Thread: Igneous skis, in particular, the FFFs

I am wondering how igneous' ski, especially the FFFs. I searched, and found a couple things, but the best descriptions I got were, sick, they charge, etc. I'm looking for a bit more detailed reviews.

Do iggies typically ski like heads, very heavy and damp, but not very much pop? Or are they a bit more like the b squads, still fairly damp, but livelier and poppier? I thought the 193 m103s were ok, but not great, and I absolutly love the 194 squads, way easier to ski in my opinion. I'd like a slightly softer, longer, wider, straighter squad with less camber. Ok, so maybe thats not a squad at all, but I want something that likes to make gigantic turns, but is still somewhat manageable a BIT slower.

I am thinking about getting a pair of 200cm FFFs, probably in a 250ish flex, and I might ask them to widen up the tail just a hair, or even see how pricey it would be to widen up everything, but the tail a bit more so.

And yes, I know, just email em and they'll answer all your questions, I'm doing that, but I wanted some actual reviews too, so I could compare them to other skis and try to get an idea of what they would feel like.

I have had a couple pairs of iggies and am planning on getting 190 FFF's 240RA as soon as I get the money around
There are a couple of people around the board that have fff's - marshal safetysquad, Natty, ect..
seems like the general consensus is that 240 is the perfect flex
Thats all i have to contribute

damp, stable, think mac truck with jet rockets.

not light, lively, nervous, or twitchy

I have both Monsters (183) and FFF's. Monsters are much more damp/heavy feeling. My FFF's are 190's, 240 flex and they are very damp and extremely stable while staying lively and suprisingly easy to ski. I've never skied Squads, so I can't compare them at all. Even though the Monsters and FFF's ski differently, I love them both for their designed purpose.

Iggy doesn't make the FFF in a 200cm length, so to get them to build you a pair (if their press can even accomodate that size) might be pricey. Also changing the width dimensions might cost you some coin.

So there is a brief answer to your question. Feel free to ask more specifics and I'll try and answer them tomorrow when I'm bored to tears at work.

Edit: Although I'm sure mntlion knows his shit, I have found my FFF's to be my lightest pair of skis. Between Monsters and my Pow + the Iggy's feel like feathers.

I have e mailed them, and was quoted $1200 for the 200cm length, which has me pretty stoked, $20 more than the 190 doesn't seem too bad.

Haven't asked about changing the width though, I'd expect that would be a lot more pricy.

I'm fully aware that they'll be heavy, but there is a huge difference between the squads and the 103s. Thats why I mentioned both those. I realize neither are really pow skis, but I see them being two very different kinds of big burly planks, which ussually all get lumped into the same category. I like damp and stable, but in 200cm I'm thinking stable is a given, hopefully they'll be sorta lively as well.


Ok, heres one thing I'm really wondering, how much of a pintail do they feel like? The specs make em definitly seem like one, but it seems like you can never tell without skiing a ski. I wouldn't mind a bit, but don't want too much of that feel. I'm hopeing more for a plank that floats.

I might feel light (as in deflected in crud etc)

they are lightish on the scales

nice skis LG.

also look at capital?

Not really relevent to the thread, but I have found that if you get centered and really arc the squads they are one of the livliest superstiff skis out there, much more so heads or the legend pros.

So what I was trying to say is that both the Heads and the Iggy's are super damp and stable, but the FFF's don't have the heavy feel to them that the Monsters do. I guess that is what people around here are calling lively. Compared to my Monsters, FFF's feel lighter on my feet, float a lot better, and are actually pretty easy to ski. They also have a lot more camber than my Monsters (probably not needed on a powder ski, but the camber is pretty big).

I know nothing about pintail skis. Are FFF's really considered pintails? To tell you the truth I haven't skied that many skis in my career. This past season was my first season with a quiver and the season before that was my first season on fat skis (103's were my first fat ski). So I guess I'm not the best person to answer this question. Maybe if Iggyskier sees this thread he will chime in as he's skied the 103's and multiple pairs of FFF's and other Igneous skis.

Sorry I can't be of much help...

Originally Posted by Phill

Not really relevent to the thread, but I have found that if you get centered and really arc the squads they are one of the livliest superstiff skis out there, much more so heads or the legend pros.

Pretty much what made me fall in love with them. I'm still amazed how nimble they are going from big turn to little turns.

Originally Posted by SafteySquad

I know nothing about pintail skis. Are FFF's really considered pintails?

Sorry I can't be of much help...

Ok I think my question as to the liveliness has been answered, even though I didn't phrase it all that well. I am hoping they are "lively for a big huge plank of a ski" and thats what it sounds like they are.

