179 Bros - Soft or Stiff - or 183 Gotamas?

**mooseknuckle** · 03-07-2006, 11:32 AM

Would appreciate input from those who have had the good fortune to ski the 179 Bros. I am leaning toward 179 softs. I have read all the posts on the 179 Bros, but wondered if anyone could offer feedback based on my particulars and experiences.

For reference, I would classify myself as a 7 or 8 level alpine skier, am 6'1"/190lbs, like to charge the mountain and enjoy trees as much as wide open terrain. I demo'd the 179 Made'n Aks in Silverton this year for 2 of 4 days and found them very enjoyable but a little floppy for my liking for crud busting and snow other than deep pow. Also have experience on the 179 Seth V, but mainly on harder snow conditions. Before reading the posts on Bros, I was leaning heavily toward 183 Gotamas based on my reading of posts and reviews.

Questions include: 179 Soft Bros vs. 183 Gotamas, 179 Stiff Bros vs. 183 Gotamas and are there any other skis in the field or lengths that I should be considering? Thanks in advance...

**justcuz** · 03-07-2006, 12:11 PM

My post is to be taken with little confidence, because I havn't spent much time on the Gotama and havn't spent any time on either Bro. However, I am the same weight as you and will say the following: 179 is kind of short to begin with, though word is that the Bros ski much bigger and can hold some speed well. I would NEVER go soft in a 179 Bro at my weight (190ish). I don't know if it's a mental thing, a cahounes thing, or what....but that, to me, just doesn't seem like enough. I would, however, strongly consider the 179 stiff as an every day all around ski.

If I was doing some hardcore touring / climbing, etc., I would consider the softs because of their weight advantage and ability to still perform (from what I've read).

All that said, I just ordered some 188softs as I feel it will be a good mix. It will hopefully be stable enough, be easy enough to ski, might float better than a 179 (though critics say the 179 has great float), and will probably still do mach 8 down a groomer if I'm bored.

My vote: 179 stiffs. Screw the Gotamas....that's so 1980. Step into the ski design of today and support a company that was born from the people that are going to answer your questions.

**MTT** · 03-07-2006, 12:23 PM

Originally Posted by justcuz

My post is to be taken with little confidence, because I havn't spent much time on the Gotama and havn't spent any time on either Bro. However, I am the same weight as you and will say the following: 179 is kind of short to begin with, though word is that the Bros ski much bigger and can hold some speed well. I would NEVER go soft in a 179 Bro at my weight (190ish). I don't know if it's a mental thing, a cahounes thing, or what....but that, to me, just doesn't seem like enough. I would, however, strongly consider the 179 stiff as an every day all around ski.

If I was doing some hardcore touring / climbing, etc., I would consider the softs because of their weight advantage and ability to still perform (from what I've read).

All that said, I just ordered some 188softs as I feel it will be a good mix. It will hopefully be stable enough, be easy enough to ski, might float better than a 179 (though critics say the 179 has great float), and will probably still do mach 8 down a groomer if I'm bored.

My vote: 179 stiffs. Screw the Gotamas....that's so 1980. Step into the ski design of today and support a company that was born from the people that are going to answer your questions.

Yep
^^^^^^^What he said^^^^^^
I have not skied the production Soft 179's But I skied the stiff 179's Exelent all around ski, A snow ferrarri.

Edit if you weight 190LBS? and are looking for a hard charging big mountain / Deep pow ski you might seriously consider the 188's

**XtrPickels** · 03-07-2006, 12:38 PM

Just keep in mind that Maiden's and SV's are fairly soft with deep sidecut.
Splat or AKpogue will pop in sooner or later with the low-down, they're both prety big guys so they ought to know.

Also, why 179 and not 188's?

**splat** · 03-07-2006, 01:03 PM

At 210#, I founf the 179 stiffs not enough board in the deep at Kirkwood Saturday. In the not as deep (3 foot and less) and grooms/moguls/crap they rule, but the 188s will support a heavier skier better and rail the grooms.

Depends on your conditions. But the 188 is not overbearing at all for your size, especially the 188 soft. For trees, the 179 kills.
But I'd recommend the stiff.

**mooseknuckle** · 03-07-2006, 01:22 PM

It was Splat who recommended that I direct questions regarding the stiff/soft issue here as I do not believe he has ridden the 179 soft. I like everything I have read about the Bros and their approach to production/marketing. Certainly much can be said for supporting companies like PM Gear.

My interest in 179 vs 188 was driven by the comments regarding float of the shorter weapons that I read on earlier posts. My last "pow" ski was the 03/04 195 Solly AK Rocket and found that to be cumbersome/too long and stiff/without the float I want (not bad for an earlier generation ski). Certainly had no issues with the 179 Maidens in pretty sick terrain and was of the opinion that going a bit shorter than intuitively feels right may be the way to go for my next purchase. I'm not a huge hucker and don't absolutely mach, so I thought the increased maneuverability offered by the shorter platform would suit for most conditions I would find. I am aware that most regulars on this board favor going long, but I am sure they get many more days of big mountain skiing than unfortunately do I.

