There were lots of comments earlier here about 'core center' vs. 'chord center'. Chalk that up to poor listening skills. (And slap the ski product manager who printed 'core center' on his skis...that's just lame.) The proper term is 'chord center', which is the balance point of a ski if you were to balance it end-to-end on a knife edge - without bindingsChord center is mainly a tele setup term. In the 'ole days, it was where the pins of a tele boot were mounted. Nowadays, chord center is just a point of reference: NObody mounts tele bindings at chord center anymore.For alpine skiers, you can easily equate tele boot pin location to your mid-boot measurement. Tele pins are located on the duckbill at the front of the boo: measure from your middle-boot line to approx 1/2 cm ahead of the front of the boot toe box.For skis that are ~ 90mm midfoot, you should mount tele bindings at least 3 cm ahead of chord center. The resulting more centered stance makes turning much quicker. I describe the difference as feeling 'on top of your skis' as opposed to 'steering' your skis, and it still leaves plenty of float up front.My main skis are 183cm, 100mm mid-foot Line Prophets, mounted 4 cm ahead of chord center. They work very well in Pacific NW deep, heavy snow, to tight, VT icy bump runs. If you ski in the park, you should consider mounting them 6+ cm ahead of chord center.You can gain a lot more versatility by purchasing binding plates such as the Hammerhead and Rottefella NTN mounting plates. These are thin (~2-3 mm thick) metal plates that get screwed to your ski. They offer at least 2 different fore/aft mounting positions: use the forward position for in-bounds/sidecountry skiing, and switch to the rear position for deep snow. The beauty of the mounting plates is that you can quickly swap the binding position: the plate remains mounted to the ski, but provides multiple fore/aft binding holes.You owe it to yourself to experiment with mounting position.I also have a pair of Line Prophet 130s for deep snow conditions that are mounted 2.5 cm ahead of chord center.I swear I am not a shill for Line Skis, but I have to say they are fantastic skis...

I am a 6' 210 very advanced tele skier in WA. This ski rocks! (I have it in the 186 length) Don't let the 100mm underfoot scare you. The 17m radius rails hardpack; if it's icy I usually go with my 84mm Work Stinx, but I have skied the 100s on some of the iciest VT conditions ever. And, oddly enough, I hooked up w/ a local VT tele'er who was on the then-identical Karhus, and he was raving about his skis for all-around VT skiing.I have them mounted w/ Hammerhead bindings set 3cm ahead of chord center, and I don't have any problems with tip dive. These are great all-around skis. I am a very good bump skier, and these skis rock the bumps. I don't do much switch riding because it's kinda scary on tele's, and I am not a big park person.They devour WA crud. I loved them so much I bought the 130s for cat-skiing and big dump days. I agree with the comments that the top sheet could be tougher. I have taken a few chunks out of the top edge but nothing that impairs or endangers the ski.So, if I can rail these skis using tele gear, you alpine folks should have no problems at all.

This is my second pair of Ener-G's. The first pair lasted 3 yrs, this pair is cooked after just one yr. When I pt a lot of fwd pressur on the boot, the instep bows outward and I lose contact. It is very disconcerting. I am going to look for a boot (like the Scarpas) that have a strap over the instep.

I bought the O1's primarily as a touring binding to replace my Hammerheads. They are mounted on K2 Work Stinx, with the Ridiculously Stiff springs. They are much better for touring than the Hheads, but that's about all I can say. Even with the Ridic Stiff springs they are wimpy compared to the Hammerheads. I have experienced the same cartridge loosening WHILE SKIING as other users - the 'in-transport' excuse is a bunch of crap. I am 6' 200#, very fit and a very experienced tele skier, with Garmont Ener-G boots. I have 2 other pairs of skis mounted with Hammerheads - which I absolutely love. I just wish 22 Designs would come up with a better touring solution that having to move the pin setting.

I bought this shirt after first ordering the Patagonia R1 Flash. I am 6' 200# athletic build. The R1 was WAY too long: I ordered both the M and L sizes and both were too long (below by butt). Although my primary purpose is for skiing, it'd be nice to be able to wear the shirt casually, and the R1 just plain looked dorky untucked, and too long to tuck into pants. I now have 8 days in the Prime and I love it. It wicks very well for such a warm shirt. I ski in the NW, and the Prime with a med wt underlayer is all the warmth I need 85% of the time. The fit and finish are excellent - better than the R1. My only complaint is that with it tucked into my ski pants, the backside of the pants zipper has abraded the fabric a bit, which did not happen to my prior med wt fleece shirt even after 8 yrs of use. The collar fit is good: snug but not constricting. The zippers are high-quality and easy to adjust with a gloved hand. This is the second Backcountry house brand garment I have bought, and I am pleased with both of them.

