If you have the time would like to know your opinion before making ski purchase. Im 5'9" 190lbs advanced intermediate skier. Ski about 30 days a year with about 20 of the time being in the hills of MN, the other out west. Im torn between 173 or 180 length. After reading a plethora of reviews, talking to several ki shops its about 50/50. Those advocating the 180 say so because they ski about 5cm shorter and the 173 would be way to short. Those advocating 173 do so b/c tthe length is more in tune with my height and where i do most my skiing.
Since I'm looking for a ski that will still be above average in the west and/or east for the yearly trip(s) i didn't want a ski that would be too much for the midwest (~350ft of vertical on avg). Given the research I've done online and at local shops it seems like the 173 (height wise is more appropriate) vs 180 ( weight-wise more appropriate) would be a better compromise. The 173 would provide better maneuverability in the conditions i ski most here and out east and appropriate maneuverability out west due to the shorter size w/o getting too agressive, while still give me enough stability due to the stiffness of this ski, 173, but not on the top end like the 180 might.
Im not a really agressive skier, but everytime i do go west do get into harder terrain, learning bumps, etc. i also ike pushing it a bit on open groomers, but not my main focus while out west.
Being that the vast majority of my skiing will be in MN and this will be my one ski quiver not sure if the 180 would be too much ski.
I have read some say the brahma skis more tru to lenght and per most charts im in the 175 range, but given the brahma might ski bit shorter will i be giving up what rhe ski should be by going with 173 vs 180, or since it is a stiffer ski the 'sking shorter' would benefit in MN but when out west and putting more umph on the ski it would be more adequate to my height and weight?