Member of the Month

KilaTsunami
October, 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!

Armada sizing

profile picture
bemmis
Posts: 1602 - Karma: -3
hi. im 5'10" and about 140 pounds. do you guys think i shoud get the 166 or 171 AR6? il be doing 70% park 20% all mountain and 10% other. i want it light enough to whip around for grings and spins, but long enough to last for a few seasons (i'm 14). Any suggestions?
Feb 19 2007 7:57PM
0 0
profile picture
Piste.Off
Posts: 11586 - Karma: 1,860
if youre goona do that much park i say 166s because they shorter and easier to control

but it really wont matter which size
Feb 19 2007 8:00PM
0 0
profile picture
mattster
Posts: 4120 - Karma: 41
get the bigger ones for sure
Feb 19 2007 8:02PM
0 0
profile picture
kenevil
Posts: 1309 - Karma: 31
yeah get the 171's
Feb 19 2007 8:06PM
0 0
profile picture
-CG-
Posts: 59 - Karma: 10
171's
Feb 19 2007 8:07PM
0 0
profile picture
bigwhite.steeze
Posts: 8227 - Karma: 1,030
171, your 3 inches taller then me and my center mount 171 invaders are perfect for me. id never go shorter
Feb 19 2007 8:10PM
0 0
profile picture
kingsskier
Posts: 6212 - Karma: 2,100
you are 14 and you want them to last so that means you will have them for more than one season. You will grow so definately get the 171s
Feb 19 2007 8:18PM
0 0
profile picture
lyndon
Posts: 7266 - Karma: 128
Your about 3 inches taller than me, and I'm on 176 T-halls. So, I guess you could go 171 AR^, but dont go any shorter. If you can get a 176, try....
Feb 19 2007 8:20PM
0 0
profile picture
poofartpee
Posts: 7436 - Karma: 1,538
176 or 181 UR 5'10!!!!!
Feb 19 2007 8:22PM
0 0
profile picture
lyndon
Posts: 7266 - Karma: 128
yeah.....your like 178 cm tall.....geeze....um, go 176 at the shortest....a 181 would be good if you centre mount.
Feb 19 2007 8:25PM
0 0
profile picture
JockinJLoads
Posts: 3480 - Karma: 6
thank you
Feb 19 2007 8:26PM
0 0
profile picture
stylishskier
Posts: 658 - Karma: 11
this kid is 14... go with the 171s, probably not strong enough for 176-181...
Feb 19 2007 8:29PM
0 0
profile picture
lyndon
Posts: 7266 - Karma: 128
age has nothing to do with strenght. The length of ski is primarily based on weight, and height. Im a weak little bastard and I ride 176 t-halls, am 3 inches shorter than him, and can do flatland 3's...270 on..etc.
Feb 19 2007 8:33PM
0 0
profile picture
stylishskier
Posts: 658 - Karma: 11
how old are you? Im just saying thinking of the average 14 year old... I know 16 yr olds that ride 169 PEs and I wouldnt have put them on 174s... I agree if hes mounting cntr or near cntr the ski will ride smaller, but there still is that length and spin weight, and yes, age does have a lot to do with strength and development of bones and ligaments etc, dont want to be tearing your shit up because you got skis that are too long, some kids that age max out at height in another year or so... Im 5-10 and 190 and pretty strong and ride 180s, by your logic I should ride 210s...
Feb 19 2007 8:37PM
0 0
profile picture
bemmis
Posts: 1602 - Karma: -3
yeah, its the spin weight im worried about. ive got tiny, heavy, 152cm atomic metrons (124-76-114) with neox bindings that are really tall and suck at spinning, which includes on and off of rails. they go 90% of the way up my chest. the weight and risen center of gravity (otherwise the boot would touch the ground in a deep carve.) make many tricks much more difficult than if they were done on twin-tips, such as AR6s. I'm just letting everyone know what i have now.

