Skis similar to Bsquads?

[addict]

I own and like both the 180 powder plus and the 183 axiom. However, I highly doubt either one skis anything remotely like the 174 b-squad. Both are MUCH wider, heavier and probably stiffer....not to mention longer...

My mistake, I always thought the 180 powder plus was 180cm long, 130/110/120 and the 174 B Squad was 174cm long, 130/104/117 which would've made them somewhat similar in dimensions. I must've totally got my wires crossed, thanks for putting me straight.



I also thought the powder plus was quite a playful, fun ski, but in 180 skis quite short (more fun in 190, but that's a different topic) and was not difficult to turn, even for my intermmmediate friend that had a pair. If they're THAT much longer than the 174 B squads I think I saw some 165s floating around on gear swap?

[Professor]

My mistake, I always thought the 180 powder plus was 180cm long, 130/110/120 and the 174 B Squad was 174cm long, 130/104/117 which would've made them somewhat similar in dimensions. I must've totally got my wires crossed, thanks for putting me straight.

Again just a reference, only the 189 and 194 Squads are 104 under foot. The smaller ones are 100 or 101 under foot as are the 191 Protos that seem to be floating around.

[Damian Sanders]

My mistake, I always thought the 180 powder plus was 180cm long, 130/110/120 and the 174 B Squad was 174cm long, 130/104/117 which would've made them somewhat similar in dimensions. I must've totally got my wires crossed, thanks for putting me straight.



I also thought the powder plus was quite a playful, fun ski, but in 180 skis quite short (more fun in 190, but that's a different topic) and was not difficult to turn, even for my intermmmediate friend that had a pair. If they're THAT much longer than the 174 B squads I think I saw some 165s floating around on gear swap?

The powder plus is 135/115/125. I think it's about as substantial as you can get in a 180, but who knows. None of these would be considered hard to turn...but they do ski big in other ways.

Also keep in mind that a ski with more width underfoot and less sidecut will be harder to ski than a ski with a similar tip/tail width and narrower waist.

[Damian Sanders]

no reason to get so defensive
i never said they werent heavy
ill see about taking a measurement, but its nearly identical to the 103s on the line in comparison to where I have the demos adjusted.

I have no comparison to what the ski was like new, although it does still have camber and it doesnt feel that stiff.

I agree I would not want to use them all around, a bit wide, heavy, and too little sidecut for attempting to enjoy anything other than soft snow.
In comparison to a 183 103 which skis big for its size, which I definitely agree with, especially when not making fall line turns, I still dont agree that a 183 axiom skis bigger than it is, especially considering the tip rocker and how easy it pivots as you mentioned. However, this difference of opinion could be an issue with us having different models, as I do beleive mine have a wood core with 2? sheets of metal.

Ive obviously hit a button with you, but given what you said, it sounded like you might enjoy a 184 squad more\be a better fit. Just because I suggest that maybe the shorter version might be a better match, doesnt mean I was critizing your skill. There was no reason to take offense....just trying to offer decent advice from what you had typed.

Sorry to be a dick, I'm just grumpy.

When I bought them, I was still freeskiing 203cm sl's and 205 GS volkls. I thought they skied big then, and I still think they ski big. Sure they pivot in powder, that's cake. But they have alot of front-length, heavy weight, pretty wide, and a stiff mid and tail....all things that make a ski "ski big", which was my point. It's not just how easy they pivot. They are not some sort of he-man ski and I would consider them moderately easy to ski on.....but they ski big and you can do some pretty big stuff on them.

Please get me a centerline to tail measurement when you get a chance. Thanks.

[Damian Sanders]

Just a point of reference, my 194 Squads are way more ski than my 201 Asteroids ever dreamt of being. Dont get me wrong the Roids are a really fun ski. But as far as how much work it is to ski them, they were downright "playful" compared to 194 Squads. Again, just an FYI...

I don't think I've ever heard of a 201 asteroid described as playful, but hey....good to know. They are soft compared to squads, I know. I don't thing they take a ton of work to ski either, but they do ski like you would expect a 201 sandwich ski fat ski to ski......damp and fast....big.

[pechelman]

Sorry to be a dick, I'm just grumpy.

When I bought them, I was still freeskiing 203cm sl's and 205 GS volkls. I thought they skied big then, and I still think they ski big. Sure they pivot in powder, that's cake. But they have alot of front-length, heavy weight, pretty wide, and a stiff mid and tail....all things that make a ski "ski big", which was my point. It's not just how easy they pivot. They are not some sort of he-man ski and I would consider them moderately easy to ski on.....but they ski big and you can do some pretty big stuff on them.

