# Pocket Rocket Skiers...



## Mike Harvey (Oct 10, 2003)

I am looking at the PR's for my backcountry setup this year. Maybe inbounds on days when the snow is good and I am going to tour from the area. I am 6' 170lbs and I am wondering what people think of the 175cm vs. the 185cm. I typically would go longer and may in this case but I am wondering if I could get away with the 175's for the typical Colorado backcountry, below treeline, short pitches. I know they are soft but I am ok with that because I am psyched for some light boards. I will mount them with Freerides. Any thoughts?


----------



## 22West (Jun 1, 2004)

Go with the 185's...With your weight and height, the 175's will dive and will be slow. I know a few people that have a PR/rando setup, and they all seem to like it. You already know the PR's get a little noodley, but other that that they're a great ski. I think you might have to get a bit creative with your skin setup, being a twin tip w/o a notch in the tail. ClipFix skins might work well...Thoughts from anyone else??


----------



## Mike Harvey (Oct 10, 2003)

cool thanks for the beta. I was kind of leaning that way already. I ran the G3 skins last year on a pair of Seth Pistols and they worked pretty well with the twin although those studs on the tips and tails make anything a pain in the ass.


----------



## Don (Oct 16, 2003)

*Skins*

G3 makes an XXL size tip attachment just for large skiis like the PR.


----------



## Kay (Oct 14, 2004)

I recommend you go with the 175. I am 5'7" and ski the 165s. My husband is 6' and about 165-170. He skis the 175s. What I would also suggest though is that you have them mounted more like an alpine ski - further forward. We both have Backcountry Access skins which you can buy with a special pocket rocket tip. With a ski that wide, the skins stay on.... No problem.

I suggest the different placement for the bindings because in super deep snow, I did find myself in the backseat a little more than I would like. If you're set up is a bit forward, you won't have that problem. Hopefully this makes sense - basically you want to be over the ski more and so you want your bindings more forward.

This ski is not slow, by the way, and I don't find it all that noodley. It powers through about anything. It is excellent in crud. I call it a hero ski and would prefer that you not tell anyone how much it will improve their skiing. We don't need everyone out their looking good.


----------



## Kay (Oct 14, 2004)

PS These skis also do not nose dive....I posted a photo in the gallery section...

Check it out!!!!


----------



## twitch (Oct 16, 2003)

It's a tough call on the ski length. I'm 5'9" and use the 185's with the Naxo '01 AT binding on them, but again that's an alpine setup of course and you're thinking tele. Really think about your skiing style when making the decision. If it's speed & big turns you're into then the 185's are going to make you happy. If you're a little slower and looking for more control the 175's are great. 

As for skins, like Kay said, the BCA pocket rocket tip is the way to go. You'll have no issues getting them to work with any skin you choose. BCA also has great skins in the Lowfat series which you can get to fit just about any ski on the market barring something that's wider than 120mm.

Kay - your big ass hubbie should be on 185's!!! Handyman & I are going up to Berthoud Pass Saturday morning with Tiffany & I think Eric. Grab Deano & the dog and come play with us. - Mark...P.S. what studio did you get that photo taken in? The backdrop looked great!! :roll:


----------



## Kay (Oct 14, 2004)

My husband needs the shorter skis to help out with his low center of gravity due to his big ass. Couldn't you tell that photo was taken in our garage?

Sat Berthoud sounds fun but I have to go watch my daughter play soccer and then finish working on my cross bike...Another time though for sure.

-Kay


----------



## Mike Harvey (Oct 10, 2003)

went with the 185's, thanks for the advice...


----------

