BRO's...No Cons?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dfinn

don't laugh too much but this is a somewhat serious question. are any east coast mags on bros? it sounds like everyone says they make a great all around ski, any reason why they wouldn't make a great all around EC ski?

---

I ski at Seven Springs in PA most of the time (Patrol) and make a couple of trips out west each season. The 2005/2006 188 stiffs are my main ski. The only issue is that they make a small mountain smaller. It took me a while to get them dialed in but once I did they were (are) tremendous.

I do get some stange looks when I am on them and some people challenge the need for a wide ski on the Ice Coast. I simply ski a run with them and the questions change from why do you ski those? to how can I get a pair?

As far as the top sheet issue, they do not chip nearly as badly as my first generation bandits did. I also have a pair of Explosivs that also chip fairly easily. Personally the chipping does not bother me, a chipped ski is a ski that has been skiied not stored in a rack.

- Evil

I sold my Stockli Stormrider DP's late last season and went to the 188 SOFTS. Some people were like "dude, that's insane......you should at least be getting the stiff if not the supers". But my thought (and I turned out to be right) was that the 188 softs would be almost as stable, easier to ski, and I would still be able to ski em' as hard as I did my stocklis. So true...and by the end of the day my legs still had feeling in them.

I have 188 softs with the baby blue bases...they hold wax fine. No better or worse than any other ski I've owned.

Re: Topsheet chips.

The stocklis had SUPER bomber topsheets. But I have got to believe that those topsheets added a ton of weight to the ski. Splat, can you keep this in mind when you think about improving the durability of the topsheets? The Bro is super rad for our short tours here in Michigan, I'd hate to make it any less fun because of a nicer topsheet.

I don't like the fact that they don't come tuned either, but add $40 onto the price of the ski and it's still cheaper than most any really nice new ski out there.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by splat

On some of the metal skis, you might notice the topsheet set back on metal, so edges hit the metal first.

---

................

thanks splat.

a scholar and a gentleman.




so long story short a glass/wood ski is prone to chipping and metal topsheet or cap skis are not, if made properly.

though cap skis are prone to delam, and metal skis are prone to getting bent nd weighting alot more than glass/wood.

i'll take glass/wood, and deal with them not looking pretty forever.

There are actually quite a few skiers on the East Coast that use the Bro's. Their light weight make them easy to throw around in the trees.

A little less chamber on next seasons sticks would be nice. The only other con is having to explain the PM Gear/Bro story several times a day.:)
Oh yeah there are not wide enough. Rectify that please.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by shirk

I smoked a rock on about day three on the skis and have treated them as rock skis ever since.

---

Sorry Shirk, is that a pro or a con? For me I only turn to crack when things are really bad. Thus implying that the bros are bad. Or maybe you were comfortable to start using really hard drugs after only three days. I'm confused.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dfinn

don't laugh too much but this is a somewhat serious question. are any east coast mags on bros?

---

I'm on the EC and have about a season and a half on the Bros now. And there are a good handful of EC maggots now on Bros.

I really can't find much wrong with mine. Topsheet chipping is such a minor thing, I could really care less about that. Performance wise I feel that the Bros perform well in almost all conditions. The only place I have found them difficult to ski is in tight steep moguls (no surprise there). My list of pros would be the same as most others here. Damp, stable, carves well, good hold on ice/firm snow, floaty, crud buster, light, low swing weight in tight spots etc.

Cons: Tough to get tuned the first time. Most shops have no idea what to do with them when you bring them in. This would be something I think PMG should look into in the future. Getting that finish tune on pre-delivery would be a major plus. Even if it is just having each set with a finish grind and leave the edge alone so that peeps can bevel them to their preferneces.

On my set the concave base thing was a bit concerning at first, until I realized that it idi not effect performance. QA needs to come up a bit on this and may have been fixed by now.

I am now seeting a small delam on the tail of one of my skis right now. The base is begining to bubble at the very end and the edge on the tail is looking a bit loose.


Overall though I am very please with this ski and would buy again if I ever needed to.

Got a pair, love 'em. Damn fine ski for the BC, haven't had a chance to ski them in bounds yet, but I can't wait. You'll be hard pressed to find a ski this light that handles this well....

