SquawHarber wrote:Quite honestly, for a ski that old it would have to be an almost unbelievable deal for me to want to go forward.
Thanks again.
It's as good as, if not better than, any of the current models.
SquawHarber wrote:Quite honestly, for a ski that old it would have to be an almost unbelievable deal for me to want to go forward.
Thanks again.
theorist wrote:I have the 180 cm RnR, and while they're great for making GS turns through crud, and surprisingly good on groomers for their width,I find they're not as quick as I'd like when I'm in tight spaces in deep snow, say a narrow, powder-filled chute (based on a brief try, under such conditions I think I'd feel more comfortable on a 170 X-Shape STX). Is the Peak 84 noticeably quicker than the RnR? And how do their stiffnesses compare?
Max_501 wrote:While the Peak 84 is a great ski I wouldn't choose it over the RnR for deeper snow ski because its fairly stiff.
Max_501 wrote:That sounds more like a technique issue. In deep snow at slower speeds the wider ski will be quicker because it doesn't sink as much.
theorist wrote:The quickest ski I ever had in deep snow was a 62 mm 160 cm soft slalom, because it flexed and turned so quickly, even though all this took place under the snow.
Mac wrote: 175 cm, which puts the 170 right where you want to be in a carving ski, which by today's standards is what the Rev 85 is classified as, although fairly wide by PMTS standards.
Mac wrote:...but it's going to be sluggish in bumps.
Mac wrote:But I didn't feel like I needed anything longer.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests