Printable View
serendipitous you mentioned those.Quote:
Originally Posted by MagnificentUnicorn
i had been thinking about them all week and broke out my 16/17s today.
one of my favorite skis and they were just the ticket for today's progressively sloppy variable conditions in the sierra
charging is undoubtedly what they are made to do.
I know the later gen bros were made at AK skis in Switzerland. The AK King Salmon may have been similar, but that had a different footprint (94mm wide).Quote:
Originally Posted by abraham
Anyhow, I will do a little digging and report back.
But pretty certain the Super Bros and Hart Fuelie Boss (121-91-111) were the same exact ski with different topsheets, and the Hart Fuelie Boss was for sure made by Blossom (it said so on the topsheet).
Fuelie Boss & SBro are same a different mounts.
They were the same ski. I have a pair of the Fuelie Boss.Quote:
Originally Posted by Marshal Olson
I poked around briefly and found this. You're right about the 94 vs 91 waist, not sure what to make of that.Quote:
Originally Posted by Marshal Olson
Archive.org snapshot of the pmgear site: https://web.archive.org/web/20080115...products_id=86
Attachment 409280Quote:
The 195 SuperBro - World Cup Level Performance in a Freeski
There is no comparison. No other freeski comes close to the race course bred pedigree of this sleek beast. Designed by former World Cup race ski designer Aldo Kuonen for PM Gear, this is the extended and enlarged version of the AK King Salmon that Craig Garbiel rode to take two championship titles at the IFSA North American Freeskiing Championships in Kirkwood, CA.
The 195 SuperBro is PM Gear's first ski offered with titanal laminates around a wood core, delivering a stable and damp platform for laying over high-speed carves in variable off-piste conditions. If you like to ski fast, carve and work a ski, the SuperBro is the missle that will let you pull the G-forces normally reserved for the World Cup circuit.
The 121-91-111 sidecut on this 195 crushes everything in its wake, with enough girth and power underfoot to destroy crud like it doesn’t exist, while still holding enough surface area to float you on the deepest pow day. It’s the groomer killer with a penchant for performing everywhere and anywhere, at speeds from 10 to 90 mph.
Huh. I guessed it was the R87 - if any - that was inspired by the Superbros.
The Superbro is in many ways way to much ski for me, but there's something about how they accept being thrown sideways in the middle of a carved turn that I've only experienced in the Mantra 102s lately. The mass, flex and camber just keeps them tracking, but then - if needed - instant sideways and back into a clean turn.
However, that people skied skis like these in comp conditions just amazes me :)
If someone made a ski with more or less the same characteristics, but slightly narrower for even more grip, and slightly shorter 'cause I don't need 195, then I would be very interested.
By the way, mine are mounted +1,5 from the line pr Splats suggestion. Not sure if that was for me or for everyone.
Look for a pair of first generation MX83S in 183. They are amazing skis. Very good in lumpy crud too if it’s not too deep. New snow over hard or soft groomers, let them rip. The R87 seems most like the mx83s. I was considering the r87 until I found the Kastles. Went with the r99 because there isn’t a ski like that available right now, afaik.Quote:
Originally Posted by sf
Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums
This whole set of new offerings from Marshal is starting to over-stimulate my WANT gland. I can see how just about every one of these things slots into my quiver.
N +x usually works!Quote:
Originally Posted by Lord Thomas
Sent fra min LYA-L29 via Tapatalk
N +x usually works!Quote:
Originally Posted by Lord Thomas
Sent fra min LYA-L29 via Tapatalk
Surprisingly no one has yet commented on the title of this thread, surely an homage to Derek & The Dominos: Layla And Other Assorted Love Songs
Attachment 409610
Thanks. Any idea what year we're talking? Although I'm probably talking about a bit longer ski. 183 is probably long enough, but maybe not to approach the same ridiculous stability as the SuperbrosQuote:
Originally Posted by MagnificentUnicorn
Marshal & I did the graphix for our first Pro Model last nite - will let him decide when to share.
I’m 6’4” and 245. The 183 mx83 is ridiculously stable at any speed. Enough to scare me. I even skied them on a sleeper new snow day Sunday. They were a blast in 4-6” of dense wind blown. A little more work than a modern fat ski but railed through the snow. I would bet the r87 would be the same.Quote:
Originally Posted by sf
I’m not sure what year mine are but same vintage as the square tail mx98
Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums
Very intrigued!Quote:
Originally Posted by iriponsnow
Sent fra min LYA-L29 via Tapatalk
I just got a heritage coffee cup in the mail!
Thanks marshal and Arild.
Someday I hope to get a Freeride 120. Someday.
Thanks for this project. It’s so cool.
Note: my son is now kyping my OG 200 cm L120s.
This should up the ante.
Right?
Right?
Buster; FL113s. Do it. I know. Shorter, narrower and obviously less straight than L120s, but should be a nice travel pair.
Sent fra min LYA-L29 via Tapatalk
to those of you with experience designing skis: is there some say golden ratios wrt the placement of the mount point between the contact points to help facilitate certain feels / characteristics, both on hard and in softer snow?
