Member of the Month

theabortionator
April, 2025

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!

Companies dropping longer 190+ skis.

profile picture
anders_a
Posts: 1680 - Karma: 5,604
Its definetly a trend, ON3P doesnt make a few models over 190, 4frnt just posted on FB/insta the new devastator isnt going to be 194 anymore and other companies are doing the same, nordica are shrinking the enforcer (ok the 193cm was a horrible length/flex/ski) Faction stopped with the 1.0 in 188, now only 184 for 2021.

ON3P made a valid argument not to make them, they just dont sell,, as did 4frnt with only 5?! 194cm sold in 2020 season ( I was one of thoose 5)

Why are people not buying longer skis? Are tall'ish people shitty at skiing and afraid of longer skis? Are grown men only buying dad-carvingskis and such?

I will admit that not all longer skis are good, like some of the 193cm enforcers, its like they just extended the ski, they didnt beef it up, so it skis worse than 185/186 at speed and on edge.

Now on the other side, a lot of the skis on sale are only the shorter models, all longer lengths are gone long before sale starts.
I was trying to pickup faction CT 4.0 and 5.0 in the 190+ lengths, just can't get them, all sold out in longer models, only short ones left, tried to pickup declivty X, same thing, tried to get the longer dynastar menace 98, and CT 2.0 188, again same thing. Are they just makeing very few models in the longer lengths? and thats why they are selling out?



At 6'2-6'3 (190cm ish) I'm not that tall (at least not in my country). I just dont like skis that looks like I stole them from a small kid. With height, comes weight, and when I ride shorter skis I hear people refer to as stiff, I can flex the SHIT out of them, landing a bit bad on jumps and its like a backseat landing with slalom skis, but also on other skis, having the shovels folding on something that is considerd a good carver... meh!
5 years ago
17 0
profile picture
bennwithtwons
Posts: 1747 - Karma: 17,103
BiffbarfGod damnit I fucked the numbers way up.

5'5.5" = 65.5 inch x 2.54 = 166.37cm

166.37/194=0.8575 =85.75% height.

6'4" is 85.75% of a 225 cm ski.

I was way off. I'm not drunk or anything, just obviously retarded.


haha for a second i thought someone was calling you out for doing bad math and was about to come to your defense when you correctly stated 225cm. only then did i realize it was you that called yourself out. good save!
5 years ago
2 0
profile picture
shin-bang
Posts: 4106 - Karma: 7,037
Ride moment. Listen to slayer.

Same boat as you OP and snagged some 194 moments. Just FYI they are equivalent to on3ps 191s.
5 years ago
5 0
profile picture
Youngm_IPCME
Posts: 1082 - Karma: 2,853
bennwithtwonsMy girl rides 170 with a traditional mount and our boot center to tip dimensions is very close. I just gain all that length in the tail because mine are mounted much farther forward. We need to rethink ski sizes for twin tips, as the intended use, and therefore mounting location, is very different from the norm.


I might just not understand this at all but are you saying you mount ~+15 from center on pow skis? I get wanting to land switch in pow, but wouldn't a mount that extreme be pretty detrimental to the performance in powder?
5 years ago
1 0
profile picture
bennwithtwons
Posts: 1747 - Karma: 17,103
It depends what you mean by center. I typically reference true center, rather than the ‘center’ many brands use, which lands at the narrowest part of the ski. So yes, I am in front of the waist of the ski but still behind true center. I use a more conservative mount for touring skis and more aggressive mount for park. All of them work well for me
Youngm_IPCMEI might just not understand this at all but are you saying you mount ~+15 from center on pow skis? I get wanting to land switch in pow, but wouldn't a mount that extreme be pretty detrimental to the performance in powder?
5 years ago
1 0
profile picture
amccahill93
Posts: 221 - Karma: 1,936
Spent a lot of time looking at both these skis on the ship wall winter but never got to ride them. The declivity is so much stiffer than I thought itd be based on the weight. If you had to choose between the two for hard charging resort pow (so maybe some hardpack and crud mixed in) which would you go for
TLigareI definitely think the Tracer 118 195 should be in this conversation, an excellent ski for people that dig a lot of running length. It's a ski that I'm pumped to have in my quiver and use often. It's an obvious choice for bigger people but definitely a good choice for anyone that likes a bigger stick too, because it's not punishing in this length at all, smooth and damp with a very manageable weight both overall and swing.
The Declivity X 192 is also a rock solid 190+ stick with minimal tail rocker and lots of effective edge.
5 years ago
0 0
profile picture
BigPurpleSkiSuit
Posts: 9614 - Karma: 71,523
@TLigare- to factor into your ski recommendation

