Buyers Remorse........

**gh444** · 09-04-2006, 06:06 PM

I just picked up a pair of 05/06 vicious, 189s, new, for fairly cheap (less than 4 bills).
Rather than the usual excitment i feel for an addition to the quiver, i feel regret. I'm 6'2" 240lbs and will be skiing at mammoth mostly. i liked this ski the one time i was on it but mostly because i liked the short turning radius in tight steep spots. now that i'm at mammy, i was looking for a ski that i can let run, especially in the deep and in long runouts........impulse got the best of me......

-aaron

**ak_powder_monkey** · 09-04-2006, 06:09 PM

you could always just send em to me and buy new skis

**gh444** · 09-04-2006, 06:38 PM

first full season at mammoth yes.

what do you suggest?
i like what i've read about the ANT

-aaron

**Arty50** · 09-04-2006, 06:39 PM

Remember that K2s tend to run long. A 189 Vicious is longer than a 190 Gotama for instance, and I'm not just talking running surface.

I've never been on a Vicious, so I can't really comment on stiffness. But I'm sort of over "stiff" skis. I'm all about the new progressive flex skis. Stiff underfoot with relatively soft tips and tails. The Seth's are made this way, in fact they were one of the first skis built like that.

If you're not sure about these, demo them somewhere for a day before you mount them. Then you can always sell them on eBay or something if you decide you don't like them.

Edit: Me - 6'1" 230#

**Young Uns** · 09-04-2006, 07:13 PM

Originally Posted by Arty50

I've never been on a Vicious, so I can't really comment on stiffness. But I'm sort of over "stiff" skis. I'm all about the new progressive flex skis. Stiff underfoot with relatively soft tips and tails. The Seth's are made this way, in fact they were one of the first skis built like that.
Edit: Me - 6'1" 230#

I've never figured out what's so progressive about skiing sticks that have an extra layer of fiberglass under the binding area with floppy tips and tails, except they make skiing easier for gapers so they think their skiing is progressing. Racing stiffness and racing sidecuts on progressive shapes is what I think is progressive. But that's just me.

**Beaver** · 09-04-2006, 07:23 PM

Originally Posted by gonehuckin

6'2" 240lbs

Originally Posted by Bullet

6'1" and 240-250

Originally Posted by Arty50

6'1" 230#

I'm feeling svelt at 6'1" 205#.

**BakerBoy** · 09-04-2006, 07:37 PM

You tubby fucks are singlehandedly going to eliminate the demand for floppy noodles like Pocket Rockets, and for that, I salute you with a deep-fried brownie wrapped in bacon!

Hey Youngun's, why the fuck would you want "racing stiffness" with a "racing sidecut" on a powder ski? I'm pretty fucking sure I'm not planning on running gates on 190+cm, 100+ waisted skis. Do you have Ted Ligety tattoo'd on your leg? Furthermore, "racing sidecuts" and "progressive shapes" are pretty much mutally exclusive.

Snowbikes. Now those are progressive.

**upallnight** · 09-04-2006, 07:39 PM

Originally Posted by Arty50

Remember that K2s tend to run long. A 189 Vicious is longer than a 190 Gotama for instance, and I'm not just talking running surface.

Arty's right. A *179* SV is the same length as a 190 Gotama.

He has a good suggestion to demo the ski before riding it, as the unmounted version will retain a bit more of its value.

You just might (still) like it...possibly worth a shot. That said, it's far from a race-stock ski. It's perfectly fine for many (e.g., Seth Morrison), but at your weight you might look to something generally stiffer. Most skis are getting dumbed down for the masses these days.

What's your skiing style? Are you a brute-force kind of guy? Do you have solid technnique? Do you need a ski that will challenge you from day 1, or do you need something that will help you take a few steps before you get the long, fat, race-stock boards?

No need to answer publicly, but just consider the questions when you make your selection and take advice from others.

I'm quite a bit lighter than you, but I've actually found the SV in a 179 to be great on steeps (>45) and firm stuff that I've toured to...and they can still rip top-to-bottom inbounds @ JHole...but I generally don't do that as I've got Dynafits on 'em.

**natty dread** · 09-04-2006, 08:02 PM

The answer: put touring bindings on them and use em in the bc. In the untracked they'll be fine.

But there is no fucking way especially at your size, that I would ride those as your bomb around mammoth ski. I'm all for progressive flex, I ski the frickin spatula fer chrissake, but there are so many other skis I would ride before the vicious--6'2" 210 btw. The gotama, the legend pro, the bro, monster, fattie fischers, etc. If you're like me, you want a ski that rips the pow, but also feel comfy at 60 mph. Or if you're dtm or xover, 60 mph IN the pow.

But what the fuck do I know anyway, people are doing shit on pocket rockets that I'll never do.

Oh yeah--"racing sidecuts?"
There's a rule I recall about posting and smoking crack...

**King Jong** · 09-04-2006, 08:23 PM

**Arty50** · 09-04-2006, 08:26 PM

Originally Posted by upallnight

Arty's right. A *179* SV is the same length as a 190 Gotama.

Ok, now you're high.

Originally Posted by BakerBoy

You tubby fucks are singlehandedly going to eliminate the demand for floppy noodles like Pocket Rockets, and for that, I salute you with a deep-fried brownie wrapped in bacon!

Actually, I'm only 225. I just wanted to make everyone feel better. I'll still take that brownie though.