Please get me a centerline to tail measurement when you get a chance. Thanks.

no worries

I think its just an issue of miscommunication.
They're definitely a big ski and ski like one, I agree.
But when I say I dont think they ski big, means I dont think they ski bigger than I would expect them to...ie 110mm waist + medium stiff + little sidecut + heavy = big ski. It skis like that and not like a 190length stiff ski, which the 183 103 has generally been compared to skiing like anyone elses 188.

so now that we have that out of the way...I measured them up, but I didnt have my boot. The line on the ski from the tail is 76.5mm. The demo binding is slid back one notch, or about 7mm. It looked like it was slid further back, but realistically, it looks to be about 70mm from the end of the tail. Again, my boots arent here, so I cant 100% verify that, but I dont really have any reason to doubt that number, unless the demo bindings werent mounted to the line. If you really want me to, I can double check that number and bring my boots home this weekend from the condo.

[addict]

The powder plus is 135/115/125.

Pretty sure the 180 is 130/110/120 and the 190 is 135/115/125. And yes, the 190 is a different ski and much nicer IMO. I've even skied the 180 in a park - got some funny looks from the gangsta kids. Either way seems both these and the B-squads are all over the show with their dims. Even the rossi website has the 174 wrong.

edit - besides now we're just splitting hairs, buddy should just get the 194 Bsquads and ski like Hugo

[rugbydave]

I'm not a big guy (5'7", 165lbs) and I love my 189 squads. Sure, they're a lil big for real tight trees, but I have KWs for that... Heh heh. They fuckin' rock for ripping though, so much fun

[Ira]

Ummmm...

If you liked the BSquads, why exactly are you looking for other skis?

Ira

[Damian Sanders]

Pretty sure the 180 is 130/110/120 and the 190 is 135/115/125. And yes, the 190 is a different ski and much nicer IMO. I've even skied the 180 in a park - got some funny looks from the gangsta kids. Either way seems both these and the B-squads are all over the show with their dims. Even the rossi website has the 174 wrong.

edit - besides now we're just splitting hairs, buddy should just get the 194 Bsquads and ski like Hugo

I'm extremely sure it's not....they are 115 at the waist. The tip and might not be exactly 135 and 125 though....I've seen 132mm for the tip. I haven't measured my pair lately.

Anyway, sure you can do alot of different things on them, and I've skied them in pretty much every condition.........but I would not describe them as a versitlie ski.

[Damian Sanders]

no worries

I think its just an issue of miscommunication.
They're definitely a big ski and ski like one, I agree.
But when I say I dont think they ski big, means I dont think they ski bigger than I would expect them to...ie 110mm waist + medium stiff + little sidecut + heavy = big ski. It skis like that and not like a 190length stiff ski, which the 183 103 has generally been compared to skiing like anyone elses 188.

so now that we have that out of the way...I measured them up, but I didnt have my boot. The line on the ski from the tail is 76.5mm. The demo binding is slid back one notch, or about 7mm. It looked like it was slid further back, but realistically, it looks to be about 70mm from the end of the tail. Again, my boots arent here, so I cant 100% verify that, but I dont really have any reason to doubt that number, unless the demo bindings werent mounted to the line. If you really want me to, I can double check that number and bring my boots home this weekend from the condo.

mm or cm?

I'm right around 77.5cm (ballpark) from the tail but I'll double check. Tell me if you're measure along the base or the top surface.

Asym mount or centered?

[marshalolson]

Pretty sure the 180 is 130/110/120 and the 190 is 135/115/125. And yes, the 190 is a different ski and much nicer IMO. I've even skied the 180 in a park - got some funny looks from the gangsta kids. Either way seems both these and the B-squads are all over the show with their dims. Even the rossi website has the 174 wrong.

edit - besides now we're just splitting hairs, buddy should just get the 194 Bsquads and ski like Hugo

the early gen 180's were 115mm. the 2nd gen 180's were 110mm

[pechelman]

doh sorry
7mm slid back on the demo
76.5cm flat tape from the end of the tail over the topsheet to the line.
Boot center is probably right around 70cm measure the same way.
center mounted.

again let me know if you want me to dbl check that measurement with the boot.

also what are you using to measure?
I have one of those seamster\tress tapes used commonly to tailor clothes and the metal end peice is not an exact graduation. I burned 10cm and measured from 10cm to 86.5cm to get my number. When I checked that same measurement from the metal tab peice, it was 76cm. Anyway, just thought Id mention that. Also my tape has a bit of compliance, but its still a fairly accurate measurement in my opinion.

[Damian Sanders]

I'm pretty sure we have the same measurement then, basicly.

I would suggest skiing them on the line, since they float exceptionally well already, and to me feel balanced.

[pechelman]

thanks for the suggestion.
next time I bring em out, Ill give that a shot.

only reason I moved them back in the first place is to match the mount point on the mojo103s which were sitting right next to them.

[abraham]

I'm not a big guy (5'7", 165lbs) and I love my 189 squads. Sure, they're a lil big for real tight trees, but I have KWs for that... Heh heh. They fuckin' rock for ripping though, so much fun

Yeah, well I want to be able to use them as a more all around ski and the shorter squads worked fine when I tried them. Though, I did not try the 189, just 174 and 184.