191 PM Gear Lhasa Fat

Just received my 191 Lhasa Fat's from Pat. FKN- Insane! If these things ski as good as they look then I will be one happy dude. I have been skiing Line Prophet 100's as my everyday ski here on the East Coast. Planning to use the Lhasa's on my annual trips out west to Crested Butte and Alta and here on the East Coast if conditions permit. I am 6'2", 220 lb advanced skier and spent many many hours researching which powder skis to get and settled on the 191 Lhasa Fat's- glad I did and can't wait to take them for a test drive. Anyone out there looking at the usually suspects for powder skis should also take a good look at these bad boys. Pat's responsiveness to questions is off-the-charts.

Ditto. I'll post some pics of my Carbon Fats tonight. Nicest skis I've ever seen.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by teebird11

Just received my 191 Lhasa Fat's from Pat. FKN- Insane! If these things ski as good as they look then I will be one happy dude.

---

Basically, 1875 grams for a 117 waisted 192 ski. I've been skiing DPS Pures for several years but no more- these are lighter than a Lotus 120 but have a better shape, better profile, better flex, and better finish.

The black isn't a top sheet - its the actual carbon cloth. Looks amazing in person.

Heres some pics that do not do them justice... review is coming once I get some miles on them.

http://a2.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphot...32223055_n.jpg

https://www.sugarsync.com/pf/D911435_339606_974152 https://www.sugarsync.com/pf/D911435_339606_974154

OMG.. Patches.. those are identical to the ones I have being shipped just now.. they look amazing. Can't wait to get them now after seing these pics. Pat is great to deal with and always sorts you out. Great customer service.

Those things have huge tip rocker. Is that going to be a problem in crud, as go up so much?

Not at all. Those tips don't flop, they flex only when needed. A year of prototyping has put them in every condition to perfect the tip flex so it is stable and slays every kind of snow. In crud, they float it and slice right through it without any hesitation. In heavy pow, they flex to float the ski. On hard pack, they are solid and stable. In light pow....they're heavenly. Should only be about ten days before one of the guys on them posts a review. They've been selling fast and it looks like we'll have to do another run to keep up with demand.

What is the turning radius on those fat boyz?

36 meter average on a compound radius that is 26m in the tip, 45m in the tail.

Is there going to be a 186 Lhasa Fat for the lighter guys Pat?

Sounds like we need to make one. We have a couple things in the hopper right now for pow skis and I think the 186 Lhasa Fat would be pretty damn popular. We'll be trying to get the new pow ski protos done for when the snow comes.

I'm thinking my next pow ski is the 191 fat. I hope WHYTURN hates his and throws em up on gear swap cheap.

From left to right:
Head Monster 103 (traditional non-rockered tip from several years ago)
DPS Wailer 105 (early-rise)
Carbon Fat 191

The tip looks perfect to me. Big enough to be unsinkable but not a big floppy rockered tip.

I think the tip will be plenty big enough to make it unsinkable but not so big as to create instability or hookiness while skiing fast in soft snow or crud.

Can't wait to actually try them out- Tahoe needs snow, now.

https://www.sugarsync.com/pf/D911435_339606_985833

The tip wouldn't look so huge if the skis were mounted with alpine binders, that tiny Plum toe throws the tip out of proportion.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by splat

Sounds like we need to make one. We have a couple things in the hopper right now for pow skis and I think the 186 Lhasa Fat would be pretty damn popular. We'll be trying to get the new pow ski protos done for when the snow comes.

---

I admit it, I felt a twinge of envy when I read that the 179 Fat is 140-114-130 and my 183 Fat is 136-112-126...but once I thought about it for a second I realized the 183 Fat doesn't need to be wider and it perfect the way it is. If it was wider I'd have even more ridiculous quiver overlap than I already do. (182 Drifters & first generation Sumos that are about a 181 by comparison)

I'm putting Binding Freedom inserts for Dynafit & FKS patterns in the skis- the second set hasn't been installed yet. This is the first pair of skis I've had that beg to be skied with both TLT5s and 130 flex alpine boots.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 1000-oaks

The tip wouldn't look so huge if the skis were mounted with alpine binders, that tiny Plum toe throws the tip out of proportion.

