PSA: Down Skis presale

[freak]

its always been beyond me (and probably always will) how people cant do switchbacks with longish skis...

i think a 190cm cd107 would be really rad. as well as a 190cm cd102. i expect them to be great in the new version, but well, short.

freak~[&]

[ClarkleberryFinn]

Lack of skills, flexibility and leg length, at least for slopes above 35°.

[I've seen black diamonds!]

for slopes above 35°.

Crampons? I've noticed that people take their skis off a lot sooner in North America than they do in Europe. Maybe it's because so many folks use hudge skis over here. I've skinned up slopes approaching 40˚ when skiing with Italians. Wouldn't think of doing that at home. The again, near home most open 40˚+ slopes are constantly hammered by wind and are seldom safe to ski if the snow is deep, so booting is pretty efficient unless your putting you're life at risk.

its always been beyond me (and probably always will) how people cant do switchbacks with longish skis...

It's not just about switchbacks and kickturns. Its about general ease of movement and saving energy. When they're on your back, long skis get hung op on rocks and branches more, and bang you in the back of the leg more. Longer, wider skis act like a sail when the wind is howling, flopping around and pulling at your balance. Wider skis require significantly more effort sidehilling on firm snow. If I'm lapping powder or following a nice mellow skin track, 120 waisted 190's are great. But when I'm faced with a long difficult approach and climb, I'll take 100 waisted 180's.

[shafty85]

If I'm lapping powder or following a nice mellow skin track, 120 waisted 190's are great. But when I'm faced with a long difficult approach and climb, I'll take 100 waisted 180's.

Agreed

7890

[auvgeek]

Anybody want to chime in on how the 102 skis firm/icy steeps? Sure, it could be 10 mm narrower, but I'm curious how it works as is. I'm *really* close to pulling the trigger, but...

One thing that concerns me is the pintail: I don't like how pintailed skis perform on steep hard/icy snow. I've found that the tip bites more than the tail and can spin you around. I invariably end up with more weight on my heels, hoping extra pressure on the tail will help it grip better...which can spin me even faster if the tail slips more than the tip. Kind of the worst possible outcome. I've experienced it on the Billy Goat and the Lhasa Fat, which both have 17-19 mm differential between the tip and tail width. The CD102 is smaller at 13 mm difference between the tip and tail, but I'm still worried the same thing will happen. Can anyone provide any insight?

I understand that having a smaller turn radius in the tip than tail provides extra float in soft snow, but it seems like a little less tip or more tail would make it more predictable on steep snow. Hoping that's just speculation...

[rob stokes]

Anybody want to chime in on how the 102 skis firm/icy steeps? Sure, it could be 10 mm narrower, but I'm curious how it works as is. I'm *really* close to pulling the trigger, but...

One thing that concerns me is the pintail: I don't like how pintailed skis perform on steep hard/icy snow. I've found that the tip bites more than the tail and can spin you around. I invariably end up with more weight on my heels, hoping extra pressure on the tail will help it grip better...which can spin me even faster if the tail slips more than the tip. Kind of the worst possible outcome. I've experienced it on the Billy Goat and the Lhasa Fat, which both have 17-19 mm differential between the tip and tail width. The CD102 is smaller at 13 mm difference between the tip and tail, but I'm still worried the same thing will happen. Can anyone provide any insight?

I understand that having a smaller turn radius in the tip than tail provides extra float in soft snow, but it seems like a little less tip or more tail would make it more predictable on steep snow. Hoping that's just speculation...

Thats interesting as I have spent A LOT of time on Lotus 120's which have a 15mm taper and find them very predictable on hard steeps.

Predictably not grippy, but predictable.

[Lindahl]

You probably know my answer to this already, but the 102 doesn't give me the pintail feel like the Bilkygoat does. Less pintail, as you mention, but it also has a much larger radius, and the tail is significantly stiffer as well. I'm sure the narrower width adds to this as well. Didn't ever notice the tail washing on me.

