Bigger Bro Model

At the moment this is just theoretical. But there is a good chance of a prototype being made in early fall and if there is interest the powers at be may even make a few. More than one person has asked for a Bigger Bro. Longer? Wider? Stiffer? Well what would you like to see?. Here is my first sketch. I am thinking not too wide as this is a Monster Mountain charger not a floaty powder board. Stiffness wise I'd say 10-20% more than a squad - A realy balls to the wall only ski! Tell me what you would like to see different.

http://www.tetongravity.com/usergall...79/Bigbro1.jpg

a little less sidecut, and a version that isn't stiffer than iron for sub 150lb skiers
Better yet, add 2 mm to the old nordica w105 and make it 200cm long and a bit stiffer, i would buy that!
Oh, and can we roll with the flat squared off tail this time, on a ski like this there is no need for a twin tip, AT ALL!
And please make it at least 195, in a perfect world 196-199 cm long.
Or better yet, 197 cm long, flat squared tail, 130-108-119.

Thats super sick. i love the idea and id definetly get myself a pair!
:yourock: :yourock:

too much sidecut IMVHO

edit- "way too much" is too strong a phrase in a 205.

same tip/tail but with a 110mm+ waist

I'm bored so I will comment. What you are proposing I do not see (For me)

I have been sking on 194 LP's That size ski is Big burly but managable.
I think this is all the ski I will need and do not see myself going bigger.

I think I might like a Bigger BRO. at 5,10 and 190lbs I would like to see somthing between 195 and 200 in length, same under foot same tail as the 188 Bro but I would like to see a slightly wider Tip and a tip that is turned up more.

I see myself maching the steeps on that ski! But still able to play on the rest of the mountain.

140-115-132 is the shape I want.

Medium-stiff progressive flex (starts easy but ramps up fast). Semi-twinned. Wood core. 187 length.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Idris

I am thinking not too wide as this is a Monster Mountain charger not a floaty powder board. Stiffness wise I'd say 10-20% more than a squad - A realy balls to the wall only ski!

---

that design is a truely sack up ski. jebus, 205 and 10-20% MORE then a Squad. I probably would still get one, but would absofuckingloutly love to see a pure wide poweder ski. Like the same stiffness as the regular bro stiff and 195cm total and 115+ at the waist, with little sidecut.

IMO, 205 is way long. If you have to have a monster, how about two sizes? 185/195? And how about you have two flexes? Medium/Stiff? Also, widen up the waist an extra 5 mm. That is alot of sidecut. I would love for you guys to make this ski, and if it is short enough (185-190), semi twinned, atleast 110 waist, and a medium flex available, you WILL have my bussines. I'm already have my everyday ski figured out, but for my charging/pow board is still up in the air. I would love to rock some bros.

Waist to 115
Length should be about 193 and probably a 187 or so as well

shut up you short ski pussies.

I would have to say go with the 110-15 waist, or if you stay with the 105 have a 130 tip and 120 tail. I think you should do 110 or more since that the current bro has a 99 mm waist so that would not be much of an increase. Definitly I'm down just a slight sidecut.

I think adam has it right.
Offer 185 / 195.
Medium Sploder stiffness
Stiff Squad +10% stiffness
115mm wait and give it a Pow+ sidecut with Bro Construction = SEX
oh yea, maybe a longer shovel, slightly longer tail, and 0 camber

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CUBUCK

Waist to 115
Length should be about 193 and probably a 187 or so as well

---

AGREED.


123455

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pechelman

I think adam has it right.
Offer 185 / 195.
Medium Sploder stiffness
Stiff Squad +10% stiffness
115mm wait and give it a Pow+ sidecut with Bro Construction = SEX
oh yea, maybe a longer shovel, slightly longer tail, and 0 camber

---

I can't disagree with the above, but then again, I'm a short ski pussy

it makes baby jesus cry that some people think a:

Quote:

---

Monster Mountain charger not a floaty powder board...A realy balls to the wall only ski!

