Page 305 of 343 FirstFirst ... 300 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310 ... LastLast
Results 7,601 to 7,625 of 8571
  1. #7601
    Join Date
    Oct 2017
    Posts
    744
    No worries - a pair of woods96 is the more versatile choice (and is an awesome choice) Woods96s probably strike a very good balance between chargyness and releasability, more so than wren96tis. Happy to hear you found out what was needed to remedy your skiing needs

    I rode in snow that can only be described as Shit Snow (TM) today. I found Woods108s easier to ski on than Wren96tis in the refrozen, flat light shait that was skiing dec 23rd (still fun though, got to work on my technique, even if my knees aren't too happy right about now). I did not try the third pair I brought - aka wren108s, but suspect they would have outperformed the 96tis as well (due to width and mass). We need some fresh snow in my neck of the woods to be sure.

  2. #7602
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Posts
    273
    Quote Originally Posted by Doremite View Post
    Final production likely even a tad more forgiving so Woodsman seems like a great Wren alternative for folks who like to charge but donít want to just throw the hammer down all over the mountain at all times.
    Think we are going to build quite the bond in time. Wrens in space and Woodsman when I am, well, spending more time in the woods.
    Spot on. Got the last 2 days on Woods96 with softer layup in shit low tide Vermont. Man-made or whats left of natural were all fun. More fun than having to be on the Wrens all the time. Quicker in the bumps fur sure. Easier to swing/pivot. Lots of smiles so far.

  3. #7603
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    in the shadow of the white rocks
    Posts
    1,666
    Quote Originally Posted by snowday View Post
    Spot on. Got the last 2 days on Woods96 with softer layup in shit low tide Vermont. Man-made or whats left of natural were all fun. More fun than having to be on the Wrens all the time. Quicker in the bumps fur sure. Easier to swing/pivot. Lots of smiles so far.
    Where in VT?

  4. #7604
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Posts
    273
    Quote Originally Posted by iriponsnow View Post
    Where in VT?
    Sugarbush

  5. #7605
    Join Date
    Aug 2016
    Location
    No longer Alexandria, VA
    Posts
    1,559
    Iggy delivered base material for a patch as promised (with some extras), and just in time for Fistmas! Thanks! As soon as this ptex falls out, Iíll patch Ďer up and post some pics.

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	IMG_4654.JPG 
Views:	310 
Size:	253.7 KB 
ID:	307521

  6. #7606
    Join Date
    Nov 2016
    Location
    SEA>DEN>Spokanistan
    Posts
    1,402
    Quote Originally Posted by thefortrees View Post
    Iggy delivered base material for a patch as promised (with some extras), and just in time for Fistmas! Thanks! As soon as this ptex falls out, Iíll patch Ďer up and post some pics.

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	IMG_4654.JPG 
Views:	310 
Size:	253.7 KB 
ID:	307521
    Looking forward to the TR


    Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

  7. #7607
    Join Date
    Jan 2018
    Posts
    455
    can anyone compare C&D's to Spurs or Koalas?

  8. #7608
    Join Date
    Nov 2016
    Location
    SEA>DEN>Spokanistan
    Posts
    1,402
    Quote Originally Posted by blackalps View Post
    can anyone compare C&D's to Spurs or Koalas?
    Canít comment on Koalas but so far after 1 day on them C&Ds are more pivotable/smeary over the spurs. Spurs also like to be driven from the shin/in front of boot vs the neutral stance that works so well on the goat/C&D. Playfulness is a word that I associate with the C&Ds and not the Spurs

    Big open pow fields and charger lines = spurs
    Narrow terrain with trees = C&D

  9. #7609
    Join Date
    Jan 2018
    Posts
    455
    Quote Originally Posted by SkiLyft View Post
    Can’t comment on Koalas but so far after 1 day on them C&Ds are more pivotable/smeary over the spurs. Spurs also like to be driven from the shin/in front of boot vs the neutral stance that works so well on the goat/C&D. Playfulness is a word that I associate with the C&Ds and not the Spurs

    Big open pow fields and charger lines = spurs
    Narrow terrain with trees = C&D
    alright thanks. The Koalas are more chargey than the Spurs so that answers that.

