Fujatives?

jibbles

jibbles

Member
are the fujatives really that bad at all mountain or powder? i skied a pair of elan airtwists till their death in all mountain and in the park. if the fujatives are better than the airtwists i think i can handle them.[never buy airtwists!]

 
they're just *a little* better

/sarcasm

I have a pair of 179s on their way to me. Oh, they will be mine oh so soon.

Dunno about all-mountain, I didn't buy 'em for all-mountain. I'll post about 'em once I get out on 'em.

ns ogre crew

ns gear geek
 
if you want an allmountain ski, don't get the fujatives, get the pe, don't even think about price when buying skis cause you have to get the right ski for you, just cause it's cheaper doesn't mean it's a deal

Seize the carp
 
Fujative is way too soft for all-mountain. If you want something more versatile, get the Public Enemy.

_______________________

Why ya gotta work against?
 
the only twin that i would say is 'the best' at all mountain would be the head mad trix. and the kick ass in the park, so, why even consider anything else.

originally posted by chris_64_impala : why do u need a fat ski? huh fatty? yeah thats right u like the chocoalte
 
ok. but what size? i'm thinking the 169 but if i'm going to be going fast and carving big turns should i go for the 179. oh yeah, i'm about 5'6' and 130. i'm probably going to grow and i don't get as much new ski equiment as i would like.

 
169 def for 5'9', K2 measures the running length of their skis, so you're looking at like a 172 overall length ski with K2's 169

But bigger is always steezier, so if you want the 179, get it... your call, I know a guy who is 5'9' and skis the 181 1080 and busts huge on it

ns ogre crew

ns gear geek
 
'169 def for 5'9', K2 measures the running length of their skis, so you're looking at like a 172 overall length ski with K2's 169 '

.....negative

 
just get the fuckin fujatives all these kids that think they kno what they are talkin about have never ridden the fujatives so just get them my friend rides them and he says that they work just fine in the powder.

 
you just contradicted your complaint.

originally posted by chris_64_impala : why do u need a fat ski? huh fatty? yeah thats right u like the chocoalte
 
^Haha snafu just said not to listen to people telling the guy to buy stuff they haven't tried, and then he says to buy them cause his friend said they're good...

 
I just got my pair of 179s and they are fucking sick. They're butter machines. i've got them mounted pretty much centered and i was still ripping through a foot of pow yesterday. But basically, if you are a halfway decent skier, you shouldn't have a problem handling them.

 
The Fujatives are a sick ski! I just got mine and I love them! They ski the groomers fine, and the pow. But if you get into heavier crud they start to become more work! the tip don't plow through the stuff as well as the PEs. but in the park there so much better! I have the 179s I love them.

 
because they didnt use the sidewalls like they did with the PE. and they probably reduced the price cuz they know that the kids out there using their skis arnt made out of money, that the kids need an affordable ski.

originally posted by chris_64_impala : why do u need a fat ski? huh fatty? yeah thats right u like the chocoalte
 
the next PE should be 85 mm waist.

Sponsored By Your Mom

Drop Cliff's, Not Bombs

Make Turns, Not War
 
^^

You dont know what you are talking about. Get out your tape measure if you dont believe. Are you really stupid enough to believe that a ski with a running lenght of 169 will measure 172 ..thats only 3 cm difference. Each tip is at least 8 cm by themselves. The actual running lenght of the 169 is around 150.

Maybe you should stop relaying hearsay from 1970 and do some reasearch before talking shit.

 
Are you kidding me? Do you even know what running length means? You went the wrong fucking direction with your measurements...

\_____________________/

tip|---running length----|tail

|---actual ski length---|

actual ski length>running length

The running length of a given ski will be less than the actual lenth of the ski. You're trying to say that the actual length of the ski will be less than the running length of the ski. Physically impossible.

The running length is the surface of the ski that touches the snow. There is not 16 cm (over 6') of the *vertical* length of a ski that doesn't touch the snow. There is perhaps 6' of *material*, but because it is curved (hence the designation 'twin tip'), there aren't 6 vertical inches of difference. The actual ski length of a 159 cm running length twin-tip is between 162-163cm.

ns ogre crew

ns gear geek
 
I know exactly what running lenght is. You must have misunderstood my previous post. I said that a 169 k2 ski does not measure 172. The PE's measure true length. Meaning tip to tip in a straigt line is 169. They are not measuring running leght as you keep insisting. Also, like I said before, there IS easily 8cm (in a straigth path, not along the base of the ski) in the tips. The shovel is larger than it looks. The 169 measures full lenght, so its running surface is close to 150.

 
This is from the Line Eric Pollard Specs...

Notice the ski lenght (186)

Notice the Running Lenght (154.6 cm)

You only about 27 CM off according to your calcs.

I realize these arent PE's ..but you get the idea.

LENGTH CM 186

SUGGESTED RIDER HEIGHT IN 5'9'+

SUGGESTED RIDER HEIGHT CM 175+

TIP/WAIST/TAIL WIDTH MM 118/86/111

SIDECUT RADIUS M AVG. 20.5

TIP/TAIL HEIGHT MM 52/52

STANCE BACK FROM CENTER MM 50

RUNNING SURFACE MM 1546

 
wow i didn't know that.

it sucks that k2 only has sizes every 10 cm.

169 is about what i ride right now and i want a longer ski. i am on a 165. but 179 is at least 3 in taller than me. which way do you guys recomend going big or small?

 
I hope nobody gets these pieces of crap, because I want to be the only one on the mountain with them! I'm riding teh 179s and they are wobbly as the demon going fast, but who's looking for big fat cruisers!? For those questioning sizing, I'd probably go small if you're inbetween on these cuz they are REALLY heavy skis, which seems to translate to smoother rotation, but if you're too small you wont be able to take advantage of that nice butter flex anyways. Even at 6'1' i still feel this is a pretty big ski.

 
I dont know about that...

Fugative's are 85mm under foot.

That with a Jib binding (no lifter) and going larger than before will be a handful all mountain for sure. Very slow edge to edge.

Id go shorter, unless you are looking for more floatation in powder.

vote quimby.
 
dude, i ride my mojos all mountain and they are 90mm under foot. its not that bad. also, dont buy k2 skis, buy head skis. just joking, buy what you want.

originally posted by chris_64_impala : why do u need a fat ski? huh fatty? yeah thats right u like the chocoalte
 
^ Its not bad, but its not great either. Going from 80mm+ with a jib binding. To a 70mm carving ski with a tall lift (like Marker piston control is like night and day.

vote quimby.
 
These skis gave me so much more confidence in the air. Riding switch was SO stable I was bombing down groomers and carving fakie. Sure, once you hit a bumb you get tossed around. I'd buy another pair of these if I needed to.

 
Sometimes I wonder how people actually ski around on normal runs on this site. The fugative is the best park ski ever period. If you no how to use your ankles when you turn then this ski ski absolutley sweet as long as your not on ice and it skis switch better than any ski I've been on.

 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top