or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Line Mothership

post #1 of 64
Thread Starter 

185#

5'10"

48

Male

Level 9ish

 

I got to try (finally) some Line Motherships in a 185 a week ago up at Sugar Bowl. I knew I was going to like them just by molesting them just a little bit back at the van before I took them out... I just didn't realize how much.

 

No fresh snow until late in the day, and a mixed bag of groomed, corn, soft, then some icy spots when it setup later in the day.

 

Previous to these skis, my favorite set was my 176 LP's. Everything that the LP's do, the Moships do better. I can't belileve how versitle they were. Stable, predictable, agile, ... and yes, dare I say it... playful.

 

You should have seen the look on the Rep's face when I told him I thought they were playful!

 

They are exactly what I love in a ski. They do EXACTLY what you ask them to do, no more or less. With the right application of speed and skill... anything was possible.

 

I never thought this kind of all around performance was possible with a ski of these dimensions.

 

And yes, I did buy a set.

post #2 of 64

How did they handle the ice?

 

I ask because the Katana, which is also 111mm underfoot, is exceptional for a ski that wide and I wonder how the MoShip stacks up.

 

 

post #3 of 64

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gotama View Post

 

How did they handle the ice?

 

I ask because the Katana, which is also 111mm underfoot, is exceptional for a ski that wide and I wonder how the MoShip stacks up.

 

 

 

the report on TGR is that the mothership is better on hardpack and ....powder.

 

due to the mothership having real camber for much of the ski.

post #4 of 64

You forgot to mention that the Mothership is one of the coolest looking skis on the market

 

post #5 of 64
Thread Starter 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gotama View Post

 

How did they handle the ice?

 

I ask because the Katana, which is also 111mm underfoot, is exceptional for a ski that wide and I wonder how the MoShip stacks up.

 

 

 

I can't honestly say yet...

However, I suspect that by the way it handled the conditions when they firmed up they will be just fine. I don't expect them to hold a line like an 18m GS ski, but I would be willing to bet that they will perform as well as my LP's did which was fine, indeed.

post #6 of 64
Thread Starter 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Squeaky Wheel View Post

 

You forgot to mention that the Mothership is one of the coolest looking skis on the market

 


Yep. Should have seen the look on my 15 year old boy's face when he saw Dad's new toys...

post #7 of 64


 

Quote:
Originally Posted by skitoolong View Post

...Previous to these skis, my favorite set was my 176 LP's. Everything that the LP's do, the Moships do better. I can't belileve how versitle they were. Stable, predictable, agile, ... and yes, dare I say it... playful.

 

You should have seen the look on the Rep's face when I told him I thought they were playful!...

That'd be a pretty good indication that you've got a different set of cajones than some of the rest of us.  With that in mind I'm gonna think twice about your recommendation (in another thread) to try the LP's - my life is playful enough already.

post #8 of 64
Thread Starter 

Aw, c'mon.

 

I'm an almost 50 year old guy with a fake hip. I'm not that good.

I did promise my ortho no more big hits though... so I rarely get more than about 4-5 feet of air under my feet!

 

In all honesty... the 176 LP's are easy to ski, althought granted the faster they go, the better they get. They are a totally different ski than the 186 (last year). Those needed to be pushed. Different story with the 176, honestly. The 184 (this year.. I think that's the length) is somewhere in between those two.

 

I will tell you what scared the hell out of me... the 190 (I think LP Rider)... we were at a resort (obviously) doing the testing, and it didn't seem like there was enough mountain. Those were crazy.

post #9 of 64


 

Quote:
Originally Posted by skitoolong View Post

 

Aw, c'mon.

 

I'm an almost 50 year old guy with a fake hip. I'm not that good.

I did promise my ortho no more big hits though... so I rarely get more than about 4-5 feet of air under my feet!

