What to replace my ARV106s with now this years are stiffer

N

Newscoopdewoop

New member
Hi all help much appreciated

5’11 210lb denseboi that skis the west coast. Looking for advice on what to replace my old ARV106s with. I love the ones I have and would get this years but the reviews say they are stiffer which isn’t ideal for the shitty nosebutter 540s I like to do.

i ride cypress/Seymour and whistler. Mix of everything, no rails, but love jumps. What I loved about the 106s was they were solid landing jumps but still playful enough to butter around on. Then when I took them to Whis they’d hold up pretty well. They could have been on the stabler side for landing the bigger stuff but I have bentchetlers for pow already and priority is being able to have fun on Seymour buttering around on them. I used to have blends but they felt like kids toys after getting used to the 106s.

any suggestions on what I should be looking at? Jeffries maybe? Wasn’t sure what k2 equivalent was. Is the Francis bacon in this category?
 
topic:Chimpster37 said:
Hi all help much appreciated

5’11 210lb denseboi that skis the west coast. Looking for advice on what to replace my old ARV106s with. I love the ones I have and would get this years but the reviews say they are stiffer which isn’t ideal for the shitty nosebutter 540s I like to do.

i ride cypress/Seymour and whistler. Mix of everything, no rails, but love jumps. What I loved about the 106s was they were solid landing jumps but still playful enough to butter around on. Then when I took them to Whis they’d hold up pretty well. They could have been on the stabler side for landing the bigger stuff but I have bentchetlers for pow already and priority is being able to have fun on Seymour buttering around on them. I used to have blends but they felt like kids toys after getting used to the 106s.

any suggestions on what I should be looking at? Jeffries maybe? Wasn’t sure what k2 equivalent was. Is the Francis bacon in this category?
Click to expand...

Jeffrey 108 seems like a solid fit for sure. The K2 equivalent would be the Reckoner 102 but that’s pretty similar to the Bacon, both of which are fairly light and soft, softer than the ARVs. I’m the same height and weight and found the Reckoner 102 184 and Bacon 184 too soft for faster skiing, but they’re super fun to butter around on and they’re ok in terms of landing gear. I’d say the Jeffrey 108 is a good fit
 
Jeffrey might not be what you are looking for, tbh. I haven't flexed new ARVs, but I had my hands on both Jeffrey and ARV from past years and Jeffrey is noticeably stiffer. Bacons, on the other hand, are softer than ARVs, from what I remember. Pick your poison
 
I honestly wouldn’t out next years Arv 106s quite yet that beveled nose and tail will help enough with getting out and over the nose regardless of the flex change which really isn’t a whole lot. I own last years Jeffery 108s and they aren’t soft. I’m 6’4”, 185, and even after breaking them in they are still a burly medium flex. And from having hand flex the 2021 106s they feel softer than the Jeffery. Granted the flex from the first gen 106 was and still is the best. Alternatives to check are definitely the reckoner 102 and 112, the sfb, and faction 3.0.

Granted after all this if you mostly butter you need a sidewall ski to handle the abuse of flexing over and over again, this is where I’ve blasted through many Armadas and K2s. Either the core would snap or I’d rip out multiple bindings. My on3ps since they are full sidewall are still holding up and still have pop. They are on the stiff side but since I’m lanky I can get over the noses but it’s all about the energy you put into it. Yeah it’s going to be a bit more but the pop you get out of them when coming out flex is insane. Don’t count out the slightly stiffer sticks
 
What length were you on for the previous ARV 106? I assume the 188, but if you were on the 180, the J Skis Vacation might be worth a look. If you were on the 188 ARV 106, the 186 Vacation would probably be too soft.

SFB and Reckoner 102 are very soft and probably wouldn't be supportive enough for you. The Reckoner 112 feels notably stronger to me than the 102, so there's a chance that might work, but I also think it'd be a bit less stable, and I never got to spend much time on the regular ARV 106 so I'm not super confident there.

[tag=105085]@Twig[/tag] did you get to try the 20/21 Prodigy 3.0? Sounds like, with its new, softer flex, that might be one of the closer replacements for the softer 19/20 ARV 106?

The Jeffreys are very stiff compared to most options in this class, but as noted above, their dramatic rocker line still lets you butter them, it's just a different technique; leveraging the rocker profile more than flexing the ski a ton. While they're not easy to bend with little input, the upside is that they can really launch you out of a butter with a ton of pop once you really lay into them.

