new ski company (bluehouse) offer!
26 posts
8 users
10k+ views
crunchy
September 10, 2007
Member since 02/22/2007 🔗
596 posts
tromano might be interested in these \:\) nice fat pow/bigmtn skis for $250! only a few pairs left at their introductory sale.

http://www.bluehouseskis.com/ski-products/product_info.php?products_id=3
comprex
September 10, 2007
Member since 04/11/2003 🔗
1,326 posts
I should have a pair of the 179cm MRs on the way pretty soon.
tromano
September 10, 2007
Member since 12/19/2002 🔗
998 posts
Crunchy,

I was following that story on TGR. I decided to buy a pair of Scott P4s instead though. There have been many really nice deals on fat skis this summer.
Crush
September 11, 2007
Member since 03/21/2004 🔗
1,011 posts
cool! but are they any good, lol? hmm very tempting ..... they sound like they are sort of soft and flex-y tho i usually like stiff skis.
DCSki Sponsor: Canaan Valley Resort
tromano
September 14, 2007
Member since 12/19/2002 🔗
998 posts
The districts were compared to gotamas, but maybe the softer gotamas from a few years ago. If you need a 100mm wide ski and like softer boards, it might be worth the risk. $250 isn't a lot for new fat ski. I think comprex has the right idea with 179 MRs. That should be great for tree skiing in the DC area and big enough for trips west.
crunchy
September 14, 2007
Member since 02/22/2007 🔗
596 posts
i already pulled the trigger on a pair of the MR's myself \:\)
tromano
September 14, 2007
Member since 12/19/2002 🔗
998 posts
Awesome. You should do a review here a little later on. I skied 92mm Norica Beasts 188cm many days last season at 7springs and in UT as well. They worked pretty well at springs, assuming there was some natural snow around. There were even good for high speed cruising in the afternoons once the slopes had softened up and were either getting scraped off or sort of lumpy.

I also saw a handfull of other peeps on 90mm+ skis at springs on a semi regular basis. One guy was on 188 4FRNT MSP and then Springsregualr is always rocking Bros. I saw a another guy on maybe Mojo 90s?
comprex
September 14, 2007
Member since 04/11/2003 🔗
1,326 posts

BTW, I'm retiring my RD Helidogs (184cm, 120/95/108 or thereabouts) so if anyone wants midfats with Marker demos for local spring slushy use, LMK.
Taylormatt
September 15, 2007
Member since 12/3/2004 🔗
339 posts
<--- Rocked the Mojo 90's nearly every day at 7S last year.
Laurel Hill Crazie - DCSki Supporter
September 16, 2007
Member since 08/16/2004 🔗
1,855 posts
What's with fat skis in the east? I don't understand. My old chubbs worked ok but were hell in the bumps. Getting those suckers up on edge in on the groomed was work. Even my mid-fats in the mid to high 80s were work. I love my Rossi 9S race stock, the wide shovels and tails give plenty of float for what passes as powder around here and the 64 underfoot alows me to carve on a dime. What am I missing?
jimmy
September 16, 2007
Member since 03/5/2004 🔗
2,650 posts
comprex MR reminds me of K2 PE's, maybe a bit wider?

 Quote:
What's with fat skis in the east?


LHC Depends on your definition of fat. My atomics are short and.... oh they're 72 underfoot is that fat?,,,,just like me ;). I think they carve fine but they're easy to skid and blast crud all afternoon. Wider.....better.
tromano
September 16, 2007
Member since 12/19/2002 🔗
998 posts
I don't disagree Mr LHC. Shortie SL skis are mighty fun. I really liked my metron B5s as a carving ski last season. But I have found that for most days once the temps get above 35 Degrees on a typical crowded weekend by the afternoon things start to soften up and get really cruddy and bumpy even on groomers. So a longer wider ski can work well in those conditions and off piste as well. Not to mention that out snow in the midatlantic is so thin off trail that in many cases a 90mm wide ski can ski lines that 65mm ski will be down into the grass or rock. Plus I try to conserve my carving edges for truly icy days.
Taylormatt
September 16, 2007
Member since 12/3/2004 🔗
339 posts
 Originally Posted By: Laurel Hill Crazie
What's with fat skis in the east? I don't understand. My old chubbs worked ok but were hell in the bumps. Getting those suckers up on edge in on the groomed was work. Even my mid-fats in the mid to high 80s were work. I love my Rossi 9S race stock, the wide shovels and tails give plenty of float for what passes as powder around here and the 64 underfoot alows me to carve on a dime. What am I missing?