Yeah you one-upped me with the fake hip.  Seriously, I was trying to be complimentary with a bit of sarcasm (though that ski rep's look did mean something and I'm still leery of the LP's, but given the hip and all I gotta show empathy and try 'em).  Take care and enjoy those Mo'ships.

post #10 of 64
Thread Starter 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by ski-ra View Post

 


 

Yeah you one-upped me with the fake hip.  Seriously, I was trying to be complimentary with a bit of sarcasm (though that ski rep's look did mean something and I'm still leery of the LP's, but given the hip and all I gotta show empathy and try 'em).  Take care and enjoy those Mo'ships.

I hear ya! Believe it or not, I'm a better skier after the hip. More conservative, perhaps and my turn shapes are not quite symmetrical, but technically better.

 

Try em. What level are you? What/where do you ski? Fast? Aggressive? Fearless? Fearful???

 

Let me know. I've been around the ski biz in many different shapes for the last 30 years or so. I'd be happy to help you.

post #11 of 64

Ski-ra can ski for sure! No worries there. He's a tree-junkie :)

 

I think Sierraski still has some of those at unbeleivable prices, make sure you use the epic20 code.


Edited by Finndog - 4/3/2009 at 02:59 pm
post #12 of 64


 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Finndog View Post

 

Ski-ra can ski for sure! No worries there. He's a tree-junkie :)

 

I think Sierraski still has some of those at unbeleivable prices, make sure you use the epic20 code.


Edited by Finndog - 4/3/2009 at 02:59 pm

Finndog to my rescue - thanks (and for that I've found some even tighter Steamboat trees for us to try...)!  BTW - which ski and for who?
 

post #13 of 64
Thread Starter 

For what it's worth, I got mine at Sierra last week. Pretty much can't beat the deal.

post #14 of 64


 

Quote:
Originally Posted by skitoolong View Post

 

 

Try em. What level are you? What/where do you ski? Fast? Aggressive? Fearless? Fearful???

 

Let me know. I've been around the ski biz in many different shapes for the last 30 years or so. I'd be happy to help you.

Help...that's always welcomed!

 

 I'm a 130lbs., 5'-5" level 8/9 CO'er (been skiing 10-20x/yr. for 40yrs. so I like to ski "semi-consciously" and without fighting my gear).  Aggressive but not super fast (medium speed controlled carver - a technique needed for Steamboat trees and best for me on monster-truck Jane bumps), relatively fearless (will be the 1st to dive into 50deg pitches as long as the snow's soft and it ain't a narrow rock-banded chute, in which case I'll go 2nd) - but don't do air (the landings are the problem), and only do expert (usually bumped) or off-piste tree/bowl runs (groomers...them I fear).  

 

Have 167cm Watea 84's and 176cm Goats.  Love the W84's and they could be a 1-ski quiver except that I live for 18"+ dumps (which are numerous at my fave area - Steamboat).  The Goats were to be my in-bounds powder ski so I wanted something that could carve a turn or two on the way back to the lift, but they dive in deep powder and handle groomers way better than I need (they're probably too stiff for my intended use given that they won't succumb to any technique except carving, even in the deep - no smearing/swiveling alllowed).  

 

Hoping to demo the Czar's and obSethed's, some similar 2010 semi-rockered skis (i.e., K2 Sidestash), or even a much softer fully-cambered ski (are skis with pink flowers on 'em in my future?).  Oh and given my weight, and that the Goat's don't ski powder better than my previous 90mm AK "noodle" Launchers, I'm a bit leery of venturing into the 110mm+ territory (i.e., S7's, JJ's) and giving up that "flickability" factor for tight trees.
 

Other than that I'm all ears - TMI?


 


Edited by ski-ra - 4/3/2009 at 09:38 pm
post #15 of 64
Thread Starter 

Wow. That was comprehensive.

 

Well, if you want my opinion on the 176 Lp's - they are no powder ski but you seem to have that covered. Given your weight, I'd consider a ski like that an all mountain charger. I really don't have a doubt that you'd be pleased with them. If the width scares you, I did try another ski in their lineup for next year. I think it was the Sultan. If memory serves me correctly, it will be placed at the current 8000 level. I found that ski to be really fun, but not quite as stable or as predictable as the LP.

