Check Out Our Shop
Results 1 to 16 of 16

Thread: Short skis rule?????????

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Too Far South
    Posts
    5,269

    Short skis rule?????????

    After a week of stewing/negative vibes I got out and went skiing this weekend. All week I had been looking at the pair of 165 Explosives that had been sitting in the hall corner for 2 years. With all the chatter on the board about spatulas and phantoms and their ability to slide in tight spaces I figured I'd let them have one last shot before Ebaying em. I had originally bought them as an EC tree weapon ala Phantoms but I was a little ahead of the curve. I had only skiied them once at Gore when I first got them and got mucho funny looks as fat skis weren't cool yet and short fat skis were just fucking weird.

    My first thoughts two years ago were that they really didn't blow me away in the trees, but I remember they were fun to slide in the bumps. They were my first pair of "fat" skis so I wasn't quite sure how to ski them and I remeber being turned off by the length. Anyway they were de-mounted and thrown into the hallway to be forgotten. I had intended on handing them off first to the wife, and then schuss wanted em, but since he already got his shorties I figured I'd give them one last try. Friday I hit Kmart looking for the steep and tight tree shots that the K crew had shown me in previous adventures, while I couldn't find every one I found enough to discover that I hadn't given these skis enough time to see what they were capable of. These are the 'sploders the year before the wizard so they have a slight kick tail which prevents the tail from augering in on sideslips, coupled with the lack of sidecut means they'll ski sideways.

    It did take me a while to find the sweetspot on them. Its a real exercise in balence to not go over the handlebars but stay out of the backseat. But once I found the spot I felt like I could spin 360's in the trees. Running full speed in wide open spaces through junky snow they're a little nervous but far better then I would have expected. I was a little worried about how they'd fair in deep pow/crust due to they're short length but as long as your making quick slashing turns they work fine. Most of the skiing I did at Killington was moderate to low angle glades with a couple of steeper pitches and I enjoyed being able to find loose windblown snow in the tighter lines.

    Fast forward to saturday at smuggs. First run of the day was down Maddona liftline where I discovered where these skis excel, I've never been much of a fan of billygoating but I might become one now that I know what these skis are capable of. Little sidecut + Low Swingweight = Fun Billygoating. I've never been able to hold an edge on icefall before so anytime I see icefall/ledges I usually go into gaper mode, however on the 165's I could load the entire edge so I could perch on an icefall to contemplate my next move. Kickturns are a snap and hop turns are no problem, I even dropped a couple of 5 foot ledges into tight landings that I never would have thought of doing before. But the best part was actually being able to link carved turns in steep tight chutes and chokes. After 2 runs I met Vinman(Bro Models are such a dead giveaway) and he gave me an insiders tour of Smuggs and I got a chance to try out the shorties in some deeper pow. They wouldn't be my first choice in those conditions(I was making 4-6 turns where Vinman was making 1 on the Bros) but as long as you kept turning they didn't falter even when it got boot/thigh deep. My guess is that over 6-10 inches I'll be grabbing a real pair of fats but for anything less then that I'll probably grab the shorties. I still wanna get a feel for how well they land bigger drops because I think they could be ideal billygoat skis.

    All things considered I was pleasantly surpirsed and happy with these skis, more testing is needed but they could see a lot more rotation in the quiver depending on further testing.
    For sure, you have to be lost to find a place that can't be found, elseways everyone would know where it was

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    People's Republic of Shitshow
    Posts
    7,581
    didnt read all that...but i just feel like no matter how fat, 165 is just too short...i dont know...longer is better always IMO...

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    318 Powder Lane
    Posts
    3,647
    Laser, glad you had a good time and glad I could show you around some. It looked like you were having a blast on those. Big drops on short skis might = disater though. I feel much more confident/stable with a bit more ski under me. But thats just my opinion.
    fighting gravity on a daily basis

    WhiteRoom Skis
    Handcrafted in Northern Vermont
    www.whiteroomcustomskis.com

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    Sawtooth's
    Posts
    1,336
    Quote Originally Posted by MOHSHSIHd
    didnt read all that...but i just feel like no matter how fat, 165 is just too short...i dont know...longer is better always IMO...
    Is that why you have a 163 in your quiver.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Looking down
    Posts
    50,490
    Laser, contact Dave at Phantom if it looks like snow this weekend and see if you can get a ride on the new 160. I will be at Gore with my girlfriend all weekend, but she understands my addiction if there is powder. PM me if you are interested. You need to do this.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Gotham
    Posts
    232
    Quote Originally Posted by ski_faster
    Is that why you have a 163 in your quiver.
    Nevermore, however weary, should one faint by the way who gains the blessings of one mountain day; whatever his fate, long life, short life, stormy or calm, he is rich forever. -- John Muir

