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!

189 Kung Fujas? Too much ski, not enough man?

profile picture
hendriab
Posts: 990 - Karma: 404
I currently ride a 178 Moment Rocker. Ulta light, super soft, very fun. They have been used for 3 seasons, and are in terrible shape. The ski is durable - but nothing gold can stay. I saw someone is trying to move some 189 Kung Fujas.

I enjoy bombing around the park, perfer rails and jibs to jumps, and love to ollie stuff and tail slash all over the hill. I ski the midwest, and get out to the Summit Co area once or twice a year. Im almost 6 ft, about 200 lbs, and (considering how long I have been skiing) suck terribly haha

I like the idea of a 100mm waisted ski that I can use in the park - and all over. I am worried that this ski will be too heavy and too long, and make everything I do kind of a chore because of the stiffness and weight associated with the longer ski.

I realize the rocker, and am planning on going center mounted to compensate for the additional length.

Any suggestions for me? Anyone have any experience going way long in skis? Anyone ever used these bad boys before? Let me know NS, you guys are the shit.
Mar 27 2014 11:26PM
3 1
profile picture
Reonic
Posts: 430 - Karma: 10
It'll be a boat for you. It's not a terribly stiff ski it's actually really soft and your a bigger dude. But that's a huge skis in 189.
Mar 27 2014 11:45PM
0 1
profile picture
skier58284
Posts: 1705 - Karma: 5,365
At 200 pounds, a 189 rocker would be alright (a rockered ski feels shorter than a 100% camber ski). If you were an expert skier looking for an all mountain ski 189 would be perfect. However, considering you suck (according to you) and want a park focus, you might be better off going closer to 180. It's preference really. Try to demo skis in the 180-190 range and see what feels best.
Mar 27 2014 11:52PM
1 0
profile picture
Caleb.E
Posts: 3556 - Karma: 1,015
honestly seams like a great fit. go with it man!
Mar 28 2014 2:57AM
0 0
profile picture
HungryHypocrite
Posts: 765 - Karma: 939
I am way taller than you (195cm, 6.4 feet somthingorother) and I ski the 179 fujas, got them at intermediate/beginner level and progressed from there.

I honestly think the size would be way big for you, go for the smaller ones and you wont regret it, they charge either way.

I can only recommend the ski itself though. not the size.
Mar 28 2014 5:58AM
0 1
profile picture
hendriab
Posts: 990 - Karma: 404
thank you for the input. I may have been a bit critical of myself. No one likes to hear people boast about their abilities in a thread so I was inclined to go the humble route. I guess Im dec, very comfortable all over the hill, fine on rails (front swaps, 2s out both way), and a bit timid on jumps (ill pop a 5 if the sun is out and Im really feeling it haha)

The reason I am leaning towards 189 is because there is a chance i could get a deal on them. If I could get 179 for the same price, I would get those no question

10 cm equates to about 4 inches, which is two inches longer in the tip and the tail. So taht makes me think it wouldnt be that much different. But, I suffer from Ski Gear Anxiety, so I am a bit nervous none the less,

All input is greatly appreciated +k
Mar 28 2014 1:55PM
0 0
profile picture
tomPietrowski
Posts: 7147 - Karma: 17,490
Do you have any chance to demo? Even just trying differnt sizes of other skis may help. Those 189 will be long but they are soft. They will be ok all mnt but prob a bit much in the park for rails. Fun on jumps though.
Mar 28 2014 1:59PM
1 0
profile picture
steps
Posts: 5 - Karma: -6
Hey guys
I have the same problem. I'm 5'11" tall and I weigh 195lbs more or less. I'm going to use my Kung Fujas mainly on groomers but I would like to make some ride in park and in thin powder (trees or conventional off-piste) when available.
Which size would suit best for me?
Mar 28 2014 2:22PM
0 0
profile picture
bieberhole69.
Posts: 654 - Karma: 1,387
I'm 6'2" 165 lbs advanced and I have the 179s. For the most part, the size is fine. But when you're going fast I really wish I had a little more ski underneath me, but I feel like the 189s would just be too much for everyday all-mountain skiing
Mar 28 2014 11:26PM
0 0
profile picture
skier58284
Posts: 1705 - Karma: 5,365
Putting it that way you definitely don't sound like you suck. As long as you're not looking for a ski specifically for park, take the 189s. If you want a ski ONLY for park, consider going shorter, but I don't think you'd get a 102mm ski just for park.