 

Other skis that ought to be on your map would be one of the Prophet's (pick your size). I thought those were really impressive when I skied those. Particularly the 100's. I did not get to try those in soft snow, but on hardpack they were as good as anything in class.

 

Personally, I don't get the thought that you need something targeted for "skiing trees". Unless you are really skiing a big, long big mountain size ski (~185 for you), I wouldn't use that as a limiting factor. Skiing trees is more about technique, agility, and the ability to "ski" several turns ahead in your mind than anything else. If we're talking powder, or crud in the trees here... I just don't see the width being an issue.

 

JP

post #16 of 64
Quote:
Originally Posted by skitoolong View Post

 

Wow. That was comprehensive.

 

Well, if you want my opinion on the 176 Lp's - they are no powder ski but you seem to have that covered. Given your weight, I'd consider a ski like that an all mountain charger. I really don't have a doubt that you'd be pleased with them. If the width scares you, I did try another ski in their lineup for next year. I think it was the Sultan. If memory serves me correctly, it will be placed at the current 8000 level. I found that ski to be really fun, but not quite as stable or as predictable as the LP.

 

Other skis that ought to be on your map would be one of the Prophet's (pick your size). I thought those were really impressive when I skied those. Particularly the 100's. I did not get to try those in soft snow, but on hardpack they were as good as anything in class.

 

Personally, I don't get the thought that you need something targeted for "skiing trees". Unless you are really skiing a big, long big mountain size ski (~185 for you), I wouldn't use that as a limiting factor. Skiing trees is more about technique, agility, and the ability to "ski" several turns ahead in your mind than anything else. If we're talking powder, or crud in the trees here... I just don't see the width being an issue.

 

JP

Yeah I can be wordy...and here comes some more - sorry! 

 

I could swear the Sultans will be an 85mm ski, so they'd be a replacment for my W84's which ain't gonna happen at this time (from these cold, dead hands...).  As for the P100's - I was considering them when I bought the Goats, but didn't like the size selection (picky, picky), and I now would expect them to dive like the Goats (they seem to be just as stiff).  Maybe them pretty Pandora's are in my future....

 

Not scared of a 100mm ski (heck the Goats are 105mm and are flickable enough as long as I stick with their "we have ways to make you carve" teutonic demands).  It's just that I can ski the W84's in tight trees so well even in fairly deep snow that I don't need a lot of extra width for the real deep days (and would rather not haul the extra weight of a 115mm ski around).
 

Nevertheless, you're not the only one saying don't be concerned with width.  My real concern is to avoid a ski that needs speed to plane up in powder - that's the real problem in tight trees (hence the idea of tip-rockering).  So I guess I'll take some Advil, heed your advice and go a demo'ing.

 

Take Care!


Edited by ski-ra - 4/4/2009 at 01:04 am
post #17 of 64

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by ski-ra View Post

 

Nevertheless, you're not the only one saying don't be concerned with width.  My real concern is to avoid a ski that needs speed to plane up in powder - that's the real problem in tight trees (hence the idea of tip-rockering).  So I guess I'll take some Advil, heed your advice and go a demo'ing.

 

 

I managed to acquire some 179 Pontoons for a song, and took them out yesterday in ~18" of heavy, wet, PNW snow.  Everyone around me was getting mired and stuck, but the 'toons just sailed along.   No tip dive whatsoever.  They pretty much go uphill in powder.  And because of the rocker, they're surprisingly nimble and easy to swing around despite their gargantuan size.  Also relatively lightweight.

 

Two downsides: 

 

- They're not fun on the groomers.  They require careful management.  Periodically one ski will decide "I want to be free!" and head off in the wrong direction. 

 

- When the powder gets chopped up, you get really bounced around. 

post #18 of 64

Ira, graphics aside, the obsetheds ('10's have nicer graphics) would be money for you BUT keep and eye out on Tramdock they have been blowing out Czars this week.

