 Poster: A snowHead
|
have finally made up my mind to get some Scott Punishers.
i'm told by most people that i should ski them in 182 (5ft9ins & 12.5stone male advanced skiier) but after skiing a few years on 162 metrons i kind of like the convenience of transporting the shorter skis. I know i won't get away with that length on punishers, but would like to opt for the 172 (i know they ski a bit shorter due to the twin tips).
I just know you are all going to tell me to go for the 182... BUT... what am i going to notice different skiing 172 instead of 182? I'm a 50/50 on/off piste skiier & don't go in the parks (much).
oh, & lastly, i actually prefer the graphics on the 2008 model, anyone know anyone who still has them?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
|
Is it really that much harder to carry longer skis?
|
|
|
|
|
|
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?
|
|
everywhere pretty much sold out of last years. If you're not doing park and more off piste then defo go for the longer 182.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
arv, only on the Paris Metro  mine are 191s
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
| Quote: |
Is it really that much harder to carry longer skis?
|
Arv - it is if your ski bag is 170 long & you drive a fiat panda!
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
|
|
|
|
|
and a new car.. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
papasmurf, why? I don't see anything wrong with it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
Theres way to little rust, it must be a fake!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
bambi, If you don't go in the park why not get scott missions instead which can be skied shorter:
Posted this before but my Punisher 191's have a "running lenght" only 1cm more than my 176 piste skis.
15cm longer to gain 1cm of flat bit on the base....
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
bambi, like II says, punishers ski much shorter than their measured length. The 172 will be very short for you. I'd go for the 182 or as II suggests, the 178 mission 
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
i'm on a budget II - the missions are a lot more expensive... (can get punishers plus S10's for about £330... ) but i take your point..
arv, i have emotional attachments to my ski bag 
still no answer to my original question?
| Quote: |
what am i going to notice different skiing 172 instead of 182?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
bambi, the 172 will offer less float off piste and the 182's will be more stable at speed.. whether you notice it? Sorry can't tell you.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
bambi, which model Metron were you on? If you were comfortably skiing the B5 then you need to be on the 191 Punisher as anything shorter will seem very soft.
I'm 5'9"/14st & I was on the 162 Metron B5 & now ski a 187 semi twin with no problem at all.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
B5 spyderjon.. 191..? blimey, i'm not going to need a new car, i'm going to need a lorry!
maybe nomad crimson would be a better bet? pricey though & have flat tails don't they?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
|
bambi, flat tails.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
ok.. here's another question...
i'd like a ski about 170 that skis as good as a B5 on piste but is pretty good off-piste too, particularly in powder (though doesn't need to cope with neck deep stuff!) And would prefer at least a semi-twin tip, something like the B5 tail 
|
|
|
|
|
|
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?
|
|
bambi, is this in addition to the skis mentioned above or instead of?
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
|
instead of arv.. only want one pair really...
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
|
bambi, It's called snowboard now stop messin' about and meet us on the darkside.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
i was considering these:
movement karma sutra
salomon lord
nomad crimson (ti?)
before deciding on the punisher
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
bambi, hehe & no I'm not kidding.
I had the first pair of Nomad Crimson's in the UK a couple of seasons ago - it's a crackin' ski also. You'll ski the 176 Crimson ok but if you really like hooning it you'll soon find it's speed limit. The new stiffer ti version of the Crimson will be great for you in 176 but if you go for the non ti version then you should get the 184.
Although the construction of the Crimson & Punisher is very different they do ski similarily. Hoever I'd say the Crimson out performs the Punisher on piste due to it's higher rail mounted binding (with which you can always play around with the fore/aft positioning) but it's the other way around when off piste. Definately better hard snow edge hold with the Crimson. If you go for the Punisher keep away from those crappy Z10 bindings that they always want to mount on them.
How about the Icelantic Pilgrim's in 179? They are twin but a stiffer than the Scott's & the 179 would suit your stats perfectly.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
love the look of the pilgrims spyderjon.. please tell me i could get away with 169!!
any idea of the best price around complete? What are they like on icy pistes (have to ski them sometimes?)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
what's to get away with...ski the right lenght or suffer on the slopes.
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
|
|
|
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.
|
bambi, FWIW I have skied B5 metrons for the past three seasons in both 162 and more recently in 172 and IMHO other than in bumps you would be hard pushed to tell the difference.Punishers are an excellent allrounder good on and off the piste.I used them in 10 inches of powder last easter and found them to have plenty of 'Float'.My stats/experience are pretty similar to yours.
I also have a pair of almost brand new (3 Days use) PUNISHERS in 172cm with the 2008 graphics, Saloman S 12 bindings IIRC,a few light scuffs and nicks on the topsheets ,bases perfect, yours for £270inc postage,bases prepped edges serviced ready to go.
Pm me if you are interested.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
bambi, now I know how you got your username rolling eyes C'mon, step up Toofy Grin
[/quote]
ah no spyderjon.. that's cos i float like a bambi, and sting like a.... ummmmmm ??
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
Hedley
are the 172 the punishers you skiied on or were you on longer ones?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
|
bambi, No i skiied the 172cm,They are fine. I am 1.82cm and 84kg. Remember they are fairly torsionally stiff for a twin tip and compared well with the B5,s which are mega stiff, I think personally unless you find loads of virgin powder where you can blast larger GS turns,the shorter length is more versatile through trees, crud,bumps etc Horses for courses.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
|
cheers Hedley.. i have to ask, why are you selling? btw, virgin powder usually not an option!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
|
|
|
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?
|
I'm 178CM, ( 5'7), 72KG (11st4), and ski the 172 punishers. Skied all conditions with them last year, and great everywhere except possibly big hardpack moguls (not surprisingly!).
They are quite a heavy ski, and get better the harder you ski them. I found you need to use a fair bit of energy to get the best out of them and to get them from edge to edge quickly given (relative) width. Once you're really working them they seem to find another level.
I'm not as tall/heavy as you (Bambi), but it was suggested I get 182s by shop. I think that would have been fine if I'd been skiing a few weeks a year, and totally ski-fit, but was happy with shorter one for the two short breaks last year.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
|
I got my mate some 172 punishers and he's 5 ft 10 n weighs bout 80 kg he didn't fancy going up the extra. I bought myself the scott sheelas which is virtually the same ski and i have gone with the 172 cm i'm 5ft 6 n weigh 75 kg. I know they are gunna be fine but i look at my 155 elan sl skis and think that they are big.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
Buy a new ski bag, man!
C'mon, step up 