I'll be in line to get a pair stiff 188's for next season. But I hear this delam talk and it gets me thinking. I'm not a super agressive skier, but I ski alot. I haven't heard a word about a warranty- do the Bros come with one?

I don't care about top sheet dings/chips- All the Iggy skis I see look pretty rough, but will people shed some light on the delam issue that seems recurrent through this entire thread?

In all honesty, we don't get that many people providing us with negative feedback. Maybe that's because people don't want to say anything negative to our faces and maybe it's because we make good skis. All of the problems mentioned above we have heard before and we're working to address those problems, for sure.

However, we did just get an email from some dude that skied them and he hated them. We immediately dispatched our 'customer satisfaction' department to address his needs:

http://www.popmatters.com/tv/reviews...s/sopranos.jpg

His concerns have been silenced...errr, addressed. ;)

You can't please everyone and if you try you wind up pleasing nobody. One thing you can be sure of: if you buy BROs and you're dissatisfied or unhappy we WILL take care of you.

you clearly haven't tried pleasing nobody. maybe everyone will be pleased, no?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Twoplanker

We immediately dispatched our 'customer satisfaction' department to address his needs:

http://www.popmatters.com/tv/reviews...s/sopranos.jpg

---

Sounds like you're back up to a 100% customer approval rating then. Good work. :)

Oh, and back to the original question, "do they have any cons?"

A couple of the PMGear guys have done a short stint.

aren't there only a couple of PMGear guys? ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mojorisin

aren't there only a couple of PMGear guys? ;)

---

Actually, there are currently 13 people that are either owners or involved in some other way.

I test-drove the 188 softies at Mammoth recently and really liked them.

My sole complaint is that they were grabby. This can be due to several things, but I was told that others have voiced the same concern.

I'd would still buy these skies- in fact, I'll propably sell my practically new Scott Schmidties and Launchairs and get a set of these.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Viva

I test-drove the 188 softies at Mammoth recently and really liked them.

My sole complaint is that they were grabby. This can be due to several things, but I was told that others have voiced the same concern.

I'd would still buy these skies- in fact, I'll propably sell my practically new Scott Schmidties and Launchairs and get a set of these.

---

Hey could you articulate (Grabby) I am curious. I have mine tuned with a .5 base bevel and only 1" of detune tip and tail. Some would call my soft bro's touchy? but I like the responce I get from them tuned this way, but i guess i'm a little strange

I skied the whole season on 188 stiffs at Alta. I enjoyed them, they were very stable and incredibly damp, and i think i finally maxed them out at around 50mph through crud.

At the end of the season I jumped on a friend's 193 103's. Instantly i knew what i didn't like about my bros. I had spent the whole year working way too hard to keep my tips up in pow. I think it's a combination of the low profile and relatively stiff flex (of the tip) combined with the 2cm camber. Maybe a more rearward mount would have helped, but the 103s just made skiing fast in powder immeasurably easier.

My skis were blems that a previous owner had fucked up by leaving his iron on them too long, which is probably why the bases look like swiss cheese now. The upshot is that, even though the bases look like swiss cheese, they still ski as fast and stable as the day i got them, and i certainly don't feel like they're in any danger of falling apart.

Next time i spend a winter out west, I'll probably sell the bros and get something bigger, heavier, and stiffer, with a more conventional flex pattern (softer tip, stiff as hell tail). Either that or put my dynafits on the bromodels for a kickass BC setup (the bros are far and away the lightest ski i have ever felt at that size).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by squirrelmurphy

I think it's a combination of the low profile and relatively stiff flex (of the tip) combined with the 2cm camber. Maybe a more rearward mount would have helped, but the 103s just made skiing fast in powder immeasurably easier.

---

:confused: :confused: :confused:

The camber was an issue this year. As were some delams. As I said, the manufacturers didn't do a good job, and that proved quite costly for us as a compnay. But we put the people who put their faith in us ahead of all else.

The camber issue was weird. The molds were set for 9mm of camber. (9mm would settle into 6-7 mm after 15 days on the ski. But the damn things were popping up another 8mm after they came out of the presses. Might have been the carbon fiber weave in the glass, just don't know. Some of the first batch from this year also delammed, mostly the superstiff. I think this was because the cheapasses at the factory didn't use enough resin for the extra thick layers of glass used on that flex.

