RC112 188 how stiff?

[azzure]

Can someone give man an honest idea of how stiff the 188 rossignol rc112 188s are? I can get a great deal on these and I like the shape, though I'll stay away from them if they are a lot stiffer than say a the 187 legend XXL's.

[soul_skier]

if you don't get them, want to buy them for me?

[beaterdit]

Own both, skied them plenty.

RC112s are B-Squad stiff, considerably stiffer than 187 XXLs. Especially in the waist and tail, the forebody is real stiff too until you hit the rocker, then it softens progressively to the tip.

Overall, these make my XXLs feel like childrens' toys but they are very skiable and float really well.

You should get them.

For Soul_Skier.

[D(C)]

Own both, skied them plenty.

RC112s are B-Squad stiff, considerably stiffer than 187 XXLs. Especially in the waist and tail, the forebody is real stiff too until you hit the rocker, then it softens progressively to the tip.

Overall, these make my XXLs feel like childrens' toys but they are very skiable and float really well.

You should get them.

For Soul_Skier.

I second that. They definitely handflex and ski stiffer than the 187 XXLs. Squads are a good comparison. However, as stiff as they are, the tip rocker make them quite versatile and much easier to smear than Squads or XXLs. After having owned both 188 RC 112s and 187 XXL, I would say they are about equal on handfullness - The 112s stiffer but with rocker and the XXLs softer but with longer contact length. You should buy mine... for Soul_Skier

[StroupSkier]

I'd take a pair

[Nevada29er]

I second that. They definitely handflex and ski stiffer than the 187 XXLs. Squads are a good comparison. However, as stiff as they are, the tip rocker make them quite versatile and much easier to smear than Squads or XXLs. After having owned both 188 RC 112s and 187 XXL, I would say they are about equal on handfullness - The 112s stiffer but with rocker and the XXLs softer but with longer contact length. You should buy mine... for Soul_Skier

Same apply to the 198 RC vs. 194 XXL?

[2nd mate]

If you dont get a pair this year....you will be one year older when you do.
FWIW I managed to get one spring day on mine before work forced me off into the deep blue. I had been on 186 carbon Lhasas and was a bit skeptical about such a reported stiffy. It was very skiable at high speeds in mid morning corn. Almost easy. It only took me 2 runs to realize how stupud they are to end production. It was a bit nostalgic riding this ski, like when I first skied the Nobis 188 in 03.

[CaliBrit]

2nd mate, where did you mount your's? On the line?

I have a pair I picked up with holes for dukes at +1 but I think I will go on the line.

Anyone else have mounting thoughts?

[comish]

How would you compare them to the Lhasa's?

[D(C)]

2nd mate, where did you mount your's? On the line?

I have a pair I picked up with holes for dukes at +1 but I think I will go on the line.

Anyone else have mounting thoughts?

I had mine at +1.75. If I were ripping lines in soft snow, I would keep them there. No tip dive, very stable and chargeable but easy to throw sideways and feather into turns, But I found them too far forward on the contact length when snow got hard or variable. I haven't tried any other mounts but I would go farther back than I was for all-round.

[CaliBrit]

I had mine at +1.75. If I were ripping lines in soft snow, I would keep them there. No tip dive, very stable and chargeable but easy to throw sideways and feather into turns, But I found them too far forward on the contact length when snow got hard or variable. I haven't tried any other mounts but I would go farther back than I was for all-round.

Thanks for the info, think I will go on the line as more forward mounts always throw me. Can't wait for next years snow to put these to work.

[ulty_guy]

Just scored a pair myself at end of season sales in Sallanches (and P14 xxls old school pivot for 125 eur). Hoping to get out on them this weekend for the last days at Grand Montet. I've also been having the mounting dilema. I generally like my skis with Explosiv-like mounting points, but these are also a bit more of a handful that I'm used to so a bit worried about the stiffness. Guess I'll go with 0 and see how they roll.

Could've used them Monday, wide open, no one there an a foot of fresh

[skideeppow]

.

RC112s are B-Squad stiff, considerably stiffer than 187 XXLs. Especially in the waist and tail, the forebody is real stiff too until you hit the rocker, then it softens progressively to the tip.

I would have to disagree big time here. B squads are in a class of itself. RC 112 is soft (too soft for me) in the tip and not nearly as rigid anywhere else as the squad.
I have 4 pairs of these with FKS on them if anyone is intersted

[brraaap802]

I find my RC112s stiffer than the squads. Mind you, 198 112s vs 189 squads. I love them though and like the floating tip in pow. Mounted on the line. Haven't skied the 88s.

