or Connect
EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › Ski Gear Discussion › Rocky Mountain Underground
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Rocky Mountain Underground

post #1 of 10
Thread Starter 

This season, I'm looking to replace my trusty Salomon Guns, which have served me well and faithfully for a number of seasons, but the time has come for them to retire. 

 

The ski I've set my sights on as a replacement is the RMU P802. I figure it's the only ski I've seen that's specifically designed for Vermont side/backcountry, which is where I ski. I like the looks of the rocker profile, and the 96 underfoot looks just about right to replace my 99 underfoot Guns. I have a 181 Icelantic Nomad RKR and a 179 K2 Obsethed in the quiver as well. The Icelantic is my AT setup, the K2 is my pow ski. The P802 would become my daily driver. 

 

My questions are two: First, I don't have any experience with RMU's products, and wondered if anybody had insight into the general quality of their goods. They advertise as super burly skis, which I like, but advertising copy is advertising copy. 

 

Second, I'm debating between the 172 and the 178. I'm 5'9", coming in at a compact 200lbs. I know conventional wisdom is going to tell me to go with the 178, but I already have two longer and fatter skis in my quiver, and the P802 is going to replace a 166, which I enjoyed for its agility. I'm leaning toward the 172, but want to use the experience of the forum as a sounding board before I commit to purchase. 

post #2 of 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by freeski919 View Post
 

This season, I'm looking to replace my trusty Salomon Guns, which have served me well and faithfully for a number of seasons, but the time has come for them to retire. 

 

The ski I've set my sights on as a replacement is the RMU P802. I figure it's the only ski I've seen that's specifically designed for Vermont side/backcountry, which is where I ski. I like the looks of the rocker profile, and the 96 underfoot looks just about right to replace my 99 underfoot Guns. I have a 181 Icelantic Nomad RKR and a 179 K2 Obsethed in the quiver as well. The Icelantic is my AT setup, the K2 is my pow ski. The P802 would become my daily driver. 

 

My questions are two: First, I don't have any experience with RMU's products, and wondered if anybody had insight into the general quality of their goods. They advertise as super burly skis, which I like, but advertising copy is advertising copy. 

 

Second, I'm debating between the 172 and the 178. I'm 5'9", coming in at a compact 200lbs. I know conventional wisdom is going to tell me to go with the 178, but I already have two longer and fatter skis in my quiver, and the P802 is going to replace a 166, which I enjoyed for its agility. I'm leaning toward the 172, but want to use the experience of the forum as a sounding board before I commit to purchase. 

paging @HippieFlippinNM  

post #3 of 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by freeski919 View Post
 

This season, I'm looking to replace my trusty Salomon Guns, which have served me well and faithfully for a number of seasons, but the time has come for them to retire. 

 

The ski I've set my sights on as a replacement is the RMU P802. I figure it's the only ski I've seen that's specifically designed for Vermont side/backcountry, which is where I ski. I like the looks of the rocker profile, and the 96 underfoot looks just about right to replace my 99 underfoot Guns. I have a 181 Icelantic Nomad RKR and a 179 K2 Obsethed in the quiver as well. The Icelantic is my AT setup, the K2 is my pow ski. The P802 would become my daily driver. 

 

My questions are two: First, I don't have any experience with RMU's products, and wondered if anybody had insight into the general quality of their goods. They advertise as super burly skis, which I like, but advertising copy is advertising copy. 

 

Second, I'm debating between the 172 and the 178. I'm 5'9", coming in at a compact 200lbs. I know conventional wisdom is going to tell me to go with the 178, but I already have two longer and fatter skis in my quiver, and the P802 is going to replace a 166, which I enjoyed for its agility. I'm leaning toward the 172, but want to use the experience of the forum as a sounding board before I commit to purchase. 

 

To answer your first question, RMU manufactures extremely durable skis.  The P802 comes with 2.2mm edges, military grade UHMW sidewalls, and sintered bases.  Long story short, they are built to last and they can handle any abuse you may throw at them.

 

Regarding your second question, I would probably recommend the 178cm.  The 172cm just seems a bit too short for someone of your size and ability.  Also, the P802 has early rise in the tip and a twin tip tail.  You'll find that these features make the ski feel shorter than a 178cm. 

 

Hope that helps.

post #4 of 10

@HippieFlippinNM

 

I've heard that RMU, Icelantic, and High Society are all made at the Never Summer factory in Denver CO -- can you confirm or deny? Would that imply the share similar standards of construction quality?

post #5 of 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by freeski919 View Post

 

. I have a 181 Icelantic Nomad RKR and a 179 K2 Obsethed in the quiver as well. The Icelantic is my AT setup, the K2 is my pow ski. The P802 would become my daily driver. 

 

My questions are two: First, I don't have any experience with RMU's products, and wondered if anybody had insight into the general quality of their goods. They advertise as super burly skis, which I like, but advertising copy is advertising copy. 

 

Second, I'm debating between the 172 and the 178

#1, RMU's skis (with the exception of the carbon skis) come out of the Never Summer plant... you have an Icelantic, so you know the quality and durability.

 

#2, get the 178

post #6 of 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by jmeb View Post
 

@HippieFlippinNM

 

I've heard that RMU, Icelantic, and High Society are all made at the Never Summer factory in Denver CO -- can you confirm or deny? Would that imply the share similar standards of construction quality?

 

Rocky Mountain Underground used to manufacture skis at the Never Summer factory in Denver, CO.  We recently completed a new factory in Carbondale, CO.  Although this is our own facility, we are still building skis in Canada as the carbon and metal work out of our factory in Quebec is unparalleled. 

post #7 of 10
Thread Starter 


The RMUs have landed. In a 178 for those who were wondering.
post #8 of 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by HippieFlippinNM View Post
 

 

Rocky Mountain Underground used to manufacture skis at the Never Summer factory in Denver, CO.  We recently completed a new factory in Carbondale, CO.  Although this is our own facility, we are still building skis in Canada as the carbon and metal work out of our factory in Quebec is unparalleled. 


The old Karhu factory, non?

post #9 of 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by markojp View Post
 


The old Karhu factory, non?


I believe so. 

post #10 of 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by HippieFlippinNM View Post
 


I believe so. 

I didn't realize you worked for RMU that's cool.

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 › Rocky Mountain Underground