Anyone use the skinny Beast (74/75)

**weibo** · 10-13-2006, 08:43 PM

Just wondering if anyone has skied the skinny Beast twin. Tons of info on the 92 but the little twin has no info. Anyone?

**bwalman** · 10-15-2006, 05:38 PM

I've been skiing a pair of older (4 seasons) 166 Beast 70TTs. I like them personally, aside from a skinny waist and the questionable gel sticker things. They've held up really well too, although the topsheets have taken a beating.

What are you wanting to know specfically?

**nick > jesus** · 10-15-2006, 06:33 PM

adam was rocking some of there in like 160 yesterday at loveland

**weibo** · 10-15-2006, 07:01 PM

I picked up a set of the 74's and was wondering generally how they ski or what they compare to. It will help me figure out whether they stay or go.

**TyWebb** · 10-15-2006, 09:12 PM

I've skied a pair on hardpack and playing around in the park for a a couple of years. Here's my humble review:

They've been very durable so far, the top sheet takes a lot of scuffs, but because of its composition, you never get any chips or real discoloration. For essentially being a rock/rail ski, the bases and edges have held up very well. Between the ski and the integrated binding system, I've yet to find a heavier ski at that size, which obviously limits its potential. I've also got a pair of 188 92's, which seem to be the exact opposit...light, not durable, delam machines etc..

I'm assuming you picked them up with the binding plates and stock binders. If not, completely disregard the following comment: The Din 11 clamps that came on may pair have been really very good. No prerelease..seem to be pretty burly. The mouting plates are very heavy, but the flexibility to change the sole size has made these a great "buddy" ski. Also, I don't know what the stock flex is on these, as I bought them new, but mine are really soft...too soft. Even for a "park" ski.

Overall, I've been happy with them, they really hold an edge on hard pack and have been a fun, durable ski. If you picked up a pair at a good price, I'd hang on to them.

**BigLineSeeker** · 10-16-2006, 10:47 AM

I had a set of Beast 74TTs a few years back and found them to be a pretty fun ski. They hold an edge rediculously well at moderate speeds and have lots of pop. I took them into a gs course once and they got mashed around pretty good in the hard snow and ruts, but for just rippin and pissin around they are pretty good.

My experience with the Nordica/Vist/4frnt bindings was not as good as TyWebb's. I had the 12 Din version and found they pre-released worse than any binding I have ever used, including Markers. A couple of guys I used to race with had them too and found the same thing.

At the time they were a midfat ski that carved and were not bad other than their sumo-like weight. Compared to what is available now, I say they are not worth it unless it is a screaming deal.

**weibo** · 10-16-2006, 02:04 PM

They were a good deal. The din 11's came with it and although they are a little light on the range they should work fine. I guess for now I will hold on to them and see what kind of fun I can find. Thanks for the reviews.

**bagtagley** · 10-16-2006, 02:28 PM

I had the 74s and would basically echo what BLS said. It was weird, a park ski (big twin, center mount, soft flex) that was too heavy to be much fun in the park. They were a decent ski for firm stuff, but they dove like Louganis in anything remotely resembling powder.

Fortunately, as a dedicated maggot, you've got a quiver that includes a big, fat powder ski....right?