The binding itself will fit. There's no adult length or width ski that will cause problems with or will prevent you from mounting these bindings on them. Where you will run into issues is the brakes. Even the wider brake option is too narrow. To fix this you could do one of two things. You could bend the brakes to fit. Or you could remove the brakes and ride the ski without them. Many people choose not to use the brakes on wide skis as they are pretty much useless except for holding the skis together when carrying them. Also without the brakes you do save some weight.

As far as burliness and stiffness, the Mobe ranks up there with the best of them. But be careful with sizing. Scarpa sizing runs differently. A 26.5 and 27 have the same size shell and bsl. Whereas most companies a 26 and 26.5 have the same size shell and bsl. So if you order the 26.5 you might run into the same problems you did with the endorphins. Definitely try them on and go see a bootfitter to see if they are right size for you so you don't run into the same sizing problems later.

I don't know the exact numbers but it is only a few millimeters. It is a very small number and a very low stack height. If i were to venture a guess from eyeballing it on memory I would say about 3mm. It really is very low.

David's right about using AT boots. If you are going to use an AT boot with this setup, make sure it has an ISO DIN sole, since you will be using your alpine bindings. At this point, marker bindings are NOT compatible with the MFD Alltime. Only Salomon/Atomic bindings, Look/Rossignol bindings, and Head/Tyrolia/4frnt bindings. Maybe in the future, MFD will make a hole pattern for marker bindings, but with marker making the Duke/Baron, I don't think that will happen.

Not at all. People swap liners all the time. Aftermarket liners have so many positive attributes to them that bootmakers are starting to use them in their boots as the "stock liner" most commonly seen with Intuition liners being used with Full Tilt, Dalbello, and Scarpa boots. People take Intuition liners and swap them into their Radiums, and their Black Diamond boots quite frequently, they are higher performing, better molding, and warmer than the stock liners. It is a great idea that many already implement...Go for it!

With more metal, the dukes are going to be slightly more durable over time. I know plenty of people who have similar time on snow to you and have had the barons for a couple seasons now. They are a very durable binding, especially now that Marker has worked out the kinks. You really can't go wrong with either. If something does go wrong though, Marker has a great warranty program.

If you're looking for a one ski quiver, I would recommend the Hardside over the Sideshow. It is almost identical in every regard but has a slightly wider footprint making it better in variable snow and in powder. The Sideshow is a great ski and super versatile. But if you only want to have one ski, I would go slightly wider to make sure that you have better floatation in the pow, and better stability in variable conditions.

The F10 has had some serious durability issues that reared their ugly head last season. There have been a whole slew of bindings that have had broken toe pieces. Marker has a great warranty program, but that doesn't help you when you are on the mountain or on vacation. I know someone who's toe piece broke, he sent it back, received a new pair and it broke again a short while later. The second time he sent it back, he spoke to marker and asked about durability, long story short, after that conversation the replacement pair he received was a pair of barons. The baron is slightly heavier but has much better performance and durability. For what you're looking to do with the binding, you would be much better off getting the baron.

A size 22 boot works out to having a bsl of around 265. The size small Freeride Pro accomodates a 260 - 315 bsl, so it should work for you. I would check your boot and look for what the bsl. It stands for boot sole length. I would check on the sole of your boot or on the side of the heel block right before the arch in the center of the boot. You should see something stamped on the boot that says something like 265mm. It will probably be somewhere between 260mm - 270mm. As long as it is 260 or greater, you should be fine.

Same ski, different graphics. Rossi shifted themes, and each ski is no longer a member of the 7 Deadly Sin Series, where each ski was emblematic of one of the seven deadly sins (S1, S2, S3, S4, S5, S6, & S7). So to go along with the new name, there is a new graphic too. Same ski construction wise and dimensionally too. I don't know the specs of the rocker, but I doubt they would increase or decrease the rocker from last year.

Basically the taller you are, the longer the ski should be. You also adjust size based on ability. It used to be that short skis were in, but with technology the way it is, and modern sidecuts, you can ski longer skis without sacrificing anything. At your height and weight if you are an advanced intermediate skier or better you should go for the largest size, the 183. If you are an intermediate, you should go for the 178. If you are a beginner go for the 173.

