or Connect
EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › Ski Gear Discussion › Another Kabookie vs Bone Question
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Another Kabookie vs Bone Question

post #1 of 29
Thread Starter 

Hi All,

First time poster with a couple of Blizzard questions.

About me - East coast skier, 47 years old, 5'5" 157 lb midget , very athletic however with short powerful legs/rear, still in the gym most days.  Did a lot of skiing in my younger days and was an aggressive fast twitch short radius type that loved to zipper bumps.  For various reasons I quit skiing about 15 years ago but I am now back in the game.  If I an honest with myself I am probably an "8" now in ability.   I do feel like Rip Van Winkle as I have been out demoing skis for the last several weeks and all I can say is that equipment has made this a truly different sport relative to the days of straight skis that I remember.  Most of my skiing now is flat light evening/night skiing , hard pack, boilerplate, "bumps", frozen "bumps", crud, refrozen crud, with some actual snow thrown in every now and then. 

 

To make a very long story short(er), I demoed many skis in the 78-98mm variety and every time I kept coming back to the Bonafide in 173 as my favorite.  I really did not want to like this ski as I know it is not what I am supposed to be using out here…but it is what it is.  Here is why I think I am partial to this particular ski.  When trying out the modern skis, I quickly learned what a real modern carve is.  I used to be a slalom water skier and this move seemed obvious and natural to me.  I also quickly learned that in true eastern boilerplate, I do not have the skill set to truly carve, hold an edge yes, carve no (at least at ~80mm under foot).   I also found that if the snow had any "softness" to it at all it did not matter much what ski I used, that carving was doable.  So this left various degrees of hard pack where I may or may not gain an advantage to having a thinner waist ski.  But the advantages of the Bonafide were game changing to me.  Good hold, quick in the bumps, GREAT in off light (who cares what is in front of you, just point your tips and go…no worries).  And when I do actually find loose uniform snow, it is magic relative to a skinny ski.  The Bonafide, of all the skis I tried, was also the most predictable on boilerplate.  It generally could hold an edge and when she did give, it was telegraphed, smooth, and seamless, and the edge generally would re-engage quickly.  I look at this ski as a true game improvement ski for me on the conditions I routinely face.   My only reservation is that at times, with my size, it does feel a bit planky and quite a bit of work, particularly when skiing refrozen crud.  I tried a Bushwacker in 173 and felt that it was too unstable at speed and through crud and was not enough ski for me @ 173.  I did find the Bushwacker to be one of the easiest skis to truly carve with however.   Whatever Blizzard is doing, it seems to jibe with my skiing style.   So here are my questions.

 

- Would a Kabookie in 173 be a better fit for me?  Would I get most of the advantages of the Bone but maybe in a bit more user friendly ski for me at my weight?  Again, I am drawing a distinction between true carving and ease of use on the real slick stuff.  How would the Kabookie handle the refrozen junk relative to the Bonafide, would it be damp enough for me?  I can get a deal on a Kabookie in 173 now and I am thinking of pulling the trigger.  What scares me a bit is a quote from Dawgcatching in a review where he talks about the Bone being a super stable platform where guys can slide into a turn.  I’m wondering if this is why I like the Bone so much on the boilerplate and super hard pack.  Will I get the same performance with the Kabookie?

 

- Finally, should I not get so OCD about this stuff and just buy the darn Kabookies…they are even demos for @#$@ sake…and sell them and buy some bones if they don’t cut it.  I guess this stuff isn’t life or deathJ

post #2 of 29
Quote:
Originally Posted by DMAS View Post


To make a very long story short(er), I demoed many skis in the 78-98mm variety and every time I kept coming back to the Bonafide in 173 as my favorite.

 

the advantages of the Bonafide were game changing to me.

 

- Would a Kabookie in 173 be a better fit for me? 

 

 

 

There is minimal difference between the two. The Bone, having metal is more damp and a little grippier while the Kabookie is a little lighter. The Kabookie is not notably easier going.

 

Having said that, when one demos skis as much as you apparently have and finds one that is apparently your high school sweetheart, it seems absolutely silly to consider something else.

 

SJ

 

 

 

SJ

post #3 of 29
Quote:
Originally Posted by DMAS View Post

Hi All,

First time poster with a couple of Blizzard questions.

