Results 1 to 4 of 4
-
01-05-2010, 07:59 PM #1
Anybody skiing the Goode 106 or 116s?
Moved this from the general forum to avoid further jong shit.
Can't find much recent info on the forum on Goode skis. I scored a used pair of 95s with Dynafit bindings and have been enjoying the lightness, although they are not quite as light as advertised. They have a somewhat weird feel, and I got them strictly for bc skiing, but have used them on groomers, powder and bumps, and they ski pretty well. The softer/lighter feel of my AT boots seems to jive with the light skis.
I am wondering about the BC line and the wider widths. Anybody using the 106s or 116s? How much softer are the BCs than the regular line?
I know this brand has had a tortured history with a lot of breakage in it's early days, and then DPS split off of it, but is anybody using the newer ones?Gravity Junkie
-
01-05-2010, 10:45 PM #2
Hey man.
So I absolutely fucking love em (the 106's). They are so light for the uphills, kick ass in the pow, rail on the groomers, and make me a hero in the bumps. They're mounted with dynafit tlt verticals.
OK the downsides...
It did take me a while to figure them out in the bumps, now lets not forget however that these are my touring skis, so why should that matter, right? Because they're so light and I'm so used to bigger heavier skis (my former touring skis are 190 Volkl Explosivs), I would "over turn" them for the first bunch of runs and it was weird. I now ski them much less aggressively in the bumps (if I find myself in them, like coming back from the slack country or something).
The other thing that I'm still not quite used to is using them on firm snow in really steep spots (like coulies). Now I'm no crazed 20 year old sponser'd dude, and my "fall if you die" runs don't happen too much any more.... but... they are so light (and short - still getting used to the length), and come around so fast, and I'm so used to longer skis, I really have to think about over-turning. I also liked the fact that the old 190's provided substantial braking power in the really steep. I think I'll get used to the noted downside with a few more steeps coulies under my belt however.
Over-all love em to bits. I just have to figure them out a little more in the steeps.
To provide some background on my skiing - I also have a pair of Rossi S3 BC's (186's), and some 223's for downhills and production speed skiing (just getting back into it). I pretty comfortable everywhere but the crazy shit, I'm 49, and could be in much better shape for touring but can still manage the odd 5000' day (that's where these little babies really help).
Bottom line - buy em
Hope that helps
-
01-06-2010, 08:28 AM #3
Gary:
Thanks for the great info. I've got the 95s, but they are in 182 length, and I would like to go to the 106s in a 188. Are you skiing the regular (blue) or bc model (red)? What length, and how much do you weigh? My big question is the difference in flex from the bcs to the regular model. Since I am kind of a big guy 215 lbs, I am wondering if the bc model would be too soft, even though I would be using them strictly in the backcountry? MFGravity Junkie
-
01-06-2010, 10:17 AM #4
MF,
I'm on the 177's (red). Weigh about 185.
I haven't skied the other ones so can't comment too much on comparison. I would say this though, If I'm digging my skis at the 177 length, i would say you could do anything you wanted on the 188's. Give er.
G.
Bookmarks