Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 1 2
Results 26 to 42 of 42
  1. #26
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Golden, Colorado
    Posts
    5,868
    Quote Originally Posted by auvgeek View Post
    Otto Parts and I were the first people to ski them, actually. I still don't think you can drive the tips super hard, but they do have a larger sweet spot than the Ren. Very nice ski. I need more time on them to really review them, which is why I haven't done that.

    Honestly, I wish splat made that ski with a 110 waist instead of a 124, but he'll probably sell more of the latter.
    Oh, also, FWIW, I mounted mine 1.5-2cm behind the line, which is .5-1cm behind the current suggested mount point. Probably helps even more...

  2. #27
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Wenatchee
    Posts
    14,610
    Quote Originally Posted by auvgeek View Post
    Honestly, I wish splat made that ski with a 110 waist instead of a 124, but he'll probably sell more of the latter.
    That's why I got the stiff 196 Lhasas that are rockered. Pat and I talked and he says there is a flat area underfoot, but it's hard to tell. They look like they have subtle rocker the whole length kinda like Flipcore skis. If it's soft at all they are great, so solid. I don't seek out airs, but will make smaller drops if they are in a line and they are the most solid landing ski I've been on. I can bend them but I'm pushing 230#.

    I liked them the minute I got on them, came from 191 hybrid Lhasas. If there isn't any soft snow around I use something else though. We went through several periods of East Coast like conditions in Central WA this season.

  3. #28
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    THOR-Foothills
    Posts
    5,992
    Faction CT 3.0, 4.0, and Royale

    Whitedot Director and Redeemer
    It doesn't matter if you're a king or a little street sweeper...
    ...sooner or later you'll dance with the reaper
    -Death

    Quote Originally Posted by St. Jerry View Post
    The other morning I was awoken to "Daddy, my fart fell on the floor"
    Kaz is my co-pilot

  4. #29
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    78° 41′ 0″ N, 16° 24′ 0″ E
    Posts
    1,522
    Quote Originally Posted by Caucasian Asian View Post
    Faction CT 3.0, 4.0, and Royale

    Whitedot Director and Redeemer
    Nope. Those are flat/slightly cambered, tip and tail rockered twins.

    All from the same cavity, which is the one we use for the CD1 and CD7.

    Also, part of the smoothness mentioned earlier in this thread stems from the skis having no twin tip.
    simen@downskis.com DOWN SKIS

  5. #30
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Bozeman
    Posts
    1,509
    I seem to have the opposite experience of many on reverse camber skis. I love them in firm snow and junky, tracked out type conditions. I have no complaints about a lack of rebound, as others have said elsewhere. I didn't really feel like I had to adapt my technique to the skis, perhaps because my technique sucks.

    The conditions where I like them the least are consolidated snow or heavy, wet snow. Since I only have the cochise (which, yes, is full reverse camber for the version I have), I think this is due to the stiffness of the tail.

    And, for additional backwardness, my preferred powder ski in the resort is cambered (12/13 ugly orange megawatts). For pure powder, I'd probably still choose my praxis powderboards.
    We heard you in our twilight caves, one hundred fathom deep below, for notes of joy can pierce the waves, that drown each sound of war and woe.

  6. #31
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    608
    My two cents:

    All the skis in my quiver are reverse camber with side cut. Rossi Sickle, Volkl Katana, 4frnt Renegade, 4frnt EHP (ok maybe flat instead of RC), and Volkl Nunataq for touring.

    Even though they all share the RC + SC qualities, they all ski differently.

    Sickle: medium flex, damp build, full twip tip, very subtle reverse camber, rec mount of -6cm from true center, 110mm underfoot. Maybe the best groomer ski of the bunch. Pretty good at charging variable snow but not a Katana. Easy to ski. Just ok in powder.

