Igneous skis, in particular, the FFFs

interesting to note the difference in types of pintails.
perhaps skis like the pontoon could be called true pintails, whereas skis like the dp120, ehp, fff, and big daddy could be called something like "heavy tapered pintails" or something.

either way
great response and you answered my question!
It sounds like we have a lot of the same design philosophy with regard to sidecut on wider skis.
how would you feel if your FFF's were rockered or had a long shovel, ~5mm narrower all over, and just a TAD more tail width (~1mm)?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lemon boy

yeah they'll be easy to resell.

Just remember the cardinal igneous blunder people make is letting ego decide their flex #, unless you're a huge powerful skier you don't need anything more than 240 and probably a lot less.

---

I'm not getting these based on ego. My last six pairs of skis were as follows, Ak rockets (jumping up from 175 85mm waisted skis) ARVs, ANTs, EHPs, 193 m103s, and 194 Squads. With the exception of the ARVs, I was pretty afraid of every single one of those skis owning me before I actually skied them. After trying the m103s and squads, I came to the conclussion that the "no mortal can ski those" talk is bullshit. I really think certain kinds of skis are hyped up WAY too much. No ski is hard to ski once you get it to its happy place, speed wise. If you like to ski fast more than billy goat, why not get skis that have a faster happy place?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pechelman

i thought you were a tiny guy leeeeeeeeroy.
like 5'8 160'ish?

youve got no business on a 250 200cm iggy FFF.
pretty much no one does.

---

5' 9" and 150, and thats the whole reason I want hudge skis, is because people keep calling me tiny and it hurts my feelings. ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pechelman

marshal disagrees with you
http://www.tetongravity.com/forums/s...hlight=igneous

ETA, the discussion above was for 190cm vs the 200cm foolishness here in this thread

---

That thread was also about flex 265 skis. My only concern is float. I have been told squads are just too damn stiff to float, and that makes sense, although I've only had mine in corn, and some grauply manky stuff. I pretty much want my FFFs as stiff as they can be while still allowing the tip to flex in pow. I'm now thiking a bit softer, 240 seems to be $ from what I'm reading, so something around there.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lemon boy

dude, shut up! I know there are a lot of vultures waiting in the wings for these to come back on the market "twice skied/once drilled" for a cut rate price :FIREdevil :FIREdevil :FIREdevil :FIREdevil

---

Don't count on it. I am a huge believer in the idea that you buy a ski that fucking scares the shit out of you, and ski it till you're a good enough skier that you can own it.

I didn't think this thread would turn into a dickwaving contest, but I should have known. These are huge skis, and I am psyched

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pechelman

question in general for you iggyskier

you say you dont think iggy FFF's have pin tail geometry, yet the wasit\tail width difference is only 7mm total, which is to say, that its only 3.5mm wider in the tail than it is at the waist on one side of the ski. Thats roughly only the width of an edge. This fact, in and of itself, makes this ski a pintail on paper. (imo)

---

.
Ok, I'm not iggy skier, and I haven't skied the FFFs (obviously) but I think theres a lot more than just the tip/waist/tail widths that make a ski feel like a pintail. I think the flex of the tail, and shape of the tail (camber wise, not width wise) determine a whole lot. EHPs go noodly in the tail, and also have a turned up tail, so they feel like a pintail. Its also more than just the numbers because the EHPs numbers seem to be measured in weird spots. The 118mm measurement is definitly not right at the tail, because they start tapering a good 5-10cm before it.


EDIT: I think I've gotten the info I need out of this thread. The FFFs are not super lively, but it sounds like they won't have that "I'm skiing with anvils on my feet" feel of the m103s if you ever try and ski them slow or hop turn them. It also sounds like they don't really feel like a pintail when you ski em, although my very last question, is who opted for the swallowtail, and who didn't? I probably won't get it, but I'm curious.

I had 183cm m103s and (briefly) those 265 flex 190cm FFFs, now hopefully with a happy home at huckwheat's friend's place.

