New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Gotamas as toys

post #1 of 26
Thread Starter 
I went to our swap looking for something fatter, stiffer & shorter than my Blue Noodles & Nordica Beasts. I was looking for something with a waist over 100mm and around 170cm long. The intended purpose was to have something to play with on powder & crud days at Bridger Bowl where I spend much of my time in narrow places skiing powder others have left behind. The ski I stumbled upon was a pair of 2005 168cm Gotamas & bought them. Now I'm curious, has anyone skied the Gotamas in short lengths? (I'm 5' 11", 180#)
post #2 of 26
I'll be anxious to hear, down the line, if you like them that short. I've been thinking of picking up something similar for the glades in the soft stuff.

I love my 188cm 8800's on wide open terrain, but they definitely make me work when things get tight.
post #3 of 26
Wow, that's really short for your weight. I'm 185 and thought that the 183 skied short due to the huge twin.
post #4 of 26
I think you'll love it. I ski the Goat in a 183 (6' 200lbs), but have skied the PR in a 165 and Sugar Daddy in 163, and never felt that they were too short. Let us know how it works out.
post #5 of 26
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rio
I went to our swap looking for something fatter, stiffer & shorter than my Blue Noodles & Nordica Beasts. I was looking for something with a waist over 100mm and around 170cm long. The intended purpose was to have something to play with on powder & crud days at Bridger Bowl where I spend much of my time in narrow places skiing powder others have left behind. The ski I stumbled upon was a pair of 2005 168cm Gotamas & bought them. Now I'm curious, has anyone skied the Gotamas in short lengths? (I'm 5' 11", 180#)
In all honesty, those skis are way too small for a guy your size. The Gotamas ski short to begin with due to the massive twin. I would sell those while they are new and get something bigger, seriously. You're gonna feel like your on fat snowblades on those things, they will feel like they have no tail(of which they don't have much). For a guy your size I would recommend the 183 and certainly wouldn't go shorter than the 176. Not to burst your bubble but the 168's are meant for aggressive women who are 5'4" and weigh 120#.
Plus, you're going to want the Goats for ripping big, wide open turns in the deepest of snow. You already own skis that are perfect for cranking quick turns in tight places.
post #6 of 26
If u want skis to play around with, and wanna make quick turns, Gotama is not the ski for u, the on your looking for is Sanouk, believe it or not... Despite it is 20cm longer, it is damn good to play around with.
post #7 of 26
I think the 190 is fun to play on. 183 would be a super fun jib snowblade.
post #8 of 26
I've skied a 176 Goat, owned a 175 PR, now own a new 177 Mantra, all at 6' 167 lbs. Haven't skied the last, but first two great fun at low to moderate speeds, super lively, neither for tearing down chutes; think soft bumps in trees rather than Jackson Hole. Mantra will be a lot more stable cuz stiffness/torsion/shape are just as relevant here as length. But I'd guess that a Goat in the mid 160's would still be tractable for you, probably a hoot to play around on, given Volkl's rock-solid engineering, while a 165 PR would just be scary.
post #9 of 26
Thread Starter 
Last night after hearing how short the Gotamas running surface is I decided to compare my 168cm Gotamas to my 177cm Nordica Beasts. From the midsole mark to the beginning of the running surface the two skis are almost identical length with the Gotamas about 1 cm shorter. From the midsole mark to the end of the running surface the Gotamas are 7 cm shorter. I've read threads on the Gotamas and some people suggest moving the mounting point back if you go shorter but considering back it is already I would be more inclined to move it forward.....hmmmm. I think I'll throw some 912Ti demo bindings I have on them so I can move my mount point around. If they do turn out to be too short my daughter can use them.
post #10 of 26
Hey Rio - if the Gotamas don't do it for you, given your stated goal I think these babies in a 160 may be exactly what you are looking for... http://www.skiphantom.com/main.html

