Free Shipping on Orders Over $50 - Some Exclusions Apply*
  • 1-800-409-4502

  • Live Chat with a Gearhead

  • 100% Guaranteed Returns

whi3063951

whi3063951

Jonathan's Bio

whi3063951

whi3063951 wrote a review of on March 3, 2013

5 5

Yes- this ski is totally awesome. Was on it today in soft snow conditions, fresh powder and deeply cut powder. It excelled everywhere- the positive reviews which pervade the internet seem true. My only possibly novel offering is to add is that, if you are a BIG BOY (or girl), do NOT be afraid of going with the 185. I am 6'4", probably 230lbs dressed to ski, and the 185's rocked my face off-- stable, chargy, floaty, but turn instantly if desired. Highly responsive; could be driven as hard as I felt like pushing them-- short radius or long turns as well. They gripped like a sportscar, and I was in disbelief of how well / quickly they turned.

Bottom line-- you can still have an awesome time on the 185's if you are north of 2 bills on the scale.

(0)

 

0 Comments

whi3063951

whi3063951 wrote an answer about on January 17, 2013

Hi Ben-- thanks for the reply-- my concern is that the 193 is 'only' a freight train and not much else-- I love hauling ass down the mountain as much as the next guy, but a little finesse and quick turn initiation also contribute to the fun-factor-- are the 193's at least somewhat quick / responsive? Thanks-- Jonathan

(0)

 

whi3063951

whi3063951 wrote a question about on December 23, 2012

Actual running length of the ski?

I'm 6'4", around 220lbs dressed to ski, and C.Brown gave me what I think was pretty solid advice last year, that I should without a doubt get the 193 and not think twice. That's probably what's going to happen, but I am still curious about the actual running lengths of the 185 vs. 193? I imagine they're somewhere in the 170's.... does anyone know?

(0)

 

whi3063951

whi3063951 wrote a question about on January 15, 2012

Am 6'4", around 220lbs dressed to ski. I know I should go 193, but wouldn't that cost me some fun in the trees? Would 185 not also be sufficient for a lad my size?

(0)

 

whi3063951

whi3063951 wrote an answer about on November 16, 2011

Yes, the jacket will keep you toasty and comfortable at these temperatures. I find I cannot wear the jacket comfortably unless it is below freezing outside, and that is only wearing a t-shirt underneath. Jacket is super-cozy and it weighs almost nothing. I love it.

If you will use the thing exclusively for in-town (i.e. not as 'active wear'), maybe you might consider something with a hood as well to keep out icy city gusts...

(0)

 

whi3063951

whi3063951 wrote a review of on December 20, 2010

5 5

Am 6'4", 205lbs, relative recent ski addict, getting into black slopes & now spending a good amount of time off-piste. Was on a pair of Atomic RT 86s last year, which carved and gripped fantastically, but were too feathery light for me to deal with chunked-up frozen crud. Wanted something heavier and more stable. Have 186's mounted with Marker Barons 1cm behind midsole. Have skied em on groomers, icy groomers, piled up crud, windblown crust, waist deep pow. The skis are fun as hell, they are powerful and yet easy to drive. They give highly adequate pow float, yet carve lickity split on groomers. Their dampness and stability give me the confidence to plow over just about anything in my way and charge into new places I wouldn't have approached previously. My concern was that I wouldn't become a better skier because these things made everything so easy.... but I'm skiing steeper, deeper, and faster than ever with this setup. One of the funnest purchases I've made in the last couple of years.

(0)

 

0 Comments

whi3063951

whi3063951 wrote an answer about on March 18, 2010

have been using the zzero 4 C-TFs all season in Marker Baron bindings (the boots are fantastic- both plenty stiff and comfortable like house shoes once they have been thermal fitted). With the correct toe height and forward pressure adjustments these boots have paired just fine with the bindings, holding me in and releasing when they should. Have had no problems with this combination, despite sharing the same concerns as you initially.

(1)

 

whi3063951

whi3063951 wrote an answer about on November 16, 2009

After some testing of my own I found, to any and all who are curious, *a Dynafit boot will fit in a Marker binding*. The bindings are adjustable specifically to accommodate the rubber sole of AT boots. If you don't mind the cosmetic wear, the rear of the boot heel will scuff in these bindings, the boot is otherwise undamaged. They release the same as they would with an alpine boot.

The light weight of the boot helps compensate for the weight of the binding when trekking up, and the 4 buckle version of the boot, the Zzero 4 C-TF, makes for a rrrrripping ride down in the Barons. They're mounted on Atomic RT-86s to make for a downhill-oriented setup that isn't terrible for touring either. Happy =)

(0)

 

whi3063951

whi3063951 wrote a question about on July 25, 2009

Sandy- your last answer was very helpful, I think I am zeroed in on the Rt86 as my next purchase-- but... any(one have) thoughts on the Rt86 vs. the Karhu Jak BC as a capable all-mountain touring/carver? Also, if it makes any difference, I have already purchased Marker Barons as bindings.

(0)

 

0 Answers

whi3063951

whi3063951 wrote a question about on June 28, 2009

I have spent a long time researching and review-reading for a nice resort/touring quiver of 1 ski and have settled on the Atomic RT-86. Am now looking for bindings, trying to decide between the Fritschi Freerides or Marker Dukes. My impression is the Freerides sit you higher above the ski and might be wobblier on the downhill than the Dukes, which have the disadvantage of extra weight. Also, I understand the RT86 skis are very eager to turn-- will sitting higher above the ski on AT bindings make them 'too quick' to turn? Good advice appreciated.

(0)

 

whi3063951

whi3063951 wrote a question about on May 16, 2009

I'm an intermediate skier looking to upgrade to a versatile ski that I can use on groomed slopes, off piste, and something light enough for occasional touring. Is this not the ski? The "quiver of one"? Am curious how it handles in wet heavy spring snow as well as hard pack... I am 6'4", about 200lbs, is the 183cm the right length? From what I've read it seems built to handle it all, but I am skeptical of the extreme light weight on groomers (though I know the featherweight will make for better touring). Thoughts or experiences anyone?

(0)

 

whi3063951

whi3063951 wrote a question about on May 4, 2009

I'm an intermediate skier seeking a versatile ski that I can use for resort skiing, floating off piste, and the occasional back country tour. Is this ski a good bet? Does it give decent performance in wet heavy spring snow? I am 6'4", about 195lbs, is the 181cm long enough? Also, if I mount these with Dynafit bindings-- would that be TOO lightweight for enjoying groomed slopes? If that's the case would something like the Marker Dukes be a better bet?

(0)

 

whi3063951

whi3063951 wrote a question about on April 28, 2009

I'm an intermediate skier looking to upgrade to a versatile ski that I can use on groomed slopes, off piste, and something light enough for touring without killing my legs on the way to summit. Is this not the ski? How does it handle in wet heavy spring snow? I am 6'4", about 195lbs, is the 181cm long enough? Also, I'd welcome a recommendation for lightweight bindings which allow me to go with a free heel for climbing up, and to attach the heel for the trip down. Thanks for any advice.

(0)