    Katana: stiff flex, damp build, metal, slightly raised tail, rec mount of -12 to - 14 cm from true center (184 vs 191), 111mm underfoot. More demanding in tight spaces than the Sickle, and less fun on groomers. Destroys variable snow at speed when there is room to run. More fun in pow than the Sickle

    Renegade: people have heard a lot about this ski already. Rec mount -6cm from true center. The build is not as damp as the Katana or Sickle (even though it is stiffer than either), and it doesn't ski firm variable snow as well as either of the skis above. But in soft snow it has this amazing frictionless feel... it skis pow so fast, and soft variable is also super fun. Turns can (and should) be made with lateral weight shifts instead of driving the tips. Groomer turns are all slarves.

    EHP: damper ride than the Renegade, medium flex similar to the Sickle, - 6cm rec'd from true center. Great tree ski. AS D(C) said in his Renegade vs EHP comparison way back, the EHP can bang off more quick turns in pow tree skiing than the Renegade. Very loose and slarvy feeling. More forgiving in variable snow and bumps than the Renegade, but not the plow truck that the Katana is. Groomer turns are all slarves.

    Nunataq: basically a lightened Gotama. Not damp like the Katana or Sickle, medium flex. More deflection and vibration occurs because of the lack of weight and dampening compared to the Katana, but as a touring ski I think it hits the sweet spot of feeling like a real ski but still being light on the up track.


    For any of you that have skied both the Renegade and the Kusala, any big differences? I've been eyeballing the used Kusala softs on GearSwap but I'm worried soft might be too soft.

  7. #32
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    3,189
    Quote Originally Posted by DGamms View Post
    My two cents:

    For any of you that have skied both the Renegade and the Kusala, any big differences? I've been eyeballing the used Kusala softs on GearSwap but I'm worried soft might be too soft.
    Hit up Lindahl for this one... I dont want to speak for him, but from his posts I do not believe he was a fan at all of the Renegade and is digging the Kusala... But no doubt the man himself will provide better input...

  8. #33
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Juxtaposition
    Posts
    5,733
    Quote Originally Posted by butterscotch View Post
    I seem to have the opposite experience of many on reverse camber skis. I love them in firm snow and junky, tracked out type conditions.
    I don't think they suck, I just don't think that the RC brings any benefits that offset the harsher ride. I ski tech bindings, so really feel any harsh.

    Like you, I have had some less than stellar times in really heavy snow, particularly when over a hard base (ice). Not sure why that is. Perhaps very dense/wet snow lacks enough push-back energy to bring life into a ski that has less life due to no camber?

    One thing I'm not sold on is the popular idea that RC makes upside down and wind funk and zipper crusts any easier. That still requires very good skiing.

    Low angle crust and wandering ski stoke:
    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails Click image for larger version. 

Name:	DSC05924.JPG 
Views:	842 
Size:	182.4 KB 
ID:	154179  
    Life is not lift served.

  9. #34
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Golden, Colorado
    Posts
    5,868
    Quote Originally Posted by DGamms View Post
    For any of you that have skied both the Renegade and the Kusala, any big differences? I've been eyeballing the used Kusala softs on GearSwap but I'm worried soft might be too soft.
    The Kusalas, that I have, are extra stiff. They're much stiffer than the Renegades. Both were 186cm. I'm not sure what the Renegades were via tape measure, but the Kusalas come out at 184-185cm. I like the Kusalas quite a bit more than the Renegades. The Renegades were mounted per rec... 87cm from the tail? My Kusalas are mounted about 84cm from the tail or 100.5cm from the tip, or -1cm from the line. I tried to center the flattest part of the ski at the ball of the foot when mounting them. I don't recall where the Renegades mount placed my ball of foot with regard to the flattest part of the ski.

    As for the differences? I can definitely bend the Renegades, I can't really bend the Kusalas much, if at all. As such, they're more stable at high speeds in uncut snow, especially if it has a lot of density or a crust. They'll track more predictably. They're both super fast and pretty stable in crud, but the Kusalas are better. The combination of more rearward mount and extra stiffness make it so you can really lay on your shins and charge through anything. You can't do that as easily on the Renegades. They also stomp better than the Renegades. I felt it was easier to go over the bars or wheelie out with the Renegades than the Kusalas. The Kusalas land cliffs beautifully - since I got on them, I can't remember any days where I was thrown forward or backward. They always seem to land perfectly balanced right on the balls of my feet. It's like you're jumping off a playground set or something onto your feet. The Renegades don't give me this same feeling. For both stomping and charging, Kusalas > Billygoats > Renegades.

