Skis similar to Bsquads?

**abraham** · 12-11-2006, 12:17 AM

So today I demoed some B Squads in a 174. I really liked them but I want to look into some other skis that are similar. I really enjoyed the stiffness especially after trying the B3's which felt way to soft for me. I liked the length and enjoyed the skis everywhere, even moguls which i probably should not have done.
I am thinking the legend pro XXl might be good

Anyway the stuff people usually ask for is weight height and that stuff so:
170 pounds
5'7"-5'8"
Aggressive skier
I mainly ski crud with some powder and tree skiing, but I like to be able to go fast on groomed runs

So, what other skis are similar?

**mountain_man** · 12-11-2006, 12:22 AM

Search?

JONG
(i figured i can say JONG as long as i have more posts then zed JONG and am not behaving JONGISHLY myself)

**YooperSteeze** · 12-11-2006, 01:55 AM

174 Squad =/= 194 LP XXL

**addict** · 12-11-2006, 02:18 AM

They make b-squads in a 174? Huh.

i've never skied the b-squads, but if you want a short, stiff ski with similar characteristics maybe a 180 powder plus or 183 monster 103? You'd save a lot of money for a very similar ski I'd say. I find powder plus's a really fun bump ski, they have liveliness and a real predictability which makes them kinda easy to ski. Haven't skied the monsters. A proXXL is a much softer ski, better suited to pow than the others but torsionally stiff, so still very stable. I imagine not similar to the b-squad though, except perhaps in a marketing sense.

**mnflyfish** · 12-11-2006, 10:14 AM

Well I'll say it...support a mag and pick up a pair of 178 Bros!!! www.pmgear.com

nuff said,
Jay

**marshalolson** · 12-11-2006, 10:20 AM

175 igneous FFGS

180 pow +/183 axiom

170 nordica FF/w105

173 explosive

180 ak skis king salmon

stokli stormrider (? - dunno shortest length)

178 super stiff bros

178 dp wailer 105 flex 3

176 (?) legend pro

the lengths vary, according to the tail shape. the squads are very flat and square, so a longer ski with a little kick or taper will ski similarly.

**mntlion** · 12-11-2006, 10:54 AM

need an 173 expolise let me know, but really buy the bro's

**uncle crud** · 12-11-2006, 12:17 PM

I thought that the 174 B-Squads were made with a significantly different construction from the two longer models, and therefore are softer both longitudinally and torsionally... am I remembering something that didn't ever exist?

At the risk of invoking flamage from the dickswingers for suggesting such a short ski, I'd suggest the Head iM 88 in a 185. It does all of what you're seeking, and does it all very well.

**pechelman** · 12-11-2006, 12:32 PM

Originally Posted by uncle crud

I thought that the 174 B-Squads were made with a significantly different construction from the two longer models, and therefore are softer both longitudinally and torsionally... am I remembering something that didn't ever exist?

At the risk of invoking flamage from the dickswingers for suggesting such a short ski, I'd suggest the Head iM 88 in a 185. It does all of what you're seeking, and does it all very well.

the 174 and 184 are definitely not as stiff as the 189/19X?

of course saying something is softer than a 189 squad isnt saying a whole lot cause the 189 is essentially a 2x4. It still feels stiffer than most things out there and id wager it was still plenty torsionally stiff. The 184 might be a 7 or 8 on Marsh's scale vs the 10 for a 189 squad.

**Evmo** · 12-11-2006, 02:03 PM

You could try a Stormrider DP in a 174... I really love them... though their tips may be softer than the squad... (i havent skied the squads)

Edit: i meant the new ones, but you could also look into the last ones (this was back when the dp=ss pro model). the last DP came in a 171, and i have not skied them. The newer ones are a tiny bit wider (94 vs 91). The new SS pro is a different ski than the new DP, slightly narrower under foot (89)...

**skimasterflex** · 12-11-2006, 02:36 PM

Buy my Stiff KW Midfats

At about 183 and twinned they'll ski about as long as the shorter Squad.

**abraham** · 12-12-2006, 12:20 AM

Ok thanks, I have a lot more skis to try before I make a decision now.

I'm pretty sure the 164, 174 and 184 are different in stiffness and stability from the 189 and 194,
I also tried the 184 and liked it but probably thats about where I will top out for length. The stiffness was important and so I liked the Bsquads much more than the other skis I tried. I was just too much of a puss to try the longer (189, 194) Bsquads...

**MrDirt** · 12-12-2006, 12:22 AM

Titan pro

**addict** · 12-12-2006, 12:29 AM

fyi, I found my 180 pow pluses for $40CAD in a consignment store. No need to demo at that price!