---

This was mine and my wife's first time on our lhasa's. All we have is man-made right now. I thought we'd just take them out and make sure the mounts were okay etc. But the skis simply killed it. They're just so much fun. The kind of ski that makes you want to never leave the hill. If they perform half as good in powder as they do on hardpack I'll be really impressed.

Oh. I should add that my wife has named her skis the cookie monsters because they devour death cookies.

patches, what's your bsl?

are you shifting your mount point +/- for one of the mounts?

IIRC (which seems inlikely now) the toe holes had some conflict.

those things look $$

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Patches

Basically, 1875 grams for a 117 waisted 192 ski. I've been skiing DPS Pures for several years but no more- these are lighter than a Lotus 120 but have a better shape, better profile, better flex, and better finish.

---

Wait, I'm confused. The weight listed on the PM gear website is 4.7 lbs/ski. The weight listed on the DPS website for Lotus 120 is 4.03 lb/ski. The weight you list is 4.13 lb/ski. (I converted to lbs because that's what's listed on the PM Gear website.)

If these really are lighter, I'd consider picking up the pair of blems from Gear Swap. I just don't think that's the case based on the weights listed on the website. Did your pair weigh in at 1875 g? If so, I'll weigh my L120s...

Auvgeek- mine are all carbon (not listed on the PM Gear website).

They weigh an actual 1875g for a 191 vs. a spec of 1830g for the Lotus 120s in 190. I remember my Lotuses being a couple ounces heavier than spec though I don't remember the exact number (it was pretty close, within a few percent). What's the actual weight on your 120s?

But- the 191 Lhasa Pow is quite a bit burlier than a 190cm Lotus 120. Stiffer and less tip. I loved my 120s at moderate speeds but I felt the tip was too big and soft and would get hooky at high speed, plus it flapped around horribly on wind buff or other hard snow. I think the Lhasa Pow will have everything good the 120 had in pow and work a lot better in breakable crust, chop, windbuff or other weird snow types.

pfuffenmeister- IMHO (others disagree) the dynafit/FKS is a great combo for inserts as long as you don't drill the fifth dynafit toepiece hole. The FKS mount winds up a few mm forward relative to the dynafit mount. I can give actual measurements once I get it done. [EDIT: this opinion refers to the old hole pattern. The new Radical pattern is even better for FKS compatibility]

Right now I ski TLT5s and Cochises in the Dynafit mount; the TLT5 lands 2mm forward of the recommended all-mountain line and the Cochise is 7mm behind it. Splat suggests 5mm back from the all-mountain line if uses for powpow only. Seems like a good compromise to me, it puts me farther back when I'm on my charger and forward on my nancyboy boots.

I expect the FKS mount will put my Agent 130s about 5mm in front of the all-mountain line, which is as close as I can get it... no biggie I ski BC way more than inbounds these days.

EDIT: You know... I've never played around with demo bindings to see how mount point changes the way a ski handles. For all I know I couldn't tell the difference between +/- 30 mm. I have no idea. Just trying to stay close to what the people who design the stuff say.

Damn, that's a sick setup. I plan to do the same thing for Plum/FKS, but I haven't gotten around to playing with the toe pattern yet.

http://i55.photobucket.com/albums/g1...d/IMG_7399.jpg

Couple photos. I agonized over which ski to drop our hard earned coin on. Fortunately I had someone with first hand experience that I trust completely who had skied the Lhasa. Even his descriptions paled in comparison to the actual experience of riding this ski. And like I've said I only have hard pack experience. This ski is a rocket ship. So playful too. Smear, skid, carve. Do it all in the same turn. Such lineal predictable performance. If you've driven a BMW...

http://i55.photobucket.com/albums/g1...d/IMG_7406.jpg

Pat you and I need to talk about a 186 lhasa fat. I've been thinking about that ski for a long time.
186 lhasa is the daily driver that kills it in every condition.
186 lhasa fat is to add to the quiver for the truly deep days.

