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!

150mm waist prototype

profile picture
donnie85
Posts: 32 - Karma: 10
Did anyone see the 150mm waist proto that pollard was riding at Loveland...it's on the Line Site...ridiculously wide
Jan 30 2006 10:37AM
0 0
profile picture
invaderskier36
Posts: 6192 - Karma: 41
it looks sick!
Jan 30 2006 10:44AM
0 0
profile picture
MADr.
Posts: 2193 - Karma: 27
Click for larger image
Jan 30 2006 10:45AM
0 0
profile picture
w.dub.c
Posts: 228 - Karma: 10
its insane how wide they are i saw them and was like wat the fuck?
Jan 30 2006 10:46AM
0 0
profile picture
SmoKinSkier
Posts: 5501 - Karma: 20
i think they really are considered snowboards now yea LINE!!!
Jan 30 2006 10:48AM
0 0
profile picture
fitz
Posts: 455 - Karma: 54
https://www.newschoolers.com/ns3/web/content/pictures.php?img=66376&
Jan 30 2006 11:10AM
0 0
profile picture
Elife
Posts: 2829 - Karma: 44
i prefer to ski in powder
Jan 30 2006 11:35AM
0 0
profile picture
MrPantyDropper
Posts: 5016 - Karma: 65
HUGE
Jan 30 2006 12:00PM
0 0
profile picture
Anathema
Posts: 21048 - Karma: 5,061
whooooa, just a few steps shy of a snowboard
Jan 30 2006 12:06PM
0 0
profile picture
donnie85
Posts: 32 - Karma: 10
can you imagine spinning on those?
Jan 30 2006 12:08PM
0 0
profile picture
weenox
Posts: 1568 - Karma: 19
now to me, thats excessive
Jan 30 2006 12:09PM
0 0
profile picture
freezed
Posts: 12973 - Karma: 500
pollards models are always 150mm.
Jan 30 2006 12:12PM
0 0
profile picture
Ryno
Posts: 31125 - Karma: 336
yeah thats what i thought too.....they sell the 130 but pollard rides the 150
Jan 30 2006 12:14PM
0 0
profile picture
SmoKinSkier
Posts: 5501 - Karma: 20
Pretty soon the skis will be designed to actually have lift and carry us further in the air!!!
Feb 1 2006 7:05PM
0 0
profile picture
line_rider_06
Posts: 59 - Karma: 10
stupid... prophets were fat enough. Unless they wanna sell these with ski, snowboard, and waterski, bindings i dont think they'll sell.
Feb 1 2006 7:16PM
0 0
profile picture
xcjumpx
Posts: 141 - Karma: 24
i would actually like to see a little bit wider with a larger shovel. thats just me though













and if you thought i was serious, please go die.
Feb 1 2006 7:18PM
0 0
profile picture
line_rider_06
Posts: 59 - Karma: 10
i agree with this guy, whats the point of pow if you're just gonna float on top, you might as well ski groomers. My 1260's (about 1/12th the size of these bad boys) work fine in powder; 150mm is excessively excessive
Feb 1 2006 7:19PM
0 0
profile picture
Mex_LineJib^a
Posts: 3928 - Karma: 65
no its not
Feb 1 2006 7:22PM
0 0
profile picture
line_rider_06
Posts: 59 - Karma: 10
why
Feb 1 2006 7:23PM
0 0
profile picture
Mex_LineJib^a
Posts: 3928 - Karma: 65
they are constructed like a snowboard and specific for powder. the wider the better..
Feb 1 2006 7:28PM
0 0
profile picture
tcross.au
Posts: 239 - Karma: 11
shouldnt i just get a second snowboard, ny current carver is 170mm wide, so i in theory will get a shitload more float and a greater sidecut
Feb 2 2006 1:01AM
0 0
profile picture
LineAddiction9
Posts: 616 - Karma: 12
Just go buy a fucking snowboard!!! I can't believe how fat skis are get now and days.
Feb 2 2006 2:57AM
0 0
profile picture
onLINE
Posts: 1013 - Karma: 423
i would like to see a little wider 160 would be nice maybe 165
Feb 2 2006 4:53AM
0 0
profile picture
easson19
Posts: 430 - Karma: 10
u can get 165s ^^^^^^
Feb 2 2006 6:47AM
0 0
profile picture
onLINE
Posts: 1013 - Karma: 423
^that was a joke^ but plese fill me in on the 165's
Feb 2 2006 1:00PM
0 0
profile picture
altern8
Posts: 9 - Karma: 10
if you don't argue against 3mm less, here you go:

