EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › Ski Gear Discussion › 172 or 178 Contact 4x4?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

172 or 178 Contact 4x4?

post #1 of 17
Thread Starter 
I am a level 8+ skiier, 6' 185 lbs, mid 40's and ski in the NE (Western PA) so hardpack is a given.   I am currently skiing on 162 Atomic B5's and prefer carving to the bumps.   I am comfortable in all conditions on the B5 but it is time to move on.  I have decided on the Contact 4x4 and am leaning towards the 172 but keep thinking about going up to the 178.   Should I go with the 172 or 178?  Any recommendations are appreciated.   Thanks in advance!
post #2 of 17
I would vote 178, giving you a 16-m radius, unless all the hills in Western PA are very small.
post #3 of 17
I am 5'10" and 165-ish pounds.  I am a Level 7/8 and also ski the Northeast (VT primarily).  I corresponded last year with the Dynastar rep for our region about the Contact 4x4.  He recommended the 165cm length for me instead of the 172cm length.  He went the other direction (172) on the Legend 8000, so it was clear he felt the 4x4's should be skied shorter and have great stability.  Following that logic, the 172cm might make sense.  Just my $.02 ...
post #4 of 17
Thread Starter 
I primarily ski at 7 Springs which maxes out at 750' vertical; definitely on the small side.
post #5 of 17
I'm a bigger guy at 200 lbs currently. I own a 172cm 4X4. It's great, very stable yet quick. It's a beefy ski with tons of edgegrip. Get the 172cm, don't even think about the 178cm. I've demoed the 178cm, it needs higher speed and a bigger hill.

Michael
post #6 of 17
Sun, the trails at springs are all like 100m wide. I doubt t a 178 would be too long for the hill.
post #7 of 17
I'm 178 lbs, 5' 11", 7/8 level and the 172 is plenty of ski for me.  Highly recommend the 172 cm 4x4...
post #8 of 17
Considering your size and where you ski, I would lean towards the 172. No advantage to going any longer than you need to, especially here in the East.
post #9 of 17
I'm 220 lbs and currently skiing the 4x4 in 172cm. Originally I purchased the 178cm but sold them in favor of the 172's, this is plenty of ski for you!
post #10 of 17
Thread Starter 
Thanks for all the responses.   I ended up ordering the 172's.
Thanks again!
post #11 of 17
Your going to love that ski! So much fun to carve on
post #12 of 17
172cm 4x4 here too. Fantastic ski. Also got the legend pro rider in 176cm at the end of last season but only 2 days on that.
post #13 of 17
I'm 6 foot 200lbs and I am loving the 178. Glad I went with the longer length.
post #14 of 17
Yep...gotta agree. I'm around 190# and I'm using the 178's as well.
post #15 of 17
I'm going to say something completely heretical: 6 cm is less than 2 1/2 inches., Unless you're the princess who can feel a pea in her bed through 20 matresses and 20 featherbeds, you aren't really going to notice the difference either way.

That being said, I'm lighter and older and about the same level skiier in Midwest conditions conditions comparable to what you see, and after demoing both the 172 and 178 in the Contact Ltd,  I went with the 178.  I thought that the 178 was a little more stable at speed and the 172 was a little more nimble, but I'm more than half convinced that I was deluding  myself based on expectations, and that if I tested them blind, I would have been completely unable to distinguish one from the other.

Could have gone with either length with no regrets.
post #16 of 17
Quote:
Originally Posted by goblue View Post

I'm going to say something completely heretical: 6 cm is less than 2 1/2 inches., Unless you're the princess who can feel a pea in her bed through 20 matresses and 20 featherbeds, you aren't really going to notice the difference either way.

 

Are you freakin' crazy??!!  What is this forum about if not for a bunch of princesses?

I guarantee I'll notice the difference.  6' 180 lbs, went with the 178 because it fit the slot in my quiver better. 

Prince newf
post #17 of 17
I've owned both the 172cm and the 178cm in the Contact 4X4. I personally found the 172 to be much lighter and quicker feeling while remaining similarly stable to the 178. The 178 to me felt too big, heavy, damp and just lacked the "WOW" factor that the 172 provides.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Ski Gear Discussion
EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › Ski Gear Discussion › 172 or 178 Contact 4x4?