And all that said, from what I remember, the 20/21 ARV 106 is not dramatically stiffer than the last version. So if you liked everything else about the ski, I'd say the new version is still one of your safer bets since any other ski is gonna be different in terms of rocker profile, sidecut, weight, etc.
 
Thank you all for the advice. It has drastically changed my mind on the Jeffery. If this was a solely for whistler ski I’d probably go for it but bopping around Seymour/cypress/grouse is a different story.

i was basing the decision on the new ARV solely off [tag=105085]@Twig[/tag] (I thinks?) rooftop review that said he couldn’t take them in the park anymore. Wondering if that’s more due to how they ride rails or jumps. Also not sure how heavy twig is and if that would affect butter ability on them. pretty sure I’m a fair bit heavier and want to ride the 180s similar to what was reviewed. If they are solid on jumps and I can butter them I don’t care if they are shit on rails.

one thing I didn’t mention and probably should have: I can get a deal on arvs that make them much cheaper compared to other skis mentioned here. I just didn’t know if it was a good idea getting them because I’ve valued the rooftop reviews and that said you can’t take them in the park and doing the 2 jumps at Seymour is the main thing I care about tbh

**This post was edited on Aug 13th 2020 at 1:06:15pm
 
I had the exact same problem before the last season as my og arv106s gave up. The new ones are way stiffer than the original brown ones so that was a no go for me.

I ended up with candide 2s and i love their softness but then again i ski almost only tiny hills with nothing but rails in rainy finland so there's that.

Line bacons were another strong candidate for me, but that year they were super stiff as well.

Now they should be softer so that's definitely something to check out.

Another one to check is faction prodigy 3, they seem identical to arvs in terms of measurements and rocker profile and flex should be softish as well

**This post was edited on Aug 13th 2020 at 1:53:22pm
 
Keep in mind [tag=105085]@Twig[/tag] is shorter and lighter than you, so I'd imagine stiffening up the skis might be more noticeable for him. I think it may also help to know what gen ARV 106s you have? Each gen has gotten stiffer than the last, so if you're going from gen 1 (16/17-17/18) to 20/21, then I imagine the added stiffness will be pretty noticeable.
 
I also ride Seymour/Cypress and Whistler/Baker/Revelstoke etc. Have Kartel 108s (same as last season's Jeffrey 108) and they are super poppy and solid. The weight and stiffness is perfect for playing in our heavy coastal snow, they make chop feel like powder, and confidently send sketchy side hits as big as you can go. That said they do feel a little overkill for smaller scale stuff being silly at Seymour, and I imagine are stiffer than the ARVs. Scott said lots of shop folks run a softer custom J108 as their daily, which loosens it up a bit I believe without compromising too much stability.

I got a pair of shorter, detuned Jeffrey 96s last season for jibby days and found them super light, snappy and playful in comparison but not stable enough for bombing laps confidently. Probably mostly due to being a bit short for me. These ones were easy to get into a butter and like mentioned above, pop right out.

Will be bumping up this local/low tide ski to a longer Jeffrey 102 this season to get into that middle ground for exactly what you're talking about. Local hot laps, jump lines, some rails, and the occasional low tide day at a bigger hill like Whistler when I don't feel like bringing the 108s. I don't do tons of nosebutters though so that doesn't factor in as much for me.

I'd sell you the 181 J96s but I think they'd likely be too short/soft/narrow for you too. I'm 6'0 165lb for reference.
 
pump som iron, eat some foot, review some skis.

I honestly just tend to buy pretty much every ski I want, and just test it, and resell :p
 
14163715:patagonialuke said:
What length were you on for the previous ARV 106? I assume the 188, but if you were on the 180, the J Skis Vacation might be worth a look. If you were on the 188 ARV 106, the 186 Vacation would probably be too soft.

SFB and Reckoner 102 are very soft and probably wouldn't be supportive enough for you. The Reckoner 112 feels notably stronger to me than the 102, so there's a chance that might work, but I also think it'd be a bit less stable, and I never got to spend much time on the regular ARV 106 so I'm not super confident there.

[tag=105085]@Twig[/tag] did you get to try the 20/21 Prodigy 3.0? Sounds like, with its new, softer flex, that might be one of the closer replacements for the softer 19/20 ARV 106?

