Explosiv VS. B3 VS. K2 Apache Chief

The time is drawing near where I am going to have to make a decision on the fat ski I am going to purchase.

The three skis you see above is what it has come down to. The problem I am having is that I have only skied on two of the three. :o Those two are the B3 and the Apache, which were demo day deals where I skied 4 or 5 runs on each. The Explosiv's were recommended by a from who swears by 'em.

If you were in my situation which of these three would you buy, and why?

Your humble opinion would be greatly appreciated.

Peace

If I were buying new I would go Apache cause it is the fattest in the bunch.

I have been on the 185 B3 and I thought it was ok, but nothing special. The V-ex is a more powerful ski than the 185 B3. The 195 B3 is stiffer so don't know about that. Depends what you are after.

If you want to save cash buy my 190 V-ex for 275:
vex for sale

If I were you I'd buy my B3's from me.

I have a pair of 195 B3's I'm selling. Used less than 10 days, great shape, no damage, only minor scuff marks. Nice ski but I'm going fatter. Willing to deliver. Make an offer.

Oh geez, quit teasing, and buy from your fricking pro-form :D

In which case, Apache Chef.

Besides, I believe Keith will kill you if you ski on anything lesser.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Jumper Bones
Oh geez, quit teasing, and buy from your fricking pro-form :D

In which case, Apache Chef.

Besides, I believe Keith will kill you if you ski on anything lesser.

---

I can get pro-form on all three! I skied the B3 on a 185, and the Chief on a 181... the B3 was a bit softer, but it was better on the groomers. Both busted crud, but I give the edge to the K2's.

I guess it is the Explosiv that is the real mystery. However, on all three I would be skiing on a size closer to the 180 mark.

Bro Models

FKNA!:D

First of all, I agree with CUBUCK on the BroModels. A fun ride!
I've demoed the B3s twice in a 185. However, I found the tip to be a little floppy when going through cut up powder. They have the width. I enjoyed them for doing big turns in wide open bowls. They are a little sluggish on shorter turns. I demoed Dynastar Legend Pros during the same afternoon of a day I tried the B3s and I preferred the LP.
I recently picked up CMH Explosives in a 180 and had a blast skiing them at Mt. Hood. The Explosive is slightly wider under foot than the B3 and much more stable. They held pretty well on the early morning firm and were fantastic at plowing through the afternoon slush without hesitation. A very responsive ski.
I've never been on the K2 Apache, so no idea about them.
BTW - I'm 5'10" and 175#
I would recommend going with Explosives and/or BroModels. Just my opinion.

whatever you do, go long.

So the Bro's were a solid ride in powder?

To hell with it all! I'm just gonna get the Pistols! ;)

WORD!!!!

But don't you touch those 189s. They're mine!!!:p

^^^^^^

Why the big boards? I have seen many people stating they are going to buy bigger than 180. Why is that? I can understand if you are 6'2" and 200 lbs (which I am not), but 128-95-118 seems like a lot of surface area to me... maybe I am missing the boat.

Please advise.

I'd like the 189s, because I'm happy with the way my 179s ride (that's right, I've already skied them, woop woop!), but the 189s are quite a bit thicker in cross-section and are stiffer, a lot of pop and zing to that ski. The shape flexes and carves well, despite its girth, and that girth gives it powder versatility.

in short, I love how mine ride, and I think the 189s would be even more fun for wide-open places like Crystal.

I've got some 185 B3's. They work great, but like big turns, not small ones.

I guess the reason for the concern is the fact that this is pretty much it this year for ski purchases. I also have a pair of Atomic Powder Cruise (190cm) that are pretty decent skis, they are just too much of a one-trick pony... and I only ski them when its really deep. My Other ski is the K2 Axis XP, which is probably the best all around ski I have ever been on... its a 181cm.

My area of foucs is a fat ski that is also versatile (somewhat), which is why I am looking at the three I listed and now the Pistol. I am worried that if I go too long I might lose that versatility.

RTP--The 185 in the b3 is what I skied (demo'd)year, and I liked it... a little soft if I wanted to get picky.

Choices,choices,choices!
The Volkl's are going to be the stiffest & most durable of the bunch.My experience with Rossi over the years is I tend to break them & see a lot of them get broken.I'm a K2 fan,but haven't skied the Apache,sounds sweet though.

That powder cruise is a sweet pow ski,so I'd go for something a little more versatile.

My disco sticks are a 181 Axis XP,I love it for hard pack/variable days,I ski a 190 Powder Ride on most pow days.
I'm 5'9" ,150 & like the bigger ,longer skis for the deep days.

Good Luck!

i feel ya mr. murphy, i'm all strung out on what to ride this year too.

what i can tell you is that i love my 89 03/04 pistols. it was my every day ski last season when i was representin' cali. yeah it's a big ski, but it's pretty easy to manage (though i'm 6'3" and 220 so...:rolleyes:).

the chief looks pretty damn good this year. and then there is talk of the new seth ski commin in december. trying to find out more on that one. anybody got info?

oh yeah jetter, or jumper etc... my pistols were a plus 2 forward mount. none of that crazy plus 5 shit. sounds like you got a pair of 89's and put holes in em already. where did you mount and how do you like em?

