New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

K2 Xplorers - Page 2

post #31 of 52
Hi everyone.  First-time poster here.  Former ski writer, now reduced (by parenthood and a new career) to a week or two a year.

This thread was helpful to me.  I just picked up a pair of 2009 Xplorers in 184, and they arrived today.  These are big boards compared to what I usually ski!  I've rented Recons in recent years and liked them a lot, but since I ski only in the West, I figured why not go wider.  I'm 6'4", 235, so I'm hoping I didn't go too big.  (I do turn now and then!)

Can't wait to get to Colorado this winter and try them out!
post #32 of 52
 Welcome to EpicSki, PasadenaProf. Let us know how the Xplorers work out...
post #33 of 52

Professor

Curious what length Recon you skied.   I demo'd 177's last Spring in all conditions and loved them.  I am 6'3" and weigh 250, solid all around skier, but @ 57 enjoying the benefits of wisdom in choice of terrain.  This thread on the Xplorer's has me thinking that it might just be a bit more desirable all mountain ski.   I teach beginning to intermediate on weekends, so my free skiing is limited to an hour before class and some time afterwords, with as much as I can get after teaching session ends.  

Thanks.

post #34 of 52
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by ZekesPhoto View Post

Professor

Curious what length Recon you skied.   I demo'd 177's last Spring in all conditions and loved them.  I am 6'3" and weigh 250, solid all around skier, but @ 57 enjoying the benefits of wisdom in choice of terrain.  This thread on the Xplorer's has me thinking that it might just be a bit more desirable all mountain ski.   I teach beginning to intermediate on weekends, so my free skiing is limited to an hour before class and some time afterwords, with as much as I can get after teaching session ends.  

Thanks.

I skied a bunch of stuff when I demoed these.  There are FAR better skis available.  I pulled the trigger on a pair of Blizzard 8.1's and liked the Watea's I demoed better than the Recon.  Given the choice between the Recon and the Xplorer, the Recon is a no brainer.  Find my posts on both and read on!
post #35 of 52
Thread Starter 

I thought this was a good time to bump this thread.  I was reading the Skiing Mag Gear Guide and came across the info on the Xplorers.

Here is what they said; (Skiing Magazine, Sept 2009, page 44)

"Tip it on edge and the smooth, even-tempered Xplorer provides low-key but constant push back.  Stiff in the tip, it preferred long turns to short and blasted chop with ease.  Stand on it, load the tails, and you'll be popped nicely into the next turn.  Its stout build favors heavy skiers.  Plus: A mellow, user-friendly ski with great edge grip for the do-it-all resort-based skier.  Minus; Edge grip felt less secure at high speeds."

Pretty much the same review I originally gave them, isn't it?

post #36 of 52
I rented them a couple of times over the course of 2-3 years.  Pretty sure I always had a 180-something.  The Recons are very good skis.  Maybe it's the little skinny guys who bash K2, but I've had them and liked them for a long time.  I've had Extremes, Fours, you name it.

I also think it depends where you ski.  I ski mostly Vail these days, and spend most of my time on the backside unless I'm just cruising with family.  My only concern is if there's good snow when we go...


Quote:
Originally Posted by ZekesPhoto View Post

Professor

Curious what length Recon you skied.   I demo'd 177's last Spring in all conditions and loved them.  I am 6'3" and weigh 250, solid all around skier, but @ 57 enjoying the benefits of wisdom in choice of terrain.  This thread on the Xplorer's has me thinking that it might just be a bit more desirable all mountain ski.   I teach beginning to intermediate on weekends, so my free skiing is limited to an hour before class and some time afterwords, with as much as I can get after teaching session ends.  

Thanks.

post #37 of 52
Quote:
Originally Posted by mudfoot View Post

Uncle Louie:

I don't think a 175 lb. guy on a 170 cm conventional demensioned ski can really expect to be able to get their weight forward without it diving in powder, and overpowering it on hardpack.  You might want to try something longer to get the results you are looking for.  Short skis force you to ski in the back seat, unless they are very stiff and you are on hardpack.

My thought as well. $.02.
post #38 of 52
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by tromano View Post

Quote:


My thought as well. $.02.
 

Let me jog your memory. (The place....The 08 Gathering, at the Bird, first run waiting for the upper lifts to open skiing on about 18 new)

tromano- "I just got passed by somebody with a 69 underfoot ski."