I know I sound like a total fanboy, but I don't care, I just love watching Aiden skihttps://www.newschoolers.com/videos/watch/934671/AIDEN-MCCAHILL-BRIDGER-BOWL-POV-18-19
5 years ago
2 0
profile picture
amccahill93
Posts: 221 - Karma: 1,936
Dude you are way too nice. Hope you make it to watch some games of RIDGE this winter
BigPurpleSkiSuit@TLigare - to factor into your ski recommendation

I know I sound like a total fanboy, but I don't care, I just love watching Aiden skihttps://www.newschoolers.com/videos/watch/934671/AIDEN-MCCAHILL-BRIDGER-BOWL-POV-18-19
5 years ago
4 0
profile picture
DesertStix
Posts: 2543 - Karma: 15,021
Bridger looks insane like it would send me home at the end of the day feeling like the biggest bitch. The chute with the boulder sticking out at head-height made me clench my butt hole just watching it
BigPurpleSkiSuit@TLigare - to factor into your ski recommendation

I know I sound like a total fanboy, but I don't care, I just love watching Aiden skihttps://www.newschoolers.com/videos/watch/934671/AIDEN-MCCAHILL-BRIDGER-BOWL-POV-18-19


**This post was edited on Jul 28th 2020 at 11:57:45am
5 years ago
4 0
profile picture
BigPurpleSkiSuit
Posts: 9614 - Karma: 71,523
@iggyskier put some kids molds together, and make the next big thing in twin tip skis?
BiffbarfGod damnit I fucked the numbers way up.

5'5.5" = 65.5 inch x 2.54 = 166.37cm

166.37/194=0.8575 =85.75% height.

6'4" is 85.75% of a 225 cm ski.

I was way off. I'm not drunk or anything, just obviously retarded.
5 years ago
3 0
profile picture
anders_a
Posts: 1680 - Karma: 5,604
TLigareI definitely think the Tracer 118 195 should be in this conversation, an excellent ski for people that dig a lot of running length. It's a ski that I'm pumped to have in my quiver and use often. It's an obvious choice for bigger people but definitely a good choice for anyone that likes a bigger stick too, because it's not punishing in this length at all, smooth and damp with a very manageable weight both overall and swing.
The Declivity X 192 is also a rock solid 190+ stick with minimal tail rocker and lots of effective edge.


Care to write a few lines on thoose 2 skis and more how you feel they are? both good an bad



how burly is the declivity X? of the more burly stuff I've skied is mantra 102, and briefly enforcer 115 both for grooemers and their inteded freeride use. I have trouble shutting down speed especially if terrain is tight on the mantra
5 years ago
2 0
profile picture
.squirrely.
Posts: 7563 - Karma: 7,546
Tall folks, got a pair of 189cm (really like 192) 2011 Kung fujas if anyone wants them. 102 underfoot full camber ripping super stable all mtn ski. In really good shape for the age but 2 mounts one for pivot 1cm back 305bsl, other was way back for a marker I think. Going back to shreditor 102s for my park ski and have too many skis to keep these

$100 in utah or plus shipping
5 years ago
4 0
All times are Eastern (-4); Currently it's 4:50AM