What's becoming of the "Frontside" ski? - Page 8

All I can say is I was very happy to have my 165 Racetigers with me over the holidays in Utah.  With MAYBE 6 inches of new snow over a 10 day period they were a lot of fun and the perfect ski, even in the bumps.  When venturing out into Honeycomb Canyon at Solitude, my Head Peak 88's were excellent for the little snow we did find.  They were also good front side and less work than the Volkls, but not as fun.  If there was gobs of fresh snow like last week, I would have skied on something more suitable for the conditions.  So why not have 3 sets of skis if you can swing it? 

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cheese Head 

All I can say is I was very happy to have my 165 Racetigers with me over the holidays in Utah.  With MAYBE 6 inches of new snow over a 10 day period they were a lot of fun and the perfect ski, even in the bumps.  When venturing out into Honeycomb Canyon at Solitude, my Head Peak 88's were excellent for the little snow we did find.  They were also good front side and less work than the Volkls, but not as fun.  If there was gobs of fresh snow like last week, I would have skied on something more suitable for the conditions.  So why not have 3 sets of skis if you can swing it? 

I thought cheese heads were cheap frugal.

Maybe a Brett Favre ski?

Nah..yeah, good idea...no, not now....maybe....got to ask the kids....not now....yeah! I've just got to do it....let's go....well....I'll call...

Quote:

Originally Posted by SierraJim 

Which one, what size and I'll AXE the question tomorrow.

 

SJ

That new Nordica GS in size big.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tog 

 

66mm ski?

Here's a brand new one. 66mm in all lengths! It's a great ski. Get it before the company is buried by themselves. (may not be long)

(By brand new I mean not used. It's been around several years now.)

 

 

 

Quote: http://www.hartskis.com/products/f-series-all-mountain/phoenix/

 

Hardly a brand new ski. This ski has been out for 6 years, and while it is a very nice ski it is dated, a 66mm waist needs more than a 116 tip especially for the majority of the people that will be using it as a frontside ripper. 

The one ski that hasn't been mentioned here yet is the new Kastle MX83, the new little brother to the benchmark MX88, it has the same great construction but slimmed down in the waist and a new elliptical sidecut vs. the dual radius the the MX88 offered. I am very intrigued to get on these. Where many manufacturers are taking a more is better approach to this segment by adding carbon bars and or dampeners Kastle is staying traditional, something they have come to do as well as anyone. 

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tog 

I thought cheese heads were cheap frugal.

Maybe a Brett Favre ski?

Nah..yeah, good idea...no, not now....maybe....got to ask the kids....not now....yeah! I've just got to do it....let's go....well....I'll call...

 

People from Wisconsin are notoriously bad tippers, but only if you can't mix a drink or have an attitude when serving food.  Other than that we are all 3 ski quiver types of people.

But if there WAS a do it all to perfection ski, it would be called the Aaron Rodgers.  As we say around these parts "Brett Who???"

What's the name of that new Nordica ripper? Does it have the xbs system on it or is it flat?

I suppose we'll be getting these details soon.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Philpug 

Hardly a brand new ski. This ski has been out for 6 years, and while it is a very nice ski it is dated, a 66mm waist needs more than a 116 tip especially for the majority of the people that will be using it as a frontside ripper. 

This is a teachable moment. For me, if no one else, anyway. Something I don't understand...

If you leave the waist at 66 and increase the tip you then decrease the turn radius, and I guess also make the ski hook up faster when you lay it over.

So is this Hart Phoenix "dated" because no one would (should?) want to ski something that skinny underfoot that is not going to be a super snappy turner?

People point out they don't like to take their more modern frontside carvers off the groomers because, well, to quote someone from the current SIA thread...

"Because of the excess tip/tail shaping they stink big time in powder and they pitch and dive almost uncontrollably in tree skiing."

So is there no place in skiing anymore for a 60-something waist ski that doesn't have that "excessive" shape, so it might behave more reasonably off piste?

I'm honestly curious. I have played around with different skis, and actually really like the immediate/connected feel of an older Atomic SX:9 (106-65-97), but I admit I don't carve cleanly most of the time (if ever) and have a lot of room for improvemment when it comes to technique, and I do appreciate the benefit of wider and wider skis as the snow gets deeper and deeper. But mightn't a better skier with the chops to take a skinny ski more places on the mountain appreciate that feel and want to do so?