UL - "Don't sell me short, It's 68 underfoot."

While it was awfully nice of mudfoot to give me some ski tips to improve, I suspect I'll decline them. 

The trick with not overpowering any ski is to know how to push it right to its limits and not beyond.  I don't buy the argument that a short ski puts you in the backseat.  Its ones skiing ability (actually lack thereof) that puts you there.  Anywhere but centered, skiing at speed on hardpack puts you in "uncomfortable" land.  The shorter you go, the more centered you must be to be effective.

Further.....If you read about the rest of the skis I tested (up to 174 in length, mostly conventional gear) you'll find there were skis that had a very nice rise in the tips in deep snow while skiing centered.  I bought one of them.....the Blizzard 8.1's.

The results I was looking for was versatility.  I found it in several "front side" skis.

I've skied with a number of Bears here and I suspect there are VERY few of them who would believe this statement when it concerns my skiing ability,

 "I don't think a 175 lb. guy on a 170 cm conventional demensioned ski can really expect to be able to get their weight forward without it diving in powder, and overpowering it on hardpack." 

For those of you who DO believe this to be the case I suggest you consider the following.  Is it the skiers weight, or how he/she chooses to use it that creates the desired result. Is it both?  The problem with the statement above is the concept of why someone would WANT their weight FORWARD in powder.

btw....Who says the ski has to float at all in powder in order to be able to ski it effectively?

Tim....I'll see you in Utah early next season.
post #39 of 52
Thread Starter 

I'm going to hijack my own thread here....

Check these reviews out.

http://www.epicski.com/forum/thread/79028/fischer-watea-78#post_1040159

http://www.epicski.com/forum/thread/78964/dynastar-legend-8000#post_1039172
 

http://www.epicski.com/forum/thread/78960/k2-recon#post_1039149

I hope you all read the parts about the "energy" each ski seemed to have and how much the tips floated in powder.

 

What I bought, but didn't review here, was the Blizzard 8.1 in a 172.  I though this ski trounced all the skis I tested above along with the Xplorers. (And there was some VERY good stuff there.) 

Reading the Sept 09, 2010 Gear Guide issue of Skiing, they seem to agree about the Blizzards.  What they considered a Plus was;

"Technically strong, athletic skiers will be astounded by the ski's enthusiasm."

The Minus (according to Skiing)

"Somewhat unforgiving and intolerant of laziness-a gaper bucker."

 

post #40 of 52
Quote:
Originally Posted by Uncle Louie View Post




Let me jog your memory. (The place....The 08 Gathering, at the Bird, first run waiting for the upper lifts to open skiing on about 18 new)

tromano- "I just got passed by somebody with a 69 underfoot ski."

UL - "Don't sell me short, It's 68 underfoot."

While it was awfully nice of mudfoot to give me some ski tips to improve, I suspect I'll decline them. 

The trick with not overpowering any ski is to know how to push it right to its limits and not beyond.  I don't buy the argument that a short ski puts you in the backseat.  Its ones skiing ability (actually lack thereof) that puts you there.  Anywhere but centered, skiing at speed on hardpack puts you in "uncomfortable" land.  The shorter you go, the more centered you must be to be effective.

Further.....If you read about the rest of the skis I tested (up to 174 in length, mostly conventional gear) you'll find there were skis that had a very nice rise in the tips in deep snow while skiing centered.  I bought one of them.....the Blizzard 8.1's.

The results I was looking for was versatility.  I found it in several "front side" skis.

I've skied with a number of Bears here and I suspect there are VERY few of them who would believe this statement when it concerns my skiing ability,

 "I don't think a 175 lb. guy on a 170 cm conventional demensioned ski can really expect to be able to get their weight forward without it diving in powder, and overpowering it on hardpack." 

For those of you who DO believe this to be the case I suggest you consider the following.  Is it the skiers weight, or how he/she chooses to use it that creates the desired result. Is it both?  The problem with the statement above is the concept of why someone would WANT their weight FORWARD in powder.

btw....Who says the ski has to float at all in powder in order to be able to ski it effectively?

Tim....I'll see you in Utah early next season.