tl;dr go with the 189s
Mar 28 2014 11:38PM
0 0
profile picture
skier58284
Posts: 1705 - Karma: 5,365
I would say you're probably on the border. If you like going fast and aggressive, and won't be using them in park much, I'd lean towards the 189, but if you are a less aggressive skier and/or will be taking them in park a lot you might be better off with 179s. See if you can get a chance to demo both. If not the Kung Fujas, then any similar ski (similar waist width and similar amount of rocker) just to get a feel of the lengths.
Mar 28 2014 11:39PM
0 0
profile picture
teamdummy
Posts: 1188 - Karma: 2,604
I've been using a 189 kung for two years now. Pretty much all midwest shit-hill skiing. I'm 5-10 about 175 pounds. I will say this....the 189 is definitely man-sized! I went with the longer 189 thinking the rocker would reduce the effective edge and it would ski shorter.....I was wrong. I have mine mounted at core center. On groomers and pow they rock. They are soft, but I've been able to push their speed limits to the max with out feeling too uncomfortable. I ski tons of park with them. Super durable, but on the rails the length is sometimes a hindrance. If I had to buy them again though. ......I'd probably go with the 179.
Mar 29 2014 9:01AM
0 0
profile picture
steps
Posts: 5 - Karma: -6
Sh4dow thank you for answering!
Let me say that I ski fast and aggressive on-piste, but I'm a very beginner in park and in powder.
However, I'd lean towards 189...my only concern: as a beginner in park, they would be impossible (in term of spin weight etc...) to use in there? Or, using them for a while, I'll probably get used to that length?

KJ will be my first pair of freeski, I would like to use them learn to do some jumps, rails, some fresh snow and trees skiing, but continuing to perform decently on mixed snow groomers.
Mar 29 2014 9:09AM
0 0
profile picture
steps
Posts: 5 - Karma: -6
Unfortunately I can't demo something similar in central Italy, ther's no much of freeski culture in here
Mar 29 2014 9:15AM
0 0
profile picture
bnewbs6
Posts: 1919 - Karma: 1,463
I've skied the 189s a lot. It's really fun on everything outside the park. Like super fun. It's a really soft ski and so everything is just a butter pad. But if you were to take them in the park the length would really really hinder you
Mar 29 2014 10:43AM
0 0
profile picture
skier58284
Posts: 1705 - Karma: 5,365
I'd go with the 179s then. I don't ski park at all but I believe park skiers tend to go shorter, and since you're new to off piste/powder, you probably won't want something too big. If they were a lot bigger (ie 120mm+ underfoot) it would be different, but at only 102, the 189s would probably be a bit much. Especially since you want to take them in trees.

If it helps at all, I'm about 6 feet, 170 pounds, and I ski 179cm K2 Obsethed which are 117mm underfoot. My next pair of off-piste skis will probably be around 190, but I wanted my Obsethed shorter to be more maneuverable in tight spaces (chutes/couloirs, tight trees, etc).

With you being a bit heavier than me you'd probably be fine on the 189s, but what I would recommend is get 179s now, and at some point later when you have more off-piste experience and want a more powder-specific ski, get something closer to 190, and significantly fatter (around 115-125 underfoot).
Mar 29 2014 12:17PM
0 0
profile picture
steps
Posts: 5 - Karma: -6
Ok so i'll definitely go to 179 length...
Thank you for your useful advices!

Mar 29 2014 10:16PM
0 0
All times are Eastern (-5)