Page 2 of 11 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 ... LastLast
Results 26 to 50 of 252
  1. #26
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Simi Valley, CA
    Posts
    5,150
    Love the idea of plus 10mm all around (maybe even more than +10mm at the waist, probably don't need that much sidecut), a tip longer than 350mm, and zero camber. It would be a pretty specialized pow stick after all, might as well go all the way.

  2. #27
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Posts
    29,184
    Yes, they're the same with more trippy carbon, piggity. The carbon on the all carbons like Patches' pair is the same aeronautical carbon weave used on the Boeing 787 Dreamliner. It's so tech that we were told that if any of our cloth ended up in Iran, we'd do time.

    The very different sidecuts make for very different rides and they're all great. 187 Bro Fats and 191 Lhasa Fats are my personal pics. And the 192. If I feel like going really fast, the 196 Lhasa. Flipping around from ski to ski and the different shapes from semi pintail to trad sidecuts, I feel the difference, but I don't ever notice the change that much, just adjust to it.

  3. #28
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Zion
    Posts
    1,770
    That TripPy carbon is my kinda trip, sexy too. About 12 days til I get those 187 fats in some snow, although I won't be able give them a true test due to my gimpiness.

    For those in this post with 191 fats, the ski is redonkulously versatile. Its so much more than a pow ski, make sure to drive the ski and stay in the front seat, otherwise hold on for the ride.

  4. #29
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    499
    Splat; would it be possible to make a 191 fat a bit softer? There is one season left in my white/orange Megawatt tele-pow-sticks, and I'm looking for a ski with similar float and long sidecut, but a bit stiffer / better in crud. Considering both hybrid/carbon at this time, and I love that the fats have sort of the same sidecut profile with a tighter sidecut in the front and a pretty straight tail.
    I'm not really sure I need a softer ski, but a lot of people say that you have to drive the tips and stay forward on the lhasas. I guess what I'm asking is if the fats will be more of a big-mountain charger compared to the 'watts. If anyone who has tele'd on both 'watts and lhasas; feel free to chime in.
    I'm around 185, and a pretty ok skier, but tend to / like to lean back and slarve when teleing

  5. #30
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Seattle
    Posts
    6,042
    How come the 187 fats aren't on the website? Was just poking around there for kicks.

    Are the 187 fats the traditional Bro shape or the Lhasa shape?
    ...Some will fall in love with life and drink it from a fountain that is pouring like an avalanche coming down the mountain...

    "I enjoy skinny skiing, bullfights on acid..." - Lacy Underalls

    The problems we face will not be solved by the minds that created them.

  6. #31
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Posts
    29,184
    The 187 Fats were the last ski we pressed and we're still finishing them up so I can get a photo and description on the website, CW.

  7. #32
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Hugh's Mom's House
    Posts
    11,835
    Do you have any stickers with the "BRO" in Arabic or whatever it is? Because I would totally buy some.

  8. #33
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Posts
    29,184
    Sorry, Rootskier, just the FKNA stickers....

  9. #34
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Middlebury, VT
    Posts
    1,980
    Quote Originally Posted by sf View Post
    Splat; would it be possible to make a 191 fat a bit softer? There is one season left in my white/orange Megawatt tele-pow-sticks, and I'm looking for a ski with similar float and long sidecut, but a bit stiffer / better in crud. Considering both hybrid/carbon at this time, and I love that the fats have sort of the same sidecut profile with a tighter sidecut in the front and a pretty straight tail.
    I'm not really sure I need a softer ski, but a lot of people say that you have to drive the tips and stay forward on the lhasas. I guess what I'm asking is if the fats will be more of a big-mountain charger compared to the 'watts. If anyone who has tele'd on both 'watts and lhasas; feel free to chime in.
    I'm around 185, and a pretty ok skier, but tend to / like to lean back and slarve when teleing
    Forward stance has more to do with the shape than the flex. High-taper skis like to have their, ahem, tips....driven.....
    "I know you believe you understand what you think I said, but I am not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant."- Alan Greenspan

  10. #35
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Posts
    29,184
    Cool thing about the 191 Fats is that they have 1-1.5 mm more in the tail. When we did the 191 Lhasas with 2 mm more in the tail, people missed the slarvy way the 186 Lhasas skied, so we changed the tail from 122 down to 120 and it skis better that way. The tail on the 191 Fats, which are pretty much 4 mm fatter all the way around, is 125.5, or 1.5 mm more than the 124 they would be if they were based off the 140-112-120 profile of the thinner tailed Lhasa. For whatever reason this tail dim works really well on the fatter version. It's not quite the fatter tailed regular Lhasa dim and it's not the thinner tailed Lhasa dim. It's somewhere in between, just right to make a hudge dif in the ski. Not the first time I've seen a day and night difference in the way a ski behaves from a 1 mm difference in the profile. This tail on the 191 Fat allows you to have a centered, even a backish stance if you want, with comfort and hold. The tails don't wash out at all, but release easily on demand.