[LawndartGustav]

a 190cm cd102. i expect them to be great in the new version, but well, short.

freak~[&]

What other skis do you have? Without hardly any twintip you use the whole ski. I measured the twintipped tail on a pair of Seth 2006 once. 17cm.
What I'm trying to say is that a 180 flat tail skis like a 190 twintip =) at least forward

[SiSt]

What other skis do you have? Without hardly any twintip you use the whole ski. I measured the twintipped tail on a pair of Seth 2006 once. 17cm.
What I'm trying to say is that a 180 flat tail skis like a 190 twintip =) at least forward

The cd102 and the sd115 have the same functional geometry, but the 102 has a 2cm shorter tip and 8cm shorter tail. We have not had many complaints of the sd115 being too short...

Freak has been testing skis for us for the last 4-5 seasons, so he knows them better than most, and his desire for some new lengths have been noted.

[Lindahl]

Finally got around to posting up my review of the Countdown 102:
http://www.tetongravity.com/forums/s...Countdown-102)

Thanks guys for making a kick ass ski!

[freak]

Crampons? I've noticed that people take their skis off a lot sooner in North America than they do in Europe. Maybe it's because so many folks use hudge skis over here. I've skinned up slopes approaching 40˚ when skiing with Italians. Wouldn't think of doing that at home.

its usually just easier/more comfortable and faster to go with skis. it is of course also a matter of personal taste. e.g. i tend to go with skis as long as possible while klar takes her skis of and starts bootpacking much sooner.

It's not just about switchbacks and kickturns. Its about general ease of movement and saving energy. When they're on your back, long skis get hung op on rocks and branches more, and bang you in the back of the leg more. Longer, wider skis act like a sail when the wind is howling, flopping around and pulling at your balance. Wider skis require significantly more effort sidehilling on firm snow. If I'm lapping powder or following a nice mellow skin track, 120 waisted 190's are great. But when I'm faced with a long difficult approach and climb, I'll take 100 waisted 180's.

well, i dont really see length as a problem here. i know that short/shorter skis make sense for a lot of reasons, but i wuld always prefer a 190cm or 185cm ski. i ski one with ~135mm waist for pow in the resorts (rarely these days though) and one with ~115mm for touring pow, ~100mm for other touring. in summer i would even use one with ~85mm. i would like them all to be the same length though

freak~[&]

[Lindahl]

i ski one with ~135mm waist for pow in the resorts (rarely these days though) and one with ~115mm for touring pow, ~100mm for other touring. in summer i would even use one with ~85mm. i would like them all to be the same length though

I'm not sure if that makes much sense to me (the last sentence). I assume your 85mm would be full camber, and your 100mm would have a decent amount of camber, and your 115mm/135mm would have very little camber. Why would you want them all the same length? The 190cm length is great in powder, but I can't imagine touring with an 85mm or 100mm cambered ski in a 190cm. Maneuverability just takes too much of a hit in firmer snow.

Though, maybe I don't really understand what you mean?

[superdigg]

Can anyone say a bit more on how the 102 and 102L compares? Yes, I understand it's (the L) lighter and how that affects skiing but is the stiffness different, more chatter/less dampening etc, etc?

Also - I'm kind of torn between the 102(L) and the Raven. Any thoughts on how they compare?

[SiSt]

superdigg:

The profile of the 102 and the 102L is the same, so the 102L is a touch softer due to the different woodcore. This is intentional as a very stiff/very light ski feels really jarring in harder conditions. (The eigenfrequency of a vibration depends on the square root(stiffness/mass).)

The two have the same amount of rubber/dampening material, but a lighter ski will always be more susceptible to high-frequency vibrations than a heavier ski. This is what we´ve offset with the slightly softer flex in order to keep the ride from being jarring.

They share the same glass/carbon hybrid construction as all our skis in the CountDown series, which by the feedback we´ve heard (not just by our own reckoning) is one of the damper lightweight constructions on the market.

I can´t compare it to the Raven, which I´m sure skis great, other than noting that a "reflect tech" ski with a 23/30m radius will have significantly more rocker than we have in the CountDown series.

