Printable View
I snagged a pair of these off ebay today for CHEAP with Salomon S900 binders to beat around on. These are not the actual skis but the top/bottom sheets are the same. Can anyone tell me what year these were manufactured? I know there were several top sheet designs over the years. Also, have/did any of you ski them and what were your thoughts? Yeah, I already searched high and low and read up on them and like what I have coming.
Peace.
I have a pair with the same topsheet, no idea what year they are. In terms of skiing, they're stiff, straight, and heavy and ski pretty much like you would expect a ski with those characteristics. They can be super-fun in the right conditions and they're great for early season pow days in CB, don't really have to worry too much about the bases.
I *think* I have this right, not 100% sure though.
That topsheet was first released for the 1994/95 season. That was also the first year that a 190cm length was included (only the shorter lengths were available before that).
The ski magazines kept showing that same topsheet in 1995/96 season and 1996/97 season, but I don't know whether Atomic released more for those 2 later seasons, or whether all those skis with that topsheet were built in 1994/95 and just lasted for 3 years.
.
Are you finding that info online or are you thinking back to when you actually had the magazines back in the day or maybe when you worked in a shop? Either way thanks for the input!Quote:
Originally Posted by Vitamin I
I was a clueless gaper in the Pow+ era of the early 90's.Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfelot
I recall some of the online articles I found claimed to be from PowderMag 1982-84, and I took notes, but those years must be wrong, so I decided not to trust the online stuff.
About 10 months ago, I read through many old magazines and took some notes. I found the magazines sometimes contradict each other, and usually tell an incomplete story, especially with niche categories like early fat skis. And sometimes a single "early fat ski" article would include ski tests for skis from a 2-3 year range (instead of all skis from the same year) without reporting which ski was which year, so in the magazines it's not easy to detect exactly which year each early fat ski was released. But my notes allow me to narrow it down a bit.
.
that topsheet came out in 1994/5, but those had white bases.
i believe the yellow bases are 1996/7 models. pretty sure the last year of powder plus before going to the cap powder cruise.
Some other rambling thoughts:
- Pow Plus is nearly indestructible. It's up there with the Explosiv in terms of the damage you can inflict on it.
- Pow Plus is similar shape to the Axiom, but the Axiom is easier to ski -- softer, and a better powder ski.
- 180cm Pow Plus is heavy. The 190cm one is even heavier, and rare.
Thanks for the information guys! I'm excited to get these bad boys on the snow!
marshal's post is consistent with my notes. OK, now if I really scrutinize my notes, and put all the puzzle pieces together, AND ASSUME ONLY ONE SIDEWALL COLOR PER YEAR * (i.e. cannot have white sidewall 180 and black sidewall 190 in same year), then for the 3 years of the same topsheet graphic in question here:Quote:
Originally Posted by marshalolson
1994/95 is white base
1995/96 is yellow base/white sidewall (wolfelot's 180's fit this description)
1996/97 is yellow base/black sidewall (my 190's fit this description)
supporting notes:
- Dec95 SkiingMag shows photos of both the yellow/black base and also the white base, so both bases existed by Dec95 (i.e. by the 1995/96 release). Same magazine issue shows white sidewall on a 180 with the same topsheet in question here.
- Sep96 PowMag GearGuide says they were released again that year (1996/97).
- Feb97 PowMag shows ad for Powder8 Championships with a PowPlus with yellow/black bases (but can't conclude much from that).
* Of course, it's possible the assumption above might be false.
.
first pairs made where for MW heliskiing, and where atomic snowboards, cut in half (split board style)
first skipairs made had one the base "the best invention in skiing since the helicopter" or sometime very similar to that. I have a pair for display. Also, most of the first few years had ess/var bindings mounts on the topsheet, and where mounted to the inside by about 10mm.
I should add a picture of them to this thread.
I love this website! Only on here could I find information about a 15-year old classic pow ski that I am super stoked to have coming my way. Great information guys.
Oh, this is fun...Set the way-back machine to 1993 and get this.
Nice! I read that when I was researching these skis.Quote:
Originally Posted by weasel1
ski 'em in the moguls a couple times and you'll have some tip rocker. i bent the shit out of a couple pairs.Quote:
Originally Posted by El Chupacabra
fuck i'm old.Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfelot
Anybody know the waist size on these? Trying to find a pair of brakes for my old mans' skis that we bought from fat yeti.
Thanks!
115ish mm
if they are the vintage as pictured, they are 130-110-120
the oldest ones and the 190's were 135-115-125
The 190cm waist is 108mm
190cm pow +? you must mean powder cruise. which was 104mm.Quote:
Originally Posted by bushman
i have owned 4 pair of 190 pow +, all of different vintage (ie. every different vintage) and all were 115mm exactly.
I should have taken my glasses off to read my caliper, my bad and I stand corrected.
i miss mine.
i seem to recall them having a oak core.
this is a pair that I got at the banff ski swap. No serial numbers, and have never seen this topsheet so I'm guessing a prototype. Also a ex-MW guide was selling them
JayPowhound, looks like you found your long sought after sticks!
Just picked these up yesterday, looks like the 96/97's, 190s. New in the plastic for 100$, not to shabby I don't think.
Jesus....that offcenter mounting so that you could turn a ski 'that wide™'
So dumb.
Quote:
Originally Posted by marshalolson
My 180 A+ Fat Boys w/ yellow base and white sidewalls [ like the first Pics in thread] measure 135-115-125
Have 190 A Pow Cruise that are 130-105-120 as well...
Just rockered the tips on both pairs, and they ski real sweet. The A+'s look just like the new Atlas's size and profile, for 1/10th the $...:tongue:
Cheers
Anybody seen a pair of Odyssey Max F/X's?Quote:
Originally Posted by weasel1
EXCERPT:
But Northwest skiers set on fat boards might look first in their own backyard. A new ski, the Odyssey Max F/X ($395), is less expensive and built in Brier.
Designers Paul and Coni Nelson say it's a "hybrid" fat ski, built specifically for Northwest all-terrain ski-area conditions. The Odyssey has a 99 millimeter waist and a 113 millimeter tail. At 163 centimeters long, it's shorter than many fat boys. But that shouldn't discourage larger skiers: It comes in three different flexes to accommodate skiers as light as 120 pounds and as heavy as 275.
The Odyssey's snowboard-style sidecut and centered binding make it a smooth handler on powder, crud or corduroy groomed snow, Coni Nelson said. Coupled with another local invention - Issaquah designer Ed Dittmar's Ice Control Edge groove - the ski is effective in all but solid ice or extremely hard packed snow.
"It's an energy-efficient ski," she said. "And it's not just for powder. We designed it for Northwest snow. This is a ski you can take up to Snoqualmie Pass."
Last season, Odyssey built only 150 pairs, which are long gone. This year, with financial backing from a Denver sponsor, they'll build 3,000 pairs, which will be in ski shops throughout the West in January.
"It's kind of scary for us," Nelson acknowledged.
Don't know what to make of this, but it's intriguing.
http://www.odysseyskis.com/untoldodyssey.html
IMO, The Nelsons got screwed by the big guys and the system. They probably should have taken their concept and produced and marketed it as fast as possible, before everyone else caught on and jumped in. Very difficult to patent something and have it hold up. Even if it is a 'good' patent, you better have $millions$ to fight infringement cases, if your idea is a good one, and even then more lose than win. Although, Head got sued and lost for stealing the patent for metal skis owned by Kam Skis, [ who Head had worked for ].Quote:
Originally Posted by Gordyman
It's a dog eat dog world out there,..be careful folks.
Cheers
I posted these earlier in this thread but didn't get any responses about the history so I figured I'd give it another (better) shot.
http://i332.photobucket.com/albums/m...g?t=1298423619 http://i332.photobucket.com/albums/m...g?t=1298423619
I picked them up from gearswap in December because the topsheets match some sweet poles I found at a tent sale :fm: and now I want to know more about them.
They're branded "Powder Magic" rather than "Powder Plus" but there doesn't seem to be much information available about that model name.
The only real reference I could find to it was here: http://www.wagnerskis.com/blog/2008/bearing-surface/
http://i332.photobucket.com/albums/m...g?t=1298423663Quote:
— I think we had the Atomic Powder Magic (later the name was changed to Powder Plus because Kneissl had a trademark on the Magic name)
There was a pair for sale a few years ago with the same topsheets, yet labled "Powder Plus" rather than "Powder Magic"
http://www.tetongravity.com/forums/s...fect-condition
http://stk.tetongravity.com/forums/a...2&d=1254778010
And a dedicated thread about them, but it died quickly...
http://www.tetongravity.com/forums/s...c-Powder-Magic
Mine are labeled "Made in Austria by A. Rohrmoser" and have a serial number of 180-10100158.
Are all the Pow Plus' labeled like this?
Any idea what the serial number means beyond the 180? Is it only pair #158 out of something??
http://i332.photobucket.com/albums/m...g?t=1298423941
So what's the story on these? Are they the 'original' Powder Plus before the name had to be changed as the Wagner link suggests? What year would they be from? Fill me in on my new toys!!
early vintage, same ski, same flex, same dimensions?
odds are they are a 1st or 2nd year of production.
Recently on 2nd-day-after-pow-day, I took out my 190cm Pow+ , and wow, I had forgotten how much they RULE! I rarely grab for them, but whenever I do, they really impress me.
I don't know much about the Powder Magics in your photo, but here are my notes on them (omitting the info you already posted above):Quote:
Originally Posted by JayPowHound
"Oct91 SkiCanadaMag gearguide has article with 'Powder Magic' in the title, but article contents do not include the word 'magic', and instead describes the 'Atomic Powder' as 180cm only, metal sandwich, clear base material, and 30 percent fatter than conventional skis.
Powder Magic is shown in March92 issue of PowderMag, 'available in one length (180cm)...', and claims this is the first year/season of release. Black w/pink/blue trim, says Powder huge, says Magic small."
.
jaypowhound - are they 110mm or 115mm waist? if 110mm then year #2, if 115mm then year #1
Glad I saw this thread. No clue what the "DEMO" means, but I figured I'd share my Pow+ story.
I have some homemade tip rockered Yellow Base/White Sidewall 180s with really sketchy demo bindings that's I've been using with AT boot soles (can't be the slightest bit safe). Each ski has 4 shot glasses for on-hill shot ski action. I've had some really interesting conversations...
Just this past weekend, I took them sand skiing down some dunes in Death Valley and had even more strange conversations with a bunch of Aussies.
Overall, they're super stiff and heavy (I'm 145 lbs), don't like to turn, and destroy everything in their path. Even the sand skiing didn't do a thing to them. Great investment.
hmm i am thinking of that offcenter too. is it skiable????
there is a pair in the cellar but i am worried of that mount??
how does it ski.