But after a screwed up batch the first go-around this past season, the white abs sidewall Bros of the last batch were damn fine. I salvaged a soft pair that were total blems and think they're the best ones yet. Skied them at Mammy and Alpine so far and just love them. We're putting together the equipment to do it ourselves now. This control of the process will allow us to keep a better handle on the details and push out more prototypes and new models.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by upallnight

APH:
....but for the steep & icy stuff. would you ever find any value in a narrower ski? Even a 9mm ski with good edge-hold doesn't have the same edgehold as a narrower ski (assuming it is a good narrower ski).

---

I don't ski ice.:biggrin:

Just kidding. It's a good question, and I can see the logic (really, the physics) of having a narrower ski on ice. My problem is that all the skinnier skis I would want to ski (I love my G4/AX4s) have a fair amount of sidecut, which means they tend to bow out on steeps. Having a straighter, albeit wider, ski keeps more edge on the snow in the steeps, which translates into a more stable platform. I think.

And, in a lot of ways, it really does come down to selecting your conditions. I'm pretty conservative, and tend to avoid stuff that would put me on hardpack in a no-fall situation. So I guess I'd rather have the ski that I want for the conditions I want than a ski that might perform better in the shit, but isn't up to par for handling the goods.

And if you want to demo the 179 when your knee heals up, drop me a line. I'm pretty sure you've got a pair of boots that will work with them...

[/highjack]

This is a major weenie point, but you do have to stay ontop of them on groomers (188 stiffs). The tips seem to go where they want unless you're weighting them, put really if you're not ontop of you skis, it's not the skis fault. I think I might have noticed this because I have a pair of Foils mounted +2 for park. I can tell that the narrowest part of the ski is basically at my heal. I think they designed the ski with the core center back so that they carve great for people who aren't ontop of their skis. I feel like the foils rail almost better if i'm a tiny bit backseat. The Bros are just the opposite, gotta be on them, but just means you're skiing better.

One more thing, Skied Vets' 188 softs with freerides, sooo light. However, I felt like they were too light/soft for my liking, bouncing here and there (maybe ramb angle of the freerides?). I also felt like the freerides were going to crack in half under me. With that, the 188 stiff are just what I was looking for, fast crud buster, likes the untouched and light for touring.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by upallnight

4) Some folks who post the raves include people skiing their first-ever fat ski...or others who have no basis for comparison (but can say "this is awesome"...which leads one to believe that *some* people are just reading others' "great" reviews, and they want to be a part of it, too, so they parrot the comments. This happens for many skis, not just the BRO -- and it definitely DOES NOT mean that there are not legitimate raves about the BRO; it's a general cautionary statement about being careful about the background of anyone giving a review/advice. It's not so much their fault, they just don't know.)

---

Nicely said--I know I've been one to rave about the Bro's despite fairly limited experience on other 'big' skis. I'd certainly read plenty of other great reviews and had the mindset going in that I was going to love them--which of course I did. There've been some mighty fine reviews in pretty respectable places (such as Powder) and by far more experienced skiers here as well.

However, I hope (and believe) that my own reviews were not an attempt to rehash what others had said, but rather my honest evaluation and excitement at how much fun these things are to ski.

So I don't feel bad about recommending them liberally despite not having skied a lot of other skis in their category. :biggrin:

Some people are more anal about how their equipment wears then others, so I'm curious if people could post up examples of their top sheets.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by fluffballs

I think they designed the ski with the core center back so that they carve great for people who aren't ontop of their skis. I feel like the foils rail almost better if i'm a tiny bit backseat. The Bros are just the opposite, gotta be on them, but just means you're skiing better.

---

That might be what I'm experiencing, so maybe these skis aren't "grabby"; I just suck.

in my experience (15 days on 188 soft blems the end of this season) they're way less "chippy" than both the heads and elans i own and more chippy than a pair of karhus. elans are by far the chippiest of them all.

they were "grabby" until i detuned the edges.

if i had to coin a term for the bros, i'd say they're "ninjarific"

Ski the 179 'stiffs' (well, they aren't really stiff) and the 188 superstiffs.

Pros:
both lightweight, overall durable (topsheet aside, although I hadn't major issues here), hold an edge really well => very versatile ski (think Explosive)

Cons:
too much camber especially on the 188 superstiffs - causes the tips and tails to hook up in rotten snow conditions and somewhat nosedive (had to mount way back to balance it out). This is definitely s.th. to be adressed, hope I'll get it straightened out by clamping them for several weeks during off season. On the 179s which are way softer it is not much of an issue.

