Bigger Bro Model

[skifishbum]

Oh hell yeah sendin my deposit in now.
It maybe hard to find a press capable of a plus 190cm ski
Please keep the airplanes on the tips.

[Squatch]

make that fucking thing a true 205.

agreed.

and, frankly, with the bro weights, skiing a big ski shouldn't really be that hard. a 205 bro probably wouldn't be harder to muscle around that 194 LP*


*disclaimer: i've skied on neither

[mc_roon]

191-193 would be perfect.

[adam]

Oh hell yeah sendin my deposit in now.
It maybe hard to find a press capable of a plus 190cm ski
Please keep the airplanes on the tips.

Forget the airplane, lets have tyrone huckin' hospital!

[fez]

When was the last time you were out on 210s???

when was the last time anyone made them?
1993 or 1994 probably for me, dynastar coupe de monde 210 gs with voile 3 pin and cable bindings.

[adam]

Theres a reason 200+ skis got dropped, and its not because people are to much of pussies to ski them. Its because there no fun to ski. Seriously, make a 185-188, and then a 195-198.

[Tyrone Shoelaces]

Theres a reason 200+ skis got dropped, and its not because people are to much of pussies to ski them. Its because there no fun to ski. .

no fun to ski? What are you a midget? 215's baby

[Tippster]

when was the last time anyone made them?
1993 or 1994 probably for me, dynastar coupe de monde 210 gs with voile 3 pin and cable bindings.

1994 Kästle 5.0's and 1991 Elan Comprex X's for me.

Make a Non-twin 200-205ish ski and I'll buy - again.

[fez]

Theres a reason 200+ skis got dropped, and its not because people are to much of pussies to ski them. Its because there no fun to ski. Seriously, make a 185-188, and then a 195-198.

i dont agree with that at all.
personally i think the whole 'no need for skis that big' movement came from the ski manufacturers and shop owners and was primarily motivated by business decisions, not what was best for skiers.

back in the day you could find a ski every 5cm from 160 or 170 to 205 or 210. in the extreme, this would mean a ski manufacturer or ski shop had to make or buy as many as 10 versions of the same ski to cover all the sizes.

once they got everyone on shaped skis that were fatter, and convinced most skiers that they did not need 210s anymore they were able to drop most of those length versions. could simplify it to 4 sizes with a 168, 178, 188, 198. and now that 198s are pretty much gone, 170, 180, 190. you don't have to be a manufacturing expert to recognize the savings in manufaturing and distribution by elminating 60% of your different models.

so give me some goddamn 205s alright?
and i promise i wont call you a pussy if you dont want to ski them.
unless you are 6'2 250# with thighs the size of tree trunks.

[MTT]

i dont agree with that at all.
personally i think the whole 'no need for skis that big' movement came from the ski manufacturers and shop owners and was primarily motivated by business decisions, not what was best for skiers.

back in the day you could find a ski every 5cm from 160 or 170 to 205 or 210. in the extreme, this would mean a ski manufacturer or ski shop had to make or buy as many as 10 versions of the same ski to cover all the sizes.

once they got everyone on shaped skis that were fatter, and convinced most skiers that they did not need 210s anymore they were able to drop most of those length versions. could simplify it to 4 sizes with a 168, 178, 188, 198. and now that 198s are pretty much gone, 170, 180, 190. you don't have to be a manufacturing expert to recognize the savings in manufaturing and distribution by elminating 60% of your different models.

so give me some goddamn 205s alright?
and i promise i wont call you a pussy if you dont want to ski them.
unless you are 6'2 250# with thighs the size of tree trunks.

Very good point Fez, I agree as to how we lost allot of the ski lengths. But for me, with 100 under foot I just don't need or want anything bigger than the high 190's.

I can see where a bigger guy would want and probably need something longer.

[JoshP]

110-115 waist to decrease the sidecut, 195 length would be money. Square backs for sure.

I want a pair.

[fez]

Very good point Fez, I agree as to how we lost allot of the ski lengths. But for me, with 100 under foot I just don't need or want anything bigger than the high 190's.