I just got a set mounted up. All I need to do now is ski them instead of hanging out on bulletin boards
post #11 of 26
Those look very interesting. be sure to give a report on how they are after you christen them!
post #12 of 26
Thread Starter 
Damn, these are fun. I've had them out a couple times. Nothing like a short, fat ski with a huge tip for skiing crud moguls. I haven't buried their tips yet & I've had many chances to do such. I just spent the morning skiing 3-4 inches of soft stuff that was blown into the trees, wind crusted moguls with buttery smooth snow in the trenches, wind sculpted bowls and numerous other forms of crud. It was great to have a fat ski that didn't sink and a short ski in the tight quarters. You can't ski super fast on them in the crud fields but there's not much opportunity for that at Bridger.
post #13 of 26
Rio, Gotamas are not fat slalom skis , I have a pair of them in 183 and I'm 5'11 185lbs. Can't even think about going shorter.
post #14 of 26
Thread Starter 
skirocket101 -

I don't recommend going short on Gotamas for your primary powder ski but they can be skied short like a very fat slalom ski. Their float in a short length is incredible.
post #15 of 26
I am 5'6", 235lbs, and ski 183 Gotamas.

I find my gots VERY turny when the snow is deep (and even where its not, provided I don't inclinate, or drop my shoulder too much).

In fact, I'd say that in the deep, I find my Gotamas more turny than my 170 AC4s (about a billion times the sidecut).

James
post #16 of 26
Thread Starter 
The problem isn't just turning quickly in deep snow but what I must go through on day-after-powder days to find soft snow. Many of the leftover stashes are guarded by deep moguls, tight spaces in the trees and narrow openings in the chutes. Though I can maneuver longer skis through much of what I encounter the short Gotamas do it with little effort.
post #17 of 26
Quote:
I don't recommend going short on Gotamas for your primary powder ski but they can be skied short like a very fat slalom ski. Their float in a short length is incredible.
Can't agree with you on that, why whould you drive a tank on the race track? Every ski has its own purpose and Gotama should be skied in longer lengths.
post #18 of 26
I sure hope Rio is correct and Skyrocket is not. I just bought used 176 Gotomas on a great deal (they haven't arrived yet). I'm 5'11 and 175 and want to have these as powder skis. Please be right, Rio.:
post #19 of 26
MAGNOE, if you search the forum you will find the posts from last year that talk about Gotamas and their length. Before I bought mine, I was considering them in 190, but because of the terrain that I ski in, I went with 183.
post #20 of 26
post #21 of 26
Skyrocket, I searched every possible post out there. Unfortunately, the only used Gotama's that came along that would fit my budget were these 176's. I was really perplexed whether or not 176's would be enough. Bandit Man and some others game me enough input for me to at least try these 176's.

The thing I find a little confusing is why 176's are considered too short in Gotama's but Pocket Rockets are commonly skied in the 175 length? Just a little baffled here? I know the Gotama has the really upturned tail, but still...

Unfortunately there were no Gotamas to demo in our area so my only input really came from this website.
post #22 of 26
Magnoe, I hope you enjoy them, they are really sweet skis.
post #23 of 26
Thread Starter 
Magnoe -

For skiing Bridger Bowl I would select the Gotama in a 176cm length. From what I've heard about Snowbowl I would pick the same length. Small Montana resorts are notorious for not grooming meaning you have to deal with lots of moguls, troughs and other obstacles that are made easier to get through in a shorter length. At 176cm the Gotama has more float and more ski than my 185cm Pocket Rockets & are very stable.
post #24 of 26
Now THAT'S what I'm talking about, Rio. I like hearing those encouraging words. I primarily ski at Snow Bowl but do have two big trips planned to Jackson Hole and Fernie this year.

You nailed it on the head describing SnowBowl and Montana resorts (Discovery too).

As long as my 176's don't do too much tip diving I think I'll be happy.
post #25 of 26
Thread Starter 
I've been playing on 168cm and they don't do any tip diving.
post #26 of 26
Thanks, Rio! You couldn't have said anything better than you're last two posts. I'm psyched to receive the skis now.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Ski Gear Discussion