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!

Fat symmetrical skis?

profile picture
ButteredToast.
Posts: 6459 - Karma: 2,570
Looking to get a new pair of skis this year, had Atomic Patents last year and absolutely fucking loved them. They were 95 in the waist and symmetrical which I loved and they could plow through all kinds of shit. They also handled remarkably well switch. They were also manageable in the powder which I really liked.

The only thing I didn't like was that the edges were strangely delicate and cracked day 1 or 2 and ripped out pretty fast. I've been told that's fixed on this year's model though.

What would a comparable ski be? I can't find this year's model anywhere...
Nov 6 2012 4:21PM
1 0
profile picture
T.O.
Posts: 740 - Karma: 97
Line TC, Surface One Time, Joystick Skis
Nov 6 2012 4:30PM
0 0
profile picture
Obie.
Posts: 1741 - Karma: 3,646
Take a look at the new Rossingnol Scimitar, 99 underfoot and nearly symmetrical dimensions along with a full rocker profile....the ski should be able to handle everything very well while remaining playful.
Nov 6 2012 4:48PM
0 0
profile picture
ButteredToast.
Posts: 6459 - Karma: 2,570
Any difference between this years and lasts?
Nov 6 2012 5:17PM
0 0
profile picture
Obie.
Posts: 1741 - Karma: 3,646
Other than the different sizes available (2012 model: 171, 178, 185. 2013 model: 167, 174, 181) and very minor difference in waist width (1 mm), I dont believe so.
Nov 6 2012 5:58PM
0 0
profile picture
A.C
Posts: 128 - Karma: 16
Moment ghost chant
Nov 6 2012 6:32PM
0 0
profile picture
bnewbs6
Posts: 1919 - Karma: 1,462
4FRNT YLE. They are symmetrical and fat. And that's what you asked for..
Nov 6 2012 7:54PM
0 0
profile picture
FuckAllOfYou
Posts: 3864 - Karma: 2,518
this. 93 underfoot, symmetrical. haven't taken to deep snow but they're super stable so far.
Nov 6 2012 8:01PM
0 0
profile picture
Dirty.Harry.
Posts: 1779 - Karma: 351
1. Are you looking for 3 point or 5 point geometry?
2. How wide? IMO under ~105 isn't considered "fat" anymore...most all mountain skis seem to be in the 95-105 range now.
3. Whoever said the 4frnt YLE...I haven't skied it but have heard good things. It is also on the softer side I believe.
Nov 7 2012 8:57AM
0 0
profile picture
MothaHucker
Posts: 4678 - Karma: 2,589
...
Nov 7 2012 9:56AM
0 0
profile picture
boomermcnasty
Posts: 2 - Karma: 12
Kastle XX110 West
Nov 8 2012 11:55AM
0 0
profile picture
Ghini
Posts: 2227 - Karma: 2,883
this
Nov 8 2012 12:43PM
0 0
profile picture
Ali_Dibden
Posts: 1966 - Karma: 1,688
4FRNT Hoji
Nov 8 2012 1:13PM
0 0
profile picture
momentz
Posts: 875 - Karma: 285
such a sick ski and same with the renegades may not be symmetrical but they tear up everywhere they go.
Nov 8 2012 3:40PM
0 0
profile picture
Ghini
Posts: 2227 - Karma: 2,883
Yeah Hoji's have the perfect tails for landing switch:
Click for larger image
Nov 8 2012 4:11PM
0 0
profile picture
Jiberfish
Posts: 1041 - Karma: 310
The new lifes are perfectly symmetrical. And they r fatttt
Nov 8 2012 6:39PM
0 0
profile picture
jmasterp
Posts: 1976 - Karma: 233
Just bought a pair, I'm eager to try them in the park!!
Nov 8 2012 7:36PM
0 0
profile picture
ButteredToast.
Posts: 6459 - Karma: 2,570
1) Iunno. Rocker would be nice in the deeper stuff though.
2) I'm thinking in the 110-100 range now....


I want something that will do well in the park and groomers but can handle MUCH deeper things when I go out west. I want something close to symmetrical so skiing switch isn't too big of a challenge.

Ideally, something fat enough to handle deeper things but still hold well in midwest/manmade snow.
Nov 11 2012 4:10PM
0 0
profile picture
50Kal
Posts: 2826 - Karma: 5,367
I second this. Heres a review. I really want to try this ski out. Fully symmetrical Pow ski made by Kastle.
http://blistergearreview.com/gear-reviews/2012-2013-kastle-west-xx110

Nov 11 2012 4:14PM
0 0
profile picture
ButteredToast.
Posts: 6459 - Karma: 2,570
I would LOVE to have those but jesus, they are expensive
Nov 11 2012 5:29PM
0 0
profile picture
AndrewGravesSV
Posts: 3067 - Karma: 14,898
They are soooo much fun
Nov 11 2012 5:34PM
0 0
profile picture
Stope.Neeze
Posts: 594 - Karma: 148
on3p filthy rich they look sick
Nov 11 2012 5:55PM
0 0
profile picture
Stope.Neeze
Posts: 594 - Karma: 148
http://www.on3pskis.com/products/skis/filthy-rich/
Nov 11 2012 5:57PM
0 0
profile picture
james6345789
Posts: 4763 - Karma: 465
I have them and they are sick, but I wouldn't exactly call 88 mm underfoot fat.
Nov 11 2012 6:30PM
0 0
profile picture
W.Kibs
Posts: 84 - Karma: 42
Line anthems sick as hell
Nov 24 2012 3:10PM
0 0
All times are Eastern (-4)