 

skitoolong- in theory what you say about trees is correct but there comes a time where physical limitations come into play and ski performance, a lot o fthe trees there are very tight and too long of a board makes it tough. SKi-Ra rips trees, make no bones about it but you do need a ski for the boat that will perform well; quick and nimble and not require speed to function at peak. Its not the steepest but its one of the best playgrounds going.

post #19 of 64


 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Acrophobia View Post

 

 

 

I managed to acquire some 179 Pontoons for a song, and took them out yesterday in ~18" of heavy, wet, PNW snow.  Everyone around me was getting mired and stuck, but the 'toons just sailed along.   No tip dive whatsoever.  They pretty much go uphill in powder.  And because of the rocker, they're surprisingly nimble and easy to swing around despite their gargantuan size.  Also relatively lightweight.

 

Two downsides: 

 

- They're not fun on the groomers.  They require careful management.  Periodically one ski will decide "I want to be free!" and head off in the wrong direction. 

 

- When the powder gets chopped up, you get really bounced around. 


 

Yeah - that much float I don't need (I am a proficient enough powder skier and the snow is much lighter here in CO).  What about your beloved Pandora's (if I can overcome the graphics - not that I like the graphics of the obSethed's either).

Take Care!

post #20 of 64


 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Finndog View Post

 

Ira, graphics aside, the obsetheds ('10's have nicer graphics) would be money for you BUT keep and eye out on Tramdock they have been blowing out Czars this week.

 

Lord knows I've been tempted - almost bought the Czar's, but that little voice inside me kept saying "you'll regret not demo'ing" and "you don't deserve instant gratification".  My Goat's are plenty good enough for now and they make the beer taste better at the end of the day.  So I'm gonna wait to demo these next year along with the who-knows what other hybrid-rockered skis come out - the rocker revolution is on, so time is on my side (but I ain't gonna wait until the end of next season - life's too short to forgo gratification either)....

 

BTW - I'd be willing to live with the ObSethed's '09 graphics if only I was able to demo them vs. the Czars (that little voice...), but this year the demo shops didn't see any reason to carry them (no Czar's and only one obSethed in some far flung location).  Dat's da pragmatic reason for waiting - next year should be different.


Edited by ski-ra - 4/4/2009 at 07:42 pm
post #21 of 64
Thread Starter 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Finndog View Post

 

Ira, graphics aside, the obsetheds ('10's have nicer graphics) would be money for you BUT keep and eye out on Tramdock they have been blowing out Czars this week.

 

skitoolong- in theory what you say about trees is correct but there comes a time where physical limitations come into play and ski performance, a lot o fthe trees there are very tight and too long of a board makes it tough. SKi-Ra rips trees, make no bones about it but you do need a ski for the boat that will perform well; quick and nimble and not require speed to function at peak. Its not the steepest but its one of the best playgrounds going.

 

In my clumsy way, that's what I was getting at in post #15 wrt the size of ski.

 

post #22 of 64

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by ski-ra View Post

 

Yeah - that much float I don't need (I am a proficient enough powder skier and the snow is much lighter here in CO).  What about your beloved Pandora's (if I can overcome the graphics - not that I like the graphics of the obSethed's either).

 

The 2010 Pandoras are even less "girly" than the 2009.  A minimalist tree with a bunch of different woodland birds scattered around.  The extended tip rocker should help with tip dive, though I wasn't able to put that to the test when I demoed. 

 

My 2009 Pandoras are good in light, dry powder or up to about 8" of the heavy, gloppy stuff, at which point the forward mounting point becomes a liability and they can get mired if you wind up in low-angle terrain.

 

You'll find that most of the ultra fat ski aficionados here hail from the PNW where the snow is a bit, uh, different. 

post #23 of 64


 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Acrophobia View Post

 

 

 

The 2010 Pandoras are even less "girly" than the 2009.  A minimalist tree with a bunch of different woodland birds scattered around.  The extended tip rocker should help with tip dive, though I wasn't able to put that to the test when I demoed. 

