Henry

Henry

    MESSAGE_KEY: label.community.profile.new NOT FOUND IN REPOSITORY

    MESSAGE_KEY: label.community.profile.browse.followers NOT FOUND IN REPOSITORY

  • No Ranking

Henry's Bio

Henry

Henry wrote a question about on January 24, 2010

Definitely does. That was exactly what I wanted to hear, that it was basically very similar to the 182 just bigger. How's it ski on the grom? I know the 182 handled it well but with the longer side cut and being slightly fatter under foot I'm curious. Thanks a lot.

(0)

 

0 Answers

Henry

Henry wrote an answer about on January 23, 2010

Definitely does. That was exactly what I wanted to hear, that it was basically very similar to the 182 just bigger. How's it ski on the grom? I know the 182 handled it well but with the longer side cut and being slightly fatter under foot I'm curious. Thanks a lot.

(0)

 

Henry

Henry wrote a question about on January 22, 2010

Hey so this is for Jamey Parks or anyone else who has skied the 190 Czar. I've skied the 182 and really liked them but I want more length especially if they are going to be my pow ski. So just looking for some info or a review on how they ski and maybe a comparison between the 182 and 190.
Cheers

(0)

 

Henry

Henry wrote a review of on December 28, 2009

4 5

so I have the 189 mounted at +3. good amount of float. wouldn't want to go any further forward, the tips would dive and there would be too much tail. so definitely a fun ski. they are stable but i would say that they need to be STIFFER. they definitely get tossed around when shit gets cut up.

(0)

 

0 Comments

Henry

Henry wrote an answer about on December 7, 2009

If your looking to only ski trees go with the 179. The 189 will give you a lot more versatility and float you better and is still very easy to ski turn. I'm exactly your stats (about an inch taller) and ski the 189 and love em. So if you want something more out of your ski then go 189. For mounting if you go 179 don't do further forward then the tradish line. If you go 189 I would go somewhere around +1 to +3.

(0)

 

Henry

Henry wrote an answer about on November 24, 2009

Really you guys? Seth has been awsome enough to come on this site, write a review and answer questions and your still asking about mounting. Take it from him (I mean the ski is named aafter him...) if he says you probably don't want to go further forward then +3, I wouldn't. Peace and thank Seth.

(1)

 

Henry

Henry wrote a question about on July 20, 2009

Please Michael Kern,

I'm seriously considering this ski, along with the JJ, and possibly the pontoon (I know it's a bit different then the other two.) You seen to be really stoked on this ski so I'm curious what length you got, I'm looking at either the 188 or 195, and how big are you? Just for refrence, I'm 16, 6 foot anod about 185lb, and I'm looking for a ski that can charge in powder and when it gets chopped up, can take some pretty good sized drops, but is still playful.

Thanks

(0)

 

0 Answers

Henry

Henry wrote a question about on June 27, 2009

I'm looking at this ski for park/no snow/carvin/fuck around day. Seeing if this ski matches what I'm looking for. I'm Also wondering on the size. I was thinking 181 but I don't know. I'm 16, 6 foot, 185lb. I currently ski 179cm obsetheds but those aren't mounted too close to center and I plan on mounting these at around -2.

(0)

 

Henry

Henry wrote an answer about on February 17, 2009

i'm not seth but i'm 5'11" 160lb or so (15 yrs) and have the 179cm you're freakin psycho for even thinking about the 169cm. I was caught between the 179cm and 189cm but after skiing them a fair amount I'm happy with my length but could still see myself skiing the 189cm pretty easily. I mounted them at tradish (-7.5cm from core center) and everytime i look down i feel like there is very little tip. that being said i haven't had any tip diving problems at all it's just a mind thing. especially at 6'1" around 200lb i could definately see you rocking a 189cm. that being said i don't skin with mine since i have jesters on them (only short little hikes) so the weight of the 189cm might be too much but don't be afraid of the length. lay them down on the ground and stand over them and you will see that they really aren't that big of skis. also i just got back from whistler where there is absolutely no snow unless you head over to blackcombe and hike the glacier and they still ripped everywhere. also its fun to see that you are the practically the only person with skis over 85mm underfoot. all i can say about the coomba is that i ripped past a guy who was having trouble on some down some chopped up mogels off of harmony. bottom line get the 179's or start the squats and wall-sits and go for the 189cm.oh and if your still undecided go to tetongravity.com and search "obsethed". And don't be afraid to pull the trigger you'll drive yourself crazy if you keep asking more and more questions.

(0)

 

Henry

Henry wrote a review of on January 12, 2009

5 5

179cm (only had one day on them)
first of thank you willie for suggesting this ski. i mounted them at the midsole line which is 7.5cm back from center and thank god i did. my first impression when i got on them was that the tip seemed short but after my first run i wasn't worried about it anymore. still for the 179cm i wouldn't go any further forward then the midsole line if you are going to be using them for all mountain riding as you definitely don't need the extra quickness. the conditions that i was in was 18in of fresh from 2 days ago that has been rained on for the past two days so the snow was either packed cement, chopped up cement, or straight up crud-oh and a few groomed runs. to give you an idea of how bad the snow conditions were the mountain has been closed for the past couple of days because of the rain and because the pass had been closed due to flooding. so all i can talk about is how they perform in far from ideal conditions. they absolutely destroyed everything but the really packed/wet snow in but were still manageable, just not much fun but why would it be? they are really quick edge to edge, just as good as my old PE's on groomers and i was able to carve up some nice rails along with really quick short turns. great stability in crud both foreward and switch (and this was crud at its worst), started to chatter a bit when i was straigh lining it but i didn't mind. also great stability off drops (bout 10-15ft) and jumps and the landing conditions were far from ideal. as you said willie i didn't notice the extra 20mm under foot from my PE's until i needed it, then it was very appreciated. also the slight rocker which is very new to me was fun... don't know exactly what it did but i'm sure it helped. bottom line: all mountain destroyer that is really fun in the worst conditions so i can't wait till the snow is even medioker.

(0)

 

0 Comments

Henry

Henry wrote an answer about on January 10, 2009

Don't worry about it henry, your coming off shorter skis so they will be fine, plus he has barons on them so he is using them for more backcountry use i would assume. write a review as soon as you ride them.-will do, hopefully that will be tomorrow. the pass that you have to drive through to get to the mountain i ski at has been flooded for the past like 5 days and now there are trees and crap all over the road

(0)

 

Henry

Henry wrote a question about on January 5, 2009

really solomon vii, you couldn't have come out with that review just one day earlier? I'm 5'11", 165lb and was gona get the 189cm but switched to the 179 at the last second. Ah well, i'll give them a shot before i bitch anymore. where did you mount anyways?

(0)

 

load more