Printable View
Quote:
Originally Posted by marshalolson
My 180 A+ Fat Boys w/ yellow base and white sidewalls [ like the first Pics in thread] measure 135-115-125
Have 190 A Pow Cruise that are 130-105-120 as well...
Just rockered the tips on both pairs, and they ski real sweet. The A+'s look just like the new Atlas's size and profile, for 1/10th the $...:tongue:
Cheers
Anybody seen a pair of Odyssey Max F/X's?Quote:
Originally Posted by weasel1
EXCERPT:
But Northwest skiers set on fat boards might look first in their own backyard. A new ski, the Odyssey Max F/X ($395), is less expensive and built in Brier.
Designers Paul and Coni Nelson say it's a "hybrid" fat ski, built specifically for Northwest all-terrain ski-area conditions. The Odyssey has a 99 millimeter waist and a 113 millimeter tail. At 163 centimeters long, it's shorter than many fat boys. But that shouldn't discourage larger skiers: It comes in three different flexes to accommodate skiers as light as 120 pounds and as heavy as 275.
The Odyssey's snowboard-style sidecut and centered binding make it a smooth handler on powder, crud or corduroy groomed snow, Coni Nelson said. Coupled with another local invention - Issaquah designer Ed Dittmar's Ice Control Edge groove - the ski is effective in all but solid ice or extremely hard packed snow.
"It's an energy-efficient ski," she said. "And it's not just for powder. We designed it for Northwest snow. This is a ski you can take up to Snoqualmie Pass."
Last season, Odyssey built only 150 pairs, which are long gone. This year, with financial backing from a Denver sponsor, they'll build 3,000 pairs, which will be in ski shops throughout the West in January.
"It's kind of scary for us," Nelson acknowledged.
Don't know what to make of this, but it's intriguing.
http://www.odysseyskis.com/untoldodyssey.html
IMO, The Nelsons got screwed by the big guys and the system. They probably should have taken their concept and produced and marketed it as fast as possible, before everyone else caught on and jumped in. Very difficult to patent something and have it hold up. Even if it is a 'good' patent, you better have $millions$ to fight infringement cases, if your idea is a good one, and even then more lose than win. Although, Head got sued and lost for stealing the patent for metal skis owned by Kam Skis, [ who Head had worked for ].Quote:
Originally Posted by Gordyman
It's a dog eat dog world out there,..be careful folks.
Cheers
I posted these earlier in this thread but didn't get any responses about the history so I figured I'd give it another (better) shot.
http://i332.photobucket.com/albums/m...g?t=1298423619 http://i332.photobucket.com/albums/m...g?t=1298423619
I picked them up from gearswap in December because the topsheets match some sweet poles I found at a tent sale :fm: and now I want to know more about them.
They're branded "Powder Magic" rather than "Powder Plus" but there doesn't seem to be much information available about that model name.
The only real reference I could find to it was here: http://www.wagnerskis.com/blog/2008/bearing-surface/
http://i332.photobucket.com/albums/m...g?t=1298423663Quote:
— I think we had the Atomic Powder Magic (later the name was changed to Powder Plus because Kneissl had a trademark on the Magic name)
There was a pair for sale a few years ago with the same topsheets, yet labled "Powder Plus" rather than "Powder Magic"
http://www.tetongravity.com/forums/s...fect-condition
http://stk.tetongravity.com/forums/a...2&d=1254778010
And a dedicated thread about them, but it died quickly...
http://www.tetongravity.com/forums/s...c-Powder-Magic
Mine are labeled "Made in Austria by A. Rohrmoser" and have a serial number of 180-10100158.
Are all the Pow Plus' labeled like this?
Any idea what the serial number means beyond the 180? Is it only pair #158 out of something??
http://i332.photobucket.com/albums/m...g?t=1298423941
So what's the story on these? Are they the 'original' Powder Plus before the name had to be changed as the Wagner link suggests? What year would they be from? Fill me in on my new toys!!
early vintage, same ski, same flex, same dimensions?
odds are they are a 1st or 2nd year of production.
Recently on 2nd-day-after-pow-day, I took out my 190cm Pow+ , and wow, I had forgotten how much they RULE! I rarely grab for them, but whenever I do, they really impress me.
I don't know much about the Powder Magics in your photo, but here are my notes on them (omitting the info you already posted above):Quote:
Originally Posted by JayPowHound
"Oct91 SkiCanadaMag gearguide has article with 'Powder Magic' in the title, but article contents do not include the word 'magic', and instead describes the 'Atomic Powder' as 180cm only, metal sandwich, clear base material, and 30 percent fatter than conventional skis.
Powder Magic is shown in March92 issue of PowderMag, 'available in one length (180cm)...', and claims this is the first year/season of release. Black w/pink/blue trim, says Powder huge, says Magic small."
.
jaypowhound - are they 110mm or 115mm waist? if 110mm then year #2, if 115mm then year #1
Glad I saw this thread. No clue what the "DEMO" means, but I figured I'd share my Pow+ story.
I have some homemade tip rockered Yellow Base/White Sidewall 180s with really sketchy demo bindings that's I've been using with AT boot soles (can't be the slightest bit safe). Each ski has 4 shot glasses for on-hill shot ski action. I've had some really interesting conversations...
Just this past weekend, I took them sand skiing down some dunes in Death Valley and had even more strange conversations with a bunch of Aussies.
Overall, they're super stiff and heavy (I'm 145 lbs), don't like to turn, and destroy everything in their path. Even the sand skiing didn't do a thing to them. Great investment.
hmm i am thinking of that offcenter too. is it skiable????
there is a pair in the cellar but i am worried of that mount??
how does it ski.