The other ski I have been riding of late is the Head im.77 in a 177 length. Figure that has me covered on the hard snow and most non-pow or chop conditions out west. Does that change the stiff vs soft recommendations for Bros or further strengthen the argument for 188s?

Looks like I may be narrowing down to 179 stiff or 188 soft. Thanks for the advice!

**XtrPickels** · 03-07-2006, 02:11 PM

moose- I thnk getting to where you are now is the easy part... 179 stiff v 188 soft seem to be pretty comparable.

Where do you ski? You're from PA, but you've been to silverton. If you are mostly in PA, then the 179s are probably the right choice(tighter trees, less powder). If you head west alot, the 188's might be the right call(deeper, more open).

**mooseknuckle** · 03-07-2006, 02:32 PM

XP - I ski way more in PA than out west. Only made it out west once this year for the Silverton trip. A normal year has me logging 10-15 days out west (usually LCC) and 25+ around home. Am thinking the 179 stiffs may be the best bet - assuming I can still get them - given my mix of skiing locations and the fact that I can't remember my last 3'+ pow day (reference from Splat's post). Nice to hear that there isn't much difference between the 188 soft and 179 stiff from a performance standpoint.

**justcuz** · 03-07-2006, 02:41 PM

Moose...

check yer PM's even though your mind is made up.

**mooseknuckle** · 03-07-2006, 03:09 PM

JC...

Thanks for the PM. Mind not entirely made up and I appreciate your input. Sent PM response.

**bklyn** · 03-07-2006, 05:36 PM

179 stiff vs the 179 soft.
No experience with the 188s.

**Toby** · 03-07-2006, 10:06 PM

Me 6'2.5", 200lb + at least 10lb pack and I love the 188 supers. They're definitely light and easy to turn in any situation. Personally I wouldn't go with 179s except for specific requirements (maybe if I was into mountaineering). Then again, I haven't skied the 179s. But what I'm trying to say is the 188s are not difficult to ski, and I don't find them anywhere near too big (although I find them super stable and solid).

**mooseknuckle** · 03-08-2006, 07:50 AM

BK - nice rack. The consensus to this point is that I am too big for the 179 softs. Thanks to all for talking me down.

T - I like what I have heard about the 188s, but was leaning more toward the softs than stiffs or supers (which I have understood are pretty demanding). Have you had a chance to ride the softs and, if so, did you find them too loose? As previously stated, I am looking for something stiffer than the Maidens or SVs for more all mountain conditions, but still want to have primo float/response in the deep pow. The supers sounded to me more like what I have read on the Head Supermojo 183s (ideal for huck, straight line and super g in wide open pow fields).

**justcuz** · 03-08-2006, 08:11 AM

You're just going to confuse yourself by considering the 188 stiff and supers.....keep it simple

**Toby** · 03-08-2006, 07:47 PM

Moose, I bought the supers knowing I like stiff skis. Never tried regular stiffs or softs. I guess it's just personal preferance which one you'd like. I never felt my supers were pretty demanding. They float fine. They respond fine. But I've never even skied a soft ski so I couldn't tell if I'd like it or not. I like my skis to cut like a knife and I don't mind forcing them to turn. And I like the stiffness to hold my weight when I do stupid things like land backseat. At the end of a day I've never felt like the supers beat me up.

But like justcuz says, don't confuse yourself even more. I'm just offering my opinion to reinforce that 188 probably isn't too long for a big guy like you.

**skuff** · 03-08-2006, 08:37 PM

I wrote a review in the Pics of 179 BROs thread (p.6 I think) which might help you in your quest for a BRO Model. After skiing the three models available that day, I ordered a pair of soft BRO blems. I understand these ski similarly to the 179 stiff, but I liked the idea of more length. The 179 stiffs were really fun, seemed easy to ski. See if you can borrow someone's boards and find out for yourself, you'll see what I'm talking about. I'm in SLC 3/16-3/20 if you want to try mine, size 27 boot, provided they arrive in time for me to get some bindings mounted. splat?

**soul_skier** · 03-08-2006, 08:59 PM

i too got the soft bro blems, any idea on a delivery date?

**MTT** · 03-08-2006, 09:40 PM

Originally Posted by mooseknuckle

It was Splat who recommended that I direct questions regarding the stiff/soft issue here as I do not believe he has ridden the 179 soft. I like everything I have read about the Bros and their approach to production/marketing. Certainly much can be said for supporting companies like PM Gear.

