Page 71 of 73 FirstFirst ... 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 LastLast
Results 1,751 to 1,775 of 1823
  1. #1751
    Join Date
    Jan 2019
    Location
    Mid-tomahawk
    Posts
    1,389
    Yeah, 10cm jumps are pretty big. I like the 186 a lot, but would a slightly longer version would be intriguing.

  2. #1752
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    766
    Quote Originally Posted by Bandit Man View Post
    In all honesty, I think most of us dream about being a Bodacious kind of skier, when in reality, they are likely overkill for all but the hardest chargers or speed freaks. That doesn't mean that they are hard to ski, per se, but rather they are the wrong tool for most days.

    Anyhow, I'll let you guys get back to your intimate spreadsheet session. Wouldn't want subjective info from someone who has actually skied them mess with the beauty of the data analysis paralysis day dream.
    Yeah, yeah, yeah. I know, but it's nowhere near skiing season and I sold my bike a month ago. But thanks for keeping me honest, I'll let those go for now.

  3. #1753
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Lapping the pow with the GSA in the PNW
    Posts
    3,989
    Quote Originally Posted by sf View Post
    Yeah, yeah, yeah. I know, but it's nowhere near skiing season and I sold my bike a month ago. But thanks for keeping me honest, I'll let those go for now.
    I think you missed my point. By all means dream of the Bodacious. I'm just saying that studying a spreadsheet or that geeky flex comparison tool isn't going to give you the sensation of skiing a Bodacious. I dream of a Bodacious type ski in the 112-mm waist range, 190-ish length, same rocker profile, and similar turn radius (could live with a little tighter). But they'd sell two dozen of them...and all on shop/pro-form.
    In constant pursuit of the perfect slarve...

  4. #1754
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    at work
    Posts
    1,137
    DM-
    Potentially Interested in 188's when/ if available/ have funds.
    Will keep checking this thread.
    Cheers
    "What moves men of genius, or rather what inspires their work, is not new ideas, but their obsession with the idea that what has already been said is still not enough."

    -Eugene Delacroix

  5. #1755
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    564
    Quote Originally Posted by Bandit Man View Post
    The Bodacious came out in 2012. There has been a decade of skiers on them before the nerdy data-driven analysis existed. It is an amazing ski for what it is...118-mm waist, 2.5 sheets of metal, 30-m+ turn radius, generous rocker and flat camber/nearly flat camber. The "spurred" version was a different ski, IMO.

    The metal-layered Bodacious is more like a fat big-mtn ski than a powder ski. They destroy crud and love speed. From my time on the 186 version, they need speed to come alive and then they are very manageable. They make a big western mountain fun and a small to medium mountain feel minute.

    The sizing was my challenge for the OG Bodacious. The 196 felt too big for most days and the 186 felt like it benefit from being longer. I sold them the first time I got laid off and often wished I had kept them. In reality, my fleet of Billy Goats is really the reason I sold them, as they do just about everything the OG Bod did for me, but are far more fun a slower speeds and in tighter quarters. In all honesty, I think most of us dream about being a Bodacious kind of skier, when in reality, they are likely overkill for all but the hardest chargers or speed freaks. That doesn't mean that they are hard to ski, per se, but rather they are the wrong tool for most days. Something like an OG Cochise or OG Katana do the same things but are far more versatile.

    Anyhow, I'll let you guys get back to your intimate spreadsheet session. Wouldn't want subjective info from someone who has actually skied them mess with the beauty of the data analysis paralysis day dream.
    I can only agree with all of the above!

    And just to add some og Bodacious details which don't always come through in reviews.

    Check the profile, no, not the rocker profile, the ski thickness/core profile. Man, they're pretty slim. And no, they don't flex extrordinarily stiff (partly because of the above), and they're not at all demanding to ski, but, if you wanna carve 'em you'd better pick up some speed. Which you would have to do for carving any 30+m sidecut radius ski.

    But the build, wood-luminum-rubber, in that specific package, and the ride it yields when fed some kinetic energy, dude, that's pure poetry! And yes, that long effective edge will bite on ice with sharp edges, but you have to edge them past the "flat camber/full rocker" 's pivoty tendencies before loading the edges. Hesitation won't serve you well for carving these. Speed, determination, and edge angles will reward you!