The Jeffreys are very stiff compared to most options in this class, but as noted above, their dramatic rocker line still lets you butter them, it's just a different technique; leveraging the rocker profile more than flexing the ski a ton. While they're not easy to bend with little input, the upside is that they can really launch you out of a butter with a ton of pop once you really lay into them.

And all that said, from what I remember, the 20/21 ARV 106 is not dramatically stiffer than the last version. So if you liked everything else about the ski, I'd say the new version is still one of your safer bets since any other ski is gonna be different in terms of rocker profile, sidecut, weight, etc.
Click to expand...
14163725:Chimpster37 said:
i was basing the decision on the new ARV solely off [tag=105085]@Twig[/tag] (I thinks?) rooftop review that said he couldn’t take them in the park anymore. Wondering if that’s more due to how they ride rails or jumps. Also not sure how heavy twig is and if that would affect butter ability on them. pretty sure I’m a fair bit heavier and want to ride the 180s similar to what was reviewed. If they are solid on jumps and I can butter them I don’t care if they are shit on rails.

one thing I didn’t mention and probably should have: I can get a deal on arvs that make them much cheaper compared to other skis mentioned here. I just didn’t know if it was a good idea getting them because I’ve valued the rooftop reviews and that said you can’t take them in the park and doing the 2 jumps at Seymour is the main thing I care about tbh

**This post was edited on Aug 13th 2020 at 1:06:15pm
Click to expand...
14163744:OhJay said:
Keep in mind [tag=105085]@Twig[/tag] is shorter and lighter than you, so I'd imagine stiffening up the skis might be more noticeable for him. I think it may also help to know what gen ARV 106s you have? Each gen has gotten stiffer than the last, so if you're going from gen 1 (16/17-17/18) to 20/21, then I imagine the added stiffness will be pretty noticeable.
Click to expand...

Late to the party here because I wanted to have time to write a full reply! Interestingly, and this is rare, I have a slightly different take to Luke on the comparative flexes here. But first off, I am called Twig for a reason. I'm about 135-140lbs depending on the ratio of skiing/climbing to eating/NS-ing that I've been doing. I found the new 2021 ARV significantly stiffer than the previous ski. I wouldn't go as far as to say I couldn't take them in the park any more at all. But I ski with a fairly loose, playful style when I'm skiing park and for that, I found the ARV too stiff. They were ok on jumps, I found them a bit dead on takeoffs but they worked, and the stiffness on landings was nice too. I would put them close to the Jeffrey 108 in terms of flex, but with much less rocker.

I was initially surprised to hear Luke throw the J Vacation in the mix, I would say that the 180 length of those is by far the softest of all the skis mentioned, maybe even softer than the Blend, but then I figured he was saying that if you ride the 180 ARV, the 186 Vacation might work stability wise, which makes more sense. I find them a bit long/heavy but then, I'm very light. I think the new Prodigy 3.0 is pretty close in terms of flex to the older ARVs. I'd say it's a touch softer than the 2nd edition ARV 106 (and thus noticeably softer than the older prodigy 3.0 and the newest ARV 106). However, I would say the Reckoners also fit in a similar bracket flex wise. The 102 is a touch softer again, probably around the flex of the OG 106, but the 112 is more like the 2nd edition 106. That is probably not that easy to read, so I'm going to attempt a comparative 'feel' list in terms of how stable vs buttery a ski feels to me with the skis mentioned, factoring in both flex and rocker profile (butteriest to most stable)

J Skis Vacation (180cm)

Line Blend

Line Sir Francis Bacon (latest edition)

ARV 106 (OG edition, 180cm)

K2 Reckoner 102 (very similar flex to the OG ARV IMO, tail feels a touch softer, nose feels a touch stiffer. Sidebar: one of my favorite skis of recent years)

Faction Prodigy 3.0 (new edition, 184cm)

ARV 106 (2nd edition, 180cm)

K2 Reckoner 112 (184cm)

ON3P Magnus 102 (181cm, the 176 for me slots between the K2 R102 and Faction Prod 3.0s mentioned because i can get my weight out towards the tip/tail easier)

Atomic Bentchetler 100 (180cm, except the shovel, which is pretty soft)

ON3P Jeffrey 108 (181cm)

ARV 106 (2021, newest ski, 180cm, note: the Jeffrey is slightly stiffer but has tons of rocker so it feels looser)

I would say in terms of 'closest ski' to what you have, it might well be the Prodigy 3.0. I love that ski for a bit of everything and that is exactly what I thought of the older ARVs. I've thrown in a couple more options to the mix though. First off, the Magnus 102 which is a touch narrower and with more rocker, but offers a similar 'type' of ski to the 2nd edition 106. It's a similar flex but with more rocker so ends up feeling a touch more playful.

