Igneous flex

[Jumper Bones]

I have a pair of FFLs in a 250 flex; from what I'm told this is an explosive-esqu flex (never skied exploders, so I wouldn't know). I have also been lucky enough to have skied on a pair of Natty D's Iggies (I think FFLs as well) in a 280 flex on Mt Hood; lots of snap between turns, and I didn't find them to be overpowering, but then again it was summer corn snow on the Palmer snowfield, so big surprise there.

Anyway I am very interested in a pair that happen to have a 240 flex. Having never skied that, how different will it be from my 250s? Will it be noticeably softer? What are we talking here? I weigh 220 lbs and ski fairly aggressively, so I'm no lightweight.

Also these skis are a different shape, the GS shape. With more sidecut and more flex, will the difference be significantly different from what I'm used to?

thanks in advance.

[jonski]

would think it will be quite a bit different from what your used to - its a totally diff ski - diff flex and shape.

only skied the one pair of iggy's, so don't know for sure, but the amount of flex wouldn't have as much of a part to play as the shape of the ski, i'd have thought - at least in the differences you're likely to notice.

[lemon boy]

the flex difference will be relatively unnoticable between 240 and 250.

[mntlion]

LB got it right on.
no real diff.

the GS shape will turn a bit more, and be a bit more squirly at speed. overall again not a big change, but that new pair might be a nicer powder/hangover ski.

[natty dread]

My FFLs that you skied were 260 not 280! You think I'm nuts?

240 should be fine for you, in fact I'm thinking if I get another pair of iggies, especially superfatties, I might go with a flex in that range. Iggies are so damn burly and damp-feeling that a little less stiffness won't hurt ya at speed or in mank.

Are you looking at the FaGS? I had a pair of those in 200 cm with a 270 flex. Twas actually a bit too much ski for me. At 88 at the waist, it's more of a midfat these days...

[Jumper Bones]

Yeah, I am eyeballin' those FaGS. It is pretty skinny by today's standards for sure, but I think I have the girthy end of the spectrum covered - 2 pairs of Pistols (a 179 and a 189), a pair of Kahunas (108 underfoot), and those FFLs should I decide to mount them up again (raided the bindings off of them for the 189 SP's). Just thinking a durable ski like those FaGS would make a great early-to-mid-season jeep ski. I was thinking about getting another pair of 189 Pistols for that purpose, but at 500 (from that Al's ski barn place), that's not the cheapest option at all. Plus, I like Iggies anyway.

dang nat, that's right, I thought yours were 280 for some reason. Which is why I thought it was crazy you let those XXXX's go for being too much - I was like, "damn, they're more than a 280? wow!"

Maybe it's Buster who has a pair in 280...guess I just got confuzzed.

[natty dread]

Yeah the FaGS is a great ski. I think of it as a fatter g4 with less shape.

I would hazard a guess that the xxxx is as stiff or stiffer than a 280 iggy. It's really pretty absurd how stiff they are. Nuff respect to those who can turn those beasts.

Busta has a pair of iggies with the classic "joe" graphic in a 300 flex!!
And they are never-mounted I believe. Maybe he'll put titanal IIs on them and tour around.

[Hugh Jass]

I'd love to help you girls out on this one, but my only reference point are my 215 cm FFLs in a 450 flex. They have the Air Raid graffix and are solid steel.



Another factor may be the ski vintage. I have some 99/00 FFLs and some newer FCs, both are rumored to be 240 flex, but the FFLs are significantly stiffer. Traded a few emails with Adam, and he gave me a long-winded explanation as to evolving construction on their part. It was unclear to me whether different vintages with different constructions had a sliding scale for stiffness, or if the newer versions were just lighter.

Marshal has seen both pair of Iggies, and upon flexing them thought the FFLs were at least 260, while the FCs were 240/250. I dunno....

[lemon boy]

Jumper-
They'd be good for that purpose. My 195cm 235 flex FaGS were for a while my everyday ski (after the were my guns).

The prof's 200 Smurfs in 270 (with the race flex) were just way too stiff. Their stiffness ratings are more like guidelines anyway I'd say. I generally think that 250 and under is skiable by normals, 265 and under by large and aggressive skiers and anything more than that is for tub-ass-nuts. Hugh jests but they did have a pair of ~315 MFFL (?I think) for a while that were unbendable.

Don't fergit that the denver ski warehouse guy is selling original big daddy's for $250 NIP, they're good jeepin skis too.

[kneedropper]

I'm on mismatched Iggys. One is 240 and the other is 260. I'd been using the stiffer ski on the right leg and it seems to work well (right handed). They have now been converted to alpine boards. There is most defenitely a difference in 20 felx rating, but I imagine 10 points would not be too noticable.

[Professor]

Dont overlook one thing that LB touched on. There are different flexes as well as just different stiffnesses. The race flex was way burlier to me than the normal flex even if both were the same number (ie 270 race flex= extremely stiff, 270 Round Alpine = somewhat stiff)....

