Companies dropping longer 190+ skis.

[bennwithtwons]

God damnit I fucked the numbers way up.

5'5.5" = 65.5 inch x 2.54 = 166.37cm

166.37/194=0.8575 =85.75% height.

6'4" is 85.75% of a 225 cm ski.

I was way off. I'm not drunk or anything, just obviously retarded.

haha for a second i thought someone was calling you out for doing bad math and was about to come to your defense when you correctly stated 225cm. only then did i realize it was you that called yourself out. good save!

 

[shin-bang]

Ride moment. Listen to slayer.

Same boat as you OP and snagged some 194 moments. Just FYI they are equivalent to on3ps 191s.

 

[Youngm_IPCME]

My girl rides 170 with a traditional mount and our boot center to tip dimensions is very close. I just gain all that length in the tail because mine are mounted much farther forward. We need to rethink ski sizes for twin tips, as the intended use, and therefore mounting location, is very different from the norm.

I might just not understand this at all but are you saying you mount ~+15 from center on pow skis? I get wanting to land switch in pow, but wouldn't a mount that extreme be pretty detrimental to the performance in powder?

 

[bennwithtwons]

It depends what you mean by center. I typically reference true center, rather than the ‘center’ many brands use, which lands at the narrowest part of the ski. So yes, I am in front of the waist of the ski but still behind true center. I use a more conservative mount for touring skis and more aggressive mount for park. All of them work well for me

I might just not understand this at all but are you saying you mount ~+15 from center on pow skis? I get wanting to land switch in pow, but wouldn't a mount that extreme be pretty detrimental to the performance in powder?

 

[amccahill93]

Spent a lot of time looking at both these skis on the ship wall winter but never got to ride them. The declivity is so much stiffer than I thought itd be based on the weight. If you had to choose between the two for hard charging resort pow (so maybe some hardpack and crud mixed in) which would you go for

I definitely think the Tracer 118 195 should be in this conversation, an excellent ski for people that dig a lot of running length. It's a ski that I'm pumped to have in my quiver and use often. It's an obvious choice for bigger people but definitely a good choice for anyone that likes a bigger stick too, because it's not punishing in this length at all, smooth and damp with a very manageable weight both overall and swing.

The Declivity X 192 is also a rock solid 190+ stick with minimal tail rocker and lots of effective edge.

 

[BigPurpleSkiSuit]

[tag=146107]@TLigare[/tag]- to factor into your ski recommendation

I know I sound like a total fanboy, but I don't care, I just love watching Aiden ski[video]https://vimeo.com/341087830[/video]

 

[amccahill93]

Dude you are way too nice. Hope you make it to watch some games of RIDGE this winter

[tag=146107]@TLigare[/tag] - to factor into your ski recommendation

I know I sound like a total fanboy, but I don't care, I just love watching Aiden ski[video]https://vimeo.com/341087830[/video]

 

[DesertStix]

Bridger looks insane like it would send me home at the end of the day feeling like the biggest bitch. The chute with the boulder sticking out at head-height made me clench my butt hole just watching it

[tag=146107]@TLigare[/tag] - to factor into your ski recommendation

I know I sound like a total fanboy, but I don't care, I just love watching Aiden ski[video]https://vimeo.com/341087830[/video]

**This post was edited on Jul 28th 2020 at 11:57:45am

 

[BigPurpleSkiSuit]

[tag=3025]@iggyskier[/tag] put some kids molds together, and make the next big thing in twin tip skis?

God damnit I fucked the numbers way up.

5'5.5" = 65.5 inch x 2.54 = 166.37cm

166.37/194=0.8575 =85.75% height.

6'4" is 85.75% of a 225 cm ski.

I was way off. I'm not drunk or anything, just obviously retarded.

 

[anders_a]

I definitely think the Tracer 118 195 should be in this conversation, an excellent ski for people that dig a lot of running length. It's a ski that I'm pumped to have in my quiver and use often. It's an obvious choice for bigger people but definitely a good choice for anyone that likes a bigger stick too, because it's not punishing in this length at all, smooth and damp with a very manageable weight both overall and swing.

The Declivity X 192 is also a rock solid 190+ stick with minimal tail rocker and lots of effective edge.

Care to write a few lines on thoose 2 skis and more how you feel they are? both good an bad

how burly is the declivity X? of the more burly stuff I've skied is mantra 102, and briefly enforcer 115 both for grooemers and their inteded freeride use. I have trouble shutting down speed especially if terrain is tight on the mantra

 

[.squirrely.]

Tall folks, got a pair of 189cm (really like 192) 2011 Kung fujas if anyone wants them. 102 underfoot full camber ripping super stable all mtn ski. In really good shape for the age but 2 mounts one for pivot 1cm back 305bsl, other was way back for a marker I think. Going back to shreditor 102s for my park ski and have too many skis to keep these

$100 in utah or plus shipping