Salomon 1080 coming back

14116659:CatdickBojangles said:
84 or 86 I think
Click to expand...

Probly 84 im guessing bc the pocket rockets were only 90 underfoot. Its crazy to think how pocket rockets used to be looked at as fat powder skis back in their day. Nowadays 90 underfoot is pretty narrow.
 
14116664:DolanReloaded said:
Probly 84 im guessing bc the pocket rockets were only 90 underfoot. Its crazy to think how pocket rockets used to be looked at as fat powder skis back in their day. Nowadays 90 underfoot is pretty narrow.
Click to expand...

I think the foils were 86 so the OG 1080s might have been narrower.
 
yeah i can't say for sure but i feel like the original 1080s were closer to 80 in the waist

some of the old Lines were in the 70s! sounds insane nowadays
 
14116707:SofaKingSick said:
yeah i can't say for sure but i feel like the original 1080s were closer to 80 in the waist

some of the old Lines were in the 70s! sounds insane nowadays
Click to expand...

OG 1080s are 80 underfoot tops, probably more like 78
 
I'm pretty sure it's 108/75/100 17r and lengths were 161,169,177 and a couple grom sizes 129 141

**This post was edited on Mar 11th 2020 at 4:21:11pm
 
14116730:pinkcamo1000 said:
OG 1080s are 80 underfoot tops, probably more like 78
Click to expand...

14116737:Tnski said:
I'm pretty sure it's 108/75/100 17r and lengths were 161,169,177 and a couple grom sizes 129 141

**This post was edited on Mar 11th 2020 at 4:21:11pm
Click to expand...

I used to ride troublemakers which were 78 mm under foot. I remember looking at them and thinking they were pretty wide compared to my previous skis. How times have changed...
 
The Vinnie D pro model was 75mm and I think this was the same as the other non pro models. Skis used to be narrow. I remember having the scratch BC which as 84mm and thinking it was huge haha.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top