Member of the Month

abjectwoe
May, 2025

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!

Ski Sizing Help

profile picture
nick4201
Posts: 3 - Karma: 20
So I recently made a post about transitioning back into skiing after 8 years on a board. So I'm not new but I certainly am going to have to get my legs back under my feet. After some research and consideration of how I want to ski, I've decided I'm going to get a pair of faction prodigy's. I'm just not sure if I should go with the 1.0's or 2.0's and then if I should go with a size 171 or 177.

I live in jersey so my main mountains consist of glorified big icy/hardpack hills. However, I take multiple trips up to Vermont every year and a couple trips out west isn't too uncommon. Obviously the 2.0's will serve me a lot better whenever I head up to Vermont or anywhere out west, But I worry they may be a little wide for jersey's hardpack/ice (especially in the park). So I'm looking to get some incite from the advanced skiers on this thread as picking a width is something I never had to do snowboarding.

as far as sizing goes, I'm 5' 10" and 200lbs. A faction rep recommended 177's but I worry they might be a little long when I start getting into the park. On the flipside 171's seem like they might be too short. I always preferred a shorter snowboard on the stiffer side of a medium flex. From my understanding the prodigy's are just that (on the stiffer side of a medium flex). Not sure if that snowboard logic transitions into ski sizing at all. I say that because if I where to get a softer snowboard id probably size up a little but. So I guess I'm asking if I can get a way with skis that are a little short given that they are on the stiffer side. I should also note that I don't plan on staying at 200lbs, I averaged like 175-180 pre covid quarantine and would like to get back to that by next season.
3 years ago
4 0
profile picture
goatmaster
Posts: 374 - Karma: 2,433
177 would fit you perfectly. That should be below the top of your head. I got the 172 3.0s and they are a prefect length for me and I am 5 7. You are 177.5 cm tall and the skis are actually just a bit shorter than that so they would be about in the middle length wise. Not long or short. The 2.0s are 98 underfoot which is probably more versatile ski than the 1.0. I personally like park skis a bit wider because they can ski things out side of park if you have to. 98 is still really easy to swap and throw around. If you are really worried about the width than go 1.0, but 98 is still really thin in my opinion.
3 years ago
1 0
profile picture
nick4201
Posts: 3 - Karma: 20
goatmaster177 would fit you perfectly. That should be below the top of your head. I got the 172 3.0s and they are a prefect length for me and I am 5 7. You are 177.5 cm tall and the skis are actually just a bit shorter than that so they would be about in the middle length wise. Not long or short. The 2.0s are 98 underfoot which is probably more versatile ski than the 1.0. I personally like park skis a bit wider because they can ski things out side of park if you have to. 98 is still really easy to swap and throw around. If you are really worried about the width than go 1.0, but 98 is still really thin in my opinion.


Yea I mean I honestly have been steering away more and more from the park, especially as I get older. However when im riding my home mountain, park is really all there is to do. But I've always liked park boards everywhere on the mountain besides in powder as there generally quicker on the feet and I like to play around doing presses and spins off side hits and what not. Not much of a jibber, much more into jumps which is kind of why I opted for the prodigy's as they seem more geared towards jumping/all mountain stuff opposed to some noodles that would only serve me on rails. Do you think 171's would simply be too short for me even if I got down to 175ish lbs?
3 years ago
0 0
profile picture
SofaKingSick
Posts: 9756 - Karma: 65,892
i'd say go with the 2.0s, a 98mm waist will do better in vermont and other places but won't be too much for your normal NJ shredding

you are 177cm and change so 177 is the first pick. you could do 171 if you feel really strongly about it. you are correct that stiffness should be included in the equation. basically your height says 177 (unless you're going to be really rusty, in that case size down), your weight says 177, but the stiffness helps a little if you want to go 171. the trips out west will make you want the 177 i bet

go with your gut and never look back. whichever decision you make, remind yourself you're talking about a difference of 6cm, it's not a huge deal
3 years ago
3 0
profile picture
goatmaster
Posts: 374 - Karma: 2,433
nick4201Yea I mean I honestly have been steering away more and more from the park, especially as I get older. However when im riding my home mountain, park is really all there is to do. But I've always liked park boards everywhere on the mountain besides in powder as there generally quicker on the feet and I like to play around doing presses and spins off side hits and what not. Not much of a jibber, much more into jumps which is kind of why I opted for the prodigy's as they seem more geared towards jumping/all mountain stuff opposed to some noodles that would only serve me on rails. Do you think 171's would simply be too short for me even if I got down to 175ish lbs?


