hughcohen 0 Posted January 31, 2006 Share Posted January 31, 2006 http://www.exoticskis.com/ Link to post Share on other sites
hughcohen 0 Posted January 31, 2006 Author Share Posted January 31, 2006 go to the capital skis site, they have a model called "G Funkenstein", it's 162mm under foot!!! DAMNDAMNDAMNDAMNDAMNDAMNDAMNDAMNDAMNDAMNDAMN!!!! Link to post Share on other sites
intr0 0 Posted January 31, 2006 Share Posted January 31, 2006 some of these super fat skis are going a bit too far imo. 100 underfoot is pretty damn fat. Link to post Share on other sites
quattro 1 Posted January 31, 2006 Share Posted January 31, 2006 162mm under foot may as well just buy two snowboards Link to post Share on other sites
Yuki's Passion 1 Posted January 31, 2006 Share Posted January 31, 2006 Ive got some 105 underfoot and heart them Id like some Sumo's - they look sick. There's another pair at Rappies that I wouldnt mind either. Link to post Share on other sites
hughcohen 0 Posted January 31, 2006 Author Share Posted January 31, 2006 I held a pair of sumos, they sexy. Link to post Share on other sites
mattlucas 0 Posted January 31, 2006 Share Posted January 31, 2006 Quote: Originally posted by quattro: 162mm under foot may as well just buy two snowboards This is the same as the Spats Reverse camber Reverse sidecut glad that another company picked up on this I wonder how they got around the patent It also says they make a skinny version that is something like 130 underfoot Link to post Share on other sites
quattro 1 Posted January 31, 2006 Share Posted January 31, 2006 What type of sick stuff would you need something that fat for? I have a older pair of Jaks whic are about 90 under foot and that seems plenty wide. Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts