mid-season Bandit Launch

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by phUnk

Sure, a bunch of Maggots & the crew we usually ski with might like XXXX's. But, I maintain that there is not a sizeable group that would like the XXXX as it currently exists. It's a very long, fat & stiff ski. Stiff enough that it doesn't float in pow as well as you'd think, according to a local Rossi pro / AK veteran.

---

Yeah the maggot crew MIGHT like them. Some of the crew. Maybe.
Having owned the 196 xxxx, I concur with phUnk's assessment. The things are frickin beasts, by far the stiffest ski I've ever seen, stiffer than the M103 or 260 iggies and they make my W105s feel like noodles in comparison. Not very versatile at all--which is prolly the reason many rossi pro riders (like gordy, mcreynolds, grom at alta at least) ski mostly on production B3s. The XXXX is WAY too much ski for most people imo. And I like stiff skis.

Yeah Splat, I remember how similar the dimensions of the bro and the XXXX were--they were almost identical. Although even the stiffest bro proto we built was quite a bit softer.

Guess I undercharged you rob. You can repay me in beers and stashes when I see you in tahoe. ;) :D

there is a market for stiff skis there isn't a market for stiff fat skis. How many gapers out there went out and paid more then full retail for a pair of 6 Stars last year? The masses are slow to adapt, how many people ski enough different types of skis to be able to actually tell what it is that they want in a ski. Most people simply walk up to the Ski Mart in their town and ask the 16 year old shop monkey "what should I be skiing on" and they tell em that they should definately be on a ski like the B1 or maybe the B2 if they're more of a "off-piste" skier. I started skiing more often about 4 years ago, up until that time I skiied with my family one week a year, now I push 40-50 days a year. My first pair of skis that I ever had input into buying were a pair of Volkl G3's that I got because the shop I went to didn't carry the Dynastar Skicross 66's that I'd demoed the year before. The shop owner laid out skis that he thought would be good picks for me, I had the choice between the Volkl, a Bandit X, the Bandit XX, and a Volant. It was only because of a miracle that I picked the Volkl, I had never heard of the company, as a kid I'd always skiied on Dynastar and Rossi with the odd K2 thrown in for one or two seasons.

Point being, the G3 was considered a mid fat at the time, in fact it was probably one of the fattest of the mid fats that you could buy. People simply refused to belive that you could get all around performance from a fat ski. I would bet you could probably have counted the number of 90+ waisted boards on one hand that year. Now, for this year you have the Big Daddy, Sugar Daddy Pimp, Sugar Daddy, Titan XXL, Legend Pro, Big Stix 10.6, Monster 103, Apache Chief, Mad'en'AK, Seth Pistol, Phat Luv, Beast, B3, Scratch BC, Pocket Rocket, Stormrider DP, Stormrider Scott Schmidt, Gotama, and last but not least the venerable Explosive. Thats 20 different models of fat skis from just the major players, that doesn't count the little guys like Iggies, DB, Phantom, or the Bro models. The average waist for a mid fat is now knocking on the door of 80+ whereas when I was in that shop the Bandit XX was considered portly for the category. The last few years have been all about making skis shorter fatter and softer so that more people can ski them. Its all about ski companies pushing a trend, unfortunatly for fans of long stiff fat skis the offerings are going to get smaller and smaller I fear :(

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by laseranimal

there is a market for stiff skis there isn't a market for stiff fat skis.
The last few years have been all about making skis shorter fatter and softer so that more people can ski them.

---

Laser, you made me think about my not so fat R:EX's with that statement. When they first came out, they were made in 198, 191 and 184 lengths. I bought the 191, as I thought the 184 was the for the ladies. After a season of struggling to keep up on them, I sold them and bought the 184's, which I have loved and mastered (as least in my own mind) over the past three seasons. Anyhow, to tie my point in with yours, the current variant of that ski, the M:EX, comes in a 185 as the longest length...hmm?

Okay. my apologies for the diversion. Back to the "I wanna ski a XXXX, cuz Hugo ain't got nothin' on me..." thread.

Anybody want my 198cm 10.ex's for $50 shipped? Otherwise, they are going to be part of a chair... They suck that much.

But I would easily contribute that to the construction rather thaan Atomics ability to build a ski, other than the fact that most people I know (enjoy, rather, and ski much bettter on) a fatter, damper ski.

*10 min to tp.. I quit

i think this is a really good point. we totally give dyna and stockli a ton of cred for offering skis like this, and that translates to the good skiers at many mountains on their sticks= good unpaid publicity. when you see someone ripping you always check out what hes on, i do.

salomon at least lets their s labs get out, you can get those 191 s lab extras on ebay now. rossi doesnt even let you see them, makes us sit around and talk about the like 3 pair in existence.