[Buster Highmen]

Busta has a pair of iggies with the classic "joe" graphic in a 300 flex!!
And they are never-mounted I believe. Maybe he'll put titanal IIs on them and tour around.

They were mounted. With TII's and toured. So there.

[Game Over]

Are you looking at the FaGS? I had a pair of those in 200 cm with a 270 flex. Twas actually a bit too much ski for me. At 88 at the waist, it's more of a midfat these days...

Damn they are 270?!?!? I havent skied them in 2 years but I am going to mount em back up for a hardpack/cruiser day ski. Midfat fer sure.

[natty dread]

I havent skied them in 2 years but I am going to mount em back up for a hardpack/cruiser day ski.

They are perfect for maching the groomers.
Forgot I sold those biatches to ya steep!

[natty dread]

They were mounted. With TII's and toured. So there.

Scheeet!!
Thought they'd end up on the wall--or sold to a pyscho like telepath!

[marshalolson]

Another factor may be the ski vintage. I have some 99/00 FFLs and some newer FCs, both are rumored to be 240 flex, but the FFLs are significantly stiffer. Traded a few emails with Adam, and he gave me a long-winded explanation as to evolving construction on their part. It was unclear to me whether different vintages with different constructions had a sliding scale for stiffness, or if the newer versions were just lighter.

you should post this up... many would be interested.

my 2 cents:
i have owned 270 fgs (older, pre tailbar)
260 ffl (alu tailbar)
245 fgs (alu tailbar)
the 270 fgs were quite a bit stiffer than the 260 ffl's.
the 245 fgs were not that much softer in the tail than the ffls, but a bit softer in the shovel.

oh, and mtnlion, after flexing those FC's you sold to hugh jass, they were DEF. not 240s in my opinion. i would say more similar to my 260's...

[Clack]

Since this post is still fresh I'd like you guys to chime in for me too.

I'm ordering FFL 190s later today and still can't decide between 250 and 240 round alpine even after talking to Adam.

This will be my everyday ski. 90% of my days are at Kirkwood, I'm 6'2" and 190 lbs. Most of my days the last 4 years have been on 194 4x4 bigs which are plenty soft, and I didn't feel explosives were really stiff when I skied them. I like to think I'm an agressive skier. Any reason not to go with the 250?

[iceman]

Cant answer your question, but wow, Clack, a grand for a pair of skis, I hope they work out well for you.

I wonder what's up with the maple sidewalls, seems like an odd choice of materials but what the hell do I know.

[Hugh Jass]

Hmmm. Based on what's been posted here, I'm guessing you won't be able to tell the difference between 240 and 250.

I'm the same size as you, but I haven't skied the 195cm 240 flex FCs yet. They're only a few years old, so I'm guessing 240 then is about a 240 now.

My 200cm "240" flex FFLs are older (pre-tailbar) and bigger and heavier than the current version. I'm not the original owner, and was told when I bought them that they were 240 flex, but have always suspected they're much stiffer and 240 sounds like an easier flex to sell than say 260+.

Assuming for a moment that my "240s" are at least as stiff as a newer construction 240, and we're the same size, I don't see any reason not to go 250 with yours. I'm sure the 190cm will be different, but the length and stiffness of mine make them completely unmanageable in bumps, and they need to be going really fast on groomers to behave. But in pow, windbuff, and chop they are like no other. I've never wanted them softer for the conditions they excel in.

Hope that helps. I'd be interested to hear the advice that Adam gave you, especially as it relates to the current construction approach.

[Clack]

He said the 240 will be slightly more forgiving (obviously) than 250 and probably similar to the explosive, the 250 more powerful but I might notice it towards the end of the day, and 260 would be for full throttle. I've pretty much decided to go 250, especially since I'm only going 190 in length but LB's comments about going softer rather than stiffer with iggies made me second guess. I'm a bit bigger though so unless there's anyone speaking up for 240 I'm pulling the trigger. Hoo Ha!

As for the sidewalls, you've got me but I'm sure they know what they're doing.

[slim]

So, after dropping top coin on a new pair of Iggies, the question is: Will Clack ski more than 4-days this year?

[Greydon Clark]

So, after dropping top coin on a new pair of Iggies, the question is: Will Clack ski more than 4-days this year?

No. I'll ski more Kirkwood days than him.

[Clack]

I love you guys too, and yes I'll be there in force this year.

[hop]

just make sure you properly throw your arm across your body when trying misty flips. After all, that´s what they do in the movies and they always seem to land on their feet.....

[Particle]

My 2 pairs of 190 FFL's just won't die. OK the older ones (entering their 6th? season...black topsheet, swirly graphic w/ big IGNEOUS on it) have a few dings and shots but nothing that can't be patched, so they've become my early season fats. But the maple topsheet ones are now entering their 4th season. And they're pretty much mint still. They are a blast for the big charging days but man I am getting too lazy for these beasts. Oh and they're both 240 RA's...Clack you should be fine with the 250's. I'm only 160lbs and when I'm not being a whiny puss I can handle the 240's just fine.