I can see where a bigger guy would want and probably need something longer.

to be honest, i would most likely consider buying anything longer than a 193. but of course the closer this ski is to that size, the closer it is to my m103s and my big daddies. that does make it less likely i would buy a pair of Big Bros but might get a pair of 188 stiffs. i was thinking last year that a short ski might be nice sometimes.

because of my torn acl i never got a chance to even ski the big daddies but got quite a few days on the m103s. i only got to open up the m103s a couple times. I never got the feeling they were too short or that i found the top end. but i also never found them difficult to turn, even in tighter steeps like the headwaters chutes at moonlight and some of the gladed skiing they have there. bumps are a bitch though.

yes, i am big. and way out of shape. tearing my acl was an eye opener for me, cant keep skiing with an all power style once you don't have enough power anymore. with my knee rehab i will be going into next season stronger and fitter than i have in the last 10 years. but even if i do hit all my fitness goals i will be going into next season in the 220 - 230 range. and if i keep lifting with my office mate (former msu football defensive lineman and strength coach) it will probably be at the upper end of that.

do i need a 205? of course not. do i want one? FKNA

[Lok]

I think that making it in at least a 202 cm might give you some free publicity as it would be longer than any other non-team ski out there (Zag Gold and Stormrider DP are the longest at 201 cm, right?). A 205 cm would be very cool. Just give it plenty of tip and a little rocker in both ends and it won't be all that demanding.

130-105-120 is nice shape IMHO, but I wouldn't mind an extra 5-10mm all over.

[Tyrone Shoelaces]

I think that making it in at least a 202 cm might give you some free publicity as it would be longer than any other non-team ski out there (Zag Gold and Stormrider DP are the longest at 201 cm, right?).

I think DP will have 205 Wailer next season...105 waist.

* I think *

[bklyn]

Ladies demand more girth!
But also admit that 205 is too long, might rearrange some intestines.

205 will not appeal to the masses, so you're really looking at an even smaller subset of the boutique market that you are selling to.

The 179 specs are a money maker ski for PMGear:
unisex appeal
multidisciplinary appeal (alpine, tele, AT)
and the most approachable (to the discerning consumer) ski you currently sell

The 188 specs include the multidisciplinary appeal but score slightly lower on approachability and very low on unisex. (Any women at all on the 188?) OTOH I think they score higher for freeride/big mountain use.

In making the Big Bro, are you going for an evolution of the 188? Otherwise, is it a de facto 188 killer, pulling away from your audience for that ski? Will it be seen as an alpine only setup, or will people want to tele and AT on those monsters? Or does the 205 increase the "core" factor of the entire brand? Is it on the bleeding edge of a trend over the past few seasons of longer and straighter skis? Creating a whole new category? (in which case I'd say fatter in the waist and less sidecut, because having that much underfoot swing around of it's own accord might be a nightmare)

Just curious. Personally, I'd go even fatter than my 179's since they are definitely not a powder only ski, but perform well on hardpack.

[Squatch]

Ladies demand more girth!
But also admit that 205 is too long, might rearrange some intestines.

205 will not appeal to the masses, so you're really looking at an even smaller subset of the boutique market that you are selling to.

The 179 specs are a money maker ski for PMGear:
unisex appeal
multidisciplinary appeal (alpine, tele, AT)
and the most approachable (to the discerning consumer) ski you currently sell

The 188 specs include the multidisciplinary appeal but score slightly lower on approachability and very low on unisex. (Any women at all on the 188?) OTOH I think they score higher for freeride/big mountain use.