  10. #7610
    Join Date
    Aug 2016
    Location
    No longer Alexandria, VA
    Posts
    1,559
    Quote Originally Posted by blackalps View Post
    The Koalas are more chargey than the Spurs so that answers that.
    Whaaat? For real?

  11. #7611
    Join Date
    Jan 2019
    Location
    Mid-tomahawk
    Posts
    380
    Which generation Spurs are we talking about? Because the current asymmetric ones are EXTREMELY different from the OGs.

  12. #7612
    Join Date
    Nov 2016
    Location
    SEA>DEN>Spokanistan
    Posts
    1,402
    Quote Originally Posted by HAB View Post
    Which generation Spurs are we talking about? Because the current asymmetric ones are EXTREMELY different from the OGs.
    For reference I was talking OG, not the current lightened-up-weird-tip-shaped one.


    Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

  13. #7613
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Lapping the pow with the GSA in the PNW
    Posts
    3,238
    The current C&Dís are a fatter, slightly softer (tour layup) Billy Goat. My 189ís C&Dís are easier to ski than my 189 BGís and are the better choice for a true pow day. They are a great resort Pow ski.
    In constant pursuit of the perfect slarve...

  14. #7614
    Join Date
    Jan 2018
    Posts
    455
    I figured. The asym Spurs are very easy to pivot and smear with their lack of camber, but the stiffness makes them super easy to blast through chop and charge steep lines. I think the old ones probably ski more like Koalas.

  15. #7615
    Join Date
    Jan 2018
    Posts
    455
    Quote Originally Posted by thefortrees View Post
    Whaaat? For real?
    Yes. The Koalas are the stiffest skis Iíve ever ridden. They absolutely do not have a speed limit and are pretty hard to shut down. Theyíre terrifying in trees because theyíre nearly impossible to flex into tight curves. To clarify Iím talking about the 189ís, which are 7% stiffer than the 184ís according to DPS. Ripping steep and deep theyíre awesome, surprisingly decent on groomers but in tight stuff theyíre scary unless you squat 400 pounds. The asym Spurs are every bit as fast and stable but you can shut them down on a dime and they are pivoty and smeary if you want them to be. I still prefer my Rustler 11ís in trees over the Spurs but they Spurs donít try to ram you into a tree like the Koalas do.

  16. #7616
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Posts
    71
    Does anyone already have experience with Woodsman 116? I am really curious to hear a comparison of Woodsman 116 to Billy Goat.

  17. #7617
    Join Date
    Nov 2016
    Location
    SEA>DEN>Spokanistan
    Posts
    1,402
    Quote Originally Posted by aanev View Post
    Does anyone already have experience with Woodsman 116? I am really curious to hear a comparison of Woodsman 116 to Billy Goat.
    Iíve been a vocal enthusiast for the goat since I first got on it 3 years ago. And my opinion likely wonít be what the collective thinks but fuck it, itís my opinion.

    I skied the Wood116 at BBI Alpy last year back to back with my goats. The conditions were great for a wider platform with >3 feet falling earlier in the week. What shocked me was how much more locked in I felt with the wood in soft snow, the tails took quite a bit more effort to cut loose! They werenít scary in tight trees by any means but they just required more work. I would say they did shine a bit more on piste and wanted to be driven the way a wren would - but thatís not really why you have a ski thatís 116 UF.

    So this question really comes down to how you ski ó I ski very neutral and like a ski that matches this. My goats can rail on anything other than coral reef/blue ice so long as you tip em sideways and stand on them. If you push the tips the tails WILL wash out on you which I suspect the wood would not.


    Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

  18. #7618
    Join Date
    Oct 2017
    Posts
    744
    I don't really see that being a controversial take on the woods116 at all - meaning, it seems to be fairly on point. I mean, comparing Woods 116s and BGs isn't excactly an apple to apple comparison in the first place.