**upallnight** · 09-04-2006, 08:31 PM

Originally Posted by Arty50

Ok, now you're high.

'cept that I own both and have them side-by-side (otherwise I couldn't credibly comment on them). They've got virtually identical running lengths.

The retarded tail on the Gotama is factored into Volkl's measurements (hence: the 183 is super-short), cutting off much of the usable length.

**gh444** · 09-04-2006, 08:33 PM

i'll ski just about anything inbounds at any mountain. i think im light on my feet because i dont do alot of damage to skis even though i abuse them and ski on rocks. epicski would probably call my two footed, dig in, wide stance bad form. my big worry is that my eyes get bigger than my legs from time to time when i see huge aprons and i want a ski that can keep up. i may keep the seths for tight, steep areas but i already like my sugars......

What's your skiing style? Are you a brute-force kind of guy? Do you have solid technnique? Do you need a ski that will challenge you from day 1, or do you need something that will help you take a few steps before you get the long, fat, race-stock boards?

**pechelman** · 09-04-2006, 08:36 PM

Originally Posted by upallnight

Arty's right. A *179* SV is the same length as a 190 Gotama.

ok I feel a little better knowing that when I had a hard time with them in the bumps thinking they were long as hell for being a 179.

and everyone stfu cause I had skied a total of 15 days in my life at that point.

**BakerBoy** · 09-04-2006, 10:28 PM

Originally Posted by Arty50

Actually, I'm only 225. I just wanted to make everyone feel better. I'll still take that brownie though.

Only if you can chase me down on your 2008 Ski-Doo 1400cc 186" track, Fattie McGie!

You ARE buying a sled, right?

**ill-advised strategy** · 09-04-2006, 11:38 PM

Originally Posted by BakerBoy

You tubby fucks are singlehandedly going to eliminate the demand for floppy noodles like Pocket Rockets, and for that, I salute you with a deep-fried brownie wrapped in bacon!

heh. and here I am, 250 #'s and skiing Big Stix, C-notes, and PR's.

as a side note. I'm a little queasy, having bought a pair of Fatypus Alottas figuring that I'd give up 10 cms for that much more width. I hope I was right.

**upallnight** · 09-04-2006, 11:51 PM

Originally Posted by YetiMan

heh. and here I am, 250 #'s and skiing Big Stix, C-notes, and PR's.

as a side note. I'm a little queasy, having bought a pair of Fatypus Alottas figuring that I'd give up 10 cms for that much more width. I hope I was right.

check out some reviews, such as this one. (unless it's a done-deal and there's no going back...in which case you shouldn't look.)

**Arty50** · 09-04-2006, 11:56 PM

Originally Posted by BakerBoy

Only if you can chase me down on your 2008 Ski-Doo 1400cc 186" track, Fattie McGie!

You ARE buying a sled, right?

Fuck no. They don't make one big enough to keep my fat ass from sinking.

**ill-advised strategy** · 09-05-2006, 12:01 AM

Originally Posted by upallnight

check out some reviews, such as this one. (unless it's a done-deal and there's no going back...in which case you shouldn't look.)

yeah done deal, no going back. I'm going to take a look at 'em and maybe think about finding a demo track so's I can skootch my center point around as needed.

It'll be fine. shit. They're the widest skis I could find, they'll be fine.

**davep** · 09-05-2006, 01:07 AM

Originally Posted by Arty50

Fuck no. They don't make one big enough to keep my fat ass from sinking.

?

**WWCD** · 09-05-2006, 07:20 AM

Don't feel too bad, I'm your size and until recently skied Pistols as my only ski.

I'm assuming they are very similar to the Viscous, if not the following is worthless.

I loved them, but they do have their limitations. You can let them run in most conditions, but they do have a speed limit and at times will require more turns to keep those tips in control. Great in soft snow, steeps, trees, and all but icy bumps. I did have problems getting centered on them on drops, but I think that had more to do with me than the ski.

Over all a great ski, and I think it's more a factor of where you are as a skier than your size. At the time they were perfect for me, but I do feel I out grew them and have since moved to something a little stiffer.

If you are worried about their softness, do as Arty said and demo a pair before mounting. You may just like them.

**SponsoredByDuctTape** · 09-05-2006, 10:03 AM

I'm guessing the Vicious in a 189 would be perfect for a big guy for those all-dayers on 22.

**upallnight** · 09-05-2006, 10:17 AM

gonehuckin... just to add a counterpoint to what you're hearing above...for at least4-5 years, doug coombs was skiing on a version of the seth.

he toured on a proto version, skied the high peaks of the tetons in all conditions with 'em, and last year was skiing inbounds with stock SVs with the tails cut off (he did it). he was convinced the lack of a twin made them stiffer. (i personally think was just the result of hand-flexing the full-twin version with more leverage from the longer tail + the softest part of the tail (the twin) clouding that measurement.)

anyway, what i'm saying is that you certainly weigh more than doug, but you're probably not a better skier than he was...so the 189 SVs might work for you.

just consider it. i think arty's suggestion to demo was really the best way to go for you.

**upallnight** · 09-05-2006, 10:18 AM

Originally Posted by Bullet

BTW, folks keep writing to Demo a pair. I've never seen a pair of fats available for demo anywhere. It's always mid-fats and carving skis they have for demo.

i've never demo'ed a pair of skis, but i think every shop here in jackson has skis like the gotama, SV, and more in the 95-105mm-waist category.