Bigger Bro Model

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bklyntrayc

Ladies demand more girth!
But also admit that 205 is too long, might rearrange some intestines.

205 will not appeal to the masses, so you're really looking at an even smaller subset of the boutique market that you are selling to.

The 179 specs are a money maker ski for PMGear:
unisex appeal
multidisciplinary appeal (alpine, tele, AT)
and the most approachable (to the discerning consumer) ski you currently sell

The 188 specs include the multidisciplinary appeal but score slightly lower on approachability and very low on unisex. (Any women at all on the 188?) OTOH I think they score higher for freeride/big mountain use.

In making the Big Bro, are you going for an evolution of the 188? Otherwise, is it a de facto 188 killer, pulling away from your audience for that ski? Will it be seen as an alpine only setup, or will people want to tele and AT on those monsters? Or does the 205 increase the "core" factor of the entire brand? Is it on the bleeding edge of a trend over the past few seasons of longer and straighter skis? Creating a whole new category? (in which case I'd say fatter in the waist and less sidecut, because having that much underfoot swing around of it's own accord might be a nightmare)

Just curious. Personally, I'd go even fatter than my 179's since they are definitely not a powder only ski, but perform well on hardpack.

---

i don't think that a bigger-than-188 ski takes away from the 188 market at all, frankly. a big ski is a quiver ski, for the most part. the same people who buy the big ski probably already have or would consider the 188 as an all-around ski.

personally, i want a 188. (i'd set it up with naxos). i also want a sick ski for the big days. granted, i'm kind of on the big end of the scale, but ideally, it would be long, fat, and not too much sidecut. about 105-110 in the waist, 35-40 m radius, and long (200+).

I'll be honest, though...price is a concern, and it's unlikely that my financial situation will allow justification for spending more than 600 on this kind of a ski. perhaps PMGear is better focusing on getting their own operation running reliably and expanding distrubution of their current product, rather than making sick skis for nobody but a few (as much as i'm sure they enjoy that).

I missed the bro development, so I'm not quite sure what they were aiming at, but a huge 205 fat ski would not detract from the 188 market I don't think. The huge ski would be the core ski that people might have had in the back of their minds when the whole project got started. I think the 188s are appropriate for any solid skier, well maybe not at small icy hills, not a specialty board.
Not sure the 188s are enough ski for you Fez :) Get these 205s and then keep the big daddies as your short ski.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bklyntrayc

In making the Big Bro, are you going for an evolution of the 188? Otherwise, is it a de facto 188 killer, pulling away from your audience for that ski? Will it be seen as an alpine only setup, or will people want to tele and AT on those monsters? Or does the 205 increase the "core" factor of the entire brand? Is it on the bleeding edge of a trend over the past few seasons of longer and straighter skis? Creating a whole new category? (in which case I'd say fatter in the waist and less sidecut, because having that much underfoot swing around of it's own accord might be a nightmare)

Just curious. Personally, I'd go even fatter than my 179's since they are definitely not a powder only ski, but perform well on hardpack.

---

if you're going to go BIG, then go big for floaty pow bliss vs. just a bigger same ol' ski.

I'd love to have a pair of 205 Pontoons because of the shape and the way they ski, but a 205 pair of Made'ns would be too big and unwieldy.

Unless you're skiing softer snow or Scandinavian, it makes no sense to have such a big ski for non-deep conditions, and then you want a tool for the DEEP, not the firm.

Keep in mind I'm a tiny little whippersnapper at 5'10" 150#

Upping the ante by 6mm underfoot? meh. Screw that, if yer gonna bring it, bring it. 115+ underfoot. Will a 105mm ski really be that different of a market then the current 99m?

I don't know much about PM gear's business, but it seems the 205 appeals to a very small selective market and they couldn't sell that many pairs of skies in such a long lenght. Does making a 205 make economic sense? On the other hand maybe specialized skies like this are the best way to enter the ski industry since the rest of the ski market is so competitive. I know at 5'10 130 lbs I won't be skiing a 205.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ccwaskier

I know at 5'10 130 lbs I won't be skiing a 205.