Yes they are all built on a 100mm last, so the fit is going to be the same in terms of width. The key difference is the flex rating changes from the 1 to the 2 to the 3. They also have different liners. The 1 having the most performance based liner (i.e. less foam).

This boot is pretty comfortable. Even thought this boot has a tight last, at 98mm it doesn't feel excessively tight. The flex is designed to be responsive but not overly stiff. For someone who's going to be ripping the groomers or just charging in general, and needs a ski to transfer energy and not feel dead, this is a great boot. I would classify it as an advanced intermediate to expert boot. If you're looking for a comfortable boot without sacrificing performance, this is a pretty good choice. Also, take a look at some of the offerings from full tilt and dalbello.

Even though you're not trying to win by hundredths of a second, the base material still matters. Sintered bases are a little bit softer, but faster. Extruded bases are cheaper, more durable, but are slower. Does faster and slower matter in pow, yes. The same properties that make a base faster or slower also translate to less drag and better glide, both of which you want and will appreciate in the long run, especially with pow that is higher in water content (i.e. denser). At the end of the day, skis are skis, meant to be used and have fun on, but why not do it as fast and easily as possible.

It depends on how big you are, and what type of ski you're used to skiing. For me, the 188 S7 did feel a bit short, but the megawatts felt fine in 188. Could they benefit from having a bigger size, probably, but the 188 is a great ski for what it's designed to do, and it does it pretty well. For me, the 188 seemed to work really well.

These are the softest of the three skis you listed. The JJ and the BentChetler are similar in flex. It's hard to say which is stiffer, but I would probably say the JJ is just a hair stiffer than the BentChetler

I would go with the BentChetlers. They are less floppy and more versatile than the Opus. The Opus is softer and more soft snow specific. It isn't as versatile. If you like Line skis and are looking for something to do it all, try the Sir Francis Bacon. If you like Atomic, the BentChetler is a sick ski. The camber underfoot and the 19m turn radius lets you carve up the hardpack, and the rocker and wide dimensions allow awesome floatation in the pow. Another great ski to check out is the Moment Bibby Pro.

It depends on your ability, and what you're primarily riding. I know a lot of the pros ride slightly smaller skis for slopestyle and jibbing, and slightly longer skis for halfpipe. It really depends. My park skis are definitely my shortest skis in my quiver but are about forehead high on me. It boils down to preference, comfort level, and ability.

If you're looking for a one ski quiver and you're living out west, I would recommend the stoke. It has a wider footprint, 106mm vs 95mm, and more rocker so you will get better floatation. It is also easier to break trail. It is also more big mountain based, so it is going to be more stable when skiing some bigger lines. You're not sacrificing that much weight but moving up to the stokes, but you're gaining a lot more ski, and that's a good thing.

Depends what you're interested in doing. The BentChetler is more of a backcountry jib ski. Where the Night Train is more of a big mountain ski. Both have rocker and twin tips, but the BentChetler has more of a center mount, where the Night Train is mounted a little bit further back and is more directional. Both great skis, just different purposes. I will see this though, Moment's build quality and durability is definitely top notch.

It makes it easier to break trail, as the tip sits higher up. You lose a little bit of traction on firmer snow due to the tail rocker, but other than that there is no real difference. There are a ton of backcountry specific skis that have tail rocker...4Frnt Renegades, DPS Lotus 120, Moment Bibby Pros, Volkl Nantuq, just to name a few.

You see it mostly affecting the downhill part of your tour. It makes it more fun!

Go with the 185. These skis have a ton of rocker in the tip and tail and feel like snow blades unless you're in very deep snow. These skis have a small running surface, so you want as much ski as you can get. I'm about your size, just slightly heavier, and the 185 felt a little short for me. And a lot of people share that opinion, which is why they came out with a 195cm version this year. It's a very easy ski to ski with a turning radius the size of a slalom ski. I've never seen you ski, but based on your description "fast and love the pow" you will be disappointed with the 175 and will be kicking yourself wishing you got the bigger size. The 185 is more stable, has a longer running surface, and has an ever so slightly longer turn radius. You'll appreciate the 185 when you're charging the pow.