    That said, you're looking at soft Kusalas. I'm not so sure you'd have the same experience. My guess is that the soft Kusalas will be a bit better than the Renegades, with the slightly more rearward mount, but the stiffness that I have won't be there. I'm not sure which, stiffness or mount point, plays more into why the Kusalas work better for me. I wouldn't be surprised if the soft Kusalas are close to the Renegades in stiffness though.

    A little while ago, auvgeek theorized that for reverse camber skis, you want higher stiffness than you would with full cambered skis. He didn't say why, but it makes sense to me, considering that the ski is already bent into a shape that you more or less want it to be in. So, why allow the ski to bend more if it's purely for soft snow? The stiffness likely behaves more predictably, since it's behavior won't change based on how it's bent. This is what made me roll the dice on the extra stiff Kusalas, after a negative experience with the Renegades. I'm sooooo glad I did! I really liked the Renegades, and how fast they skied in powder (lack of resistance), but I just didn't like that I couldn't drive them hard, and that they didn't stomp as well as my Billygoats. The extra stiff Kusalas fixed both of these problems, and still ski ridiculously fast in a way that only a reverse camber ski can.

    Oh one thing to note, with reverse camber skis like the Kusalas and Renegades, you need to wax them more often. Riding around inbounds will wear out the wax underfoot pretty quick, since you're not riding on the ski anywhere else when you're on hardpack. I don't like slow skis, have a lot of cat walk traverses, and almost feel the need to wax them daily.

    A quick clip from Monday, because every thread needs some stoke:

    Last edited by Lindahl; 04-16-2014 at 09:41 PM.

  10. #35
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Posts
    33,440
    I'm all fucked up with an allergy to fiberglass and resin fumes and am getting out the last of the spring ski orders, 179 and 183 bros with reverse sidecut. I have to take the month of May off and have two frenchies arriving in June to help me press. I have materials to build 10 pair of Kusalas over the summer. If you guys want some, I'll do hybrids at $800 and pures at $900 (plus shipping) on a preorder. But I need five orders to motivate me to start on them in June. Delivered in August. Just sayin...

  11. #36
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    608
    Lindahl, thanks for the info. I appreciate it. BTW, I think I remember from prior post that you are a bigger guy, no? I only ask because I'm 5'9" and 150lbs without gear, so maybe our needs for ski stiffness will be different.

    Splat, I might be able to save enough pennies to buy some Kusalas this summer. Are you still doing custom camber profiles (I'm wanting a little less reverse camber than the Renegades) in addition to custom stiffnesses on the pure carbon Kusalas?

    One more thing about RC + SC in general: I found it hard to go back to a cambered ski after using just RC + SC skis for more than 3 seasons. I tried Line Motherships as a replacement for my Katanas. While the Motherships did carve more energetically on groomers, they were so much more work off piste. No last minute pivots or speed checks, each turn with the MoShips had to be deliberate. For my taste, the benefits of RC + SC skis being able to ski fast on firm or soft off piste snow and being able pivot/slarve when needed outweighs any benefit that camber might provide on groomers.

  12. #37
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Golden, Colorado
    Posts
    5,868

    Full Reverse Camber + Side Cut

    I'm 5'10 and 175lbs. Bigger than you, but not really a big guy.

    Also, my Billygoats when I compared them to Renegades were the older, more pintailed, 186s. When comparing to the Kusalas, they were the latest 191s. So, Kusalas > 191s > 186s > Renegades. I do notice I can't slam on the tails of the Kusalas like I can on the Billygoats, especially in firm snow. It takes a bit more work to shut things down, even if you can pivot faster on the Kusalas. I can't remember what I thought of the Renegades in that same scenario. Not sure how much of it is the softer tail vs pintail vs camber.