About me - East coast skier, 47 years old, 5'5" 157 lb midget , very athletic however with short powerful legs/rear, still in the gym most days.  Did a lot of skiing in my younger days and was an aggressive fast twitch short radius type that loved to zipper bumps.  For various reasons I quit skiing about 15 years ago but I am now back in the game.  If I an honest with myself I am probably an "8" now in ability.   I do feel like Rip Van Winkle as I have been out demoing skis for the last several weeks and all I can say is that equipment has made this a truly different sport relative to the days of straight skis that I remember.  Most of my skiing now is flat light evening/night skiing , hard pack, boilerplate, "bumps", frozen "bumps", crud, refrozen crud, with some actual snow thrown in every now and then. 

 

To make a very long story short(er), I demoed many skis in the 78-98mm variety and every time I kept coming back to the Bonafide in 173 as my favorite.  I really did not want to like this ski as I know it is not what I am supposed to be using out here…but it is what it is.  Here is why I think I am partial to this particular ski.  When trying out the modern skis, I quickly learned what a real modern carve is.  I used to be a slalom water skier and this move seemed obvious and natural to me.  I also quickly learned that in true eastern boilerplate, I do not have the skill set to truly carve, hold an edge yes, carve no (at least at ~80mm under foot).   I also found that if the snow had any "softness" to it at all it did not matter much what ski I used, that carving was doable.  So this left various degrees of hard pack where I may or may not gain an advantage to having a thinner waist ski.  But the advantages of the Bonafide were game changing to me.  Good hold, quick in the bumps, GREAT in off light (who cares what is in front of you, just point your tips and go…no worries).  And when I do actually find loose uniform snow, it is magic relative to a skinny ski.  The Bonafide, of all the skis I tried, was also the most predictable on boilerplate.  It generally could hold an edge and when she did give, it was telegraphed, smooth, and seamless, and the edge generally would re-engage quickly.  I look at this ski as a true game improvement ski for me on the conditions I routinely face.   My only reservation is that at times, with my size, it does feel a bit planky and quite a bit of work, particularly when skiing refrozen crud.  I tried a Bushwacker in 173 and felt that it was too unstable at speed and through crud and was not enough ski for me @ 173.  I did find the Bushwacker to be one of the easiest skis to truly carve with however.   Whatever Blizzard is doing, it seems to jibe with my skiing style.   So here are my questions.

 

- Would a Kabookie in 173 be a better fit for me?  Would I get most of the advantages of the Bone but maybe in a bit more user friendly ski for me at my weight?  Again, I am drawing a distinction between true carving and ease of use on the real slick stuff.  How would the Kabookie handle the refrozen junk relative to the Bonafide, would it be damp enough for me?  I can get a deal on a Kabookie in 173 now and I am thinking of pulling the trigger.  What scares me a bit is a quote from Dawgcatching in a review where he talks about the Bone being a super stable platform where guys can slide into a turn.  I’m wondering if this is why I like the Bone so much on the boilerplate and super hard pack.  Will I get the same performance with the Kabookie?

 

- Finally, should I not get so OCD about this stuff and just buy the darn Kabookies…they are even demos for @#$@ sake…and sell them and buy some bones if they don’t cut it.  I guess this stuff isn’t life or deathJ

You answered your question many times in the thread. You struck oil with the Bonefide...stop drilling and buy a pair while there is still some around. See the bold. 

post #4 of 29
Thread Starter 

cool thx for the input guys...I'll go with the Bones. 

 

dave

post #5 of 29
Thread Starter 

BTW...anybody know where can I get 173 Bones now?  As far as I can tell, everybody is sold out.  Thx

post #6 of 29

If you love the Bonafide, you should just buy that ski!  There is no reason to look at anything else, if you are happy on it.   For guys like me, who find the Bonafide too demanding and rowdy in tight spaces, there is the Kabookie.  It skis 20% softer, much more forgiving in tight spaces, no really loss in the top end.  Big guys could probably overpower it, but I love it.  Great ski, my favorite Blizzard, along with the 8.5ti.  It is more substantial than the Bushwacker, FWIW, but less so than the Bonafide or Scout.  But, if you had success with the Bonafide, why not stick with it? 