Your weight won't effect you flexing the 177. It will make the 171 feel a lot softer if anything. I weigh 115 and can butter my prodigys easy. The 171 is just going to feel unstable skiing fast and landings will be harder. Little jib stuff will be easier though. Also it is a just a few cm, you could definitely ski both and have a great time. If you ski fast and a bit aggressive, 177. If you ski slow and do little tricks you could get away with the 171 and have a lot of fun, but could also do well on a 177 if that makes any sense.
3 years ago
2 0
profile picture
nick4201
Posts: 3 - Karma: 20
goatmasterYour weight won't effect you flexing the 177. It will make the 171 feel a lot softer if anything. I weigh 115 and can butter my prodigys easy. The 171 is just going to feel unstable skiing fast and landings will be harder. Little jib stuff will be easier though. Also it is a just a few cm, you could definitely ski both and have a great time. If you ski fast and a bit aggressive, 177. If you ski slow and do little tricks you could get away with the 171 and have a lot of fun, but could also do well on a 177 if that makes any sense.


Absolutely.. The rider always makes the skis/board. Just from my experience on a board, the little things do make a difference on how it feels on snow. That being said, an experienced rider can do all of the same things on two completely different skis/snowboards (to an extent). Its just going to feel different.. I'm just trying to get a general consensus on the proper route to go as my knowledge of ski's is slim. 177 2.0's seem like the way to go. If I'm just trail riding, I'm not too big a fan of carving . I like to point the tip downhill and keep going until I hit a little bump and nearly send myself off the trail. Sizing is probably more important for that matter.. You hit a tree going 40mph+ your going to break a lot of bones and maybe kill yourself. You take a bad slam in the park your probably going to just break bones and get a concussion. I know the extra length will go far in speeds respect but it wont stop me from playing around in the park.
3 years ago
0 0
profile picture
Neives_tiddies
Posts: 142 - Karma: 965
Im 5’10 and all my skis (3 whole pairs wow) are 177-180 which feels perfect. Im also on the east coast though and ski tight trees when not in the park, none of that big mtn/deep pow stuff unfortunately
3 years ago
2 0
profile picture
nick4201
Posts: 3 - Karma: 20
Neives_tiddiesIm 5’10 and all my skis (3 whole pairs wow) are 177-180 which feels perfect. Im also on the east coast though and ski tight trees when not in the park, none of that big mtn/deep pow stuff unfortunately


It isn't too unfortunate lol. At least we know how to ride ice. When I see my friends out west, I can hardly keep up with them in deep snow, But I stay on my feet and make it to the bottom. When they come here and hit an ice patch.. Well its a much different story haha. Last year we had some bad days up at sugarbush, High wind and low surface coverage. Two of my buddy's who normally ride Breckinridge fell once on ice and immediately went to the shop to get their edges sharpened. Meanwhile all my east coast buddies and I laughed at them while we took laps all day with detuned edges. I was just happy to be up in VT and not in NJ. Meanwhile everyone who lived in CO was wondering why they even came out. Yea id prefer to be riding in Breck every day but I'll tell you what.. Nothing gets your blood pumping like hitting an ice patch when your going too fast.
3 years ago
1 0
profile picture
Steezy-K
Posts: 9 - Karma: 32
Definitely go with the 2.0s and at least 177s if not the 183s
3 years ago
1 0
profile picture
NikolaB73
Posts: 163 - Karma: 1,393
Steezy-KDefinitely go with the 2.0s and at least 177s if not the 183s

+1 on the 2.0s in 183, as long as that's your one ski quiver. I ride 1.0s but am buying 3.0s for travel
3 years ago
0 0
profile picture
HypeBeast
Posts: 10097 - Karma: 76,786
177 especially considering it's probably closer to 175 as most mfg measure pre press. Plenty short enough for tight trees but not too long to impede progress
3 years ago
1 0
All times are Eastern (-4); Currently it's 1:11PM