---

should come in a 185/195 :confused:

Who doesn’t want to ski a double-wide Super-G board in challenging terrain. Its summer, so its time to dream (and wildly exaggerate one’s abilities).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Greydon Clark

Who doesn’t want to ski a double-wide Super-G board in challenging terrain. Its summer, so its time to dream.

---

short ski pussies that's who.

I love the 205!
I would also like less side cut, 110 - 115 waist, same tip, maybe 5mm wider in the tail.

when i first saw this thread i thought 'sounds great, but how does it fit with the current quiver of 193 m103s, big daddies, and old 198 G-41s?'

but screw it, put me down for a pair!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Greydon Clark

Who doesn’t want to ski a double-wide Super-G board in challenging terrain. Its summer, so its time to dream (and wildly exaggerate one’s abilities).

---

hey come on, lets show the strong/tall/fat boys a little love, huh?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CUBUCK

Waist to 115
Length should be about 193 and probably a 187 or so as well

---

3rded

123

its sad that nobody has the sack to ski square and flat tails these days either. make that fucking thing a true 205.

yeah, in a ski like this you aren't gonna be going backwards anywhere.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lemon boy

short ski pussies that's who.

---

When was the last time you were out on 210s???

185 or 187 please. You he-men can have youselves a 197 if you want.

Oh hell yeah sendin my deposit in now.
It maybe hard to find a press capable of a plus 190cm ski
Please keep the airplanes on the tips.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by marshalolson

make that fucking thing a true 205.

---

agreed.

and, frankly, with the bro weights, skiing a big ski shouldn't really be that hard. a 205 bro probably wouldn't be harder to muscle around that 194 LP*


*disclaimer: i've skied on neither

191-193 would be perfect.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by skifishbum

Oh hell yeah sendin my deposit in now.
It maybe hard to find a press capable of a plus 190cm ski
Please keep the airplanes on the tips.

---

Forget the airplane, lets have tyrone huckin' hospital! ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Greydon Clark

When was the last time you were out on 210s???

---

when was the last time anyone made them?
1993 or 1994 probably for me, dynastar coupe de monde 210 gs with voile 3 pin and cable bindings.

Theres a reason 200+ skis got dropped, and its not because people are to much of pussies to ski them. Its because there no fun to ski. Seriously, make a 185-188, and then a 195-198.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by adam

Theres a reason 200+ skis got dropped, and its not because people are to much of pussies to ski them. Its because there no fun to ski. .

---

no fun to ski? What are you a midget? 215's baby ;)

http://www.royalambassadorapts.com/s...6/Long_019.JPG

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by fez

when was the last time anyone made them?
1993 or 1994 probably for me, dynastar coupe de monde 210 gs with voile 3 pin and cable bindings.

---

1994 Kästle 5.0's and 1991 Elan Comprex X's for me.

Make a Non-twin 200-205ish ski and I'll buy - again.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by adam

Theres a reason 200+ skis got dropped, and its not because people are to much of pussies to ski them. Its because there no fun to ski. Seriously, make a 185-188, and then a 195-198.

---

i dont agree with that at all.
personally i think the whole 'no need for skis that big' movement came from the ski manufacturers and shop owners and was primarily motivated by business decisions, not what was best for skiers.

back in the day you could find a ski every 5cm from 160 or 170 to 205 or 210. in the extreme, this would mean a ski manufacturer or ski shop had to make or buy as many as 10 versions of the same ski to cover all the sizes.

once they got everyone on shaped skis that were fatter, and convinced most skiers that they did not need 210s anymore they were able to drop most of those length versions. could simplify it to 4 sizes with a 168, 178, 188, 198. and now that 198s are pretty much gone, 170, 180, 190. you don't have to be a manufacturing expert to recognize the savings in manufaturing and distribution by elminating 60% of your different models.

so give me some goddamn 205s alright?
and i promise i wont call you a pussy if you dont want to ski them.
unless you are 6'2 250# with thighs the size of tree trunks.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by fez

i dont agree with that at all.
personally i think the whole 'no need for skis that big' movement came from the ski manufacturers and shop owners and was primarily motivated by business decisions, not what was best for skiers.

