K2 Darksides

Them skis are fat.

On Sun, 28 Mar 2010 14:43:19 -0700 (PDT), Evojeesus
wrote:

Them skis are fat.
and have nice graphics. Have you tried them?

On Mar 30, 12:03*am, Dick G wrote:
On Sun, 28 Mar 2010 14:43:19 -0700 (PDT), Evojeesus

wrote:
Them skis are fat.

and have nice graphics. Have you tried them?

Demoed them one day, predictably stable at high speed with good
floatation, cut through heavier snow with ease. Nice skis but IMO
unnecessary wide for powder and on hardpack the wide base can cause
knee-issues. I think the Sidestash might be of more reasonable width
for everyday use.

On Mar 30, 6:20*am, Evojeesus wrote:
On Mar 30, 12:03*am, Dick G wrote:

On Sun, 28 Mar 2010 14:43:19 -0700 (PDT), Evojeesus
wrote:
Them skis are fat.
and have nice graphics. Have you tried them?

Demoed them one day, predictably stable at high speed with good
floatation, cut through heavier snow with ease.

Wow. Those sound like my old 205 Salomon's. Do they make tight little
snap turns too? How are they in the bumps?

On Mar 30, 3:29*pm, pigo wrote:
On Mar 30, 6:20*am, Evojeesus wrote:
On Mar 30, 12:03*am, Dick G wrote:
On Sun, 28 Mar 2010 14:43:19 -0700 (PDT), Evojeesus

Demoed them one day, predictably stable at high speed with good
floatation, cut through heavier snow with ease.

Wow. Those sound like my old 205 Salomon's. Do they make tight little
snap turns too? How are they in the bumps?

These skis were about 7x faster in powder than some old skinny skis.
If you want to make tight little snap turns for some weird reason get
a rockered ski or do jump-turns. Superfats cannot excel in the bumps I
think, bad for the knees too.

On Tue, 30 Mar 2010 05:20:28 -0700 (PDT), Evojeesus
wrote:

On Mar 30, 12:03*am, Dick G wrote:
On Sun, 28 Mar 2010 14:43:19 -0700 (PDT), Evojeesus

wrote:
Them skis are fat.

and have nice graphics. Have you tried them?

Demoed them one day, predictably stable at high speed with good
floatation, cut through heavier snow with ease. Nice skis but IMO
unnecessary wide for powder and on hardpack the wide base can cause
knee-issues. I think the Sidestash might be of more reasonable width
for everyday use.
Already blew my mcl on wide boards 4 years ago, never been the same. I
will take a pass

On Mar 30, 8:47*am, Evojeesus wrote:

These skis were about 7x faster in powder than some old skinny skis.
If you want to make tight little snap turns for some weird reason get
a rockered ski or do jump-turns. Superfats cannot excel in the bumps I
think, bad for the knees too.

Wow! 7 times faster? How did you arrive at that figure? Is it because
you ride on top as opposed to going up and down in the powder? What if
you are not racing in the powder?

You don't like to make small turns? Too hard for you?

On Mar 31, 12:14*am, pigo wrote:
On Mar 30, 8:47*am, Evojeesus wrote:

These skis were about 7x faster in powder than some old skinny skis.
If you want to make tight little snap turns for some weird reason get
a rockered ski or do jump-turns. Superfats cannot excel in the bumps I
think, bad for the knees too.

Wow! 7 times faster? How did you arrive at that figure?

That is the Stetson-Harrison estimate for the speed-increase.

Is it because
you ride on top as opposed to going up and down in the powder?

Also because the added stability allows one to ski faster over/through
uneven snow - very confidence-inspiring.

What if
you are not racing in the powder?

Fatties are still useful when the terrain is not quite steep enough.
One is likely to get stuck in places with the skinny skis.

You don't like to make small turns? Too hard for you?

Big mountains - big turns.

On Apr 3, 2:28*am, Evojeesus wrote:
On Mar 31, 12:14*am, pigo wrote:

On Mar 30, 8:47*am, Evojeesus wrote:

These skis were about 7x faster in powder than some old skinny skis.
If you want to make tight little snap turns for some weird reason get
a rockered ski or do jump-turns. Superfats cannot excel in the bumps I
think, bad for the knees too.
Wow! 7 times faster? How did you arrive at that figure?

That is the Stetson-Harrison estimate for the speed-increase.

Is it because
you ride on top as opposed to going up and down in the powder?

Also because the added stability allows one to ski faster over/through
uneven snow - very confidence-inspiring.

What if
you are not racing in the powder?

Fatties are still useful when the terrain is not quite steep enough.
One is likely to get stuck in places with the skinny skis.

You don't like to make small turns? Too hard for you?

Big mountains - big turns.

Little dick, little turns.

On Sun, 4 Apr 2010 16:26:10 -0700 (PDT), twobuddha
wrote:

On Apr 3, 2:28*am, Evojeesus wrote:
On Mar 31, 12:14*am, pigo wrote:

On Mar 30, 8:47*am, Evojeesus wrote:

These skis were about 7x faster in powder than some old skinny skis.
If you want to make tight little snap turns for some weird reason get
a rockered ski or do jump-turns. Superfats cannot excel in the bumps I
think, bad for the knees too.
Wow! 7 times faster? How did you arrive at that figure?

That is the Stetson-Harrison estimate for the speed-increase.

Is it because
you ride on top as opposed to going up and down in the powder?

Also because the added stability allows one to ski faster over/through
uneven snow - very confidence-inspiring.

What if
you are not racing in the powder?

Fatties are still useful when the terrain is not quite steep enough.
One is likely to get stuck in places with the skinny skis.

You don't like to make small turns? Too hard for you?

Big mountains - big turns.

Little dick, little turns.
Coming from the man with the smallest penis syndrome