WTB 186 Lhasa Pows, 173 Shamans, 179 BRO FAT, Czars maybe...

[powpig]

whoa, such a ski exists???

My mistake. 179 Bro Fats

[splat]

They're the same as your new carbon 179 Fats, powpig. But without carbon.

[roark]

i'd require girlfriend pics for fats at that price.

[eddyriffle]

To the OP-
I was in Telluride over the weekend and the ski shops had lots of demo skis up for sale (with bindings, albeit demo bindings,such as Marker Griffons) for prices around $500 and less. I'd suggest calling Bootfitters, Paragon, and Telluride Sports. I remember seeing Czars, Gotamas...
Don't forget to check craigslist. I just sold 179 Team 100/Prophets with Naxo bindings on West Slope craigslist last week (for under $400)...

[guroo270]

so you'd ride 186 lhasa pows but not 184 shamans?

hmm...

Now, I haven't had a chance to demo these or anything, but the manufacturer suggests shorter ski length on these. I really want a tool for the trees, so I'm trying not to go too long, but yes, I will go to 186 for the Lhasa Pow because that's the shortest they make it, and I just think that ski would be perfect for me. I just can't afford it.

[hiplainsdrifter]

Manufacturers always suggest a shorter length. I think they assume you are a puss. You could probably go 173 or 184s. I know I wouldn't consider the 173s but I might if only dinking around in what passes for tree skiing at resorts.

[guroo270]

I thought they recommended the shorter lengths (I've read about 8 positive reviews of larger people than me liking the 161, and a couple more 6+ footers 200+lbers enjoying the 173) due to the 160 shovel and not being able to sink the tips. I really should demo the two to find out for myself, but if I can get a really good deal I'm willing to work with it. I still may end up doing that.

[JBird]

OP, Pm sent.

[guroo270]

Manufacturers always suggest a shorter length. I think they assume you are a puss. You could probably go 173 or 184s. I know I wouldn't consider the 173s but I might if only dinking around in what passes for tree skiing at resorts.

The skis I'm picking up will also be accompanying me at Silverton.

[hiplainsdrifter]

I thought they recommended the shorter lengths (I've read about 8 positive reviews of larger people than me liking the 161, and a couple more 6+ footers 200+lbers enjoying the 173) due to the 160 shovel and not being able to sink the tips. I really should demo the two to find out for myself, but if I can get a really good deal I'm willing to work with it. I still may end up doing that.

I have seen my 200 lb buddy sink the tips on his 184 Shamans in average backcountry powder. Yes, they float really well, no, they aren't invincible. 173 would probably work if you are a resort skier, go 184 if you are a backcountry skier. Incidentally, that night I was out-floating my buddy on 188 Rubys.

[guroo270]

Bump for 173 Shamans and 182 Czars. Guess the Lhasas are out for me. Going to go to Hanging Lake this weekend in Glenwood, so Aspen and Vail... pick up...? Anyone...Buehler?

[guroo270]

Thanks mags, but I picked up some 181 Nomads from Icelantic. Wish it had some taper, but It'll just have to do.

[GeezerSteve]

HPD, Shaman is the most undivable tip I've ever seen, by longshot. I'm 6'2", 235 lbs. and I've never stuffed a tip on my 173 Shaman w/Dynafit Comforts. I usually carry a touring pack when I'm on my Shamans, and carrying another 5-10 lbs. after Xmas, so add another 15-20 lbs. I have lots of Shaman verts in PNW wet pow and rain-fouled pow when everyone else was stuffing tips, while I was fine. I cannot imagine how anyone could stuff a Shaman tip if they are mounted on factory center line. BTW, 173 was the longest Shaman available when I bought them.

[flybooey]

This guy has some Czars in 182 ? in think. Sans bindings. But a start
[ame="http://tetongravity.com/forums/showthread.php?t=199411"]FS: Salomon Czars, DNA pants, Oakley goggles, Patagonia jacket, Smith sunglasses! - Teton Gravity Research Forums[/ame]