 

I had some of my best tree skiing days this year on a Kabookie 180. I am 5 foot 9, 155lbs.  It is money in tight trees. So forgiving, quick and yet stable. 

post #7 of 29
Thread Starter 

Thx for the feedback.  I found the Bones to be plenty quick and nimble for me.  I'm skiing them in 173 though...I suspect that at 180 I might find them a bit awkward for my size and application.

post #8 of 29
Quote:
Originally Posted by DMAS View Post

Thx for the feedback.  I found the Bones to be plenty quick and nimble for me.  I'm skiing them in 173 though...I suspect that at 180 I might find them a bit awkward for my size and application.

yeah, I can ski the bonafide way easier in the 173 than I can the 180, but the downside is 173 is too short for any sort of new snow out west.  I would rather go a bit softer/longer vs. a short, stout ski. I find the former to be more versatile in a wide range of snow; I am not a huge fan of shorty skis away from groomers. 

post #9 of 29
Quote:
Originally Posted by dawgcatching View Post

If you love the Bonafide, you should just buy that ski!  There is no reason to look at anything else, if you are happy on it.   For guys like me, who find the Bonafide too demanding and rowdy in tight spaces, there is the Kabookie.  It skis 20% softer, much more forgiving in tight spaces, no really loss in the top end.  Big guys could probably overpower it, but I love it.  Great ski, my favorite Blizzard, along with the 8.5ti.  It is more substantial than the Bushwacker, FWIW, but less so than the Bonafide or Scout.  But, if you had success with the Bonafide, why not stick with it? 

 

I had some of my best tree skiing days this year on a Kabookie 180. I am 5 foot 9, 155lbs.  It is money in tight trees. So forgiving, quick and yet stable. 

A ski similar to the Kabookie but even lighter but a litle bit more stiff is the Hell & Back! I own it in 178 and I don't overpower it ( I'm 210 ponds). But I ski it only after a dump and it is part of a multiple skis quiver ( 2 from you!)...

post #10 of 29
I know this is late to your thread but what did you end up buying? Bones or kabookie? I've been struggling this year on a pair. Bones, SD 95, Kabookie?? Love the bonafide but it's swing weight gets to me after awhile. People say kabookie is lighter and it does feel lighter but Blister gear reviews review still states he struggles with why the swing weight is so high on Kabookie. Just curious on what you did. I'm 6'1" 178 and 42 years old with a not so perfect left knee, too many moguls.
post #11 of 29
Quote:
Originally Posted by tmac4718 View Post

I know this is late to your thread but what did you end up buying? Bones or kabookie? I've been struggling this year on a pair. Bones, SD 95, Kabookie?? Love the bonafide but it's swing weight gets to me after awhile. People say kabookie is lighter and it does feel lighter but Blister gear reviews review still states he struggles with why the swing weight is so high on Kabookie. Just curious on what you did. I'm 6'1" 178 and 42 years old with a not so perfect left knee, too many moguls.

Odd shopping list.  One of those three is not like the others. 

 

The Sick Day 95 is at the absolute opposite end of the spectrum in terms of feel from the Bonafides (Mantra, E98, etc. . . or the Kabookie, which I haven't been on but catch the gist from reviews here that it feels more like a Bonafide than not).  The Sick Day is light and quick.  Not particularly damp.  Not particularly stiff.  The Sick Day is more something that you'd cross shop against the Sollie Q98, Nordica Soul Rider, Atomic Theory, Atomic Access, Rossi Sin 7.  It doesn't feel anything like the Bonafides on piste or off-piste.

post #12 of 29
Quote:
Originally Posted by tmac4718 View Post

I know this is late to your thread but what did you end up buying? Bones or kabookie? I've been struggling this year on a pair. Bones, SD 95, Kabookie?? Love the bonafide but it's swing weight gets to me after awhile. People say kabookie is lighter and it does feel lighter but Blister gear reviews review still states he struggles with why the swing weight is so high on Kabookie. Just curious on what you did. I'm 6'1" 178 and 42 years old with a not so perfect left knee, too many moguls.

Swing weight, seriously? :confused. The Bonafide is NOT heavy at all and does not have a high swing weight. The Kabookie is less then .5 lb less than the Bonafide and that mass is more towards the center of the ski than the tip or tail. You are splitting hairs at this point. 

post #13 of 29
Wow. Hair splitting in the ski gear discussion thread.
Unheard of:D
post #14 of 29
Is the magnum 8 Ti very different from these? Where does it fit in this continuum?
post #15 of 29
Well pardon me then, I guess my legs dangling on very long and slow chairs without foot rests can't tell the difference between a light ski or not. Picking up a bonafide and kabookie in the stores they sure feel different but just curious if they really ski that much lighter. Seems like my Kendos and mantras in the past had had more distributed weight to them. But again that's just my impression so far.
post #16 of 29
Quote:
Originally Posted by bwana View Post

Is the magnum 8 Ti very different from these? Where does it fit in this continuum?


