soooo how stiff is the new chronic 94 actually? Reviews have been very contradictory! Some compre it to the Prodigy, others say they are softer than the TWP (which on its own is softer than the prodigy)? Some say they are stiff only underfoot but very soft in tips and tails, others say they are stiff overall. Anyone here tested them already?
Chronic 94 flex
- Thread starter snowpig
- Start date
tomfoolery
Member
i would compare the line chronics to a piece of burnt toast covered in nutella looks good but really meh
never tried an sfb 
had the arv96 and sold them cause they were too stiff and no fun, especialy tips and tails were rock solid
i ride the blends mostly but some days i do need stiffer skis , i.e. when it’s icy, just the arv96 was way too much. I am now looking at the new chronic, so trying to figure out the flex. Soothski has no measurements on them yet.
had the arv96 and sold them cause they were too stiff and no fun, especialy tips and tails were rock solid
i ride the blends mostly but some days i do need stiffer skis , i.e. when it’s icy, just the arv96 was way too much. I am now looking at the new chronic, so trying to figure out the flex. Soothski has no measurements on them yet.
Bananaredbull
Member
14556403:snowpig said:never tried an sfb
had the arv96 and sold them cause they were too stiff and no fun, especialy tips and tails were rock solid
i ride the blends mostly but some days i do need stiffer skis , i.e. when it’s icy, just the arv96 was way too much. I am now looking at the new chronic, so trying to figure out the flex. Soothski has no measurements on them yet.
Lmfao i have a sfb and live in bulgaria
Bananaredbull
Member
14556447:yaskata said:Lmfao i have a sfb and live in bulgaria
The tips and tails are soooo fun, soft ski, but its great, they are great for pow and butters, jibbing and fun in NON ICY SNOW, but for other stuff they just arent great, like im scared to ski them on rails and they feel like plastic on ice and when going fast.
14556236:Juviticus said:
14556420:21CABBAGE said:
as I am planning to order I have been wandering what size to get. Nose-level or forehead-level?
Not really a fan of very long skis and I don't do big jumps to need the stability that much. I believe my sweet spot size is around eye-level, which is ~175, but the options here are 171 and 178, which come at nose and forehead respectively.
How is the running length on the new chronics? Do they feel shorter/longer than their size? I would guess with the soft tips/tails and the long rocker they feel shorter and I should be fine on 178?
I plan on mounting -2 from true center, which is my usual mounting
Juviticus
Member
14560180:snowpig said:as I am planning to order I have been wandering what size to get. Nose-level or forehead-level?
Not really a fan of very long skis and I don't do big jumps to need the stability that much. I believe my sweet spot size is around eye-level, which is ~175, but the options here are 171 and 178, which come at nose and forehead respectively.
How is the running length on the new chronics? Do they feel shorter/longer than their size? I would guess with the soft tips/tails and the long rocker they feel shorter and I should be fine on 178?
I plan on mounting -2 from true center, which is my usual mounting
I always lean on the taller size personally, but if you're not doing all mountain, you'll be able to size down if that's what you prefer
If you plan to ski them outside of the park, go for the bigger size. It's still a soft ski, so it can be a bit hard to stay on top of the ski if your skiing moguls, carving, etc therefore a shorter ski would make it even worse in those conditions. If it's strictly for park, go as short as you want.
Chronics 94 in 178 are already with me. I haven't skied them yet, hopefully in 2-3 weeks, but:
- they are definitely not stiff! Softer than prodigy or the arv96.
- design seems similar to Blends actually, side profile is same, just a bit thicker.They are stiff exactly underfoot and progressively softening towards the tips/tails, i don't feel a big hinge point, flex seems pretty much progressive. So if they do feel like stiffer blends it will be perfect for me as this is exactly what I was looking for.
They are about 100 gr lighter (each ski) than online specs, so they feel light and the swing weight seems to be veeery low.
Overall I think it's good I went for the 178, 171 wouldn't have given enough difference from my Blends to justify having them.
- they are definitely not stiff! Softer than prodigy or the arv96.
- design seems similar to Blends actually, side profile is same, just a bit thicker.They are stiff exactly underfoot and progressively softening towards the tips/tails, i don't feel a big hinge point, flex seems pretty much progressive. So if they do feel like stiffer blends it will be perfect for me as this is exactly what I was looking for.
They are about 100 gr lighter (each ski) than online specs, so they feel light and the swing weight seems to be veeery low.
Overall I think it's good I went for the 178, 171 wouldn't have given enough difference from my Blends to justify having them.
lil.Boye
Active member
Tried the chronic 101 this spring. Heard that they are generally the same ski but wider. Atleast, the ski felt a little plasticky, but got used to the feeling. After i got over it they were a nice rounded fatter park ski, really stable on rails and fun to butter.
they felt a bit stiffer than i expected, but that might have been because i have ridden wets all season.
the owner was on his first pair even after filming street and hotlapping all spring
they felt a bit stiffer than i expected, but that might have been because i have ridden wets all season.
the owner was on his first pair even after filming street and hotlapping all spring