Page 363 of 374 FirstFirst ... 358 359 360 361 362 363 364 365 366 367 368 ... LastLast
Results 9,051 to 9,075 of 9348
  1. #9051
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Calgary
    Posts
    1,670
    Appreciate the responses...it really is a 50/50 argument. Iím not into spring touring due to mountain biking and resort skiing so that takes that out of the equation. Again, Iíve been on different versions of BGs since 2010 so you know Iím a huge fan of that ski. Even talking to my guiding friends opinions are evenly mixed but for the vast majority of tours Iíll 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

  2. #9052
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    2,177
    Hmmm, yíall 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

  3. #9053
    Join Date
    Mar 2020
    Posts
    53
    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 04:47 PM.

  4. #9054
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    voting in seattle
    Posts
    4,388
    Quote Originally Posted by Tailwind View Post
    Lighter 30-1 storms are super tiring on 108mm skis...
    My sympathy for your efforts is overflowing...

  5. #9055
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Bonedale
    Posts
    5,237
    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

  6. #9056
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    seatown
    Posts
    3,454
    i call shenanigans, no one expected this timeline

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

    make me proud

  7. #9057
    Join Date
    Aug 2016
    Location
    No longer Alexandria, VA
    Posts
    1,800
    Quote Originally Posted by Backward_Banana View Post


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

  8. #9058
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Bonedale
    Posts
    5,237
    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 10:09 PM.
    "Alpine rock and steep, deep powder are what I seek, and I will always find solace there." - Bean Bowers

    photos

  9. #9059
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    BC
    Posts
    865
    Can I please buy the wren pro 110 now?

  10. #9060
    Join Date
    Mar 2019
    Location
    Bellingham, WA
    Posts
    45
    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.

  11. #9061
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    BC
    Posts
    865
    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.

  12. #9062
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Idaho
    Posts
    8,927
    Back 1.25. If they were park skis, you probably wouldn’t be mounting shifts.

  13. #9063
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    voting in seattle
    Posts
    4,388
    Back.

    Mine are 2cm back and ski great there

  14. #9064
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    seatown
    Posts
    3,454
    i concur

  15. #9065
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Vinyl Valley
    Posts
    1,269
    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.

  16. #9066
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Seattle, WA
    Posts
    230
    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.
    Heís a particular.

  17. #9067
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Vinyl Valley
    Posts
    1,269
    Quote Originally Posted by Rowen View Post
    Heís a particular.
    Not many can hold that title

  18. #9068
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Bonedale
    Posts
    5,237
    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

  19. #9069
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Your Mom's House
    Posts
    6,753
    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)
    Quote Originally Posted by Norseman View Post
    All ye punterz! Leave thine stupid heavy skis in the past, or at least in the resort category, for the age of lightweight pussy sticks is upon us! Behold! Keep up with the randocommandos on their carbon blades of shortness! Break thine tibias into spiral splinters with pintech extravagance!

  20. #9070
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Vinyl Valley
    Posts
    1,269
    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.

  21. #9071
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Big Guy Country
    Posts
    371
    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.

  22. #9072
    Join Date
    Aug 2018
    Posts
    81
    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 Iím not kind to my touring skis and they donít have a great reputation for durability.

  23. #9073
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Vinyl Valley
    Posts
    1,269
    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.

  24. #9074
    Join Date
    Mar 2019
    Location
    Bellingham, WA
    Posts
    45
    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.

  25. #9075
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Portland by way of Bozeman
    Posts
    3,396
    I came here to say the Woodsman 108 is back on my radar. Based on the brief beta on this thread, it seems like a good chunder, day after, daily-ish driver for the PNWet. And as heretical as it sounds, a good replacement for the Wren, of which I've owned two variations. When I lived in Montana, the Wren was a terrific ski for the big, wide opens spaces. Now that I'm back in the Cascades, the shorter, tighter pitches didn't jam well with me and the Wren. I also found that a more playful skiing style and shorter turns out here to be more fun in the PNWet.

    The Woodsman 108 seems to answer all that, yes?

Posting Permissions

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