I know the conventional wisdom's answer is "no", but people's postings in the recent telemark thread got me thinking about the feel of skiing, and a skinny ski does give you a different feel. Perhaps that is enough to justify its continued existence.

Will the Phoenix...rise again?  ;-)

Seriously, why exactly is the Phoenix dated?

Quote:

Originally Posted by jc-ski 

Seriously, why exactly is the Phoenix dated?

Only because the company has a death wish, basically. 

Quote:

Originally Posted by jc-ski 

So is there no place in skiing anymore for a 60-something waist ski that doesn't have that "excessive" shape, so it might behave more reasonably off piste?

IMNSHO, yes.  Compared with 80-something or wider skis, 60-something waisted skis don't behave reasonably off piste, regardless of the turn radius and sidecut.

Quote:

Originally Posted by dawgcatching 

Get an MX78: should solve your problems! 

 

+1!

Incidentally, I grabbed my MX78's today by mistake as I left to ski 12+ inches of pow at Copper.  I meant to pick up my MX98's (the old one, like the MX88), but being in a hurry, I didn't get the "right" ski.  Was it a mistake?  Was I unable to ski the deeper and wind-affected pow?  Absolutely.  That MX78 is a mean crud machine as well.  It cuts through that stuff, is never deflected, and is a great ski.  I didn't miss my MX98s even skiing the relatively deep trees and untracked lines I got.

Mike

Quote:

Originally Posted by jc-ski 

This is a teachable moment. For me, if no one else, anyway. Something I don't understand...

 

If you leave the waist at 66 and increase the tip you then decrease the turn radius, and I guess also make the ski hook up faster when you lay it over.

 

So is this Hart Phoenix "dated" because no one would (should?) want to ski something that skinny underfoot that is not going to be a super snappy turner?

 

People point out they don't like to take their more modern frontside carvers off the groomers because, well, to quote someone from the current SIA thread...

 

"Because of the excess tip/tail shaping they stink big time in powder and they pitch and dive almost uncontrollably in tree skiing."

 

So is there no place in skiing anymore for a 60-something waist ski that doesn't have that "excessive" shape, so it might behave more reasonably off piste?

 

I'm honestly curious. I have played around with different skis, and actually really like the immediate/connected feel of an older Atomic SX:9 (106-65-97), but I admit I don't carve cleanly most of the time (if ever) and have a lot of room for improvemment when it comes to technique, and I do appreciate the benefit of wider and wider skis as the snow gets deeper and deeper. But mightn't a better skier with the chops to take a skinny ski more places on the mountain appreciate that feel and want to do so?

 

I know the conventional wisdom's answer is "no", but people's postings in the recent telemark thread got me thinking about the feel of skiing, and a skinny ski does give you a different feel. Perhaps that is enough to justify its continued existence.

 

Will the Phoenix...rise again?  ;-)

Seriously, why exactly is the Phoenix dated?

It would probably be less dated if the top sheet said Blossom or VIST.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jc-ski 

This is a teachable moment. For me, if no one else, anyway. Something I don't understand...

 

If you leave the waist at 66 and increase the tip you then decrease the turn radius, and I guess also make the ski hook up faster when you lay it over.

 

So is this Hart Phoenix "dated" because no one would (should?) want to ski something that skinny underfoot that is not going to be a super snappy turner?

 

People point out they don't like to take their more modern frontside carvers off the groomers because, well, to quote someone from the current SIA thread...

 

"Because of the excess tip/tail shaping they stink big time in powder and they pitch and dive almost uncontrollably in tree skiing."

 

So is there no place in skiing anymore for a 60-something waist ski that doesn't have that "excessive" shape, so it might behave more reasonably off piste?

 

I'm honestly curious. I have played around with different skis, and actually really like the immediate/connected feel of an older Atomic SX:9 (106-65-97), but I admit I don't carve cleanly most of the time (if ever) and have a lot of room for improvemment when it comes to technique, and I do appreciate the benefit of wider and wider skis as the snow gets deeper and deeper. But mightn't a better skier with the chops to take a skinny ski more places on the mountain appreciate that feel and want to do so?

 

I know the conventional wisdom's answer is "no", but people's postings in the recent telemark thread got me thinking about the feel of skiing, and a skinny ski does give you a different feel. Perhaps that is enough to justify its continued existence.

