Thread: PM Gear 192 Bro review

Forward style yes and no...
I'll try to not be confusing here.
Both skis demand input and demand the rider to be on top of them. Mistakes are not favored. Do not get backseat. In this way the 195 and the 192 are similar in terms of "forward".

No because the balance point on each ski is different. My 195's are mounted on the line. The 192's are a much more forward mount in comparison. The balance/style of turn is different. Hard to explain that.

But they were both designed for the same thing. High speed, balls to the wall, charging. You won't be disappointed if that is what you expect.

Originally Posted by DeathByStultz

Finally will be ditching the engineer/desk job/boring lifestyle and moving to north lake tahoe from syracuse, NY this fall and once again putting skiing first and career 2nd. If there's one thing i'm looking forward to after the mountains and the powder and the lifestyle, it's getting the chance to make some turns on some of your skis, Splat! I'm obviously very new to the tgr forums but i eat, drink and sleep skiing and the amount of hype those skis have generated cannot be BS.

The skis will be here when you get here. Good move.

Originally Posted by eurob

What are the chances for a medium flex rockered 192 bro? Dimensions look sweet for a widest-of-quiver board for euro conditions, but I'm just a run-of-the-mill meadow skipper.

Pretty slim. With the new full on carbon/glass hybrid construction, it's too much to toy with the flexes these days. But if you can ski, you can ski the 192s with no worries. They're stiff, but pliable.

Splat or Atrain, couple questions about the mount location on the new 192... I have all summer to look at these before I mount them and I'll probably drive myself crazy on a couple cm.

Atrain, did you ski them at more mount locations than the 1055 that you recommended? The 1055 just seems to have a ton of tail. I skied the 191s which were at 1065 and thought the location was perfect... not a fan of tons of tail... and I understand the 191s and 192s have differences... what bsl did you mount these at and what bindings did you use?

splat, have you skied these at any different mount locations? Do you guys think a 1065 mount location would change the performance? if so how? again, a summer of discussing cm's. I'll be putting fks on these and I don't want to remount, but probably will because I seem to like putting extra holes in my skis.

thanks...

1065 will change it from being as quick and nimble as it is into a longer turn friendly ski. I skied it there on the first pair and after a few runs was happy to slide it up to about 1057 (on icy grooms). I'm glad your reasoning is about the amount of tail they have, cause if you would have said they would float better mounting back, I would have told you to try adjusting your stance. I'd say no further than 1062, but have had guys who loved 1065 (maggot Toby). Let's see what Athan says, he's had the new model out considerably more than me. That first pair was not good. I have a fresh pair waiting in Mammoth. I just need to get down there and ski them.

I have not skied the new model at 1065 (i.e. the added tip rocker), but I have skied the old model at that mount location.
Pat nailed it. It makes the ski not quite as nimble, but with that being said at 1065 long powerful arcs are still the favorable turn with this ski, you just lose a bit of the ability to make a quick, short, snap turn. They're not really designed for that type of turn anyways.
1065 you'll be happy with. That would be the farthest I go back though.

^^^^ thanks guys.... it sounds like i'll be considering mm's this summer and not cm's. It sounds like the 1055 to 1060 would be the right range for me.

What is your bsl? Height/weight?

28.5/6-2/215