Search results

Don't go over 180 on your first pair if you're new to skiing, you won't be able to turn them, I would say look in the 170-180 range.

The lifter plate can be removed and shorter screws are easy to come by.

Do you have a high arch? If you do, your foot might be supported by the boots, causing your arch to collaspe, this can pinch of the nerves. Heard of carpal tunnel syndrom, well, this is called tarsal tunnel. If it's the case, a good arch support will do the trick.

Kirkwood has a cat skiing operation

6'2 190, 182 Foils, 188 Bros, 186 Spatulas, and 188 axis xps

Um, most of the reverse camber skis are twins, Spats, ARG, Lotus...and with the reverse camber, the tail height is actually greater than a traditional twin. The pontoon is a twin, though I can see problems trying to land backwards on a ski with that much taper, but it would throw a sweet roster...

Torsinal rigidity? You're going to get a lot slop out of that binding on that ski. I don't know your size, but I can't imagine you skiing 130's at a max din of 8. Where there's a will there is a way.

go big, if it's a purely pow ski, think about an unconventional shape, they're so fun.

Without a doubt the rampages, I would say the spk but they don't have fuzzy liner.

1 million dollars!

Mount them back. Though i'm going to agree with someone up above, the AR5 isn't exactly a prime ski to go BC with, i suppose they're light, easy to hike with. But you might consider something bigger, and at the very least not centermounted.

I have to agree, it really is the biggest advancement in skis in recent years. And I've been waiting for someone to build a snowboard like that, does it have reverse sidecut too? If so I might have to pick up snowboarding

Somebody is going to say "salomon bindings suck" That person does not know how to properly adjust their bindings, you just have to tighten up the wing screw occasionally. To your question, depends on your weight and how you ski. I'm guessing you're a little guy, 810 is the cheap option...

I know I break the rule, but I'm a 'bigger' guy (6'2 190) and I ride the 182 foils. They're my park ski, perfect in the park for me actually, but I certainly wish they longer and stiffer outside of the park. Fortunately I have other skis.

P.S. those aren't first generation 1080's either.

179 bro model or as we like to call it the 'ho' model. iggy gave a nice summary on shape. If it's a powder ski, go straight, less sidecut. My person preference is for the unconventional shapes that are out now. Two seasons on Spats has opened my eyes. Obviously a powder specific ski isn't...

having owned both, get the foils, they're fun every where. I haven't skied the new stl's, but I hated my old ones, much to soft for anything but park.

You're right, I haven't skied them, have you? But I have skied snowbird, all of it. A ski with a fat soft tip and a huge amount of sidecut is going to suck in crud. 90% of snowbird is crud, 90% of the time. That's what happens when you average over 500 inches of snow at one of the mountains...

I'm telling you, thats a mistake.

If you ski Snowbird do not get these skis, you'll hate them. No way a ski that shape is going to be any fun on days it doesn't snow at that mountain. Imagine trying to take a bump run on them, imagine chopped crud. They're going to bounce all over the place. Sure the flex is probably fine...