Line SFB in 173 or 178

A

ammonation

Member
Picking up a pair of SFB this year.

5"9, 200lb, aggressive, will skis a lot in tight new england trees.

Prefer a 173 regularly camber ski.

Big question is how short does the SFB ski, would it be better to go up to the 178? Also read the tip-to-tail measurements on the SFB are short as well.
 
I would go bigger than 178 if I was you. That is not a ton of ski for someone who weighs 200 pounds and line's measurements seem to be shorter than most other companies.
 
I'm 5,6 120# and I ski a 178 and really didn't have a problem with the 184 in eastern trees. This isn't a stiff groomer zoomer. sack up
 
I'm about the same size as you and have the 178, they are too small. Go 184 for sure, but the 178 can work, I skied 60 days on them but would definitely prefer more ski under me. Just for reference SFB's come several cm's shorter than advertised plus rocker on both ends as compared to a simply cambered ski.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top