What are you missing? Lots of fun.

Obviously, they work great in fresh, duh. The deeper, the better. The new All Mountain fatties have a decent amount of side cut unlike the old mid fats and carve quite well. To bang SR turns is work, I won't lie. Bumps are fun until they get REAL tight and rutted, then my 67 waist skis are the tool. If it's real hard, the lack of tails on TT's puts me back on my Blizzards.

Fresh, chop, crud, corn and slush (we see more of the latter than the first) absolutely rock on 90mm under foot. Landing is much more sure footed as well with the extra girth. I also like to spend a good amount of time in the park when I get bored on the terrain around here (almost daily unless it's dumping) so a fat twin is a no brainer for me.

If you get a chance to demo some of the new fat twins, do it. A bark eater like yourself will quickly fall in love with them for many conditions even here in the East.
crunchy
September 17, 2007
Member since 02/22/2007 🔗
596 posts
 Originally Posted By: Laurel Hill Crazie
What's with fat skis in the east? I don't understand. My old chubbs worked ok but were hell in the bumps. Getting those suckers up on edge in on the groomed was work. Even my mid-fats in the mid to high 80s were work. I love my Rossi 9S race stock, the wide shovels and tails give plenty of float for what passes as powder around here and the 64 underfoot alows me to carve on a dime. What am I missing?


well for most people I don't think its their exclusive east coast ski. its just another tool in the toolbox. Some may argue, 'if you are a good skier, you can ski on any ski', which is true of course, but it may take less effort with a different tool. using the right tool for the right situation can = less work and more fun \:\)
comprex
September 17, 2007
Member since 04/11/2003 🔗
1,326 posts
 Originally Posted By: Laurel Hill Crazie
What's with fat skis in the east? I don't understand. My old chubbs worked ok but were hell in the bumps.


Really? My optical-base ones were -superb- for western big ski bumps and fair to good for soft spring bumps.

I will grant you that the tails on those weren't optimal for getting the sort of water-ski rebound from fall-line wedelns.

They were viciously unstable for speed control on slick ice until I figured out to do a super-pivot with the hips way, way past the fall line at the top of the turn (and you thought that rotary torso machine at the gym wasn't good for anything skiing).

 Quote:

Getting those suckers up on edge in on the groomed was work. Even my mid-fats in the mid to high 80s were work.


Which is why my Sugar Daddys had 12mm lift.

 Quote:

I love my Rossi 9S race stock, the wide shovels and tails give plenty of float for what passes as powder around here and the 64 underfoot alows me to carve on a dime. What am I missing?


Slush boating (the ability to have the entire not edged but tilted ski displace snow, thus creating lateral "lift") and the ability to float on very, very thin cover.
comprex
September 17, 2007
Member since 04/11/2003 🔗
1,326 posts
 Originally Posted By: jimmy
comprex MR reminds me of K2 PE's, maybe a bit wider?


Yeah, lighter and a bit less damp from what I've read, both of which should be good things. We'll see. Hoping to write a Tahoe review as well.
Laurel Hill Crazie - DCSki Supporter
September 18, 2007
Member since 08/16/2004 🔗
1,855 posts
OK, good reasons for fatties in thin cover natural, spring conditions and soft bumps but really, this is the Mid-Atlantic and hardpack, ice and rocks are the usual conditions.

I just wonder if 'fat' isn't the new 'long'. Before shaped skis (wider tips and tails creating deep side cuts) you weren't considered and expert if your skis were under 200 cm regardless of the skiers weight. Are the new fatties truly tools for skiing or tools for image? I've owned Bandit III, RPM 17 (stiffer Bandit II with risers) and I own K2 Recons I won at Stowe a few years back. When I got my 9Ss my Recons have stayed in the quiver. Are the newer mid-fats drastically different then those 3 skis?
comprex
September 18, 2007
Member since 04/11/2003 🔗
1,326 posts
 Originally Posted By: Laurel Hill Crazie
I've owned Bandit III,


XXX, B3 (94 waist) or recent B3 (83 waist)?

Noticeably more turny and hardpack-responsive than the first, about the same <ballpark> as the last two although a lot of the new stuff has shorter published radii, and 88mm waist is the new 78mm waist.

