Cham 87 HM vs. 107 HM for touring

[tsk01]

Hey guys. So I'm looking at picking up a pair of either of these for a touring stick. I would optimally get the 97's as I think they would be the best compromise for a touring ski, but unfortunately I only have the 87 and 107 to choose between. I will be mounting these with Speed Radicals, and usually them almost exclusively for touring - the odd half day here and there of easy resort skiing.

I've skied the normal 97's and liked them, and like the idea of the lighter and more playful HM's for touring. But I'm stuck between the 2 widths as it is quite the jump. I'll be doing most of my touring around the Banff/Kananaskis area. Ideally, like everyone, I hope to be skiing powder, but these areas often have variable conditions. I'd also like something to use for late season/summer touring - this is where I'm leaning towards the 87's, but more mid season, possibly deeper conditions, I lean for the 107's..

Anybody skied either? Thoughts and opinions?

[TrueNorth]

Why can't you get the 97s?

[tsk01]

Not available on pro deal anymore.

[zlatham]

107's are the bees knees, although I haven't skied them in anything but pow, the short radius and stiff tail leads me to believe that they will be equally at home on spring corn as they are in pow. I am really impressed with them touring at a -2cm boot center mount. I've never skied in your neck of the woods but I gotta think the % of pow days out weighs the primo spring days. That's my 0.50.

[TripleT]

Have the 87HMs. Bought them for no new/low snow touring, and spring and summer adventures.

They behave predictably and have a good amount of float their size. I November had them out in what I expected to be about 4" of new, but ended up as 10"+ of heavy yet good snow. I certainly wished I had my fatter skies but for 87 underfoot they did well.
They only time I didn't enjoy the ride was in July on rainier on just crap sun cuppy hard snowfield shit snow...but not sure any ski really shines here.

I would say the 87 and 107 are meant for very different conditions.

[tsk01]

Thanks for the responses TripleT and zlatham.

Triple T - I completely agree they are for different conditions, I haven't toured quite enough around this area to really know what to expect on an average day of touring. The 87's really appeal to me for more variable and hardpack conditions, and for summer touring. I would just hate to end up skiing a lot of deep snow and be stuck on the 87's.

zlatham - Have you skied any hardpack conditions with them, groomers or hardpack wind affected snow by chance? I'm leaning towards the 107's, slightly. But if they are marginal for anything other then soft snow I might settle for the 87's. Any reason you went -2?

[zlatham]

T- last weekend I did a tour in which I ended up coming out a groomed skate ski trail with about 700' of drop and they hooked up nicely. That being said I did tune them to my liking. If I were skiing lift serve mostly I'd go for the 87's, but in the BC they float so nice and I think they are gonna ski harder/steeper snow really well. I went with the "freeride" mount at -2cm as a recommendation from a friend who is with Dynastar.

To me it seems like the tail, although a pin tail, is stiff, and supports that mount. The tip is big and breaks trail easily without much effort and I can push hard on it and it won't dive in pow/hot pow. I'm 5'5"" at 135 on a 175 and its prime time. I was told they ski short but to me they are Perf.

[zlatham]

T- last weekend I did a tour in which I ended up coming out a groomed skate ski trail with about 700' of drop and they hooked up nicely. That being said I did tune them to my liking. If I were skiing lift serve mostly I'd go for the 87's, but in the BC they float so nice and I think they are gonna ski harder/steeper snow really well. I went with the "freeride" mount at -2cm as a recommendation from a friend who is with Dynastar.

To me it seems like the tail, although a pin tail, is stiff, and supports that mount. The tip is big and breaks trail easily without much effort and I can push hard on it and it won't dive in pow/hot pow. I'm 5'5"" at 135 on a 175 and its prime time. I was told they ski short but to me they are perf.

[tsk01]

Sounds great. Think I'll go with the 107's for this year. If I find I'm skiing a lot of variable snow and doing longer tours in the summer maybe I'll look into the 87's for next season.

[buttahflake]

what about the Powertrack 89's?
they ski way better than the chams.

[creaky fossil]

what about the Powertrack 89's?
they ski way easier than the chams if you're a bad skier.

