Member of the Month

PartyBullshiit
March, 2024

Online

Welcome to the Newschoolers forums! You may read the forums as a guest, however you must be a registered member to post. Register to become a member today!

Another ski length question !

profile picture
Bumblesteeze
Posts: 3092 - Karma: 748
Alright I'm debating on getting the 171 vs. 178 line invader.

I live on the east coast and mainly do rail.
I'm 5'8 125 lbs. (yes 125 pounds !)
Now not only look at my height,
look at my weight...
will the 178 be too much to handle for my abnormal weight?

thanks guys
k+++
Feb 12 2009 6:24PM
0 0
profile picture
Style+eeze
Posts: 6901 - Karma: 551
definitely go 178. i assume your still growing, and you have to factor in the center mount.

also, it'll give you a tad more stability on jumps, yet it won't take away from the fun jibbing/buttering
Feb 12 2009 6:34PM
0 0
profile picture
Bumblesteeze
Posts: 3092 - Karma: 748
bump
Feb 12 2009 9:37PM
0 0
profile picture
AK-Freeskier
Posts: 685 - Karma: 14
I am 5'8" and also 125 pounds and I just ordered a pair of fat pow skis @ 179. I would definitely go for the 178's, they will last you until they bust. Hope you enjoy them and I hope this helped!
Feb 13 2009 12:00AM
0 0
profile picture
Bumblesteeze
Posts: 3092 - Karma: 748
Thanks guys.
but I need more opinions !
Feb 13 2009 1:22PM
0 0
profile picture
Line-4-Life
Posts: 142 - Karma: 10
I agree if your still growing go with the 178s
Feb 13 2009 1:28PM
0 0
profile picture
Bumblesteeze
Posts: 3092 - Karma: 748
I need more opinions...
Feb 14 2009 9:19AM
0 0
profile picture
manuel87
Posts: 675 - Karma: 17
agreed
Feb 14 2009 9:39AM
0 0
profile picture
[JBH]
Posts: 51 - Karma: 10
Go with the longer pair bud.  Since the ski is center mounted, you will be looking at 3.5cm extra on your tips and tails.  That is roughly 1.38 inches extra on each end.  I was just in the same position as you trying to decide between 171cm and 178cm Anthems and I am really glad I went longer.
Feb 14 2009 10:04PM
0 0
profile picture
Bumblesteeze
Posts: 3092 - Karma: 748
bump
Feb 22 2009 2:42PM
0 0
profile picture
steezeeepolizeee
Posts: 8756 - Karma: 796
wow i feel like a giant lol, I'm 6'4 193 pounds and ride the 179 anthems but im looking at a longer length next year. Im thinking like a 183-185 what do you guys think?
Mar 5 2009 4:16AM
0 0
profile picture
Shewlur...
Posts: 5046 - Karma: 940
i think thats a good size but if i were you i might jump up to a 186-188
Mar 5 2009 7:05AM
0 0
profile picture
Dr_Feelgood
Posts: 1176 - Karma: 15

everyones saying 178s, but i think im going with the 171s. if you dont do many jumps than why do you need the stability of a longer ski? the shortness of the ski will help you whip those 270s on/off MUCH easier, and its not like he'll outgrow them in a year. i skied on 169s when i was 6' and they worked for me. and besides, if you do outgrow them its not like someone on here wont buy them. so i say be comfortable and go with the 171s.

Mar 5 2009 12:24PM
0 0
profile picture
Dvacc20
Posts: 344 - Karma: 19
yeah i mean im 6' 180 lbs, and i ride 138 cms. I know its short, but i love them short.
Apr 3 2009 6:13PM
0 0
profile picture
short_and_steezy
Posts: 760 - Karma: 18
holy shit that is small
Apr 3 2009 6:27PM
0 0
profile picture
Dvacc20
Posts: 344 - Karma: 19
yes, indeed.
Apr 3 2009 6:36PM
0 0
profile picture
HamFaceGirl
Posts: 5242 - Karma: 2,679
171 should be good
Apr 3 2009 6:38PM
0 0
profile picture
HamFaceGirl
Posts: 5242 - Karma: 2,679
i mean 178
Apr 3 2009 7:15PM
0 0
profile picture
AcePerry
Posts: 258 - Karma: 152
Well i think you should definately go 178 one you are most likely still growing like me. And honestly ski length does not really change how fast you spin. i went from throwing 7's on 148 to mute 7's on 165 and spin just as fast if not faster. also the longer skis i think are better for rails because if you start offbalance there is so much ski you can slide offcenter lean back to center and still throw a solid trick off. and obviously if you ever want to hit a booter you have the length to stabilize a very soft ski. Def. 178
Apr 3 2009 8:28PM
0 0
profile picture
blackoutbill
Posts: 2918 - Karma: 282
I'm 5'6" and I have the 171s. They are just a tad too long. You should be perfect with 178s
Apr 3 2009 8:30PM
0 0
profile picture
DBeck
Posts: 1275 - Karma: 63
171's man. if you're skiing rails you'll be more than happy with 171's. last year i was 5'8" and 145 ish and skied basically rails only cuz my hill doesn't really have jumps. and i thought the 171's were a perfect fit. also invaders and anthems are measured after press so after the tips and tails aren't bent up compared to most other skis while they're measured before press. so keep in mind that a 171 invader is actually 171 and a 171 larose that i stood my invaders up next to were about an inch and a half-two inches shorter. so if you were to get the 178 it'd be like riding a 180 in most other brands. i would go with 171 for sure. hope this helped.
Apr 4 2009 12:37PM
0 0
profile picture
kthnxbai.
Posts: 2847 - Karma: 179
figured i would just bump this instead of making my own thread.  but im 5'4" 118lbs and im riding 171's i can sw up and spin out of rails and i do like the extra length jumping but im thinking about going to a 166 (which is still over my head) but im not sure im going to like the shortness.  I just dont know if the weight/swing weight is going to make a big enough difference for me.  Do you guys think i will see any real benefit to stepping down to this smaller ski?
Sep 2 2009 1:22PM
0 0
profile picture
Midwestjibski
Posts: 1676 - Karma: 77
^ I see no benefit. If you already can do rail tricks with longer ones than why get shorter? Also 5 cm is hardly anything especially on a center mounted rail ski. But it could be a dilemma if you are getting Line Afterbangs as they only come in 155,166,177.
Sep 2 2009 4:03PM
0 0
profile picture
kthnxbai.
Posts: 2847 - Karma: 179
im kind of between the 166 Afterbangs and 170 Alpha 1s, but leaning towards the bangs because they are sooo much cheaper. 
Sep 2 2009 4:25PM
0 0
All times are Eastern (-4)