Ski sizing, unique situation.

You need low 90ish waisted playful ski w tip and tail raise. It is one of my favorite profiles because it is fun all over in the park and can crush it in all conditions on the mountain as well. Good ones to check out are: Faction Soma, Volkl Kink, Fatypus DRoot, and K2 Recoil (K2 Shreditor 92 will be better for next year). Chances are your local shop might have a pair of Kinks or Recoils available for demo, so check them out before you buy if you can. Faction and Fatypus will be really well made skis, but likely not sold in your area, so online is your option unless you get lucky.

Definitely want them longer. Go for around a 179

160 is far too small for someone 6' tall. I would say at least mid 170s

I used the Line Blends for a couple of seasons before I sold them this year. Found them pretty good at everything, I used them fine in the park. I am also 6'0 and was on a 178 size ski so I think you'd wanna be at least in the 170s

There's already quite a few good situations in here, so I'm just going to reiterate that you really want to be pitching around 170 as a starter. If you're getting yourself on a pair of rockered skis, don't be afraid to size up.

JVanDykeyou really want to be pitching around 170 as a starter.

*mid 170s as a ...

im 5'11 and 30 pounds lighter than you and i ski 181 park skis. 160 would be waaaay too small for you

That shop guy is a complete fucking dud, why would he misinform you by 20-25 cm in length.

Line Chronic 178 sounds like your bread and butter ski

As everyone is saying 175-185cm is the range you should be in, probably towards the lower end if you are only skiing a small hill.
I've owned all of the skis you mentioned except the filthy rich.

The Blend is extremely soft in the tip and tail, to the point where at 5'8 and 135 lbs i found myself flexing straight through the 178s. I snapped a pair right at the hinge point where the flex transitions. If this is a shape you are looking at, the Nordica Soul rider has a smoother more predictable flex, I'd like to get a pair if I could afford them.

The TC is a little stiffer in the tip and tail than the blend but even softer under foot. They also lack torsional stiffness and so they don't really carve at any kind of speed. If you throw your weight at them (bear in mind my size again) they don't hold up. They are actually my current ski, and I love them in the park but they don't hold up well all over the mountain.

The Halo is much stiffer than the other two. You can butter them but they don't chatter that much, never flexed out on me and seemed very durable. However they don't carve particularly well at centre mount (ahead of the sidecut and I hated -2.5cm in the park) and I found them to be a bit lifeless.

Of the skis I've owned, I'd recommend the Domain 174/9 (measure longer than stated length) and Sir Francis Bacon 178/184 (measure shorted than stated length). The Domains lack camber underfoot and so a bit of energy in the carve but the construction is far more torsionally stiff than the travelling circus so they hold an edge much better. Almost as fun in the park as the TC but more solid out of it. The Chronic is worth mentioning too, they are solid but butterable. Light and poppy, but stiffer than I like a ski and not all that durable in my experience at least.

The SFB might be too wide for the small hill you are talking about. That said I've enjoyed skiing them at an indoor slope so maybe not. They are mid soft flex (stiffer than Blends, TCs, Domains) but with lots of rocker they are very buttery. Good bases, a fantastic sidecut and good torsional stiffness means they carve the best of all the skis I've mentioned. Probably my favourite ski of all time but on the wide side obviously.



Personally if you basically want a park ski that will ski ok I'd go Domains (or filthy rich, probably better but I haven't skied them), if you want a mid fat I'd go soul riders, and if you don't mind width but want the most fun ski of the lot, I'd go Bacons.

Xanadooim 5'11 and 30 pounds lighter than you and i ski 181 park skis. 160 would be waaaay too small for you

ApenflexorThat shop guy is a complete fucking dud, why would he misinform you by 20-25 cm in length.

Yeah, I thought that was a tad off... I've been skiing a 170 Rossi Roc X all winter. That's why I just smiled, nodded, and said thanks.

However the boot fitter there did fit me a pair of Dalbello Rampage in a 26.5 and they fit way better than the Atomic B-Team 26.5s I'm in now. So I'll be snagging a pair of those for next season as well.

MartianManYou need low 90ish waisted playful ski w tip and tail raise. It is one of my favorite profiles because it is fun all over in the park and can crush it in all conditions on the mountain as well. Good ones to check out are: Faction Soma, Volkl Kink, Fatypus DRoot, and K2 Recoil (K2 Shreditor 92 will be better for next year). Chances are your local shop might have a pair of Kinks or Recoils available for demo, so check them out before you buy if you can. Faction and Fatypus will be really well made skis, but likely not sold in your area, so online is your option unless you get lucky.