FTFY5678

[buttahflake]

FTFY5678

I only weigh 150lbs, power track is my jam

[creaky fossil]

it isn't the weight, nate
cuz I'm lighter than that

[buttahflake]

it isn't the weight, nate
cuz I'm lighter than that

Yer right, I don't know how to bend a ski
I slide around on my heels all day everyday

[creaky fossil]

that's what I'm saying
because I'm on TGR
where everyone feels rice-dicked
and pushed to over-compensate
yo Brian Lindahl!

if you dislike a ski I like
then you suck
and always have sucked
and always will suck

maybe Jonathan Ellsworth will let me
review some shit now
I can brag on jet setting
big-balls skiing
while being a 4th tier nobody
who preaches to the deskbound

"we're tired of reviews that speak to nobody"
that why we review from the perspective of
rich as fuck, don't have to work, jet setting at a whim
advert industry never caters to those people
not until blister came along, at least

******************

I still maintain that the Cham series are not fucked up, it's just that most who ski them are fucked up and they're projecting their inadequacies on the ski, because they think a ski has to be what THEY want, rather than the skier learning to mine the ski for its qualities. why can't a blister douche or a Brian Lindahl do that, despite bragging on themselves so much?

it's a nation of Phil Puglieses. Phil was stoked on Cham its 1st season, now he says it sucks. good job Phil. way to be a weathervane.

[MagnificentUnicorn]

As much as I like the Chams, the Powertrack 89 does look like a killer all mountain resort ski.

[creaky fossil]

maybe because it's a Cham made easier to ski?

[shirk]

Honest question creaky, no trolling.

Where does the Cham excel, how do you ski it to get the most out of it? It's a ski that is on my short list.

[MagnificentUnicorn]

I don't know. They're plenty stiff with less rocker and have a more square tail. I haven't tried them just fondled them and I don't see why they'd be "easier" to ski than the Chams. I think the Chams are easy to ski if you have decent technique but have a lot more to offer than folks give them credit for, great skis.

[creaky fossil]

Honest question creaky, no trolling.

Where does the Cham excel, how do you ski it to get the most out of it? It's a ski that is on my short list.

how do you ski any ski to get the most out of it? you have two options, based on how Badass TGR Honches Approved By The Maggot Collective say and see things.

1) insist it must ski like your fantasy ski, and if it doesn't, then accuse the ski of being "suitable for intermediates, I guess, but not hard chargers like me Jonathan Ellsworth or me Will Brown or me blisterdicknumberinfinity." this is the blister approach, sanctified by Brian Lindahl.

2) take your time figuring out what makes the ski do what it does. even if you're Will Brown or Jonathan Ellsworth or any other self-impressed asswipe at blister or on TGR, it's possible a ski isn't revealing itself to you in the first 1,526 turns you don't make/didn't make because to you turning is for gaper sissies from TX or whatever.

that's as serious as I'll get, because I can't tell you how to learn a ski's traits, you have to feel them for yourself. what I laugh at is people who don't even bother. like the blister asswipes. or lindahl. or you, when you're in Smug Canadian mode.

hopefully this answer establishes that I'm better than everyone else, or at least shows how arrogance is NOT a substitute for an honest ski review. please do not confuse this answer with something motivated by a GapicFan's hatred of TGR, if you see how I talk about Phil Pugliese you know I don't admire Gapic for such things. it IS really good at giving me more things about Phil which puzzle a detached, objective reader of self-impressed asswipes.

I don't know. They're plenty stiff with less rocker and have a more square tail. I haven't tried them just fondled them and I don't see why they'd be "easier" to ski than the Chams. I think the Chams are easy to ski if you have decent technique but have a lot more to offer than folks give them credit for, great skis.

it's a jab at Phil Pugliese and everyone else who weathervanes their untutored reviews

reviewers say it improves on the Cham design, by which I understand them to say "makes the Cham easier for hacks"

[creaky fossil]

agree completely, you have to feel heroic immediately, and it has to be on the ski that everyone says is for heroes

otherwise, why bother?

[PNWbrit]

blisterdicknumberinfinity

you should trademark that.

[creaky fossil]

I'll contact Mike Levy right away, monetize my unoriginal observations

[creaky fossil]

ahhh, shirk, I didn't say where it excels

everywhere for me, I'd even run beer league on the 97, though I wouldn't expect winning times

exemplifies elusive jack of all trades for me

I don't worry about my manhood in the liftline, 97 is wide enough for me

I suggest others stop worrying about their penis not satisfying a supermodel

[shirk]

ugg no smug intended (yeah I know I've done some of that on bike stuff)

I've not skied the Cham series and actually wanted to hear your thoughts on how it skis. I'll go read the blisterdicknumberinfinity review to see what you'r on about with people not liking them.