My interest in 179 vs 188 was driven by the comments regarding float of the shorter weapons that I read on earlier posts. My last "pow" ski was the 03/04 195 Solly AK Rocket and found that to be cumbersome/too long and stiff/without the float I want (not bad for an earlier generation ski). Certainly had no issues with the 179 Maidens in pretty sick terrain and was of the opinion that going a bit shorter than intuitively feels right may be the way to go for my next purchase. I'm not a huge hucker and don't absolutely mach, so I thought the increased maneuverability offered by the shorter platform would suit for most conditions I would find. I am aware that most regulars on this board favor going long, but I am sure they get many more days of big mountain skiing than unfortunately do I.

The other ski I have been riding of late is the Head im.77 in a 177 length. Figure that has me covered on the hard snow and most non-pow or chop conditions out west. Does that change the stiff vs soft recommendations for Bros or further strengthen the argument for 188s?

Looks like I may be narrowing down to 179 stiff or 188 soft. Thanks for the advice!

I re-read this post, I own 188 softs I demo'ed 179 Stiff's You will be very happy with the 179 Stiff.s

BTW I am 5'10" 190 But very aggressive, thats why you saw the speed, stability comments from me related to 188 versus 179

**StaggerLee** · 03-08-2006, 09:51 PM

MTT, sounds like we are both similar build and skiing style. Why the softs and not the stiff? Did you regret it? Do you ever wish you had the stiffs or xss? I am considering the Bros as an all duty touring setup. Like many others on the board, I like to mount all of my rigs with toruing bindings (Freerides). Would see plenty of use in the area on no pow days. My Prohetes are my goto pow rigs.

**MTT** · 03-08-2006, 11:18 PM

why I bought the soft Bro's
I already had a pair of LP's @ 186. The LP's were going in for Warrenty Repair so I had an excuse to buy another pair of Ski's. And so to talk myself into this I said I'm goning to get a real good AT set-up that I can also ski inbounds while my LP's are missing (No Overlap) Soft Bro's and Fritche's
So I spent 800 dollars on another pair of fat ski's and AT Bindings.

Needless to say the Soft Bro's exeeded my expectations.

To awnser you question if I could only have 1 pair of Ski's It would be the 188soft Bro's

If I could roll back the clock? I would also like to have a pair of STiff Bro's with Look Bindings and about 6 to 10 MM of lift. (To Replace the LP's) AND I REALLY LIKE THE LP'S!!

My next Ski will probably be a 19Sumthin BIG MOUNTAIN TRAIN.
194 LP
Titan PRO
19X-200CM DP PRO

You get it, I really don't need them but think they would be fun.

Does this help?
Bottom line the 188 softs with Alpine bindings are all the ski most people would ever need. I have not skied 188 Stiffs so I don't know what they bring to the table, are they more like the LP's? Better? I don't know.

Originally Posted by StaggerLee

MTT, sounds like we are both similar build and skiing style. Why the softs and not the stiff? Did you regret it? Do you ever wish you had the stiffs or xss? I am considering the Bros as an all duty touring setup. Like many others on the board, I like to mount all of my rigs with toruing bindings (Freerides). Would see plenty of use in the area on no pow days. My Prohetes are my goto pow rigs.

**StaggerLee** · 03-08-2006, 11:32 PM

Thanks MTT. I think the soft Bros are the way to go for what I am looking for. Thx.

**mooseknuckle** · 03-09-2006, 08:47 AM

Toby - I appreciate the clarification as to your preference for the stiff ski. While I enjoy a stiff ski for many conditions, I prefer a little more flex for the 12"+ days we all crave.

Skuff - Your review, among the others in that thread, was quite helpful. In light of the fact that I have a shorter ski for variable all-mountain conditions and due to the fact I don't have the wherewithal for two sets (188soft and 179stiff), I believe the 188 soft is the right choice. Would welcome a PM with price and details if any more blems of this ski are available. Thanks for the offer re testing your new sticks (hope they arrive in time), but unfortunatley for me I won't be in the area. LCC is in a good cycle now - hope it continues for you.

MTT - Thanks for the re-read and further guidance given your experience with both skis under consideration. From the sounds of things, there is no wrong decision to be made. While impressed with the float comments on 179 stiffs, I have to think the 188 softs may perform marginally better for my intended use. This seems to fit with your post in response to StaggerLee.

Repeat from above: Does anyone else know of availability/price of 188 soft blems? If so, please send PM. Thanks much.

**smmokan** · 03-09-2006, 09:41 AM

MooseKnuck- I dont' think there is any availability of 188 Soft blems. Last week Splat put about 10 pair (?) up for sale, and they were gone very quickly. I got a pair luckily, and for price sake, I paid $400. Now I'm hoping to get out on them tomorrow...

**f2f** · 03-09-2006, 09:49 AM

i don't think i'll be able to ski on my blem-ed bros tomorrow as they're still being listed in Phoenix, en route to NM, as of last night.

which is too bad: taos just got 13 inches yesterday. it'll be the best day of the season today, and i'll get sloppy seconds on friday, but it will not be on the bros.