back in the day you could find a ski every 5cm from 160 or 170 to 205 or 210. in the extreme, this would mean a ski manufacturer or ski shop had to make or buy as many as 10 versions of the same ski to cover all the sizes.

once they got everyone on shaped skis that were fatter, and convinced most skiers that they did not need 210s anymore they were able to drop most of those length versions. could simplify it to 4 sizes with a 168, 178, 188, 198. and now that 198s are pretty much gone, 170, 180, 190. you don't have to be a manufacturing expert to recognize the savings in manufaturing and distribution by elminating 60% of your different models.

so give me some goddamn 205s alright?
and i promise i wont call you a pussy if you dont want to ski them.
unless you are 6'2 250# with thighs the size of tree trunks.

---

Very good point Fez, I agree as to how we lost allot of the ski lengths. But for me, with 100 under foot I just don't need or want anything bigger than the high 190's.

I can see where a bigger guy would want and probably need something longer.

110-115 waist to decrease the sidecut, 195 length would be money. Square backs for sure.

I want a pair.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MTT

Very good point Fez, I agree as to how we lost allot of the ski lengths. But for me, with 100 under foot I just don't need or want anything bigger than the high 190's.

I can see where a bigger guy would want and probably need something longer.

---

to be honest, i would most likely consider buying anything longer than a 193. but of course the closer this ski is to that size, the closer it is to my m103s and my big daddies. that does make it less likely i would buy a pair of Big Bros but might get a pair of 188 stiffs. i was thinking last year that a short ski might be nice sometimes.

because of my torn acl i never got a chance to even ski the big daddies but got quite a few days on the m103s. i only got to open up the m103s a couple times. I never got the feeling they were too short or that i found the top end. but i also never found them difficult to turn, even in tighter steeps like the headwaters chutes at moonlight and some of the gladed skiing they have there. bumps are a bitch though.

yes, i am big. and way out of shape. tearing my acl was an eye opener for me, cant keep skiing with an all power style once you don't have enough power anymore. with my knee rehab i will be going into next season stronger and fitter than i have in the last 10 years. but even if i do hit all my fitness goals i will be going into next season in the 220 - 230 range. and if i keep lifting with my office mate (former msu football defensive lineman and strength coach) it will probably be at the upper end of that.

do i need a 205? of course not. do i want one? FKNA

I think that making it in at least a 202 cm might give you some free publicity as it would be longer than any other non-team ski out there (Zag Gold and Stormrider DP are the longest at 201 cm, right?). A 205 cm would be very cool. :) Just give it plenty of tip and a little rocker in both ends and it won't be all that demanding.

130-105-120 is nice shape IMHO, but I wouldn't mind an extra 5-10mm all over.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lok

I think that making it in at least a 202 cm might give you some free publicity as it would be longer than any other non-team ski out there (Zag Gold and Stormrider DP are the longest at 201 cm, right?).

---

I think DP will have 205 Wailer next season...105 waist.

* I think *

Ladies demand more girth!
But also admit that 205 is too long, might rearrange some intestines.

205 will not appeal to the masses, so you're really looking at an even smaller subset of the boutique market that you are selling to.

The 179 specs are a money maker ski for PMGear:
unisex appeal
multidisciplinary appeal (alpine, tele, AT)
and the most approachable (to the discerning consumer) ski you currently sell

The 188 specs include the multidisciplinary appeal but score slightly lower on approachability and very low on unisex. (Any women at all on the 188?) OTOH I think they score higher for freeride/big mountain use.

In making the Big Bro, are you going for an evolution of the 188? Otherwise, is it a de facto 188 killer, pulling away from your audience for that ski? Will it be seen as an alpine only setup, or will people want to tele and AT on those monsters? Or does the 205 increase the "core" factor of the entire brand? Is it on the bleeding edge of a trend over the past few seasons of longer and straighter skis? Creating a whole new category? (in which case I'd say fatter in the waist and less sidecut, because having that much underfoot swing around of it's own accord might be a nightmare)

Just curious. Personally, I'd go even fatter than my 179's since they are definitely not a powder only ski, but perform well on hardpack.