you clearly haven't tried pleasing nobody. maybe everyone will be pleased, no?
Printable View
you clearly haven't tried pleasing nobody. maybe everyone will be pleased, no?
Sounds like you're back up to a 100% customer approval rating then. Good work. :)Quote:
Originally Posted by Twoplanker
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? ;)
Actually, there are currently 13 people that are either owners or involved in some other way.Quote:
Originally Posted by mojorisin
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 strangeQuote:
Originally Posted by Viva
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).
:confused: :confused: :confused:Quote:
Originally Posted by squirrelmurphy
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.
I don't ski ice.:biggrin:Quote:
Originally Posted by upallnight
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by upallnight
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.
That might be what I'm experiencing, so maybe these skis aren't "grabby"; I just suck.Quote:
Originally Posted by fluffballs
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:
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:
Originally Posted by 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.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 :]
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.