Search results

the questions you are asking are so conditional on your head shape, maybe thats why your not getting the responses. however i have a medium holt, and i used to wear a L giro nine.9. the holt fits my head better(a little more secure).

bump..

184 punx if you want a more all mountain performance, 184 urban punx if you ski lots of park, slide rails, jib, butter, etc. I rode urban triplets all mountain last year, even in 2ft dumps and thought that they did exceptionally well.

ever heard of theline elizabeth? 95 underfoot is not to wide for park, infact I think its perfect, big enough to hit some bc booters jib around, and still easily manageable on groomers. Hell I'm on the EC and my everyday skis are 93 underfoot and 99.

up..

rock a bandana under your helmet.

i found the same, it is not very wide until around your metheads, or just before. I found the toe box on the SPK huge, the tried on supercharger, which wasn't as wide in the toe box, but it was consistently wide through the boot.

bump..

either binding is a great piece of equipment, I would get whatever is cheaper or looks better. the z10 must be heavier then 1 lb though.

06/07 Urban Triplets 175, with Atomic FFG12 binding (salomon re badge) used one season, in good condition, no core shots, or cracked edges. $275+shipping.

bump.

those poles are sick.

agreed, 85-95 underfoot is perfect, some might stretch up close to 100.

to the top, willing to separate skis from bindings.

arsty - the grouch/living legends.

me either, at this point i may just keep them...

to the top.

315mm (27.5) right now they are adjusted to a 305mm sole(26.5)

to the top.

I just switched from a giro nine.9 to a smith holt, the holt fits great, as did my giro, so no difference in that department. I haven't worn my holt skiing yet, but the quality on it looks great, no worse then Giro's. The extra cost in the giro's is in manufacturing costs because the mold is...