You might want to look at some other skis if you are a beginner-intermediate level skier. This is a ski that is know for being best for advanced to expert skiers. Its a pretty hard-charging ski.

It depends on what lenses you get. For snowy/stormy conditions I have the High Intensity Persimmon lenses and find they work really well. I highly suggest them for those types of conditions or even all around conditions excluding really bright light. I have also heard good things about High Intensity Yellow lenses for snowy/flat light conditions

Considering your height I would go with the 175.

I skied the Kung Fujas a couple of days last season. I really enjoyed them. I actually didn't ski park the two days a demoed them and I skied them in a longer size than what you are looking into, but I really liked it as an all mountain ski for all sorts of different conditions.

When it comes to skis that incorporate some sort of rocker technology you should choose a longer ski because it will ski shorter. If you do ski aggressively and enjoy fast speeds and will be skiing a lot of powder with this ski then I would definitely go with the 186. If you are a skier that does a lot of tight and quick turns in their skiing you might want to go with the 178, but I think the 186 would still be manageable. Hope this helps.

As you said you are a tall guy at 6 foot 4. You could go with 191 because although that would generally be considered a lot of ski you are tall enough to handle it. In fact, you would be a little taller than the 191's so I think they would suit you fine. I think that for a guy your height the 184's might feel short. Again, given your height, with the 191's you would have good stability at speeds, nice float in powder, and still be able to make quick, tight turns. Hope this helps!

Most definitely 179. Maybe 189, but 169 would be way too short.

I also have a Giro G10 and use the Crowbars for my goggles. For me, I don't really have any goggle gap or maybe a minor amount which is barely recognizable. The Crowbars are awesome goggles and fit well the the G10 helmet.

Personally, I really like the HI intensity persimmon. It is very versatile in a variety of conditions. It is a really great lens in pretty much all possible conditions except for really sunny days in which case you might want something like fire iridium. Foggy days, cloudy days, days with heavy snowfall, and some fairly sunny days the HI persimmon is great for it all. Also the crowbar never seems to fog up; its a great goggle.

At your height which is pretty much 6 feet 2 inches, the size you get depends on how you ski. If you do a large amount tight turns when you ski (for example bumps or tight trees) you might want to go with the 177cm. At that size, because of your height, you may loose some stability at speed. If you don't mind a bit of a longer ski when in tight turn situations and don't want to sacrifice stability when doing fast especially on high speed groomers and on-piste then go 184 which is the next size up.

Yes it does.

This bag will fit the skis with binding and the poles, but there is not enough room for a pair of boots. You can stuff some other smaller ski gear in there but the boots don't fit with the skis and poles in this bag.

Go 179 for sure. They will be better for you than the 169's in terms of versatility in all conditions. Hope you demo them and enjoy them. They are awesome skis.

The S7's are much wider at 115mm underfoot. The tip and tail dimensions are wider as well. It is also a rockered ski in the tip and tail. Because of the rocker and the wider width than the S5, the S7 will be a much better powder ski/big mountain ski. The S5 is more of all mountain jib ski. I have not skied the S5's but I loved the S7. They are awesome in powder but were also versatile in conditions that didn't always include fresh snow (for example, hardpack/groomers). You should definitely try the S7 on a powder day or just about any day skiing out west.

The S3 is wider underfoot than the Line Flite, 98mm vs. 90mm, and is wider in the tip and tail as well. The S3 also has some rocker technology(early rise) in the tip and tail for better powder performance, which the Flite does not have. The S3 will float better in powder and soft snow conditions. They are both good all mountain tools but the S3 has an edge in powder.

The Flites would be the better choice for moguls because they have a different technology than the Prophet 90 which makes them lighter and more lively. They will still do fine in powder as far as mid-fat skis go with its 90mm waist.

I have the Oakley Crowbars with a High Intensity Persimmon lens and they work great it conditions that are overcast/low/flat light. The yellow lenses like High Intensity yellow are also good in those conditions. Lastly, the Pink Iridium that this Crowbar goggle comes in will also work well in those types of conditions. The Crowbars are really great so I hope you get them whichever lens you choose to go with.

For the all around conditions including when its snowing with little visibility I love the High Intensity Persimmon lenses. For the really bright blue bird days I really like fire iridium. Great goggles, hope you get them!

They are pretty much the same ski. This year has a different design on top, and the dimensions are slightly different. This year is 126 in the tip instead of 128 from last year, and this year is 113 in tail instead of 111 from last year. The width underfoot is the same at 85.

These goggles do come with lenses. As you can see above, there are two choices of lenses that come with this goggle, fire iridium or persimmon. If you buy these goggles with one of the two lenses and you want another lens for different conditions to go with the first one, you can buy Oakley Crowbar lenses. Hope you get the crowbars cause they are great!

Since the JP Auclair pro model is still a crowbar goggle I would say so.

Since the JP Auclair pro model is still a crowbar goggle I would say so.

The HI Persimmon is a great choice for an all around lens. It is not the best on the really sunny days, but you have the fire iridium lens for those days. The HI Persimmon will do very well in medium to low to flat light conditions, so it would be a good choice to go along with the fire iridium lens.

It sounds like the 177cm size would be fine for you if you are going to be skiing all mountain conditions.

No boots will not fit in this one. It is intended for one pair of skis with bindings and a pair of poles.

Like most of Dynastar's skis, the Pro likes to go very fast and is very stable. It is also stiff and with it 100mm wide waist will float you in the powder. If you decide to go with these, considering how tall you are, definitely go with the 190 (maybe even consider going a bit longer if there is a bigger size, but I don't think there is). Hope this helps.

Although there are many others that do as well, this is a ski that fit the conditions that you described. The bit of tip rocker and 102mm waist will make it float well in pow. This ski is also great if you are going to be in the backcountry and doing some touring. As for what size, I say 188's (like your last skis), unless you feel like you want to go down to the 181's, but I'd stick to the 188 like your last pair.

Considering your height and how you said you will be doing a lot of east coast tree skiing I think you should go with the 175. Keep in mind that the rocker will make skis ski a bit shorter. Hope this helps

Rockered skis do tend to be a bit longer than listed because the early rise makes the ski ski shorter. Overall I would say go with the 177.

I would say it depends on how well you ski and the type of skiing you will be doing. Keep in mind that rockered skis tend to ski a bit shorter. Overall I would say go with the 186. Hope this helps!

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.