The Magnum 8.0 is out of context in this discussion as it is a completely different category of ski. The Mag. is a hard snow biased frontside ski while the B/K are all mountain skis built with a mix of conditions in mind.

 

SJ

post #17 of 29
Tnx. I guess I'll have to demo the b/k to see. I tried some brahmas and they were very good on the groomers although there isn't much fresh powder usually in New England to really highlight the differences it seems.
post #18 of 29
Quote:
Originally Posted by tmac4718 View Post

I know this is late to your thread but what did you end up buying? Bones or kabookie? I've been struggling this year on a pair. Bones, SD 95, Kabookie?? Love the bonafide but it's swing weight gets to me after awhile. People say kabookie is lighter and it does feel lighter but Blister gear reviews review still states he struggles with why the swing weight is so high on Kabookie. Just curious on what you did. I'm 6'1" 178 and 42 years old with a not so perfect left knee, too many moguls.

IMO swing weight is not what people usually mean when they indicate a ski feels like work going from edge to edge. The contact point where rocker and sidecut meet, for instance, can make a big difference in how initiation goes. As can the actual tip shape; some pull the ski into a turn, others keep it going straight. And a stiffer shovel wants more force to tip and engage. 

 

That said, Phil's statement about weight difference between the Kabookie and Bonafide is correct, but kinda misses the point. Swingweight is not much related to total weight except that all else equal a lighter object will have a lower swing weight.

 

But although it's a very popular term in sports, swing weight is not what physics talks about. The relevant term is moment of inertia, or how much force is required to accelerate an object at rest. It's rotational inertia for most things like skis, bats, and racquets, but set that aside. The moment of inertia depends on the distribution of mass, not the total mass. So for instance, two tennis racquets can have the same total weight, but really different moments of inertia if we put some lead tape at the pivot point of the racquet vs. out at the tip. The racquet with the weight out at the tip will feel sluggish to get moving, but will really plough through the ball. The racquet with the mass centered will be light and easy to accelerate, but may get deflected by the ball. Tennis and bat manufacturers actually supply data on swingweight, in fact, as well as balance point. My hunch is that this reflects the biomechanical demands of accelerating an object in your hand to hit a very fast object coming toward you; pros tinker endlessly with distribution of mass. 

 

Oh, and moment of inertia is a very big deal to runners. An exra oz in a running shoe, out at the end of your leg, will make a big difference after a few thousand foot strikes.

 

Fast forward to skis: Lowering the tip's moment of inertia is behind cut-outs in skis by Kastle and Fischer, honeycomb or cascade in Rossignols, the new skeletal tips and tails in Head powder skis, Salomon's use of honeycomb or stepped layers in tip and tail, and Stockli's thinner metal in the tips and tails of the Stormrider series. In other words, most major manufacturers are now working actively to reduce moment of inertia, eg, swingweight. Kastle has also played around with cutouts at the tail, to produce skis that start and finish with less effort. Wonder if soon ski makers will be providing swingweight data. Yeah, in my dreams, right after actual weight. :rolleyes This, incidentally, is why folks who talk about ski weight as making no difference on groomers are semi-full of it. If they're just running flat, sure. But as soon as they want to turn, weight counts. As does where it hides. 

 

So my hunch is that what's bothering you about your Bonafides is not specifically their swing weight. But if it is, then doubt Kabookies will solve the problem, since I assume they have the same basic distribution of mass, just a touch less overall. Would suggest trying one of the brands above. 

post #19 of 29
I agree with your response. The bonafide doesn't feel any heavier to me skiing groomers than other skis, it's when I've encountered new snow, crud, etc. while trying to hop, jump, just be more overall playful on it. It to me doesn't feel like it likes to leave the ground. I had a pair of older Obsetheds that had this weight problem trying to make the ski more playful, I could do it but after a few hours it took its toll on my knee. So much fun but always felt like I needed a knee brace halfway through the day. I think the kabookie probably has the same weight characteristics as the bonafide, IMO blizzard doesn't do much to reduce the tip and tail weights on their skis. And that's alright because they are a blast if you have the capability to enjoy that all weekend long.
post #20 of 29

