Nordica Jah Love, Next Years Widest Ski?

AALT

AALT

Active member
Im just lookin and im seeing it at 140mm thats wider than any ski our this year and i think next
 
No claim. Here they are.

leshbffmr1.png
 
Yeah Jah Love's are pretty freakin huge. Bluehouse is coming out with a rockered ski thats 139 underfoot also.
 
the bff's are just retarded. they are only out there so liberty can say they have the widest ski, they did not make them with the intention of actually making a good ski.
 
I've seen the jah love's in person. They look better, and really wide..

Btw the Liberty BFFs are 200 underfoot, not 210. Not like it matters...
 
^ it doesnt matter how big the underfoot is on something with 1/3 the length

they should not be in the same coversation, nobody that is considering the jah love or fatty puss alotta or any fat ski is going to be interested in a skiblade
 
yup..sz 186...135-140-130...The rocker design makes these incredibly maneuverable in shallow snow

and buoyant in the deep. The continuous reverse sidecut allows for surf

like turns and easy slashes.
 
in case you where thinking of buying a pair i suggest you dont do it, because 1. they are to fat, no camber, and almost no sidecut. 2. they suck at everything except for straight lining powder. 3. they are redickulous.

but they are really fun to bomb of cliffs with. i rode a pair today, they are huge beyond imagine.
 
JaH LOVES are dope! haha i skied them last mother or so and they are super fun! really versitle... the traditional alpine ski kinda sucks but still the ski its self rocks!
 
I had a chance to ski these this past weekend. They are pretty ridiculous (167/140/157). I've skied quite a few large skis (I own Thugs & ARGs, skied Prior Overlords, Hellbents, Pontoons, Faction Thirteens & 3.Zeros). The conditions were pretty much terrible for trying them (bulletproof ice, ONE run that had some softish snow) but I still wanted to try them. They were mounted with 14 DIN nordica bindings (Vist). First off, these should only be a soft snow ski. These things are so fucking wide you might as well not have edges, they barely work anyway. Steep icy moguls weren't too bad, but an icy groomer was pretty hair-raising. They do ski better than pontoons and ARGs though (but not hellbents) on that stuff. In the soft they were pretty good. I didn't notice the tips smacking each other and you could throw them around alright in the trees (fairly well-spaced though, tight trees probably not so much). They are built like a traditional ski and they ski kinda like a traditional ski. Just really wide. I think that something thinner with rocker would provide the same or better soft snow performance and be much easier everywhere else.

Also a note, if you do buy these skis, you MUST get metal bindings. I skied the Vists on Factions before and didn't really have a problem, but because these things are so damn wide when you are trying to edge them (especially in really hard snow) you put so much torque on the bindings you come right out of the toe on the downhill ski. I came out 4 times on an icy mogul field, when I only came out twice on the same run with pontoons and stupid biometric-toe markers.

Anyways, interesting ski, but I can definitely say that there is such a thing as too fat. And these are it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top