G-Funkenstein - squash tail standard 180cm 155/162/132

http://www.freeride.nu/content/image.php?id=1221
http://www.freeride.nu/content/image.php?id=1222
www.capitalskis.com/shapes.asp
Feb 2 2006 3:19PM
0 0
profile picture
Desjardins
Posts: 1772 - Karma: 11
150 is way to big, 130 is perfectly fine for powder, you float fine on 130
Feb 2 2006 4:05PM
0 0
profile picture
Skipig25
Posts: 10729 - Karma: 256
I'd get like 95's. 130 is even too large.
Feb 2 2006 4:08PM
0 0
profile picture
Skipig25
Posts: 10729 - Karma: 256
remember when 85 was massive underfoot
Feb 2 2006 4:08PM
0 0
profile picture
KillerMonkey
Posts: 6436 - Karma: 109
i have 200 underfoot. Well its actually 2 snowboards i mounted with bindings. It feels like im riding a cow all day.
Feb 2 2006 4:54PM
0 0
profile picture
wang_bong
Posts: 766 - Karma: 13
shit dude.. 2 snowboards?
Feb 2 2006 5:24PM
0 0
profile picture
spere
Posts: 6105 - Karma: 248
maidens are plenty big, this is too much
Feb 2 2006 5:28PM
0 0
profile picture
Justo8484
Posts: 3905 - Karma: 205
dont knock it til you try it. and whoever said their 1260s ski fine in powder, man, you're missing out.
Feb 2 2006 6:05PM
0 0
profile picture
Powski01
Posts: 65 - Karma: 10
yeah it just makes no sense. Just get no a snowboard if you want something that big, or ski a pontoon or spatula. Sorry but 150mm is just stupid and pretty pointless.
Feb 2 2006 6:50PM
0 0
profile picture
freezed
Posts: 12973 - Karma: 500
that isnt true at all. people have been skiing powder for decades on skis skinnier than today's carvers. you don't have to have prophets or spatulas or what-have-you to ski powder. i'm not saying i don't want a pair, i'm just saying they are in no way necessary.
Feb 2 2006 7:19PM
0 0
profile picture
Ryno
Posts: 31125 - Karma: 336
i used to ski powder on my 1260s great. they were nice and soft for it
Feb 2 2006 7:25PM
0 0
profile picture
GotamaBCshredder
Posts: 5062 - Karma: 424
not necesarry, but hmm, I'm over arguing
Feb 2 2006 8:19PM
0 0
profile picture
skimack
Posts: 2458 - Karma: 33
i doubt any of you have even skied prophet 130s, because if you had you would all realize that 150 makes perfect sense, i think you all need to open your minds, pollard has figured it out, you all need to as well. On a platform that wide, your options grow exponentially, every bump is absorbed over the whole surface of the ski making a smoother ride as well as a more powerful and stable ride through not only powder, but variable snow and hardpack as well. Try some prophets out and i think you will all think again about what you're saying...1260s for powder, cmon, how many 180s did you throw off thirty foot cliffs with those on, yep zero, that's right, line has the fat ski game perfected, check it out.
Feb 2 2006 10:10PM
0 0
profile picture
feihlination
Posts: 8356 - Karma: 1,084
i cant say they are too fat cuz the widest i have ever gone was like 100, and those are my telemark skis.

and i cant tell if they are too fat before i have rode something like 120 or 130, but i would be pleased with a 105 cuz nowadays i ride my ar5 in the pow and i can stomp something like 10 ft cliffs into pow but anything bigger you just loose control.
Feb 3 2006 1:48AM
0 0
profile picture
LittleDevil720
Posts: 3719 - Karma: 8
i made some elizabeths, ill post pics later on this week
Feb 3 2006 3:50AM
0 0
profile picture
Erie
Posts: 1439 - Karma: 15
haha post them
Feb 3 2006 3:57AM
0 0
profile picture
GotamaBCshredder
Posts: 5062 - Karma: 424
Yeah, I like pow so I can feel weightless, and with like 130's youdo that, plus you can ride switch in pow well.
Feb 3 2006 7:12AM
0 0
profile picture
onLINE
Posts: 1013 - Karma: 423
i wanna c these 2
Feb 3 2006 7:18AM
0 0
profile picture
joshbryant
Posts: 2133 - Karma: 228
Everyone says it's not necessary, which may be true, but it's fun. An equal height tip and tail may not be necessary, but it can mean the difference between sticking it and taking a digger.
Feb 3 2006 7:58AM
0 0
All times are Eastern (-5)