I just don't know about the pintail thing. The EHPs definitly ski like pintails, and the specs of the FFFs aren't all that different (if wider) but numbers aren't everything in determining how a ski skis.

And you guys have definitly been a help. I'm getting more determined to save up for these.



One more question, how long did it take you guys to get your skis once you ordered them?

Originally Posted by leroy jenkins

One more question, how long did it take you guys to get your skis once you ordered them?

Mine came from Marshal, so I can't help you with this question, sorry...

Edit: So what exactly do you not like about the pintail geometry? Maybe if you explain which attributes of your EHP's you don't like I might be able to say if they will be a problem with the FFF's.

these are all questions for you to go over in detail with your chosen custom ski manufacturer. The ratio of internet people to custom builder input on your skis should be about 1:40.

my capitals where 2+ months to "make"

ski bee's full customs where 2-4 months from planning to skiing.

Originally Posted by SafteySquad

Edit: So what exactly do you not like about the pintail geometry? Maybe if you explain which attributes of your EHP's you don't like I might be able to say if they will be a problem with the FFF's.

I just felt like there was no support there. I was always struggling to try and stay forwards on them, especially after landing hucks I could not get out of the back seat. They worked all right if I could stay completely on top of them and maintain perfect form, but even then, I found myself breaking at the waist sometimes to try and get my weight even further forwards. I have since remounted them about 1.5cm farther forwards, which seems to be better, but have only skied them in corn as such, and not in powder. Maybe it was just the mount, I don't know. Maybe it was also because of the EHPs turned up tail, and the FFFs will have a square tail, so it won't be an issue.

Originally Posted by lemon boy

these are all questions for you to go over in detail with your chosen custom ski manufacturer. The ratio of internet people to custom builder input on your skis should be about 1:40.

Yea, I have been sending some emails back and forth with them, but I just wanted some varied reviews, especially comparing their feel to other skis I might have tried. When investing this much money, especially in something 200cm that might not be so easy to resell, theres no such thing as too much info/research.

Originally Posted by leroy jenkins

especially in something 200cm that might not be so easy to resell

Ski them once and then I will give you $500 w/o binders

yeah they'll be easy to resell.

Just remember the cardinal igneous blunder people make is letting ego decide their flex #, unless you're a huge powerful skier you don't need anything more than 240 and probably a lot less.

i thought you were a tiny guy leeeeeeeeroy.
like 5'8 160'ish?

youve got no business on a 250 200cm iggy FFF.
pretty much no one does.

Originally Posted by pechelman

i thought you were a tiny guy leeeeeeeeroy.
like 5'8 160'ish?

youve got no business on a 250 200cm iggy FFF.
pretty much no one does.

Having skied with him, I can say I think he will be just fine. Now all he needs are bigger feet so I can try them out next season.

Originally Posted by Joey Joe Joe Junior Shabadoo

Having skied with him, I can say I think he will be just fine. Now all he needs are bigger feet so I can try them out next season.

marshal disagrees with you
http://www.tetongravity.com/forums/s...hlight=igneous

ETA, the discussion above was for 190cm vs the 200cm foolishness here in this thread

Originally Posted by pechelman

marshal disagrees with you
http://www.tetongravity.com/forums/s...hlight=igneous

And he may be right, I can only speak from my experiences skiing with Leroy. It's his money, why anyone cares how big and burly a ski he spends it on is beyond me.

i could care less

correct me if im wrong, but he asked for advice and an opinion with regard to the FFF, and I gave it.
my advice and opinion is based on what other people who have had 1st hand experience, and lots of it, have said in previous threads

i thought this was a public forum intended to share these ideas
i thought this was better than the whole "search function" post

I have to disagree with the 'lively' feel that has come out of this thread. Actually, they are the absolute opposite of that. My 189 Squads are extremely lively and easy to ski in comparison with my 190 FFL's. That said, I did comfortably and happily ski my FFL's for multiple seasons as my primary quiver ski, which is why I own 2 pair. And will never sell them b/c they are a nostalgic awesome ski. That said, I got on them one day this year, they kicked my ass, and I am just happier skiing my 'easy' Squads. I love my Iggies but I would say they fall way more on the 103 side of the spectrum than the Squad side. FWIW

edit to add: a lot depends on sidecut. my FFL's were WAY easier to ski than my old FGS, which had a bunch more sidecut and just didn't like to let go of a turn once put on edge. The FFL's, once you figure them out, actually allow you to end a turn early, throw it sideways if needed, etc. I think the FFF's have a fairly similar sidecut to the FFL?