If the camber issue gets straightenend out no reason not to go for them - would however go with a regular stiff or even soft on the 188s if I had to make that decision again (I'm gettin' old). Hope that helps.

PM GEAR-PLEASE DON'T CHANGE THE BRO MODEL 179 TOO MUCH!

I used to think the 179 stiff was a bit too soft, but it's not, it's fine. Don't make them any heavier, or beefier next year. Don't fix it if it aint broke. Keep 'em well under 8 pounds/pair. This is a great touring ski, and it would be a shame to see it get heavier.

I'm sure the market is better for lift served skiing, and the touring market smaller, but pleeeeaaase don't change a good thing next year.

End soap box.

Oh, I'm supposed to say something negative about the ski.............ok...................the rounded tail doesn't hold BD skin hook very well. But thats a simple home remedy fix. There, I said something bad about the ski.

188 Soft blems this year, two separate cambers, one ski large camber, one ski regular camber. Trying to decamber the larger camber ski.

Mounted on the line with Freerides. I really really like them in the powder. The tips do seem to have some deflection when skiing fast Sun Valley groomers.

So, I have a pair of 188 fir cores that I purchased from 2 planker last year. I have been skiing them on both coasts, in and outabounds. They are mounted with freerides. Here is my take.

Pros: They ski everything better than average. I like that. They are light, which i like for skinning, and for EC trees and jump turns. The bases and edges take lots of abuse. Relatively inexpensive. Good customer support.

Cons: Topsheets chip. Bases do not like wax. They are so light that they can get thrown around a bit, but not a big deal cause the stiffness makes up for it. They have a definite top speed on ice and grooms (it is pretty fast but nothing like a pair of Stormriders).

This last weekend I got to try my brothers skis along side these. He has a thing for Stockli's so, i tried last years 194Stormriders, 2000 192 Stormriders, Rossi Scratch BC with FR's and old school K2 Big Kahuna's.

The Bros were by far and away the most versatile. They could almost keep up with the Stockli's on the grooms. They would just start to chatter at high speeds. In the corn and afternoon mucky muck, they rocked casue they just plowed. The Rossi's and K2's did all right but they were squirrely. And on the grooms the Rossi's were very squirrelly and the K2's were fun but could not go as fast as the Bro's.

In the end my list ended like this:

1) Bros (almost as fast as the Stocklis, way lighter, most versatile)
2) newer Stormriders ( crazy fast, super smooth on the groom, pretty smooth in ungroomed but you have go fast, a close second)
3) K2's ( fun but limited)
4) old Stockli's ( Fast, lots of work)
5) Rossi's ( ok but squirrelly)

Bro's are very good skis. They are definitely worth it.

I wrote all this cause at Mammoth I got called a lurker (which I kinda am). Felt I needed to contribute to the forum and the Bro cause. And next time I will have change for a nickel, Damn it ! :cussing:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Trackhead

PM GEAR-PLEASE DON'T CHANGE THE BRO MODEL 179 TOO MUCH!

I used to think the 179 stiff was a bit too soft, but it's not, it's fine. Don't make them any heavier, or beefier next year. Don't fix it if it aint broke. Keep 'em well under 8 pounds/pair. This is a great touring ski, and it would be a shame to see it get heavier.

I'm sure the market is better for lift served skiing, and the touring market smaller, but pleeeeaaase don't change a good thing next year.

End soap box.

---

been thinking of getting a pair of 179 bros for the next season, as allaround & touring skis, weight is of course a major factor so.. please listen to trackhead :]

Quote:

---

been thinking of getting a pair of 179 bros for the next season, as allaround & touring skis, weight is of course a major factor so.. please listen to trackhead :]

---

I'm in the same situation. But, what is too light? How do they compare to Carbons Smurfs in crud? I love the Carbons for powder and general backcountry, but they seem to get kicked all over the place in crud, versus a pair of Atomic Stomps (not the best of skis) which are a bit heavier, but ski the crud better.

That being said, after reading all the reviews for the BROS, they sound like the best allround ski. Keep up the good work!

BTW-I'm on pins

My only two complaints are the amount of camber, which made them prone to tip dive when Tahoe got Utah's snow for a weekend, and the topsheet durability.

I would vote for shipping them tuned, even at additional cost. I figure PMG can get a better price on tuning multiple pairs than I can on one. And Granite Chief in Truckee went through almost all the Ptex at the tail of one of mine -- enough that you can see the dashed outline that I presume was a cut mark.

I got lots of great comments about my magenta bases. They're like a baboon's ass. Which, for me, is entirely appropriate.

I received my 179 bros early in March. I promptly ran off to ski 26 days on them in Whistler/Blackcomb, Alta, Snowbird, Park City, Canyons, Jackson Hole, Targee, Mammoth & Squaw. Any parts of the topsheet not shown in the pictures (the majority of the skis) is still in factory perfect condition. As a person who usually beats equipment to death and then keeps using it for another season or two, I don't see these minor scuffs as problematic for the number of days used, crashes taken, and rocks kissed. My 916 bindings are worse for wear from the bro's edges.

some of these were made by the shovel in my bag
http://publicpics.trayc.com/topsheets1.jpg

http://publicpics.trayc.com/topsheets2.jpg

http://publicpics.trayc.com/topsheets3.jpg

Trayc proves, yet again, why she rocks harder than any of the rest of us.

The scuffs don't really bother me either. It's the tendency to peel up at the edges.

I should also comment that my edges are very sharp, and I tend to keep them that way. Part of my EC legacy.

I'm wondering how much topsheet chipping is due to pilot error. Some of the chipping near the tail was me, shearing the edge of one ski against another in a bumps-under-the-chair-to-crash spectacle.

I assume that most of my chipping is initiated by pilot error, including the joys of shouldering multiple pairs of skis so that the kids don't spend the entire first hour complaining.

Still....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by splat

I'll chime in on that question........The reason we haven't made a ski for the East Coast is that we had nothing but struggles getting one ski made. making two skis proved to be even harder. As a newbie ski company, we've had to rely on some real shithead manufacturers who 1) don't deliver as promised 2) say they know everything and end up proving they know nothing and 3) we started the company with almost no money and have been losing money since because of the broken promises and bullshit the manufacturers have spewed.

From the consumer perspective, it would be easy to assume that we should just make a ski for everyone and every condition - but it ain't that easy. With no large capital outlay to invest, we have stayed small, but true to our roots. The 188 Bro and the 179 Bro were made to be skis that you could take out on any given day and know you'd get on sticks that would handle whatever the mountain dished out. And they do that. We have come out of the last two seasons with little to no money left over to get all creative, but with a lot of happy customers.

We're just as small as you get, but we are now slowly collecting the machinery to make skis ourselves. Once we get the process down, it will be much cheper and far easier to start diversifying our quiver of offerings. After learning that trusting others to keep their word and make the skis for us was basically a delusion of grandeur, we're throwin down to do it ourselves. As I've said a thousand times - we're not K2, and we're not Rossignol. We're just a bunch of people who love to ski and love to make the skis maggots want. As we grow, we'll continue to make more models with the approval and feedback of the people here. But in the meantime, we'll continue to take baby steps. It's all we can do until things settle out and allow us to grow into bigger boots. Thank you all for your kind reviews. But don't hold back - we like to hear from the people who have skied the Bros and can tell us from experience if there's anything we can improve ;)

---

This is what I'm talking about. I've not skied a pair yet but plan to buy some next year. I don't know if they'll work for me and I probably don't even know enough to determine if they are appropriate for me. However, a big part of my desire to purchase them is to support a company with this philosophy and approach. It's how I would hope to do things if I were in the position and had the sack to start a venture such as PMGear.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by intheways

How do they compare to Carbons Smurfs in crud? I love the Carbons for powder and general backcountry, but they seem to get kicked all over the place in crud...

---

The Carbon Surfs are pretty light, they do ski powder & soft snow well. I think the 179 Bros are better in crud, hard snow & steeps. They weigh ~2oz less than my 183 Carbon Surfs, are 11mm fatter underfoot, more damp, more taper, less sidecut & stiffer in torsion.

Shredgar-

Thanks for the 411. That's exactly what I wanted to hear. I like the Carbons, but they just kill me in the crud. Looks like I'll have to start saving for some Bros.