  6. #1756
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    564
    Quote Originally Posted by Bandit Man View Post
    I think you missed my point. By all means dream of the Bodacious. I'm just saying that studying a spreadsheet or that geeky flex comparison tool isn't going to give you the sensation of skiing a Bodacious. I dream of a Bodacious type ski in the 112-mm waist range, 190-ish length, same rocker profile, and similar turn radius (could live with a little tighter). But they'd sell two dozen of them...and all on shop/pro-form.
    2014 Katana? 🙄

  7. #1757
    Join Date
    Oct 2017
    Posts
    1,341
    Quote Originally Posted by Bandit Man View Post
    I think you missed my point. By all means dream of the Bodacious. I'm just saying that studying a spreadsheet or that geeky flex comparison tool isn't going to give you the sensation of skiing a Bodacious.
    and a mag saying "they are the best ski ever because I said so" or some variation of that phrase, usually without much of nuanced description/justification/explanation, is?

    No, that sumarization is not directed at you and your rather detailed feedback - your posts are more often than not outside the norm in that they actually convey understanding.

    I totally get that the Endre Hals / FriFlyt graphics and Sooth ski measurements aren't for all, but they sure as hell can tell some of us something. I've found that Endre Hals' measurements of flex patterns matches my experiences on multiple skis I've been on. Seen together with experience from skiing a lot of different skis the data give me a good enough approximation of how a ski will generally behave to kick start my understanding of said ski. Are these tools the end all be all or complete understanding? Hell no, but then again nobody are claiming that they are.

    The thing I just don't get though is that if it is not for you (the several mags who have made similar posts in other threads), why not just ignore it? The people who design these skis sure as hell base their design processes on all kinds of tools, experiences with ski geometries, materials and hell -even measurements and software, so why not use a similar approach when discussing skis?

  8. #1758
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Lapping the pow with the GSA in the PNW
    Posts
    3,989
    Quote Originally Posted by waxoff View Post
    2014 Katana?
    Probably the closest thing…although to be completely honest, I’d like a slightly wider OG Cochise.
    In constant pursuit of the perfect slarve...

  9. #1759
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Lapping the pow with the GSA in the PNW
    Posts
    3,989
    Quote Originally Posted by kid-kapow View Post
    and a mag saying "they are the best ski ever because I said so" or some variation of that phrase, usually without much of nuanced description/justification/explanation, is?

    No, that sumarization is not directed at you and your rather detailed feedback - your posts are more often than not outside the norm in that they actually convey understanding.

    I totally get that the Endre Hals / FriFlyt graphics and Sooth ski measurements aren't for all, but they sure as hell can tell some of us something. I've found that Endre Hals' measurements of flex patterns matches my experiences on multiple skis I've been on. Seen together with experience from skiing a lot of different skis the data give me a good enough approximation of how a ski will generally behave to kick start my understanding of said ski. Are these tools the end all be all or complete understanding? Hell no, but then again nobody are claiming that they are.

    The thing I just don't get though is that if it is not for you (the several mags who have made similar posts in other threads), why not just ignore it? The people who design these skis sure as hell base their design processes on all kinds of tools, experiences with ski geometries, materials and hell -even measurements and software, so why not use a similar approach when discussing skis?
    You had me until you started about ski engineering. That's not what we are talking about. If "Alude" and the ski flex comparator are what every gear thread is going to become, then as you say, they aren't for everyone and they sure as hell aren't for me.
    In constant pursuit of the perfect slarve...

  10. #1760
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Where the climate suits my clothes.
    Posts
    5,091
    Quote Originally Posted by Bandit Man View Post
    I think you missed my point. By all means dream of the Bodacious. I'm just saying that studying a spreadsheet or that geeky flex comparison tool isn't going to give you the sensation of skiing a Bodacious. I dream of a Bodacious type ski in the 112-mm waist range, 190-ish length, same rocker profile, and similar turn radius (could live with a little tighter). But they'd sell two dozen of them...and all on shop/pro-form.
    Sounds like a Praxis Custom run to me. Get your 2 dozen people and I'd bet Keith would be willing to talk.

    I have and love an OG Cochise and could possibly be one of your numbers. Gather the masses and let's make it happen!
    Last edited by JayPowHound; 10-19-2021 at 05:07 PM.

  11. #1761
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    564
    Quote Originally Posted by Bandit Man View Post
    Probably the closest thing…although to be completely honest, I’d like a slightly wider OG Cochise.
    I understand where you're coming from.

    I had an eighty percent love affair with the og bodes, but ended up wishing for an equal build, but with; slightly slimmer waist, slightly tighter sidecut, and slightly more releasable tail (specifically in funky snow and breakable crust). Those three bullets were the missing twenty percent for me.

    The closest I have come to a hundred as of yet, is with the Down CD114M, which I'd portrait as an extra marital lovechild of an og Cochise and a Bibby/Wildcat. I think many mags too would appreciate them!

  12. #1762
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Montrose, CO
    Posts
    3,571
    Quote Originally Posted by JayPowHound View Post
    Sounds like a Praxis Custom run to me. Get your 2 dozen people and I'd bet Keith would be willing to talk..
    I'm in. I'd also be totally happy with the OG but in a 191. I've definitely posted that on here before.

  13. #1763
    Join Date
    Aug 2020
    Posts
    61
    Quote Originally Posted by Bandit Man View Post
    Anyhow, I'll let you guys get back to your intimate spreadsheet session. Wouldn't want subjective info from someone who has actually skied them mess with the beauty of the data analysis paralysis day dream.
    Yes, the beauty of data analysis paralysis! :-)

    For what it is worth, I love subjective feedback. It is really invaluable. I love reading your description of the bodacious. It makes me want to try it (but not buy it). We need places where you can ask real people what they think of a ski that they skied. I really want these kind of discussions to continue, here and elsewhere. I have a slight hope that some will find numbers useful, e.g., with subjective feedback to get a deeper understanding of a ski, or when subjective feedback isn't available.

    I get that we don't have to talk about what the numbers means here. This usually go at length! For people who are interested, I continued the discussion started by SF about geometry vs stiffness, and about the differences between FriFlyt numbers and our stiffness measurements there: https://www.tetongravity.com/forums/...65#post6435565

    FYI, we measured 480 skis this weekend (bringing the total to 850 skis from 2021-22). We measured basically everything that we could put our hands on. We measured many big and long sticks that are enjoyed on TGR. We also measured many other lengths, some of which have probably never been skied on-snow by anyone. They are in the comparator. Enjoy if you feel like it! :-)

  14. #1764
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Lapping the pow with the GSA in the PNW
    Posts
    3,989

    What's Blizzard up to?

    So, what is your end game with all the testing and data gathering? What is your monetization angle? Did you participate in these forums before August of 2020 in any way? Not from what I can tell…

    What I don’t see in any of your responses is that you actually ski. You talk about how based on your findings ski A ought to be a better floater than ski B. You brag about the extensive testing. But you don’t talk about skiing.

    I see there is an angle for this data driven decision making as some folks see to love it.

    There is no evidence that you are one of us. But rather someone who wants to come and use this place. Not because you love skiing but because you love data and see a market.

    So do your thing but please stop cunting up every gear thread schilling your amazing analysis tool. This is a community of passionate skiers. Are you sure you qualify to be here?
    In constant pursuit of the perfect slarve...

  15. #1765
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    voting in seattle
    Posts
    4,727
    Quote Originally Posted by Bandit Man View Post
    So, what is your end game with all the testing and data gathering? What is your monetization angle? Did you participate in these forums before August of 2020 in any way? Not from what I can tell…

    What I don’t see in any of your responses is that you actually ski. You talk about how based on your findings ski A ought to be a better floater than ski B. You brag about the extensive testing. But you don’t talk about skiing.

    I see there is an angle for this data driven decision making as some folks see to love it.

    There is no evidence that you are one of us. But rather someone who wants to come and use this place. Not because you love skiing but because you love data and see a market.

    So do your thing but please stop cunting up every gear thread schilling your amazing analysis tool. This is a community of passionate skiers. Are you sure you qualify to be here?
    As much as I love the fire, I don’t think anyone would test skis for money unless they actually loved the process. BK is giving out $1500 signing bonuses and flipping burgers is likely a higher payoff than nerd fucking a ski. I’m giving them the benefit of the doubt.

  16. #1766
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    PNW
    Posts
    6,477
    Quote Originally Posted by Bandit Man View Post
    So, what is your end game with all the testing and data gathering? What is your monetization angle? Did you participate in these forums before August of 2020 in any way? Not from what I can tell…

    What I don’t see in any of your responses is that you actually ski. You talk about how based on your findings ski A ought to be a better floater than ski B. You brag about the extensive testing. But you don’t talk about skiing.

    I see there is an angle for this data driven decision making as some folks see to love it.

    There is no evidence that you are one of us. But rather someone who wants to come and use this place. Not because you love skiing but because you love data and see a market.

    So do your thing but please stop cunting up every gear thread schilling your amazing analysis tool. This is a community of passionate skiers. Are you sure you qualify to be here?
    Seems a little harsh, man.

    I enjoy the information. I'm a passionate skier but I'm also somewhat cheap/frugal/picky, so my hands-on familiarity with most skis is lacking compared to someone who buys skis at a faster rate. His tool seems like a good way to compare some basic parameters.