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    In the moment
    Posts
    4,024
    Quote Originally Posted by MOHSHSIHd
    ...longer is better always IMO...
    Obviously you've never skied Eastern tree runs. But if you want Vin and Laser to take you on some of the terrain they skied while you're on a pair of 223 DH boards to prove your point, I'll be their with my video camera to record the carnage.
    "There is a hell of a huge difference between skiing as a sport- or even as a lifestyle- and skiing as an industry"
    Hunter S. Thompson, 1970 (RIP)

  8. #8
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    5,917
    Quote Originally Posted by ski_faster
    Is that why you have a 163 in your quiver.
    How does that foot taste!
    "Can't vouch for him, though he seems normal via email."

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Too Far South
    Posts
    5,269
    Quote Originally Posted by ski_faster
    Is that why you have a 163 in your quiver.
    probably forgot about that one due to his throbbing headache

    Quote Originally Posted by Vinman
    Big drops on short skis might = disater though.
    yeah I definately agree, I was thinking dropping < 8 feet at slow speeds not hucking 20 footers at 50 mph
    Last edited by laseranimal; 03-14-2005 at 12:55 PM.
    For sure, you have to be lost to find a place that can't be found, elseways everyone would know where it was

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    Sawtooth's
    Posts
    1,336
    Quote Originally Posted by MOHSHSIHd
    didnt read all that...but i just feel like no matter how fat, 165 is just too short...i dont know...longer is better always IMO...

    I will take the freerides off of your hands since they are mounted on a ski that you think is to short.

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Posts
    21
    Quote Originally Posted by laseranimal
    After a week of stewing ... however on the 165's I could load the entire edge so I could perch on an icefall to contemplate my next move. Kickturns are a snap and hop turns are no problem ...
    Ditto on everything.

    One comment. My 165 Explosivs used to be very manageable on ice, but slowly got worse. I thought it was the tune, so I sharpened the daylights out of them. No improvement. My 190 Explosivs (with Look binders) never changed with respect to how they handled ice.

    I finally tracked it down to the damn wings on the binders slowly working themselves just a bit loose over the course of the last couple of years. When you have that wide a ski up at a big edge angle on ice, there is a lot of torque trying to flatten the ski relative to the boot, and if your boots aren't anchored down tight, you will lose a few degrees of edging without you even knowing it.

    Tom / PM
    Last edited by PhysicsMan; 03-15-2005 at 06:35 PM.

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Too Far South
    Posts
    5,269
    just thought of something else, when the were first mounted the clamps were Sally 912's WITH the lifter plate thingy. Now they're mounted with 977's flat. I'm sure that has something to do with me liking it a lot more the second time around
    For sure, you have to be lost to find a place that can't be found, elseways everyone would know where it was

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Garden & Centennial
    Posts
    18
    Quote Originally Posted by laseranimal
    After a week of stewing/negative vibes I got out and went skiing this weekend. All week I had been looking at the pair of 165 Explosives that had been sitting in the hall ........ (too long to quote)
    Short and Fat can be a good thing! i've got a pair of Dynastar LBFs (168) that are great in the conditions you describe. It may not be for everyone, but that's why we have choice right?

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    tropicana
    Posts
    1,176
    <quote> . Little sidecut + Low Swingweight = Fun Billygoating </quote>

    . Little sidecut + Low Swingweight also = bro models.

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    271
    I have the168 Legend 8800, short and fairly fat and stiff (for 145lb feather weight that is me) A great ski for the type of skiing I like, bombing through the trees at kirkwood and hitting steep narrow gullies.

    Still I plan on getting something fatter, a little softer and a good bit longer, suggestions?
    Thinking maybe Gotama coz I would like twin tips.
    Last edited by p@wder; 03-21-2005 at 03:51 PM.

  16. #16
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    Berkeley
    Posts
    1,255
    Quote Originally Posted by p@wder
    I have the168 Legend 8800, short and fairly fat and stiff (for 145lb feather weight that is me) A great ski for the type of skiing I like, bombing through the trees at kirkwood and hitting steep narrow gullies.

    Still I plan on getting something fatter, a little softer and a good bit longer, suggestions?
    Thinking maybe Gotama coz I would like twin tips.

    A buddy in your weight range just got a pair 168cm Gotamas. He really likes them.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •