Page 363 of 594 FirstFirst ... 358 359 360 361 362 363 364 365 366 367 368 ... LastLast
Results 9,051 to 9,075 of 14839
  1. #9051
    Join Date
    Oct 2017
    Location
    Evergreen Co
    Posts
    969
    Snow inches to water inches ratios matter.

    10 - 1 snow, 108mm stuff works great
    20 - 1 snow, time for wide skis

    Lighter 30-1 storms are super tiring on 108mm skis...

    Quote Originally Posted by jackattack View Post
    Yeah, this is the same debate as BG vs C&D, etc...

  2. #9052
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Calgary
    Posts
    1,888
    Appreciate the responses...it really is a 50/50 argument. I’m not into spring touring due to mountain biking and resort skiing so that takes that out of the equation. Again, I’ve been on different versions of BGs since 2010 so you know I’m a huge fan of that ski. Even talking to my guiding friends opinions are evenly mixed but for the vast majority of tours I’ll be seeking out soft conditions.

    One concern I have with a narrower BG is having an even narrower pintail and losing a bit of support in the rear on landings (just have to be more focused on being centred/forward). Yes I could go to a WoodsmanTour to alleviate that but I want to maintain the looseness/surfiness of the BG. So I suppose the question is...how many Interior BC guys would consider 108ish over 116ish?


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  3. #9053
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Location
    Bay Area / Tahoe
    Posts
    2,475
    Hmmm, y’all are making me rethink if I should switch from bg 108t to the 116mm BG Tour as a 1 ski backcountry quiver for Colorado...


    Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

  4. #9054
    Join Date
    Mar 2020
    Posts
    205
    Quote Originally Posted by ASmileyFace View Post
    Is pow the only thing ya'll ever ski in Canada lol?

    For a do it all touring ski, no matter the location, I would go with the 108 over the 116. The BG RES shape punches well above its weight in soft snow. I'm sure the 108 will perform excellently in anything but the deepest days, which is a fine trade off for better handling of the thousands of other conditions you'll likely face in the backcountry.
    Yes, if I go touring, it's going to be pow. Otherwise why would you bother? Maybe I'll tour a few days in the spring on some corn, but aside from the odd inversion, it is never not pow in the backcountry from December to the end of April in my neck of the woods.

    Given how good the BG116 is in 2”+ of soft, I couldn't imagine wanting to go narrower for anything I would ever choose to ride.

    Quote Originally Posted by robnow View Post
    So I suppose the question is...how many Interior BC guys would consider 108ish over 116ish?
    Interior BC guy here - GO 116!!!!!
    Last edited by beeeom; 09-18-2020 at 03:47 PM.

  5. #9055
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    voting in seattle
    Posts
    5,122
    Quote Originally Posted by Tailwind View Post
    Lighter 30-1 storms are super tiring on 108mm skis...
    My sympathy for your efforts is overflowing...

  6. #9056
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    SW CO
    Posts
    5,588
    Quote Originally Posted by auvgeek View Post
    so no more pow skis for me for the next 5 years.
    Quote Originally Posted by shroom View Post
    let's put some money on that
    Is it close enough to 5 years yet, shroomenheimer?
    "Alpine rock and steep, deep powder are what I seek, and I will always find solace there." - Bean Bowers

    photos

  7. #9057
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    seatown
    Posts
    4,117
    i call shenanigans, no one expected this timeline

    i’m 3 pairs in since covid hit, own more skis than bindings, and still think i need a daily driver

    make me proud

  8. #9058
    Join Date
    Aug 2016
    Location
    No longer Alexandria, VA
    Posts
    2,648
    Quote Originally Posted by Backward_Banana View Post


    These are 116s in Rogers Pass. Clearly not enough float.
    Gaaaaaaahhhhhhh, gotta love those steeples

  9. #9059
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    SW CO
    Posts
    5,588
    Quote Originally Posted by shroom View Post
    i call shenanigans, no one expected this timeline

    i’m 3 pairs in since covid hit, own more skis than bindings, and still think i need a daily driver

    make me proud
    The only shenanigans here is grad school, haha. I purchased a Zero G 108 (not really a pow ski) around the time of that post (Jan 2016) and then a Lowdown 90 spring touring ski a few years ago. So yeah, time to update the quiver now that I have a real job 'n stuff.

    Frankly, that just speaks to how well Scott/ON3P nailed the design of the BG and Jeffrey 110. Don't really feel the need to buy new skis when those skis are so sick. I'm sure they'll die eventually -- the flex isn't as stiff as it was when I got them -- but they've got lots of good days yet.
    Last edited by auvgeek; 09-26-2020 at 09:09 PM.
    "Alpine rock and steep, deep powder are what I seek, and I will always find solace there." - Bean Bowers

    photos

  10. #9060
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    BC
    Posts
    1,925
    Can I please buy the wren pro 110 now?

  11. #9061
    Join Date
    Mar 2019
    Location
    Seattle, WA
    Posts
    175
    Apologies in advance for a "where should i mount" question.

    I have some kartel 108s that I'm putting shifts on for 50/50 (probably more like 70/30) inbounds/side-slack-back country. Other ski is 116 kartels with pivots. Due to swiss-cheesing I have to either mount the 108s ~1.25 cm back or ~1.25 cm forward of the recommended line. Small, but non-zero amounts of park, buttering, and spinning.

  12. #9062
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    BC
    Posts
    1,925
    Quote Originally Posted by goolick View Post
    Apologies in advance for a "where should i mount" question.

