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!

Question about STL's

profile picture
r_witt
Posts: 911 - Karma: 10
I'm 6 foot and around 170 pounds with some room to grow. Im just curious if the 183 STL would be ok for me. I can't demo 4-Frnts at my local hill so the only comparable ski of that length that I have demoed was a set of Fujatives. They felt nice and they seem to have similar flex patterns to the STL's, so I was hoping the STL's would work. I just want to try and ski something longer than my 171 1080's that I have now because I feel like they are too small.
~~~~~~~~~~~~

if i had no hands, id have a tee shirt that said, 'ever been stump fucked?' - cj
Dec 20 2004 2:11PM
0 0
profile picture
TwinTipWonder
Posts: 1078 - Karma: 10
From what i hear and read about their construction (but i dont know first hand) is that theyre mainly a park ski. Wouldnt really expect to have a race stiff ski along with a great park ski.
Dec 20 2004 2:27PM
0 0
profile picture
UTmeathead
Posts: 265 - Karma: 15
The 183 is definitely your size, and at 84mm underfoot, the ski is suprisingly versitle. I'd say go for it, especially over Fugatives.
Dec 20 2004 2:32PM
0 0
profile picture
00000000
Posts: 11075 - Karma: 82,508
the fujative is a better ski for the price
Dec 20 2004 2:36PM
0 0
profile picture
J.D.
Posts: 21362 - Karma: 5,142
I would go 177, personally, just because I always tend to go shorter with a park ski. If you're buying STLs, you're getting a park ski. They're soft everywhere. Even more so than T-halls.

------------
In a haze
A stormy haze
I’ll be around
I’ll be loving you
Always
Always

Here I am
And I’ll take my time
Here I am
And I’ll wait in line
Always
Always...
Dec 20 2004 2:40PM
0 0
profile picture
skiforhead
Posts: 101 - Karma: 12
^^^^^
true that the stl is soft, great for park, all around fun ski, much better than the fujative
pray for snow
Dec 20 2004 4:13PM
0 0
profile picture
Rowdy2
Posts: 265 - Karma: 10
I don't know about softer than T-Halls. The center of the STL's is pretty stiff, and the tail has tons of pop.
Dec 20 2004 5:25PM
0 0
profile picture
r_witt
Posts: 911 - Karma: 10
Thanks a bunch guys. I appreciate everything, but you aren't making my decision any easier because I was also looking at the T-Halls =). So many good things about each pair, but each are in their first year, that's the only thing that worries me. Except the MSP's first year didn't have as many problems as the AR5's, so right now it seems like 4-Frnt, unless I want to go with the shorter T-Halls.
~~~~~~~~~~~~

if i had no hands, id have a tee shirt that said, 'ever been stump fucked?' - cj
Dec 20 2004 5:40PM
0 0
profile picture
k2skier420
Posts: 719 - Karma: 13
the STLS are the lightest skis ive ever picked up but i heard there sidewalls are shitty
Dec 20 2004 6:45PM
0 0
profile picture
Rowdy2
Posts: 265 - Karma: 10
Sidewalls are shitty???
PTex sidewalls are the most durable sidewall on the market!!! WAY better than ABS
That's what makes the skis so light!
Snowboard companies have been using this technology for years...
Dec 20 2004 7:17PM
0 0
profile picture
shawnm1260
Posts: 3219 - Karma: 66
id go 183 for the guy that made this post.

also...mine have hit urban and lots of park rails, and they are in perfect shape...not even any cracks yet.

they ski well all around the mountain if you know how to ski a softer ski (its not harder its just different.)

give them a shot

girls: were 13

schmuck: oh yea...me to.......INCHES!
Dec 20 2004 9:32PM
0 0
All times are Eastern (-5)