Recommended Skis & Bindings List

190 Sumos don't deserve to be tagged as "soft" anymore. They're not as stiff as original BDs but they're not K2 soft either. Maybe the prof'll chime in but I'd say a 5 or 6

right on... i was basing that on the 175's.

I know, the constant work of editing continues apace. ;)

dude, you don't even know... the # of charecters has been @ max for months. every change requires a bit of shuffling and rewording elsewhere too.

See if frozen can work some editiing magic so you have two consecutive posts ;)

that would be like quitting. weak.

Maybe the Volkl Aura should make the list. Mrs StormDay sold her Phat Luv after skiing the Aura for 2 days.

^isn't the Aura just the girlie version of the Mantra?

yes it is.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by marshalolson

right on... i was basing that on the 175's.

---

Yeah, on Sumos the 190s are way stiffer under foot than the 175s seemed to be. But both of them seem downright floppy if you flex the twin part of the tail. I dont know why all ski companies make that bend for a twin so damn soft :confused:

But then again, I dont get the "twin thing" in general...... except nekkid twin hotties...... kissing :biggrin:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lemon boy

FWIW -
190 wizards that I skied (and absolutely fucking hated) seemed quite a bit stiffer than 201 roids although it's entirely possible the EXs were a bum pair. The prof had much more time on both though and would be able to give a definite answer.

---

I am really bored, so here is some more info... The 190 Wizards I had were almost Squad 194 stiff. They are also EXTREMELY torsionally stiff which is why they skied a little "hooky". But I think some of it was that pair. All the others I have seen were very similiar to Asteroid stiff. And FWIW, I think the flex of the Asteroid was the ultimate flex for a really big ski. Those and the W105s were very close to the same flex. They were manageable, but never "too" soft, no matter what the speed. I really miss my Asteroids and my 105s :(

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Professor

I dont know why all ski companies make that bend for a twin so damn soft :confused:

---

becasue the twin (like the shovel) is a plastic insert, not core material. twin tips suck balls.

really?

I guess this is what I had in mind for both:
http://www.skibuilders.com/howto/ski...tipspacers.jpg

its alot harder to press the shovels (and tails) into matching/uniform shape with a wood core. almost all skis use a plastic insert so everything comes out crickets.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by marshalolson

becasue the twin (like the shovel) is a plastic insert, not core material. twin tips suck balls.

---

I hadnt thought of there being no core in there. But now that I think about it, it was pretty obvious when I was gluing the Explosivs back together :frown: As least I did know that "twin tips suck balls". Now if ski manufacturers would just learn that :cussing:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by marshalolson

its alot harder to press the shovels (and tails) into matching/uniform shape with a wood core. almost all skis use a plastic insert so everything comes out crickets.

---

Including lotuses? The tail rises a lot on those things, but I never heard any mention of a plastic insert. Just curious... Or is "rise" in the tail different from a twin tip in terms of construction?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by shirk

But the Exploder and iM103's in the same flex group?

---

I've got 190 CMH Explosivs and 193 m103's, both broken in plenty. The m103's are stiffer than the Explosivs.

some love for moment and praxis?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Deep Days

Including lotuses? The tail rises a lot on those things, but I never heard any mention of a plastic insert. Just curious... Or is "rise" in the tail different from a twin tip in terms of construction?

---

all skis have some sort of tipspacer. Either ABS or UHMW (p-tex). I am actually pretty sure the only skis I've seen without a plastic tipspacer are my iggy FFFs which seem to have a wood tipspacer. anyway, tipspacers just protect the core from water/impact damage.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tmorry326

Santiago Mission...anyone...info?

---

I love it to death.

I have a pair of Elan Fudds 185cm powder skis that I bought in 1994 or so that I need to replace with modern fat skis.

When I bought them they were ridiculously fat at about 95mm underfoot. I'd like to replace them with a pair that is fatter and wider as I use them almost exclusively in backcountry pow or loveland pow days. I am thinking I want a little traditional sidecut as backcountry hardpack is just too common for me to feel like going reverse and I like to catch an edge...but I havent even tried any of those skis.

From reading here I was leaning towards Big Daddy 190s...

Any advice/alternatives?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Professor

As least I did know that "twin tips suck balls". Now if ski manufacturers would just learn that :cussing:

---

The Professor said it, It must be true. Twin tips have no place in skiing.:rolleyes2

Anybody have any idea where the Prophet 100s fall on the stiffness scale? (I'm guessing they're about the same as the Gotamas.)

Or the Praxis powders?

THIS THREAD IS NOW BEING UPDATED HERE

Hey, I think someone is rapidly becoming the #1 word on skis for the interweb.
Good on ya, marshal!