The Better Freeride/Comp Ski

Printable View

10-04-2007, 04:28 PM
Professor Chaos

The Better Freeride/Comp Ski

X-posting this from a gear swap question.

Me:186cm, 170 lbs

Skis in question: 194 LP and XXL

Just bought 194 LPs for general big mountain and comps, but am worried about tip dives due to the small tip size and low amount of taper. Plan on mounting them +1 from recomended.

Considering swaping them for XXLs as they are bigger and Ive heard are better in tight spots.

I know there a billion threads about this and Ive read tons of reviews but most are about the 186 which is not what I have. Any thoughts?

Will the tips sink with my size? Will the XXLs better for me? Or will the fact that Im planning on mounting +1 help the manouverability of the LPs in tight spots at fast speeds?
10-05-2007, 07:58 AM
Altaholic

Quote:

Originally Posted by El Duderino

X-posting this from a gear swap question.

Me:186cm, 170 lbs

Skis in question: 194 LP and XXL

Just bought 194 LPs for general big mountain and comps, but am worried about tip dives due to the small tip size and low amount of taper. Plan on mounting them +1 from recomended.

Considering swaping them for XXLs as they are bigger and Ive heard are better in tight spots.

I know there a billion threads about this and Ive read tons of reviews but most are about the 186 which is not what I have. Any thoughts?

Will the tips sink with my size? Will the XXLs better for me? Or will the fact that Im planning on mounting +1 help the manouverability of the LPs in tight spots at fast speeds?

I hope this helps,...
I ride 193 Nordica Blowers & Armada ANTs, but all the guys I know who have XXLs, LOVE THEM!!!!
10-05-2007, 11:17 AM
Bobby686

I had the XXL's last year as a comp ski, I loved it, except in Jackson during the morning on a sheet of ice. there were a few on the LP's who seemed to like them and did well. This year i'm going with the 192 Bro a little stiffer and wider, and mounted a little more in the center of the ski, a comp weapon in my opinon.
10-05-2007, 11:48 AM
Professor Chaos

Thanks for the input. I think I might actually just drop both of them and get the shop to order some new Elan 999s. They took out the twin and just left a semi rise, like the Legends, and they stiffened the crap out of it from previous years 999s. They feel and supposedly are just as stiff as LPs, but with a ever so slightly softer tail and they added a shit-load of tortional stiffness to them. All that, with a 10mm taper, a generous 34+m radius in the 193 length, sounds perfect to me.
10-05-2007, 11:53 AM
Z

999s are wayyyyy to soft for comp skiing (still...IMO). Im on XXLs this year and psyched on em. Im 6'4 180lbs and ski black diamonds occasionally.

I skied a few comps last year on 777s and those are a sick ski. Took me a few days to get em under me they have so much energy on hardpack. Check em out if you wanna go skinny.
10-05-2007, 12:17 PM
Professor Chaos

Z, have you given the new 999 a shot?

Ive been eyeing a pair of 777s after hearing a lot of good things about them and if one comes along at a good price Ill jump on it.

My other option which Im very strongly debating is getting a pair of either 196 full twin or 190 semi twin Big Mountain Chargers from Capital. Ive been in contact with Funk for a while and he's willing to pull out this older template for me. This ski sounds also perfect, in fact if I were to design a ski this would be nearly exactly what Id get. 107 underfoot, 15mm of taper and 34 radius. A beast of a ski and in a stiff flex would just slay everything.
10-05-2007, 02:16 PM
Dug

I suggest an Atomic Metron for avoiding tip dive in the deep pow you frequently find at comps.
10-05-2007, 06:16 PM
Professor Chaos

Going with XXL. Quite happy with that. Thanks for help folks.
10-06-2007, 09:05 AM
Caucasian Asian

Quote:

Originally Posted by El Duderino

Thanks for the input. I think I might actually just drop both of them and get the shop to order some new Elan 999s. They took out the twin and just left a semi rise, like the Legends, and they stiffened the crap out of it from previous years 999s. They feel and supposedly are just as stiff as LPs, but with a ever so slightly softer tail and they added a shit-load of tortional stiffness to them. All that, with a 10mm taper, a generous 34+m radius in the 193 length, sounds perfect to me.

