Dilema:Volkl Explosiv vs. Bro's??

[seatosky]

If I went with the Bro's it would have to be the stiffs. I can't afford both the Explosivs and the soft Bro's.

I'd definitely recommend the stiffs. Only had a few days on mine so far but they ski as advertised. If you can afford to wait you may be able to get some from the next batch when they build the 179's. I'd get ahold of splat, he'll be able to let you know what your options are for getting your hands on some.

[ansel4powsident]

Hey,

just for comparison sake, I wanted to through the AK back into the mix...I wasn't looking to sell off my no ka ois, just for advise ("takers") on comparing the salmons to explosivs and bros.

and as a lightweight skier 150lbs, does a shorter explosiv (173) or soft bro in 179 make more sense? or the salmon in 180? i'll likely keep the no ka oi, so it doesn't have to be a single ski quiver solution.

thanks.

[frorider]

Sorry for hijack and repetetiveness - soft bro flex question;

I ordered one of those on behalf of a friend who is a pretty good and strong telemarker (like 85 kg). But as he probably skis not more than 20 days a season I thought the soft bro's would be enough ski and more fun for him than a pair of those stiffies. Do you agree? What is the closest you can get to aspen softs flex - would it be similar to seth vicous, maybe, or possibly legend8800?

i weigh 190 lb, i.e. just over 85 kg, and have a few days on the new stiff bros mounted tele. they rawk. I would agree with those that compare the stiff bro to a 190 explosive; they skied similarily, although the bros feel lighter in the air and are just slightly more deflected by refrozen crud that the explosiv. I flexed some pairs of the soft aspen bros, and as Splat has posted here before I'd say they are comparable to some of the softer fatties out there like the rossi's or K2's. HOWEVER the soft bro has pretty damn good torsional stiffness, and I've seen them skied well on firmish manmade snow by a larger guy.

my preference for tele has always been identical to what i would alpine on (m103, explosiv, etc) but i agree with your logic---if your 190 lb friend doesn't ski a lot of days and is not particularly aggressive, the softs should be fine.

[splat]

Nice to see the softs get some love. They really come alive in the deep.
The blue light will be turned on periodically for specials on blems if you guys want some cheap.
We warranty blems w/blems and are completely reasonable on return issues.
We sold out of stiffs and have 25 more pair on order for 1/20 delivery.

[team ftb]

Yea what he said:

and as a lightweight skier 150lbs, does a shorter explosiv (173) or soft bro in 179 make more sense?

I'm a girly 135 5'5" (jeez I should be a Jap)pounds looking for some fatter boards for the Sierra's. I have a line on some 165 Exploders new for cheap (not seen any 173's lately), but wondering if midgets like me do OK on the Exploders or are we better off on a soft Bro????

[ansel4powsident]

Yea what he said:


I'm a girly 135 5'5" (jeez I should be a Jap)pounds looking for some fatter boards for the Sierra's. I have a line on some 165 Exploders new for cheap (not seen any 173's lately), but wondering if midgets like me do OK on the Exploders or are we better off on a soft Bro????

Team FTB - since no one is responding on thoughts about how light weight aggressive male skiers should deal with the TGR site infatuation of big boards there is only one way for us to know for sure...demo days.

i'm just going to believe the hype and demo some short assed little 163s this weekend, take them to mt. rose and see how me likey. most people (even on TGR) are probably buying too long, stuck in the mindset that saying you ski a 200 means something special about your skiing.

the problem of course is that some big mountain skis just don't come in small sizes (like the AK King Salmon).