 

Will the Phoenix...rise again?  ;-)

Seriously, why exactly is the Phoenix dated?

Well I saw that comment, in bold, before  and was going to say something but decided not to stink up Phil's thread.

It is one of the more bizarre comments I've seen. Look, do you take a road racing bicycle on a bumpy dirt path? Maybe, but then you know it's not a mountain bike with knobby's and suspension that's all the jack.

It's not a 120mm powder ski, or even an 88mm ski.  You either deal with it or not in deeper snow.  It can be done, quite easily in fact depending on the snow and the skills.  Just don't expect to keep up with Mr. Banana on his 120mm mcshovel tips in the deep stuff.  Even if Mr. B can't operate the mcshovels, he can go straight like a comet until the impact.

Frankly, I fully support their existence.  They're very good learning to expert skis. There will certainly be "easier" skis, but learn to do railroad tracks on em and go from there.

Notice this current ski from Blossom:

                                                                                   http://www.canadianabc.com/store/product.php?id_product=194

Dimensions:

116-66-101 R= 15

Sound familiar?

No, the Phoenix shall not rise again, get it before it sinks into the abyss if you want one.

Quote:

Seriously. I basically told that to one of the higher ups here on the site. (It made a big difference too. I know, what was I thinking?..)

Anyway, couldn't we get Paris Hilton to buy the company?  At least then we'd get quality product with Swarovski crystals on it available in Aspen.  Right now, I guess you drive around looking for who's selling them in the parking lot of a walmart somewhere in the boonies where John Rambo is jumping his dirt bike over the local sheriff.
 

Quote:

Originally Posted by SierraJim 

1) The name is Doberman GS R EDT EVO. I'm sure this is going to get abbreviated to GSR EVO. The build is the same as the GSR WC with the Carbon fiber EDT overlays at tip and tail and the extended sidecut w/short tip of the current GSR. There are two differences. One is the shape (115-71-100 19.5m in 182) The other is the plate which does not use the piston plate but rather a new plate/binding system. The plate at the rear is reminiscent of the Atomic W/C plate with the forward part being new. The binding is a new Marker 14 DIN using a conventional heel and a flatter version of the Jester (ish) toe. After talking today with the Nordica race guy out of Eu, I better understand the Genesis of this project.

2) Nordica is not totally stoked about the new FIS mandates of >35m and >195 cm. This ski was a design exercise more for yuks than anything else. Once it was done, there was sort of a holy s...t moment when they realized what they had. Apparently they decided that the original (which had the Marker WC plate) was just too much of a good thing so they designed a new plate that moderated the thing just enough for mortals to ski it. They expect to import less than 100 of all sizes combined in the US market.

 

I have a 182 on the way to StartHaus for Monsieur Epic so by and by, he will have a report for us I'm sure. Delivery on this one will be about a week to the west coast.

 

SJ

1)  [sighing wistfully]   I remember when Nordica was new to the market.  They came in all sort of zen like.  Solid color colours that no one had ever seen before on skis.  Very simple and straightforward.  I guess we didn't consider them "ski like" enough.  Things heated up, at headquarters someone parked a trailer in the parking lot and built a meth lab.  The new marketing team installed their trailer next door.  The result? Well it's spawned names for skis that have a name and 9 letters in an acronym format out of a DOD purchase order, and at least that ski name makes sense compared to their others.

(To be fair, they've gotten better lately)

Anyway, it sounds like an awesome ski, though the whole plate thing is a little odd, was the original one too stiff?  Is this a Vist plate?

2) The FIS mandates....

Maybe if we had hart, or is it Hart? No, I think that's the Japanese version. Maybe if we had hart, (better?), take over FIS, things would be more sensibly run and they'd respond to their "customers" - the athletes, more appropriately.  I know, that's crazy, but I mean could it get much more idiotic?  (Well FIS could try to produce skis and call them...Fart).  I long for Paris Hilton to take control of FIS.  At least she thinks Ted is cute and would listen to him and that hunky Aksel.
 

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tog 

 

 

Anyway, it sounds like an awesome ski, though the whole plate thing is a little odd, was the original one too stiff?  Is this a Vist plate?