The new 999 must be a whole lot stiffer than the old ones. I've got a pair of last years 192s and they were a fun pow ski, but they weren't so good in the crud or on hardpack. I'd try 'em out first.

FWIW-I'm replacing my 999s with a pair of 777s.
10-06-2007, 09:25 AM
JeffreyJim

There are going to be SOOO many XXLs out there as comp skis. Damn.
10-06-2007, 03:54 PM
Professor Chaos

^^^ Well considering I was gonna use ANTs this year but didnt want a full twin, this was a great alternative for something stiffer and in the same size range.
10-06-2007, 03:57 PM
couloirman

don't forget about 189 squads, stiffer than, well, nevermind...
10-06-2007, 03:59 PM
Eds

Quote:

Originally Posted by couloirman

don't forget about 189 squads, stiffer than, a priest at a playground (?)....

Maybe that will work.
10-06-2007, 05:48 PM
Z

Quote:

Originally Posted by JeffreyJim

There are going to be SOOO many XXLs out there as comp skis. Damn.

There were last year too. Squads and XXLs.
10-07-2007, 02:06 PM
Jizzing On Nerdy Grandparents

Quote:

Originally Posted by El Duderino

^^^ Well considering I was gonna use ANTs this year but didnt want a full twin, this was a great alternative for something stiffer and in the same size range.

Not in the same size range.
10-07-2007, 04:15 PM
JeffreyJim

Funny you mention the ANTS, I still am thinking of selling the XXLs for ANTS. It'd make me some money, (ANTS@399 for me right now) be a bit more versatile (yes, I'd ski the ANTs in park and for some BC jumpin'-fun) and easier to ski. Sure, I'd loose some mach looney stability but not sure it would really matter in the end. The XXL is going to be my go-to ski. It'll be my do-everything ski and that scares me.

Anybody know the running length diff in the XXL and ANT? I looked at the flex and they are actually just about as stiff as the XXL.

Oh, i'm 6'2" 200lbs.
10-07-2007, 04:45 PM
couloirman

Quote:

Originally Posted by JeffreyJim

It'd make me some money, (ANTS@399 for me right now)

how would that make you any money? Isnt the maggot price right now around 400 for XXL's considering the number that were on SAC?
10-07-2007, 05:08 PM
Professor Chaos

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jizzing On Nerdy Grandparents

Not in the same size range.

Dimensions, close. Length and running legth, not the same.

Quote:

Originally Posted by JeffreyJim

Anybody know the running length diff in the XXL and ANT? I looked at the flex and they are actually just about as stiff as the XXL.

Huge. ANTs are a full twin. Probably a good 8cm, maybe...
10-07-2007, 07:29 PM
FrozenKiwi

yip that was a good guess, from the ski weight thread ant running length=156, XXl running length=164.5. 'bout 8.5cm difference. The Ants are really short shorter than a 186 LP that has a running length of 158.
10-07-2007, 07:34 PM
JeffreyJim

Thanks! Fact is, this will be the longest ski I've ever been on. Guess we'll see what happens.
10-07-2007, 07:49 PM
FREESKIER_FIVE-0

I think the ANTs rise to a 6cm heigth over a 15cm length. Its ridiculous. But I think they are the best mach-looney twin out there in their dimension range.
10-08-2007, 07:04 PM
Z

Quote:

Originally Posted by JeffreyJim

Thanks! Fact is, this will be the longest ski I've ever been on. Guess we'll see what happens.

dood. yer psyched. You'll be in jackson and have room to let those xxls run and stomp. no worries.