Since its a more pow specific ski you increase all the dimensions by 10mm. So it becomes 150-122-130.
The tip dimensions might come down just a touch because you make the shark nose tip start earlier. Further back on the ski than currently, i.e. more taper. You do that because you increase the rocker in the tip by a bit. The rocker should look exactly like the 191 fats in the pics above. That is more than the current 186 lhasa but seems perfect for the fatter more pow specific version.
Finally because it is more pow specific you go by the 196 lhasa tail and shave 2mms off the 186 tail so it is even more pintailish.
150 (maybe minus a mm or 2 because of increased taper and rocker)-122-128 becomes the finished dimensions.

Keep all the other lhasa characteristics the same. A few mms of camber underfoot and through the tail. More than that and the ski starts to loose its playfulness.
Keep it stiff.
Make it those ridiculous clear sexy carbon topsheets.

In retrospect those 191 fats look amazing. Make the 186 even fatter with more taper in the tip and even more pintaily and you have my ultimate pow weapon.

The characteristics of the regular lhasa are just so damn good compared to everything else I've tried its hard to stray far from that base.

Are these identical to last years 191 fats but just more carbon? If so, they slay everything.

How much different would the 186 fat and 187 fats be? Other than the sidecut?

Love the idea of plus 10mm all around (maybe even more than +10mm at the waist, probably don't need that much sidecut), a tip longer than 350mm, and zero camber. It would be a pretty specialized pow stick after all, might as well go all the way.

Yes, they're the same with more trippy carbon, piggity. The carbon on the all carbons like Patches' pair is the same aeronautical carbon weave used on the Boeing 787 Dreamliner. It's so tech that we were told that if any of our cloth ended up in Iran, we'd do time.

The very different sidecuts make for very different rides and they're all great. 187 Bro Fats and 191 Lhasa Fats are my personal pics. And the 192. If I feel like going really fast, the 196 Lhasa. Flipping around from ski to ski and the different shapes from semi pintail to trad sidecuts, I feel the difference, but I don't ever notice the change that much, just adjust to it.

That TripPy carbon is my kinda trip, sexy too. About 12 days til I get those 187 fats in some snow, although I won't be able give them a true test due to my gimpiness.

For those in this post with 191 fats, the ski is redonkulously versatile. Its so much more than a pow ski, make sure to drive the ski and stay in the front seat, otherwise hold on for the ride.

Splat; would it be possible to make a 191 fat a bit softer? There is one season left in my white/orange Megawatt tele-pow-sticks, and I'm looking for a ski with similar float and long sidecut, but a bit stiffer / better in crud. Considering both hybrid/carbon at this time, and I love that the fats have sort of the same sidecut profile with a tighter sidecut in the front and a pretty straight tail.
I'm not really sure I need a softer ski, but a lot of people say that you have to drive the tips and stay forward on the lhasas. I guess what I'm asking is if the fats will be more of a big-mountain charger compared to the 'watts. If anyone who has tele'd on both 'watts and lhasas; feel free to chime in.
I'm around 185, and a pretty ok skier, but tend to / like to lean back and slarve when teleing

How come the 187 fats aren't on the website? Was just poking around there for kicks.

Are the 187 fats the traditional Bro shape or the Lhasa shape?

The 187 Fats were the last ski we pressed and we're still finishing them up so I can get a photo and description on the website, CW.

Do you have any stickers with the "BRO" in Arabic or whatever it is? Because I would totally buy some.

