Did the shop steer me wrong?

Cannonball said:

But with that said, I'm much happier when I'm on a 163 snowboard in the trees.

Click to expand...

Damn 163 seems big to me (a full time boarder) I love my 146 NUG to navigate the tight trees...I bet its quite a sight bombing through on that! I have a buddy who is 6'10" and rides a huge board but wont follow us into the woods since its so bit, hopefully I can use this to get him into the wood this year!!!

planb420 said:

Damn 163 seems big to me (a full time boarder) I love my 146 NUG to navigate the tight trees...I bet its quite a sight bombing through on that! I have a buddy who is 6'10" and rides a huge board but wont follow us into the woods since its so bit, hopefully I can use this to get him into the wood this year!!!

Click to expand...

I guess it's just what you're used to. I've been riding boards 161-165 for almost 20 years. And I've been skiing/riding dense New Hampshire trees for even longer. I have a size 11 boot and weigh 180. I have a hard time imagining myself on anything narrower or shorter. But I do sometimes think it would fun to play in the woods on a rockered 150-something.

Heck, my wife rides a 161.

Bumping an old thread for some feedback:

I've logged a bunch of days on the 112s and the verdict is still out.

I have noticed lately that I feel like they are putting me in the back seat.

For instance, I've started a handful of days on them recently only to realize that I'd prefer my bonafides. When I make the switch, it's almost as if it takes me a run or two to figure out how to ski again. One of my skis always feels like it is way out in front of me (in this case my right ski) I feel out of control and my weight is clearly distributed poorly.

I don't know if it's a facet if poor technique or an indication that the ski is too long. I don't know. Maybe I just haven't figured them out??

They carve pretty damned well and float is good. I wish I could figure out how to get them dialed in.

Thoughts?

How long are the Bonafides for comparison? Also, are the Wailer bindings mounted on the line or forward or back?


Sent from my iPhone using AlpineZone

Bones are 173 both mounted factory recommended center


Sent from my iPhone using AlpineZone mobile a

Also, are these Bonafides a recent version with tip and tail rocker? If so, at 173 I imagine that is a short turning ski.

I can only offer a recent experience which isn't quite apples to apples. I typically ski a 170 Kendo (older version, no rocker). I won't say it skis long but it certainly does not ski short.

I also ski 174 K2 Hardsides with tip rocker. K2 measures differently than Volkl and, by the eye, they look identical in length to a 177 Kendo or Mantra. As far as turning ease goes, they're very close to my 170 Kendo.

I recently skied a 180 Brahma, with tip and tail rocker, identical in construction to the Bonafides, just with a skinnier waist. Those were an absolute delight to ski, and turned easier than the skis above.

Also tried the Soul 7s in a 180, also with rocker. They were slightly less easy to turn than the Brahmas but I would definitely buy this ski in that length.

I recently skied a Kastle FX 104 in a 184 (I said 182 in a recent TR, but I was wrong). No rocker in those bad boys. Good float and a smooth ride but, when I wasn't skiing the pow and was on packed down trails, I found them a bear to turn. No way would I buy that ski in that length.

I'm 5'11", 175 lbs. Not a terribly helpful post from me but just giving you my perspective. I see folks out there on skis I feel are too long. You could just need more time on them or maybe they just aren't your cup of tea.

Yeah, they are this years bonafide.

I think I need a few days of lessons on both. Until this year, my daily driver was a 170 mantra with no rocker. Over the past few years, it's battle scars started to show and I decided it was time for something new, relegating them to the early/late season ski.

I demoed the crap out of the bonafides and the brahmas in both the 173 and 180 length. For me, I felt more comfortable on the the 173 bone. My feet liked the 98 under foot.

The 112s are a different beast. They are fairly effortless to turn however I can't tell if that's because I am skiing them wrong or not. Again, I think what it boils down to is having a professional see me ski and determine if I am in fact changing my body position when I ski them.

Your post was indeed helpful. Thanks!


Sent from my iPhone using AlpineZone mobile a

I am 5'9" and I use a fully-cambered 175 ski. My theory on rocker is that it only skis shorter when you are going straight, and that when you put it on edge, it will still ski true to length (I'm sure there will be disagreement on this!). Do you feel like you are in control when you are turning, but less-so going straight (particularly on hardpack)?


Sent from my iPad using AlpineZone mobile app

Maybe when you settle back a little...that increased area up front, in effect, puts you a little more towards the backseat? I'm saying "Maybe" cause..sadly not experienced Yet....but will next winter. With a lot of open space, ie Rocky Mtns, ..on YouTube one sees a LOT of tail-riding...thus they usually pivot-&-skid their way down....not being able to turn until a hockey stop saves from collisions.