EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › Ski Gear Discussion › Thoughts? Everyday plus fat combo...
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Thoughts? Everyday plus fat combo...

post #1 of 26
Thread Starter 
I have been agonizing over my skis this weekend, and was hoping for some thoughts, moral support from other gear hos.

The skier: Got back in to skiing two years ago after 12+ years off. Before that, I skied every other weekend for about 6 years when I was a kid. 5'10" and around 200. Probably 7-8, I can get down pretty much anything, but not necessarily in perfect form. I live/ski in CO, mostly Breck/Vail, Loveland, and occasionally Steamboat.

Two years ago, I skied some 179 seth vicious almost exclusively. I found them to be fun, but at my size, a little nervous in crud. I couldn't quite ski them for a full day without being exhausted, so I sold them in favor a two ski quiver. Last year I bought some 178 8800s as more of an everyday ski and ordered some 188 Soft Bros (more on that later). I liked the 8800s a lot, but now I think I want something a little more stable, and a little more lively, so I sold them.

My Bros didn't arrive until after the season was over and this summer I found a deal on some 181 titan 9s. I'm excited about the Titan 9s (based on the reviews here), but I am worried about the Bros. I think that they are a little too long.

I've come up with three options:
(1) Keep the Bros and Titan 9s, plus I have some old Scratch BC as a rock skis.
(2) Keep the Bros, sell the Titan 9s, and buy the Volkl Bridge, probably 185.
(3) Keep the Titan 9s, sell the Bros, and buy some 18x Got or Mojo 105...

I'm leaning toward 1 or 3, and yesterday I was convinced about option 1, and today I convinced myself to choose option 3.

Thanks for the thoughts.
post #2 of 26
I just wanted to clairify,

You got 188 Soft Bro's This summer? The perfectly made 3mm camber BRO's they made this summer?

If so keep them.

At least try them for 4 or 5 day. The resale will probably be close to what you paid.
post #3 of 26
Thread Starter 
Not quite summer... Mid-may. I'm not sure if they are the perfectly made, there are a couple of very slight blemishes, but 3-4 mm camber sounds right.

Was there a dramatic improvement in quality control in the homemade batches over the summer? I must have missed that development. It does sound like the Urp-made ones will be pretty nice...

I have thought about skiing them, but I had a line on some mojo 105s, so was trying to decide before the season.
post #4 of 26
Quote:
Originally Posted by jgarr View Post
Not quite summer... Mid-may. I'm not sure if they are the perfectly made, there are a couple of very slight blemishes, but 3-4 mm camber sounds right.

Was there a dramatic improvement in quality control in the homemade batches over the summer? I must have missed that development. It does sound like the Urp-made ones will be pretty nice...

I have thought about skiing them, but I had a line on some mojo 105s, so was trying to decide before the season.
Yes there was a significant improvment.
Also during the time frome that your were made.

I belive yours have the thick Black Bases and the thicker Edge material?

They should be a very solid ski.

There were issues with delamiantion with a good number of skis last winter.

I belive those skis ski skied very well. I am pretty sure anyone who has had an issue with BRO skis was taken care of over this summer.
post #5 of 26
You are kinda all over the map on this but here are some thoughts on some of the things you're batting around.

IF you are going to do two skis...I would suggest the Mythic Rider in 178 or 184 to fill that 8800 niche. It will be better on hard snow and better in Crud than the Bridge. Then pick your fatter ski according to your preferences (soft and easy, stiff and agressive, or medium)

IF you are going to settle on one....The Bro that you already have should be a really good ski based upon my impressions of one I skied last year. It will not be terribly lively but won't be dead feeling either. I own a Gotama in 183 and love it in soft or deep snow. I wouldn't choose it as my only ski however.

SJ
post #6 of 26
Quote:
Originally Posted by SierraJim View Post
You are kinda all over the map on this but here are some thoughts on some of the things you're batting around.

IF you are going to do two skis...I would suggest the Mythic Rider in 178 or 184 to fill that 8800 niche. It will be better on hard snow and better in Crud than the Bridge. Then pick your fatter ski according to your preferences (soft and easy, stiff and agressive, or medium)

IF you are going to settle on one....The Bro that you already have should be a really good ski based upon my impressions of one I skied last year. It will not be terribly lively but won't be dead feeling either. I own a Gotama in 183 and love it in soft or deep snow. I wouldn't choose it as my only ski however.

SJ
Great suggestions.

I figured a 181 Titan 9 + 188 Bro covered a pretty wide range for a two ski quiver.

