Page 1 of 11 1 2 3 4 5 6 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 252
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    2

    191 PM Gear Lhasa Fat

    Just received my 191 Lhasa Fat's from Pat. FKN- Insane! If these things ski as good as they look then I will be one happy dude. I have been skiing Line Prophet 100's as my everyday ski here on the East Coast. Planning to use the Lhasa's on my annual trips out west to Crested Butte and Alta and here on the East Coast if conditions permit. I am 6'2", 220 lb advanced skier and spent many many hours researching which powder skis to get and settled on the 191 Lhasa Fat's- glad I did and can't wait to take them for a test drive. Anyone out there looking at the usually suspects for powder skis should also take a good look at these bad boys. Pat's responsiveness to questions is off-the-charts.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Tahoe
    Posts
    1,419
    Ditto. I'll post some pics of my Carbon Fats tonight. Nicest skis I've ever seen.


    Quote Originally Posted by teebird11 View Post
    Just received my 191 Lhasa Fat's from Pat. FKN- Insane! If these things ski as good as they look then I will be one happy dude.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Tahoe
    Posts
    1,419
    Basically, 1875 grams for a 117 waisted 192 ski. I've been skiing DPS Pures for several years but no more- these are lighter than a Lotus 120 but have a better shape, better profile, better flex, and better finish.

    The black isn't a top sheet - its the actual carbon cloth. Looks amazing in person.

    Heres some pics that do not do them justice... review is coming once I get some miles on them.



    Last edited by Patches; 12-17-2011 at 10:27 PM.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    157
    OMG.. Patches.. those are identical to the ones I have being shipped just now.. they look amazing. Can't wait to get them now after seing these pics. Pat is great to deal with and always sorts you out. Great customer service.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    British Columbia, Canada
    Posts
    489
    Those things have huge tip rocker. Is that going to be a problem in crud, as go up so much?

  6. #6
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Posts
    29,098
    Not at all. Those tips don't flop, they flex only when needed. A year of prototyping has put them in every condition to perfect the tip flex so it is stable and slays every kind of snow. In crud, they float it and slice right through it without any hesitation. In heavy pow, they flex to float the ski. On hard pack, they are solid and stable. In light pow....they're heavenly. Should only be about ten days before one of the guys on them posts a review. They've been selling fast and it looks like we'll have to do another run to keep up with demand.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    SLicCity
    Posts
    306
    What is the turning radius on those fat boyz?

  8. #8
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Posts
    29,098
    36 meter average on a compound radius that is 26m in the tip, 45m in the tail.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Simi Valley, CA
    Posts
    5,112
    Is there going to be a 186 Lhasa Fat for the lighter guys Pat?

  10. #10
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Posts
    29,098
    Sounds like we need to make one. We have a couple things in the hopper right now for pow skis and I think the 186 Lhasa Fat would be pretty damn popular. We'll be trying to get the new pow ski protos done for when the snow comes.

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Duluth
    Posts
    2,674
    I'm thinking my next pow ski is the 191 fat. I hope WHYTURN hates his and throws em up on gear swap cheap.
    If the shocker don't rock her, then Dr. Spock her. Dad.

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Tahoe
    Posts
    1,419
    From left to right:
    Head Monster 103 (traditional non-rockered tip from several years ago)
    DPS Wailer 105 (early-rise)
    Carbon Fat 191

    The tip looks perfect to me. Big enough to be unsinkable but not a big floppy rockered tip.

    I think the tip will be plenty big enough to make it unsinkable but not so big as to create instability or hookiness while skiing fast in soft snow or crud.

    Can't wait to actually try them out- Tahoe needs snow, now.


  13. #13
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Simi Valley, CA
    Posts
    5,112
    The tip wouldn't look so huge if the skis were mounted with alpine binders, that tiny Plum toe throws the tip out of proportion.

    Quote Originally Posted by splat View Post
    Sounds like we need to make one. We have a couple things in the hopper right now for pow skis and I think the 186 Lhasa Fat would be pretty damn popular. We'll be trying to get the new pow ski protos done for when the snow comes.
    I admit it, I felt a twinge of envy when I read that the 179 Fat is 140-114-130 and my 183 Fat is 136-112-126...but once I thought about it for a second I realized the 183 Fat doesn't need to be wider and it perfect the way it is. If it was wider I'd have even more ridiculous quiver overlap than I already do. (182 Drifters & first generation Sumos that are about a 181 by comparison)

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Tahoe
    Posts
    1,419
    I'm putting Binding Freedom inserts for Dynafit & FKS patterns in the skis- the second set hasn't been installed yet. This is the first pair of skis I've had that beg to be skied with both TLT5s and 130 flex alpine boots.

    Quote Originally Posted by 1000-oaks View Post
    The tip wouldn't look so huge if the skis were mounted with alpine binders, that tiny Plum toe throws the tip out of proportion.

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    647
    This was mine and my wife's first time on our lhasa's. All we have is man-made right now. I thought we'd just take them out and make sure the mounts were okay etc. But the skis simply killed it. They're just so much fun. The kind of ski that makes you want to never leave the hill. If they perform half as good in powder as they do on hardpack I'll be really impressed.

  16. #16
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    647
    Oh. I should add that my wife has named her skis the cookie monsters because they devour death cookies.

  17. #17
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    monument
    Posts
    5,340
    patches, what's your bsl?

    are you shifting your mount point +/- for one of the mounts?

