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!
ZypherSince your lighter, the 184s would work good as well. What are you looking to do? For tricks and stuff, the 184's would be better but for big mountain specific performance 190s would offer more stability and better float. Also, they ski a little bit shorter than their specs due to rocker and early taper so theres that to remember too.
oxicleanthe 190 will be better going fast and in powder, but for everything else I feel that the 184 would be more fun.
skidemon22truth. 184 sounds perfect for what you are trying to do. and you should mount them at the forward line (aka whatever factory printed line that is the most forward...)
ZypherSince your lighter, the 184s would work good as well. What are you looking to do? For tricks and stuff, the 184's would be better but for big mountain specific performance 190s would offer more stability and better float. Also, they ski a little bit shorter than their specs due to rocker and early taper so theres that to remember too.
mheatI definitely prefer big mountain terrain and powder.But still, those 30% on the slopes...From the last thing you said, I assume the 190s wouldn't be too long. What do you think? Should I go for the 190s ?
ZypherPersonally, I'd go with the 184s because they'll be a more fun option overall if you like Jibbing and jumping off natural terrain more or if you prefer a ski that is easily maneuverable in tight spots aka trees .
If your solely looking for a ski to slay all conditions and just land a couple of little side hits and stuff like that then the 190s are the way to go
mheatI was almost down to go for the 190s and I just wanted to hear you conferming that 190s are dope :D. Now I'm very confused. Considering that fact that when I'm with my ski shoes on, I grow up immediately with probably an inch, and the fact that 184s are not exactly 184s, the skis are 182. something (that's what blistergearreview says) I don't know whether the 184s would be the right choice. I really thought the 190s are more stable in powder and freeride conditions. The thing is, I'm really scared that the 190s would be too long. I'm currently riding on 178s.
ZypherHaha sorry man, I can't come onto this site and tell you what skis you can and can't buy. I can only say what the pros and cons of each are. If I was in your position, I'd get the 190s but that's me. I'm 5'9 and my shortest ski is a 180 and my longest is a 193 but that's just how I like to ski. For me, longer skis g
ZypherNot sure why that cut off...
give me me more stability on cliff drops and help me to charge harder on the groomers. I have a park setup at 181 and probably wouldn't go longer than that because that's my ideal size for spinning and shit. That being said, I have 185 JJs for powder days and just copped a pair of 193 blizzard Cochises for those days when it's not groomed and straight choppy all the time.
you on the other hand have a desciscon to make. I can literally sit here and type out all the pros and cons to each ski based on legnth but I can't decide for you what skis to buy. On top of that, it's harder for you to decide because you're coming off a pair that's too small for you and don't know where to go from there. Feel free to ask me anything about either ski to narrow down your desciscion but I can't make the final choice haha.
mheatI don't know how are you still here, answering my ridiculous questions, but Thank you dude. Some good skiing guys told me once that every centimeter matters, that's why I'm so obsessed with it. I just don't want my skis to be uncomfortable and ridiculously long but in the same time I want them to be very stable on the cliffs and the Big Mountain/tree terrains. May I ask you what is the feel when you're riding long skis on the groomers ? I mean is it too uncomfortable ? Btw, I'm also thinking about Atomic backland fr 102 188cm but they're a little bit less "fat"
ZypherFirst of all, your questions are completely normal. When buying my skis, I always look at the pros and cons of various aspects of it so don't worry about it.
Riding long skis on groomers will give you more stability at speeds for the sacrifice of maneuverability in trees and chutes. That being said, I was looking at the specs of the 190 SFBs and they do have a tight turn radius at 17m so thats actually really nice. Also, the SFBs new model (the 104 underfoot) is stiffer than the ones I rode (The 108s) so that will give you more stability with a forward mount at speeds. Between the 184's and 190's it sounds like you may enjoy the 190s a bit more at Eric Pollards Recommended mount which gives you better jump stability with the sacrfice of a little bit of float.
The backland FR 102 is the same as the Automatic 102 but the FR has carbon in the layup. IMO, the automatics are much better than the backlands because they are a bit heavier and more stable.
If you're looking at some different skis, I'd also recommend looking at some of these. Also, having a smaller underfoot ski and a designated pow ski is nice IMO so that might be something to consider (Its worth it because you don't need to compensate something depending on the conditions but thats my opinion).
Moment PB&J (102 underfoot and comes in 188cm length)
Moment Deathwish (112 underfoot and comes in 184cm and 190cm length)
Icelantic Nomad 105 (191 length and 105 underfoot)
Armada ARV 106 (106 underfoot and comes in 188 cm length)
ON3P Kartel 108 (108 underfoot and comes in 186 and 191cm length)
etc, etc.
mheatMoment PB&J looks pretty awesome, just its tail is a bit small. And moment deathwish looks sooo doope, but 112 underfoot ? Man, I think I would die :D. I mean I don't think I'm ready for something above 105. I don't get that thing about automatic 102 being better than FR 102. Isn't it a good thing that the FR 102 is lighter ? And isn't the 190 SFB also lighter than most of the skis with that height ?
ZypherWhen cruising at speeds and landing cliffs and stuff, a heavier ski is a better choice in my opinion because it will wash out less on landings and be more stable overall. I have ridden a pair of armada JJ 2.0s and own a pair of armada JJ Zeros and the difference between the two is pretty crazy, Same exact dimensions but the Zeros are much different feeling. Its all about personal preference however so remember that. The SFBs are a pretty light ski all things considered but since you're a lighter guy (just reading that now) the carbon layup in a ski probably wont feel as different for you as it did for me (yes im 165 lbs to but being a few inches shorter and having a different bulid really changes some things when shredding)
mheatI guess the third choice would be the Rossignol soul 7 but it is pretty damn average (I think). Would you recommend any others ultimate all mountain skis between 188 and 190 ?
ZypherDon't go soul 7s. The tip till on them that makes it see through is very chattery since Rossi doesn't layer it with anything else making it super stupid imo. I work for a ski company and we started using that fill in some test pairs and it's really nice when layered correctly with other e glass options
SFB4TWMe again here. But newschoolers only allows me to post 5 times a day (I'm so freaking annoying dude... :D :D)
I think I'm literally one step away from going for the SFB 190 but would you tell me what do you think about the Scott Punisher/ Cascade 110 and the black crows atris ? They look pretty dope too
ZypherI know a little about the atris skis, but the sfbs will suit you better than that
SFB4TWThank you, I will probably buy the SFB or the atomic fr 102. I did some research and it seems that the Atomic FR 102 is approximately 250g lighter (that's like 0.5 pounds) than the SFB which is really not that much I guess. I just wanna know because both skis seem pretty awesome, what would be the main difference between them, expect those 2 centimeters (the fr 102 is 188). I mean, the SFB is full twin tip and the fr 102 is partial twin tip, but does that really matter in the big mountain and in powder conditions ? Also, do you feel the difference between wooden and carbon,wooden skis when you're riding ?
ZypherI don't think you'll notice the 2cm difference at all. And under your feet, that 250g will be somewhat noticeable but not a ton. As for the dropped tail on the backland, that's going to give you better maneuverability in fresh snow at the sacrifice of switch skiing really. Finally, carbon in a ski makes it lighter and more snappy but less stable at high speeds. Tbh, you can't really go wrong with either so it's up to you
SFB4TWAnd the width of the SFB is with 2mm longer :D :D :D. You said that riding the SFB 190s I wouldn't feel like I'm riding 190cm long ski which is kinda good I guess. Anyway, thank you so much man. You're awesome.