If this is not a really good quiver for him? he sure as hell will know what he likes and dislikes for the spring sales?
post #7 of 26

jgar's choice

Sj and MTT:

You both have great suggestions for jgarr;

My thought:

How about a 179 Bro and a 183 Katana?
post #8 of 26
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gotama View Post
Sj and MTT:

You both have great suggestions for jgar;

My thought:

How about a 179 Bro and a 183 Katana?
Great also,

BUT He already has a brand new pair of Titan 9's and BRAND NEW 188 BRO's sitting in his house.

I think he need to gewt them correctly mounted with good binding and paitently wait for it to snow.
post #9 of 26
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gotama View Post
Sj and MTT:

You both have great suggestions for jgarr;

My thought:

How about a 179 Bro and a 183 Katana?
I think this is a somewhat redundant mix for a two ski quiver. Although the characteristics of the Katana and the Bro Soft are rather different....their capabilities are roughly similar.

Shredding the extreme gnar aside, there is little that you might do on a Katana that you couldn't/wouldn't do about as well on a Bro, and vice versa.

So....for two skis, my take is that one should have a bit of a groomer, skier pack, shallow crud bias while the other should have more of a soft/deep bias. Neither the Katana nor the Bro fits that first category.

SJ
post #10 of 26
Quote:
Originally Posted by MTT View Post
Great also,

BUT He already has a brand new pair of Titan 9's and BRAND NEW 188 BRO's sitting in his house.

I think he need to gewt them correctly mounted with good binding and paitently wait for it to snow.
"Love the one(s) you're with"?
post #11 of 26
Quote:
Originally Posted by SierraJim View Post
I think this is a somewhat redundant mix for a two ski quiver. Although the characteristics of the Katana and the Bro Soft are rather different....their capabilities are roughly similar.

Shredding the extreme gnar aside, there is little that you might do on a Katana that you couldn't/wouldn't do about as well on a Bro, and vice versa.

So....for two skis, my take is that one should have a bit of a groomer, skier pack, shallow crud bias while the other should have more of a soft/deep bias. Neither the Katana nor the Bro fits that first category.

SJ
I hear you SJ; would you include a Mantra in that first category?
post #12 of 26
Fershure......although I feel that the Mantra is in no-mans land these days. It's a fairly good wide carver that is (IMO) not real good in soft stuff relative to some other things. While the Mantra can make a reasonable OSQ for some, I don't think it fits any niche well enough to be included in a multi ski quiver for me. (and I own a Mantra)

SJ
post #13 of 26
Quote:
Originally Posted by SierraJim View Post
I think this is a somewhat redundant mix for a two ski quiver. Although the characteristics of the Katana and the Bro Soft are rather different....their capabilities are roughly similar.

Shredding the extreme gnar aside, there is little that you might do on a Katana that you couldn't/wouldn't do about as well on a Bro, and vice versa.

So....for two skis, my take is that one should have a bit of a groomer, skier pack, shallow crud bias while the other should have more of a soft/deep bias. Neither the Katana nor the Bro fits that first category.

SJ
Thats like saying there is little you could to on a metron that a race ski wouldn't do better.

Bros are 99 underfoot, Katanas are 111, and slightly rockered. The bros are going to be ok in powder and crud, maybe less ok for a 200 lb guy, whereas the Katanas are going to be awesome.
post #14 of 26
Option # 3, IMO. Keep the Titan 9's and get a > 100mm wide fat ski.

Michael
post #15 of 26
Disclaimer: I own part of PM Gear

The 188 softs are cadillacs. In anything soft and half the hard stuff (Note: EC hard), they're awesome. You're probably not going to ski anything else except in scratchy conditions. The titan 9's will be great for that. I'd wait and see how you like the various skis and what you'll be skiing before picking up anything else.
post #16 of 26
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by MTT View Post
I belive yours have the thick Black Bases and the thicker Edge material?
They have red bases, but do have the thicker edges (I think) and a "newer" resin, that made some of the later versions slightly stiffer, even in the softs.

Thanks for all the advice. I was rereading my e-mails with Pat last night (first to verify when I actually got them) and decided I would feel a little "dirty" selling them before skiing them, it just doesn't feel right. I was pretty excited about the Titan 9s also, after reading the rave reviews here.

So I'm going for option 1, and think about something shorter/fatter if the bros are a little much, as was suggested by several. THANKS!

