dontlookdown wrote:I thought everyone had gone small, 165cm or shorter. I'm happy to hear Strata, that someone is still moving around on some speed machines, 205's yeehaa!

The new "rule" is your height minus 10cm. I'm 6 feet tall = 183 cm, but I still run between 180-190cm sticks. So my rule is run your height. My other rule is no skis skinner than 90mm in the waist of the ski. Powder skis everyday!

UP_M5 wrote:i can fit my federal 2500's in the back of the maule with the rear seat out and aft bulkhead removed.

what do i win?

You win the chance to ship those Federal 2500's to me. I'll PM you my address.

zane wrote:The new "rule" is your height minus 10cm. I'm 6 feet tall = 183 cm, but I still run between 180-190cm sticks. So my rule is run your height. My other rule is no skis skinner than 90mm in the waist of the ski. Powder skis everyday!

The 205's were just an example of what would fit. But I must say that my old Atomic GS skis are still one of my favorite arrows in my quiver - rock solid at high speed, especially on boilerplate - haven't been able to find a pair of short boards yet that exceeds them for high speed all mountain cruising. I suspect I'll have to select a full blown racing or mogul ski to be satisfied with the shorter ones.

The Atomic SL: 11M's are promising, but recommendations are always welcome...

Strata Rocketeer wrote:But I must say that my old Atomic GS skis are still one of my favorite arrows in my quiver - rock solid at high speed, especially on boilerplate - haven't been able to find a pair of short boards yet that exceeds them for high speed all mountain cruising. I suspect I'll have to select a full blown racing or mogul ski to be satisfied with the shorter ones.

That's because most skis in the rental and demo fleet aren't anywhere near as stiff as your old GS boards. Combine stiffness with modern sidecut and you have an eas(ier) turning ski that's stable on the nasty stuff at speed. Add some width and you can destroy crud and chopped up mank, while still floating well in powder.

Dynastar Legend Pro, Blizzard Titan Pro, Volkl Explosive (discontinued 2 years ago) are some great skis in that category...stiff and fat.

Nah, in the deep stuff, the only way to go is Rosti-Fernandez 8001 retractable wheel skis.

MTV

mtv wrote:Nah, in the deep stuff, the only way to go is Rosti-Fernandez 8001 retractable wheel skis.

MTV

Hey, try to stay on topic.

Zane, before you say that, you ought to try em.... . I've had a Husky in powder to my shoulders when I stepped out. Gymnastics to get aboard again.

MTV

They look like freestyle kayaks attached to each main...

Zane,

Not too far off, actually. They are good ones. Thomas has got them down to just under 60 pounds total additional weight now, he tells me.

They work better than any ski I've used, and I've used most.

MTV

Now, guys, if you had a *real* airplane, you'd simply bungee the skis to the lift struts and go. I think skis are a permitted external load, along with fishing poles, snowshoes and gun cases

Jon B.

Yes, Champs are real airplanes. And, yes, the C-170 deal fell through.

OK Zane,

Here's another solution. Every aircraft is a compromise. In this case, you give up a little bit of range and load, but you can sure bring your skis along. Fuel consumption is real low and what a view of the backcountry!!

http://www.glumbert.com/media/skiglide

YB

Jon B. wrote:Now, guys, if you had a *real* airplane, you'd simply bungee the skis to the lift struts and go. I think skis are a permitted external load, along with fishing poles, snowshoes and gun cases

This is really permissible? I could sandwich my struts with skis and call it good? If that damn wing wasn't in the way I'd have my Yakima rack on there too.

Need to invent a cool belly carrier for skis that lets you affix them bases-to-belly. Of course, your nice bindings would get peppered if you landed or took off from a dirt strip.

Extended baggage it is...

Hey Zane, I think maybe you've stubbled into a market here. Why not engineer and sell some collapsable skis, like those little bikes they sell in sporty's. Hell of a way to finance a web site.

Saw this on TGR:



Some guy hauling K2 Pontoons in a wing-rack. Anyone ever seen one of these? STC or hillbilly bush tricks?

You know it's not an STC.

a64pilot wrote:You know it's not an STC.

A guy can hope, can't he?

Looks like that's a New Zealand outfit: http://www.skithetasman.co.nz

Zane, what's the problem? Duct tape and struts!!!

I have a 180 with an extended baggage compartment; Air Metal Fabricators, I believe, is the name of the kit. I can carry two pair of skiis with the back bench installed. Mine are 186CM.

I put the wing covers aft, set the rear end of the skiis on top of them, the front end on top of the seat back(mine has a low point in the middle) and run a strap down to the aft seat bracket.

Your 170 should be a great ski machine, have fun.

A friend of mine who passed away recently had a field approval for bicycles hangin from each wing very similar to your under-wing ski rack. The pictures looked pretty cool and he was a multiple STC holder, and A&P/AI. Don't know if that would help grease the skids for an approval, but couldn't hurt....

He also built the folding bicycles that hung there.

1SeventyZ wrote:The new "rule" is your height minus 10cm. I'm 6 feet tall = 183 cm, but I still run between 180-190cm sticks. So my rule is run your height. My other rule is no skis skinner than 90mm in the waist of the ski. Powder skis everyday!

Hmmm, so my 210 cm Head 360's aren't cutting edge anymore??? How does shit like this happen?

Gump

GumpAir wrote:Hmmm, so my 210 cm Head 360's aren't cutting edge anymore??? How does shit like this happen?

How is it back there in 1985?