These are bomber pants: by far the best I have ever owned. I have skied in these pants for the last 7 seasons, 4 of which I spent 70+ days on-snow. Very versatile: their light design makes it easy to dress for the conditions by varying the underlayer(s): thick fleece pants for bitter VT conditions, medium-wt for PacificNW winter conditions, and thin longjohns (or none during Spring) the rest of the time. I have done tons of NE tight tree skiing and they have yet to tear. The only problem is that the stitching inside one of the powder cuffs has torn a bit, but it is repairable. The pants breathe well, the leg zippers allow you to vent while hiking/skinning, and the low bib design kept me dry in chest-deep BC powder. I cannot say enough good things about these pants.

If you tend to spend a good deal of time on groomers (either getting to/from backcountry runs, or because some of your buddies ski groomers, whatever), but you love to ski deep powder 12"+, you may want to consider a superfat but conventionally-shaped ski like the Line Prophet 130. I am a tele skier and had a blast on the Prophets skiing in the Canadian Rockies (pics of me armpit deep are on youtube). They are quick in trees and provide incredible float, enabling you to turn when and wherever you want.

Most notably, most of the guides at the cat ski lodge where we stayed ski on Pontoons. But the only "groomers" they ski are short runs down cat tracks.

I also skied the Prophets at Mt Baker, WA on a combo of powder, groomed and chop. They are a great ski for Mt Baker (world record snowfall), where on some days you need a beacon and buddy in-bounds on some chairs. The Prophets absolutely railed the groomers (18m turning radius), but, as others have said about the Pontoons, they can be hell in chop. My shins took a beating in the heavy Pacific NW snow.

So, bottom line, if you spend a lot of time skiing deep powder, the Pontoons are great. If you mix your time between groomers and powder, the Prophets might be a more practical ski for you. If you tele ski, set the toe piece so you are about even with chord center. Most tele'ers nowadays set their bindings ~3 cm ahead (some even more), but I found it to be too front-heavy, even on the 130's.

BTW, the main skis in my quiver are the Line Prophet 100 and K2 Work Stinx, the Prophet being better in crud and deeper snow, and the Stinx better in bumps and groomers.

The jacket was too thick insulation-wise. Also, I have an athletic build, and while the fit thru the shoulders was fine, the fit thru the middle was much too big and baggy.

I am returning this jacket because it is clearly inferior to other brands. The insulation is thin and the jacket runs too large. I found another puff jacket - with zip-off sleeves - a GREAT feature - instead.

I bought these skis for a cat skiing trip at Chatter Creek Lodge, BC. I set them up with Hammerhead tele bindings with the cables in the 4th pivot position, 2.5 cm ahead of chord-center. I tried the H-heads in the 5th (firmest) position, but it impaired the flotation, so I switched them back to the 4th position. This provided a good compromise of control and flotation.

Before the trip, I tried them out at Mt Baker on a combo of 14" powder, chopped-up pow, and groomers. They railed on the groomers, which surprised me. The 18m turning radius makes them much more versatile than Pontoons. Skiing the chop was unpleasant: too much shin-bang; skiing in unbroken pow was sweet, as expected.

On the cat trip we hit it big: chest deep - by far the deepest snow I've ever skied. The Prophet 130s were fantastic: great flotation and amazingly quick in the trees. They gave me the confidence to throw turns wherever I wanted. I thought the radius might make them grabby in deep snow, but the fact that the widest part of the tail and shovel are set well back alleviated this problem. The snowboarders on the trip were loving the fact that I could pack out nice wide tracks on the flat sections.

The only drawback to such fat skis is that, if/when you fall, if they get buried awkwardly beneath you, it is a struggle to get them dug out and back up to the surface. On the other hand, having such a huge platform was helpful when the guide and I had to heave/ho to get a boarder out of a neck-deep tree well. We would not have been able to lift him, otherwise, and would have been forced to break out the shovels.

Bottom line: these are FANTASTIC skis. My everyday skis are Prophet 100s, which I also love.