for you guys who do your own tuning what edge angle you running? mine seem to ski great on soft snow and soft packed but hit hardpack and they feel to edgy
for you guys who do your own tuning what edge angle you running? mine seem to ski great on soft snow and soft packed but hit hardpack and they feel to edgy
I had 181 thugs last year, got 192 thugs this year, they're a sick pow ski. I shed a tear for them... they're rockered now.![]()
have found a few pairs of 07 for under 500
worth getting?
I am 5'9 175, skiing 177 volkl bridges, seriously thinking about these for pow days
the ones I found are 181, eveyrone says these ski short but Im petrified to be at 192, for one i think thats fucking huge, two I think it will just butcher my skiing on the bridges which I do plan to use on those crap days.....
will 181 work?
This forum is all "get the biggest ski you can." But really, if you are going for a pow ski with a waist as big as the thug, why not have it in a length that will utilize that. I am 5 10 170 and have the 192, it does ski short. Other than steep, tight tree skiing, it is AMAZING!
I realy love my 181 these were my everday bird ski last year and they handled everthing well except ice. I still liked my shamans better in pow and in spring condtions but othere than that these ski are great all around.
If ski companies didn't make new skis every year I wouldn't have to get new skis every year.
www.levelninesports.com
http://skiingyeti.blogspot.com/
They are both sick. I am 6.3 185 and love both lengths, both 5 cm forward of the trad. mount. pay attention to the sidewalls though.
I am 5'8" 190, i need to drop a few lbs. Love the ski and in that length, but I would like to try the 192 some time.
If ski companies didn't make new skis every year I wouldn't have to get new skis every year.
www.levelninesports.com
http://skiingyeti.blogspot.com/
Yeah, I'm 5'9 171..but last january when I was logging the most days, I was at 205!!! I can't wait to see how different my skiing is on the 177 bridges at 170-175...losing 30lbs might be the best change to my skiiing.
So it sounds like the 181s, being 100 dollars cheaper, and the fact that I feel more comfortable with the idea of them, aren't a bad way to go... I just feel like a shorter ski will be nimbler, for me, even though that might defy conventional logic of the members around here.....
What is everybodies mount position....and if not on the factory mount line....why/how has it changed the feel of this PARTICULAR ski.
thanks guys, keep the good info coming. learning too much
Sidewalls: just make sure you spot any issues before they get bad. The thugs tend to crack on the walls/edges with shots to the base. These are initially cosmetic issues but can compound into greater problems if left untreated (similar to the M103).
Soooo, I am 5'10" and 210lbs...are you calling me fat?
I have skied my best bud's Thugs in a 192, and I would NOT go shorter then that for me. They felt shorter then my 190 Katana's...much shorter. The mount point (even the freeride line) on the Thug's is still rather far forward on the ski compared to others.
This forum is not about the longest, fattest ski you can get...it is about skis that match the type of skiing a lot of us do. I would tell you right now to try different things out, and demo demo demo.
A 192 thug is a VERY different ski then the 181 IMHO...just like the 183 Katana felt like a truly different ski then the 190...I tried both, and settled on the 190.
AND, after reading your first post in this thread: http://www.tetongravity.com/forums/s...d.php?t=127834
You are going to want the 192 moving out here...
Just my $.02
Last edited by PowTron; 07-22-2008 at 02:54 PM.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^
What ski did you like better the thugs or katana's? How did they compare?
i mean im 5 9 on a tall day, probably closer 5'8 and only weigh 171 now. I want to want the 192s but my head is keeping me focused on the 181s....
i guess the question is, the 181s will obviously fit, they won't be too short, i mean im on 177 bridges right now, but what will be the difference in how the ski (specifically a thug) skis in the 181 versus the 192.....i just feel like the 192s will be a lot for me to whip around in tight trees, but i say that not out of any knowledge but speculative imagination.
I own the Katana's....I don't own the Thugs
The Katana to me just felt a little less turny, and a little nicer in pow due to the flat camber and slight nose rocker.
Everytime I drop something on my Katana's, I am a little leary I am going to turn around and the "swallow tail" is going to be gone, but so far so good!
The Thugs are nice, don't get me wrong...but for the type of ski I wanted, the Katana was just better for me. The Thugs have a higher tail, too...they released well, but again...The Katana 190 just fit the bill for me better.
Read my last post in your other thread:
http://www.tetongravity.com/forums/s...=127834&page=3
^^^^^^
How do the Katanas work in tighter trees? Thanks for the comparison!
Bookmarks