Absolutely swing weight can be an attribute but there is always a cost for everything. There are a few companies (Salomon & Rossignol) that are using air tips and tails to reduce swing weights but they are on skis that have a lot of rise in the tips and tails and are not not eh snow when you need the stability, i.e. firmer conditions. The cost of a couple of ounces over the whole length of the Bonafide is ounces well spent for stability. 

post #21 of 29
While on the topic of weight/swing weight one ski that gets lost in the bonafide, kabookie, prophet 98 threads is the Hell and back. Picking up this ski in the stores it's amazingly light, feels similar to kabookie. What are thoughts on this ski out there? Obviously no rocker in tail and has more sidecut but opinions??
post #22 of 29
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by tmac4718 View Post

I know this is late to your thread but what did you end up buying? Bones or kabookie? I've been struggling this year on a pair. Bones, SD 95, Kabookie?? Love the bonafide but it's swing weight gets to me after awhile. People say kabookie is lighter and it does feel lighter but Blister gear reviews review still states he struggles with why the swing weight is so high on Kabookie. Just curious on what you did. I'm 6'1" 178 and 42 years old with a not so perfect left knee, too many moguls.

Hi,

 I ended up buying the Bones.  I have no experience with the kabookie.  I have 10 days on them so far and for what it is worth I am extremely happy with them.  I find a bit of a disconnect  between what I have read about the bones and what I have experienced.  I do not find them overly stiff, or a ponderous ski that favors GS turns.  On the contrary, I find that they love quick tight radius turns, are great in bumps, or for poaching stashes of soft crud along the edges of the boiler plate groomers.  They like a neutral stance for sure.  At lower speeds I wouldn’t call them playful but they can be surfy and slarvy.  The rocker tail seems just super user friendly.  The tune out of the box was great and I religiously touch it up at 3 degree edge 1 degree base after every trip.  They grip like a vice anything I have thrown at them so far and I get the feeling that they are really stiff torsionally.  At speed they will bend but they are not carvers by any stretch and don’t respond well for me to tip pressure at the initiation of the turn.  The only time I have felt like it would have been nice to have an easier going ski is when skiing coral reef / refrozen crud which is tough with the bonafides on my 155lb body.   I think the BIG difference between my experience and some others is that I am skiing on the 173 and virtually all the reviews of the Bones I read are of the longer sizes.  My guess is that the 173 ski vastly differently relative to even the 180’s.  The 173 ski more like 168’s in my estimation (albeit super stable 168’s).  There have been a couple of times this year, when skiing in fresh snow or lapping groomers with a big hard charging GS type partner where I was actually jonesing for a longer ski, but those instances  are the exception.  On groomers the bones are passable but uninspiring.  If old man corduroy was my idea of fun I would not own them.  In fact I probably would not own them if I routinely faced decent snow conditions.  Bottom line though is that they let me ski athletically in some tough really variable conditions without punishing me for occasional laziness or the fact that my 48 year old eyes don’t work in flat light quite as well as they used to.  In my mind at least, they make me feel like I’m 18 years old again and ripping it up on my beloved Rossi ST Comps :-)

post #23 of 29
Thanks for the response and I would have to agree with your review, I don't find them stiff by any means. Very even flexing ski IMO. One of the coolest wide mogul skis I've been on. My only complaint of the ski is the heavier weight out in the front half of the ski. I know this seems crazy but I bought a sick day 95 in a 186cm also to compare side by side after I realized the bone will be too hard on my knee for long days or a full weekend of skiing. Time will tell which one I grab for the on ski quiver days.
post #24 of 29
Thread Starter 

You are skiing them in 180 I would imagine?

post #25 of 29
Yes. Awesome ski, just wish they did something to reduce the shovel weight of the ski but oh well they sell like hot cakes so why mess with a good thing.
post #26 of 29

Sold my Bonafide setup for almost exactly what I paid for it and bought last years Kabookie because I liked the graphic better than this years plus a great deal. I struggled on deciding to sell my Bonafide becaused I enjoyed it so much other than the heavier weight. My local shop had a kabookie to demo in my size so why not give it a shot. I loved it! Soon as I clicked in I could feel the weight difference and that is even with the demo binding. The two demo days I had it and now my own ski for two days have all been on firm and icy groomers.