    I have some kartel 108s that I'm putting shifts on for 50/50 (probably more like 70/30) inbounds/side-slack-back country. Other ski is 116 kartels with pivots. Due to swiss-cheesing I have to either mount the 108s ~1.25 cm back or ~1.25 cm forward of the recommended line. Small, but non-zero amounts of park, buttering, and spinning.
    Back 1.25. They work great there too.
    I would say forward for park, but with only a small amount they’ll still be playful at -1.25, just ski better.

  13. #9063
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Idaho
    Posts
    10,953
    Back 1.25. If they were park skis, you probably wouldn’t be mounting shifts.

  14. #9064
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    voting in seattle
    Posts
    5,122
    Back.

    Mine are 2cm back and ski great there

  15. #9065
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    seatown
    Posts
    4,117
    i concur

  16. #9066
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Vinyl Valley
    Posts
    1,806
    Quote Originally Posted by XavierD View Post
    Back.

    Mine are 2cm back and ski great there
    Was there a particular reason you mounted 2cm back and not on the line? I've got a new pair of 186 108 Jefferys and want to find the sweet spot.

  17. #9067
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Seattle, WA
    Posts
    336
    Quote Originally Posted by skuff View Post
    Was there a particular reason you mounted 2cm back and not on the line? I've got a new pair of 186 108 Jefferys and want to find the sweet spot.
    He’s a particular.

  18. #9068
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Vinyl Valley
    Posts
    1,806
    Quote Originally Posted by Rowen View Post
    He’s a particular.
    Not many can hold that title

  19. #9069
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    SW CO
    Posts
    5,588
    Quote Originally Posted by skuff View Post
    Was there a particular reason you mounted 2cm back and not on the line? I've got a new pair of 186 108 Jefferys and want to find the sweet spot.
    Mount -1 to -2 if you like a more traditional mount. Or just buy a Woodsman, which is the ski you should really own.

    Mount on the line if you like a more progressive/new skool mount. Mine are on the line, and I wouldn't change a thing.

    A litmus test: If you liked the Cochise on the line, you'll prolly want to mount back. AFAIK, everyone who prefers the Kartel/Jeffrey at -2 also likes the Cochise on the line (XavierD, shroom, LVS, etc). If you felt like the Cochise would be more balanced with a more forward mount, then mount on the line. That'd be me. I mounted my Zero G 108 (aka Cochise Tour) like +3.
    "Alpine rock and steep, deep powder are what I seek, and I will always find solace there." - Bean Bowers

    photos

  20. #9070
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Your Mom's House
    Posts
    8,302
    Quote Originally Posted by auvgeek View Post
    Mount -1 to -2 if you like a more traditional mount. (Or just buy a Woodsman)

    Mount on the line if you like a new skool mount. Mine are on the line, and I wouldn't change a thing.
    Most people that mounted Kartel/Jeffreys behind the line did so before the Woodsman existed. IMO now that the Woodsman exists there is no reason to mount a Jeffrey back. Either mount on the line, or buy a Woodsman.

    (FWIW I experimented with mount on an older Jeffrey with demo bindings and liked -2cm. I currently own a pair of Woodsman)

  21. #9071
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Vinyl Valley
    Posts
    1,806
    Quote Originally Posted by auvgeek View Post
    Mount -1 to -2 if you like a more traditional mount. (Or just buy a Woodsman)

    Mount on the line if you like a new skool mount. Mine are on the line, and I wouldn't change a thing.
    Thanks, I'm having analysis paralysis about the mount point.

  22. #9072
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Where full grown men pretend to be cowboys
    Posts
    559
    Quote Originally Posted by goolick View Post
    Apologies in advance for a "where should i mount" question.

    I have some kartel 108s that I'm putting shifts on for 50/50 (probably more like 70/30) inbounds/side-slack-back country. Other ski is 116 kartels with pivots. Due to swiss-cheesing I have to either mount the 108s ~1.25 cm back or ~1.25 cm forward of the recommended line. Small, but non-zero amounts of park, buttering, and spinning.
    IME, they're still plenty playful at -2, just not as balanced for stuntz or as quick to throw sidewayz.

    Go with -1.25 and never look back. You'll be much happier on the skin track and in most downhill scenarios than you would be with +1.25.

  23. #9073
    Join Date
    Aug 2018
    Posts
    228
    Someone talk me into/out of a custom Woodsman 102 tour with white topsheets as the narrow half of a 2-ski PNW touring quiver (the other half being Bent Chetler 120s).

    Was also looking at the Line Vision 98, but I’m not kind to my touring skis and they don’t have a great reputation for durability.

  24. #9074
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Vinyl Valley
    Posts
    1,806
    Quote Originally Posted by adrenalated View Post
    Most people that mounted Kartel/Jeffreys behind the line did so before the Woodsman existed. IMO now that the Woodsman exists there is no reason to mount a Jeffrey back. Either mount on the line, or buy a Woodsman.

    (FWIW I experimented with mount on an older Jeffrey with demo bindings and liked -2cm. I currently own a pair of Woodsman)
    Thank you.

  25. #9075
    Join Date
    Mar 2019
    Location
    Seattle, WA
    Posts
    175
    Thanks for the input. Was planning on mounting back already, this all confirmed it.


    Quote Originally Posted by Jongle View Post
    Someone talk me into/out of a custom Woodsman 102 tour with white topsheets as the narrow half of a 2-ski PNW touring quiver (the other half being Bent Chetler 120s).

    Was also looking at the Line Vision 98, but I’m not kind to my touring skis and they don’t have a great reputation for durability.
    Sounds like an awesome quiver.

Posting Permissions

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