There was no comparison. The m103s skied like a damper and heavier Explosiv, but still manageable. The FFFs were way too much for me. I sold the m103s because I like Explosivs more. (I've gone through many skis for exactly that reason; still haven't found anything I like more than the Explosiv for everything-but-powder conditions.)

FWIW, huckwheat said his friend who was getting these FFFs was something like 6'6", 250#.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pechelman

interesting to note the difference in types of pintails.
perhaps skis like the pontoon could be called true pintails, whereas skis like the dp120, ehp, fff, and big daddy could be called something like "heavy tapered pintails" or something.

either way
great response and you answered my question!
It sounds like we have a lot of the same design philosophy with regard to sidecut on wider skis.
how would you feel if your FFF's were rockered or had a long shovel, ~5mm narrower all over, and just a TAD more tail width (~1mm)?

---

yeah, it is getting harder and harder to really agree upon what is what.

Regarding camber.....my favorite topic. I have been building my own skis recently and what I want to mess with most is camber. The FFF have a fair bit of camber and the tips are surprisingly small. If I could change one thing on that ski, I would rocker the tips. Doesn't have to be huge. The tip rocker mold I built has approximately 2cm of rise over 25cm, plus a 5.9cm high tip. Hopefully this will improve the float of the ski a lot but because the rocker isn't huge, you won't loose contact area when you drive the ski.

The FFF could be narrower, although I think the width is great. Is the ski going to be a flat tail or twinned? If there is a slight twin, adding even 3-4mm to the tail would still allow the ski to slash outwards. If it is a flat tail, I still think it would do great with a tiny bit of added tail width.

Leroy - go without the swallow tail. Particularly if you are looking for a ski that will be long. Adam will tell you this too. It makes the skis feel shorter. Both pairs of iggies I've been on had flat tails and I would go that way. The tips are so big that you don't need to have the tail sink as much. The taper or pintail design (whatever we want to call it) will do this for you.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by El Chupacabra

I had 183cm m103s and (briefly) those 265 flex 190cm FFFs, now hopefully with a happy home at huckwheat's friend's place.

There was no comparison. The m103s skied like a damper and heavier Explosiv, but still manageable. The FFFs were way too much for me. I sold the m103s because I like Explosivs more. (I've gone through many skis for exactly that reason; still haven't found anything I like more than the Explosiv for everything-but-powder conditions.)

FWIW, huckwheat said his friend who was getting these FFFs was something like 6'6", 250#.

---

Hmmmm.
I'm pretty much basing my ideas of the flex of Marshal's recomended skis thread,

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by marshalolson

RELATIVE FLEXES:
9 - titan pro / Squad / supa stiff bros (270)
8 - LP / Monster / explosiv / dp #3 / capital stiffs (260)
7 - big daddy / stockli dp (250)
6 - ANT / extra stiff kingswood / stiff bros
5 - mantra / ak swallowtail / dp #2 (240)
4 - gotama / soft bros / reg. kingswood (230)
3 - yellow ak rockets / sugar daddy ?
2 - PR / lawnchair (200 or less)
1 - sanouk/made'n
0 - green ak rockets

---

Does anyone completely disagree with these comparisons?

Although I like the Ak rocket swallowtails, they are a touch too soft, no one really refers to them as a burly ski, however people are saying there is no way I should go over a 240 for the FFFs. I'm confused.

I guess I should send another email to parris asking him how much softer the tips and tails ussually are.

One problem with the relative flex scale is that it doesn't factor in the effect of a wider ski at any given flex. A 70mm groomer ski can be really stiff yet ski easily, since there's less of it resisting the skier's force. But if you add 50mm of width to that 70mm plank, it's going to be a lot harder to bend under that same skier's force.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by El Chupacabra

One problem with the relative flex scale is that it doesn't factor in the effect of a wider ski at any given flex. A 70mm groomer ski can be really stiff yet ski easily, since there's less of it resisting the skier's force. But if you add 50mm of width to that 70mm plank, it's going to be a lot harder to bend under that same skier's force.