 

My 2009 Pandoras are good in light, dry powder or up to about 8" of the heavy, gloppy stuff, at which point the forward mounting point becomes a liability and they can get mired if you wind up in low-angle terrain.

 

You'll find that most of the ultra fat ski aficionados here hail from the PNW where the snow is a bit, uh, different. 

 

Sounds like the Pandora might be a good candidate as an in-bounds powder ski for me (yeah, needless to say CO snow is generally much lighter, though it sometimes gets as heavy as the drier side of Sierra Cement or is light over a gnarly base).  I've concluded that I need to be open to women's skis since the shorter lengths of many uni-sex powder skis seem to have nearly the same stiffness as those designed for the 180# dudes - and, given how torsionally stiff these skis have become, this makes 'em groomer skis for me. 

 

The Pandora's seem like the ladies version of the SFB with a length I can handle (172cm), a more-reasonable 110mm waist, softer enough for a lightweight, and another post of yours paints 'em as having good-enough edge-grip for some minor groomer duty back to the lifts (vs. a fully rockered, reverse sidecut ski).  They may be too soft for my tastes though that might be the price for float, and only a demo will tell (finding 'em as a demo could be interesting).

 

Thanks - don't hesitate to respond if you have any other recommendations for my growing list of ski's to try.

 

And oh, skitoolong - sorry for having  you!


Edited by ski-ra - 4/5/2009 at 08:58 pm
post #24 of 64

Gotcha' but in addtion to the lenght its also the other characteristics that make it perform for different terrain. Not that SB is totally unique but it does differ from a lot of other CO and UT resorts in terms of the terrain and all.
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by skitoolong View Post

 

 

 

In my clumsy way, that's what I was getting at in post #15 wrt the size of ski.

 


 

post #25 of 64

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Finndog View Post

 

Gotcha' but in addtion to the lenght its also the other characteristics that make it perform for different terrain. Not that SB is totally unique but it does differ from a lot of other CO and UT resorts in terms of the terrain and all.
 


 

 

What do you mean by this?  I think each resort is unique in it's own way but I don't really consider SB especially unique.........

post #26 of 64

well, I said "Not that Sb is totally unique" but it differs in that it has better/more trees and less steeps. To me it's more of a big playground with a lot of hidden pockets and areas. Not a lot of open stuff (other than groomed runs), no real bowls. That's all. I think some skis are not as usable there as others.

post #27 of 64

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Finndog View Post

 

well, I said "Not that Sb is totally unique" but it differs in that it has better/more trees and less steeps. To me it's more of a big playground with a lot of hidden pockets and areas. Not a lot of open stuff (other than groomed runs), no real bowls. That's all. I think some skis are not as usable there as others.

 

I think this is a fair statement. I lived in SB and now ski Vail. Vail is more condusive to the go-fast crud buster for the wide-open Bowls. A nimbler stick that can handle bumps more adeptly would do better at the Boat.

post #28 of 64

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Finndog View Post

 

well, I said "Not that Sb is totally unique" but it differs in that it has better/more trees and less steeps. To me it's more of a big playground with a lot of hidden pockets and areas. Not a lot of open stuff (other than groomed runs), no real bowls. That's all. I think some skis are not as usable there as others.

 

Interesting....I love Steamboat and agree that only a few places can compare for the tree skiing.  I think on the steepness front Steamboat is an interesting mountain.  I think SB is more steep on average than say Vail or Breck but it doesn't have the extremes of either place.  I like SB because it seems to me have a consistent pitch all over the mountain (leaving out Mside and the beginner areas) if that makes sense.  I tend to compare Vail and SB very closely and I usually prefer SB but I think Vail holds up better under long periods with no snow.

post #29 of 64

The boat has a lot of hidden placs that hold pow for days, if you know where to hunt them....

post #30 of 64

So does Vail or especially the Beav but I was more referring to quality of the snow on the more used trails.  Vail has a higher elevation and a lot more of its better terrain faces north so I think the snow is better at Vail (or any of the SuCo) resorts if it hasn't snowed in a week than at SB.  That being said...I'd move to the Boat in hearbeat

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