Salomon nfx vs line chronic

aetain

New member
Im 5'6", 120 lbs and still growing. Ive narrowed my decision down to these 2 skis. I will be doibg 50 park and 50 all mountain. Which of these skis are better and what size should I get?

Thanks
 
After doing a little more research, im leaning more towards the nfx. Please though, still vote on the polls. If I get the nfx, where should I mount them?

Thanks
 
Well it depends how you ride. The chronics will have a softer flex and will be generally more playful for park. If you do get the nfx and you don't want a true center mount I wouldn't go too far back from it, maybe a few centimeters.
 
I should be getting on some NFx for a full test next week so if you can wait a week or so that may help your decision. I'll try to see if I can find some chronics too and give you some side by side feedback if you want.
 
Im getting either one tomorrow. Have you tried either of them tom? If so, please post your opinion below
 
No I'm afraid not. Well I skied a chronic years ago but it's changed a bit I think.

What type of terrain will you normally be skiing? Is it fairly flat and groomed or will it be mainly rough changing terrain? If it's flatter groomed all mnt stuff I would go NFx. It's a park ski throug and through so will rip the groomed stuff. It's not too stiff though I think the tail is softer then a suspect and it seem overall a bit more playfull then a suspect but it will still rip
 
I was making this same decision the other day about what skis to buy. choosing between 176 salmons and 178 chronics. chose salomon, but something messed up and they called and told me no stock left so i ended up getting the chronic. seemed really nice at the shop. will post a review when it gets here
 
Should I get the 160 salomons or 170? Same with chronics, 164 or 171? I believe ive posted my height/weight above
 
The Chronic will be better all-mountain, wider waist, rocker.

In the Park, the NFX will be stiffer, more responsive, stable on jumps. The Chronic will be playful, buttery, and give you a wider ski for rails.

As far as durability, the Chronics might be better. Not sure how the NFX hold up though, Salomon has had delam problems in the past with the Suspect.

I would mount the NFX center 100%. Personally I would center mount the Chronic as well, but if you feel you will be doing more all-mountain than park, you might consider the recommended mount
 
13272204:aetain said:
What is your reasoning for 170 rather than 160 something?

160 is tiny and youll want bigger ones in a couple weeks. Bigger = more stable, and youre still growing. Hell If youre still growing youll probably even outgrow 170s next year
 
13272216:aetain said:
I was told by a salesman that 164 would last me years. How accurate is that?

Wow, skis have got a fair bit shorter these days, when I was 11 I had 175's. Mind you when I was 11 the Berlin wall had only just fallen.
 
13272216:aetain said:
I was told by a salesman that 164 would last me years. How accurate is that?

If you are mounting -6cms from center, if you are mounting them dead center 170s are perfect.
 
13273327:aetain said:
How long would 170s center mounted last me? How about 164 -2?

all depends on how tall you get man. at 5'8 - 5'9 id say 170 s too short... but its also a lot about personal preference. some people like longer skis, some like shorter ones
 
13273331:aetain said:
5'10" or 5'11". When would you say the maximum height is for 164? 170?

Like i said its all personal preference. But im 5'10ish and i ski 178-181in the park, and longer outside the park. Thats the same for a lot of people
 
Could getting 170s put me in potential danger due to lack of control? What are the risks of going 4 inches bigger? I can easily control 160s
 
13273372:aetain said:
Could getting 170s put me in potential danger due to lack of control? What are the risks of going 4 inches bigger? I can easily control 160s

Get the 170. You'll grow a bit and they'll be perfect. Slightly long is much better than too short.
 
Back
Top