 

I have zero complaints with the Kabookie vs the Bonafide. At first I was thinking this doesn't have as much bite, its not quite as smooth, and not as powerful. But the more time I spend on the Kabookie all the Bonafide memories fade away. This thing rips! From my perspective I lost very very little in performance, maybe just at the highest speeds when pushed hard and maybe some of the smoothness, again when pushed to its limits. I have had it only on icy groomers so I cant wait to see what it does on anything soft. And the lightness, energy, big rebound, and little bit more playful side of it outweighs the very high end performance losses. I believe that if anybody my size never ever jumped on a Bonafide they would think this Kabookie is all of that. For a ski without metal it bites, smooth, damp with energy, and very stable. Very under rated, and unknown ski out there. Bonafide has gotten all the hype but I think many people could enjoy the kabookie more, depending on their size and background.

 

Im 6'1" 178 lbs 42 years old and my knee is much happier. I know on the scale there isnt much difference but for a guy that is weight conscious about his skis I can say that there is a noticeable difference swinging it around. If you are a heavier guy, no knee issues, racing background, you keep the skis on the ground, and don't care about heavier skis then stay Bonafide for sure. If you prefer a lighter, little more playful feel, always jumping off things, moguls, and aren't a bigger guy then stay Kabookie. You won't sacrifice anything. 

post #27 of 29
Quote:
Originally Posted by DMAS View Post

Hi,
 I ended up buying the Bones.  I have no experience with the kabookie.  I have 10 days on them so far and for what it is worth I am extremely happy with them.  I find a bit of a disconnect  between what I have read about the bones and what I have experienced.  I do not find them overly stiff, or a ponderous ski that favors GS turns.  On the contrary, I find that they love quick tight radius turns, are great in bumps, or for poaching stashes of soft crud along the edges of the boiler plate groomers.  They like a neutral stance for sure.  At lower speeds I wouldn’t call them playful but they can be surfy and slarvy.  The rocker tail seems just super user friendly.  The tune out of the box was great and I religiously touch it up at 3 degree edge 1 degree base after every trip.  They grip like a vice anything I have thrown at them so far and I get the feeling that they are really stiff torsionally.  At speed they will bend but they are not carvers by any stretch and don’t respond well for me to tip pressure at the initiation of the turn.  The only time I have felt like it would have been nice to have an easier going ski is when skiing coral reef / refrozen crud which is tough with the bonafides on my 155lb body.   I think the BIG difference between my experience and some others is that I am skiing on the 173 and virtually all the reviews of the Bones I read are of the longer sizes.  My guess is that the 173 ski vastly differently relative to even the 180’s.  The 173 ski more like 168’s in my estimation (albeit super stable 168’s).  There have been a couple of times this year, when skiing in fresh snow or lapping groomers with a big hard charging GS type partner where I was actually jonesing for a longer ski, but those instances  are the exception.  On groomers the bones are passable but uninspiring.  If old man corduroy was my idea of fun I would not own them.  In fact I probably would not own them if I routinely faced decent snow conditions.  Bottom line though is that they let me ski athletically in some tough really variable conditions without punishing me for occasional laziness or the fact that my 48 year old eyes don’t work in flat light quite as well as they used to.  In my mind at least, they make me feel like I’m 18 years old again and ripping it up on my beloved Rossi ST Comps :-)
post #28 of 29
I have the bone and the kabookie and prefer the bone for most in resort skiing. The kabookies are set up for back country skiing.
post #29 of 29
Quote:
Originally Posted by tmac4718 View Post

Thanks for the response and I would have to agree with your review, I don't find them stiff by any means. Very even flexing ski IMO. One of the coolest wide mogul skis I've been on. My only complaint of the ski is the heavier weight out in the front half of the ski. I know this seems crazy but I bought a sick day 95 in a 186cm also to compare side by side after I realized the bone will be too hard on my knee for long days or a full weekend of skiing. Time will tell which one I grab for the on ski quiver days.

Speaking with a fellow Bones owner on the lift the other day, he mentioned that he had moved his bindings 0.7 cm ahead of the mounting point and found them much quicker. I wasn't sure, but I'll try anything. With demo bindings I can easily move forward 0.5 or 1.0 cm, and chose 0.5. Darned if he wasn't right! The perfect testing ground for that is a run at Telluride we call the "baby bumps". They are made by rug rats in ski school on 3' skis and if you don't have your dancing shoes on, you'll get ejected quickly. I like to round out almost every day in Telluride after the other guys have quit with a couple of runs in the baby bumps, so I know almost every bump by name. Definitely made a difference. I've given some thought to going another 5 mm, but why mess with success?

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Ski Gear Discussion
EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › Ski Gear Discussion › Another Kabookie vs Bone Question