**philippeR** · 12-12-2006, 04:20 AM

Originally Posted by uncle crud

I thought that the 174 B-Squads were made with a significantly different construction from the two longer models, and therefore are softer both longitudinally and torsionally... am I remembering something that didn't ever exist?

At the risk of invoking flamage from the dickswingers for suggesting such a short ski, I'd suggest the Head iM 88 in a 185. It does all of what you're seeking, and does it all very well.

I don't know how things are in the US, but in France the 164 / 174 / 184 and the 189 / 194 are marketed and priced as 2 different lines.
The 'regular' ones being sold around 600E and the stiffer, longer, straighter version (labeled 'Pro') priced at 900E+.

**Deep Days** · 12-12-2006, 04:42 AM

So did the 174 squad phase out the b4? I vaguely remember hand-flexing in the shop and liking the flex on them thinking "man these are stiffer than my [old] b3s", but that might not have been the 174... And what is Dualtec? Still microcell?

Marshal: what about the Nordica enforcer? I don't recall quite what the flex is like, but IIRC the dimensions are very similar to that of a BRO. Not that it would be any better than a bro, though, of course.

**powder11** · 12-12-2006, 04:22 PM

Originally Posted by pechelman

of course saying something is softer than a 189 squad isnt saying a whole lot cause the 189 is essentially a 2x4. It still feels stiffer than most things out there and id wager it was still plenty torsionally stiff. The 184 might be a 7 or 8 on Marsh's scale vs the 10 for a 189 squad.

Ive heard the 189 squad is a real dog. boxey and no sweet spot. I think rossi missed the mark on that ski.

**Ira** · 12-13-2006, 01:58 AM

Originally Posted by powder11

Ive heard the 189 squad is a real dog. boxey and no sweet spot. I think rossi missed the mark on that ski.

Powder11,

Nice avatar, I used to raise those dogs...

I have the 189 Bsquad and think it is great, but then I am big guy at 6'4" and 220# geared up. it did take about 15 days to break in, but has not softened up since then (55 days total since last spring).

the 164, 174, 184 have a different shape and are softer skis than the 189, 194 Bsquads. you have to pick the ski that is right for you and not think that you are a cliff hucking movie star that needs the 194 if you are 140# and 5'5"... Also, in euroland, I have heard that the more expensive longer skis COME WITH BINDINGS, ergo the price swing.

the running surface on a 174 compares with most skis in the 180-185 cm range.

BTW the B4 is still available, it just depends on if the shop ordered them...

take care,

Ira

**philippeR** · 12-13-2006, 03:42 AM

Originally Posted by Ira

...Also, in euroland, I have heard that the more expensive longer skis COME WITH BINDINGS, ergo the price swing.
...

Ira

No. In France the BSquad up to 184 is priced at 599E, 679E with Axial 140 by Le Vieux campeur. The BSquad Pro (189/194) at 916E flat. What's true is that some shops price the regular model around 900E also, as if it was the same ski as the longer versions. But it's not. To be fair, Rossignol's marketing too fuels the confusion (see their website).
There are actualy 3 lines of B-Squads :
B-Squad
B-Squad Pro : race-stock ski, almost Manu Gaidet's ski actualy, with a different structure than the shorter models
B-Squad Women (154 /164 /174, 130 - 100 -120).

**Tony** · 12-13-2006, 08:33 AM

a little cheaper at Sport-Conrad (Germany):

Squad for €529: http://www.sport-conrad.com/englisch...ummer=70006023

Squad Pro for €749: http://www.sport-conrad.com/englisch...ummer=70006020

**Damian Sanders** · 12-13-2006, 09:26 AM

I own and like both the 180 powder plus and the 183 axiom. However, I highly doubt either one skis anything remotely like the 174 b-squad. Both are MUCH wider, heavier and probably stiffer....not to mention longer...they both ski very, very big for their size. If I were to own a B-squad, it would probably be the 189. Just a heads up.

I would recommend the 176 Legend Pro, as that strikes me as the most simliar. I can't comment further, because I'm not that familliar with the squad in that length.

**pechelman** · 12-13-2006, 10:11 AM

Originally Posted by Damian Sanders

I own and like both the 180 powder plus and the 183 axiom, they both ski very, very big for their size. If I were to own a B-squad, it would probably be the 189. Just a heads up.

im going to disagree with you regarding the 183 axiom.
I have it mounted -2 to -3 behind the line to match the location of my mojo103s and they are super easy to ski despite the fact im a skiing newby.
The axioms I have, have a little bit of tip rocker built in when you press the bases underfoot together. This rocker extends 4-5inches behind the end of the shovel curvature. Honestly, it doesnt seem to ski any longer than my old 180 explosivs, which are known to ski more like 176s.