I actually got 179s, and mounted neutral. I love 'em, they're stiff enough overall for me so that I don't feel like I'm about to fall on my face, and get plenty of spring out of that stiffer tail.

If I got 189s, I'd probably get a tyrolia binding, which can slide fore and aft like the atomic can (without the atomic's inherent shittiness, although I don't know anything about their NEOX binders). I'd mount at +2 or 3, so that way I could slide the binding around and play with all the different mounting points without being committed to one.

I'm thinking about re-mounting my Kahunas at +3 or so, but I'm not excited about the idea of re-mounting a ski I've skied only 3 times. That ski is way too young to put more holes in it.

From what I've heard, the new Seth will be called the Seth Vicious, will have the overall girth of the Chief but with a twin, and will be released in a couple of months. I spoke to a rep and he wouldn't comment on it at all. We'll see if the Seth boot comes out then too (the old Raichle Flexon)

Quote:

---

Originally posted by BC-FLOW
i feel ya mr. murphy, i'm all strung out on what to ride this year too.

what i can tell you is that i love my 89 03/04 pistols. it was my every day ski last season when i was representin' cali. yeah it's a big ski, but it's pretty easy to manage (though i'm 6'3" and 220 so...:rolleyes:).

---

Yeah, I am leaning more and more to the shorter boards... being that I am a mere 6', 182 lbs. [Arnold Accent] A girly man compared to da BC-Flow! [/Arnold Accent]

BUT, and this is a big but... I am skiing at Crystal this year, which is more wide open than Alpe'... thus the justification to go with a bigger board.

:o

All I know is I saw a lady absolutely killing it on the Chiefs down in SA. First in Lenas then in Bariloche. I can't remember her name, but Gunnar knew her. From what I saw and what he said, she fucking rips and goes big too. When I first saw her at Lenas, she was skiing fast...I mean really fucking faaaaast. I didn't get her opinion on them; but judging from how she was skiing and the fact she was always on them, I'd say they're pretty damn good.

Why hasn't the Atomic Sugar Daddy or the Dynastar Nobis appeared in this conversation? Any chance you can get me on the Pro-form too???? I'm down for picking up the new K2 Chiefs with you or some Volkl Exps. I personally think the B3s are too soft but I weigh 200 lbs. That's my $.02

Quote:

---

[i]I'm thinking about re-mounting my Kahunas at +3 or so, but I'm not excited about the idea of re-mounting a ski I've skied only 3 times. That ski is way too young to put more holes in it. [/B]

---

why the +3 on the Kahunas? I have mine mounted neutral, and they were great pow skis...so just curious.....

For more versatility. I was really disappointed in how they ski on hardpack - it's really hard to maintain an edge, even with brand-new edges. You really have to reef onto the ski to get it to do what you want.

also, I have been told (by K2 people) that that ski was pretty much designed to be forward-mounted. The ski was intended from the start to be the new-schooler graphic and ski it is now; for some reason the mainstream part of K2 got ahold of it and made it into the Kahuna. Not many were produced, and they sure weren't marketed. The majority of their athletes have theirs forward, I think Seth said he's running is like +8 or something like that - the tip is soft enough to accomodate that.

I just wanted more leverage on the tip for hardpack. Forward mount would help, although I was considering Drive+ ramps too (which lift you and cant you forward), since I'm running Sally S914s on it.

I don't like the uneven flex of the Sug's,& I skied the 188 Nobis & it was a U-boat commander for me in the deep,great all mtn ski,but not my choice for pow or big mtn.The Super is another story,but I still like a wider platform under foot.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Jumper Bones
For more versatility. I was really disappointed in how they ski on hardpack - it's really hard to maintain an edge, even with brand-new edges. You really have to reef onto the ski to get it to do what you want.

also, I have been told (by K2 people) that that ski was pretty much designed to be forward-mounted. The ski was intended from the start to be the new-schooler graphic and ski it is now; for some reason the mainstream part of K2 got ahold of it and made it into the Kahuna. Not many were produced, and they sure weren't marketed. The majority of their athletes have theirs forward, I think Seth said he's running is like +8 or something like that - the tip is soft enough to accomodate that.

I just wanted more leverage on the tip for hardpack. Forward mount would help, although I was considering Drive+ ramps too (which lift you and cant you forward), since I'm running Sally S914s on it.

---

well, the kahuna is def. not so hot on the hardpack...but i am ok w/that, b/c it's a quiver ski for me: big deep day ski...yeah, i too am running those sollys and have the lifter plates on them....ok, now you got me all messed up, wondering if i shouldn't have them re-mounted +3 or +4
:confused: