Do Tua Mega's + Merrell Ultras cut the mustard?

_ I answered this already last month. You really want the Fischer
Boundless in a waxable version. They are hard to find and
relatively expensive, but you will love them.

With leather boots?

_ It's not that wide, 98/69/88. A bit wider than the K2
Extremes, but lengthwise it has a very similar flex and
it won't noodle out after a couple seasons like the foam
core extreme.

Dave and Booker-

(I'm the K2 Extreme guy). Your opinions are both very valuable to me.
Booker, you certainly have a good idea suggesting Fischer BC skis. I
think your suggestion might be mixed up, though. Dave, I agree that
10yr old leather boots might not be the best match for the Boundless.
I wonder if Booker really means the Fischer Outttabounds?

Doing some homework I uncovered the following shape facts:

Ruby Mountain - (shape) 81-60-70, (shovel-tail to waist ratio)
1.35-1.17
K2 5500 (surmised to be the same as a K2 Extreme) - 86-64-75,
1.34-1.17
K2 Extreme (my skis) - 82-63-77, 1.30-1.22
Fischer Boundless (Booker's recommended Extreme sub) 98-69-88,
1.42-1.28
Fischer Outtabounds - 88-68-78, 1.29-1.14

The closest shape match to the Extreme is the Outtabounds. The ratios
indicate the Boundless is "fat" relative to the Extreme. I don't like
fat skis, plain and simple. The Ruby Mtn is just a skinny Extreme
shapewise. And The K2 5500 is NOT anything like an Extreme.

My one and only complaint about the Extreme is it tends to be tough to
control in the heavy snow probably due to it's stiffness and my
leather boot combo. From my reading of the scant info on the web, the
Fischer's are a little more forgiving in the tails. I wonder if they
might even be better than my Extremes in that regard. Can you guys
comment on that?

(Booker, I think the Extreme is a wood core ski. I broke a pair 15
years ago and remember wood splinters in the crack. It's a faint
memory however so I can't be sure. After 10 years of use, the
"noodling" is just starting.)

My boots are a well broken-in pair of black leather Alico double
buckle laced boot. I love them and a long day in these boots is not
hard on my feet. (I can even drive with them on!)

John Speth

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

In article ,
John Speth wrote:
_ I answered this already last month. You really want the Fischer
Boundless in a waxable version. They are hard to find and
relatively expensive, but you will love them.

With leather boots?

_ It's not that wide, 98/69/88. A bit wider than the K2
Extremes, but lengthwise it has a very similar flex and
it won't noodle out after a couple seasons like the foam
core extreme.

Dave and Booker-

(I'm the K2 Extreme guy). Your opinions are both very valuable to me.
Booker, you certainly have a good idea suggesting Fischer BC skis. I
think your suggestion might be mixed up, though. Dave, I agree that
10yr old leather boots might not be the best match for the Boundless.
I wonder if Booker really means the Fischer Outttabounds?

- - No. The Boundless has the most "alpine-like" flex, the
Outtabounds is an excellent ski, but has more camber for
kick 'n' glide.


Doing some homework I uncovered the following shape facts:

Ruby Mountain - (shape) 81-60-70, (shovel-tail to waist ratio)
1.35-1.17
K2 5500 (surmised to be the same as a K2 Extreme) - 86-64-75,
1.34-1.17
K2 Extreme (my skis) - 82-63-77, 1.30-1.22
Fischer Boundless (Booker's recommended Extreme sub) 98-69-88,
1.42-1.28
Fischer Outtabounds - 88-68-78, 1.29-1.14

The closest shape match to the Extreme is the Outtabounds. The ratios
indicate the Boundless is "fat" relative to the Extreme. I don't like
fat skis, plain and simple. The Ruby Mtn is just a skinny Extreme
shapewise. And The K2 5500 is NOT anything like an Extreme.

_ What don't you like about "fat" skis? BTW, none of these skis
is even vauguely considered mid-fat these days. I think it's a
mistake to focus too much on width, the key is flex. Ski
technology has improved since the K2 extreme era,
back then a wide ski had to be pretty stiff to have the right
torsion stiffness. (ie. snow ranger... )


My one and only complaint about the Extreme is it tends to be tough to
control in the heavy snow probably due to it's stiffness and my
leather boot combo. From my reading of the scant info on the web, the
Fischer's are a little more forgiving in the tails. I wonder if they
might even be better than my Extremes in that regard. Can you guys
comment on that?

_ In my biased opinion, the key to crud performance is width
under the foot. Wide shovels may look useful in the mank,
but it's width under the foot that counts. The only ski
dimension I pay much attention to is width under foot.
Anything much less than 70mm underfoot is going to
be tough in heavy snow.