In making the Big Bro, are you going for an evolution of the 188? Otherwise, is it a de facto 188 killer, pulling away from your audience for that ski? Will it be seen as an alpine only setup, or will people want to tele and AT on those monsters? Or does the 205 increase the "core" factor of the entire brand? Is it on the bleeding edge of a trend over the past few seasons of longer and straighter skis? Creating a whole new category? (in which case I'd say fatter in the waist and less sidecut, because having that much underfoot swing around of it's own accord might be a nightmare)

Just curious. Personally, I'd go even fatter than my 179's since they are definitely not a powder only ski, but perform well on hardpack.

i don't think that a bigger-than-188 ski takes away from the 188 market at all, frankly. a big ski is a quiver ski, for the most part. the same people who buy the big ski probably already have or would consider the 188 as an all-around ski.

personally, i want a 188. (i'd set it up with naxos). i also want a sick ski for the big days. granted, i'm kind of on the big end of the scale, but ideally, it would be long, fat, and not too much sidecut. about 105-110 in the waist, 35-40 m radius, and long (200+).

I'll be honest, though...price is a concern, and it's unlikely that my financial situation will allow justification for spending more than 600 on this kind of a ski. perhaps PMGear is better focusing on getting their own operation running reliably and expanding distrubution of their current product, rather than making sick skis for nobody but a few (as much as i'm sure they enjoy that).

[corn dog]

I missed the bro development, so I'm not quite sure what they were aiming at, but a huge 205 fat ski would not detract from the 188 market I don't think. The huge ski would be the core ski that people might have had in the back of their minds when the whole project got started. I think the 188s are appropriate for any solid skier, well maybe not at small icy hills, not a specialty board.
Not sure the 188s are enough ski for you Fez Get these 205s and then keep the big daddies as your short ski.

In making the Big Bro, are you going for an evolution of the 188? Otherwise, is it a de facto 188 killer, pulling away from your audience for that ski? Will it be seen as an alpine only setup, or will people want to tele and AT on those monsters? Or does the 205 increase the "core" factor of the entire brand? Is it on the bleeding edge of a trend over the past few seasons of longer and straighter skis? Creating a whole new category? (in which case I'd say fatter in the waist and less sidecut, because having that much underfoot swing around of it's own accord might be a nightmare)

Just curious. Personally, I'd go even fatter than my 179's since they are definitely not a powder only ski, but perform well on hardpack.

[hop]

if you're going to go BIG, then go big for floaty pow bliss vs. just a bigger same ol' ski.

I'd love to have a pair of 205 Pontoons because of the shape and the way they ski, but a 205 pair of Made'ns would be too big and unwieldy.

Unless you're skiing softer snow or Scandinavian, it makes no sense to have such a big ski for non-deep conditions, and then you want a tool for the DEEP, not the firm.

Keep in mind I'm a tiny little whippersnapper at 5'10" 150#

[Z]

Upping the ante by 6mm underfoot? meh. Screw that, if yer gonna bring it, bring it. 115+ underfoot. Will a 105mm ski really be that different of a market then the current 99m?

[ccwaskier]

I don't know much about PM gear's business, but it seems the 205 appeals to a very small selective market and they couldn't sell that many pairs of skies in such a long lenght. Does making a 205 make economic sense? On the other hand maybe specialized skies like this are the best way to enter the ski industry since the rest of the ski market is so competitive. I know at 5'10 130 lbs I won't be skiing a 205.

[hop]

I know at 5'10 130 lbs I won't be skiing a 205.

you should be eating big macs instead...

damn I thought I was skinny!

[Tyrone Shoelaces]

Upping the ante by 6mm underfoot? meh. Screw that, if yer gonna bring it, bring it. 115+ underfoot. Will a 105mm ski really be that different of a market then the current 99m?

I agree with you completely Z.

It's very unlikely that the next ski we make will be less than 110 underfoot.

And trust me people...Z E R O camber on this one (or if so, very very very little)

[Ville]

200cm, flat tail, long nose rocker(6-9cm lift), around 140-120-130 sidecut with fairly stiff flex. i'll buy one pair

[hop]

I agree with you completely Z.

It's very unlikely that the next ski we make will be less than 110 underfoot.

And trust me people...Z E R O camber on this one (or if so, very very very little)

camber is for turning. rock-her is for mountain llllooooovveeeeee

[Cono Este]

193 legnth
sidecut is good.