    For what you describe on hard snow, I really like rocker and camber mixed over reverse camber. I have a pair of older (non-RC) Down Countdown 4s that are just about perfect in that respect. Very stiff and straight (120-102-107), subtle long tip rocker, subtle tail rocker, and minimal camber underfoot. The rocker profile is similar to the Cochise, but with a little less rocker length and camber underfoot instead of flat - maybe 1cm? The stiffness is almost like my Kusalas. I know splat is playing around with a similar ski in the Bros (Bro Tech Lift 179 thread). Without a little bit of camber, an RC ski is just too sketchy when hauling balls on hardpack. The edge to edge transitions just feel awful to me - no confidence, and running flat is pretty scary too.
    Last edited by Lindahl; 04-17-2014 at 12:54 PM.

  13. #38
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Juxtaposition
    Posts
    5,733
    Quote Originally Posted by butterscotch View Post
    The conditions where I like them the least are consolidated snow or heavy, wet snow.
    Forgot to mention: rub on magic Zardoz = huge performance change in genuine wet spring cream cheese.

    I'm thinking maybe even at low speed the belly of the ski is riding deeper in the mank due to the RC? Then with more speed and through turns, the ski just bends even further into the shit, which then packs out hard under pressure and holds the ski in a deeply decambered shape for longer than you'd want. I totally agree that my RC skis perform worse in super snow than trad camber.

    Definition of wet: not corn, but recent spring snow which has not yet made the corn transition.
    Life is not lift served.

  14. #39
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Posts
    33,440
    Quote Originally Posted by DGamms View Post
    Splat, I might be able to save enough pennies to buy some Kusalas this summer. Are you still doing custom camber profiles (I'm wanting a little less reverse camber than the Renegades) in addition to custom stiffnesses on the pure carbon Kusalas?
    To do custom camber profiles normally requires a whole new camber block to press the skis on so they take the shape of that block.
    But between adjustments in layers and temperatures, along with a some shim tweaks, the camber can often be adjusted.
    The only problem in doing that is I usually end up a couple of wonky pair on the way to hitting it right.
    That happened with the 184 Byas as we were sussing out layers and temps recently in search of the right stiffness and cambers.
    Burned through a shitload of carbon on those bastards.

  15. #40
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    NICE
    Posts
    129
    hi simen some faction 4.0 came out from nobile with reverse camber.
    there are the first true fsbc with that.
    but it was more a build mistake than a design goal

    you should try to make the same with your cd1

  16. #41
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Posts
    33,440
    Vets just called me after his first day on his new Byas with reverse camber.
    He said he would add to his review of the positive camber Byas.

  17. #42
    Vets's Avatar
    Vets is offline Orange Mocha Frappuccino!
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Topaz, NV
    Posts
    3,891
    First and second impressions of reverse camber Byas.
    First impression: Bya = freshly sharpened Ginsu knife. Other skis = dull butter knives.
    It has taken a little getting used to having what feels like constant edge contact under foot. However, these skis really rail. (BTW - my first day on these was yesterday at Kirkwood which served up post-powday mank on crust. I later did a slight detune on the tips and tails to allow easing in and out of turns.
    Second impression: They still really rail, but now that I'm a bit more used to the ski I felt more comfy and confident in bumps and trees. (BTW - my second day on these was today at Squaw, which had snow that was stickier and had more obstacles than Kirkwood. However, the snow felt less variable/more consistant.)
    I'm looking forward to trying the Byas in other conditions. Actually, two opposite ends of the spectrum, firm groomers and soft deep pow. I've got a feeling that these skis will excel at both.

    Another comparison to add. I had a chance to ski on Kusalas twice. Last season in 18 inches of fresh and this season in spring corn. The Kusala feels like a smooth Cadillac ride with almost psychic-powered, power steering. The Bya feels more like a high performance sports car. Both skis really like to go fast.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •