Member of the Month

hi_vis360
November, 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!

4 FRNT stls!*****

profile picture
Riley.
Posts: 2214 - Karma: 259
Hey Im 6'2" and skied on 176 AR5s last year...I can get a sick deal at my shop on 177 stls this years...but only in 177 not 183...are these comparable to my armadas? Will they be too small? I havent actually gone to the shop to see em....if anyone has em they should post a pic standing next to em with you height.
Oct 16 2005 9:20PM
0 0
profile picture
Lineskier-101
Posts: 7863 - Karma: 22
That's going to be pretty small, since they're so light and soft. But it might work if you like shorter skis, which some people do.
Oct 16 2005 9:22PM
0 0
profile picture
doitbig
Posts: 4818 - Karma: 315
i was about 5'5 on the 167 last year...felt way to small.
Oct 16 2005 9:26PM
0 0
profile picture
Riley.
Posts: 2214 - Karma: 259
Oh yea im only 160 lbs
Oct 16 2005 9:26PM
0 0
profile picture
R-Bertsch
Posts: 4719 - Karma: 20
thats pretty small for you man, i was thinking 177's would be to short for me and im 5'11
Oct 16 2005 9:26PM
0 0
profile picture
skiinjected
Posts: 631 - Karma: 11
180s are small and im 6'1
Oct 16 2005 10:03PM
0 0
profile picture
martockpublicenemy
Posts: 2284 - Karma: 11
there to short for you
Oct 16 2005 10:05PM
0 0
profile picture
jib_freak
Posts: 1078 - Karma: 10
im 6'2" and ride 186cm pollards from last season in powder...work GREAT. 177 stl's would be aiight for park if thats all you gonna ride...you weigh nothing! they'd be easy as shit to throw around. should work out decently
Oct 16 2005 11:00PM
0 0
profile picture
Riley.
Posts: 2214 - Karma: 259
How do the 176 AR5s (last years) compared to the 177 stls?
Oct 16 2005 11:05PM
0 0
profile picture
bdskier
Posts: 932 - Karma: 14
the stl's are super soft, so more length is recomended. I'm 6'2 190 and i used to ski 177 1080's but they were stiff compared to the stl's.
Oct 16 2005 11:09PM
0 0
profile picture
Riley.
Posts: 2214 - Karma: 259
The old 1080s werent stiff at all...they were pretty soft if im not mistaken
Oct 16 2005 11:10PM
0 0
profile picture
jib_freak
Posts: 1078 - Karma: 10
k im the same height as you bro. but like 20 pounds heavier or so. i had the 183's and they were fairly soft...but not as soft as a lot of ppl claim. i was hittin 65 foot tables and landing backseat sometimes and never had a problem with washing out or nothing. if you only weigh 160 or w/e i think 177's should be alright for you. and as for the ar5's...stl's are a fair bit softer
Oct 16 2005 11:15PM
0 0
profile picture
Kev
Posts: 7411 - Karma: 35
yea they work. the 181 ar5 or 183 stl would probably be a better all round ski, if your only gonna be hitting the park it'll be a good jib stick.
Oct 16 2005 11:26PM
0 0
profile picture
bdskier
Posts: 932 - Karma: 14
they are soft, but in comparison to the stls, they're much stiffer.
Oct 17 2005 12:22AM
0 0
profile picture
CapnPlamo
Posts: 132 - Karma: 10
You're 6'2"...ski some longer skis puss-boy.

And get some plamo while you're at it!
Oct 17 2005 12:24AM
0 0
profile picture
AKFREERIDE
Posts: 1718 - Karma: 11
you shut up. anyawy, try some 187 MSP's out.
Oct 17 2005 1:23AM
0 0
profile picture
Riley.
Posts: 2214 - Karma: 259
ARE THEY GONNA BE PRETTY MUCH THE SAME AS THE 178 INVADERS LENGTH AND FLEX WISE?
Oct 17 2005 1:42AM
0 0
profile picture
strode
Posts: 7549 - Karma: 14
^do you really need an answer to that question?

in case you do, here you go: PRETTY MUCH
Oct 17 2005 3:57AM
0 0
profile picture
Anathema
Posts: 21048 - Karma: 5,061
i'm on 169s and i'm 5'10. meh, that's just the way it goes. don't go with what you're 'supposed' to go with, but what feels best. if anyone tries to tell you otherwise.. fuck 'em.
Oct 17 2005 4:31AM
0 0
profile picture
Jib_This
Posts: 8272 - Karma: 9
Completely wrong, but nice try.

The STL is the single lamest excuse for a ski that I've ever seen, twintipped or not.

It's softer than my dick at an old folks home, and cheaply constructed too. I flexed one in a shop and nearly broke it...without putting much weight into it at all. I'd go so far as to call the Invader stiffer than the STL with no qualms. "But what about the "butterzones"", all you dick sucking morons will ask me..to which I'll reply "more or less the same concept as a trouble maker, look at both skis' profiles".

Furthermore, the Invader has a fully centered side cut and binding mounting position, whereas the STL doesn't. This means that the Invader is designed to be ridden at true center. Slapping bindings onto an STL at true center will cause it to turn quicker than it should, and it'll be squirrely at high speeds. The Invader won't suffer from this problem thanks to its adjusted sidecut.

Basically, the STL is WAY over hyped as a ski, and brings absolutely nothing new to the game, other than ridiculous softness in flex. You can, and should, do better when ski shopping.
Oct 17 2005 5:10AM
0 0
profile picture
strode
Posts: 7549 - Karma: 14
^yeah he's probably right.....i tend to just lump all super soft park-specific skis into one big category because i know i'll never own any of them.
Oct 19 2005 4:09AM
0 0
profile picture
Jib_This
Posts: 8272 - Karma: 9
I have to sell them..some of them..Not the STL, thank god.

Buy one? Maybe the THall..if I HAD to. Thankfully, an ARV, Jp/Jl, or ANT will serve me much, much better.
Oct 19 2005 4:15AM
0 0
profile picture
neatnir69
Posts: 329 - Karma: 20
im 6'2" and i have the 183s. there super nice, i like them being a little longer
Oct 19 2005 1:05PM
0 0
profile picture
johanblaze
Posts: 4987 - Karma: 345
thanks for the little life's story there, kid.
Oct 19 2005 1:09PM
0 0
profile picture
whattheshit
Posts: 6562 - Karma: 107
how much do you weigh?
Oct 19 2005 1:12PM
0 0
profile picture
jfuller
Posts: 454 - Karma: 10
For anyone who thinks the STL was too soft, try this year's. They are definitely much stiffer than last year.
Oct 19 2005 1:52PM
0 0
All times are Eastern (-5)