    Quote Originally Posted by sf View Post
    Splat; would it be possible to make a 191 fat a bit softer? There is one season left in my white/orange Megawatt tele-pow-sticks, and I'm looking for a ski with similar float and long sidecut, but a bit stiffer / better in crud. Considering both hybrid/carbon at this time, and I love that the fats have sort of the same sidecut profile with a tighter sidecut in the front and a pretty straight tail.
    I'm not really sure I need a softer ski, but a lot of people say that you have to drive the tips and stay forward on the lhasas. I guess what I'm asking is if the fats will be more of a big-mountain charger compared to the 'watts. If anyone who has tele'd on both 'watts and lhasas; feel free to chime in.
    I'm around 185, and a pretty ok skier, but tend to / like to lean back and slarve when teleing
    See my answer above; but to answer your original question - yes, we can adjust flex and usually make different flexes on most of the skis because people always ask for different things. If someone worries about the flex, I'll tell them to flex their skis when they arrive and if they're too soft or stiff, send them back and we'll get them what they want. The all carbons will get upgraded to some even trippier cloth soon. Right now, since we just sold out of all carbons, we can build the flex to order when we start a new run.

  11. #36
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    499
    Splat; thanks. As I said, it will be a spring/summer purchase for me, but anyhow, the more I think about it I'll just go for the standard fats. I was surprised by how the superbros handled, so I'll take my chances with the fats as well

    On another note; planning anything shorter, but pow-specific for the girls? I know a 169 lhasa, maybe around 108 in the waist, would be the ticket for my girlfriend

  12. #37
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Zion
    Posts
    1,770
    On another note; planning anything shorter, but pow-specific for the girls?
    https://www.tetongravity.com/forums/s...ckest-ski-ever!!!

  13. #38
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    499
    ^ I know, was thinking of something a bit shorter. There was a 164 bro a few years ago, as well as a 169.

  14. #39
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Zion
    Posts
    1,770
    Gotcha, didn't know if u saw those before

  15. #40
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Posts
    29,184
    sf - every year people ask us to make shorter skis. But the sales barely justify the effort. The 179 Lhasas have rock solid rave reviews from the people (mostly women) who are skiing them. They have a 164 effective edge, so they ski very well for people who were on 165 range skis previously. If we were in more shops, the numbers would likely change. But I have become wary of how short we go based on the requests of mags for shorter skis.

    I was recently talking about this with someone and it appears that kids and women, unlike the majority of adult male maggots, don't buy that many skis on the interwebz.

  16. #41
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    crown of the continent
    Posts
    13,955
    Quote Originally Posted by splat View Post
    It's not quite the fatter tailed regular Lhasa dim and it's not the thinner tailed Lhasa dim. It's somewhere in between, just right to make a hudge dif in the ski. Not the first time I've seen a day and night difference in the way a ski behaves from a 1 mm difference in the profile. This tail on the 191 Fat allows you to have a centered, even a backish stance if you want, with comfort and hold. The tails don't wash out at all, but release easily on demand.
    Heh, tried to tell you the wider tail on my old school Lhasa's worked really well, everywhere, on any kind of snow...
    Something about the wrinkle in your forehead tells me there's a fit about to get thrown
    And I never hear a single word you say when you tell me not to have my fun
    It's the same old shit that I ain't gonna take off anyone.
    and I never had a shortage of people tryin' to warn me about the dangers I pose to myself.

    Patterson Hood of the DBT's

  17. #42
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Wasatch
    Posts
    5,132
    Fuel for the stoke fire - Just put a fresh wax on em over the weekend, ready for snow........



    I need to go to Utah.
    Utah?
    Yeah, Utah. It's wedged in between Wyoming and Nevada. You've seen pictures of it, right?

    So after 15 years we finally made it to Utah.....


    Thanks BCSAR and POWMOW Ski Patrol for rescues

    8, 17, 13, 18, 16, 18, 20, 19, 16

    2018/2019 (24/32)

  18. #43
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Posts
    29,184
    Hurry up and go skiing, wouldja, whyturn!?!

  19. #44
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Zion
    Posts
    1,770
    waxing 191's right now

  20. #45
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Den/Baltimore
    Posts
    5,129
    So I bought the last pair of all-carbons 191s that spat had for sale. I cannot believe the level of customer service from him and his company. Way exceeded any of my expectations. I was waffling a little bit on everything from length to which ski to get for a number of reasons. spat was super patient, answered all my questions, called me immediately when I thought things were getting too hard to explain over email, and just did a great job of putting up with my indecisive, womanly bullshit. He even held the skis for a few days until I was 100% sure they were what I wanted.

    I'm usually not quite this bad about picking skis, but there weren't any reviews and I've been having serious quiver re-thinking lately with the lack of snow and my damn hamstring still bugging me.

    I'll post a full review after I get some miles on them, but right now I'm like a little kid at Christmas.

