Red Bull Unrailistic | LIVE Broadcast

Member of the Month

PartyBullshiit
March, 2024

Online

Welcome to the Newschoolers forums! You may read the forums as a guest, however you must be a registered member to post. Register to become a member today!

Nordica Jah Love, Next Years Widest Ski?

profile picture
AALT
Posts: 1775 - Karma: 60

Im just lookin and im seeing it at 140mm thats wider than any ski our this year and i think next

Mar 18 2008 6:19PM
0 0
profile picture
amo
Posts: 6709 - Karma: 1,248
the Fat-ypus A-lotta also comes in at 140 underfoot
Mar 18 2008 6:23PM
0 0
profile picture
mmckechnie
Posts: 1483 - Karma: 29
BFF's: 210mm underfoot
Mar 18 2008 6:24PM
0 0
profile picture
A-Style**
Posts: 1831 - Karma: 81
claimmm
Mar 18 2008 6:31PM
0 0
profile picture
-Nick-
Posts: 1479 - Karma: 24
ive seen pics of it and its ridiculous
Mar 18 2008 6:35PM
0 0
profile picture
bret
Posts: 2845 - Karma: 833
saw a pair in person the other day. really wide, but no twintip... bunk!
Mar 18 2008 6:57PM
0 0
profile picture
lyndon
Posts: 7266 - Karma: 127
No claim. Here they are.
Click for larger image
Mar 18 2008 6:59PM
0 0
profile picture
lyndon
Posts: 7266 - Karma: 127
click the link to make it work.
Mar 18 2008 6:59PM
0 0
profile picture
AALT
Posts: 1775 - Karma: 60

O ya, but no twin tip :( wouldnt be fun..... how would u find a brake for that???

Mar 18 2008 7:38PM
0 0
profile picture
VTtreeskier
Posts: 1833 - Karma: 64
Are they actually gonna sell BFFs? I thought they were a joke
Mar 18 2008 7:53PM
0 0
profile picture
Tucks
Posts: 2120 - Karma: 161
^ yea they are selling them, you wouldn't use brakes, just leashes. all questions answered
Mar 18 2008 7:55PM
0 0
profile picture
wiegz44
Posts: 259 - Karma: 10
Mar 18 2008 7:57PM
0 0
profile picture
Dukeybrains
Posts: 1030 - Karma: 11
You'd have to stand with your feet like 2.5 feet apart at all times.

Those skis are fucking ugly
Mar 18 2008 8:26PM
0 0
profile picture
Bugler
Posts: 903 - Karma: 14
oh shit.
Mar 18 2008 9:07PM
0 0
profile picture
-Nick-
Posts: 1479 - Karma: 24
^^ ewwww so fucking ugly
Mar 18 2008 9:17PM
0 0
profile picture
grams.
Posts: 7406 - Karma: 186
Yeah Jah Love's are pretty freakin huge. Bluehouse is coming out with a rockered ski thats 139 underfoot also.
Mar 18 2008 9:19PM
0 0
profile picture
BonersinmyassFTW
Posts: 90 - Karma: 9
haha damn I could have some fun on those BFFs

Jah Loves look a little more versatile though haha
Mar 19 2008 11:53PM
0 0
profile picture
sirskizalot
Posts: 4370 - Karma: 161
the bff would be uncomfortable i think because u'd have to have your legs so wide apart
Mar 20 2008 12:00AM
0 0
profile picture
cobra_commander
Posts: 16909 - Karma: 4,682
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.
Mar 20 2008 12:57AM
0 0
profile picture
Celone
Posts: 1998 - Karma: 114
id try the bffs out................on a fucking 8 foot minimum powder day
Mar 20 2008 1:32AM
0 0
profile picture
Reed.
Posts: 4489 - Karma: 272
the bffs were made from old monoski templates
Mar 20 2008 1:36AM
0 0
profile picture
alaskakid
Posts: 5540 - Karma: 430
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...
Mar 20 2008 1:56AM
0 0
profile picture
AptosFreeskier
Posts: 1240 - Karma: 17
Could you imagine taking those into a shop to get mounted.

And you thought you got strange looks for asking center mounted.
Mar 20 2008 2:01AM
0 0
profile picture
abdanks
Posts: 52 - Karma: 10
those liberty skis look like snowblades
Mar 20 2008 6:13AM
0 0
profile picture
PacificRimJob
Posts: 24704 - Karma: 29,687
The Moment Donner Parties are going to be 140 I believe.. reverse sidecut, rockered..
Mar 29 2008 7:31AM
0 0
profile picture
troublemaker3
Posts: 1954 - Karma: 225
they are skiblades, i dont know why peple are talking about them on here
Mar 29 2008 10:10AM
0 0
profile picture
.makuma.
Posts: 2258 - Karma: 43
cuz theyre talking about how big teh underfoot is
Mar 29 2008 10:35AM
0 0
profile picture
troublemaker3
Posts: 1954 - Karma: 225
^ 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
Mar 29 2008 12:26PM
0 0
profile picture
skier24
Posts: 1216 - Karma: 11
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.
Mar 29 2008 12:54PM
0 0
profile picture
Aenigma
Posts: 11256 - Karma: 424
The Capital G-Funkenstein has been around for a while, it's 162 underfoot.
Mar 29 2008 3:15PM
0 0
profile picture
Aenigma
Posts: 11256 - Karma: 424
Here's a good comparison:

Click for larger image
Mar 29 2008 3:19PM
0 0
profile picture
skiP.E.I.
Posts: 7604 - Karma: 20,093
^wow. that thing is nuts. makes the other ski looks like a GS ski.
Mar 29 2008 9:09PM
0 0
profile picture
Sholte
Posts: 2929 - Karma: 12
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.
Mar 29 2008 9:16PM
0 0
profile picture
Aenigma
Posts: 11256 - Karma: 424
Well this is new.  I've never heard of Spatulas being compared to GS skis before. 
Mar 29 2008 9:23PM
0 0
profile picture
troublemaker3
Posts: 1954 - Karma: 225
there is always a first
Mar 29 2008 9:32PM
0 0
profile picture
nkimmes_40
Posts: 476 - Karma: 16
any more info on this ski?
Apr 2 2008 3:42PM
0 0
profile picture
grams.
Posts: 7406 - Karma: 186
All I know of so far is this short video on there facebook gorup:

http://www.facebook.com/video/video.php?v=23831197048&oid=4434140324

Not sure if the video will work if your not joined in that particular group though.
Apr 2 2008 3:56PM
0 0
profile picture
nkimmes_40
Posts: 476 - Karma: 16
wow   those look pretty nice   i hope they have another sale again so i can get a pair
Apr 2 2008 6:59PM
0 0
profile picture
carbon.pulse
Posts: 3348 - Karma: 22
"If you skis are together and you feet arn't shoulder width apart, you need wider skis"
Apr 3 2008 3:11AM
0 0
profile picture
hollygrove
Posts: 7845 - Karma: 93
n one fucking cares about liberty, therefore, the bffs dont count.
Apr 4 2008 7:10PM
0 0
profile picture
Daver_BC
Posts: 1256 - Karma: 307
wow. wow. too fat
Apr 10 2008 1:11AM
0 0
profile picture
Caveman.
Posts: 9067 - Karma: 330
holy shit those brakes are huge
Apr 10 2008 1:25AM
0 0
profile picture
jergriff
Posts: 440 - Karma: 9
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!
Apr 10 2008 10:38AM
0 0
profile picture
wrenegade
Posts: 6631 - Karma: 41
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.
Apr 21 2008 4:09PM
0 0
profile picture
Farquaharson
Posts: 1203 - Karma: 246
There's a french ski company that has a ski 186 underfoot and it's fucking massive

check it out--

http://global.skipass.com/gearguide/ski/2009/duret/monstre-fat-186-1.html
Jul 29 2008 7:59PM
0 0
profile picture
Farquaharson
Posts: 1203 - Karma: 246
my bad, they're acutally only 177, but still.....
Jul 29 2008 8:00PM
0 0
profile picture
grams.
Posts: 7406 - Karma: 186
my ski of choice when ziplining steep mogul lines:

Click for larger image
Jul 29 2008 8:08PM
0 0
profile picture
Peter.
Posts: 23796 - Karma: 13,012
all the pros will be riding those in the park at the xgames
Jul 29 2008 9:16PM
0 0
profile picture
Farquaharson
Posts: 1203 - Karma: 246

^^ Oh fuck yeah haha

Jul 31 2008 7:54PM
0 0
profile picture
jsaya_SagStraps
Posts: 1840 - Karma: 29
i want those. any1 kno if there good?
Jul 31 2008 10:26PM
0 0
profile picture
BULLSEMEN
Posts: 1289 - Karma: 16
It looks like you had to glue down you heel piece or something. haha
Jul 31 2008 11:07PM
0 0
All times are Eastern (-4)