(Booker, I think the Extreme is a wood core ski. I broke a pair 15
years ago and remember wood splinters in the crack. It's a faint
memory however so I can't be sure. After 10 years of use, the
"noodling" is just starting.)

_ Well if they lasted that long, they probably are wood core.
I only skied them a few days as rental alpine skis, but I
remember them as being a round flexing detuned slalom ski
pretty much like every other ski available back then. They
all make decent tele skis, especially after they noodle out
a bit. My Rossi DV9's are very similar and have a foam core.


My boots are a well broken-in pair of black leather Alico double
buckle laced boot. I love them and a long day in these boots is not
hard on my feet. (I can even drive with them on!)


_ I really think you'd like the Boundless, they have the round
flex of your extremes, are lighter and snappier and will tour
much better. IMHO, they are the best tour'n'turns compromise
ski I've ever skiied. They might be a bit wide for icy east
coast conditions, but out west I think they're great. At last
check my ski count has reached double digits, if disaster
occured and I had to have just one pair, the Boundless
would be it.

_ Booker C. Bense



-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2

iQCVAwUBQIADAmTWTAjn5N/lAQGwNwP/ZHM058uAoCSjRUoy5zw1bZuZR+SMS0+D
2nMaQD8KA0Wp+1j4cjXDgrq6aMEkKlY01RHeLs6wNMbl9KG+70 c7E32bZqtElaGs
U2fjA8bOb4RtTQ6QUnP97yqLiYvE+7FMiSM6W8rsF7HP/H9C3Fpc25jqLIlF6GQV
Ymozi8Ss0mo=
=IKxJ
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

- - No. The Boundless has the most "alpine-like" flex, the

Ok, I'll give them a closer look. Local tele ski shop has them for
rent.

_ What don't you like about "fat" skis?

A few years ago I rented a pair of shaped skis to try out at a local
ski area with alpine boots, etc. I'll admit they were fun. Before
long I was literally skiing loops - they carved like a sharp knife.
Then I gave them the speed test where they performed not the way I
wanted them to. They wanted to turn but I didn't. No thanks for fat
skis.

But I have to wonder: How can you say that the spoon shaped Boundless
skis (sorry for the exaggeration) aren't fat _for my leather boots_
when 10 years ago a similar size and shape would have been fat _for my
leather boots_? My boots haven't changed in the 10 years I've owned
them. Shouldn't my skis "match" my boot? My single #1 concern is
that I'll buy Boundless skis and then find myself having to get new
boots. I'm too cheap and lazy to do it. And I like the challenge
of using the older equipment. double

_ I really think you'd like the Boundless, they have the round
flex of your extremes, are lighter and snappier and will tour
much better. IMHO, they are the best tour'n'turns compromise
ski I've ever skiied. They might be a bit wide for icy east
coast conditions, but out west I think they're great. At last
check my ski count has reached double digits, if disaster
occured and I had to have just one pair, the Boundless
would be it.

It's worth a rental try. Thanks.

One more question: Should I try a 189cm Boundless? My old skis are
190cm.

John Speth.

(John Speth) wrote:
Doing some homework I uncovered the following shape facts:

Ruby Mountain - (shape) 81-60-70, (shovel-tail to waist ratio)
1.35-1.17
K2 5500 (surmised to be the same as a K2 Extreme) - 86-64-75,
1.34-1.17
K2 Extreme (my skis) - 82-63-77, 1.30-1.22
Fischer Boundless (Booker's recommended Extreme sub) 98-69-88,
1.42-1.28
Fischer Outtabounds - 88-68-78, 1.29-1.14

The closest shape match to the Extreme is the Outtabounds. The ratios
indicate the Boundless is "fat" relative to the Extreme. I don't like
fat skis, plain and simple. The Ruby Mtn is just a skinny Extreme
shapewise. And The K2 5500 is NOT anything like an Extreme.

John, I wouldn't compare the skis based on ratios or turning radiuses.
I prefer to focus on profile and flex pattern.

The Extreme and 5500 were close stable mates. The primary difference,
if I recall, was that the Extreme borrowed the GS profile of the
810/812/88 series while the 5500 was closer to the 710/712/77 series
of slalom skis. This is back in the day when men were men and GS
boards were straaaaaiiiiiight! The Extremes and 5500s both had
cracked edges (the race skis didn't). One thing about the Extreme was
that it has a boco amount of glass in it to stand up to the punishment
of landing big air. I remember it being pitched as a western style big
mountain cruiser.