---

you should be eating big macs instead...

damn I thought I was skinny!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Z

Upping the ante by 6mm underfoot? meh. Screw that, if yer gonna bring it, bring it. 115+ underfoot. Will a 105mm ski really be that different of a market then the current 99m?

---

I agree with you completely Z.

It's very unlikely that the next ski we make will be less than 110 underfoot.

And trust me people...Z E R O camber on this one (or if so, very very very little) :D

200cm, flat tail, long nose rocker(6-9cm lift), around 140-120-130 sidecut with fairly stiff flex. i'll buy one pair :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tyrone Shoelaces

I agree with you completely Z.

It's very unlikely that the next ski we make will be less than 110 underfoot.

And trust me people...Z E R O camber on this one (or if so, very very very little) :D

---

camber is for turning. rock-her is for mountain llllooooovveeeeee

193 legnth
sidecut is good.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tyrone Shoelaces

I agree with you completely Z.

It's very unlikely that the next ski we make will be less than 110 underfoot.

And trust me people...Z E R O camber on this one (or if so, very very very little) :D

---

DO IT! VITE!

ooooo... page top.....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ville

200cm, flat tail, long nose rocker(6-9cm lift), around 140-120-130 sidecut with fairly stiff flex. i'll buy one pair :)

---

this could be a winner.

This ski sounds sick. I was planning on getting Legend XXLs next fall as my big day/gun ski, with possibly some like a Lotus 138 later in the year for days too deep to be maching. There is a strong chance this ski could replace the XXLs.

I think that two sizes would be a good choice, but screw anything sub 190, I would like to see maybe a 198 and a 205, both with a slightly turned up tail (not a twin tip) and a bit of tip rocker so the true length would be maybe 3-4cm shorter. After the tip rocker, maybe just a tiny hint of camber in the rest of the ski, with a shape like upper130's in the tip 115ish underfoot and low120s in the tail.

Also, call me a pussy, but I think making this thing stiffer than the squads would be a mistake. If you really want to make it 30% stiffer than the big squads, then I would imagine like 100 people or less would buy these, and half would already be spancered anyways.

Offer it in a stiff/super stiff combo, with the stiff about as stiff as the LPs and the super maybe a bit stiffer than the Squads. I guess, since you probably won't be pressing too many of these skis, you could just make the shorter ones softer and the longer ones stiffer.

Go for the Bro Model spatula.

And call it the Splatula.

Round 2. Wider waist and Flat / Straight tail

http://www.tetongravity.com/usergall...79/Bigbro2.jpg

What I am trying to do his is come up with a ski for the larger folk to go mach stupid down a big mountain.

This in not realy a ski for me at 5'10" 165lbs a super stiff 188 bro is plenty of ski for me for anything under 60mph (didn't realy get much chance to ski faster than this for any sustained period, so they probably work fine at higher speed). The 188 is plenty of platform for me. But I can understand why some feel the need for more.

I am not trying to come up with a versatile big selling do all ski. Just one large nasty plank for those who feel the need. - Production and market realities are being ignored on this one.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Idris

Round 2. Wider waist and Flat / Straight tail

What I am trying to do his is come up with a ski for the larger folk to go mach stupid down a big mountain.

This in not realy a ski for me at 5'10" 165lbs a super stiff 188 bro is plenty of ski for me for anything under 60mph (didn't realy get much chance to ski faster than this for any sustained period, so they probably work fine at higher speed). The 188 is plenty of platform for me. But I can understand why some feel the need for more.

I am not trying to come up with a versatile big selling do all ski. Just one large nasty plank for those who feel the need. - Production and market realities are being ignored on this one.

---

I'm pretty sure that would be $$$ for big charing fellows. Sadly, if the stiffness is going to be around what was discussed be4, I wont be getting such a ski. I'm sure though that there would be some interest for a tuned down version (~195cm and softer flex), or offer atleast a few different stiffnesses for the beast :D (soft, stiff and the über stiff).

Just my 0.02 €

I like your cad program. Fancy ;)

Would the production of a ski like this cut into production of existing bro models?

Im 6 foot and weigh 185 pounds, id like nothing more than to see a straight ski for charging. i wouldn't make this my deep powder ski, but it would definetly be my charging ski in my quiver. i was thinking of getting some squads but if something wider AND stiffer came out i would definitly be a buyer. It doesnt need to be to much stiffer, of course this ski could be to much for me, but i really think that you might have hit a home run with this second round 1.1 ive been looking for something like this.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Idris

Round 2. Wider waist and Flat / Straight tail

http://www.tetongravity.com/usergall...79/Bigbro2.jpg

What I am trying to do his is come up with a ski for the larger folk to go mach stupid down a big mountain.

This in not realy a ski for me at 5'10" 165lbs a super stiff 188 bro is plenty of ski for me for anything under 60mph (didn't realy get much chance to ski faster than this for any sustained period, so they probably work fine at higher speed). The 188 is plenty of platform for me. But I can understand why some feel the need for more.

I am not trying to come up with a versatile big selling do all ski. Just one large nasty plank for those who feel the need. - Production and market realities are being ignored on this one.

---

Looks Great!
I think you might be surprised by the interest these things generate. there are plenty of big boys skiing hard out there.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bullet

...Like the 4FRNT EHP model - Good concept but too short at 193.

---

Like, seriouslyl; how big are you people? Like 250lbs? I really am not rockstar. On a given day I tend to want something longer than 95% of people on the hill, (granted I am on the east coast,) but 205 is an effing huge length to think of actually skiing every day, no matter where you are :eek:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FREESKIER_FIVE-0

i wouldn't make this my deep powder ski, but it would definetly be my charging ski in my quiver.

---

On what fucking planet do you live on,where 205cm long,115mm waisted ski isnt enough for you to ski deep powder??

Here on earth we usually get by with more,um,less.




Oh,and let me know where the place is.
I have to go to the nearby hill´s with my towell,activate my intersellar transponder and wait for a lift.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bklyntrayc

Will it be seen as an alpine only setup, or will people want to tele and AT on those monsters?

---

i'd like to tele on them. i'm not that big (6'1'', 180lbs), but i do like to go fast (and like to have skis that can take high speeds if needed/wanted), and i really like stiff skis (my current favorites are titan pros).

shape wise i'd like to see 105-110 underfoot, 125-130 at the tip, little to no camber, stiff underfoot and in the tail, slightly softer tip (as someone mentioned before), 200-205 length, rounded off flat tail (ok if it's turned up slightly).
but i'm no engineer so i don't know if a ski like that really would perform well. i'd like to find out though.

These skis will be perfect as my bump ski. The rest of you pussies talking about using it as a big mountain gun are total pussies.

1.1 looks money. I would suggest that in order to sell more then 50, you should have at least 2 sizes and stiffness levels. 205 and more then squad stiffness is too much for me, but i would probably get it anyway. 195 with little less then squad i would put deposit in today

6' 0" and 220 pounds, wearing the Big Daddios less than two weeks ago on closing day.
After about ten days on 'em, I'm barely getting used to these 193cm, 105mm waist, 9.5 pound (each) skis. I can tell you right now this is the biggest surface area ski I'll ever ride.
http://endlessseason.com/2006/may/endless.jpg
BobMc--Thanks again for the photos!

Well, I'll join in here, not that it's going to make a bit of frkn difference but of the choices so far round one does it for me. Actually was hoping for a 197, 198, ....but I'd try round one. Meaning I'd have to travel more. Sooo get on this quickly cause I thought I was going to pull the trigger on on your "little" 188 bros.....and now you go and do this.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by adam

Theres a reason 200+ skis got dropped, and its not because people are to much of pussies to ski them. Its because there no fun to ski. Seriously, make a 185-188, and then a 195-198.

---

Fuck that noise.

I was skiing 210 Pre's in bumps before you were even a zygote. Trust me, it was more fun than you have ever had.

bumpbump

Let me chime in.
Waist 110-115.
Higher tip.
Little to no camber.
Keep the rounded tail and turned up tail...it helps so much in so many situations. There's no reason not to have it.
Any stiffer than the current bro aspen super stiffs would be pointless. They have no speed limit.
Legnth 193-195. Bigger than that I don't really see the point. That legnth is plenty for stability and power. Any bigger and your just adding weight and making the skis slightly less manuervable.

I can't tell you how many times I have dreamed about this ski.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bullet

Yea! Endless - Big Guys Want Big Bros. You must have the 1st Gen BD at that weight?

