Results 51 to 57 of 57
Thread: Where'd the heavy skis go?
-
08-23-2020, 07:39 PM #51
I’ve got 2 pairs of the 186 and a pair of the “Spur’d” 193s.
If a deal came along on a pair of 196s I’d get them in an instant. At first I thought the 196 would be hudge, but after spending time on the 186 and 193, I’m not concerned about the larger size anymore.
Sent from inside the house
-
11-09-2020, 10:31 PM #52
Man remember the motherships. Those were awesome. OG wrens, made in Germany katanas.
What’s out there like that now? 110-113, really stiff and powerful but not dead?Do I detect a lot of anger flowing around this place? Kind of like a pubescent volatility, some angst, a lot of I'm-sixteen-and-angry-at-my-father syndrome?
fuck that noise.
gmen.
-
11-09-2020, 10:40 PM #53
-
11-10-2020, 11:32 AM #54Registered User
- Join Date
- Nov 2011
- Posts
- 2,478
Most skis were heavy because of manufacturing, not that people actually needed a heavy ski to sideslip a couloir and traverse. Backcountry advanced manufacturing and trickled down lighter construction.
-
11-10-2020, 02:09 PM #55Registered User
- Join Date
- Feb 2019
- Posts
- 343
-
11-10-2020, 02:40 PM #56
Horses for courses. My 197 Katanas rule on a typical cut up chop day at Mammoth, but my more modern skis eg GPOs kick ass billy goating at the wood. The nice thing about the beefy metal lam skis is you build up a few pairs and kinda feel like you’re set for the next decade or so. Durable.
On a related note I’m thinking of selling my 193 Husumes. Too many 108-120 skis in the quiver.
-
11-10-2020, 03:34 PM #57
I don't think I'll ever part with my last gen Pettitors. No metal but that nice dense wood core gets me through the chop like nothing else. Cadillacs.
Bookmarks