Seskelson,
I'm curious to your weight too but more interested to hear what it was about "the tune" you did not like...
What were those "Misbeahaven Chariots" doing to ya?
Using PMTS skills on big boards while indeed possible, the width of the board up on edge angle can really be a handful. For me as the boards get wider and the conditions are deeper, I utlize more of the base of the ski instead of long visits on high edge angles, the fat skis became more playful and co-operative. More or less, soft edges.
My experience with a variety of wider boards found that some when brought up on edge had what I'd call "Turbo Tug"....I had a hard time keeping the edged ski under my hips....that ski just wanted to shoot out from under me and pull away.
I'm thinking too if it was a ski that was "A.D.D SKI" ...the skis seemed to have a mind of their own and changed their mind all the time....I'm wondering if binding placement, ball of foot and all that were not placed correctly for you. For me my bad experiences were because the bindings were mounted to far back on a ski making it difficult to engage the shovels.
I know I'm shooting blindly here but would be interested in what you actually experienced.
Thanks, G
This is my experience exactly with fatter skis...except one, the Shaman, which handles higher than normal edges with grace and aplomb (in fact, it demands them). But with my Nomad SFt's, I found they really came to life with softer more drifted approach...actually, Gary, I found the techniques spelled out in a good short book by another renegade Black level PMTS instructor whom I believe you are very familiar with to be the gold ticket to skiing fatter skis in soft snow and tight spaces.
That guy's stuff is the most under-appreciated technical thoughts on ski use in the business.
More to the topic at hand, I've wondered about the real utility of a 100mm waisted carving ski. I am presently the Ski Logik pro-rep at my own hill, but if I get one of their skis I think it'd be the Rave...15m turn radius in a 90mm ski just seems to make more sense to me. I just tried to talk a fellow patroller (unsuccessfully) out of the Chariot RL's and toward's the TT's based, in no small part, on Dawg's review's.
I do have a few cranky old school hesitation and think of 100mm as a Fat ski (c'mon, guys, even in my short skiing life, it wasn't so long ago that the Salomon Pocket Rocket and the Volant Chubb defined fat powder skis at a whopping 90mm.)
I am interested to read JBotti's assessment of the Chariots---John, did you like your Shaman's (you went pretty crazy long in them, I know Ben Anderson never envisioned that ski ever being that long and still sings the praises of the 161cm..there is 24 year old son (and ex college racer) of a fellow patroller using the 161cm as his full time ski and it is impressive what he can do with them. I've only skied the 173cm-in fairly deep powder, and I thought they were great.
I am a pretty big icelantic fan, actually...I'd really love to get some time on the gypsy (and see what a real monster ski is all about).