---

Yep. It's the first-year model that a bunch of us bought in a group buy early this season. Heavy suckers, but they rip and they are as stable as riding on rails.

I want a Nordica W9.1FF/W105 +3mm all around in a 200cm to 205cm length at the same stiffness.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by adam

185 or 187 please. You he-men can have youselves a 197 if you want.

---

and you're a pussy 12-year-old or whatever. Let me clue you in, in a couple years, not so far away, you'll feel the same as we do.

I recommend you stop being such a faggot. This is a rager, destroyer ski. NOT FOR PUSSIES. If you want something average, go buy a B4 or Squads or something.

I got a question - Do you guys perceive any noticable correlation between the same or similar sidecut on skis of different width dimensions? Should the sidecut of a fatter Bro be modified in any way to enhance the skis girth? And how should that sidecut engage in relation to the flex? What do you see as the advantages/drawbacks of a pintail, meaning a narrower tail, irrespective of whether it is turned up or flat? Rocker the tip and not the tail?

Ok. That was a long question.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bullet

6'1" 250lbs is how big I am. 205 is a bit long in a traditional ski, but if it has a rocker tip, the effective length is shorter.

---

Fair enough! Way to answer that question.

How many skis are currently being produced that have no camber/tip rocker only? i.e. not full reverse camber and/or sidecut. The 193 EHP next year, one of the Fischer fat skis I think? I'm sure I'm forgetting some. It sounds like a great way to combine fluffy-floatyness with hi speed stability, better traversing capabilites, speed on the flats, etc.

disclaimer: this is all pure and utter conjecture.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by splat

I got a question - Do you guys perceive any noticable correlation between the same or similar sidecut on skis of different width dimensions? Should the sidecut of a fatter Bro be modified in any way to enhance the skis girth? And how should that sidecut engage in relation to the flex? What do you see as the advantages/drawbacks of a pintail, meaning a narrower tail, irrespective of whether it is turned up or flat? Rocker the tip and not the tail?

Ok. That was a long question.

---

if you are going to modify the sidecut, modify it so the turning radius gets bigger, not smaller. As for flex, well, i have no idea what you are asking. Pintails are nice for the obvious reason as they sink the tail and float the tip, but too much of it will be bad. Instead of rocker tip or tail, just go completly flat camber, rocker the tip a bit if you must. All of this the rantings of someone who has no idea what he is talking about, well, mabye some but not much...;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by splat

I got a question - Do you guys perceive any noticable correlation between the same or similar sidecut on skis of different width dimensions? Should the sidecut of a fatter Bro be modified in any way to enhance the skis girth? And how should that sidecut engage in relation to the flex? What do you see as the advantages/drawbacks of a pintail, meaning a narrower tail, irrespective of whether it is turned up or flat? Rocker the tip and not the tail?

Ok. That was a long question.

---

splat - FWIW: i see the pintail becomes better and better the wider you get. my FFF (145-118-125) and 120's (140-120-125) are so $$$ with an 15-20mm pintail. i'd say more like a 15mm pintail with a kick on the tail (ie. dp) and more like 20mm if you keep that tail nice and flat (ie. FFF). also, the pintail helps the tail break loose and butter once the ski is more than 45deg from the fall-line, but still hold an edge up to 30+deg along the fall-line really well.

also, a relatively wide shovel compared to a relatively narrow tail is really nice for dropping. landing centered onto a little pitch is so $$$.

if you are doing a rockered shovel, run that core all way up and skip the spacer. keep that thing from flapping. also, a less round flex would be nice. stiff tail, med shovel.

^^^^What Bullit Said^^^^

Bullit we seem to want the same ski. I am right in line with everything you said.

I feel that anything above 200 you'll sell less overall. I ski fairly hard but would not want anything over a 195. You might be better saleswise having two versions, a mid to high 180s & 195. Just my opinion, I love my 183 Gotamas and 193 sanouks, just my opinion.

don't listen to the masses, splat. besides, there's no money to be made in catering to them. build the big ski. :D

Yep, make them big skies. It's not like they are going to be a big crowd pleaser anyway (atleast for the general public).

But do think of a slightly shorter and softer model.