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!

K2 kung fujas

profile picture
soupcan
Posts: 364 - Karma: 562
I couldn't find any straight answers on the 2013 kung fujas measuring true length or not. I know that the older ones measured a few cm longer then stated. I'm right around 169 cm and 145 lbs. am thinking about buying the 169 ski as I like a bit of a shorter more maneuverable ski. The faster the answer the better and more +k
Nov 22 2013 7:54PM
1 0
profile picture
teamdummy
Posts: 1188 - Karma: 2,604
They run true to length. My 189s are exactly that....189.
Nov 22 2013 8:53PM
0 0
profile picture
eg-nj
Posts: 5 - Karma: 15
The 169cm Kung Fujas I ordered measure in at 170cm from tip to tail.  Oddly, the 172cm Line Sir Francis Bacon measures 168.2cm tip to tail (though 172cm if you run the tape measure along the bottom of the ski, which takes into the account the rocker curve).  Go figure... manufacturers really need to stop getting creative with these measurements. 

Same with ski dimensions...  last year I almost ordered the Rossi S3 thinking they were 98mm underfoot, but after some research realized that they were only 93mm in the 168cm length (also not really 168cm).  I was upgrading from 83mm and wanted more like 100mm width, not 90mm.  Maybe they're great, but weren't the increase in surface area I was looking for.
Dec 31 2013 6:36PM
0 0
profile picture
Substitute
Posts: 1376 - Karma: 2,275
I have the same skis, S3s and Mine are the 159. The S3 98 should be 98 mm under foot... pissed me off too
Jan 1 2014 4:28PM
0 0
All times are Eastern (-5)