I have had the Hugo XXXX in hand, and let me tell you, it is stiffer than an Explosiv. It is stiffer than team M-103's.

Never got to ski them, and can't understand who would need them, unless you are Hugo.

Now a softer (relative to how stiff it is now) ski in that length and shape (basically same as an Explosiv only wider) and construction, would be killer.

I agree with the idea of having it be a special order item.

if Igneous, and DB can make it happen with special order skis, why not the larger companies???

yeah agreed. rossi should become badass again and start making its skis stiff.
is the xxxx a wood core ski or is it foam with a ton of metal??

are they basically axioms??

I skied on the new B3 yesterday in a 184 length. Dimensions are 120-83. Theyre orange with a silver tail. They ski really well on the groomers, but we didn't have any soft stuff out here to really get them off trail. They held pretty well on the hard stuff though. The B4 is green.

did they look any different in terms of construction? im still kinda confused on the whole bandit line up change.

bump for more info from hollywood...just a wider b2??

We skied the new bandit lines. The B4 is sandwich construction, the B2, B3 are cap. Everybody felt the B4's were way behind the SV's, 999's, Outlaw,and Monster Mojo.

Granted we didn't have 2 feet of pow to take them on, but everyone agreed that they were alot of work compared to the others.

does sandwhich mean they are woodcore, while b2b3 are still foam?
also out of curiousity howd the b3 feel?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by the_eleven

It is stiffer than team M-103's.

---

There should not be a thing called "Team M-103´s".

The 2 teamriders that i have spoken too have the normal production line
skis.

Rumour is that next years im103 should be reddish and twintipped.
Baybe Mr.TJBurke was refering to that with the "Monster Mojo"???

How was it?
Was it still in the humanoid length of 183 or only the superstar length?

PS. LOK: What kind of snowsituation is it in the Lyngen at the moment??

The first run of 103s were really only available in limited quantities and mostly for team riders. Since then, my understanding is there was no difference in what was sent to sponsored riders and what was on the wall. With that ski you really wouldnt want something more unless you only ski heliserved. Just my $.02...

Head skis new dimension monsters
http://www.picvault.info/images/31029_skitest.2 003.jpg

06 Rossi's
http://www.picvault.info/images/31011_skitest.2 002.jpg

Ok TJ. Can make sure I'm straight? this thread has so much info it's hard to keep it together.

B2 - Same dimensions as current B2. Same construction? Just a different topsheet / graphic.

B3 - (2.5) All new.

B4 - (old b3) Same dimensions as current B3. Same construction? Just a different topsheet / graphic.



correct?

What Monster's are those? Pretty narrow at the waist.

also, looks like the "monster" is the monster.com logo.

They increased each monster ski in the tip tail and waist by 3mm. In other words Monster 88

I guess what I meant when I voiced my opposition at the beginning of this thread, is that I can't say I thought Rossi needed ANOTHER ski between the b1 and (former) b3. I mean, don't the Scratch BC and b2 cover that spot? Specifically what I'd meant, was that the B4 should have been BIGGER than the existant b3, giving Rossi a superfat like K2, Line, Head, Fischer, Atomic, Iggy, and every other ski manufacturer. Maybe not necessarily the XXXX super-fucking-stiff board, but a larger ski all around. And maybe this would push their binding divisions to make a decent-size wide brake too. I'd have loved to have put Rossi/Looks on my Kahunas, but the jig wouldn't even fit, let alone find brakes wide enough without a whole lot of bending.

So Rossi, once again, walks the cautious, conservative, non-creative side of things.

..are really some ugly looking sticks!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jumper Bones

I'd have loved to have put Rossi/Looks on my Kahunas, but the jig wouldn't even fit, let alone find brakes wide enough without a whole lot of bending. So Rossi, once again, walks the cautious, conservative, non-creative side of things.

---

Does 3mm make that big a difference? No problems to bend the brakes to Gotamas.Didnt even need to heat.

note - jig would NOT fit. Kahuna has 108mm waist. Solly jig fit only after removing rubber boots from the gripper arms on each side.

after seeing a slightly-off mount happen to my Iggy FFLs, I have decided precision is kind of important on mounts.

And I've got a set of bent brakes on my Pistols....they're digging into the corners of the topsheet. No thanks, think I'll get brakes that actually fit...in that case, the wide brakes will fit the 95mm waists no problem. But no luck on the Kahunas.