On a related note, how similar are the Mythic Riders to the 8800. I found the 8800s to be a little nervous in crud, which I hope to avoid with the Titan 9. EDIT: Found 8800/Mythic Rider link.
post #17 of 26
Quote:
Originally Posted by MAGGOT View Post
Thats like saying there is little you could to on a metron that a race ski wouldn't do better.

Bros are 99 underfoot, Katanas are 111, and slightly rockered. The bros are going to be ok in powder and crud, maybe less ok for a 200 lb guy, whereas the Katanas are going to be awesome.

To say that the Bro is just OK in powder and crud is incorrect. I think that you are making assumptions about skis that you haven't skied on based strictly upon dimensions. The dimensions are in all cases, only part of the story. The Katana is not rockered at all. It is flat. Yes it's wide and straight but so is the Bro. The Katana is somewhat stiffer than the Bro and thus the Bro is more forgiving in odd mixed conditions and more manuverable. I have not skied either in really deep snow but have skied both in a mix of broken soft and hard. The differences are not that dramatic and certainly not enough to dump the Bro in favor of the Katana. He'd be fine on either, but he already owns one of the two. He should keep it.

I've skied all the skis that I posted on the weight list plus several others in order to decide what to buy for the store. Those skis range from high 90's up to the Katana and the 'Bent. There are differences of course because each has it's own personality but none of those skis are just OK. None dramatically outshine the others in deep snow except naturally for the Hellbent. At the end of the day though, the differences in deep snow are just not all that significant. Different?...sure...but not all that much.

SJ
post #18 of 26
Dude...keep what you got and ski 'em a bit.

The Titan 9 is dope. I picked up a pair at the end of last season and am looking forward to riding them. I didn't actually ride the 2006 blue ones (I rode the 2005 piss green ones) but expect them to be pretty similar. They hold well on hard pack and pretty much rip for an every day ski. Besides at 86mm at the waist they'll be somewhat similar to the old Karma (that's what mine are replacing).

The Bro? I have only ridden a pair of the 179's for one run. The one run was spring slush. The ski didn't jump out at me. But I would also have to say i'd need to take 'em out for a few more runs before I weighed in on 'em completely. That said a lotta folks i've ridden with and enjoy riding with LOVE the bro. It's got a good reputation as a solid and light set of planks.

for Colo skiing, I think you'll be set up fine with the T9 and The Bro. The T9 for all around, the bro for crud and pow.

Stick with what you got for the season and if it's not right worry about re-arranging the quiver at the end of the season.
post #19 of 26
Here is my story . . .

I ordered a pair of 188 soft Bro's last season and in mid-January Pat sent me some blems to tie me over until my production quality sticks were done.

I skied the blems really hard for 10+ days and got to ride them in fresh PNW pow on two occasions. I never really was comfortable with them, except in the soft snow. They were Cadillacs in the powder and punched crud well, but on older on-piste snow they needed to run at a higher speed than I like.

Hoping not to sound like a wuss, but I don't like going mach loony on the front side and the straighter side-cut of the 188's likes speed. I could force them into any turn shape, but I like shorter radius turns on my everyday ski. The side-cut worked sweet in the softer snow and mid-week open slopes were slayed at speed - but, I realized this was not going to be my everyday ski.

I purchased a pair of 184 Mantras and absolutely love them in anything but deep snow (boot top and above). The turny side-cut makes me happy on-piste and on older snow and I really don't have any complaints except for tip dive in the deeper snow and that stems from wanting to drive the tips.

So - Pat/PMGear offered me a sweet deal. By the end of the season my 188's were still not done, but he offered the 192's that were ready to ship as an option. I jumped at that as I knew I wanted a soft snow ski for this season.

My 192's have almost zero camber and actually boast about a 2mm rocker in the tips. I'm pretty sure that they are not the carbon lay-up as they are noticeably heavier than the Mantras. I asked Pat if he had any "softer" 192's as I was only going to be using this as a soft snow / big mountain ski. The flex is slightly stiffer than the Mantra, but not as stiff as I expected. Make no mistake, I am not a competition rider and I don't need a really stiff board for soft snow.

I initially thought of selling the 192's and getting a fun-shape ski, but realized that I would always wonder if this was the perfect PNW soft snow slayer. I'll ski the 192 as much as the season allows and will then re-evaluate it's compatibility with my skiing.

