Foam vs wood

[madcrazy_skier]

hey i own a pair of teneighties with power foam and am about to buy tanner hall armadas. what's the big difference between wood and foam cores??????

 

[VKarma185]

foam is dead and not very resposive(compared to wood) whereas wood completely kicks foams ass all over the mountain

 

[montageskier]

Wood cores hold up longer then foam cores.

 

[cannonlover69]

ya foam sucks ass

 

[johanblaze]

foam is much lighter than wood though.

 

[skisquaw@420]

wood, because it is natural, can be inconsistent but has more life and is heavier

 

[lechef]

defff woooddd

 

[cool_catskier]

wow! this is my exact situation, ive got 1080's and im gettin rid of them and gettin ar5s. thats weird.

 

[winterkid33]

foam is lighter just as strong and more reliable............ for the first lil bit....... then the chemical bonds holding the foam together deteriorate and ur left with a flacid soft non responsive ski after 3-16 months (depending how hard you ride). wood weighs a lil more but will not deteriorate it will stay just as strong forever and its more springy. and its natrual so if you get lost in the woods for a long time you can eat ur skis core, i hear the poplar cores in lines can be quite good with some A.1. steak sauce Im not a fan of foam cause to me its a cheap tricky marketing sceme, people demo foam core skis love em, buy em, they get soft and the ski sucks and its artificial