---

I definitley agree with this statement. The overall shape and girth of the FFF makes the ski extremely stable at speed without the need for a super stiff flex. I think with the extra 10cm on this ski you don't really need the extra stiffness, but that's just my opinion. I've never skied with you and don't know youre skiing style, just want you to be happy with these planks.

I would opt for no swallow. Like Iggyskier said, the skis don't really need the tails to sink more, they ski just fine as is.

There has been some great discussion in this thread though, good stuff guys.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by leroy jenkins

Although I like the Ak rocket swallowtails, they are a touch too soft, no one really refers to them as a burly ski, however people are saying there is no way I should go over a 240 for the FFFs. I'm confused.

I guess I should send another email to parris asking him how much softer the tips and tails ussually are.

---

Ask Natty.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by leroy jenkins

I'm not getting these based on ego. My last six pairs of skis were as follows, Ak rockets (jumping up from 175 85mm waisted skis) ARVs, ANTs, EHPs, 193 m103s, and 194 Squads.

---

I still don't think you've read and digested exactly what I said. I didn't say you're getting the skis based on ego, I said that the classic blunder on iggys is to get the flex # based on ego.

ESPECIALLY with iggys, the wider you go the softer you should get them. Even if you were to get 210s there is NO WAY that you'll be overpowering them or thinking that they're "soft" (note...I do not per se agree with the flex rating from the big list, for a variety of reasons that probably don't have a lot of bearing here). They are enormous skis and the only sin you can make with them is getting them too stiff and even though you don't, trust me: some 270rf 200cm SMFs can own you in ways a set of 194 squads can only dream at.

I own 1pr in 250 that are short (190) and skinny (79) that are fine in that incarnation. 1pr in 235 that are longish (195) and thin (88) that are fine in that incarnation. I weigh about the same but have no delusions of the grandeur of my skiing. I could totally ski 200 FFFs but if I ordered some they'd be at most 210s. They still ski like a lot of mass without being "own your ass stiff."

i'll chirp in here, real quick.

leroy, there is aboxolutely NO reason to get an FFF over 240. unless you are a big person that will ONLY be hucking and straightlining big lines. it is just not needed as an everyday fat ski. igneous even in softer flexes are so torsionally stiff compared to other skis that the longitude flex as listed on the list is very decieving (as lemon boy insinuated).

i ski'd a pair of 230# FFL's almost every day inbounds banging bumps and hard pack this season, (got them in a trade, i would prolly get them in like a 245-250 if i was to order a pair of FFL's) and though they are now closer to 210# and bent and genereally hammered, they still hook up and totally hold an edge at high speed. you can see the tip flapping at top speed, but do not feel it in your feet at all, and they do not deflect in any manner.

i ski'd the 240#'s FFF in every condition snow and never once felt like i wanted a stiffer ski. and i have 60#'s on you.

they only reason you EVER see iggy's ski for sale is cause someones ego wrote a check their body couldn't cash.

my suggestion is to talk to adam or parris and get whatever flex they recommend, even if it seems softer than you'd really want. if you trust that they are the nicest skis on the market, trust that they know what flex makes sense, but in a 200 FFF i'd think 230-240 would make sense.

Pintail is a geometry term invented by Dynastar in the mid-late nineties. It simply refers to a ski with more than average taper, designed to hook up in the tip and let go/slash easier in the tail. Generally any ski with 12mm or more taper is considered a pintail geometry.

The 20mm taper on the FFF definitely qualify it geometrically within this category. But that is not an overwhelming determinent of how it will ski so much as it is with retail skis that are all built relatively cheaply/similarly. What really makes ski tails let go too early IMO is lack of torsional rigidity in the tails, something that is clearly not an issue with Igneous skis from all that has been said. That stiffness is probably how they get away with that shape that seems unusually tapered.