It's definitely not overkill. 12 din is what recreational/intermediate alpine bindings max out at. If you're setting your din at 10, the FT would be the better choice. Even though bindings are designed to work properly throughout the entire din range, you're always better off not maxing it out if you don't have to. If you were smaller/lighter, I would say go with the ST you'll be fine. But you're not, and you'd be better off, and probably feel more comfortable on the FT.

If you're on 178s right now with regular camber, 184 sounds like a good size for you in a rockered ski. Depending on how much rocker the ski has 5 to 10 cm is the usual sizing jump switching to rockered skis

The adjustment moves the entire binding forward or backwards, not just part of it. The purpose of this is that you can have center mounted binding for freestyle skiing, and regularly mounted binding for the rest of the mountain without having to redrill your ski. It is not meant to adjust just part of it for sizing. For that you would need a demo binding which most retail stores do not carry for sale. With that being said the binding with the most travel is the jester/griffon. They have a huge range of adjustment for size, more than any other binding. Most bindings adjust to fit about 3 different sizes. The jesters adjust to fit more than that. Not sure exactly, but I want to say around 4 to 5 different sizes.

Spoke to Black Diamond about how they measure the length. They told me it was from the very top of the axe head to the very tip of the bottom. They said it should be 2 cm shorter than the advertised length. So my 55 cm axe should actually measure 53 cm. They said they do this to incorporate an effectual swing weight, so that when you are swinging it and using it, it will feel like you have 55cm there. Similar to running length on skis, where even though it says 185cm its closer to 170cm.

The Kung Fujas isn't exactly a park ski anymore. At 102 underfoot it is now a legitimate all mountain ski. K2's in general tend to be on the heavier side. If you are looking to fly in the park, you'd be better off looking at something narrower and lighter. Something that fits in the park/pipe category, not the all mountain category.

The Coomback has a softer tip and no metal. It would be a better ski in softer and/or fresher snow.

I've seen quite a few people on the tram with the older version of this ski and tele binders, mostly mounted with Hammerheads or G3 Targas. You're probably going to have to adjust your style of skiing as these skis have absolutely massively wide tips. I can't say for sure if you're going to have trouble as I've never seen you ski. Since the ski continuously tapers from tip to tail, you would be best off with a 130mm or 140mm skin. You would get full coverage underfoot and in the tail, and you would have some base exposed at the tip. But since there is so much rocker in the tip, that doesn't really matter as you will not be getting any traction from the tip while skinning anyway. K2 also makes a custom cut skin for this ski. This ski is designed as part of the K2 Backside series which means it's meant to be used in the backcountry on the way up and down as a tele and alpine touring ski, as well as with alpine binders. It has a tail notch for skin hooks, so that's a clear indication of it's purpose. I can't say for sure if you will like it, or how comfortable you will be with these skis mounted tele, but there are plenty of people that ski them with tele binders.

4frnt deadbolt bindings are rebranded tyrolia bindings. Same exact binding but with a different color scheme and logo, they will definitely work. Tyrolia Peak 15, 4frnt Deadbolt 15, and Head Mojo 15 are all the same binding.

I would recommend the 130, dynafit brakes aren't as easy to bend as some of the alpine brakes. Also 130mm on a 115mm ski means you have .75mm or 3/4 of a cm on each side in between the edge and the brake, not really a whole lot of room. It will be a cleaner look too.

No problems at all. The binding is designed to work properly throughout the full range in the din setting. The thing you need to worry about with the binding properly is getting the forward pressure adjusted properly. These bindings are pretty finicky to set up. So make sure you take them to a good ski shop, with a good shop tech. If the forward pressure is off you'll be releasing when you don't want to.

If this is only for the resort I would recommend the Marker Jester. If this is for a mix of inbounds and backcountry skiing I would recommend the Marker Duke. If this is going to be a backcountry ski, I would recommend the Dynafit FT12 or the new Dynafit Radical.

The mounting point isn't really that far back from center to begin with. I don't know of anybody who has mounted them at true center. I would imagine that doing that would make them ski really funky, as the spot being pressure during turns isn't the sweet spot/center of the sidecut/turn radius. Keep in mind too that this isn't meant as a backcountry jib ski like the moment bibby or the pb & j. If you are looking into center mounting both of those would be much better options. This is more of a big mountain pow ski.

The structured top sheets serve several purposes. They are less likely to have snow clump and stick. They are more abrasion resistant and don't chip or splinter as easily from the edges clipping the ski when you turn. Plus they also look ridiculously cool.

You definitely want at least the 180s if not the 188s. These are a very soft, fun, playful ski and they are very easy to ski and throw around. Plus with the rocker you can definitely go longer than you would on a regular cambered, traditional ski. The 172 is going to be way too short for you. You want at least the 180.

Both are great skis, when it comes to skiing in the bc. If you like to carve your turns, and are going to be playing off the terrain features (spinning and stuff)I would go with the VCT. If you like to slash/slarve your turns, and are going to be skiing and airing stuff out facing forwards, I would go with the EHP. The main difference I felt between these two skis is the way that they turn. The VCT turns like a GS ski, you can make short or long turns and really arc them out and lay them on their side. The EHP skis like a reverse sidecut ski, where it's really hard to lay them over, most of your turning is going to be sliding out your turns or slarving. The EHP is much better in powder though because of the shape and rocker.

Well for starters, the slant is slated two spots down in the BD Efficiency lineup. The Quadrant is their top end boot, followed by the Prime, and then the Slant. It has a softer flex, only 110 versus the Quadrant's 120 flex. Also, the Quadrant has a BOA liner versus just a regular lace up liner in the Slant, which I actually think is plus for the Slant, as BOA's are a pain to operate, and you're in bad shape if it breaks on you. Finally the Slant has a urethane liner versus the Quadrant's pebax liner. Both are very strong durable plastics, the main difference being that pebax's performance is not affected by temperature as much as urethane is. The colder it gets, the stiffer urethane gets, and the warmer it gets, the less stiff urethane gets. Pebax's stiffness stay pretty consistent regardless of temperature. Finally the slant only has 3 buckles, while the quadrant has 4. If you really like these boots, I would go with the Prime, it's a slightly softer, 3 buckle version of the quadrant. I think it's the best of both worlds. Great deal, similar performance to the quadrant.

It's a difficult call. I don't think this is the ski that you are looking for. Because of the rocker, the pin tail, and the long turning radius, these skis don't really carve a turn at all. They ski very similarly to a reverse sidecut ski in which you have to slarve and slide the tails out on all of your turns. In terms of the tail not hooking at low speeds you don't have to worry as the tail really doesn't engage at all. You can actually arc turns with the zealot, where as this ski you do more of a sliding/slarving turn. I was kind of disappointed when I skied them. The zealot skied like a fat gs ski, where it loved making long arcing turns. The EHP was really hard to get the edge to bite at all. On the other hand the bases are pretty bomber and hold up well to abuse. So it's a tough call. If I was looking for a ski that skied similarly to the zealot, this would not be the ski I'd consider.

It really depends on the binding and what the mount pattern is on that binding. Because the ski is pre-drilled with inserts, unless that binding has the same hole pattern as dynafit bindings, you are probably going to run into issues with the holes interfering. I can't say for sure, but I would try to look at a non-dynafit branded ski.

Of those three skis I would recommend the Manaslu. It is the widest of the bunch at 95mm undefoot, plus it has a little bit of tip rocker. That combination is really going to help you out breaking trail and skiing in fresh snow. All three of these skis are really light, and the heaviest of the three will still feel paper light. The advantage to the two Dynafit skis is they are predrilled so you can swap your dynafit bindings in and out. A huge advantage if you have multiple skis and when traveling to save on weight. The manaslu is one of the most versatile touring skis out there when it comes to skiing in various snow conditions. The manaslu is the way to go.

This would be a great choice. It's a very versatile and fun ski, with the right dimensions, and shape to ski any type of snow. Narrow enough to still carve the groomers, wide enough plus rocker to shred the deeper stuff. If you're looking for one ski to ski everything with, everywhere this is a great choice.