[azzure]

How far back is the mount on the production 188 version? Farther back than say the legend XXL's? Also how long do they measure, a true 188, longer, shorter?

[YB]

Maybe you can see something about the mount from this image. This is the production 188 mounted on the line.

[beaterdit]

I would have to disagree big time here. B squads are in a class of itself. RC 112 is soft (too soft for me) in the tip and not nearly as rigid anywhere else as the squad.
I have 4 pairs of these with FKS on them if anyone is intersted

OK I just took out my Squads (189) and hand flexed them back to back with my 112s (188). The 112 are very slightly softer from the contact point back. But they do ski a lot more forgiving. From the contact point forward, they are softer but not floppy. They still make my 187 XXLs feel like toys.

As for mounting, I got my first pair from a Rossi athlete and they were mounted +1.75. They feel pretty good there, nimble without giving up any stability, to me. I will mount my other pair in that neighborhood when the time comes.

[rugbydave]

my 198s are mounted on the line. No complaints here...

[Steeze nuts]

Can someone compare these bad boys to the Moment Garbones which is my current favorite charging ski in the 191. Also I'm having a really hard time deciding on size. Part of me knows i should be skiing the 188 at 5'10" 165#, but damn you TGR you've convinced me im a pussy if i buy anything but the biggest size a ski comes in which has actually worked out pretty good for me in the past. Any insight? (Jong Question, i know i know).

[2nd mate]

2nd mate, where did you mount your's? On the line?

I realize its a bit late for this info. Sorry. The boards I picked up had been mounted for large dukes. I mounted the same and I just adjusted for my bsl and ended up +1.5.

How would you compare them to the Lhasa's?

Not broke for one. Much to Pats credit though he sent me one he had which was much better than the snapped one I was holding. Seriously though, I felt like I had 2 tanks on my feet after blasting around on the Lhasa's for a couple seasons, but only for a minute It had been a while since I had had a sheet of metal underfoot. (The last was a 178 8800 which I hated, way too short!)

I would call them a bit stiffer than a 186, but a stiff carbon board to me feeels way different than a stiffy with metal. The 112 needs a whole lot more effort to make a turn. I cant talk about float since I only got about 5 runs on them. Drove 3.5 hours to Jay, skied 5 runs, drove 3.5 hours home.

The 186 felt much shorter, but at high speed a 186 felt nearly as long and stable as the 112. I am looking ahead to the time when I can get in the woods with the 112 and see if its as responsive as I hope it is. Also to see how it handles Big Jay should eb great. I forsee this to be where I use them the most. Perhaps I need to get a Lhasa 191 or a DPS 112 for dedicated tree skiing.

Perhaps the RC112 is a aircraft carrier and the 186 Lhasa is more of an anphibious assault ship. Both have plenty of Horsepower and fire power. I still want to get my paws on another minty 186.

[squirrelmurphy]

Can someone compare these bad boys to the Moment Garbones which is my current favorite charging ski in the 191. Also I'm having a really hard time deciding on size. Part of me knows i should be skiing the 188 at 5'10" 165#, but damn you TGR you've convinced me im a pussy if i buy anything but the biggest size a ski comes in which has actually worked out pretty good for me in the past. Any insight? (Jong Question, i know i know).

I'm your man. 192 Garbones are probably shorter than the 189 RC112 when you discount the twintip. Garbones also have a longer tip rocker than RC112. the 112s are a hair softer, but are still plenty charging ski for you.

I only know Dside11-11 skiing on RC112s, but I'm here to say if he doesn't need more than a 189, nobody else does either.

[beaterdit]

So stoked on these skis. They've taken a lot of abuse this season, especially this spring and they aren't showing any signs of blowing up. When I break one, I'll mount my second pair at the same place, +1.75. That way I'll have a backup ski for when I break one of those, which should be a long way off.

Glad I picked up two pairs since they're not making these any more. I think it's the best ski Rossi's ever made among many great skis.

If skideepow still has some of those some of you guys should jump on them, they rip.

[Wunderkind]

I picked up this ski and was curious if we could get a hard snow review from someone who has mounted the ski forward a bit? I'm thinking +1, and this is coming from most of my skis being softer jibby center mount types of things - the RC112 is either going to help me charge much harder next year or it is going to put me in a wheelchair.... tbd.