Also, I dont really think of the axiom as a stiff ski, infact it feels pretty medium flexish, maybe a flex 4 or 5 on marsh's scale? (at least the pair I have feel softer than any ski I own and hand flex softer than other skis on his scale)

If you think a 183 axiom (on the line?) is a lot of ski, id definitely think the 189 squad would be too much to handle. The 184 seems like it might be a better fit if you're interested in buying this ski.

**Damian Sanders** · 12-13-2006, 03:27 PM

Originally Posted by pechelman

im going to disagree with you regarding the 183 axiom.
I have it mounted -2 to -3 behind the line to match the location of my mojo103s and they are super easy to ski despite the fact im a skiing newby.
The axioms I have, have a little bit of tip rocker built in when you press the bases underfoot together. This rocker extends 4-5inches behind the end of the shovel curvature. Honestly, it doesnt seem to ski any longer than my old 180 explosivs, which are known to ski more like 176s.

Also, I dont really think of the axiom as a stiff ski, infact it feels pretty medium flexish, maybe a flex 4 or 5 on marsh's scale? (at least the pair I have feel softer than any ski I own and hand flex softer than other skis on his scale)

If you think a 183 axiom (on the line?) is a lot of ski, id definitely think the 189 squad would be too much to handle. The 184 seems like it might be a better fit if you're interested in buying this ski.

Right. Sure. I've only been skiing mine for 6+ years, so I have no clue. You just bought them. I have no idea which version you have, but mine are the foam version with the stainless steel sheets. They weigh 11.25 lb blank for the pair which is pretty heavy compared to pretty much anything. The stock mount point on my skis is already extremely far back, there is absolutely no way you could move it any further back and have the ski still be skiable....they have a very long front with a short tail. I'm quite sure mine are mounted at a similar point to the IM103, if you want to take measurements, we can compare. They were rather stiff when brand new, but have softened considerably over the years, especially at the tip which is soft, but the mid and tail are still fairly stiff. Yes, mine have a very long shovel, and some rocker going about 6" in from the contact point. No camber right now.

They are not hard to ski, because they float better than almost any ski ever made. In tight trees in deep snow, they pivot extremely well, but it takes time for them to come around because of the swing weight. They are also very good in crud at speed. They still "ski big" for their size, and way more than a 174 squad. They are absolutely horrific as an all around ski....so don't even think about it.

Also.....don't talk to me about what I think is "alot of ski"......you do not want to go there. I wouldn't even think of seriously skiing a 184 squad.....even here in the east. 189, no prob, and I'm quite sure I could make the 194 do some interesting things......I'd been thinking about picking up some sort of 190cm+, 100mm+ big gun, but just decided to freeski the old 201 stocklis more often instaid.....all around, as practice for the big days.

**Professor** · 12-13-2006, 04:25 PM

Originally Posted by Damian Sanders

I'd been thinking about picking up some sort of 190cm+, 100mm+ big gun, but just decided to freeski the old 201 stocklis more often instaid.....all around, as practice for the big days.

Just a point of reference, my 194 Squads are way more ski than my 201 Asteroids ever dreamt of being. Dont get me wrong the Roids are a really fun ski. But as far as how much work it is to ski them, they were downright "playful" compared to 194 Squads. Again, just an FYI...

**pechelman** · 12-13-2006, 04:28 PM

no reason to get so defensive
i never said they werent heavy
ill see about taking a measurement, but its nearly identical to the 103s on the line in comparison to where I have the demos adjusted.

I have no comparison to what the ski was like new, although it does still have camber and it doesnt feel that stiff.

I agree I would not want to use them all around, a bit wide, heavy, and too little sidecut for attempting to enjoy anything other than soft snow.
In comparison to a 183 103 which skis big for its size, which I definitely agree with, especially when not making fall line turns, I still dont agree that a 183 axiom skis bigger than it is, especially considering the tip rocker and how easy it pivots as you mentioned. However, this difference of opinion could be an issue with us having different models, as I do beleive mine have a wood core with 2? sheets of metal.

Ive obviously hit a button with you, but given what you said, it sounded like you might enjoy a 184 squad more\be a better fit. Just because I suggest that maybe the shorter version might be a better match, doesnt mean I was critizing your skill. There was no reason to take offense....just trying to offer decent advice from what you had typed.