    Thanks mang!
    "Alpine rock and steep, deep powder are what I seek, and I will always find solace there." - Bean Bowers

    photos

  21. #46
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Wenatchee
    Posts
    7,697
    Quote Originally Posted by sf View Post
    Splat; would it be possible to make a 191 fat a bit softer? There is one season left in my white/orange Megawatt tele-pow-sticks, and I'm looking for a ski with similar float and long sidecut, but a bit stiffer / better in crud. Considering both hybrid/carbon at this time, and I love that the fats have sort of the same sidecut profile with a tighter sidecut in the front and a pretty straight tail.
    I'm not really sure I need a softer ski, but a lot of people say that you have to drive the tips and stay forward on the lhasas. I guess what I'm asking is if the fats will be more of a big-mountain charger compared to the 'watts. If anyone who has tele'd on both 'watts and lhasas; feel free to chime in.
    I'm around 185, and a pretty ok skier, but tend to / like to lean back and slarve when teleing
    I haven't skied the 191 fats, but I own the 191 Lhasas. I have skied 188 Megawatts and Lhasas tele. The Megawatt is a great powders ski but it is very heavy compared to my Lhasas. I would give the edge to the Megawatts in truly bottomless pow but the Lhasas rule in every thing else. I find the MWs really unwieldy on firmer snow and bumpy snow. The Lhasas ski hard snow very well and are just a really fun easy ski. You can slarve your turns but they really shine when skied forward and driving them. I use them as my everyday ski. I'm 6'4" and 210#.

  22. #47
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    499
    Quote Originally Posted by splat View Post
    sf - every year people ask us to make shorter skis. But the sales barely justify the effort. The 179 Lhasas have rock solid rave reviews from the people (mostly women) who are skiing them. They have a 164 effective edge, so they ski very well for people who were on 165 range skis previously. If we were in more shops, the numbers would likely change. But I have become wary of how short we go based on the requests of mags for shorter skis.

    I was recently talking about this with someone and it appears that kids and women, unlike the majority of adult male maggots, don't buy that many skis on the interwebz.
    Yeah, just didn't think of it that way. Definitively still have the fats on my list.

    ^^Aaron, thanks. I guess that's what I thought, and I totally agree on your mw-comment. You are a bit heavier than me so I'll have to take that into consideration. How would you compare the flex on the lhasas to the megawatts? By the way, which megawatts did you ski? White, blue, new?

  23. #48
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Vail
    Posts
    630
    I've had the 179 Lhasa Pows since January 2011 and have been meaning to write a review, but english isn't really my specialty and I have a problem with getting really busy in RL before I have a chance to share when I'm stoked /blog

    Anyhow, I recently picked up a pair of 183 Bros to replace my every day all mountain skis. The 183 BRO's are STIFF, which is proving nice for hard packed groomer days. I wouldn't recommend getting the Lhasa's softer (unless the 191 are that different?) mine are perfect for tele. I love the 179 Lhasa's and wouldn't give them up easily, but I did get them for powder and adventuring through tight trees at which they excel. I was leaping off small things (I'm just a local yokel, not a pro) and pointing the fall line better than ever before on the Lhasa's on pow days last year. love the shape and can't get over how easy and fun they are to slay pow with. For now I don't think I need/want the extra length in soft snow. If I was making "big mountain turns" all day somewhere uncrowded with big vertical, longer would help. I was really surprised how light the Lhasa Pows were, seemed noticeably lighter than my now retired Armada ARV 175. I'm on NTN now and never liked the feel of the few Black Diamond boards I demoed years ago, so factor that in, but hopefully this provides some useful perspective for you.

  24. #49
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Posts
    29,184
    Yo, PowTrees! You now have more time on the 179 Lhasas than just about anyone. Glad to hear they've held their charm. I just put up a sale on the carbon tops in Gear Swap. $800 shipped, in case anyone wants to sport the look and feel the power.

  25. #50
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Den/Baltimore
    Posts
    5,129
    Quote Originally Posted by PowTrees View Post
    I've had the 179 Lhasa Pows since January 2011 and have been meaning to write a review, but english isn't really my specialty and I have a problem with getting really busy in RL before I have a chance to share when I'm stoked /blog

    Anyhow, I recently picked up a pair of 183 Bros to replace my every day all mountain skis. The 183 BRO's are STIFF, which is proving nice for hard packed groomer days. I wouldn't recommend getting the Lhasa's softer (unless the 191 are that different?) mine are perfect for tele. I love the 179 Lhasa's and wouldn't give them up easily, but I did get them for powder and adventuring through tight trees at which they excel. I was leaping off small things (I'm just a local yokel, not a pro) and pointing the fall line better than ever before on the Lhasa's on pow days last year. love the shape and can't get over how easy and fun they are to slay pow with. For now I don't think I need/want the extra length in soft snow. If I was making "big mountain turns" all day somewhere uncrowded with big vertical, longer would help. I was really surprised how light the Lhasa Pows were, seemed noticeably lighter than my now retired Armada ARV 175. I'm on NTN now and never liked the feel of the few Black Diamond boards I demoed years ago, so factor that in, but hopefully this provides some useful perspective for you.
    Nice review. And your English is better than the average American high schooler. Care to post your height and weight?
    "Alpine rock and steep, deep powder are what I seek, and I will always find solace there." - Bean Bowers

    photos

Posting Permissions

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