If this is the ski you want to go with, considering your height and weight, and that you seem like a strong/aggressive skier (since you mention skiing the backcountry), I would say go with the 176cm size. The size will be versatile for you in all areas.

The XW Lab is a much more wider and burlier ski than the lord. The XW lab is 107 underfoot and the lord is something like 87 or 88 underfoot, so there is quite a difference there. The Lord is more of an all mountain ski for all possible conditions. The XW lab is more of a hard charging big-mountain/freeride ski for the big mountains. The XW lab also only comes in the one long size of 198cm, unlike the lord which comes in a few different sizes. Because of how much wider it is than the lord, the XW lab will do better in deep powder, however, the lord will still do well in the moderately deep stuff, because it had decent width and a little tip rocker. Hope this helps!

This is a good all mountain ski for various conditions. It will do fine in powder and will shred all over the mountain; it will do nicely at high speeds too. If you are looking for a non-twin tip all mountain ski quiver of one this would be a good possible choice. As for what size, considering your height and that you are fairly new to skiing, I would go with the 178. Hope this helps.

As far as the construction goes I am not sure whether or not they are different. As for the dimensions, the only difference is that that this ski is 140 in the tip and the Huge trouble is 145 in the tip. The waist width of 115 and tail width of 130 are the same.

Nope they don't. They are sold flat.

The dimensions are the same for both sizes, they are 140mm in the tip, 110mm underfoot, and 118mm in the tail.

It is true Oakley's loose fit outer-ware tends to run big. I have these pants in a medium and they fit me very well with a little bit of a loose fit (or room to grow into). I am a 33in waist, and 5'11 if not 6 ft and around 165 as well. If you haven't already, you might want to check out he size chart for this product above. Hope this helps.

The big difference is that this year's version comes with tip rocker for extra flotation in powder.

Personally, unless you happen to like your skis on the short side, I would say go with the 181's. You will get good float in the pow and stability with speeds. It'll be good for the backcountry too.

No it means you can fit in one pair of skis (so two individual skis). You can also fit in your pair of poles with the skis.

Personally, I think the 179's should be fine considering your height. As for the bindings, the jester schizo is a good choice. The ability of changing the postition by a few cm by turning that screw is unique. Just to be sure that you condider your options, you should check out some of marker's other bindings and salomon's bindings. But the schizo is for sure a good possible choice.

Skis have become wider because the wider the ski is, the better it will float in powder. By going to a fatter ski, you will have better flotation in powder. If you wanted to go wider than your 70 mm waist K2's, you could go anywhere from 80 to 95 and still have it be a specific all mountain ski. If you wanted to go over 100 under foot, you would be getting into the powder specific and big mountain ski range. Hope this can be of use!

Like most if not all of Oakley's jackets, the Alps runs loose. Check out the size charts to find out your size.

From the look of it, there really aren't any big differences except for the small one pound difference in weight. The lighter ski might be a better choice for spending time in the backcountry especially if you are doing some touring. Other than that, they are basically the same ski in terms of dimensions, but with different graphics. Hope this helps.

You might be able to fit them in, but to be sure I'd get the next size, especially considering that your skis might run a few cm long and that if they did fit it would be really tight. Better safe than sorry.

The legend 8000 has a waist width of 80 cm. The Legend Pro Rider has a waist width of 100 cm, so there is a big difference between the two. The pro will have a superior float in deep powder, however it is stiff unlike the 8000. So, the 8000 is much better for quick turns, fast maneuverability, and bumps.

It would depend if you like your skis a bit long or not, but also it depends on how aggressively you ski. If you are a pretty aggressive skier and want more stability at speed I'd say go with the 174. Still, the 167 might be the best choice, especially if you are skiing on 162's and they fit you fine.

I would say this depends on whether you like your skis on the long side or not. K2's generally tend to run a few cm long so whichever size you choose the ski will actually be a few centimeters longer, for example, the 169's are probably more like 171-173. Hope this helps.

I think that you should definitely consider these skis as one of your top choices. They are powerful, go fast, and can arch fast long turns. They will also float well in the deep pow. Not the best pick for quick turns and bumps. If you are looking for a non twin-tip ski that is very stable at fast speeds, floats well, and has a powerful construction, this will definitely be one of the best for those categories.