Hah... Well played sir. Its summer and we need some drama. ;) You looked to be perfectly happy on the Blizzard 8.1 last I saw you. Obviously you have the ski you like better. To clarify, all I was saying is that after reading your review it sounded like you might have prefered the Xplorer in longer size.

I don't think your skiing is charactherized by overpowering your skis and wallowing in deep snow. I didn't read his post as being critical of you. If that was what he was saying then it seems that it doesn't apply.

I have fond memories of skiing deep pow on short carvers in WV. Last season I took my 165 volkl Slaloms out for a day of carving, it turned out there was alot more soft snow than I anticipated off piste and I couldn't resists. The skis were fine.  Like you said the trick is keeping centered and balanced (not forward).  And the center is a moving target. With the shorter skis I have less margin for error before I miss the target. After half a day in crud and other inconsitent snow I got tired of skiing gently on the Slalom skis and wanted to be on something longer and less sensitive.

Also, I think its only fair to inform you that this is my third winter in the wasatch coming up. I was a rookie last time. But now I have learned a few tricks.
post #41 of 52
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by tromano View Post

Quote:




I have fond memories of skiing deep pow on short carvers in WV. Last season I took my 165 volkl Slaloms out for a day of carving, it turned out there was alot more soft snow than I anticipated off piste and I couldn't resists. The skis were fine.  Like you said the trick is keeping centered and balanced (not forward).  And the center is a moving target. With the shorter skis I have less margin for error before I miss the target. After half a day in crud and other inconsitent snow I got tired of skiing gently on the Slalom skis and wanted to be on something longer and less sensitive.


 

This is spot on !
post #42 of 52
 Hi everybody. This is my first time in this amazing forum, so thanks in advance.
I'm looking for a new pair of almountains, and one of my candidates are the K2 Apache Explorers.
My coordinates are 177 cm high, 69 kg, 48 year old not-so-strong man, although I may say I'm in a better shape than my fellow agers. I ski on slopes some 20 days/season, and some 30 days in the backcountry (Völkl SnowWolfs w/Dynafit TLT). I'm an advanced skier who learnt at 12, but had a 15 year gap due to teenager madness, and now I try tio get off the groomed as far as I can. My terrain is the mainly in the Pyrenees (both Spain and France), and sometimes in the Alps, and I've had a couple of USA and Canada western experiences (Aspen, Coppermountain, Winterpark, Lake Louise and Kickiknghorse). That means taht, although I can enjoy some nice powder days, that is not so usual, and curd, and hardpack are more often under my planks.
So, what about the Explorers. II've got a good offer (500€, 735$ pair w/bindings) and I cant decide, mainly because I can only find a 177 cm pair. 
Is that a good choice?
Aren't the too long for me?
Thanks for any answer.
D
post #43 of 52
They sound too long to me, I'd be looking for shorter ones, like 170.  I'm saying this based on the fact that I am skiing on Recons and Outlaws which bracket the Xplorers and I'm skiing the 167's.  I'm approximately your height, although older.  (You don't say what length you are normally skiing, however.)  The price is sort of good, but not good enough in my opinion that you should buy something that will make you have to work so hard.  Granted, friends of mine who ski the Xplorers tell me they are totally different skis from the Outlaws and Recons, which they also have owned, so I assume they know what they are talking about, but I doubt that they are so different that you'd want to get a ski so much longer.

Quote:
Originally Posted by daguilarh View Post

 Hi everybody. This is my first time in this amazing forum, so thanks in advance.
I'm looking for a new pair of almountains, and one of my candidates are the K2 Apache Explorers.
My coordinates are 177 cm high, 69 kg, 48 year old not-so-strong man, although I may say I'm in a better shape than my fellow agers. I ski on slopes some 20 days/season, and some 30 days in the backcountry (Völkl SnowWolfs w/Dynafit TLT). I'm an advanced skier who learnt at 12, but had a 15 year gap due to teenager madness, and now I try tio get off the groomed as far as I can. My terrain is the mainly in the Pyrenees (both Spain and France), and sometimes in the Alps, and I've had a couple of USA and Canada western experiences (Aspen, Coppermountain, Winterpark, Lake Louise and Kickiknghorse). That means taht, although I can enjoy some nice powder days, that is not so usual, and curd, and hardpack are more often under my planks.
So, what about the Explorers. II've got a good offer (500€, 735$ pair w/bindings) and I cant decide, mainly because I can only find a 177 cm pair. 
Is that a good choice?
Aren't the too long for me?
Thanks for any answer.
D
post #44 of 52
OK, to add some possibly irrelevant gasoline to the fire...

