Printable View
Thanks that’s really helpful info!
I just lined up a 182 Woods 110 to try side by side against my 177 Woods 108. I guess the WD110s are really that much softer in the tail than the 108, so it seemed worth trying a 182 (plus used 177s are really hard to come by).
I would love to also try them side by side against a 183 MVP 108!
Anyone have thoughts on a flex 5 vs flex 4 for MVPs and GPOs? HH core no carbon ofcourse.
I have 187gpos in flex 4 MAP core and they have slowly grown on me over time. Still not my go to ski for deep untracked but they are quite versatile and make for a great resort powder ski. I am 155lbs, 6' tall, and ski with a relatively centered stance. It might be my mount point on them (a little forward) but I wish they were just a little more traditional with how much ski is in front of the bindingQuote:
Originally Posted by mr_pretzel
Sent from my Pixel 6 Pro using Tapatalk
I have the same ski (veneer) mounted -1 and have been using it as my DD this season at AltaBird. I’ve been comfy enough on them that I’ve left my 192 4 flex Protest home on some deeper days.Quote:
Originally Posted by tgapp
The GPO has Pivots set for a 309 BSL, if you are close to the 309 you can take them out to try the -1.
I have a flex 4/5 enduro Lhasa and flex 4 GPO w/ carbon, and both veneer. They ski relatively the same, shapewise. I like the heavy 4 flex GPO a lot more. Feels more stable in all conditions, and I’m thinking about getting another pair of 192s made with no carbon and a nylon topsheet to go full crud basher. I think a 5 flex could be a lot of fun, but personally enjoy the 4 a little more because I can charge or play around on it, and I’ve found the 5 wants to be locked in more and charge when I just want to play around. I think I’ve liked the 5 flex most on the Protest.Quote:
Originally Posted by mr_pretzel
:::::@:::::
Gonna take out my MVPs today and will send ya a fresh perspectiveQuote:
Originally Posted by mr_pretzel
Sent from my Pixel 6 using Tapatalk
5 flex MVPs (HH/no C)were a blast yesterday once the snow softened up. They are a bit of a handful trying to noodle on before linking a couple turns downhill and getting some momentum.Quote:
Originally Posted by bry
Earlier in the AM before the night's refreeze had fully softened up, runouts and shady spots were icy and treacherous, I thought hey, a 4 flex maybe even in a 187 might be pretty sweet here, but honestly I don't think any variant of this ski would have been great.
This ski in this build is more charger class, smooth and very drifty. I say if you want to ski trees and prob have a lot more versatility, get a 4 flex as you have other skis that are heavier and stiffer. I think you'll lose a little weight but get more utility out of the design. Tips got hung up a couple of times early but the snow was super funky before noon and still highly variable in the afternoon.
Hope this helps.
Sent from my Pixel 6 using Tapatalk
^^sweet build. Im leaning towards veneer, hh, no c mvp. Ill be sticking with my regular 4 flex but its great hearing all the different reviews. Im gleaning smaller and smaller little data points as this goes on. I hope theres a summer sale
Sent from my SM-A536W using TGR Forums mobile app
Quote:
Originally Posted by grinch
well according to the website, the custom sale starts tomorrow. :ski:
This is super helpful, thanks a lot bry! Flex 4 will probably be it, I have enough hard chargers :fmicon:Quote:
Originally Posted by bry
Bam!! Soo good. CheersQuote:
Originally Posted by N1CK.
Sent from my SM-A536W using TGR Forums mobile app
Custom sale is LIVE.
Just placed an order for Skinny Quixotes.
188cm length, 108mm waist, enduro core, flex #4, maple veneer.
https://media.discordapp.net/attachm...205&height=853
If anyone is thinking about a custom piste jib, I’m going to be letting my 184 Heavy Core, Maple Veneer, 3+ Flex Pair go. 1 mount at -1cm for 295mm BSL with pivot 18s (could include).
Awesome resort ski, does well in pretty much any conditions up to 10”, super fun ski. Just going to something more directional.
About 10 days on them, excellent shape.
PM me if interested
Attachment 453456
Attachment 453457
Attachment 453458
Attachment 453459
So tempting, my fav ski exactly but -10.....Quote:
Originally Posted by macon
Do we get an additional discount if we group buy 2? ;)
Go for it and I'll tell keithQuote:
Originally Posted by Duffman
I assume we'd need a min order of at least 5
I waffled back & forth between the MVP 108 and the FRD as my new daily driver. After talking to Keith on the phone ultimately decided to pull the trigger on the MVP in 188cm and the stock #4 flex. Very excited to get on them after reading all the reviews here.
I'm on the fence.of.MVP 108 vs Skinny Q. Obv the skinny Q is more $$$, not sure how different it would be and if it's worth it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hoss Worthington
Sorry to scribble a bunch of crap from my phone with one good thumb, but I have been meaning to share my thoughts on these skis.Quote:
Originally Posted by Duffman
I haven’t been on the MVP 108 yet, but I love and own the OG 187 which replaced 193 mvp when I lost some weight. I also owned a set of 188 Skinny Qs heavy hitter core, nylon top sheet stock flex no carbon which I sold pretty quickly in favor of the MVP.
The skinny Q is a cool ski that can do a lot of what the MVP can do in terms of versatility but it’s a very different ski and has to be skied in a different way/balance point, for lack of a better way to put it. They’re both the best sub 110 under foot skis I’ve ever been on in powder. The skinny Q felt very pin tailed and preferred to be skied very centered, where as the mvp can be skied from center or driven. The skinny Q felt like a much slarvier ski, even though the looseness of the MVP is part of what I love so much about it. Both can carve soft snow, On steeper terrain with firm but soft snow like spring corn it felt like my tails on the -1Q would want to come around on me if I skied the way I typically do, and I usually get along with skis with deep rocker lines or full rocker across a variety of terrain.
I have lost ~20lbs since I owned those skis and that probably plays a big role in the comparison here, but I think I would be happy with the MVPs either way, and I’d probably keep the 193s around if I lived out west. Not to say the skinny Q isn’t a cool ski that does a lot of what the MVP does, it’s just a different ride.
FWIW Keith told me he pressed a few skinny Qs for Tabke, and Tabke also tours on the skinny Q in a lighter layup. Seems to be his preferred 108mm ski, though idk for certain
I'm excited to give it a go. I think it will be dialed for me.
I'm 5'10 and ~165lbs, Keith said the 188 skinny Q at #4 flex with enduro would be pretty ideal for me.
I read Tabke likes the FRS in the lighter layup as well. What does that correspond to when you are doing the custom sale?
I love my FRS but I think they would be more fun if they were a bit lighter. Would you order the "Ultra Light with Carbon"? Or is there a different method for getting a lighter layup?
Now you guys got me wanting a skinny Q and I just bought the FR110 from Heritage. I gotta stop reading tech talk. :)
From what Keith told me, the veneers actually reduce weight somewhat. They have more rigidity than the standard topsheets, and so to keep the ski from flexing too stiffly, he shaves the cores down like half a mm. Results in a slightly lighter ski. Or so I was told.Quote:
Originally Posted by Shredeagle
Also, noticeably better damping.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hoss Worthington
... Thom
I bought an MVP 108 in 188cm with veneer, 4 flex, and enduro core. I talked with Keith about going HH or carbon and decided on leaving it standard.
I’m planning to use it as an AltaBird dd after using a 187cm GPO as my daily this season
The ski
Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums
Anybody skied The Ski which I understand was the 112 mm version of which the skinny version became the Slugger at 102 mm.
I’m thinking of a Slugger +10 mm
Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums