good question! other than it being very comfortable, but to me, it's not worth that.

It is smaller than the I/O, but I can't speak to the Spy

For the bike question - Even if it did fit, it would certainly be annoying rattling in there if it didn't fit perfectly tight. Go with one of the insulated camelbak bottles instead. They are smaller in diameter than a Nalgene and might fit into the side water bottle holder of the Stratos.

I'd go with the shorter ski for now. I think at that length, even though you'll grow, it might be too much ski at this point. I am 5'7 and 145 and ski high 170s. The trend nowadays seems to go shorter than what I ski, but it's comfortable for an advanced skiier. That being said, your weight might mean that ski at 185 is just a tad much. Plus, unless you are just doing big lines, in the trees or in tight situations, it's best to have a shorter ski you can quickly turn on edge.

I disagree with the comments that it doesn't have traction. If you're talking a wet root or wood, I don't know a single shoe out there that would grip that so those complainers need to shut it. These shoes grip rocks and dirt well- even in wet conditions. I'd suggest these for running and as an approach shoe as well.

You can definitely swap those out for a wider brake that Marker sells

Yep, that's the weight. Kinda crazy indeed. I'd suggest a MH or Osprey pack instead - have had nothing but good experiences with both.

I'd agree with the first comment - these definitely run a bit small. I have a friend who is always an XL and can't fit in these in that size. I am a L and the XL almost fit... L still fit for me.

Granted, I am much smaller, but I ski hard, have hit some big drops and big things underfoot in these things. At a DIN setting a bit higher than I would put my in bounds skis at, I haven't ever popped out in a strange spot. I generally ski fast in the trees and have hit some unmovable objects and not popped out when I thought I perhaps would. Frankly, I love how light these are and would get all dynafit bindings for my entire quiver if I had the cash. My biggest skis (BD Amperage) are my lightest with these things. I can't say enough about them skiing fast and hard.

I've used these at about that, and with warm socks and some toe warmers (I have sort of bad circulation) and they were great. Only used them a few times though at that elevation.

I love both these and the free rides along with the seth morrison pro three finger. All of them are stylish, rugged, and warm. I would however say that all definitely need an additional liner for very cold days. Just a heads up about the Black Diamonds- try a pair on before you buy. I've noticed that some styles run a tad small.

they are plastic, which is certainly concerning...

An ex-g/f had this and also bought the foot pod clip (which I don't think is included here. She just laced it in. Sure, it can be annoying to do over and over again, but it's only an extra few seconds of work before a run. Personally, I think the whole suunto system leaves a lot to be desired with having an additional pod or gps. If I really wanted all the stats, I'd go with the new motorola offering - the motoactv or a garmin.

I've never tried the Factor 110, but have worn both the Method (discontinued) and the Prime and felt that the sizing was spot on the same.

You've gotta go with the 172. I'm 5'7, 145 and ski 175s and 177s. Anything shorter doesn't feel right. The 172s will be great.

I would and if anything he/she can grow into them a bit. These will ski short

I am not sure, but I would bet that these blog articles would assist you in deciding-
http://www.wildsnow.com/6285/dynafit-tlt-5-the-mods-continue/
http://www.wildsnow.com/1810/dynafit-titan-ski-boot-review/

It has a flex index of 120 if that helps

I am not a rando racer, but man, that seems very small for your size. I'd guess that the longer length wouldn't be too much heavier and it would ski a whole lot better. I am 5'7 and won't think about skiing below 175 nowadays... too squirrely.

I'd highly suggest trying one out locally. At the very least, try out a large in another style if this one isn't unavailable. You're right though, the styling of Arc'tryx is generally an athletic fit and would guess that perhaps that would be a bit large in the arms with a large for your size.

I went with the 125mm BD Ascension skins, and they have worked out great.

I'm on the small side at 5'7 and at most 150, but I've had no issues hucking whatsoever. I've probably done a few 15+ footers and stayed nicely in the bindings. I haven't seen any comments that these are structurally weak in this regard either. If anything, you'll pop out, but I seriously doubt they'd be damaged.

At your height and presumably relatively athletic build, I'd definitely go with the 181s. I am 5'7 and refuse to ski anything less than 175 nowadays. Just feels squirrelly to me. You'll be fine in the 181

These are the Men's factory team twintip. If you want the exact same thing in the Women's, its the Missbehaved. They have the same dimensions and might ski a bit better for a petite lady like yourself.

I don't really know why you'd compare the two. The S7 is more of an everyday ski at 115 underfoot, while the Chopsticks are more of a powder and big line ski with 128 underfoot. Unless you live in dream land of pow everday or already have an all mountain ski, go with the S7.

I do not believe so. A similar rope, the Edelweiss Element II ARC 10.2mm Climbing Rope, has a bi-pattern though, and you can snag it on many sites for cheaper (don't tell BC though :) )

I seriously doubt it.

Yes

unfortunately, no it's not for a snowboard unless you have a splitboard!

Yea, they will work fine

It depends on your type of skiing. You ski the trees often and prefer shorter turns, then go with the 175. If you're into longer lines and less quick turns, go with the 185.

Go Dynafit instead. Yes, you'd have to get another set of boots, but they are insanely light compared to these heavy things.

you should really check the thule website. they have a nice car fit interface.

Depends on what you want to do-
In bounds- Marker Jester, Salomon STH16
Out of Bounds - Dynafit Radical FT, Marker Duke, Marker Tour F12

I'd say you'd be more likely to enjoy pow in the Prophet. These aren't too wide, and some comments below mention it is ok in the fresh. Upgrade to something with at least a 100mm waist

i think you'd be fine with a medium. patagonia seems to run large these days

Being that tall, I'd highly suggest going with the 179 length. I am 5'7 and I ski probably 30/30/40 groomers, moguls, trees and I've found that the new style skis fit me nicely at the high 170s. Anything below a 175 seems too squirrely and not solid enough in deep pow. I'd definitely go with the 179s or even something longer if I were you.

I don't think you need to hurt or kill the tree by putting a piton in it. Utilize a sling and a carbiner if you want to simulate clipping. Go find a rock with a crack in it if you really want to drive a piton in. Plus, pitons aren't used these days really anyway. Bolts man bolts!

179 for sure.

It will be close- really depends on how big your boots are.

Yea, I'd say the 195s will be great for you. I've got a buddy who is 6'2 205 and skis these with great pleasure.

To me these are good, but it sounds like you would like an all mountain ski and the best one I've skied is the Volkl Mantra. For you, a stiff ski should be great.

Yes, there is a difference- REI has a shot of the old - http://reviews.rei.com/review/805592/K2-HellBent-Skis-Mens-20102011. These are the new.

that is strange that they don't have a size chart jumping out at you. i did find one here - http://www.blackdiamondequipment.com/en-us/shop/climb/harnesses/momentum-al-harness/

but it puts you in between. i'd try to try on another bd harness locally if you can and attempt to fit into the small

I've always enjoyed these. They aren't super light, but the amount of support in the heel is well worth the weight. I ran in these for quite some time before going to the Raptor. I trained for several marathons and ran one in these.

I have the Methods right now as well, and just for fun, I tried these on. The sizing was identical to me, but I didn't notice any snugness in the toe and forefoot like I do as well in the Method.

I'd say it will be fine in soft and wet conditions. If it's really choppy though, they won't do great.

Most skis are fine to be mounted twice- three times may be pushing it. I'd just be sure that if the hole pattern is the same to utilize that, otherwise make sure the holes are offset by a few mm so they don't overlap.

I believe one diagonal side is for the first passes, and the other is to remove small burrs in a second pass

Can't speak to the Columbia mitts because I am not a fan of their products, but I can say that these are the warmest things I've ever worn. Amazing.

