191 PM Gear Lhasa Fat

[2FUNKY]

Right on man. I'm jealous, haven't been on mine in a while. Lack o the white stuff in a big way.

[kokomas]

May be one of the only times it makes sense to fly west to east in Feb. It is ridic here, happy to show people around

[pfluffenmeister]

skied mine yesterday on 6"-12" of wind affected pow in very poor visibility.

[2FUNKY]

Don't like you. Has been fuck all forever since I have been on mine./jealous rant.

[Muggydude]

Anyone ski/own both the fats and protests? Curious how you think they compare as soft snow skis for the resort. I'm talking about the 186 fats though

[kokomas]

These things have some serious pop, got my attention a few times today. 7 inches of fresh and it was so fun riding them in it. They are very mellow when making subtle moves and when you load them a bit off balance they sneak up on you

[Lindahl]

Anyone ski/own both the fats and protests? Curious how you think they compare as soft snow skis for the resort. I'm talking about the 186 fats though

Shouldn't that be obvious? Fats will be much more versatile. Protests much looser and floatier. Apples to Oranges. GPOs are more comparable to the Fats. What do you actually want?

For resorts that get tracked out relatively fast (all major resorts), I prefer a skinnier more versatile ski. Deflects less in the chop and deals with crud and bumps better by the end of the day. A super wide ski tends to work me at the very end of the day and just feels too wide. I'd suggest the Fats between the two, but would lean even closer to skinnier, towards the regular Lhasas (even over the GPOs). I prefer around 112-114mm underfoot.

[2FUNKY]

Agree with lindahl, two very diff. skis.

[Benny Profane]

Is there a thread for the 191 Lhasa Carbon pows? Having a difficult time finding it. If not, I'll drop my review here.

[pfluffenmeister]

^^^ you can drop it here if you want.
which version of the 191 do you have (skinny tail or fat tail?)
this is the OG Lhasa thread that hasn't been bumped in awhile: http://www.tetongravity.com/forums/s...ighlight=lhasa


RE: 186Fat vs. Protest; I think that there is definitely room in your quiver for both.

[splat]

He got the 112 waist in pure carbon, pfluff. 1860g per ski. They came out really nice.
There's some peeps that post who got their carbon 191 Lhasas last week, Benny.
They might chirp up here soon once they get out on them.
How they treating you, Benny?
Review here if you want.

[Benny Profane]

Wonderfully, but I've been waiting for some deep stuff to summarize. At Steamboat now, maybe tomorrow, but it's probably tracked out a tad. Fantastic with four to six inches on old snow. Looks like the jet stream dropped, and powder is back, so....

[Muggydude]

No I know they are quite different ski designs.

More or less I have a problem with fat skis haha. Not that it's a "bad" thing to have a lot of quiver overlap, but I can't help myself...

I might end up holding on to the Lhasas.

[Fritz]

I have one day on the 191 pure fats and they performed really well on 18" of semi-dense snow on the front range. They tour great for a big ski, super light, flattish tail, great for breaking trail. Maybe Pat can chime in on the weight? I'll try to get a full review up once I've had a few more days on them.

[pfluffenmeister]

^^^ My fairly stiff Hybrids are 4#13oz
I had a pair of soft Pures (although stiffish underfoot) that came in @ 4#3oz.

[pfluffenmeister]

Three 11" days on the Fats recently ...

Heavenly.


Pat, you are a genius.

[2FUNKY]

Word! Loooooove mine!!

[pfluffenmeister]

Anyone ever ski the Fat @ two different mount points?
If so did you notice a difference in performance and how so?

I finally mounted my pair of Kusalas and found them soooo much easier to ski than my Fats, especially in tight trees.
Really not that much of surprise considering how differently the skis are designed.
Mind you, I hands down prefer the Fats in above tree-line open bowl settings.

At days end with the Kusalas, I had almost no quad fatigue (actually a little fatigue in the calves, which is unusual).
When skiing the Fats at days end I will typically have really spent quads, maybe even a little crampy.

Which leads me back to the initial questions regarding mount point differentials.
I just dropped a pair of binders into the existing holes in my back-up pair of Fats, which were drilled on the line.
Years ago, I mounted my "normal" pair of Fats @-1.5cm (because I'm a badass charger).

How much more nimble does the collective think the pair mounted @0 will be vs the pair I've been skiing for years @-1.5?
Will they engender less fatigue?
Will they lose so much stability as to become death traps?

I will be skiing them both, back to back over the next few days and will return with a report on any performance differences.

[auvgeek]

The Kusala is to Lhasa Fat as the Renegade is to the Billy Goat.

A pin-tailed, camrock, traditionally mounted ski is more work than a heavily taper, reverse-camber, progressively mounted ski. The trade off is that the former is much less balancey than the latter. As to your specific question, I haven't messed with mount points much, but I didn't notice much of a difference with my pair swapping between tech and alpine binders—IIRC, mounted at 0 and +0.5 cm from the line.

IME, YMMV, and all that jazz.

[detrusor]

Wishing I had some fats to round out my quiver. Anybody holding?

[RootSkier]

RIP to my 186 Lhasas. I am very sad.

[NW_SKIER]

RIP to my 186 Lhasas. I am very sad.

Surgery?

[RootSkier]

I don't know...it's right underfoot, and the sidweall is pretty mangled. It seems like retirement might be the better option

[I've seen black diamonds!]

Want to buy some newer 186's? I was about to put up a for sale thread.

[RootSkier]

Maybe. PM sent.