    BG's tails are shorter, significantly more tapered, has more splay and are stiffer (hand flexing woods116 182 and BG184s back to back - not the same size I know). In any kind of soft snow the BG's shape seems to be something that will pivot quite a bit easier than woods116s - helped along by a big paddle up front. Woods on the other hand have a longer effective edge (on edge), longer tail length (due to mount point), less splay/taper and increased surface area towards the ends of the skis. Both skis should be awesome, but they seem to be for slightly different skiers and/or needs.

    I have yet to get on my Woods116s, but I will ride em back to back with BGs once we get some more fresh. I bought my Woods116 to use in different resorts/terrain aka more open, more fall line and with a heavy groomer influence in parts of every run - compared to what the BGs are planned for. I think both skis will be awesome for their respective use.

    In other news, I tried my custom stiffer Kartel116 181s mounted back two centimeters today. Holy moly. Today was firm as can be snow wise, but they were next level fun. I really, really enjoyed them mobbing around. Their daily driver status in the main quiver is getting off to a splendid start.

    yes - I have too many skis.

  19. #7619
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    10
    Quote Originally Posted by puregravity View Post
    Thanks guys. I'll start with that info.
    Tracked down my login for this.

    I run a stiffer-than-stock magnus 102 as my no-fresh ski most of the season and bumps are definitely a favorite. I'm also horrible at park, but like a near center mount and to mess around.

    You might find a stock magnus 90 a little soft, depends on your preference. If you don't plan on hitting rails, definitely ask for a pair without the detune.

    I'd also caution that moguls on a forward mounted ski are a lot different than a standard mogul ski. It fits my style, but it definitely isn't for everyone, especially if they have an actual moguls background. There's an old blister review of the danollie that breaks down the difference a little. I'd look at that review as well.


    Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

  20. #7620
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Posts
    71
    @SkiLyft & @kid-kapow: Thank you for answering

    It seems that Woodsman 116 would probably be a better bet for my type of skiing after I missed the opportunity to buy a pair of Wren 114s.

  21. #7621
    Join Date
    Oct 2017
    Posts
    744
    Wren114s are still offered as customs. Hell - apparently one can get them with titanal now too, which should make them missiles and increase their edge grip on hardpack. A pair or two pops up in gear swap every once in a while too, so getting a pair shouldn't be impossible.

    If you are in doubt which ski to get that suits your style and the terrain they will see, then I would just call Iggy&crew at the factory. They are usually very good at pointing in the right direction. BGs, wren114s and woods116s are all awesome skis.

  22. #7622
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Posts
    71
    I already have Wren 98 and 108 - both pairs in 184cm length. I really love them, especially the 108s. Contrary to the reviews I've read, I find them playful, forgiving and easy to ski even at lower speeds - they simply follow my thoughts..

    I have also Steeples 112 that have only 5 days on them but will be going away, as simply they don't click with my skiing style. Seem to prefer to be driven from the ankles and not the shin but it might be simply me being a shitty skier.

  23. #7623
    Join Date
    Jan 2019
    Location
    Mid-tomahawk
    Posts
    380
    Quote Originally Posted by aanev View Post
    I already have Wren 98 and 108 - both pairs in 184cm length. I really love them, especially the 108s. Contrary to the reviews I've read, I find them playful, forgiving and easy to ski even at lower speeds - they simply follow my thoughts..

    I have also Steeples 112 that have only 5 days on them but will be going away, as simply they don't click with my skiing style. Seem to prefer to be driven from the ankles and not the shin but it might be simply me being a shitty skier.
    What length Steeples? I'm maybe interested if you unload them.

  24. #7624
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Posts
    71
    Quote Originally Posted by HAB View Post
    What length Steeples? I'm maybe interested if you unload them.
    Thanks for the offer, but I'm located in Eastern Europe. (they are 189cm)

  25. #7625
    Join Date
    Jan 2019
    Location
    Mid-tomahawk
    Posts
    380
    Quote Originally Posted by aanev View Post
    Thanks for the offer, but I'm located in Eastern Europe. (they are 189cm)
    Dammit!

    But yeah, probably not worth it then.

Posting Permissions

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