The shogun is only 100ish mm underfoot depending on what size you get. By most standards that is the width most all mountain skis are being classified as these days (maybe slightly on the wide side for some people though). So as far as it being a powder specific tool, there are much better options with much wider tips, waists, and tails, and much more rocker in the tips and tails as well. This ski does have some tip rocker though, so in a few inches of fresh it's going to float really well. Does it do well in powder, yes, and it's a great choice if you're looking to only have one ski to ski everything. But for deeper powder there are much better options that will float, slash, and smear way better.

What size ski do you normally use? This ski has quite a bit of rocker so you should size up about 7-10 cm. It is also a really soft and playful ski with a tight turning radius, so it is not hard to ski or throw around at all. As a matter of fact most people were so upset this ski was so small that Atomic made a 192 version. I honestly wouldn't be afraid of sizing up and going with the 183.

I think on the line is the best spot. It may seem a little forward at first, but it is very balanced. The tail rocker and tip rocker, start very deep into the ski. Keep in mind this is a backcountry jib ski, so it is meant to have a lot of tail to it. I had them mounted on the line, and absolutely loved them. They were really balanced in the air and when spinning, and when sending it, there was plenty of tail to support you when you land. I have a friend who them mounted 1.5cm back from the line is more of a traditional skier (only skis forward, no freestyle at all) and he like that mount point a lot. This was one of my favorite skis I've ever been on, and had ZERO issues with mounting them on the recommended line.

I would definitely get the sidestash based on what you're saying. It is a stiffer ski throughout because of the metal laminate in it. The coomback has a softer, flexier tip. If you're skiing it in the resort, you're not going to enjoy it when charging or on run outs. The sidestash is a great dual purpose ski, light enough for the bc, stiff enough for the resort. Based on what you're saying, the sidestash is what you want.

Length wise the fit will be the same. However this boot is built on a wider last, than the falcon so there will be a little more room in terms of width. I would highly recommend doing some research on the salomon quest before you buy it. It is a very dangerous boot and risky investment. If you enjoy skiing, I would avoid it.

I'd go with the 185. These skis are pretty light, and not very stiff. They also have some tip rocker to reduce running length and ease turn initiation. They're really easy to ski. I wouldn't hesitate about getting the 185.

Yes it will definitely work, you might have the tiniest bit of base exposed in the very tail of the ski, but it will definitely work. You want to have maximum coverage possible in the rear 2/3 of the ski as that is where you are generating most of your traction from, just little bit in front of the binding to underfoot to the rear of the ski. 130 will definitely fit underfoot, where you will have to trim, and the it should be just about perfect fit in the tail.

These skins don't come in specific legnths, only the custom sts' do. These are meant to trim down in both length and width to fit your ski perfectly. And if done correctly, they will.

basically unchanged except for the graphic. there is a rumor floating around that they have more rocker than in previous years. the other part of that rumor is that it's actually the rocker profile that 4frnt wanted these skis to have originally, but the factory had trouble with the mold in year's past. so the rocker on the old version turned out very subtle. whereas it's a little less subtle on these, but more in line to what it is really supposed to be.

You're good to go, I've seen quite a few people ripping these on tele binders, and they love them. If you're looking for something lighter and more versatile, then you should definitely go with the fujas'. If you're looking for a fat tele-board to do the same thing you're doing with these boards with your alpine binders, then get these again.

I agree the ascensions are a great skin choice, but you don't need the 140. The 125 will work perfectly. The ski has a ton of tip rocker, and is only 100mm undefoot. No sense paying more for all that extra skin material just to trim it off later. You generate the most traction from the rear 2/3 of the ski. And on the ski, especially with so much of the tip in the air, even in deeper snow, you will still have full coverage in the tail and underfoot. 125 is the way to go.

You definitely want AT LEAST the 175. Even though this ski has some stiffness to it, at your weight you are going to overpower and overflex the 165. You want the ski to provide some stability for you. You should definitely get at least the 175.

To the best of my knowledge the contour does not have any still picture capabilities like the gopro does.