I have a pair of 174 (now 177, I think - I've heard rumors that K2 has changed their measurement algorithm, and they're the same length as my 177 Volkl Mantras) Recons (78 underfoot). Before that I had a pair of 174 Axis XPs which I still own and which have accumulated well over 300 days of use.

Skier info: Male, 57 yr, 5'11" (180cm), 165 lb (74 kg), reasonably competent, but I don't ski as well as I'd like. I used to ski a great deal at Winter Park/Mary Jane, but now I mostly ski at Whitewater in British Columbia.

The Recons have the Marker system bindings and they are much heavier than my Volkls equipped with Salomon bindings, despite the greater width of the Volkls.

I have skied the Outlaws for a couple of runs, but I've never skied the Xplorers, so I that's why I say my comments may be irrelevant.

I find the Recon to be versatile. It works well on western groom (but not ice), crud, powder and trees. For me. YMMV. I think it is quite skiable in the bumps, too, but then I've never spent any time on a proper bump ski, so my standard of comparison is poor.

As others have said, it's a damp ski. Still, I can bend them and get rebound when I want, although I do not, in general, favor a style that uses a lot of rebound.

I have found that they do not like to turn from the back seat. Most skis don't. I can make them turn anyway, but life is much better when centered. If the snow is firm, they respond well to moderately loading the tips at turn initiation, but it's not required. On groomed snow, it's easy to ski them smoothly, and I can allow myself to get entirely too static if I'm not paying attention.

Very short turns require a lot of energy input, but they are certainly possible.

They power though crud and lumps very nicely without getting knocked around - unless I get timid and start sitting back.

I have skied as much as 36" of untracked powder with them. The turns were fairly long. I did not bother to actively pull them out of the snow to turn, and the face shots were nearly continuous - I had to time my breathing. It was a blast, but it would have been easier to ski, and easier to breath, if I had been skiing on the Mantras.

I have skied up to 18" of powder and crud much more often. UL is correct - like many skis, one needs to take care not to move forward too much, or the tips will dive. Still, stand right for the conditions, and they work well. (Typical Whitewater snide remark on chair: "How can you ski today's snow on those things?")

I tend to ski with my feet too close together in bumps, so the Recons are an obvious choice over the Mantras for that task. They will pivot, schmear, and carve when desired. Again, loading the tips a little at the appropriate time seems to pull the skis right around the face of the bump; a little more centered and a little flatter allows them to bank off the side of the next bump over. The tips are too stiff and they have too much sidecut to be a "real" bump ski, but I rarely have trouble with them hooking. If you run them straight into the side of a bump, they might want to stop, though. So I avoid doing that.

I have also skied untracked sun crust over several inches of wet mush. This is a miserable condition that I don't recommend to anybody, but after a while, I discovered that I could decamber the ski enough to get the bent, tipped ski to turn without hopping. It wasn't the prettiest skiing ever, but the skis were up to the task if I just used them correctly.

I don't believe it's a ski for everybody - in fact, a lot of people don't like it, and their opinions are valid. But it works for me. YMMV.

"Skiing combines outdoor fun with knocking down trees with your face." - Dave Barry
post #45 of 52
Thanks for your kind answers. As an alternative, what do you think about the Völkl AC 50 Wide.
Thanks again.
//
\\
//
\\
//
\\

D.
post #46 of 52

Demoed both the Explorer and AC50 last winter on some day old deep 12" +cascade snow.  Skied the 185's in both.  57yrs old 185CM 6' and 85 kilos, athletic, pretty fair skier (no cliff hucking on these knees), ski the whole mountain. 

The K2 was very agreeable to everything, competent but not exceptional.  A very forgiving ski, and not real quick.  You could stand pretty much anywhere on them and make them turn.  They did have some rebound to them, snap if you will, but no race ski.  Mellow  would be a most descriptive word, very relaxing and comfortable to ski.

The AC50 was a much more responsive ski.  They ski like Volkls, responsive predictable like fast, but would go slow if you asked them nicely.  It rewarded good behavior, and would spank you for bad technique.  They handled everything well, and performed fairly well in the icy bumps that are required skiing to get the good stuff, still not 'quick'.  For my skiing, trusted them a lot more.  The word for this ski is capable.