TwigAs everyone is saying 175-185cm is the range you should be in, probably towards the lower end if you are only skiing a small hill.
I've owned all of the skis you mentioned except the filthy rich.

The Blend is extremely soft in the tip and tail, to the point where at 5'8 and 135 lbs i found myself flexing straight through the 178s. I snapped a pair right at the hinge point where the flex transitions. If this is a shape you are looking at, the Nordica Soul rider has a smoother more predictable flex, I'd like to get a pair if I could afford them.

The TC is a little stiffer in the tip and tail than the blend but even softer under foot. They also lack torsional stiffness and so they don't really carve at any kind of speed. If you throw your weight at them (bear in mind my size again) they don't hold up. They are actually my current ski, and I love them in the park but they don't hold up well all over the mountain.

The Halo is much stiffer than the other two. You can butter them but they don't chatter that much, never flexed out on me and seemed very durable. However they don't carve particularly well at centre mount (ahead of the sidecut and I hated -2.5cm in the park) and I found them to be a bit lifeless.

Of the skis I've owned, I'd recommend the Domain 174/9 (measure longer than stated length) and Sir Francis Bacon 178/184 (measure shorted than stated length). The Domains lack camber underfoot and so a bit of energy in the carve but the construction is far more torsionally stiff than the travelling circus so they hold an edge much better. Almost as fun in the park as the TC but more solid out of it. The Chronic is worth mentioning too, they are solid but butterable. Light and poppy, but stiffer than I like a ski and not all that durable in my experience at least.

The SFB might be too wide for the small hill you are talking about. That said I've enjoyed skiing them at an indoor slope so maybe not. They are mid soft flex (stiffer than Blends, TCs, Domains) but with lots of rocker they are very buttery. Good bases, a fantastic sidecut and good torsional stiffness means they carve the best of all the skis I've mentioned. Probably my favourite ski of all time but on the wide side obviously.



Personally if you basically want a park ski that will ski ok I'd go Domains (or filthy rich, probably better but I haven't skied them), if you want a mid fat I'd go soul riders, and if you don't mind width but want the most fun ski of the lot, I'd go Bacons.

OK, wow, good info. Sounds like I'm going to start narrowing my search to something that is med flex and can carve decent mounted center. Should I also narrow it to a symmetrical ski? Punx, Ar7 type stuff?

BoLeighOK, wow, good info. Sounds like I'm going to start narrowing my search to something that is med flex and can carve decent mounted center. Should I also narrow it to a symmetrical ski? Punx, Ar7 type stuff?

I was just coming here to mention those two skis. By the sound of it your after a twin for groomers and the odd bit of pow. For this I would recomend the salomon suspect, atomic punx and armada ar7.

The suspect is the stiffest I the three but it's not a stiff ski. They carve I woul say better then any other park ski available currently. Not super playfull in te park but it does not sound like that is top priority.

The punx and ar7 feel similar flex wise. Both mid flex skis. You can still carve them both hard but they will not hold an edge quite as well as the suspect. They will however both be a little more playfull and will be slightly better in soft snow.

For you as an all roun ski I woul go punx. That is what I'm getting as my groomer ski.

Size wise 170-176 shoul work well depending on the ski.

TwigThe Halo is much stiffer than the other two. You can butter them but they don't chatter that much, never flexed out on me and seemed very durable. However they don't carve particularly well at centre mount (ahead of the sidecut and I hated -2.5cm in the park) and I found them to be a bit lifeless.

Are you talking about the old halos or the halo 2s? because the halo 2s have a super soft tip and slightly soft(once broken in) tail. And they feel like they have a ton of life, their pop is crazy, and doesn't seem like its fading out at all even though I have ridden them all season long. But overall I wouldn't recommend these to this guy because they are a harder ski to control, and you need to ski the kind of style that these skis are made for, or else they are worthless.

160? LOL! Go at least 170 but ideally around 180. If you want a pretty parky ski that will do alright other places, consider the Line Chronic. I don't have much experience with park skis, I don't ski park, but the Chronics are amazing skis.