This camera does not have a zoom feature. Unfortunately due to the compact size there is only so much hardware they can fit inside it. If you are looking for one with a zoom, go to a camera site, they sell all sorts of small camcorders these days with some zoom capability. If you are looking for something you can wear for some pov (point of view) footage, you are unfortunately going to have to sacrifice the zoom.

This camera does not have a zoom feature. Unfortunately due to the compact size there is only so much hardware they can fit inside it. If you are looking for one with a zoom, go to a camera site, they sell all sorts of small camcorders these days with some zoom capability. If you are looking for something you can wear for some pov (point of view) footage, you are unfortunately going to have to sacrifice the zoom.

depends what length you are looking for. The 170 is 93mm underfoot, 177 is 94mm, the 184 is 95mm, and the 191 is 96mm underfoot.

The Duke/Baron are the most durable of the hybrid bindings. About midway through the season there started to be some durability issues with both the new freeride pros and the f12s, specifically with the toe piece. Because the toe piece was shifted forward to provide for a better/easier/smoother pivot when touring, the shift forward also made it more vulnerable, and there started to be quite a few broken toe pieces with both models. If you're looking for durability I would go with the Duke/Baron. Marker has pretty much eliminated all the kinks with broken afd's in those models.

If you are considering that many days in the resort, I would highly recommend the marker baron over the f12s. It is a more solid binding, with more of an alpine influence in design. In general there is a different feeling between AT bindings and alpine bindings. AT bindings typically feel a little but sloppier and are a bit more numb in energy feel/liveliness. With that being said, the baron (and the duke) probably do the best job of minimizing that feeling and making you feel like you're in an alpine binding.

There is no need for a din in the toe on a tech binding because of the way the bindings are meant to release under twisting motions. So even if there was one it wouldn't be advantageous.

They will not be too wide, it's 120mm across. So you will have 5mm on each side. That's 1/2 cm on each side. A very small amount. Nothing to worry about. You'll be fine.

You can in theory bend any size brake to fit, it's just a matter of how functional it will be, and how clean it will look. What size brakes are you starting with? The 108s can easily be bent to fit a 115.

It should be compatible and there shouldn't be any problem. I haven't heard of any issues. The brake arms do come out and you can just swap those in if the stomp pad doesn't fit properly.

Due to the elevation from the climbing bar, there is some loss of energy transfer from boot to ski. Also there is a slightly "sloppy" feeling that you will notice especially if you're used to always skiing in alpine bindings. It isn't that bad though (speaking from experience) when both touring and skiing. They have kept the same basic shape/design, for several generations. Each generation benefitting from technology innovations. There have been several changes to the most recent version, this one. One is lower height, for better center of gravity and better energy transfer. Two, the moved the pivot point of the toe piece for better balance and touring motion. Three, everything just feels tighter and less "sloppy" than in previous versions. It's a great binding, that is very versatile. And still the only touring binding that you can switch from tour mode to ski mode and back to tour mode without ever clicking out.

If you're thinking of using a midlayer, I would definitely go with the small. With the extra small you're probably going to run into some issues with your movements being restricted.

no pockets on the inside. two big napoleon pockets on the outside that double as vents. I have this jacket, and wouldn't recommend it for skiing even in the spring. It's a fairly thin rain shell. It would do the trick, but you'd be better off in a softshell

The 25.5 and the 26 share the same shell, they are both a 296 bsl.

They fit pretty similarly. I'm not sure, but I believe they are built on the same last.

1) You cannot get rid of the walk mode unless you switch the cuff with a different boot.

2) The shell will not shrink but you can go to a bootfitter and they will add an ankle pad to snug up the fit around the ankle.

3) Scarpa uses intuition liners that are pretty good in all respects, especially after molding. However, there are other liners that Intution or Zipfit offer that may be more your style.

4) I've never heard, seen or experienced that happening to any scarpa boots, or on mine. You might have a lemon. Or the nut that secures it on the inside might be stripped. Take them to a ski shop or call up scarpa about that.

The used to sell the green monster in three buckle version: http://www.backcountry.com/dynafit-zzero-3-c-tf-alpine-touring-boot

It's not as stiff or supportive, but it does shave some weight off. The 4 buckle boots provide a better fit overall and lock in the foot better for more support. If you are really interested in it for the weight savings, my advice would be to get some of the higher end carbon boots like the tlt5.

