Printable View
I'm having trouble deciding between the 174cm and 181cm Apache Chiefs. I'm 5' 9", 150 lbs former ski racer that spends most of the time in the backcountry, but will be spending a month in La Grave this winter. I prefer tight technical lines but don't mind opening it up once and a while. I'll be mounting them with freerides and be using alpine boots most of the time. Any advice would be appreciated.
Bigger is better.....Always.
I'm about the same size/weight as you. I demoed the AC in 174 and wish I had the 181. The 174 just seems too short.
Tried the 181 just for 1 run on packed powder, seemed pretty nimble in that length, no problem coming around fairly quick on the steeps. 5-11, 155.
It aint even a question. Go 181 they are easier to turn than they look.
me= 6'2 150. bought the 181 and its poifect. I dont think youll have any problems with it.
You = need to eat. I'm 5'10" and 165 and scrawny.Quote:
Originally Posted by Duker
yeah dang duker, eat something mang. Friends don't let friends blow away in a light breeze. :DQuote:
Originally Posted by Duker
Im on a killer diet- Anything I can microwave in the shops break room... mmmm hotpockets.... That on top of a very nasty stomach problem makes me the goofiest lankyiest kid on the planetQuote:
Originally Posted by PrankMonkey
181 all the way. I'm 5'9" 160 and I got the 181 after being on 185 B3s last year. These skis need to be skied longer. Dont let anyone sell on short, especially on this board. Theres no Metal in it so it won't be that bad for quick turns. When I skied it last spring I couldn't believe how easy it ripped quick turns in the trees. Go longer.
Looks like the 181 is the way to go. Thanks for all of the input.
if anybody is interested you can get the chiefs for $329.00 shipped from orderskis.com. All you need to do is call them and tell them you belong to a ski club and they will give the so called VIP pricing. This is not intended as a spam, I'm just trying to inform any maggots out there looking for a pair of a good deal in my opinion.
I'm 6'2" and 185 lbs. I demo'd both lenghts and would opt for the 181cm for sure.
174?? Save yourself some money and buy snowblades...longer is ALWAYS better, longer as in 188.
I ski the 188. It turns like a dream. Im 6'2" 210.
It's my everyday ski too.
I'm a midget at 135 pounds and skied the 174. Perfect for my bantam wieght and could bang out tight turns no problem. Longer for you my friend.
How about for somebody 5'6" ish (weight not to be disclosed!) . . . I have been on 178 Rossi B3s (now the B4) for awhile and possibly looking to change . . . thinking the Apache Chief could be an option.
Kellie,
I have the same B3's and love them. I demoed' the Apache Chief in 174 and didn't like it. it was just too short. I felt like I was on something under 170. The 181 wasn't available and probably would be a better option. BTW I'm 5'10" 155lbs
181s are child's play. fun ski.
Thats the most gay logic in the world and theres way too much of it around here.Quote:
Originally Posted by milkman
I'm 6'1" and 155 and don't need to be a hero skier on 181's, the 174's were the ticket.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kellie
I've seen you ski.
181
They're pretty soft and easy to turn.
This puzzles me. The 174 apache chief has a running length almost equal to a 183 gotama. I know some 183 gotama skiers that absolutely rip and they're bigger than 150 lbs. ...but the 174 apache chief is way too short for someone 150 lbs?
sorry dude but gay = being 6'1" and skiing a 174.Quote:
Originally Posted by 50kLeg
Quote:
Originally Posted by lemon boy
YEAH!!
You're not going to have any fun!!
loser
for reference to all you tall skinny freaks, i'm 5'4" 135 and ski a 173 everyday on the EC.