phillycore Posted February 2, 2007 Report Posted February 2, 2007 I went to sports authority to pick my son up a helmet... (got him a Giro Bad Lt. for $39.97 = )~~ ) While I was there I wandered by the skis they had on clearance... The last thing I Really need is another pair of skis... but.... They had a pair of 2003/2004 Salomon 1080 / 420 Spaceframe twintips for $124 brand new in 151/161/ and 171 They looked pretty solid and for $124 I had to pick them up. I got home and did some internet research to see if it was a good deal or not and I can't find squat. Dims are R14.8 SC 114 / 80 / 108 for the 161cm ones They are the same as the Salomon 1080's but without the base graphics. They have the same topsheet and construction but have a black base which is fine with me as they look better that way when they get p-tex'd down the road... I'm just wondering if $124 was a good deal or not for these. It seemed like something I just couldn't pass up on... Quote
toast21602 Posted February 2, 2007 Report Posted February 2, 2007 i question any skis that come from Sports Authority... Quote
Justo8484 Posted February 2, 2007 Report Posted February 2, 2007 they're fine as a jib ski for about two weeks. its definately not the same ski as the old 1080. extruded base instead of sintered, which means easier to fix, but it doesnt hold wax well and its much slower, and they use a different core as well. while the 1080 was a wood/foam core, the 420 is all foam, and much softer than the 1080 to begin with. once the foam breaks down, you'll be able to flex that ski in a full 360 circle. plus, salomon's edges werent very good back then, so if you're into rails, expect your edges to fall out, which will soften up the ski even faster cause once the edge is gone, water can leak into the core. i guess they arent terrible for what you paid though, just dont expect too much from them. sports authority is the last place i would by ski gear. Quote
FK. Posted February 2, 2007 Report Posted February 2, 2007 What spots authority was that, for $124 I'll defintitely go pick up a pair. Thanks Quote
Justo8484 Posted February 2, 2007 Report Posted February 2, 2007 Is the 171 enought ski for you??? I know you rock the shortie Icelandic Scouts but a guy your size should be on something around 180-185 length.. yeah how tall are you and how much do you weigh? i'm 6' 160 pounds and i wouldnt think of putting someone my size on anything but the 181 1080, which the 420 doesnt come in that size i dont think. those things are gonna be washout city. Quote
phillycore Posted February 2, 2007 Author Report Posted February 2, 2007 I know they are going to be undersized....but I'm so used to short boards now that I don't think I can handle the longer ones anymore to be completely honest.. For my size I'd need the longest pair they make and even then they'd be short.. I just figured for the poconos they'd be fine to mess around with. For the $ I couldn't let them sit there... I have never bought anything from sports authority other than ski pants as far as equipment goes... Quote
toast21602 Posted February 3, 2007 Report Posted February 3, 2007 O.K. well a 300 pound guy on 161 1080s from 3 years ago sounds like a recipe for disaster..just my 2 cents.. hahaha we had a convo on the lift about this. its not going to be good. Quote
phillycore Posted February 3, 2007 Author Report Posted February 3, 2007 How about you do me the favor of explaining to me why... Honestly, there is this size standard that has been around forever and a day now. I see the whole weight distribution concept and all, but then why is it that I can use 95 and 99 cm skiboards just fine? My icelantics have the same surface area as a 180 cm ski pretty much so I know why I'm fine on those, not to mention that they are an extremely stiff set of boards to boot. I've always just felt more comfortable on shorter planks. They are more manueverable for starters, and the only thing that I feel that they lack compared to the longer ones is the speed. I'm not against returning them, hence the reason I asked on here. After I read the initial reply about them being a foam core, I pretty much decided they were probably not right for me as they woul not be stiff enough to handle even half of the weight I'm carrying. Let's face it here, out of 1000 skiers on the mountain maybe 2 are within 25 pounds of me. I'm not an idiot here, I feel lucky just to be able to ski as good as I can for someone my size. A lot of people my size can barely even walk, but with that being said.....I'm all about getting better and if larger planks would help me in doing so then I'd probably try it. I know for a fact that they will not help me when I take my trips out west and spend 85% of my time in dense glade runs. This is where my icelantics come in, but a lot of my skiing time is done locally and aside from skiboards (which are nothing more than a play toy for me pretty much) and my scouts I don't have anything else any longer. I do prefer the twin tips as I spend a lot of time spinning around and they keep me from catching a tail edge. I've asked around on other message boards in the past and noone seems to have a good explination of why the size chart is the way it is though. (laymans terms of the benefits would be great) I've seen people of all different weights, heights, etc.. on all different sizes of skis, skiboards, etc.. and nothing seems to explain why a such and such sized person needs to use a such and such sized set of skis. As far as sidecut and all that is concerned, I don't know diddly about what is good and what isn't and when is benefits you to have a deeper sidecut vs one that isn't. I'm not a ski racer nor would I ever be, and the majority of the people I do go ski with are not as good as me which doesn't help me