Thanks! Hard to beat a good day in the powder.

I was surprised as well. The snow underneath the 6 inches of fresh powder was a bit set up and supportive but considering I'm 240 lbs on the 172 cm length I'd say the Rustler 9 float is pretty decent.

I'm 5'10", 240lbs and I prefer 170 cm for manuverability and 180cm for stability. These turn pretty easy so if your using them in mostly open terrain and like to charge hard I'd go longer. If you like to ski tight technical terrain I'd go shorter. At my weight the 170 cm only floats well up to about 6 inches of fresh. Great all around ski. Nice for carving groomers, floats well for its size, manuverable in the trees, and the metal is nice for Dampening vibrations on icy and chopped up snow.

@@hayhead92 I am 5-10 220 pounds. I ordered the 172 cm version. I came from b2 bandits 66. I keep hearing people my size going with the 180cm. Based on the manufacture sizing chart it says for expert my height go with the 172. So with that said you are close to my height and weight so you think I made the right choice with the 172cm? Great Video.

@@MR.TOYBOX Thanks! You'll be fine with the 172 cm. At our height and weight it can be tricky to size skis. Based on our height the 172 should work but based on the heavier weight most people will recommend the 180. I own several pairs of skis both in 170 and 180 lengths. I prefer 170 for directional skis that I plan on mostly riding groomers or tight technical terrain. I prefer 180 for twin tip center mounted skis and for skis that I plan on using in deeper powder conditions. The Rustler 9 won"t be a powder destroyer for you but it should handle up to 8 inches of fresh. The Rustler 10 or 11 would be better for deeper conditions obviously but the 9 feels much better to me on groomers. Either length of the Rustler 9 will work for you. A small gain in stability and float with the longer length and a small gain in maneuverability with the shorter length. Great ski, highly recommendable, can handle a bit of every thing. Not necessarily the best at any one aspect of skiing but very well rounded and would be one of my top contenders for a one ski quiver.

30 cm might be a bit much for the Rustler 9 unless your a light weight. I'm around 240 lbs and the 170 cm length works pretty good up to 8 inches of fresh snow. For me I would want Rustler 10 in the 180cm for 30 cm deep snow.

@@hayhead92 thanks for taking the time to answer me :) . I weigh 169 pounds. Last year I rented rustler 10s at Revelstoke , skied in the trees and off piste and they were great. I own a pair of rustler 9 ( 170 cm, I’m only 5’6”) and was wondering if I should bother bringing the rustler 9 to Fernie or just rent a pair of 100mm there ? PS I ski in Tremblant our “snow” conditions, most of the time , range from hardback to FIS grade like ice rink :)

@@pierre8685 At your weight the Rustler 9 should be doable, of course the Rustler 10 would be even nicer. A little more width and the softer tip and tail on the 10 give it a more playful feel but the 9 is still really good in soft snow for its width.

@@hayhead92 thank you man ! I’ll bring the rustler 9 and if there’s a real dump I’ll rent pow skis. Have a great season and thanks again for replying. Keep up the skiing videos from out west….:0

@@pierre8685 No problem. Hopefully when you come out you get a good dump of snow. I was going to say if you get a a bottomless day it would be worth it to rent some fat powder skis.

The skis are 170 cm, I'm 5' 10". Rustler 9 skis are definately a great all mountain ski.

I have the 172 cm , I’m 5’6”at 169 lbs I skied the rustler 10 out west also at 172 cm and they were perfect tree skiing bumps and serious powder

I am 5’5” 145 lbs and ski the 172 cm Rustler 9 as my everyday driver at my home mountain Alta, UT. The 172 cm is 92mm underfoot. The longer lengths are 94mm underfoot. The rocker profile, taper angle and single titinal laminate that doesn’t extend into tip / tail allows the ski to go with the flow in the snow. They are great in powder, bumps and trees. They hold a reasonable edge underfoot on hard pack. Be aware that because of the single Titanal laminate they are a moderate flex. Consider your weight and aggressiveness when selecting length. Don’t be afraid to size up they feel short with the rocker in tip and tail.

Wouldn't be my first choice for butters but it's doable if you have good technique.

These skis are 172 cm.

@@hayhead92 I’m 5’10 and 165 lbs would you recommend the 172?

@@whoisthe1412 Yes. I'm 5' 10" and 240lbs and the 172 work for me.

@@hayhead92 thank you so much

@@whoisthe1412 No problem. At our height both 170cm and 180cm lengths work. I ski both sizes depending on the style of ski, it's intended use, and the terrain. The 170 length will be more playful and easier to drive, the 180 would offer more float and high speed stability.