And either way....Im gonna be skiing a good amount of bumps with xxls, and im not really worried. Sure they'll probably kick my ass a bit early season, but then im gonna on top of them and they're gonna do every fucking thing I tell them too. That's my view atleast. In other words...don't be scared coming into skiing a big ski. Just think how bad yer gonna own it when you get ontop of em.

Also eldude, don't spend too much on comp skis. Cause yer gonna break them. Alot.
10-08-2007, 07:14 PM
Tyrone Shoelaces

Quote:

Originally Posted by Z

Also eldude, don't spend too much on comp skis. Cause yer gonna break them. Alot.

gud advice!!!!
10-08-2007, 07:17 PM
dfinn

Quote:

Originally Posted by JeffreyJim

Anybody know the running length diff in the XXL and ANT? I looked at the flex and they are actually just about as stiff as the XXL.

I was at my buddies house when his XXLs showed up from SAC. They hand flex WAY stiffer than my first gen Ants. I would compare them closer to a 2x4 than the Ants ;)
10-08-2007, 10:34 PM
Professor Chaos

Quote:

Originally Posted by Z

Also eldude, don't spend too much on comp skis. Cause yer gonna break them. Alot.

Aware of that. But hoping that if I spend a bit more for a better made ski (XXL or a pair of Capitals) that they will last longer despite the fact that Ill be beating them senseless. Still leaning and have my hands on the XXLs, but still considering getting some Capitals despite the extra $$.
10-08-2007, 10:45 PM
soul_skier

igneous? ffl, fat, in a 190, flexed at around a 260?
10-08-2007, 11:03 PM
Z

Quote:

Originally Posted by El Duderino

Aware of that. But hoping that if I spend a bit more for a better made ski (XXL or a pair of Capitals) that they will last longer despite the fact that Ill be beating them senseless. Still leaning and have my hands on the XXLs, but still considering getting some Capitals despite the extra $$.

yeah. But then yer gonna stomp the piss out of a 25 footer to a rock and yer expensive skis are gonna break.

just sayin.
10-08-2007, 11:08 PM
soul_skier

and that is exactly why with only 1 exception( praxis) i don't buy new skis, you are going to destroy them, 10-20 days on any good pair of skis doesn't do that much damage, one set of holes isn't that detrimental, and I don't feel that bad when I put a 6" long coreshot in them
10-08-2007, 11:42 PM
JeffreyJim

naww, I'm pumped on em. I'll be skiing XXLs.

Really, I keep this banter going because I'm bored as fuck while I wait for the snow to fly.

Living at your parents house, even for a short time post college is like a long shitty hangover to a great party.
10-09-2007, 12:14 AM
Atrain505

192 brohemouths, because they'll put the spank down on the XXL's as far as ease of turning and stability.

That's seriously what splat should do as marketing. Here test the XXL side by side with my 192 bro...I bet I already know which one you'll like better...with that goofy frin of his.
10-09-2007, 03:49 AM
P_McPoser

^^ Never underestimate the power of splat's goofy Frin!
10-09-2007, 09:53 AM
shasti

El Dude, how come you dont go Bsquad ? stiffer than XXL and cheaper. You cant slarve a turn on squads like you can XXL and they arnt a pow ski (both because of the narrow waist an big taper) but if you wanna shred........@ least try a pair
10-09-2007, 11:30 AM
Professor Chaos

I find the Squads too stiff. I like the fact that the XXL has a softer tail. Z your right. Ive beaten skis to death in no time before so considering Ill be getting a bigger charging ski and charging that much harder on them theyll should be disposable.

Soul Skier, Ive thought about both FAT and FFGS Ingeous, but add tax, shipping, and any possible duties on the cost and it makes sense to stay local (Capital) if I even decide to go that route.

Im leaning on sticking with my XXLs. Stiff, wide, its what I want. I just wish they had a bit more taper, but whatever, I aint gonna get pick over them.

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 09:53 PM.