 Quote:

RPM 17 (stiffer Bandit II with risers) and I own K2 Recons I won at Stowe a few years back. When I got my 9Ss my Recons have stayed in the quiver. Are the newer mid-fats drastically different then those 3 skis?


Different than those, yes. What really seems to be pretty much doornail dead is the long-radius thin non-specialty (racing, mogul) ski, the direct descendant of the '90s all-mountain GS cut sticks.
crunchy
September 18, 2007
Member since 02/22/2007 🔗
596 posts
 Originally Posted By: Laurel Hill Crazie
Are the new fatties truly tools for skiing or tools for image?


both! seriously tho, it's like you said, "tools for skiing". fat skis are not the right tool for every situation. in deep snow, there is no question they are the right tool. for carving on hardpack, there are much better tools. so its good to have a few tools in the box \:\)
Laurel Hill Crazie - DCSki Supporter
September 18, 2007
Member since 08/16/2004 🔗
1,855 posts
 Originally Posted By: comprex


 Quote:

RPM 17 (stiffer Bandit II with risers) and I own K2 Recons I won at Stowe a few years back. When I got my 9Ss my Recons have stayed in the quiver. Are the newer mid-fats drastically different then those 3 skis?


Different than those, yes. What really seems to be pretty much doornail dead is the long-radius thin non-specialty (racing, mogul) ski, the direct descendant of the '90s all-mountain GS cut sticks.


They were the old Bandits but I don't think they were 94 under foot. I'm thinking 84 so maybe they were IIs. I thought the Recons were relatively unchanged over the last few years.

To tell the truth, the Recons have seen very, very limited use. The only day I should have used them (last year at the 7 Spring gathering) I forgot to bring them along. It was one of the best powder days I've skied at 7S, many lines were knee deep and we managed to get several untracked shots and chopped all day. I was on my 9Ss and smiling from ear to ear. Tromano was on some long, wide boards but it was my age and physical conditioning that slowed me down, not the 9S. I'll have to give those Recons a fair try one day but I can't get over those short slalom skis and that delirious feeling I get when I'm on them.
comprex
September 19, 2007
Member since 04/11/2003 🔗
1,326 posts
Heh, I remember feeling envious of your short turn radius that day you led the side paths off Lord.
Laurel Hill Crazie - DCSki Supporter
September 19, 2007
Member since 08/16/2004 🔗
1,855 posts
Well thank you and I was probably on the RPM 17s. That was a fun day, I'm glad we met before the clinic started. I'm sure now that the Bandits I had were the II. I liked the 17 better because they were a stiffer ski due to the built in riser, the dimensions were the same. I sold the Bandit II on E-bay. I got the 9S right after I broke my elbow in summer 05, sort of as incentive to work at rehab.

As I said, I'll give those Recons a real shot especially in less then perfect natural conditions and I'll demo some other 90+ fatties with deep sidecuts. I'll see for myself what I've been missing. Anybody have any recommendations for demos?
Taylormatt
September 19, 2007
Member since 12/3/2004 🔗
339 posts
The Recon and K2 in general are super damp, almost dead skis. This might be part of the problem regarding not liking them more than the width, especially when comparing to the 9S. Volant's aren't known for being real lively either.

Try some snappier fat skis from Head, Atomic, Dynastar, Rossi, Volkl, etc. You want a fatty that can carve like mad? Check out the Nordica Supercharger Ignition. It's soft, but very quick edge to edge. Elan's also making some pretty ripping stuff in wider widths from what I demo'd this Spring.
tromano
September 19, 2007
Member since 12/19/2002 🔗
998 posts
LHC, you should try an im88 in a 175 length. Its a really nice ski that does most things very well and is easy to ski. Other than that... demo. I know the Willi's at 7S has some skis 80mm+ width available for demo in 17X lengths (or they did last season).
comprex
September 19, 2007
Member since 04/11/2003 🔗
1,326 posts
 Originally Posted By: Taylormatt
Check out the Nordica Supercharger Ignition.


I'm starting to really want the Enforcers. The MRs might just be far softer than I was expecting so ...
Ullr
October 1, 2007
Member since 11/27/2004 🔗
531 posts
I'm in the same boat you are LHC, I took skier219's Karma's off his hands last year, and will be looking to try them in the east as well.
DCSki Sponsor: Canaan Valley Resort

Ski and Tell

Snowcat got your tongue?

Join the conversation by logging in.

Don't have an account? Create one here.

0.14 seconds