Also, i wont be using these much, if at all this season, which will probably end late march or early april so i might grow maybe an inch or 2 over the summer. the 169 volkl karmas at my local shop go up to my eyes if you guys need a comparison or idea for my size or whatever.

and do you guys have any idea how much stock porterstahoe.com has? im wondering how much time i have to buy them before they run out.

thanks
Feb 19 2007 9:41PM
0 0
profile picture
ds.181.3
Posts: 437 - Karma: 29
171. dont worry.
Feb 19 2007 9:44PM
0 0
profile picture
Skipig25
Posts: 10729 - Karma: 256
176 for sure, no question. and for the record, never ever buy metrons again
Feb 19 2007 9:44PM
0 0
profile picture
49566738265
Posts: 0 - Karma: 7,704
no shorter than 171, your a little tall for 166
Feb 19 2007 9:50PM
0 0
profile picture
*rkp*
Posts: 8198 - Karma: 257
181   center mount them.   don't be a pussy and buy snowlerblades.    
Feb 19 2007 10:01PM
0 0
profile picture
bemmis
Posts: 1602 - Karma: -3
ok, so ive narrowed it down to either the 171 or the 176. the 181 would be taller than me and i just dont see a real advantage with a huge ski. I would need to grow several inches for it to fit me and it would be a lot of ski for me to throw around. what is the advantage of a longer ski anyway? 164 is right at the bottom of my nose.
Feb 19 2007 10:18PM
0 0
profile picture
stylishskier
Posts: 658 - Karma: 11
go with the 171, I dont think you'll be happy with a 176... just my opinion, also make sure you have the shop mount em at atleast core cntr... idk what recommended is on armadas or if they even mark for midsole...
Feb 19 2007 10:32PM
0 0
profile picture
Casey
Posts: 7849 - Karma: 24,323
176, I ride 180 Ar5's and I would be so disappointed if I went any shorter. Personally I wish they were longer. I'm a little bit bigger than you, but they just aren't that much ski to handle. But skiing a ski that is too short is probly the most annoying thing on earth.
Feb 19 2007 10:42PM
0 0
profile picture
skier24
Posts: 1216 - Karma: 11
go with the 176. your only 14 and you are going to grow into them. you wont regret it.
i bought some 1080s 2 years ago when i was like 5'8" in a 161 and then i hit a growth spurt and now im stuck with them. good thing i am getting some 180 somethings next year. i am 15 and am still growing.
Feb 19 2007 10:49PM
0 0
profile picture
mattster
Posts: 4120 - Karma: 41
176 ! hoo ray !
Feb 19 2007 10:52PM
0 0
profile picture
bemmis
Posts: 1602 - Karma: -3
keep in mind that ill be 15 next season, so id look at me as a 15-year-old instead of a 14-year-old.
Feb 19 2007 10:52PM
0 0
profile picture
stylishskier
Posts: 658 - Karma: 11
how aggressive of a skier are you? Are you in shape, strong? Play sports?
Feb 20 2007 12:15AM
0 0
profile picture
stylishskier
Posts: 658 - Karma: 11
ohyea, what do you set your dins at?
Feb 20 2007 12:15AM
0 0
profile picture
JayDope
Posts: 6842 - Karma: 408
im 5'10, and about 150, and i have the 176's and i ski about 99% park, get them mounted 2cm back, and they will rip the park, and all mountain, excellent ski, but def get the 176's
Feb 20 2007 12:24AM
0 0
profile picture
bemmis
Posts: 1602 - Karma: -3
if i got the 171, what would be worse about it than the 176?
Feb 20 2007 8:07AM
0 0
profile picture
bemmis
Posts: 1602 - Karma: -3
wouldn't the 176 slow down my spins? what would be better about it than the 171?
Feb 20 2007 4:18PM
0 0
profile picture
JayDope
Posts: 6842 - Karma: 408
thats what i thought, but last year i had 161's, and was throwing 5's and landed a 7, this year with my 176's, i can do that, and landed a nicer 7, and i can spin onto rails and boxes this year, with the skis i had last year i couldn't, so i do not think the longer skis will slow down ur spin that much.
Feb 20 2007 4:34PM
0 0
profile picture
ijibgoremtn
Posts: 4221 - Karma: 13
yea man 176 plus that size has dank graphics on top of the better length
Feb 20 2007 5:21PM
0 0
profile picture
bemmis
Posts: 1602 - Karma: -3
id rather get a ski that fits me that a ski that doesn't and looks a little better. and you said 161, this is 171. how tall are you? as i sais im 5-10 maqybe 5-11 next season and 145 pounds.
Feb 20 2007 5:29PM
0 0
profile picture
lyndon
Posts: 7266 - Karma: 128
longer=more stable
I could only 3 with my 158 scratches, i can do clean 3's and nice 5's now with my 176's. Longer makes for better flex, looks better, more stable on rails and in the air, and overall more fun.
Feb 20 2007 5:36PM
0 0
profile picture
bemmis
Posts: 1602 - Karma: -3
ok so ive heard 2 things skis should be in between your nose and the top of your forehead (162-171) or 145-150 lbs. should be 170-175. which is right? and would it be better to go for the high end or the the low end?
Feb 20 2007 10:07PM
0 0
profile picture
bemmis
Posts: 1602 - Karma: -3
bu,mp
Feb 20 2007 11:10PM
0 0
profile picture
jca
Posts: 4171 - Karma: 6,311
Dude, get the 181 for sure. If they are center mounted (or near center) you will have absolutly no problems with swing weight at all. And the added lenght will give you more stability for landings. I ride 179 and 176 and im 5'6 I have no problem with 270 on and 3s and 5s off of small bumps. In the long run you will regret having shorter skis.
Feb 20 2007 11:17PM
0 0
profile picture
bemmis
Posts: 1602 - Karma: -3
what is setting "dins"