 

 

No. It's a Marker plate. SJ said it is a Marker plate. It runs most of the length of the ski like on the Atomic D2 skis.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jc-ski 

This is a teachable moment. For me, if no one else, anyway. Something I don't understand...

 

If you leave the waist at 66 and increase the tip you then decrease the turn radius, and I guess also make the ski hook up faster when you lay it over.

 

So is this Hart Phoenix "dated" because no one would (should?) want to ski something that skinny underfoot that is not going to be a super snappy turner?

 

People point out they don't like to take their more modern frontside carvers off the groomers because, well, to quote someone from the current SIA thread...

 

"Because of the excess tip/tail shaping they stink big time in powder and they pitch and dive almost uncontrollably in tree skiing."

 

So is there no place in skiing anymore for a 60-something waist ski that doesn't have that "excessive" shape, so it might behave more reasonably off piste?

 

I'm honestly curious. I have played around with different skis, and actually really like the immediate/connected feel of an older Atomic SX:9 (106-65-97), but I admit I don't carve cleanly most of the time (if ever) and have a lot of room for improvemment when it comes to technique, and I do appreciate the benefit of wider and wider skis as the snow gets deeper and deeper. But mightn't a better skier with the chops to take a skinny ski more places on the mountain appreciate that feel and want to do so?

 

I know the conventional wisdom's answer is "no", but people's postings in the recent telemark thread got me thinking about the feel of skiing, and a skinny ski does give you a different feel. Perhaps that is enough to justify its continued existence.

 

Will the Phoenix...rise again?  ;-)

Seriously, why exactly is the Phoenix dated?

I too like the feel of skinny carving/racing skis. I love making high-g turns at GS and higher speeds.  Skiing at GS and higher speeds while on non-closed courses seems to be in disfavour with a lot of people.  Maybe it has something to do with the  lack of caution and lack of knowledge among many of the younger generation (Dude! You were in my line!). 

The fact that there are better skis for other purposes does not mean this ski design isn't an excellent FRONT SIDE ski for hills that have more than 250' of vertical.  People who enjoy carving faster turns will appreciate a longer turn radius, but it's a niche market, apparently.

The ski is dated because the technology to produce a ski like this has been around for decades.  Marketing demands a "new and improved" product.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ghost 

I too like the feel of skinny carving/racing skis. I love making high-g turns at GS and higher speeds.  Skiing at GS and higher speeds while on non-closed courses seems to be in disfavour with a lot of people.  Maybe it has something to do with the  lack of caution and lack of knowledge among many of the younger generation (Dude! You were in my line!). 

 

The fact that there are better skis for other purposes does not mean this ski design isn't an excellent FRONT SIDE ski for hills that have more than 250' of vertical.  People who enjoy carving faster turns will appreciate a longer turn radius, but it's a niche market, apparently.

 

The ski is dated because the technology to produce a ski like this has been around for decades.  Marketing demands a "new and improved" product.

 

Even if it isn't either 

Skiing at Vail yesterday after 11 in . snow the night before late morning I watch a guy skiing superbly through the tracked out crud down Tourist Trap, he pulls up beside me to wait for his wife to come down and they both are skiing on Atomic SL 11's!

Not exactly the best toll for those conditions but it wasn't hindering how well he was skiing. Of course when we got here Thursday afternoon it ws pretty scraped down and hard and I saw a ton of people on fat rockers! To each his own I guess. And I've witnessed a bunch of skiers on hard pack making beautiful arcs on the fat floppy rockers too.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tog 

Quote:

 

Well I saw that comment, in bold, before  and was going to say something but decided not to stink up Phil's thread.

It is one of the more bizarre comments I've seen. Look, do you take a road racing bicycle on a bumpy dirt path? Maybe, but then you know it's not a mountain bike with knobby's and suspension that's all the jack.

It's not a 120mm powder ski, or even an 88mm ski.  You either deal with it or not in deeper snow.  It can be done, quite easily in fact depending on the snow and the skills.  Just don't expect to keep up with Mr. Banana on his 120mm mcshovel tips in the deep stuff.  Even if Mr. B can't operate the mcshovels, he can go straight like a comet until the impact.

That's the best explanation/analogy I've seen yet for the modern ski quiver.  I suppose I could take a bike designed for performing best on a carefully prepared race course (in this case, a velodrome, but we could be talking about a GS run with gates) out of bounds:

But wouldn't I get more fun (not to mention safety in this example) out of something built with off road (off piste?) in mind?