Originally Posted by pechelman

youve got no business on a 250 200cm iggy FFF.
pretty much no one does.

dude, shut up! I know there are a lot of vultures waiting in the wings for these to come back on the market "twice skied/once drilled" for a cut rate price

Originally Posted by SafteySquad

So what I was trying to say is that both the Heads and the Iggy's are super damp and stable, but the FFF's don't have the heavy feel to them that the Monsters do. I guess that is what people around here are calling lively. Compared to my Monsters, FFF's feel lighter on my feet, float a lot better, and are actually pretty easy to ski. They also have a lot more camber than my Monsters (probably not needed on a powder ski, but the camber is pretty big).

I know nothing about pintail skis. Are FFF's really considered pintails? To tell you the truth I haven't skied that many skis in my career. This past season was my first season with a quiver and the season before that was my first season on fat skis (103's were my first fat ski). So I guess I'm not the best person to answer this question. Maybe if Iggyskier sees this thread he will chime in as he's skied the 103's and multiple pairs of FFF's and other Igneous skis.

Sorry I can't be of much help...

IMO, they aren't really pintails. They just have a lot of taper (20mm), which IMO is what makes them ski so well. It allows you to control the ski a lot more. The tail doesn't hook up as much and you can throw the skis around while still maintaining the ability to carve.

Last season my quiver was 183 M103s and 190 FFFs 240 RA. If there was soft snow, I brought the FFFs. They were more lively than the heads (not saying they are super lively, just more so than the heads) and were (completely serious) just as fun on hardpack. The FFF are pretty light for their size, super stable, fun to ski, but weren't super damp like the heads. Just different skis. Float is obviously better on the FFFs.

Don't know what else to really say about them, but what you already know: they are sick. Construction is amazing, stability is amazing, love the feel, they are pretty, they float well, they do fine on hardpack (ice excluded). This last pair took about 5 weeks to get to my door. The first pair I ordered from igneous took about the same. The capital pairs I ordered took about 11 weeks to arrive.

question in general for you iggyskier

you say you dont think iggy FFF's have pin tail geometry, yet the wasit\tail width difference is only 7mm total, which is to say, that its only 3.5mm wider in the tail than it is at the waist on one side of the ski. Thats roughly only the width of an edge. This fact, in and of itself, makes this ski a pintail on paper. (imo)

So, this brings me to my question.
How do you feel the large tip sidecut effects your perception on how this ski skis (ie not pintail)? For ref, the tip is 27mm wider than the waist.

im not arguing with you here or saying youre wrong, im just interested in this particular design topic, especially since I just designed some skis for pmgear that could be considered pintail by some, and not by others.

Originally Posted by pechelman

question in general for you iggyskier

you say you dont think iggy FFF's have pin tail geometry, yet the wasit\tail width difference is only 7mm total, which is to say, that its only 3.5mm wider in the tail than it is at the waist on one side of the ski. Thats roughly only the width of an edge. This fact, in and of itself, makes this ski a pintail on paper. (imo)

So, this brings me to my question.
How do you feel the large tip sidecut effects your perception on how this ski skis (ie not pintail)? For ref, the tip is 27mm wider than the waist.

im not arguing with you here or saying youre wrong, im just interested in this particular design topic, especially since I just designed some skis for pmgear that could be considered pintail by some, and not by others.

No offense taken. For me, pintail has always meant that the narrowest point of the ski was the tail (aka pontoons). I could be wrong, but that is how I have always looked at it. So the tip, to me, plays no role in affecting my perception on whether or not this ski is pintail or not. For me, it is the overall dimensions and the location of the narrowest part of the ski (in this case, although not by much, the waist) that determines it. To me, the FFF just has a lot of taper. I can see, though, how a ski like the FFF could be considered as pintail.

Regarding how they ski (hopefully I am answering your question correctly), the difference between the tip and waist (145 to 118) plays a huge role in how they ski. The taper of the ski and the tiny increase between the waist and the tail (118 to 125) allows the ski to track straight and not hook up. it also allows you to throw the tail of the ski out when you need to slash speed. It is what makes them so great in powder is that you can control the skis a lot more.

The larger tips are great because, while the ski won't hook up, when you lay the ski over it will carve. I actually thought these skis carved just as well on hardpack as the m103. The bigger tips make them a lot more versatile than you would expect. I think the little bit of sidecut in the tail does help to maintain the carve when you lay the ski over. If that wasn't there (and it was something like 145/118/110) I don't believe it would carve as well.

Hopefully that answered your question.