Kung fujas

depends what you mean by stiff and how heavy you are..i ride these and find them soft but my mate who is only 70kg finds them to soft for what he does...one of the best skis i have ever bought though
 
i'm looking at getting myself a pair, i've only heard positive things about them but apparently they are medium to soft and prone to chatter at high speed. don't know if this is such a negative thing considering the other benefits of the ski.
 
i just skied the 169s today and i was amazed at how well they float in the pow ( it was like 4 feet deep.) the skis didnt really chatter at all on groomers only when ur riding over ice chunks. i didnt get the shizo and griffon cuz i didnt have enough $$$$
 
Thet kung fujas are a fairly soft ski in general and then they have the rocker with makes them alot softer. Deffenetly a fun ski and nice. They are a fairly fat ski. And the shcnitzos (sorry for butchering the name) are a good idea if you ride alot of park and pow. If you only ride park or only ride pow, just get them mounted in the one spot.
 
Not to jack this thread, but I can't decided between the FKS 140s and the Griffon Schizos. They are the same price. What do you guys think?
 
there soft as in tip and tail so they can butter but there actully quite stiff underfoot people underestimate how hard they can charge.
 
I say go for the Schizo. Tested that shit in some recent NW pow and was pretty damned impressed. Had them set at core center back in Wisconsin and skiing up on some firm stuff at Crystal Mt. WA, switched back for a Stevens pow day and they slayed. The rocker and the softer tip allows for a great feel and control in pow. I was bummed at first because I didn't bring pow specific sticks (HellBents), but the Kung Fujas showed me some good versatility. When skiing hardpack, the ski holds an edge just fine as we wrap the core in fiberglass at specific angles to keep it torsionally stiff underfoot. That means the ski will not want to twist as some do on ice. Torsional stiffness is different from fore and aft stiffness and all three can be adjusted to work well together on a number of different conditions.
The Kung Fujas likes medium to big turns, but on a steep fall line, they whip around powerful short turns easily. Having the tip and tail rocker also makes them quick edge to edge in the park.
Overall, me rikey. This one will be in my quiver for a while.
 
Thanks for the great little review. It was very helpful. I was also debating (sorta) about the 189cm, but I think it might be a little on the big side. I'm 6 feet tall and 140lbs. Right now I'm on 161cm Invaders (feel free to laugh, I do) because I got them for super cheap. I recently demoed a pair of 176cm Pipe Cleaners (mounted 6cm back I believe) and I had no problems with the length. I'm definitely going to get something longer than that and mount them closer to center (probably 2cm or 3cm back). Did the Kung Fujas feel true to their length or shorter because of the mini rocker?

Are there any major common problems with the schizos that you know of. I can't find many on-snow reviews of them because they are so new and I know that I will not be disappointed with the FKS 140s.
 
i'm in the same position as you but slightly heavier (180lbs) and i've been recommended the 179 as it'll be a bit more manageable in the park, but in the uk for my to get 179 instead of 189 it's nearly an extra £70 ($110) as far as a i can tell, shops aren't be helpful really.
 
I'm 5'85 (178) and weight 75 kg (150 pounds). Have the same question from above here, does they feel a bit shorter? Because they are a bit longer than 179 (i heard 183). I think they are to long for me to take it to the park. And the ARV in 175 is then to short i gues.
 
At 6ft. and 140, I would go 179. They feel true to length when you get them leaned over on edge. If you are sliding on them flat base you can swivel left to right really quickly due to the rocker.
Plus you already have a jump from your 161s, so the 179 would be a sick one for you.
 
I wish I could demo a longer set of skis from my local shop just to try out the length. Today I demoed Salomon Shoguns in the longest size they had on demo - 170cm (this is a rockered, big mountain ski remember). I was very inclinded to try the afterbangs they had too...then I realized they only had the 155cm ones on demo (who the hell buys a ski that short, I mean wtf). I asked the guy why they didn't have any skis longer than 180cm on demo and he said that "skis keep getting longer and shorter". I then asked him why most pro skiers use skis that are longer than they are tall...he didn't have an answer for me.
 
Dito, i am roughly same heigt and weight and currently have Public Enemy 164. Looking at getting some Kung Fujas but not sure what size, was thinking 169??
 
ya my brother just got the kung fujas and said they are pretty soft but stiff enough to go pretty fast and im about 5'8 and a the guy there told me that 169 is the right size for my height
 
the length of the ski shouldnt be determined by just height, but instead mostly weight. Also i like the kung fujas ALOT. and they are medium to soft depending on the weight. they are because they are an all mountain ski and so they are a little softer for powder. but otherwise i like them as a one ski quiver, or a bc jib ski.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top