I suggest you do the same with the 188. You will always be able to move/TRADE/sell them if they don't work for you, but at least you will have the knowledge of knowing the ski.

good luck
post #20 of 26
Quote:
Originally Posted by SierraJim View Post
To say that the Bro is just OK in powder and crud is incorrect. I think that you are making assumptions about skis that you haven't skied on based strictly upon dimensions. The dimensions are in all cases, only part of the story. The Katana is not rockered at all. It is flat. Yes it's wide and straight but so is the Bro. The Katana is somewhat stiffer than the Bro and thus the Bro is more forgiving in odd mixed conditions and more manuverable. I have not skied either in really deep snow but have skied both in a mix of broken soft and hard. The differences are not that dramatic and certainly not enough to dump the Bro in favor of the Katana. He'd be fine on either, but he already owns one of the two. He should keep it.

I've skied all the skis that I posted on the weight list plus several others in order to decide what to buy for the store. Those skis range from high 90's up to the Katana and the 'Bent. There are differences of course because each has it's own personality but none of those skis are just OK. None dramatically outshine the others in deep snow except naturally for the Hellbent. At the end of the day though, the differences in deep snow are just not all that significant. Different?...sure...but not all that much.

SJ
From volkl's website:

"Katana

The all-new Katana features a top-end wood core, vertical sidewalls and two sheets of titanium. Its most interesting feature is the Powder Channel, unique among skis. The channel allows us to provide the ride quality of a swallow-tail design while allowing the skier to ride switch. With a slight rocker for easy smearing in powder, combined with our burliest construction, the combination of stability and ease is truly amazing."

http://www.volkl.com/ski/freeskiing_katana.html

I have heard they are zero camber, minimum camber with ever so slightly rockered tip, or zero camber and rockered tip. I am not sure which one is right.

And I just don't agree with you about mid fats and fatter skis being all the same in pow, but we're all entitled to out own opinions. How much of your opinion is just because of your skiing style or terrain preferences? You mentioned the Hellbent as being the only ski with any real advantages in powder, but I see something like the Katana (especially in the longer lengths) as having clear advantages over the Hellbent.

I do agree that the OP shoudl keep whatever skis he has, if only for the fact that skiing them will give him a better idea of what he is looking for in his next pair of skis. If it was me though, I'd keep the titan 9s as a hard snow ski, the bros as an everyday ski, and then get something really fat just for powder days.
post #21 of 26
Quote:
Originally Posted by jgarr View Post
My Bros didn't arrive until after the season was over and this summer I found a deal on some 181 titan 9s. I'm excited about the Titan 9s (based on the reviews here), but I am worried about the Bros. I think that they are a little too long.
You haven't even skied the Bros. Ski them first, then worry about getting a bunch of different skis if you must. You're 200lbs and a 7-8? I really doubt that a 188 soft Bro will feel too long.
post #22 of 26
Quote:
Originally Posted by MAGGOT View Post
From volkl's website:



I have heard they are zero camber, minimum camber with ever so slightly rockered tip, or zero camber and rockered tip. I am not sure which one is right.

And I just don't agree with you about mid fats and fatter skis being all the same in pow, but we're all entitled to out own opinions. How much of your opinion is just because of your skiing style or terrain preferences? You mentioned the Hellbent as being the only ski with any real advantages in powder, but I see something like the Katana (especially in the longer lengths) as having clear advantages over the Hellbent.
OK....more or less in order.....

Katanas are not rockered, they are flat. I have 4 pr. in the store...they are flat. I'll take a pic tomorrow if you like.

I didn't say all fat skis are the same, I said they have differences but they all work pretty well and within reason, the differences are not worth agonizing over. Of the skis, I mentioned...none suck....all work.

I did not suggest that a 99mm Bro or anything similar is a "mid fat" nor did I suggest that all mid fats are the same nor are they the same as all (or any) fat skis

As a deep powder ski, exactly what advantages do you expect from the Katana over the Hellbent?? And...what experience do you base this upon? Remember I said as a deep powder ski not anything else.

Are my opinions based upon my perceptions, which are based upon my skiing style??....Duh!!......well of course. Aren't yours? isn't everyones? I don't base my opinions upon a website description written by a marketing dept. I see little credibility from anyone that does so.

SJ
post #23 of 26
Quote:
Originally Posted by SierraJim View Post
Are my opinions based upon my perceptions, which are based upon my skiing style??....Duh!!......well of course. Aren't yours? isn't everyones? I don't base my opinions upon a website description written by a marketing dept. I see little credibility from anyone that does so.
This.

People that don't make a habit of skiing a couple dozen skis in short succession have a hard time understanding the knowledge it gives guys like SierraJim here. People need to understand that kind of experience gives you the ability to quantify skis quite objectively, and then provide an opinion on how the ski relates to a particular situation, or a particular skier's style and taste...