    IIRC (which seems inlikely now) the toe holes had some conflict.
    In search of the elusive artic powder weasel ...

  18. #18
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    ...big fog
    Posts
    755
    those things look $$
    one step forward, no step backward

  19. #19
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Den/Baltimore
    Posts
    5,136
    Quote Originally Posted by Patches View Post
    Basically, 1875 grams for a 117 waisted 192 ski. I've been skiing DPS Pures for several years but no more- these are lighter than a Lotus 120 but have a better shape, better profile, better flex, and better finish.
    Wait, I'm confused. The weight listed on the PM gear website is 4.7 lbs/ski. The weight listed on the DPS website for Lotus 120 is 4.03 lb/ski. The weight you list is 4.13 lb/ski. (I converted to lbs because that's what's listed on the PM Gear website.)

    If these really are lighter, I'd consider picking up the pair of blems from Gear Swap. I just don't think that's the case based on the weights listed on the website. Did your pair weigh in at 1875 g? If so, I'll weigh my L120s...
    "Alpine rock and steep, deep powder are what I seek, and I will always find solace there." - Bean Bowers

    photos

  20. #20
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Tahoe
    Posts
    1,419
    Auvgeek- mine are all carbon (not listed on the PM Gear website).

    They weigh an actual 1875g for a 191 vs. a spec of 1830g for the Lotus 120s in 190. I remember my Lotuses being a couple ounces heavier than spec though I don't remember the exact number (it was pretty close, within a few percent). What's the actual weight on your 120s?

    But- the 191 Lhasa Pow is quite a bit burlier than a 190cm Lotus 120. Stiffer and less tip. I loved my 120s at moderate speeds but I felt the tip was too big and soft and would get hooky at high speed, plus it flapped around horribly on wind buff or other hard snow. I think the Lhasa Pow will have everything good the 120 had in pow and work a lot better in breakable crust, chop, windbuff or other weird snow types.

  21. #21
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Tahoe
    Posts
    1,419
    pfuffenmeister- IMHO (others disagree) the dynafit/FKS is a great combo for inserts as long as you don't drill the fifth dynafit toepiece hole. The FKS mount winds up a few mm forward relative to the dynafit mount. I can give actual measurements once I get it done. [EDIT: this opinion refers to the old hole pattern. The new Radical pattern is even better for FKS compatibility]

    Right now I ski TLT5s and Cochises in the Dynafit mount; the TLT5 lands 2mm forward of the recommended all-mountain line and the Cochise is 7mm behind it. Splat suggests 5mm back from the all-mountain line if uses for powpow only. Seems like a good compromise to me, it puts me farther back when I'm on my charger and forward on my nancyboy boots.

    I expect the FKS mount will put my Agent 130s about 5mm in front of the all-mountain line, which is as close as I can get it... no biggie I ski BC way more than inbounds these days.

    EDIT: You know... I've never played around with demo bindings to see how mount point changes the way a ski handles. For all I know I couldn't tell the difference between +/- 30 mm. I have no idea. Just trying to stay close to what the people who design the stuff say.
    Last edited by Patches; 12-20-2011 at 08:09 PM.

  22. #22
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Den/Baltimore
    Posts
    5,136
    Damn, that's a sick setup. I plan to do the same thing for Plum/FKS, but I haven't gotten around to playing with the toe pattern yet.
    "Alpine rock and steep, deep powder are what I seek, and I will always find solace there." - Bean Bowers

    photos

  23. #23
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    647


    Couple photos. I agonized over which ski to drop our hard earned coin on. Fortunately I had someone with first hand experience that I trust completely who had skied the Lhasa. Even his descriptions paled in comparison to the actual experience of riding this ski. And like I've said I only have hard pack experience. This ski is a rocket ship. So playful too. Smear, skid, carve. Do it all in the same turn. Such lineal predictable performance. If you've driven a BMW...


  24. #24
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Van City and Whistler
    Posts
    1,980
    Pat you and I need to talk about a 186 lhasa fat. I've been thinking about that ski for a long time.
    186 lhasa is the daily driver that kills it in every condition.
    186 lhasa fat is to add to the quiver for the truly deep days.

    Since its a more pow specific ski you increase all the dimensions by 10mm. So it becomes 150-122-130.
    The tip dimensions might come down just a touch because you make the shark nose tip start earlier. Further back on the ski than currently, i.e. more taper. You do that because you increase the rocker in the tip by a bit. The rocker should look exactly like the 191 fats in the pics above. That is more than the current 186 lhasa but seems perfect for the fatter more pow specific version.
    Finally because it is more pow specific you go by the 196 lhasa tail and shave 2mms off the 186 tail so it is even more pintailish.
    150 (maybe minus a mm or 2 because of increased taper and rocker)-122-128 becomes the finished dimensions.

    Keep all the other lhasa characteristics the same. A few mms of camber underfoot and through the tail. More than that and the ski starts to loose its playfulness.
    Keep it stiff.
    Make it those ridiculous clear sexy carbon topsheets.

    In retrospect those 191 fats look amazing. Make the 186 even fatter with more taper in the tip and even more pintaily and you have my ultimate pow weapon.

    The characteristics of the regular lhasa are just so damn good compared to everything else I've tried its hard to stray far from that base.

  25. #25
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Zion
    Posts
    1,770
    Are these identical to last years 191 fats but just more carbon? If so, they slay everything.

    How much different would the 186 fat and 187 fats be? Other than the sidecut?

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •