Nice board on ebay

Trencher wrote:

ise wrote:

Trencher wrote:All mountain is a manufacturer's and reviewer's term for skis that doesn't normally include mid fat or fat skis.

Trencher

can I post this quick enough before Pablo refers you to the Armadas again ? :D

but seriously, that's a typo isn't it? mid fat is the archetypal all mountain ski in current line ups, so much that the two terms are all but synonymous.

I refered to the manufacturer's and reviewer's commonly used definition, which generally have 70mm to 80mm waist, not anyone else's.

have you tried typing "all mountain mid fat skis" into Google ?

all mountain mid fat skis

Picking a mainstream manufacturer like Atomic, all of their "all mountain" Nomad range of skis fit into the 70-80mm widths. For example, It's the same for all of them of course. The review site "realskiers" (and there's never enough of those) say "Some of the labels we've used in the past for this genre are "mid-fat," "all mountain" and "cruisers." Waists are in the 70 to 78mm range, turn radii vary in the mid to high teens." and so on for a couple of thousand pages.

ise wrote:

Trencher wrote:

ise wrote:

Trencher wrote:All mountain is a manufacturer's and reviewer's term for skis that doesn't normally include mid fat or fat skis.

Trencher

can I post this quick enough before Pablo refers you to the Armadas again ? :D

but seriously, that's a typo isn't it? mid fat is the archetypal all mountain ski in current line ups, so much that the two terms are all but synonymous.

I refered to the manufacturer's and reviewer's commonly used definition, which generally have 70mm to 80mm waist, not anyone else's.

have you tried typing "all mountain mid fat skis" into Google ?

all mountain mid fat skis

Picking a mainstream manufacturer like Atomic, all of their "all mountain" Nomad range of skis fit into the 70-80mm widths. For example, It's the same for all of them of course. The review site "realskiers" (and there's never enough of those) say "Some of the labels we've used in the past for this genre are "mid-fat," "all mountain" and "cruisers." Waists are in the 70 to 78mm range, turn radii vary in the mid to high teens." and so on for a couple of thousand pages.

Whatever :roll:

Trencher

Trencher wrote:[
Whatever :roll:

Trencher

sorry? you mean you hadn't? you have now? Atomic are wrong? what?

ise wrote:

Trencher wrote:

ise wrote:

Trencher wrote:All mountain is a manufacturer's and reviewer's term for skis that doesn't normally include mid fat or fat skis.

Trencher

can I post this quick enough before Pablo refers you to the Armadas again ? :D

but seriously, that's a typo isn't it? mid fat is the archetypal all mountain ski in current line ups, so much that the two terms are all but synonymous.

I refered to the manufacturer's and reviewer's commonly used definition, which generally have 70mm to 80mm waist, not anyone else's.

have you tried typing "all mountain mid fat skis" into Google ?

all mountain mid fat skis

Picking a mainstream manufacturer like Atomic, all of their "all mountain" Nomad range of skis fit into the 70-80mm widths. For example, It's the same for all of them of course. The review site "realskiers" (and there's never enough of those) say "Some of the labels we've used in the past for this genre are "mid-fat," "all mountain" and "cruisers." Waists are in the 70 to 78mm range, turn radii vary in the mid to high teens." and so on for a couple of thousand pages.

OMG :shock: I thought I purchased some mid fats last year....and really with an 86 waist they are full fat )

No wonder my skiing has come on in leaps and bounds 8)

bandit wrote:

OMG :shock: I thought I purchased some mid fats last year....and really with an 86 waist they are full fat )

No wonder my skiing has come on in leaps and bounds 8)

As much as I could make any sense of it then they are mid fat, it's just they can't be all mountain skis apparently. I may have got confused though about what was being redefined, mid fat or all mountain.

ise wrote:

bandit wrote:

OMG :shock: I thought I purchased some mid fats last year....and really with an 86 waist they are full fat )

No wonder my skiing has come on in leaps and bounds 8)

As much as I could make any sense of it then they are mid fat, it's just they can't be all mountain skis apparently. I may have got confused though about what was being redefined, mid fat or all mountain.

All of which probably means that you mostly ski with a snowboard strapped to each foot, and they definitely can't be all mountain either :D

tino_11 wrote:hmmm, been coveting a Prior board for sometime now, and am using all my will power not to click the "check out" button on their website....

must resist internet shopping :evil:

https://www.priorsnowboards.com/controller.php?op=viewZoomBOARD_STYLE&BSTY_ID=6&BSBG_ID_TOPSHEET=1260&BSBG_ID_BASE=1262#

Well, I held out for a while, and I really should not stay at home on a Friday night as I ended up buying one of these.....

https://www.priorsnowboards.com/controller.php?op=viewZoomBOARD_STYLE&BSTY_ID=6&BSBG_ID_TOPSHEET=1260&BSBG_ID_BASE=1262#

As it is not being built for me I have the Autumn topsheet, which on reflection I think is very nice looking. I got it ex-demo however so that saved me a few quid.

how expensive was it compared to an eight man tent tino?