improve either. In fact about the only time I ski with people on my level or better is when I do go out west. Granted the majority of the people on this site are better than me as well, which is one of the reasons I'm here to begin with. So with that being said, it would be appreciated if people on here helped me out . I've been considering unloading my skiboards as they are just collecting dust, in favor of a pair of skis which is why I jumped on the 420's.....but if they aren't the right thing for me than I'll return them and hit the idea board again. I just need something inexpensive so a leftover model is great for me as I could care less about the topsheet design, etc.. but it needs to be good for east coast trail use and my size (6'1" 275-285# usually...lol) I'd prefer twin tips, but I'm not ever going to do anything on a rail, or box and jumps aren't really my thing either honestly... I like glade runs which we ain't got around here and trails, groomed and not. So butter zones and all that mean squat to me.....especially since I don't have a friggin clue to what they're for anyway. So if you'd like to help school a brother than please do... Quote
toast21602 Posted February 3, 2007 Report Posted February 3, 2007 please dont shop at SA. check out ebay. there are ALWAYS good deals on good skis that are brand new, yet a few years old. Quote
phillycore Posted February 3, 2007 Author Report Posted February 3, 2007 Is there a ski finder type of thing on the web somewhere that will assist me in finding what is the right kind of ski for me??? sidecut, size, stiffness, etc?? Quote
AtomicSkier Posted February 3, 2007 Report Posted February 3, 2007 Is there a ski finder type of thing on the web somewhere that will assist me in finding what is the right kind of ski for me??? sidecut, size, stiffness, etc?? The best thing for skiing around here are race skis. They've got the stiffness and the stability. Doug's next pair of skis is going to be a real race ski, so he doesn't have anymore flex/instability issues. I'm 6', 200lbs and I'm on 183cm's, and honestly, longer would be nicer for even more stability, but even at 183cm, they freakin RIP and are sooo smooth. Quote
Justo8484 Posted February 3, 2007 Report Posted February 3, 2007 if you're interested in a twin tip, either the k2 public enemy or volkl karma are going to be your best bets. they're both pretty burly flex-wise to handle somebody your size, but still easy to ski. go with the karmas in a 177 or the k2s in a 179, or if you are really hesitant about that long a ski, the PE comes in a 174, but i still think thats a bit short for you. longer skis give you stability at speed, as well as more edge to distribute your weight over when you are making a turn. go from a pair of snowblades to a pair of appropriately sized skis, and then honestly say that you cant notice a difference between the two. i wouldnt believe you if thats what you told me. Quote
toast21602 Posted February 3, 2007 Report Posted February 3, 2007 no need for a "ski finder"... listen to justin. Quote
AtomicSkier Posted February 3, 2007 Report Posted February 3, 2007 Phillycore, just to let you know ski surface area isn't a substitue for length. The reason you have long skis is for more EDGE surface area. The more edge you have touching the ground, especially with a guy your sized, the better. You need something up around 180cm. They'll feel long for the first run, but now I think my 183's are short Quote
xNick11 Posted February 6, 2007 Report Posted February 6, 2007 (edited) I would not suggest the 1080's if your a big guy.Their foam core and will break on you. Im like 5'9",150lbs and I ride Salomon thrusters which are the 1080s,just the newer model.I like them but their a little to soft but i don't mind the softness for around here. Try to look into a more stiffer ski.Maybe try proctor jones and get the 4 frnt msp's.I know their a 90 waist but big waist will be fun. Edited February 6, 2007 by xNick11 Quote
Justo8484 Posted February 6, 2007 Report Posted February 6, 2007 I would not suggest the 1080's if your a big guy.Their foam core and will break on you. Im like 5'9",150lbs and I ride Salomon thrusters which are the 1080s,just the newer model.I like them but their a little to soft but i don't mind the softness for around here. Try to look into a more stiffer ski.Maybe try proctor jones and get the 4 frnt msp's.I know their a 90 waist but big waist will be fun. thrusters are not the same as the old 1080. thrusters have no wood in them, therefore they are softer initially, and also break down quicker. not saying thats a bad thing, because i really like them as a park ski too. phillycore, stay away from 4frnt. i snapped a pair just skiing. no hitting jumps, no sliding rails, nothing. plus, why pay 550 or so for the 4frnts when you can get a much better ski (the karma) for the same price or less (the PE for 429). the 4frnts ski decently, but wont ski anything like what you are used to. they dont turn quickly at all, and take a lot of force to get them to turn. the PE or karma is a much easier ski to ski, even in a longer length, and k2 and volkl are both super easy to deal with for warrenties, should the issue arise, where 4frnt had been nothing but headaches for me. if you're still feeling the smaller companies (like icelantic), check out line as well. the prophet 80 or 90, or maybe even the 100 might suit what you are looking for. Quote
phillycore Posted February 6, 2007 Author Report Posted February 6, 2007 04-05 public enemy any good?? Quote
toast21602 Posted February 6, 2007 Report Posted February 6, 2007 yes. imo. i would ask justin though, he knows his stuff about skis since he sells all of them and has for the past 7 years. sooooo ask him. Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.