[superdigg]

superdigg:

The profile of the 102 and the 102L is the same, so the 102L is a touch softer due to the different woodcore. This is intentional as a very stiff/very light ski feels really jarring in harder conditions. (The eigenfrequency of a vibration depends on the square root(stiffness/mass).)

The two have the same amount of rubber/dampening material, but a lighter ski will always be more susceptible to high-frequency vibrations than a heavier ski. This is what we´ve offset with the slightly softer flex in order to keep the ride from being jarring.

They share the same glass/carbon hybrid construction as all our skis in the CountDown series, which by the feedback we´ve heard (not just by our own reckoning) is one of the damper lightweight constructions on the market.

I can´t compare it to the Raven, which I´m sure skis great, other than noting that a "reflect tech" ski with a 23/30m radius will have significantly more rocker than we have in the CountDown series.

Thanks a bunch - much as I anticipated. Think actually the standard 102 tempts me more than the L. The flex seems to get gradually stiffer tip to tail. Since I know you know what FriFlyt's SFI represents: Can I dare you to do a guestimate of the 102's SFI? I'm not going to hold you to it anyway

[SiSt]

The older version (CD 4) that Fri Flyt tested had an SFI of 97555 (tail to tip). I´ll guesstimate the 102 to be about 86555 and the 102L at about 75554 or so.

[superdigg]

The older version (CD 4) that Fri Flyt tested had an SFI of 97555 (tail to tip). I´ll guesstimate the 102 to be about 86555 and the 102L at about 75554 or so.

Thanks again

[lepistoir]

114 looks sweet and about what in looking for in an everyday tourer. Has anyone started organizing ten mags for a US buy?

[SiSt]

114 looks sweet and about what in looking for in an everyday tourer. Has anyone started organizing ten mags for a US buy?

Those who are interested in a group buy can send me an email, and I´ll keep you informed on how we fare in getting it organized. No worries on making the presale deadline for those who get in on the group buy.

[Bøygen]

Showdown 115 is the CD3 from last year in an improved package. Built for going fast, the skis still have the balanced flexpattern that lets you bang out shorter radius turns in the trees.

Winter is coming!

What's in the improved package?
Could you elaborate?

[SiSt]

We have of course made a lot of small improvements, improved finishing, new topsheets, top edge bevels, step-down sidewalls, tail inserts, non-crimp triax carbon, but I´ll outline the lineup with some details below. Details on construction can be found here.

From earlier in the thread.

The specifics on the SD 115 is that it now has a metal tail insert, a "quasi-hexagonal" (http://instagram.com/p/oyG28ORcMk/) structured topsheet, step-down sidewalls for easier tuning, a slightly higher tip, very slightly softer flex (don't worry, plenty stiff still) and the finishing on all skis is better than ever including a better base structure and 0,75 degree base bevels.

[Bøygen]

"quasi-hexagonal" (http://instagram.com/p/oyG28ORcMk/) structured

That sounds fancy
Last years topsheats seemed to have pretty good snow shedding abilities.
I Guess you know/ hope this quasi-hexagonal stuff is eaven better, or are there other reasons? Just good looks..?

[SiSt]

So far, snow shedding looks about the same, so yeah, looks primarily... Scratch resistance has been very good too.

[kolkritan]

Anyone tried the throwdown 124 and care to give input? Really liked first gen CD1s, but the TD124 looks nice. The question is if it'll play as well with deep pillowlines and tree skiing?

[SiSt]

Anyone tried the throwdown 124 and care to give input? Really liked first gen CD1s, but the TD124 looks nice. The question is if it'll play as well with deep pillowlines and tree skiing?

I don´t think you´ll get much other input, so I´ll just answer this one myself.

The primary difference is that the 135 is more surfy and pivoty, but the 124 will bend more easily into a curve and "carve" in deeper snow. We´re not talking HUGE differences here, but the 124 is way more versatile than the 135. The rocker profile of the two is the same.