Theres better options out there than Liberty, I had a pair (not mutants) and the construction was awful, one of the girls I repped with had her tails de-lam on her in two hours on hers.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
I have the DPS Spoon's in my quiver which are 158 - 148 - 151mm
Absolutely unbelievable in power, and due to the massive rocker, not actually lethal on piste when returning to the resort.
@lordf, I have a pair of Liberty Envy Powder and have had no problem with them at all. Skied them nearly every day I was out last season-over 25 days. For what it's worth, despite the 105mm or so under foot, I cruised happily on and off piste with them.
Then you can post your own questions or snow reports...
Then you can post your own questions or snow reports...
The widest I have heard of are the Duret Monstre Fat, which are 177mm underfoot.
OMG. They are NUTS!! They must have the turning radius of the Titanic (not that it matters in powder, obvs).
I didn't know you could get skis much wider than 130mm
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
@HoneyBunny, those are prototype Spoons - while still huge, the production ones don't have anywhere near as extreme 'spooning' (making the base convex).
I think the others actually have a 27m radius, so actually pretty normal. Can't imagine you'd ever be carving them () so it shouldn't really make a difference anywhere.
I'm quite curious about the Spoons. I can't say I've ever wanted more float than I get from my Down CD1s (135mm - for the record I noticed a BIG difference in float and how fast I could ski on them compared to 125mm Black Crows Noctas which I skied back to back last season), and I'm not sure I'd even notice any extra float, but they'd be fun to try. I can't imagine wanting to own them unless you can guarantee to ski mostly *untracked* powder (depth won't matter with that much float, but it'd have to be smooth and untracked), which unless you're heliskiing or touring (haha skinning on spoons ) is hard to do anywhere (even Japan).
Can you even stand on them with your legs going straight down, or do you have to hold your feet out to the side?!
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
Hmm, the tails on those BFFs remind mi somewhat of an American scuba diving fin called Force fin
I just bought some Liberty Variant, albeit at the slightly more sane 113 waist. I must say the construction seems top - notch, but I guess only time will tell.
I certainly hope they last - can't wait to try them out!
So if you're just off somewhere snowy come back and post a snow report of your own and we'll all love you very much
So if you're just off somewhere snowy come back and post a snow report of your own and we'll all love you very much
clarky999 wrote:
Can you even stand on them with your legs going straight down, or do you have to hold your feet out to the side?!
They are not really any different to any other pair of skis, unless you are skiing old style ankles together with your skis rattling together. In powder, the width means you don't need the feet together style of skiing, as each ski is wider than many pairs of skis put together, so there is plenty of support.
Apart from refrozen crud/moguls/ice, they don't really like deep snow that has been cut into blocks by wide snowboard tracks, as you tend to smack into the faces of the blocks rather than cut into them.
I definitely use them for Heli-Skiing, and you can do short tours on them as at 2.2kg per ski (I have Beast 16's on mine), they are much lighter than many wide skis. Having said that the are more versatile than DPS make out.
Can you even stand on them with your legs going straight down, or do you have to hold your feet out to the side?!
They are not really any different to any other pair of skis, unless you are skiing old style ankles together with your skis rattling together. In powder, the width means you don't need the feet together style of skiing, as each ski is wider than many pairs of skis put together, so there is plenty of support.
Apart from refrozen crud/moguls/ice, they don't really like deep snow that has been cut into blocks by wide snowboard tracks, as you tend to smack into the faces of the blocks rather than cut into them.
I get that - I spend a lot of time in 135mm skis, which are the same in both regards. That's one of the big draws for reverse/reverse skis for me, and I can only imagine the Spoon is worse in that (tracked snow) regard than my CD1s.
BUT I can keep my feet together while cruising along a cat track or straightening a piste back to the lift. Which is nice. There's obviously gotta be a point where you can't do that as the skis would be overlapping each other. Are the Spoons at/past that limit?
The weight isn't the issue for touring, it's the width (the rocker is pretty irrelevant in the snow you'd be touring in with them). Anything other than a fairly flat and straight (sidehilling must be a biaatch!) has gotta be a pain, no?
I could easily just a quiver space for Lotus138s, but - for me personally - doubt I could for Spoons.
It is very cool that there's a company making such specialised shapes though!
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
It really depends on what you mean by feet together. If you mean ankles touching, then you must have extra wide boots. Since I work from home, I just checked my Spoons/Beasts with my Atomic Waymaker boots in the bindings. With the skis side by side and as close as possible (tips/tails touching), there is a gap of 38mm between the boot ankles. As a comparison I also checked my Wailer RP112 and the boot gap is 14mm, and my Lotus 120 where the boot gap is 13mm. So on that basis, I would need to be on something around 100mm for my ankles to touch.
You are correct regarding traversing on the Spoons, as with only about 35cm of flat edge underfoot, on any hard snow the skins don't have a lot of base to grip on. Also as far as I am aware no one makes such stupidly wide ski crampons
I did consider the Lotus 138, but thought that if I was going to go wide, why not go really wide.
Poster: A snowHead
Poster: A snowHead
@PowderAdict, basically I mean can you stand on them with your legs going straight down from your hips and go in a straight-line with bases flat, or do you have to push your feet out to sides past your hips (and so ride slightly on the inside edges) to not have one ski on top of the other?
I think your 38mm probably means no though.
Sorry for the random questioning
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
@clarky999, I guess it depends on your stance, bow legged or knock knee's. I am not aware of standing any differently on the Spoons, compared to the Wailers. I naturally stand/walk with my feet straight (no pigeon toes or duck feet), and I just measured the centre line gap between my feet, which is 23-24 cm. That gap would allow me to ski on 200mm plus waist skis without issue.
In this picture my instructor friend had borrowed the Spoons, while I am on the Wailers (The spoons are QK for Lord SP and Beast 16). The stance on the Spoons is pretty natural. Before anyone asks the black oval things are Resqski lost ski finders.
No issue with questions, it stops me being distracted by work
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
FAQ
Poster: A snowHead
) so it shouldn't really make a difference anywhere.