Originally Posted by Tog 

 [sighing wistfully]   I remember when Nordica was new to the market.  They came in all sort of zen like.  Solid color colours that no one had ever seen before on skis.  Very simple and straightforward.  I guess we didn't consider them "ski like" enough.  Things heated up, at headquarters someone parked a trailer in the parking lot and built a meth lab.  The new marketing team installed their trailer next door.  The result? Well it's spawned names for skis that have a name and 9 letters in an acronym format out of a DOD purchase order, and at least that ski name makes sense compared to their others.

You beat me to it!  When SJ mentioned the name of the new Nordie, I was thinking it looked more like a NSN than something intended to attract a civilian consumer.

In human powered sports, ultimately it all comes down to efficiency. And I think that is what really drives the need for a quiver of specialized ski.  Over the long term, efficiency wins. It lets you play all day everyday.

Quote:

Originally Posted by roundturns 

Skiing at Vail yesterday after 11 in . snow the night before late morning I watch a guy skiing superbly through the tracked out crud down Tourist Trap, he pulls up beside me to wait for his wife to come down and they both are skiing on Atomic SL 11's!

 

Not exactly the best toll for those conditions but it wasn't hindering how well he was skiing. Of course when we got here Thursday afternoon it ws pretty scraped down and hard and I saw a ton of people on fat rockers! To each his own I guess. And I've witnessed a bunch of skiers on hard pack making beautiful arcs on the fat floppy rockers too.

8 years ago everyone on this board was raving how they could take their 76mm Metrons everywhere - because they could.  Now the spiritual succesor to that ski is basically considered a front side ripper.  They'd be placed in that silly "dive up and down almost out of control in the trees" comment.  That really made me laugh.  Somehow I made it through 4-5 years of many trees, groomers, deep powder, ice, East, West, etc. with these skis and I'm still alive to tell about it.  No, they're not the best tool off piste tool compared to a modern rocker ski (and they were "turny!"), but many are making it seem like you *need* such a ski.

I wouldn't want to take a pair of race skis off piste because (a) they're way too stiff and (b) rock hits don't help future edge grip, but there are plenty of "front side skis" that are plenty versatile enough off piste.  Does anyone have skill anymore?  I don't even get front side/back side.  New snow on a groomed trail and it's pretty much the same thing.  Ugh, the lack of snow around here is really getting ot me.

First off, thanks to the folks who replied to the question of "why exactly is the Phoenix dated?". I know the ski is a few years old, and it's made by someone else. And (apparently) Hart as a company is on life support. I think Phil was saying in his original post the design of the Phoenix was dated - and perhaps by implication the style of skiing demanded by that design is dated - that's what I was thinking of, and that's what some of you weighed in on.
 

Quote:

Originally Posted by FairToMiddlin 

That's the best explanation/analogy I've seen yet for the modern ski quiver.  I suppose I could take a bike designed for performing best on a carefully prepared race course (in this case, a velodrome, but we could be talking about a GS run with gates) out of bounds:

 

 

But wouldn't I get more fun (not to mention safety in this example) out of something built with off road (off piste?) in mind?

 

 

You make a good point. With regards to bikes and biking, that is. I think the salient point for me is that in the case above it is highly unlikely either guy is gonna end up on the other guy's turf, whereas in a lot of places people ski during a single day they may want to spend some time on groomers, some time in the bumps, some time in the trees, some time off piste in a few inches of fresh powder if they're lucky enough to get to it before it becomes a few inches of cut up crud. Then it does become a discussion of what's the best single tool to give a good experience bouncing around through all of those conditions. Seems to me like a narrower waist and modest sidecut might not be a bad choice.

> [Tog] They're very good learning to expert skis. There will certainly be "easier" skis, but learn to do railroad tracks on em and go from there.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jc-ski 

First off, thanks to the folks who replied to the question of "why exactly is the Phoenix dated?". I know the ski is a few years old, and it's made by someone else. And (apparently) Hart as a company is on life support. I think Phil was saying in his original post the design of the Phoenix was dated - and perhaps by implication the style of skiing demanded by that design is dated - that's what I was thinking of, and that's what some of you weighed in on.