also do you guys mean more stable mid-air or more stable on landings?

and i wont be doing huge things. im in wisconsin so the runs arent super big.
Feb 24 2007 12:54PM
0 0
profile picture
Firegold
Posts: 249 - Karma: 10
I say go w/ the 176 b/c you weigh 140lb, and ur gonna gain more weight as you get older. Unless everyone in ur family is 6'4" I see the 176 being a good ski for you grow into weight wise.
Feb 24 2007 1:40PM
0 0
profile picture
Silence
Posts: 16030 - Karma: 150
setting DINs is basically the tightness of the bindings.

176's will be more stable on landings than 171's

Get the 176's or 181's not 171s
Feb 24 2007 4:57PM
0 0
profile picture
G.R.E.G.
Posts: 903 - Karma: 65
i think u should get the 176's, u said u want something that u can still throw around and these will be stable also, i got 171 ar5's when i was 14 at about 5'9" and then the next season i get to like 5'11" and thought they were wicked short and got 181 t-halls this year and love them... get the 176
Feb 24 2007 5:07PM
0 0
profile picture
bemmis
Posts: 1602 - Karma: -3
what would be the pros and cons between the 171 and the 176?
Feb 24 2007 6:37PM
0 0
profile picture
lyndon
Posts: 7266 - Karma: 128
I already explained this!

171
-less stable
-less stylish
-less balance on rails
-worse flex(less tip and tail)
-lighter

176
-more stable
-more stylish
-more balance on rails
-better flex
-maybe a tad heavier
-more shock absorbtion on landings




Just get the 176 at least! I am 3 inches shorter than you, and about 15lbs lighter, and i ski 176cm T-halls. If i were you, I would get the 181. Rule of thumb, when in doubt, go longer.
Feb 24 2007 6:46PM
0 0
profile picture
lyndon
Posts: 7266 - Karma: 128
You said you want something long enough to last a few more seasons?? A 171 isnt even long enough now! A 176 is pushing it. A 181 will be good now, and will last you a while, since your only 14, your are still going to grow a bit.

There, END OF THREAD
Feb 24 2007 6:48PM
0 0
profile picture
bemmis
Posts: 1602 - Karma: -3
do you think those ar6 176s with look jibs would be heavier or lighter than the 152 metrons with neox?
Feb 24 2007 7:07PM
0 0
profile picture
lyndon
Posts: 7266 - Karma: 128
look jibs? Are these the P12 Jibs, or Px12 Jibs? Neox bindings are HEAVY! They will probably be a little lighter
Feb 24 2007 8:09PM
0 0
profile picture
bemmis
Posts: 1602 - Karma: -3
theyre the px 12 jibs
Feb 24 2007 8:25PM
0 0
profile picture
lyndon
Posts: 7266 - Karma: 128
They should be a little lighter. As i have said, if you can get some 181, do it. 176 is the absolute shortest you can go.
Feb 24 2007 9:25PM
0 0
profile picture
amo
Posts: 6709 - Karma: 1,248
this thread is almost two years old buddy
Jan 17 2009 2:49PM
0 0
All times are Eastern (-5)