These skis are a traditionally cambered ski. There is no rocker or early rise in the tip or tail. The only ski in the efficiency series with tip rocker is the drift.

Starting at 12 inches and up they use a metal buckle. The ones below, but not including 12 inches use plastic.

I have the praxis powderboards which are the same size as the spatulas. I use the 18" strap around the very center of the ski, and they fit perfectly. 18 inches is about 46 cm. the ski is 136mm underfoot or 13.6 cm. Back to back that's 27.2 cm together plus let's say 6cm of thickness to account for the sidewall of the skis. That's still under 34 cm or 13.4 inches. Leaving plenty of extra strap. I've been very happy with the amount of room and easy on and off with the 18 inch strap. You can use 24 for sure but there will plenty of extra strap hanging off.

Bob, for that size ski, the 110s would work perfectly. At 111 in the back, you're only losing 1/2 mm on each size, which you will probably have to trip a tiny bit anyway to make sure you have enough edge exposed. You will also have full coverage underfoot and ample coverage up front.

Mike, you want to go with the 125mm skins. That will help give you the best coverage. When sizing skins, especially when the tip and tail are close in size, going by the tail size is the best way to size skins. That is the case because you get the most traction from the rear 2/3 of the ski.

The 140mm skins is what you want for the best coverage. You'll have a decent amount to trim off underfoot, but you want maximum coverage especially underfoot and in the tail. So the 140 will help give you the most coverage.

I would go with the 125. The majority of the traction comes from the rear 2/3 of the skis. So having full coverage at the tip isn't really useful, plus it's a waste of money and skin material. Also, the gotamas have some pretty good rocker up front, so on any firm surfaces the tips won't even be touching. 125 is the way to go. Plus a the tip of the ski at 134mm, that's a difference of 9mm or 4.5mm on each side. That's less than 1/2 a cm. A really small inconsequential amount, especially considering you want the edge exposed anyway.

All smith goggles work great with this helmet. I know it was designed for seamless integration with the phenoms, and i/o goggles. I use both of them, and the fit is perfect!

Yes, smith helmets are unisex. They go by size, and there is no gender scale for size. A 56cm head on a woman, is a 56 cm head on a man. There is no difference. There are plenty of females who use this helmet. I've seen Jenn Berg and Rachael Burks rocking this helmet on numerous occasions.

They fit differently. The giro helmet works better on a more oblong shaped head. The main difference between these two other than the fit is the visor. The variant is just a small brim, whereas the g10 is a full a full on visor. Although it is a pain to lift your goggles up and keep them with the variant brim it is possible. On the g10 it is impossible due to the huge visor. The visor also gets in the way when packing the helmet in your pack on tours and backcountry excursions.

I would go with the 200 cm bag for sure. The 185 isn't going to work.

Yes, all goggles will work and fit this helmet. Obviously smith goggles are designed to fit seamlessly and integrate with the helmet, but plenty of people I know use Oakley, Spy, Dragon, Scott and many other brands of goggles with this helmet.

The best way to measure is by having a sewing kit. the pliable measuring tapes they use easily wrap around your head. You need to wrap it around your head at about mid forehead level, continuing to right above the ears. Similar to where the helmet would sit, properly on your head, when you're wearing it. You could also just go to any ski shop near you, and they'll measure it for you if you pretend like you're planning on buying a helmet.

Yes the will fit. The brakes will be a little tight, the shop will definitely be able to bend them out a little bit for you, so that they work. You could always just use them without brakes. They will be lighter that way.

These bindings will work with any boots that have tech fittings. Those metal inserts in the toes and heels. Otherwise they will not work.

These will fit the stoke. They are designed to fit without having to drill the ski. They are predrilled for easy swapping in and out among different dynafit skis. The 92mm brake will not fit unless it is bent. You are better off using the 110, it will be a cleaner fit, but the 92 can be made to work.

These bindings will work with the bd methods, but you have to make sure you have the dynafit compatible tech fitting soles. The ones with the metal inserts in the toes and heels are the ones required.