Member of the Month

KilaTsunami
October, 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!

Prophets

profile picture
GotamaBCshredder
Posts: 5062 - Karma: 424
Whats your opinion on prophets for a ski to be used mainly bc and big mountain?
Oct 27 2005 3:13PM
0 0
profile picture
GotamaBCshredder
Posts: 5062 - Karma: 424
and 186's for a 150 pound 6 foot tall person
Oct 27 2005 3:15PM
0 0
profile picture
DannyMac
Posts: 2837 - Karma: 65
i think they're perfect for bc and I wish they made more fat skis in the 185-186 range - mad float and a huge platform to stomp off bc booters
Oct 27 2005 3:20PM
0 0
profile picture
GotamaBCshredder
Posts: 5062 - Karma: 424
what about like the 50 plus footers, am I not gunna be able to skink into pow on landings?
Oct 27 2005 3:22PM
0 0
profile picture
DannyMac
Posts: 2837 - Karma: 65
50 foot jumps you will probably be fine because you won't have to worry about sticking in and double ejecting / if you're talking 50 foot cliffs that is about 30 feet more ballsy than I am familiar with
Oct 27 2005 3:30PM
0 0
profile picture
Ice-Is-Scary
Posts: 0 - Karma: 87
I dunno, I think there are better BC huck skis out there. I always wondered about that too, if you wouldnt get as much cushion from deep snow because of all the resistance to the surface pressure of the wide ass ski. all in all I don't think it makes a difference when your going big and may even help you slow down on big hucks into shallow snow.
Oct 27 2005 3:33PM
0 0
profile picture
telestar6
Posts: 2102 - Karma: 44
What are you talking about. It doens't matter what skis you're on when hucking cliffs. The Prophets are gigantic so I really doubt you will sink in powder.
Oct 27 2005 3:37PM
0 0
profile picture
Ice-Is-Scary
Posts: 0 - Karma: 87
well I believe that was his concern, not sinking in the landing. aka absorbing the impact with his body not the snow
Oct 27 2005 3:39PM
0 0
profile picture
zepscratch
Posts: 3517 - Karma: 36
i would think 186 is too big for a 150 pound person
Oct 27 2005 4:00PM
0 0
profile picture
Ice-Is-Scary
Posts: 0 - Karma: 87
naghhh
Oct 27 2005 4:02PM
0 0
profile picture
johanblaze
Posts: 4987 - Karma: 345
ahaha. i weigh 145 and ski on 189s little man.
Oct 27 2005 4:04PM
0 0
profile picture
Ice-Is-Scary
Posts: 0 - Karma: 87
Well he is coming from connecticut, and yeah you prolly won't be needing a long fatty out there. P.S I grew up in Avon
Oct 27 2005 4:05PM
0 0
profile picture
flatfive40
Posts: 60 - Karma: 11
a friend of mine has spats and says you sink in noticeably less on cliff landings than with his other skis. and that he wouldnt want to drop anything bigger than 30ft on them. His other skis are 97 at the waist and the spats are 125 i believe. So with 130mm under foot i bet you would def be in for some rough impacts on bigger hucks.
Oct 27 2005 4:08PM
0 0
profile picture
GotamaBCshredder
Posts: 5062 - Karma: 424
Yeah 50 ft jump it don't matter what you ski, I ride all BC and want to hit 50 - 70 footers and I'm scared I'll just smashinto the top of the snow. I ride gotamas right now and they are sick for it.
Oct 27 2005 4:34PM
0 0
profile picture
johanblaze
Posts: 4987 - Karma: 345
okay, straight up they won't be good for hucking, but the fat waist will help you out a lot when it come to stomping the bc booters.
Oct 27 2005 5:05PM
0 0
profile picture
GotamaBCshredder
Posts: 5062 - Karma: 424
i think I changed my mind on them,I am sitting here with the cash and they are 575, I jsut don't know with out riding them
Oct 27 2005 5:15PM
0 0
profile picture
johanblaze
Posts: 4987 - Karma: 345
do you have reactors?

because if you did you could buy them... ski them... and if you don't like them, sell them... and probably get the same price that you sold them for after being ridden once.

and with the reactors you wouldn't have drilled holes in them.
Oct 27 2005 5:20PM
0 0
profile picture
GotamaBCshredder
Posts: 5062 - Karma: 424
I don't, didn't I post this in ski gabber?
Oct 27 2005 5:32PM
0 0
profile picture
AKFREERIDE
Posts: 1718 - Karma: 11
no, its not. i skied a 185 when i was about 140pounds. it all depends on what skiing your doing.

and for your concern about them in the backcountry, heres my opinion. i tell everyone this, but a ski bigger than say lik 110 underfoot is probably gonna be more of a hassle than a reward in the BC. that is, if your skiing real BC. that means skinning out for a couple hours. cus the skis are heavy, youll knock your underfoot togethor alot and so on. dope on the downhill, but draggin those out there, its gonna be a bitch.
Oct 27 2005 7:28PM
0 0
profile picture
GotamaBCshredder
Posts: 5062 - Karma: 424
I bootpack,
Oct 27 2005 7:30PM
0 0
profile picture
AKFREERIDE
Posts: 1718 - Karma: 11
so you dont go that far out into the BC i assume.
Oct 27 2005 7:38PM
0 0
profile picture
GotamaBCshredder
Posts: 5062 - Karma: 424
No I'm jjust a beast :) No I am poor, I camp, so I still get back there a good 12 miles sometimes, just depends. It takes forever and makes you tired, and snow shoes make life easier.
Oct 27 2005 7:48PM
0 0
profile picture
bdskier
Posts: 932 - Karma: 14
i noticed that my spats don't sink in as much, I dropped a 20 footer that i was familiar with and could just land however i wanted before, but with the spats the impact was definetly abrupt. It's a trade off.
Oct 27 2005 7:49PM
0 0
All times are Eastern (-5)