most other avy shovels where the shaft and blade separate for storage in your pack.

You size skins for rockered skis the same way you do for regularly cambered skis. You look at the tip and tail dimensions and figure out what size will get you the most coverage. Some people will say you want to get the size that will completely cover the ski base from the tip to the tail to maximize traction. The fact of the matter though is that when you are skinning, especailly with a ski with tip rocker, most traction is generated in the back 2/3 of the ski. So from a little bit in front of the binding on back. Also, we're talking about millimeters here. A very small measurement. So if you went with a 125mm skin, which I think you should, based on the gotama's dimensions, you will get complete tail coverage, and complete coverage underfoot, the two most important areas for traction. And in the tip at 137, there is a difference of 12mm. That means that you have 6mm of base/edge on each side of the skin. That is just over a 1/2 a centimeter, a very small amount, and the amount that will probably have to be trimmed away anyway to expose the edge. Bottom line is the 125 is your best bet. No sense in paying more money for material you will just end up cutting away anyway.

Yep they start at 65mm and increase by 15mm in width up to 140mm. Best way to estimate what skin size to get is by the tip width of your ski. If the tip and tail are close in dimensions, you can go by the tail dimension to save a few bucks and you will still get excellent surface coverage. Due to the fact that most traction is generated from the back 3/4 of the ski, and not much traction is generated from the tip of the ski.

Aluminum is definitely the way to go. I would never use a plastic shovel, and neither would most ski patrollers. Despite however hard or durable a manufacturer may claim a plastic shovel blade is, and no matter how good there warranty is, plastic can crack and break, and aluminum won't. Although engineering and technology has made plastic shovels more durable, they're still not as durable as aluminum. When I took my avy class last year, I remember one of the instructors saying this, "A manufacturers warranty and free replacement won't do me any good when I'm trying to dig out a buried victim and the blade breaks." Those words really stuck with me. The fact of the matter is that is totally true. The extra 15 bucks is definitely worth the peace of mind of knowing you have good, solid, durable gear that will perform when needed.
I've never seen a patroller use a plastic blade shovel. That says something about their durability and trustworthiness. Bottom line is when dealing with avalanche safety, you want to do everything to give you (and your buddies) the best chance of survival. With regards to shovels, that means an aluminum blade.
Bottom line is that aluminum blades are stronger, will last longer and are pretty light in weight. And however much heavier they may be than a plastic shovel, the weight is going to be unnoticeable in your pack, and you won't have to worry about the blade breaking. Aluminum is definitely stronger than plastic and worth the few extra bucks.

This bindings is a brand new binding for this year, and has a completely different mounting pattern than other marker bindings and requires a special jig to mount this binding. The holes will not match up. You will have to have them filled and get the ski remounted.

Yes it is the same binding, the longer name was the pre-production name for it. Even Marker is just calling it the schizo. This binding will mount to any ski, there are no inserts. It mounts to a ski like any other binding, except it is on a track, so that you can adjust where you want it mounted on the ski (similar to a rental binding), but more solid. It allows for 6cm total movement along the track, up to 3cm forward, and up to 3 cm back for a more centered mount or more traditional mount.

Well, the rc36 is just the tint of the lens. All the lenses are the same size and shape just with different tints. The phenoms are not an otg (over the glasses) goggle. They are not designed to be worn over glasses. OTG goggles typically have a more boxier, wider, lens with more depth. If it doesn't have OTG in the name/model then they are not designed to be worn with glasses. Wearing goggles isn't really ideal, because it causes issues with comfort and fogging. Wearing contacts would definitely be the better option. If you really have to wear glasses underneath, this isn't going to be your best choice, and you should really look for an otg goggle.

If you click on View Sizing Chart, a window will pop up that shows you which lens is best for what light condition, and how much light the lens transmits. Having the three different pairs with three different lens tints, sensor mirror, platinum mirror, and RC36, I can honestly say that RC36 is the best all around lens. It works best in all lighting conditions from bright sun, to flat light, to snow storms. If you can only get one, that is the one I would recommend. If you are trying to decide between the sensor and ignitor, I would go with the ignitor lens. The sensor lens is meant for darker conditions, like a snowstorm, or flat light. It doesn't do a good job of blocking any light out, so on bright days you will be blinded by glare.

If you click on View Sizing Chart, a window will pop up that shows you which lens is best for what light condition, and how much light the lens transmits. Having the three different pairs with three different lens tints, sensor mirror, platinum mirror, and RC36, I can honestly say that RC36 is the best all around lens. It works best in all lighting conditions from bright sun, to flat light, to snow storms. If you can only get one, that is the one I would recommend. If you are trying to decide between the sensor and ignitor, I would go with the ignitor lens. The sensor lens is meant for darker conditions, like a snowstorm, or flat light. It doesn't do a good job of blocking any light out, so on bright days you will be blinded by glare.

No, this binding does not have the same hole pattern as the old 914 (or any other Salomon binding with the driver toe). This binding has the same mounting pattern and uses the same jig as all the other z series bindings. It is a 3 screw toe mount. They do share the same heel pattern though. The only Salomon binding out right now that shares the same jig as the 914 is the STH 16. All the other ones require a different jig, as they use a different hole pattern.

It will be a tight fit, but you probably won't have to even stretch it. 92 mm with a 90 mm break means that it is going to be 1 tenth of a cm too small on either side. It should fit just fine. If you find it is too tight, just take a small metal pipe and stick the break arm in it, and pull out away from the ski a little bit for some extra breathing room. Do this for both arms on both skis. The brakes should be attached to the binding and mounted on the ski when you are doing this. It is easiest that way. Whatever shop you take them to, to get them mounted will do this for you no problem.

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 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 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.

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.

Bob, I'm 5'8", 160, and I would ski these in the 183. I am a really aggressive skier though. 176 is the length you would feel most comfortable on. You will find the best balance for what you looking for out of that length.