Wow, thats light. My 192cm 777's w/916's weighed 18.5lbs/pr, but that was light compared to the 20lbs M1111'sQuote:
Originally Posted by fat yeti
Printable View
Wow, thats light. My 192cm 777's w/916's weighed 18.5lbs/pr, but that was light compared to the 20lbs M1111'sQuote:
Originally Posted by fat yeti
Just curious......did the M777 combo have any lifters, and how accurate was the scale?Quote:
Originally Posted by Krash
Quote:
Originally Posted by Krash
Spot on Krash. My pair is a late 06 with the correct mount point and so far I have yet to find a negative. Will post a full review when I have had a chance to get in more days on them.
ps they were a few ozs under 10 lbs unmounted.
I had the Axe+ 9mm plastic lifters under the 916's on '05-'06 192cm 777's, weighed using a digital hanging scale. A light example weighed on this scale; '05-'06 Movement Thunders 187cm w/Vist 614's no lift = 13.5lbs/pr. 192cm 777's w/914's & axe+ = 17.5lbs/pr, 192 777's w/914's & PwrAxe Pe2 Plate = 18lbs/pr.Quote:
Originally Posted by Damian Sanders
As you can see I am a bit of a weight freak, in that I like to weigh all my heavy gear:confused:
Thank you very much.....I was considering a pair of the m777 192's, but it's sounding like they weigh around 11.5 lb without bindings....damn heavy. Those Axe+ lifters are the standard bolt-through lifter, right? I've weighed s916 with those at around 7 lb even. Yeah, this things:Quote:
Originally Posted by Krash
http://www.untracked.com/mortarimgcat/large/514.jpg
I think you're on the right track, people should be paying more attention to the weights on their gear, it makes a big difference.
Sounds like heaviness is the main thing you'd like to change in the Prophet 130s. I like heavy setups, but I've never tried Prophets.Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDon
ARG and Spats with bindings can weigh about the same as your Prophet setup, and will feel just as heavy when you carry them in the parking lot or hike up a hill, but the "swing weight" of reverse sidecut skis feels much lighter when you're clicked in and rotating/tossing your skis around.
If you're skeptical, ask around. Most people agree Spats pivot effortlessly. Some people will complain that Spats are too heavy, but I disagree (unless you're hiking a lot). Their weight helps fore/aft stability, but they're easy to rotate/turn due to their low moment of inertia (not superfat way out at the tips and tails).
You sacrifice hardpack performance on Spats (I never tried ARGs), but do your Prophets really rip the hardpack anyway?
Lastly, with superfats, remember to choose bindings with high torsional rigidity to handle the torque on firm stuff.
.
Vitamin I is 100% on-the-money here. Spats are heavy on your shoulder/back and feel heavy hanging from your feet on a lift...but they are very nimble underfoot. the swing weight is much lower than other big skis as most weight is underfoot. The tips actually aren't *that* wide.Quote:
Originally Posted by Vitamin I
I agree with you (as one who is interested in the weight of my gear), but if one is riding lifts, what does the weight matter?Quote:
Originally Posted by Damian Sanders
also...once people get up to the huge skis (huge traditionally-shaped skis are dumb in my opinion, by the way), weight is less relevant as they're pretty much all heavy. (maybe i'll have a different opinion as i'm going to use a lotus 120/dynafit combo for some touring this year -- but i still think the weights of big skis are waaaay heavier than a ski designed for long tours.)
folks around here seem to have the mindset that heavy = good downhill performance (and they are right, to a point), but there are ways to retain 90% of the dh performance and get 150% of the touring performance.
anyway, i agree with your comments if they pertain to touring. otherwise, who cares about weight?
For quick direction changes in bumps, trees, etc.Quote:
Originally Posted by upallnight
But for a 146mm waste 185cm sidewalled ski to way the same as a 130mm waste capped ski and all of the other smaller "super fat skis" is a Big accomplishment that is performed by using Bamboo and carbon fiber.Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDon
good point!Quote:
Originally Posted by Damian Sanders
but what you're after is weight distribution, not absolute weight. one could build a pair of skinny skis that "feel like" they weight more by concentrating weight in tip & tail. they might actually track well on a downhill course, but they won't deliver what you seek.
absolute weight is relevant for touring; weight distribution can address your situation.
Ya I hadn't thought of that. I really am so glad I let you guys run with this, it is so hard to get good in put on gear. Thanks!Quote:
Originally Posted by skimasterflex
I'll have to throw my ARG's on a scale when i get back to cali. They're so light, especially for how big and relatively stiff they are, it's pretty exciting.
As my review has been mentioned a bunch in here, I should probably say a few things.
First, I didn't particulary like them when I took them out. However, I did feel they had potential, if played with some more, which has apparently happened, although I can't vouch for this. I'd like to get back on them to see if this is the case, but as I'm no longer Breck based, it aint gonna happen anytime soon.
I would say these are the points to consider:
unconventional shapes - be it stupid fat, rocker, new sidecuts - need different 'unconventional' technique. It will likely feel weird at first whatever you choose.
skiers are amazingly adaptable. we often do things differently to get the best from our equipment and develop techniques to allow us to use it effectively, given time. (I didn't have this time when skiing the Faty-pus.) You'll be able to do this with whatever you choose.
Your problem lies solely, it seems to me, in the weight. Therefore, you should be looking at Carbon lay-ups anyway!!!
Lastly, both TheDon and SMF have very AKPM grammar and spelling. Sort it out! you might get some more help that way!!!! :D
I wanted a really wide ski that would hold it's own on hardpack because skiing utah inbounds means sidestepping and traversing to powder and skiing bumps and groomers and mank back to the lift. Sidestepping and traversing sucked on spats because they were stupidly heavy and they did not allow me to set an edge and glide cleanly on traverses, let alone really bumpy traverses. Bumps, groomers and mank sucked because I have a hard time reprogramming myself to expect to be skidding on that stuff. My survival mode when things get choppy at speed is to be solidly on edge, which did not work with spats. I just thought that at 240 lbs and having a lot of runs that are partly on packed snow and partly pow that these would be a good call.
I find underfoot weight differences to be pretty noticeable, in bumps and trees. Not as noticeble as swing weight, but still very noticeable if you go from a 7 lb binding to a 5 lb binding. I'd rather be on a ski with a medium/heavy swing weight and longer length, but less overall weight....Quote:
Originally Posted by upallnight
:rolleyes2 Personally I think these skis are too fat! I would stick to 115 waist or less, anyway I rather get into the pow then on it. Isn't Thats why people have snorkels,and like getting face shots.
Its all about having the sensations. Skiing provides such cool sensations, riding pow is Unbelievable!, to have your skis come out on top or the snow and feel like you could almost lift off!Quote:
Originally Posted by str8
Skiing is amazing wether you're into being down in the freshness or out on top it is all about the sensations and feelings, the rush the game gives you.
That may have sounded hippy or earthy, whatever, but tell me why we drop cliffs then? Or why we ski so fast that the wind pushes tears into the corners of your eyes with your goggles on?!
the rush is Amazing!
This is True,anybody who loves the pow is a friend of mine and how you get off is all good! Just talk'n tech.
Word. Even with 916s they are easy to whip around when you're clamped in (in the living room).Quote:
Originally Posted by Darkside
Oh, Stuckathuntermtn, Tyson is actually Tanner's brother.
10 lb 190 Atomic '07 Big Daddy
+
5.2 lb FKS 180
+
7.5 lb Flexons
=
Slaying tight powder trees, but able to go big when you need to.