Especially on more rockered skis where the widest points are in the rockered sections?
I never really thought that much about it before I started comparing different skis in the last few weeks and discovered some differences between skis that I thought were a lot more similar than they turned out to be. I realize that a lot of things factors into these things, but it would be interesting to get some thoughts on the matter.
hereticQuote:
Originally Posted by arild
I have not and will not forget about the 120mm pintail directional pow ski!
OK - so there is no perfect answer to much of this... But there are also some key fundamentals and commonalities that often get overlooked.Quote:
Originally Posted by kid-kapow
1. Tip and Tail taper **should** inform the mount position vs. the overall length of the ski. if there is a lot of tip taper and very little tail taper, then the recommended line will be set quite far back. If there is the same tip and tail taper, then the mount line should be roughly center mounted.
2. Sidecut Taper Angle (ie the % difference between width of tip and tail) **should** inform the mount position. so in a pintail ski, with a 12-15mm delta between tip and tail widths, you would typically see a pretty far set back mount (-12.5 or -13.5). For a more modern ski, with a 6-8mm delta, you typically see a more forward mount point, around -5 to -7 for example. Note: the length of effective edge influences the outcome of this.
3. Waist location **should** inform the midsole line (or vice-versa really). In classically designed skis, the skinniest point of the ski is located where the midsole is. In many modern skis, the recommended line is about +2cm from the narrowest point of the ski (which is why I personally mount -2ish on them). This also gets into my point above/previously about locating your BOF at/near the center of the chord length of the sidecut, and generally wanting to avoid putting your BOF in front of the center of the ski unless you are in very upright boots.
4. The flex pattern **should** be built around the intended midsole/sidecut/taper design as well, but is generally more foreviging to moving around on it, as it really is following the rest of the ski (these days, with rocker and taper, etc). Because flex pattern is simlay milling a chunk of wood to space out the laminates, it is a predictable factor in terms of stiffness and feel.
5. Rocker is, IMO mostly perfected now, with a few differ profiles based on the overall shape-class. Look at most of the best skis, and they share similar traits, with subtle differences between models and intended feel. But it is wild to see how similar so many skis are in rocker now when you line them all up. The key part is to ensure there isn't too much kink in the rocker profile right where the radius of the sidecut gets widest and transitions into the taper. That makes the ski hooky, weird, and hard to tune.
6. the sidecut itself is usually very simple to design as well. A circle is defined by three points, so based on where the are located relative to one-another, you have defined a circle. Locate the center of the circles radius in line with the waist of the ski, and you are off to the races. However, so many brands now want to make multi-radius skis for marketing purposes, and frankly, I have yet to ski any of these skis and been like... wow... that carves better than a normal single radius ski. But many of them carve worse. But good marketing!
In short, it is pretty easy to make a ski that is wonky/love it/hate it/narrow use kind of a ski, by missing on some of these details. Skis that are universally loved share commonalities in geometry. The convergence of all the above points to a common location for mount almost always makes for a banger cult classic ski. The problem is that many companies keep neutering these cult classics to make them mass-market ready, or nail these commonalities on one model then blow it on the next - like they didn't understand what made the ski awesome the first time...
Hopefully some of that is helpful!
Long story short, when the designer converges the midsole line with the inputs from selecting taper, overall length, sidecut, and design in rocker that matches well with the intended use, make it super smooth via construction, and stiff enough to be fast and fun, with a flex pattern than makes sense and doesn’t beat you up, well… that’s a banger of a ski that lots of people will like.
^^^ Marshal's last sentences 2 posts above is so true.
The industry just can't leave itself to "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" as every product cycle requires some marketing innovation to talk about to stimulate sales, hence altering ( ruining? ) a previous good thing. I wonder just how long that Blossom 77 wide mold ( White-Out / AM77 model ) has been in existence -> a couple decades at least with no changes other than top-sheet, you don't see that too often.
It is interesting the mass-marketing of lighter = better for the almost 10 years, and this applies to almost all classes of skis. I get it -> I ( and probably the masses ) don't go fast on my wider skis and trying to smash my way through crud / whatever, so weight, and damping, and charge-ability isn't my thing. I'll take nimbleness at moderate speeds to go around stuff, but that's me. I get that there is a whole 'nother crowd that is under-serviced by the major ski manufacturers. This leaves opportunities for guys like Marshal. I do look forward to my R87 !
There is lengthy thread over at SkiTalk forums on the 2021 Faction Candide CT 1.0, 2.0, 3.0 which are all heavy twin-tip All-Mountain skis, not really park skis as they are heavy in total weight ( 2 sheets of metal ) and swing-weight. Only the 2021 year was built at Fischer plants, and build quality is excellent IMO. The previous and following years were almost 400g lighter. Those 2021 Factions may be a ski that is not built again for a long time. I drank that Faction Kool-Aid and bought a CT 1.0 ( 92 wide ) and debating grabbing one of the last sets of CT 2.0 ( 102 wide ).