The new ARV is very similar to the old model in regards other than flex. I did find it 'too stiff' to really like it, however, you have 70-75lbs on me, so you're going to notice added stiffness much less than me (and notice a softer ski more). So my advice would probably still be to go for the ARV 106 of the skis mentioned, especially given that you have a deal on it. The second curveball here is the Bentchetler 100, because it's also an Amer ski. I'd be interested to hear [tag=229241]@patagonialuke[/tag] 's take on this because he has skied them more than me, but for me, they might fit your wants well. It's a more directional ski on paper, but I skied them -2.5cm from true center and found them perfectly comfortable there. A lot of the atomic team do the same, or mount even further forward, and ride them for pure park. The tail is a touch stiffer than the 2nd gen ARV 106, which is nice for stable landings on jumps and drops, but the rocker section in the nose is softer and really fun for nosebutters. I liked them more in the park than the new ARV 106. Given that you can get Amer skis significantly cheaper, one of those two would be my instinct.

**This post was edited on Sep 22nd 2020 at 1:03:07pm
 
14164063:Twig said:
Late to the party here because I wanted to have time to write a full reply! Interestingly, and this is rare, I have a slightly different take to Luke on the comparative flexes here. But first off, I am called Twig for a reason. I'm about 135-140lbs depending on the ratio of skiing/climbing to eating/NS-ing that I've been doing. I found the new 2021 ARV significantly stiffer than the previous ski. I wouldn't go as far as to say I couldn't take them in the park any more at all. But I ski with a fairly loose, playful style when I'm skiing park and for that, I found the ARV too stiff. They were ok on jumps, I found them a bit dead on takeoffs but they worked, and the stiffness on landings was nice too. I would put them close to the Jeffrey 108 in terms of flex, but with much less rocker.

I was initially surprised to hear Luke throw the J Vacation in the mix, I would say that the 180 length of those is by far the softest of all the skis mentioned, maybe even softer than the Blend, but then I figured he was saying that if you ride the 180 ARV, the 186 Vacation might work stability wise, which makes more sense. I find them a bit long/heavy but then, I'm very light. I think the new Prodigy 3.0 is pretty close in terms of flex to the older ARVs. I'd say it's a touch softer than the 2nd edition ARV 106 (and thus noticeably softer than the older prodigy 3.0 and the newest ARV 106). However, I would say the Reckoners also fit in a similar bracket flex wise. The 102 is a touch softer again, probably around the flex of the OG 106, but the 112 is more like the 2nd edition 106. That is probably not that easy to read, so I'm going to attempt a comparative 'feel' list in terms of how stable vs buttery a ski feels to me with the skis mentioned, factoring in both flex and rocker profile (butteriest to most stable)

J Skis Vacation (180cm)

Line Blend

Line Sir Francis Bacon (latest edition)

ARV 106 (OG edition, 180cm)

K2 Reckoner 102 (very similar flex to the OG ARV IMO, tail feels a touch softer, nose feels a touch stiffer. Sidebar: one of my favorite skis of recent years)

Faction Prodigy 3.0 (new edition, 184cm)

ARV 106 (2nd edition, 180cm)

K2 Reckoner 112 (184cm)

ON3P Magnus 102 (181cm, the 176 for me slots between the K2 R102 and Faction Prod 3.0s mentioned because i can get my weight out towards the tip/tail easier)

Atomic Bentchetler 100 (180cm, except the shovel, which is pretty soft)

ON3P Jeffrey 108 (181cm)

ARV 106 (2021, newest ski, 180cm, note: the Jeffrey is slightly stiffer but has tons of rocker so it feels looser)

I would say in terms of 'closest ski' to what you have, it might well be the Prodigy 3.0. I love that ski for a bit of everything and that is exactly what I thought of the older ARVs. I've thrown in a couple more options to the mix though. First off, the Magnus 102 which is a touch narrower and with more rocker, but offers a similar 'type' of ski to the 2nd edition 106. It's a similar flex but with more rocker so ends up feeling a touch more playful.

