Atomic Pimp

**stuckathuntermtn** · 07-21-2007, 10:16 PM

Any major noticable difference to the sugars while skiing. I know they have the twin tip, but a store in town here has them for 425. Good price, no?
Isn't the constuction/flex exactly the same?
Also looks like I should mount 1cm back. or no?!
a little confused
thanks
-alex

**stuckathuntermtn** · 07-21-2007, 10:54 PM

Let me be the first to "SEARCH JONG!" myself. Turned up a good thread, but it was kinda inconclusive as to weather or not they are that differenc (leaning towards "no")
but they still to hold up to bro's

**hemas** · 07-22-2007, 12:42 AM

In the past the only difference was the full twintip tail, which made 'em feel somewhat softer in the flex. Next seasons Pimps will be different though.

**stuckathuntermtn** · 07-22-2007, 01:21 PM

Are they still really good for all mtn skiing?!

**hemas** · 07-22-2007, 01:32 PM

Originally Posted by stuckathuntermtn

Are they still really good for all mtn skiing?!

Pretty much... If you mount really back and ski in the backseat, the tails will feel short and soft. But I'm sure you already knew this, as Pimps are true twins when compared to Sugars (slight flair in the tail) or Helis (flat).

Can't say from next years model, as I have never skied it... But according to rumours, it has more or less the same flex, just a wood sandwich construction instead of the Beta-something foam deal in the past.

**stuckathuntermtn** · 07-22-2007, 02:37 PM

wow, cool, but I can't wait till next year to get that kind of a deal.

**fonixmunkee** · 07-22-2007, 02:47 PM

The flex between the Sugars and the Pimps are about the same, but you've already pointed out the obvious differences that will make each ski differently (big difference is the twin tip on the pimps and dimensions). I believe they do have the same construction as well.

Next year's Pimps are laminate construction from what I can recall. It's been so long since I've actually talked equipment =(

For me, the ski would be good for all-mountain, although I'd lean towards the Sugar Daddys because I already own enough twins =). And at $425, that seems like a pretty good deal. If the length works, do it. If I recall the price, thats like 40% off, right?

P.S., The topsheet on the Sugar Daddys is way less silly than the one on the pimps.

**stuckathuntermtn** · 07-22-2007, 11:51 PM

Yeah thanks. I hate the top sheet two, but I can't find Sugars at that price. I don't even really NEED the twin, either. Just as long as the flex is the same, I can see the dimensions are.
ps. 6' 170-175, unathletic. decent skier. lazy, but kinda fast.

**hemas** · 07-23-2007, 12:05 AM

Originally Posted by stuckathuntermtn

Yeah thanks. I hate the top sheet two, but I can't find Sugars at that price. I don't even really NEED the twin, either. Just as long as the flex is the same, I can see the dimensions are.
ps. 6' 170-175, unathletic. decent skier. lazy, but kinda fast.

Get the 193's as the effective edge is somewhat shorter than on Sugars.