.tomskisLine Chronic 178

THIS

The_WoatAre you talking about the old halos or the halo 2s? because the halo 2s have a super soft tip and slightly soft(once broken in) tail. And they feel like they have a ton of life, their pop is crazy, and doesn't seem like its fading out at all even though I have ridden them all season long. But overall I wouldn't recommend these to this guy because they are a harder ski to control, and you need to ski the kind of style that these skis are made for, or else they are worthless.

Good to know. Esp since I have no way to demo skis. I'm hitting the reviews pretty hard and i don't think I'm on a level that I'd need to be to go with the Halo 2 so I've crossed that one off. Sick looking ski but looks don't count for much if it doesn't do what I need it to.

What's the going opinion of Joystick These skis for outside the park? Full camber(which is fine w/me). I've heard nothing but mostly good about them in the park (aside from topsheet scratching/chipping). At $200 I might go for it. The '14 Atomic Punx 176 or 182 seem to be where I'm headed.

Perhaps I'm worse than I thought at research but this palce has more helpful info than I've been able to gather on my own in a month.

Off to search binding threads for something light Din 10-12.

BoLeighGood to know. Esp since I have no way to demo skis. I'm hitting the reviews pretty hard and i don't think I'm on a level that I'd need to be to go with the Halo 2 so I've crossed that one off. Sick looking ski but looks don't count for much if it doesn't do what I need it to.

What's the going opinion of Joystick These skis for outside the park? Full camber(which is fine w/me). I've heard nothing but mostly good about them in the park (aside from topsheet scratching/chipping). At $200 I might go for it. The '14 Atomic Punx 176 or 182 seem to be where I'm headed.

Perhaps I'm worse than I thought at research but this palce has more helpful info than I've been able to gather on my own in a month.

Off to search binding threads for something light Din 10-12.

Glad we can be of help, in general trying to research online is pretty useless. Luckily here quite a few of us work in the industry so we can offer the same advice you would get in shops.

I cant speak for the surface skis as iv never skied them but the punx are a great option as I said above. Size wise I would prob go 176. Let me know if you have any other questions.

BoLeighGood to know. Esp since I have no way to demo skis. I'm hitting the reviews pretty hard and i don't think I'm on a level that I'd need to be to go with the Halo 2 so I've crossed that one off. Sick looking ski but looks don't count for much if it doesn't do what I need it to.

What's the going opinion of Joystick These skis for outside the park? Full camber(which is fine w/me). I've heard nothing but mostly good about them in the park (aside from topsheet scratching/chipping). At $200 I might go for it. The '14 Atomic Punx 176 or 182 seem to be where I'm headed.

Perhaps I'm worse than I thought at research but this palce has more helpful info than I've been able to gather on my own in a month.

Off to search binding threads for something light Din 10-12.

I have no idea how well these ski(outside of the park), they look like they would suit you well if they can rip groomers. If you want to go for the cheapest alternative then get the these. Punx would be good, but keep in mind that the 182s will be stiffer than the 176s. A good binding would either be marker griffons/squires(squires are a less beefy version of the griffons), or the rossignol axial2. I have both the Griffons and Axial2s, they are about the same binding, but I like the axial2s better because of the heel piece. Griffons have a weird heel piece that doesn't snap into place to lock in, but it slides which can get really annoying for hiking. The axial2s have more of a traditional heel piece in the sense that it snaps up into place to lock in. But either one is a solid binding

BoLeighOff to search binding threads for something light Din 10-12.

You want a binding with a max of 10-12, or you ski at 10-12? Make sure to get a binding with your DIN around the middle of the range. If you ski with a 10, don't get a binding with a max of 10, get a binding with a max of 14 or 16. That said, I assume based on the info you gave that you ski at something around 7 (I could be way off depending on your boot sole length, skiing style, etc, just my guess) in which case a binding with a max of 10 or 12 would be fine.

Sh4dowYou want a binding with a max of 10-12, or you ski at 10-12? Make sure to get a binding with your DIN around the middle of the range. If you ski with a 10, don't get a binding with a max of 10, get a binding with a max of 14 or 16. That said, I assume based on the info you gave that you ski at something around 7 (I could be way off depending on your boot sole length, skiing style, etc, just my guess) in which case a binding with a max of 10 or 12 would be fine.

why would he need to get a binding with a 14 to 16 range to have his dins set at 10 or 12? If you max out the binding it won't break the binding, it just means that the dins are maxed out. He would just be wasting another $200 to buy the 14 to 16 when he can buy something that is in his din range. All of my bindings have a max of 12 and I have my dins set at 10, and my bindings aren't broken.