    I haven't noticed a pushy angle yet but maybe I haven't been reading as widely.
    life ain't guaranteed, love your people while you can

  17. #1767
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Posts
    1,719

    What's Blizzard up to?

    alude— quick tip.

    The thread you started, Sooth Ski, is a rad thread for people that want that tech. Keep it there. Bring the comparisons brought up in every other thread to your thread and do it there.

    You have 400-some-odd skis listed. Start direct comparisons based on skis you see us comparing here… in that thread. Don’t interrupt skiers talking experience with that tool in other threads.

    For example— your next post on the Sooth Ski thread should be comparing the ‘14 4FRNT Renegade vs a 2022 ON3P BillyGoat 118.

    Peace.

  18. #1768
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Lapping the pow with the GSA in the PNW
    Posts
    3,989
    Quote Originally Posted by Norseman View Post
    Seems a little harsh, man.

    I enjoy the information. I'm a passionate skier but I'm also somewhat cheap/frugal/picky, so my hands-on familiarity with most skis is lacking compared to someone who buys skis at a faster rate. His tool seems like a good way to compare some basic parameters.

    I haven't noticed a pushy angle yet but maybe I haven't been reading as widely.
    Norse...that's fair. I didn't say the information did have some value, just that I personally would hate every gear thread to turn into a Sooth Ski discussion thread. Just seems like it would kill the soul of this place (did this place ever have a soul? )

    I did some quick internet sleuthing and found that our data-obsessed friend appears to be an actual skier from Quebec. Also an engineer and an entrepreneur. The Sooth Ski is patented technology and they are planning on adding a more skis this year! Still a bit unsure of the monetization angle. Maybe it's some big post-grad project? I would actually respect that more.

    It still rubs me the wrong way when people join the forums to further a business venture without ever contributing in some other way. Others may feel different based on the value of comparing ski flexes (seems a bit one dimensional, but what do I know).

    I clicked on the tool to see how it worked and didn't find anything on a few of the skis that I own (and love). I can't wait until those are added so I can learn more objectively whether or not I should keep skiing them based on insights I might gain!

    I found this line from one of his blog posts most insightful: "At the end, what really matters is what you feel while skiing." Maybe I should make that my new signature?
    In constant pursuit of the perfect slarve...

  19. #1769
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    voting in seattle
    Posts
    4,727

  20. #1770
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    OR
    Posts
    1,813
    Quote Originally Posted by XavierD View Post
    Would those even fit on the heli or the cat?

  21. #1771
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    西 雅 圖
    Posts
    4,477
    Quote Originally Posted by XavierD View Post
    I was thinking about a 188 GS ski . . .
    https://www.evo.com/outlet/skis/bliz...8525/clone.jpg

  22. #1772
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    SLC
    Posts
    414
    I picked up some used Rustler 11s (188cm) and had to move the heal piece pretty far back to fit my boot. This puts me about 9mm behind the recommended line. Is it worth remounting the toe piece to get me on, or slightly in front of, the recommended mount point? I understand the Rustler skis pretty directional and I'm worried being back will emphasize this too much. Thoughts?

  23. #1773
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    766
    Quote Originally Posted by g_man80 View Post
    I picked up some used Rustler 11s (188cm) and had to move the heal piece pretty far back to fit my boot. This puts me about 9mm behind the recommended line. Is it worth remounting the toe piece to get me on, or slightly in front of, the recommended mount point? I understand the Rustler skis pretty directional and I'm worried being back will emphasize this too much. Thoughts?
    Can't say. Depends on your weight, height, intended use, preferences etc.

    I mounted mine 1cm back, and wouldn't go forward. Try them first

  24. #1774
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    SLC
    Posts
    414
    Quote Originally Posted by sf View Post
    Can't say. Depends on your weight, height, intended use, preferences etc.

    I mounted mine 1cm back, and wouldn't go forward. Try them first
    Good suggestion. No reason I couldn't ski them a few times before making a decision. 6 foot, 174 lbs and intended use is everyday all-conditions ski around the Wasatch. Powder, hardpack, chop, groomers, side stepping, traversing, etc.

  25. #1775
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Lapping the pow with the GSA in the PNW
    Posts
    3,989
    Quote Originally Posted by sf View Post
    Can't say. Depends on your weight, height, intended use, preferences etc.

    I mounted mine 1cm back, and wouldn't go forward. Try them first
    Came here to say almost exactly the same thing. And to add, at your height and weight, I wouldn’t recommend going ahead of the line.
    In constant pursuit of the perfect slarve...

Posting Permissions

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