If you want to save a little cash and perhaps might not have all coverage on the tips (which is alright), then go with the 125s. If you are concerned about total coverage, you should go with the 145s.

I would say yes, but with some caveats... this device is not really meant to do this. Of course you can set up a top rope outside, and climb up a bit and pull the excess through. This works, and I have seen people do it before, but I personally wouldn't do it.

Decent conversation on lead climbing self belay... http://www.mountainproject.com/v/big_wall_and_aid_climbing/selfbelay_lead_climbing/106270733

Personally though, I think this is a horrendous choice of headphones. A good friend of mine is a sound engineer and says that this brand is possibly the biggest ripoff in music. Mediocre to horrible sound quality for the price.

I don't see why not.

Thanks guys, but I definitely utilized the balm after using them a second time. I'd agree that it did improve, but I am still looking for a liner that would be a suggestion...

Grab the 125s and you'll be fine

Personally, I don't think you can beat the Mantras. I have tried all the skis you mentioned as many of the resorts have free or very cheap demo days around me. I have two pairs of the Mantras in 170s and 177s, and they just rock. I feel like they can do everything very well. I'd give them a solid 9 out of ten on hardpack, nicely groomed, trees, and moguls. I'd give them a 10 out of 10 in the crud, and a 7 out of ten in pow. Awesome ski, and definitely one for a one ski quiver.

No, you will need something definitely wider. You can fudge a few mm, but not that many.

I could be wrong, but I am fairly certain that all of the colors are matte and not shiny

That's what these were made for. These or the Nepal EVO would be great.

really too tough to say. sizing with La Sportiva is misleading because of their glove and more aggressive fit. I'm a 40 in Katanas and in most Evolvs I'm a 40.5. Try on a pair if you can!

Amazon mentions - adjustable wrist strap, but it is surprising that Hestra doesn't mention it. Hestra doesn't mention when their gloves have the wrist strap though; the Seth Morrison Pro 3 Finger definitely has the wrist strap, which I love, but it isn't even mentioned on their site. I'd guess the Czone does have it.

Either this or the BD Ascension skins would be great.

It doesn't seem like they carry it, but I am sure Primus would carry it or be able to help you if you called customer service.

Man, I would definitely not go with the 170s. I ski a similar ski in the Mantras and have two pair - 170s and 177s. I can barely ski the 170s because they feel like rollerblades now. This type of stiff ski tends to ski shorter, and at your height and weight you should be skiing at least 177s at any rate. I am 5'7, 145 and I wouldn't even ponder anything shorter than 175s now. Step up to the 177s and you won't be disappointed after a few days on the slopes.

I say why not? I've seen people in the reverse of that color scheme and it works. Plus, you're very noticeable in bounds!

All the Smith goggles integrate nicely with all of their helmets.

I'd go with the 125mm as the tip and tail are super wide on these. Plus, the 110mm skins are the same price so you might as well go with the wider one in the 125s. Have fun!

I have the Smith I/O and I can't imagine how these could let in that much air as it is a similar design. I'd check to see that all of the tabs are properly affixed to the lens and there aren't any holes essentially in the mix. With the I/O, I've skied over 60 mph without any eye watering.

I have the BD Amperage with these bindings, and I am very happy with how they perform on the way up. I don't fully understand how the ski could flex that much side to side, but I have never had any issues traversing steep slopes in these.

Definitely a solid choice for what you want to do. These things are bombproof and it sounds like you are looking for something very reliable and able to stand advanced terrain reliably.

most of the arcteryx jackets have the same fit, and looking at the rush and this one, they definitely have a similar fit. i'd have a gander at the sizing chart on their website just to make sure that wasn't a fluke though.

hard to say, but i'd guess it would depend on what you put into it. usually though, osprey is very comfortable no matter what weight is inside. i'd say you'd be fine if you're fairly active and used to carrying a good amount of weight. this is definitely a ton of space.

yes definitely.