or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Izor 9:7 length for me

post #1 of 8
Thread Starter 

I was out looking at Atomic Izor 9:7 skis this weekend at two local shops. I got two different size recommendations, 168 & 177.

I am 38, 6-1, 180 pounds, like to ski groomed expert trails in the east.

168 comes up to just under my eyes while the 177 is in the middle of my forehead.

What do members believe is the better recommendation?

Thanks, Paul
post #2 of 8
If you want a small hill short turner get the 168. If you like to make medium to long turns, ski fast and aggressive get the 177.
post #3 of 8
I'm 5-10, 165lbs and ski similar terrain, also occasionally offpiste and bumps. I demo'd that ski for a couple hours this Jan in 158cm. That length was too short for my tastes, but ski seemed to edge beautifully on hardpack surfaces. I think 168cm for you would be good, and maybe a little more versatile in tight or bump situations than 177. 177cm is really long these days, but if you like real fast carving exclusively then like Atown said maybe go with it?
post #4 of 8
I'm 6 feet and 165 pounds and was on the 168 cm Izor 9:7. It seemed like plenty of ski for me. Quick to turn and stable at speed.
post #5 of 8
5'11", 220. I ski in the east. 168.
post #6 of 8
I would recommend a 168. I have a friend instructor who skis these and he's 225lbs and 6'2. He loves them just like that....
post #7 of 8

How about for the someone a bit shorter?

To continue this thread, any thoughts on 159 vs. 168 for someone 5'9" 170lbs sking in the east?
post #8 of 8

Izor 9.7/159

RSaw, i'm 5'7", 165#, L7, last ski volkl v3/170. I'm skiing the 159, just a little bit heavier than v3, i'd assume 168 heavier than 159. These things eat cut up snow, ice, had them in knee deep pow in utah, thin cover in WV. Great at short turns, faster than my old carvers, good enough for a week out west, on sale now hope you bought them already.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Member Gear Reviews