Skiing a new ski here and a different one there reverses that process and tends to put taste and perception first. Applies to most things, not just skis. This is why user reviews of a given item are usually pretty much worthless...go look at a place like newegg and see the stark contrast from reviewer to reviewer on stupid simple gadgets.

I haven't yet been fortunate enough to be in a position to test a bunch of big/deep skis in big/deep conditions back to back, so I'm going to have to defer to people who have, but I will state the obvious: the differences between big skis in deep snow are sort of trivial compared to the differences between them on firm snow. As in, some are downright unskiable on hard snow...

As to the OP's conundrum, I vote for Michael's option #3.
post #24 of 26
Quote:
Originally Posted by SierraJim View Post
OK....more or less in order.....

Katanas are not rockered, they are flat. I have 4 pr. in the store...they are flat. I'll take a pic tomorrow if you like.
I've just heard different things is all. You don't have to post pics to prove me wrong, although if you don't mind, I'd love to see a few close up pics of em, just for my own curiosity. I'm wondering what they meant by rocker though, it has to have SOME basis in reality. Do they merely have a long shovel? I'd be reallying interested in a pic with the skis together, showing the tip profiles from the sides. Who knows, maybe the marketing blurb is completely fictional. I'd be a bit surprised, but not very. By the way, whats the flex like with those? Does it change at all with the different lengths? I've heard mantra/ak rocketish, but another opinion would be nice.


Quote:
Originally Posted by SierraJim View Post
I did not suggest that a 99mm Bro or anything similar is a "mid fat" nor did I suggest that all mid fats are the same nor are they the same as all (or any) fat skis
Nah, the mid fat term was my interpretation. You did say a Bro and Katana were comparable, and I consider one to be midfat, and one to be fat.

Quote:
Originally Posted by SierraJim View Post
I didn't say all fat skis are the same, I said they have differences but they all work pretty well and within reason, the differences are not worth agonizing over. Of the skis, I mentioned...none suck....all work.
I see different powder skis as having VERY different charecteristics and features, for different types of terrain, skiing style, and snow types. Which brings me to...

Quote:
Originally Posted by SierraJim View Post
As a deep powder ski, exactly what advantages do you expect from the Katana over the Hellbent?? And...what experience do you base this upon? Remember I said as a deep powder ski not anything else.
Things like the Katanas seem to be made for skiing more open terrain, and at higher speeds. Things like the Hellbents seem to be for billygoating, trees, and jibbing off littl terrain features. I think soft fat twin tips like Sir Francis Bacons are for the same stuff, but just for a little different style, they're probably a little better at landing airs.

Sure, they all float, but I think there's a lot more to a powder ski than that. Just like theres a lot more to a race ski than holding an edge.

Quote:
Originally Posted by SierraJim View Post
Are my opinions based upon my perceptions, which are based upon my skiing style??....Duh!!......well of course. Aren't yours? isn't everyones? I don't base my opinions upon a website description written by a marketing dept. I see little credibility from anyone that does so.
Yea, and theres nothing wrong with that. I'm not basing my opinions on marketing hype, I'm basing it on personal experience, and watching other people use certain skis. My point was that its just important to remember that. I think a lot of people start to think that just because something works well for them, that everyone should use it. I actually do not really like rockered skis or pintails, just because I prefer a bit more stability at speed. However, I realize that for some people, they are like the second coming of Jeebus, in ski form. I also suggest fatter skis to a lot of people, not because I don't think narrower skis have any use for anyone, but just because I think everyone should at least try some real fat skis.
post #25 of 26
I'm glad to see that you mostly agree with me.........

I'll take my Tom Swift atomic camera to work tomorrow and do some amachuuur photos.

On the flex....I think Mantra(ish) is close. probly just a tich softer. The 190 flexes slightly stiffer than the 183 but it's very close.

On the marketing thing......sorry but it's not all that you would wish. When you hear some statement like....."We added just a liiiitle bit of unobtanium to our best seller from last year. It's just a liiiiitle bit stiffer and snappier....etc. etc." A statement like this is almost always fiction. Companies don't spend R&D dollars or production dollars to re-tool molds and production every year for sucessful skis. This is especially true for miniscule little changes that "nobody but the most devoted fans of this ski will ever notice"

SJ
post #26 of 26
I would totaly be on the market for a ski with a little bit of unobtanium. (that and liquid hot magma of course). Are they race stock ?

But I'm waiting next pre-season sales.
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 › Thoughts? Everyday plus fat combo...