Page 3 of 3
Re: Salomon QST 92 skis
Posted: Sep 15th, '17, 10:15
by Highway Star
madhatter wrote:Highway Star wrote:madhatter wrote:Highway Star wrote:madhatter wrote:I always demo if I can but not EVERY ski is available for demo...laughing at HS cheering the PE ( great ski in it's day) yet denouncing the Extreme ( a far superior rendition of the PE)...
madhatter likes 85 under foot for most conditions, but I'm nowhere near 240 either so float isn't quite so elusive...
The 179 PE was stout and was enough ski for an aggressive 200 lb person. The Extreme was similar but very slightly lighter and softer, available in 179 and 184 max length. Either ski in a 159 size was a great ski for an aggressive 100-120lb man or woman.
yet yer too much of a sally to back that assertion up on the snow....
FYI the extreme was far less damp and capable of much quicker turns...much "livelier" in the bumps...
took out my PE 161's for the last few days of spring this year as I have been letting my brother use the extremes and didn't wanna trash em on the rocks...still like em but they really do suck on hard surfaces ( that world cup "snow" was still pretty solid on june 1) they don;t have anywhere near the bump performance my rev85's do either....nonetheless it's still a decent rock ski 12 years later...
I can't verify the existence of a 161cm K2 Enemy or in either width of the Public Enemy. So I have to conclude you don't know what you're talking about - shocking, I know. Regardless, 161 is hella short.
oh boise here we go again...yep yer right they are also 159's I'll need to ski em again to see if they ski differently w/o those two falsely attributed cm's
yep I'm not 200 + lbs nor am I 6+ feet hence I ski a much smaller ski...I also ski fast and relatively straight down the fall line I don't need a fat ski to keep me afloat, I don't need a long ski to change directions or scrub speed....I do like a ski I can flex hard and get a good amt or rebound out of, I also like a shorter turn radius (13- 14ish)
for most recreational skiers the shortest and softest ski that still performs will provide the most enjoyable ski experience...( not racers, park rats etc but recreational skiers you see most weekends) moderate turn radius under 18 is also going to be more user friendly than a 21 + radius that wants to run and make long turns....stiffer racier skis will only make you work that much harder and require constant effort...big fat skis are great in powder esp if yer a big guy but they are hard on yer knees on hardpack and slow as cold molasses edge to edge...long skis go faster on the race course and similar flat and fast surfaces to a certain extent but become a liability in crowds, bumps, trees and crud...
I'm also pretty much a one quiver guy though I do have a ski use specifically for ski bum and older skis for late spring/ rock skiing, otherwise I'm on the same ski powder days, groomers and spring bump days...
oh yeah and one last thing; unless you actually show up for a ski-off* you have ZERO credibility here...
*( sanctioned or just friendly "beers after" style if you can man up and stop being such a dick)
Oh so I need "street cred" on Kzone now, otherwise my life won't be complete?
Just to be clear, you're saying the '09 and '10 Extremes, which are the direct follow on model to the '06 to '08 85mm waist Public Enemy, which uses the same dimensions, the same camber, the same lengths, the same core, same construction, general design features...............the PE's are MUCH more damp and not nearly as good in bumps? And a fairly stiff and torsionally stiff PE which is very capable on ice when sharpened and equipped with good bindings - you're saying the PE is no good on ice?
Just want to be clear on what you're saying here.
Ever consider your skis are dull and you're a poor judge of ski equipment?
Re: Salomon QST 92 skis
Posted: Sep 15th, '17, 10:31
by yiddle on da fiddle
...dont you have traffic to play in?....neighbors to piss off?..lil kids to make run away in sheer terror?...
Re: Salomon QST 92 skis
Posted: Sep 15th, '17, 13:04
by madhatter
this ski
https://www.evo.com/outlet/skis/k2-public-enemy-2005" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Tip Width (mm):113Waist
Width (mm):80
Tail Width (mm):104
vs this ski
https://www.evo.com/outlet/skis/k2-extreme-2009" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Tip Width (mm):118Waist
Width (mm):85
Tail Width (mm):109
the 09 has more camber and is a more lively/active ski than the 05...the 09 is also far better on hardpack...I still have both and w/o a doubt i like the 09 better...
Re: Salomon QST 92 skis
Posted: Sep 15th, '17, 13:26
by Highway Star
madhatter wrote:this ski
https://www.evo.com/outlet/skis/k2-public-enemy-2005" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Tip Width (mm):113Waist
Width (mm):80
Tail Width (mm):104
vs this ski
https://www.evo.com/outlet/skis/k2-extreme-2009" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Tip Width (mm):118Waist
Width (mm):85
Tail Width (mm):109
the 09 has more camber and is a more lively/active ski than the 05...the 09 is also far better on hardpack...I still have both and w/o a doubt i like the 09 better...
Yes, I'm well aware of the '04 and '05 Public enemy using a 80mm waist and being a similar but quicker/lighter ski overall than the 85mm waist '06 to '08 Public Enemy that is NEARLY IDENTICAL to the Extreme.
Re: Salomon QST 92 skis
Posted: Sep 15th, '17, 14:07
by madhatter
Highway Star wrote:madhatter wrote:this ski
https://www.evo.com/outlet/skis/k2-public-enemy-2005" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Tip Width (mm):113Waist
Width (mm):80
Tail Width (mm):104
vs this ski
https://www.evo.com/outlet/skis/k2-extreme-2009" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Tip Width (mm):118Waist
Width (mm):85
Tail Width (mm):109
the 09 has more camber and is a more lively/active ski than the 05...the 09 is also far better on hardpack...I still have both and w/o a doubt i like the 09 better...
Yes, I'm well aware of the '04 and '05 Public enemy using a 80mm waist and being a similar but quicker/lighter ski overall than the 85mm waist '06 to '08 Public Enemy that is NEARLY IDENTICAL to the Extreme.
well those are the two skis I have...the 05 ski was virtually flat while the 09 extreme had a fair amt of camber esp for a twin...the rev 85 has a similar profile but w the addition of titanal in the core and 80/20 camber/tip rocker making it more responsive and lively for someone my size...the less you weigh the more work you have to do to flex the ski and the more rebound you get when you let off it...so what you may consider a soft damp ski might actually be a mid-firm more active ski for me...what you consider a firm lively ski might be too stiff for me to even flex...being shorter also offers less leverage and thus less input into the ski all other forces being equal...a shorter ski allows me to get further out over the ski vs a longer ski that I can;t get fwd enough on to drive...
I have that rev in both 170 and 163...I like the 63 most of the time particularly in the bigger, deeper bumps...the 170 is slightly better on bulletproof days so I let my bro use my 63's ( which are worlds better than the extremes in those conditions) and I run the 70's...the 70's slightly longer radius makes allows a bit more relaxed turn than the 63's...
Re: Salomon QST 92 skis
Posted: Sep 22nd, '17, 09:04
by f.a.s.t.
Picked up the QST's yesterday. Look how the light shines through the translucent tip! Should look good on the snow?
Re: Salomon QST 92 skis
Posted: Oct 3rd, '17, 07:19
by Highway Star
Pair of NOS (new old stock) 180cm Blizzard Bushwhackers in the best graphic they were made in:
http://www.ebay.com/itm/172901123340" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Great Killington all around and bump ski for a 180lb or so guy!