The new ARV is very similar to the old model in regards other than flex. I did find it 'too stiff' to really like it, however, you have 70-75lbs on me, so you're going to notice added stiffness much less than me (and notice a softer ski more). So my advice would probably still be to go for the ARV 106 of the skis mentioned, especially given that you have a deal on it. The second curveball here is the Bentchetler 100, because it's also an Amer ski. I'd be interested to hear [tag=229241]@patagonialuke[/tag] 's take on this because he has skied them more than me, but for me, they might fit your wants well. It's a more directional ski on paper, but I skied them -2.5cm from true center and found them perfectly comfortable there. A lot of the atomic team do the same, or mount even further forward, and ride them for pure park. The tail is a touch stiffer than the 2nd gen ARV 106, which is nice for stable landings on jumps and drops, but the rocker section in the nose is softer and really fun for nosebutters. I liked them more in the park than the new ARV 106. Given that you can get Amer skis significantly cheaper, one of those two would be my instinct.
Click to expand...

Super useful and interesting as always, Twig.

Regarding the new ARV 106, that's interesting to hear; I have only hand-flexed that ski / not actually skied it since they didn't send any of their fun skis this year, so I'd definitely defer to you on that.

And the BC 100 is a funny ski to me. Maybe it's cause I initiallly skied it on the recommended line, which is almost -8 cm from true center, but it always felt pretty directional to me. I spend a lot of time on more directional skis, so I actually liked it there and at around -5 or -6 cm, but maybe because I didn't push the bindings much farther forward than that, I never thought it felt as playful as I'd expect (not as loose, poppy, or balanced as I thought it'd be).

But what you said makes sense — would be a fun blend of supportive behind the heels but with a very soft, rockered section at the tips for butters. I didn't get to ski it mounted that far forward, and based on all the people I've talked to who love it for the park, I think I'm more of the outlier in terms of not thinking of it as a super playful, freestyle-oriented ski.

**This post was edited on Sep 22nd 2020 at 1:03:51pm
 
I'm wondering if different lengths are coming into play here.

I have the BC100, in 188cm, and I find the tails to be very stiff stiff, probably the stiffest "feeling" from skiiing tails on any ski I have, like doing anything slow speed butter or manuals or anything its just like it was laughing at me like haha you suck. But the shovels I wouldnt mind some more stiffness... at 220-230lbs it's rare that I find tails that feels to stiff

I tried 3 different mountpoints on it and "retired it" to currently rocking shifts bindings and skins, as It was just never that great for anything in park or groomers or backcountry , it does feel light (which it is) and skis for its weight, surprisingly well. I was sooooooooooooooo stoked on this ski, and it never really deliverd. I know my favorite youtuber jens loves them but for me they just never was the best at anything, but fairly decent at everything.
 
OP, I'll throw the Prior Northwest 110 into the mix.

I'm also looking for an all mtn twin, ski in WA state and take a trip up to Whistler once every season. The Blister Review writeup had me sold on this ski, but think it might be too all mountain than park/freestyle for what you're after. Thought it'd be worth at least mentioning since you're in Canada and they're based in Whistler. unfortunately for me even with the USD conversion, the shipping fee is brutal and I don't know when this 'murican will get to cross into CA again...

Edit: I just realized there's an option to build it softer than stock

**This post was edited on Aug 14th 2020 at 2:25:27pm
 
wow thank you very much for this it is banging advice. Having it in comparison chart form like that is ideal.

At my height and weight 180cm blends literally felt like Fisher price toys so I’d be going all the way to the other end of the scale instantly. I think I’m going to take your advice and go for the arvs, It sounds like I will really enjoy them skiing whistler and for Seymour I’m hoping the difference in our weights helps me out. Its interesting that armada have taken that route with the arv over the last few years!

14164063:Twig said:
Late to the party here because I wanted to have time to write a full reply! Interestingly, and this is rare, I have a slightly different take to Luke on the comparative flexes here. But first off, I am called Twig for a reason. I'm about 135-140lbs depending on the ratio of skiing/climbing to eating/NS-ing that I've been doing. I found the new 2021 ARV significantly stiffer than the previous ski. I wouldn't go as far as to say I couldn't take them in the park any more at all. But I ski with a fairly loose, playful style when I'm skiing park and for that, I found the ARV too stiff. They were ok on jumps, I found them a bit dead on takeoffs but they worked, and the stiffness on landings was nice too. I would put them close to the Jeffrey 108 in terms of flex, but with much less rocker.

I was initially surprised to hear Luke throw the J Vacation in the mix, I would say that the 180 length of those is by far the softest of all the skis mentioned, maybe even softer than the Blend, but then I figured he was saying that if you ride the 180 ARV, the 186 Vacation might work stability wise, which makes more sense. I find them a bit long/heavy but then, I'm very light. I think the new Prodigy 3.0 is pretty close in terms of flex to the older ARVs. I'd say it's a touch softer than the 2nd edition ARV 106 (and thus noticeably softer than the older prodigy 3.0 and the newest ARV 106). However, I would say the Reckoners also fit in a similar bracket flex wise. The 102 is a touch softer again, probably around the flex of the OG 106, but the 112 is more like the 2nd edition 106. That is probably not that easy to read, so I'm going to attempt a comparative 'feel' list in terms of how stable vs buttery a ski feels to me with the skis mentioned, factoring in both flex and rocker profile (butteriest to most stable)

J Skis Vacation (180cm)

Line Blend

Line Sir Francis Bacon (latest edition)

ARV 106 (OG edition, 180cm)

K2 Reckoner 102 (very similar flex to the OG ARV IMO, tail feels a touch softer, nose feels a touch stiffer. Sidebar: one of my favorite skis of recent years)

Faction Prodigy 3.0 (new edition, 184cm)

ARV 106 (2nd edition, 180cm)

K2 Reckoner 112 (184cm)

ON3P Magnus 102 (181cm, the 176 for me slots between the K2 R102 and Faction Prod 3.0s mentioned because i can get my weight out towards the tip/tail easier)

Atomic Bentchetler 100 (180cm, except the shovel, which is pretty soft)

ON3P Jeffrey 108 (181cm)

ARV 106 (2021, newest ski, 180cm, note: the Jeffrey is slightly stiffer but has tons of rocker so it feels looser)

I would say in terms of 'closest ski' to what you have, it might well be the Prodigy 3.0. I love that ski for a bit of everything and that is exactly what I thought of the older ARVs. I've thrown in a couple more options to the mix though. First off, the Magnus 102 which is a touch narrower and with more rocker, but offers a similar 'type' of ski to the 2nd edition 106. It's a similar flex but with more rocker so ends up feeling a touch more playful.

The new ARV is very similar to the old model in regards other than flex. I did find it 'too stiff' to really like it, however, you have 70-75lbs on me, so you're going to notice added stiffness much less than me (and notice a softer ski more). So my advice would probably still be to go for the ARV 106 of the skis mentioned, especially given that you have a deal on it. The second curveball here is the Bentchetler 100, because it's also an Amer ski. I'd be interested to hear [tag=229241]@patagonialuke[/tag] 's take on this because he has skied them more than me, but for me, they might fit your wants well. It's a more directional ski on paper, but I skied them -2.5cm from true center and found them perfectly comfortable there. A lot of the atomic team do the same, or mount even further forward, and ride them for pure park. The tail is a touch stiffer than the 2nd gen ARV 106, which is nice for stable landings on jumps and drops, but the rocker section in the nose is softer and really fun for nosebutters. I liked them more in the park than the new ARV 106. Given that you can get Amer skis significantly cheaper, one of those two would be my instinct.
Click to expand...

**This post was edited on Sep 22nd 2020 at 1:04:49pm
 
14164053:BigPurpleSkiSuit said:
Should I start a big boy review thing? I'm tall, but not that heavy 6'4 200 lbs
Click to expand...

That's a good idea but my homie, the OG #teambigboy @BSMedia says you have to be 300+ to qualify
 
14164053:BigPurpleSkiSuit said:
Should I start a big boy review thing? I'm tall, but not that heavy 6'4 200 lbs
Click to expand...

I would be down for that! I'm 6'1 200ish lbs as well. I go through a ton of skis and have access to a bunch as well working at a shop. Lets start reviewing big boi skis!!
 
14164660:Kbob94 said:
I would be down for that! I'm 6'1 200ish lbs as well. I go through a ton of skis and have access to a bunch as well working at a shop. Lets start reviewing big boi skis!!
Click to expand...

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