Also while we're on the topic if you had to say what RA 190cm FFF was closest to brand new 189 Squads what would it be?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by skimasterflex

Also while we're on the topic if you had to say what RA 190cm FFF was closest to brand new 189 Squads what would it be?

---

I'd say 240-250...but even if stiffness is the same between a Squad and Iggie, it's still a VERY different feeling ski. Squads - snappy, powerful, return a lot of energy. Iggies - damp, powerful, don't really want to return that energy and just want to motor. Kinda like the Squads are a rodded-out sports car and the Iggies are a 3/4-ton diesel truck.

Advice taken.

I'm now thinking I want the 200cm FFFs in the Round Alpine flex #240, with no swallowtail. I'm maybe thinking about asking if they could make the tip more around a 230-235, for some good float.

I just have to work out the minor details with them, like asking whats the difference between the standard maple core, or the maple ash blend, and see what other woods they offer for the topsheets.

That, and save up enough money to actually pay for the things.

Thanks for all the info everyone.

-"Pintail is a geometry term invented by Dynastar in the mid-late nineties"


Dynastar invented the term "pintail" ???? Wow , hahaha , you learn something new everyday.

It really boils down to the fact you need some 138s. Real men ski blue ice with reverse camber reverse sidecut skis. No, in all seriousness, have you checked on the status of the road?

I surprised Kya with a pair of FFF for our anniversary in JH last year. Adam was easy and helpful to work with. Paid a little extra for koa topsheets. Well worth the wait. He LOVES them. I'm sure Kya will add his input.

Ok, I just thought that, for the sake of the collective knowledge, I would mention that it sounds like 200cm is going to be one of the standard offered lengths for the FFF fairly soon.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kenai

I surprised Kya with a pair of FFF for our anniversary in JH last year. Adam was easy and helpful to work with. Paid a little extra for koa topsheets. Well worth the wait. He LOVES them. I'm sure Kya will add his input.

---

Wow, Kenai = Keeper.


And adimmen, I haven't checked on the road too recently. I'm getting my wisdom teeth out tomorrow, so I bet I'll be out for a few days, but I'll check on the road just in case you want to know. I'm willing to bet it will be open soon if its not already.

Leroy - maybe consider the Progressive Powder flex profile, instead of the Round Alpine. From what I understand from the catalogue, PP is a softer tip/steadily progressively stiffer down the ski, and Round Alpine is more of an all-mountain, all-thru-the-ski flex.

Since you're looking for that softer tip.

However, dude, you ski MT, snow is soft and light there. I skied 250 RA FFLs there, and found they were fine. Brought same skis to heavy, thick-as-owl-shit PNW gunk, and found they were submarines - I had to keep them up at speed to keep them up at plane. While I think the RA profile made them more useable as everyday kind of skis, I think the PP pro would have been a little better in the PNW.

FWIW, for my plans, I'm going to go the FFF route eventually too - for now though I have Kahunas and Seth Pistols and Pontoons and Sanouks to beat the shit out of, and then I'll go to the FFF/FFL combo. Maybe even debating FFC instead of FFL. I'd probably for 245PP w/swallowtail for the FFFs, and 250RA for the FFL/FFCs.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lemon boy

ESPECIALLY with iggys, the wider you go the softer you should get them.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by marshalolson

leroy, there is aboxolutely NO reason to get an FFF over 240. unless you are a big person that will ONLY be hucking and straightlining big lines. it is just not needed as an everyday fat ski. igneous even in softer flexes are so torsionally stiff compared to other skis that the longitude flex as listed on the list is very decieving (as lemon boy insinuated).

---

^^^WORD

Had 2 different pair of FFLs, one in 270 the other in 260, loved them both.
Got a pair of 265 FFFs, they killed me. I thought I could handle them. I couldn't.
Got a pair of 240 FFFs, perfection.
6'2" 215 lbs here.
The 240 flex FFF is $$$.