But the Extreme only lasted 1 or 2 seasons, if I recall, so If you are
looking for something to replicate that feel, I think the earlier (pre
Triaxial wrap, if you can find them) 5500s. I also have one of the
first trixial flavored 5500s kicking around in a 195 or something and
it has a 84/64/74 profile. The newer 5500s obviously grew in shape
just a tad, following the trends of that decade.

My one and only complaint about the Extreme is it tends to be tough to
control in the heavy snow probably due to it's stiffness and my
leather boot combo. From my reading of the scant info on the web, the
Fischer's are a little more forgiving in the tails. I wonder if they
might even be better than my Extremes in that regard.

Pretty much any tele specific ski of that era would be better than the
K2 alpine boards for skiing with leather. All of the performance
alpine boards of that era were definitely tail stiff and stiff overall
compared to newer skis and compared to alpine skis.

The old version of the K2 Piste Off (can still be found used) was out
of the basic mold of the 5500 with a 85/65/75 profile. It was noted
for its nice round flex. Other skis from that vintage with a classic
slalom profile include Black Diamond Boundless (82/62/72?? from
memory), Black Diamond Rubicon, Rossignol Tele Montagne,
Tua Sauvage, Tua Montet.

My boots are a well broken-in pair of black leather Alico double
buckle laced boot. I love them and a long day in these boots is not
hard on my feet. (I can even drive with them on!)

John, it really depends what kind of skiing you want to do.
If you are racking up miles with lots of striding and you just want a
ski that is capable of *some* turns, skis with a 80/60/70 profile are
fast and light and tour nicely. Hence my suggestion for the Ruby
Mountains, which is supposedly one of the best of that class.

If you are looking for maximum hardpack performance with those
boots, you could go up to a 85/65/75 profile ski, provided you stick
with a softer flexing ski. I can't really control the alpine boards of
this type with leathers (but I sort of suck).

If you are looking for better deep snow performance while not wanting
to vomit while touring or without being totally dog on tile when on
hard pack, a soft flexing 90/70/80 type of ski is workable for me.

Hope this is helpful.




-- Dave
==============================================
"It is impossible, or not easy, to do noble acts
without the proper equipment."
Aristotle, Politics, 1323a-b, trans Jowett
==============================================

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

In article ,
John Speth wrote:
- - No. The Boundless has the most "alpine-like" flex, the

Ok, I'll give them a closer look. Local tele ski shop has them for
rent.

_ What don't you like about "fat" skis?

A few years ago I rented a pair of shaped skis to try out at a local
ski area with alpine boots, etc. I'll admit they were fun. Before
long I was literally skiing loops - they carved like a sharp knife.
Then I gave them the speed test where they performed not the way I
wanted them to. They wanted to turn but I didn't. No thanks for fat
skis.

_ That was pretty typical of early shaped skis. They overdid it,
that problem has more or less been solved at least on the high
end. It's best to avoid the first few years of any radical gear
change, more is better takes over and you get skis that are
one dimensional. Like now I would avoid all the super fat skis
out there ( greater than 90mm at the waist). There are some
amazing all-around skis in the 80+ range.


But I have to wonder: How can you say that the spoon shaped Boundless
skis (sorry for the exaggeration) aren't fat _for my leather boots_
when 10 years ago a similar size and shape would have been fat _for my
leather boots_? My boots haven't changed in the 10 years I've owned
them. Shouldn't my skis "match" my boot? My single #1 concern is
that I'll buy Boundless skis and then find myself having to get new
boots. I'm too cheap and lazy to do it. And I like the challenge
of using the older equipment. double

_ Well, I ski them on even floppier boots and bindings. NNN/BC.
I am a firm believer in skis matching boots and I think these
will work fine with leather boots. Anybody that can tele K2
extremes with leather boots should be able to handle these skis.


It's worth a rental try. Thanks.

One more question: Should I try a 189cm Boundless? My old skis are
190cm.


_ Most likely. They really aren't stiff enough to ski short, I
was tempted to get less than 190, but I'm really glad the
salesman talked me out of it. BTW, if you really don't like them
after trying them, I came across a pair of Fischer Mustangs
at the local ski shop, 83,63,7?. $69 for an unmounted pair.

_ Booker C. Bense

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2

iQCVAwUBQIMlGWTWTAjn5N/lAQGduQQAk3/+6hSo8GjYBMN5zUvl75fHyGwqpraH
7Et8PJ6rz/kspHBLUgdbn35YqHYEg6urCIF3WAwvJdY3xAKkoIaWo0NNgAHv EkfV
YQroPH5cVI4Uvz51VG6FSmReV9XEj5NOHxcj2jlePr/w2SyqDcJ94jDea3Yb98xC
lgcGdzixSfo=
=Vv4F
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----