Did not buy either pair, but the 50 is still on my short list.

 

post #47 of 52
Since my original post on here I've skiied almost exclusively about 40-50 days on my Xplorers (177cm), bar a quick stint on some Hellbents, Watea 84's & Dynastar Contact 4x4's. I've had them in everything from frozen balls of ice to knee deep powder (and even a bit of park - lol) and they dealt with it all pretty much unflappably.

In my extremely scientific fashion I tried a powder specific ski, a light soft snow ski and the 4x4's for some on piste mayhem (those skis are _insanely_ good and I managed to scare myself a little with them once I figured out how to really get them working for me). The Xplorers aren't as good as those skis in their specific areas obviously but for a single ski they cope more than adequately and are fun to boot.

For chop and crud and variable snow Xplorers are great. I'm admiring the view while my mates on their less burly twin tips are not, enough said.

If you ski somewhere like I do (Mt Ruapehu) and have wildly varying conditions you can't really go wrong with this ski in my opinion. Whatever you throw at it it just ponys up and does it with no fuss. The bases seem pretty resilient, I've hit some decent rocks this year and even thought I'd surely blown an edge when I hit a hidden rock solidly sideways but they will pretty much be back to 100% with just a tune and some very small fills. Topsheet could be more durable but I've had a few beginners slice right over the fronts and there is no serious damage so can't really complain there.

Great ski, very happy with my purchase. My addition for next year will be some park skis & possibly a fat ski if I make it to Japan (I did enjoy those hellbents!) but it wouldn't worry me too much if I didn't which I think sums up what a great allround ski the Xplorer is.
post #48 of 52
 Thought i'd add something to this...

I've had the xplorers since they first came out a couple of years ago and have skkied them on any condition i could find. I'll agree with the majority of views above, but the point i'd like to comment on is the OPs comment about having to get into the back seat for the ski to respond in powder... I can totally agree with this. However, it should also be totally obvious that no matter what ski you are on that your skiing style will have to change dependent on conditions under ski.

Here's a pic of me skiing on compact powder - this is pretty much how i'd expect to ski on the groomers as well

and here's me on a steeper pitch in nice powder (though it is beginning to get tracked out)


The 2nd shot is steeper than it looks but it's clear to see that my weight is further back. I find this helps with the Xplorer when you want to get some pop out of the ski, especially in these conditions. It's a great feeling for me to feel the ski working in these conditions.

For the conditions that i generally find myself skiing, i find the Xplorer to be a massively capable ski in all but the deepest conditions. It's safe feeling, but can power through beautiful mid size to large radius turns in an array of different conditions. I also feel that they are more than capable of popping out a series of shorter turns as long as the snow conditions allow.

There may well be a better ski out there for me, but i haven't found it yet. My next favourite ski is the Head Monster 82 and then the old Fischer AM79 from a few years back.

My last point is about the damp feeling. I really like the feel of the ski and find them easy to ski on a long day on the hills. There's more responsive/energised skis out there, but i find them tiring after a few hours on the hill. I'd much rather have a ski that allows me to ski effortlessly all day than one that i'm only going to enjoy until i get tired.

Hope all that helps.

ps. K2, your new graphics suck!


post #49 of 52
Quote:
Originally Posted by cruddog View Post

Uncle Louie, A review like you just written is one of the reasons I rarely read these reviews anymore. I have skied a number of days now on the Xplorers....both on a 177 and 184. The Xplorer is an awesome ski with a huge sweet spot, great edge hold and it works in a wide range of conditions. You say you're an expert skier.....PLEASE! You think the sweet spot is back. It must be because that's where you ski....in the back seat. When you say the ski lacks energy, that's because you haven't loaded the ski up so it can respond. If you can't ski and 84mm waisted ski in the soft snow you need to get a Pontoon or Sumo.

@cruddog: you could have given your opinion with some nicer words...

@Uncle Louie: I don't share your opinion about the back seat. Interesting how different people experience the same ski.
I personally do like the Xplorer also in very deep (snorkel) powder. Yep, bit more pressure on the back but not much more than the Islantic Shaman (!) I had the day before on...
Also very easy in mogguls. Impressive on the groomers which is my "specialty".
My level: probably same as yours (ski-instructor). Very technicly oriented. Lot of training.
Thanks for sharing your experience though!