Sorry, Rootskier, just the FKNA stickers....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sf

Splat; would it be possible to make a 191 fat a bit softer? There is one season left in my white/orange Megawatt tele-pow-sticks, and I'm looking for a ski with similar float and long sidecut, but a bit stiffer / better in crud. Considering both hybrid/carbon at this time, and I love that the fats have sort of the same sidecut profile with a tighter sidecut in the front and a pretty straight tail.
I'm not really sure I need a softer ski, but a lot of people say that you have to drive the tips and stay forward on the lhasas. I guess what I'm asking is if the fats will be more of a big-mountain charger compared to the 'watts. If anyone who has tele'd on both 'watts and lhasas; feel free to chime in.
I'm around 185, and a pretty ok skier, but tend to / like to lean back and slarve when teleing

---

Forward stance has more to do with the shape than the flex. High-taper skis like to have their, ahem, tips....driven.....

Cool thing about the 191 Fats is that they have 1-1.5 mm more in the tail. When we did the 191 Lhasas with 2 mm more in the tail, people missed the slarvy way the 186 Lhasas skied, so we changed the tail from 122 down to 120 and it skis better that way. The tail on the 191 Fats, which are pretty much 4 mm fatter all the way around, is 125.5, or 1.5 mm more than the 124 they would be if they were based off the 140-112-120 profile of the thinner tailed Lhasa. For whatever reason this tail dim works really well on the fatter version. It's not quite the fatter tailed regular Lhasa dim and it's not the thinner tailed Lhasa dim. It's somewhere in between, just right to make a hudge dif in the ski. Not the first time I've seen a day and night difference in the way a ski behaves from a 1 mm difference in the profile. This tail on the 191 Fat allows you to have a centered, even a backish stance if you want, with comfort and hold. The tails don't wash out at all, but release easily on demand.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sf

Splat; would it be possible to make a 191 fat a bit softer? There is one season left in my white/orange Megawatt tele-pow-sticks, and I'm looking for a ski with similar float and long sidecut, but a bit stiffer / better in crud. Considering both hybrid/carbon at this time, and I love that the fats have sort of the same sidecut profile with a tighter sidecut in the front and a pretty straight tail.
I'm not really sure I need a softer ski, but a lot of people say that you have to drive the tips and stay forward on the lhasas. I guess what I'm asking is if the fats will be more of a big-mountain charger compared to the 'watts. If anyone who has tele'd on both 'watts and lhasas; feel free to chime in.
I'm around 185, and a pretty ok skier, but tend to / like to lean back and slarve when teleing

---

See my answer above; but to answer your original question - yes, we can adjust flex and usually make different flexes on most of the skis because people always ask for different things. If someone worries about the flex, I'll tell them to flex their skis when they arrive and if they're too soft or stiff, send them back and we'll get them what they want. The all carbons will get upgraded to some even trippier cloth soon. Right now, since we just sold out of all carbons, we can build the flex to order when we start a new run.

Splat; thanks. As I said, it will be a spring/summer purchase for me, but anyhow, the more I think about it I'll just go for the standard fats. I was surprised by how the superbros handled, so I'll take my chances with the fats as well

On another note; planning anything shorter, but pow-specific for the girls? I know a 169 lhasa, maybe around 108 in the waist, would be the ticket for my girlfriend

Quote:

---

On another note; planning anything shorter, but pow-specific for the girls?

---

http://www.tetongravity.com/forums/s...ckest-ski-ever!!!

^ I know, was thinking of something a bit shorter. There was a 164 bro a few years ago, as well as a 169.

Gotcha, didn't know if u saw those before

sf - every year people ask us to make shorter skis. But the sales barely justify the effort. The 179 Lhasas have rock solid rave reviews from the people (mostly women) who are skiing them. They have a 164 effective edge, so they ski very well for people who were on 165 range skis previously. If we were in more shops, the numbers would likely change. But I have become wary of how short we go based on the requests of mags for shorter skis.

I was recently talking about this with someone and it appears that kids and women, unlike the majority of adult male maggots, don't buy that many skis on the interwebz.