I think Phil's point was more related to how much intial tip hookup + how soon after transition most people skiing today would expect out of a ski like that.   

Initial tip hookup tells you that you've found the edge, and that you're starting to create dynamic balance ( plus it gives you speed control type security if you need it), so a wider tip would offer either

a bigger dynamic balance window, a broader comfort zone, turns starting higher on the C, 

or, if the flex is soft enough to allow it,

it would offer better control of feathering of that initial hookup, like might be desirable on hard-frozen irregular snow.

Obviously, people who have the DIRT to manage a 116 tip (or less) and a 66 waist can still get just as good a performance out of it as they did in 2006- but the objection is twofold:

- most people  who buy frontside skis in that waist range these days (read: learners) lack the DIRT to get  /consistent/ performance out of a 116 tip and would be better served with something possibly longitudinally or laterally softer but with a 122-125 tip

- people who /did/ have the DIRT for a 116-66 ski back in 2006 have probably spent considerable time on more recent designs since then and would probably find that the ski requires too much initial steering for what they're currently used to, or that it engages considerably later on the C than they're currently used to.

Put another way, skis become dated by shifts in the overall-majority skillset and in overall-majority habituation  (which creates overall-majority expectations), not by failing to meet their design goals.    People who don't recognize the need to shift design goals either have high skillsets or high habituation consonant with the old design goals.

Quote:

Originally Posted by cantunamunch 

 

 

I think Phil's point was more related to how much intial tip hookup + how soon after transition most people skiing today would expect out of a ski like that.   

 

Initial tip hookup tells you that you've found the edge, and that you're starting to create dynamic balance ( plus it gives you speed control type security if you need it), so a wider tip would offer either

 

a bigger dynamic balance window, a broader comfort zone, turns starting higher on the C, 

 

or, if the flex is soft enough to allow it,

 

it would offer better control of feathering of that initial hookup, like might be desirable on hard-frozen irregular snow.

 

 

 

 

Obviously, people who have the DIRT to manage a 116 tip (or less) and a 66 waist can still get just as good a performance out of it as they did in 2006- but the objection is twofold:

 

- most people  who buy frontside skis in that waist range these days (read: learners) lack the DIRT to get  /consistent/ performance out of a 116 tip and would be better served with something possibly longitudinally or laterally softer but with a 122-125 tip

 

- people who /did/ have the DIRT for a 116-66 ski back in 2006 have probably spent considerable time on more recent designs since then and would probably find that the ski requires too much initial steering for what they're currently used to, or that it engages considerably later on the C than they're currently used to.

 

Put another way, skis become dated by shifts in the overall-majority skillset and in overall-majority habituation  (which creates overall-majority expectations), not by failing to meet their design goals.    People who don't recognize the need to shift design goals either have high skillsets or high habituation consonant with the old design goals.

 

Having given my carving skis away (sorry don't have the dims, but 13m Radius, something like 118 or 120 -66- 99), and since I'm too broke to buy new skis, I've been rotating my Machete g (104 68 90 listed) and P50 F1s (102-65-88 listed ) as my front side ski. No initial steering angle is required for either of these skis, which are much less than 116 tip, just a little more tip pressure.   The sacrifice in the little extra effort to get the tip to engage is well rewarded by the higher speed carves.  I admit I'm not representative of the market; I've spend too many years skiing too fast on SG skis.

BTW though neither skis are at home at SG speeds (much, much too lively and energetic), at regular speeds the F1s are better at tighter turns and the Volants a little more solid at higher speeds in rough conditions, much more due the flex than the dimensions.

Hey SJ:

Great analysis. So I have the Prophit Flite 90, tight turn radius  with no metal and a Volkl Mantra pre rocker. Thinking o fpicking up a used Blizzard G Force for Vermont. What are your thoughts on a good ice pick and what should I dump from the quiver. The Flite was used for eastern trees and the Mantra was for everything else. Also picked up the Atomic Coax for West soft and POW.

You da man!

Thx!

A Tomba

Quote:

Originally Posted by SierraJim 

Alberto.....I think you need a 7S in a 203.....................

 

Actually, I have that exact ski in my basement, I can make you a super deal. 

Quote:

Originally Posted by SierraJim 

Alberto.....I think you need a 7S in a 203.....................

They're gonna make the S7 in a 203?!?! Oh.... nevah mind.