Dustin_B Posted October 22, 2003 Posted October 22, 2003 I see that the profile for this ski has changed this year from 107/75/98 mm to 114/78/105 mm. The lengths are also reduced substantially; max length is now 181 down from 195 cm. Why would a company do this? Is it better marketing towards the AT crowd or what? I have the opportunity to pick up a new pair of lasts year's model ski at a reduced price. Trying to decide if I should wait for this year's model or not. Is this year's shorter, fatter profile going to make much difference? I'm a heavy (210 lbs), fairly competent skier and will be skiing mostly in the Cascades this winter/spring/summer. My current downhill skis are 107/69/102 by 180 cm and are okay but not fantastic in the powder. I've heard good things about the Shuksans in the past so I'm leaning towards last year's model. Opinions, ideas? Thanks. Quote
scott_harpell Posted October 22, 2003 Posted October 22, 2003 with wider side-cuts, the need for length is reduced. mabe this is the reason? Quote
cj001f Posted October 22, 2003 Posted October 22, 2003 scott_harpell said: with wider side-cuts, the need for length is reduced. mabe this is the reason? Â Sidecut has little to do with length. The new shukshan is wider all around, meaning you'd have more floatation for the same length as the previous model. I like longer skis, so I'd go for the 195's. Quote
climberchris01 Posted October 22, 2003 Posted October 22, 2003 FATTER IS BETTER, ONCE YOU GO FAT YOU"LL NEVER GO BACK Quote
b-rock Posted October 22, 2003 Posted October 22, 2003 climberchris01 said: FATTER IS BETTER, ONCE YOU GO FAT YOU"LL NEVER GO BACK Â I would agree with this, coming from 210 cm skinny Volkl slalom skis a bunch of years ago to 181cm Shuksans (last years). I'm about 165 pounds and this length works well for me, great flotation and stability in heavy NW powder and crud. Quote
cj001f Posted October 22, 2003 Posted October 22, 2003 climberchris01 said: FATTER IS BETTER, ONCE YOU GO FAT YOU"LL NEVER GO BACK Short Skis Still Suck. Long & Fat, now your talking. Something like an Iggy FFF 200cm Quote
russ Posted October 22, 2003 Posted October 22, 2003 I'd really recommend demo'ing before you fork over the bucks for the Shuksan. 2 years ago they were also highly recommend to me (by the shop) as an AT ski. Found a pair to demo and I was totally unimpressed. Just kind of a midspeed cruiser, not particularly lively. I ended up demo'ing and getting Mira's. Â Since then I've skied w/ 2-3 people that have Shuksans and when I ask about them, the first response is 'yea, they're good'. But after talking a little, they seemed less enthused... Â New ones may ski differently - not matter which skis you're interested in - demo..... Quote
AlpineK Posted October 22, 2003 Posted October 22, 2003 I've been skiing on K2 Shucksans (195 cm) for 2 years and I love them. Â I like a long ski so I would go for the older pair. Quote
JoshK Posted October 22, 2003 Posted October 22, 2003 I like my shuksans, but I prefer a shorter, fatter ski, so I'd take this years model if I could... 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.