Member of the Month

partyandBS
December, 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!

Nordica jah loves?

profile picture
stormtrooper
Posts: 1191 - Karma: 461
what do u guys no about them
Oct 26 2008 4:53PM
0 0
profile picture
Commonwealth
Posts: 3729 - Karma: 11
they're somewhat fat.
Oct 26 2008 4:57PM
0 0
profile picture
stormtrooper
Posts: 1191 - Karma: 461
i no that, but r they soft, stiff, twin tips ?
Oct 26 2008 4:59PM
0 0
profile picture
Commonwealth
Posts: 3729 - Karma: 11
no, yes, yes
Oct 26 2008 5:01PM
0 0
profile picture
stormtrooper
Posts: 1191 - Karma: 461
switch in pow?
Oct 26 2008 5:03PM
0 0
profile picture
SirFryanator
Posts: 11149 - Karma: 1,416
NO THEY ARE NOT TWIN TIPS!!!!!!!!
they are fat big mountain shredders.
Oct 26 2008 5:05PM
0 0
profile picture
no_steeze
Posts: 23992 - Karma: 4,274
if you can't ride switch in pow on a 140 waist then you should quit skiing...
Oct 26 2008 5:05PM
0 0
profile picture
Fish_Sandwich.
Posts: 9108 - Karma: 16
Heh.  What if they were mounted at -45
Oct 26 2008 5:07PM
0 0
profile picture
Dr.Rick_Marshall
Posts: 407 - Karma: 44
they are not a twin tip they are fat and stiff for pow and big mtn
Oct 26 2008 5:07PM
0 0
profile picture
stormtrooper
Posts: 1191 - Karma: 461
looks like im probably going back to the bents but the jah's graphic is sick
Oct 26 2008 5:09PM
0 0
profile picture
no_steeze
Posts: 23992 - Karma: 4,274
i think you could still manage with a 157mm tail
Oct 26 2008 5:24PM
0 0
profile picture
stormtrooper
Posts: 1191 - Karma: 461

well if i got them i would have them like 1 back, and is 185 to big for me, im 5,6 or 5,7

Oct 26 2008 5:26PM
0 0
profile picture
eli112233
Posts: 1028 - Karma: 15
in the pics they dont even look rockerd(even though at 140 waist im sure they are). i would get the hellbent, def. the best twin tip powder beast out there, nothing is even going to compete.
Oct 26 2008 5:31PM
0 0
profile picture
stormtrooper
Posts: 1191 - Karma: 461
but could u charge with the bents
Oct 26 2008 5:35PM
0 0
profile picture
eli112233
Posts: 1028 - Karma: 15
yea...
Oct 26 2008 5:42PM
0 0
profile picture
stormtrooper
Posts: 1191 - Karma: 461
really, i thought they would flex to hard for big cliffs
Oct 26 2008 5:52PM
0 0
profile picture
SV420
Posts: 242 - Karma: 10
you can definitely charge on them but because of the soft tips and tails there are lots of skis that can charge harder (I am getting chopsticks because they are stiffer so they will be a better all-mountain charger) but depending on the size of the cliff and the incline of the landing it is very possible that they will fold and shoot out from under you, i would not suggests cliffs over 40' unless it has a steep smooth landing.
Oct 26 2008 5:59PM
0 0
profile picture
stormtrooper
Posts: 1191 - Karma: 461
i forgot about the chop sticks, how do u think they will be switch in pow
Oct 26 2008 6:05PM
0 0
profile picture
no_steeze
Posts: 23992 - Karma: 4,274
people i know who have ridden chopsticks did not like them at all but they would work switch in pow, they're a true twin
Oct 26 2008 6:08PM
0 0
profile picture
division.bell
Posts: 2762 - Karma: 1,905
The Jah Loves are not very soft at all. I found them suprisingly stiffer than originally imagined when I hand flexed them. They are a directional free ride ski not meant for switch riding/landing. The Chopsticks are pretty stiff underfoot, and the tip and tail feel like they would be a playful ski that is still stiff enough to rip and provide a stable landing platform.
Oct 26 2008 6:10PM
0 0
profile picture
stormtrooper
Posts: 1191 - Karma: 461
aight thanks guys for all the help, +karma
Oct 26 2008 6:11PM
0 0
profile picture
SV420
Posts: 242 - Karma: 10
my bro rode them and said they skied better switch than they skied forward, they have wacky sidecut its not fully symmetrical so i'd assume that must be why they skied so much better switch.
Oct 26 2008 6:19PM
0 0
profile picture
division.bell
Posts: 2762 - Karma: 1,905
The chopsticks ARE symmetrical.

148mm - 128mm - 148mm

Sidecut: 32.4m (185cm), 28.4m (175cm)
Oct 26 2008 6:23PM
0 0
profile picture
skisquaw@420
Posts: 1802 - Karma: 13
WRONG! 149-129-147, and the rocker isnt even close to symetrical. know what youre talking about before you post
Oct 26 2008 6:25PM
0 0
profile picture
division.bell
Posts: 2762 - Karma: 1,905
Chill the fuck out. Better let Volkl know they have a typo on their website then...

www.volkl.com/ski/skis/FR4.php
Oct 26 2008 6:26PM
0 0
profile picture
skisquaw@420
Posts: 1802 - Karma: 13
i rode them before the catalogue came out and measured them out in front of the rep, so i'll leave it up to him to let volkl know

and on another note, david gilmour sucks
Oct 26 2008 6:31PM
0 0
All times are Eastern (-5)