-Dirk
post #50 of 52
Hey all. I found this thread helpful when ski shopping, and felt that I owed it to the group to pay back a little once I had something to offer.

I'm 38yrs old, 5'8 155. An advanced skier, but not the gnarliest guy on the mtn.

I moved to Colroado 14 months ago from the east coast where I've lived my entire life. In '97 I bought a full kit: helmet, goggles, jacket, pants, skiis, boots and bindings. Needsless to say, it was time to re-up.

For the last 13 years I've been riding the Rossi bandit XX in a 184. It was considered parabolic for the time, but nothing compared to what's out there today. If you're not familiar with the old old bandits, they're basically an all mtn. GS ski with some shape, but still basically a straight ski.

After demoing the xplorer, the volkl bridge, and the dynastar sultan 84, I purchased the xplorer in a 170 and took them to Winter Park yesterday with my snowboard buddies.

Pros:
  • I can rip this ski with ease, and was better in the bumps than ever before. I've never been a big fan of bumps, but these instill confidence. Maybe its going from a 184 to a 170 that helps, but whatever it is, I ripped the bumps for the first time in my life, and was the first to the bottom (when usually I'm the last). My friends all noticed and commented when we got down.
  • Easy to turn. I demo'd a pair of Volkl bridge's last weekend and was tossed all over the place. These guys are gentle and forgiving, but still respond when you step on the gas. I've seen a couple comments in this thread about the non-responsiveness of these skis, and at least for me, they were plenty responsive enough. In fact, I like exactly how they respond. My old GS skis were maybe too responsive for all mountain use. In the trees and such I was getting rocketed around. These guys are easy to control in the tight areas, but still get up and go when you step on them.
  • Ease of transition through varied conditions. We skiid Winter park yesterday, and there was everything from knee deep, to groomers, to crud, all in the same run. It was a great day to demo because I could really get a good feel. These things were great when moving from one are to another.

Cons:
  • I had some trouble carrying my speed on the flats and traverses (which WP has tons of). I started to think that 170 might be too short for me, but I really like the short turning radius. Maybe its the factory tune, I hear they don't usually put much wax on. Either way, I wasn't able to carry speed  very well. Probably less to do with the ski, and more about either the tune or the size. Either way, it wasn't a huge deal, and I'd gladly trade it off to have the shorter (more maneuverable) ski. There was alos a ton of snow yesterday so maybe that played a part.
  • As a few people have mentioned, they weren't as good as I had hoped in the deep.  I thought such a wide ski would really float, but it didn't, under my normal stance. I had to lean back a good bit to get them to float. Again, maybe that's by design. I am a life long straight skiier, who is just now learning what to expect from shaped skis. Either way, they are way better in the deep powder than my bandits ever were, so I happy to have gained ground there.
  • Being used to a 184 straight GS ski, I found these to be somewhat squirely when I point them flat and straight. I *think* this is normal course for shaped skis, and again I am new to these. If I point them straight, not on edge, they weave back and forth (as did all the others I demoed). Also, it seemed like I had to work pretty hard at high speeds, and felt a lot of feedback. I *think* that I'm still learning how to ski shaped skis (this being my 3rd day). I can't just stand on the downhill ski like my old straight GSs.

In all, I am pleased with the purchase. Their greatest asset is versatility. Really an all mountain ski, in that you can run in to any conditions from bumps to deep trees, and feel confident that you've got something under foot that is designed to deal with it in part. It may not be the best deep ski, or the best carver, but it isn't designed to be.

But I still have a question about the sizing. Is 170 the right size for me? I *think* so, but the K2 sizing chart has 5'8 160lb people sizing out to a 177. Can anyone comment on similar sizing?
Edited by kirkiez - 2/22/10 at 2:35pm
post #51 of 52
If I did the math right (5'8 being something about 173cm and 155lbs about 70kg) then the 170 is right for you.
post #52 of 52

Hi i have a pair of K2 xplorers and thinking of swapping them in for Fischer Watea 84 skis hoping they are going to be a little bit lighter to ski and hoping the skis will give me a little better feedback, any views on this.

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Member Gear Reviews