Good point on the knees, UAN. I only feel it when I ski a lot of hard snow. and if I'm spending much time on hardpack with 138s someone should steal them while I'm in the john.
Printable View
Good point on the knees, UAN. I only feel it when I ski a lot of hard snow. and if I'm spending much time on hardpack with 138s someone should steal them while I'm in the john.
i ski 192 138 flex 2'sQuote:
Originally Posted by Nick Pappagiorgio
the flex 3 is not significantly stiffer than the flex 2s. maybe 10%. i can see the flex 3 in the 200 120 being useful, but there is a reason stephan didn't even make flex 3 202 138's. and that dudes spends the majority of his time dropping big lines in AK.
Slowly finds a rock to crawl back under.
I am also looking at a pair of 138 DPs. The different rocker options have me confused a little too. To sum up, rocker 1 is lower profile tip with a rockered tail, rocker 2 has more tip rocker and a flatter tail. Is that about right? Does anyone have a profile view of the different shapes?
:pQuote:
Originally Posted by tromano
http://www.tetongravity.com/forums/a...1&d=1202918429
^^^^^^So humorous!! Yup, #2 looks EXACTLY like mine.
Rocker 1: Both tip and tail rockered about the same, similar to Praxis/Spat
Rocker 2: Tip slightly more rockered, tail slight less than 1 version
Not so confusing:confused:
Ive ridden spats for the past year and a half, and just made the decision to step up and get some 138's. I'm riding a flex 2 at 192cm. As mentioned before, these aren't quite as quick to pivot as the spats. Although, I've been riding some super tight trees and had no issues whatsoever. They still turn faster than my 177 Karmas... haha not that I'd ever ride those anyways.
A huge benefit that I've found is that the Lotus' give you the confidence of a bigger ski. The longer length as well as the flat underfoot make them much easier to charge when it's not super soft, as well as a much higher speed limit in any condition (which I haven't yet reached). Although they are light, they are still 192 and 138 underfoot... enough to crush all the crap in their way. I would def say if you like that surfy feeling of the spats, go for the flex 2. I haven't skied a flex 3, but I feel confident that #2 is stiff enough, yet has a enough give to make them playful and easy to smear.
I would say that I loved my spats, but these are in a slightly different league. The main benefit I for me is the extra size, which the spats were definatly lacking. As far as the 202... I'd do it if I were you. Short skis suck. Plus you get to have every fucking beater and liftie freaking out at your "waterskis"... although it does get a bit annoying.
Much better. Tips left I am guessing. :DQuote:
Originally Posted by pechelman
maybe
who knows
isnt this supposed to be confusing?
OH
You wanted help!
:p
He who entertains also helps. I have been busy not learning GIS for the past hour. Extremely helpful you are.Quote:
Originally Posted by pechelman
I totally looked on there and couldn't find that! Thanks for posting it.Quote:
Originally Posted by upallnight
I love how they bother to make both profiles cuz they're so techy at DPS but then when it comes down to the business of actually picking which one you want they say go with the color that stokes you most!
I like black, so that answers my question, I should go with black. The most straight forward answer in this thread.:D
^^^^ I thought that was pretty funny too considering the target audience pretty much obsesses over the most microscopic design issues.
Any of you 138 owners want to trade for 120s? http://tetongravity.com/forums/showt...ht=feeler+138s
Oh, and to answer the original question - Yes. You should definitely get a pair. You didn't ask that on here so we would tell you not to!
But then you'll never go back.Quote:
Originally Posted by skimasterflex