Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 1 2 3 LastLast
Results 26 to 50 of 59
  1. #26
    Join Date
    Oct 2017
    Posts
    774
    I second that Tunnelvisjon are softer than w108s. They are stout underfoot, but I seem to remember the shovels as being quite a bit softer - memorable because it surprised me. However, given their shape I think it makes sense. They seem like a really fun and capable design. They did sell them in a limited carbon version last year too.

    Name:  tunnel.png
Views: 1887
Size:  747.0 KB

    It has been a year though, so I would not base any purchasing decisions on it. The carbon ones are bit stiffer throughout, and are obviously a lot lighter.

    The UrRakkars are fairly soft, if perhaps not all the way BC Anima soft, then still not very stiff at all. A stiffer carbon version could make some sense imo making them a bit more versatile. I have never skied them, only fondled them in shops.

    I somewhat regret never trying my Togga Lights (same skis as a carbon, just green and blue graphics) before giving them new home, but oh well. The current Toggas are one of the prettiest skis I know of - they look absolutely fantastic. And being pretty heavily 4FRNT inspired, I am guessing they ski pretty well as well

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	_1059078763.jpg 
Views:	123 
Size:	509.4 KB 
ID:	257146

    I remounted them with Vipecs, but again, never tried them - just passed them on.

    Also, SGN skis are made by Åre Skidfabrik in Åre, Sweden. Their in house brand Extrem produces some killer skis as well, with similar constructions at a lower price. I do not like SGNs pricing strategy at all - they are overpriced imo.

    https://www.extremskis.com/skis/

    i think it is interesting that Extrem forego a carbon construction for their widest ski, and rather build it as light as possible with glass, and then make sure it still skis well. I've owned opinion carbon2s in 98/179 and 108/186. The former's nose was too soft for how I ski fresh, but awesome everywhere else, while the 186 were awesome on piste, but the tail was too long and stiff for me off piste (meaning I had to load the tail a lot to have them turn like i wanted to, which was fun in perfect snow, terrifying in crap snow). I seriously considered buying a second pair of 108s this year, only in 179s as I really enjoyed them, but decided a narrower ski would tick more boxes.

    i mean...
    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	Opinion-108-Carbon_full-ski_1.jpg 
Views:	127 
Size:	266.8 KB 
ID:	257150
    they look killer, have a versatile, modern shape and the same construction as Togga Carbons as far as I know, but cost 77% of the price of Toggas. Their Opinion 118 is cheaper still, but a completely different shape than Toggas or 4FRNTs.

  2. #27
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    583
    Quote Originally Posted by sf View Post
    Rocker profile SGN Togga

    Attachment 257078
    Finally got out on these the last two days. Short tours ~500m vertical. Mellow, pretty tight trees.

    Disclaimer: probably the best snow I've skied since Japan 5 years ago. 30-40cm of champagne on top of 30-40cm of heavier soft snow. Most pow skis would ski fine.

    However, the Toggas are extremely intuitive. They float very well for 186, and are extremely easy to work through tighter terrain.
    I feel like this must be the same feeling people report about Renegades, but I guess these are a bit more easy going.

    On the way up the tips rise up nicely and I didn't have any problem with traction. Wouldn't want to move around on icy steep skintracks though.
    Or ski any kind of hard snow.

    TLDR; Lotus 138 and EHPs had a lovechild

  3. #28
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    BC
    Posts
    721
    Any more thoughts on the SGN skis?
    The new 193 tunnelvisjon looks cool. Is it soft?

    Island bay can you change the name of this thread to SGN skis?

  4. #29
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Land of the Long Flat Vowel
    Posts
    879
    Happily, but how?

  5. #30
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    583
    Quote Originally Posted by mr_pretzel View Post
    Any more thoughts on the SGN skis?
    The new 193 tunnelvisjon looks cool. Is it soft?

    Island bay can you change the name of this thread to SGN skis?
    My initial love for the Toggas died of. Not really the skis fault. I just didn't need them.

    Regarding the Tunnelvisjon the reviews have not been too good. I guess it's a try-before-you-buy ski.
    Medium flex.
    I guess it could be good if you're looking for a soft snow oriented big mountain ski, with a slightly modern mount. Think 193 EHP?
    I'd like to demo them if they made them in a 188-190ish, with a - 8/9cm mount

    In other news the Soleibotn gets a lot of love. A buddy replaced his Ravens with them. Loves the SGNs mo betta

  6. #31
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    BC
    Posts
    721
    Quote Originally Posted by sf View Post
    My initial love for the Toggas died of. Not really the skis fault. I just didn't need them.

    Regarding the Tunnelvisjon the reviews have not been too good. I guess it's a try-before-you-buy ski.
    Medium flex.
    I guess it could be good if you're looking for a soft snow oriented big mountain ski, with a slightly modern mount. Think 193 EHP?
    I'd like to demo them if they made them in a 188-190ish, with a - 8/9cm mount

    In other news the Soleibotn gets a lot of love. A buddy replaced his Ravens with them. Loves the SGNs mo betta
    Have you skied the renegade? The togga looks like a less refined version. How do they compare to the EHP?

    On the tunnelvisjon: I mean that sounds pretty good aslong as they aren’t too soft, any reviews you can point me to?

  7. #32
    Join Date
    Oct 2017
    Posts
    774
    2020 Tunnelvisjon see post 43. The only partial test I've seen is FriFlyt's. I think their tests are crap, though their measurements found below can be somewhat helpful.

    https://www.skitest.com/Ski/SGN-Tunnelvisjon2

    I did give Togga Carbons in 186 a second go this season. I love Hoji 187s (red/white), but promptly sold the Toggas after trying them two different days - in vastly different conditions (super wet pow with rain and a deep pow day). When we didn't instantly click I decided that the attempted quiver consolidation was pointless, kept my BMT122s and C&Ds and sold the Toggas. I do not regret it one bit. They are probably good skis, but I prefer both BMT122s and C&Ds to them by miles.

    Soleitind and Rakkars usually get good reviews/feedback, and Hurrungane skis are also very, very common in my neck of the woods. I have not tried any of them. I am really curious about urRakkars, especially after not clicking with the Toggas at all. SGN skis are extremely popular where I live, and most people seem to get on with them very well.
    Last edited by kid-kapow; 03-27-2020 at 09:23 AM.

  8. #33
    Join Date
    Jan 2019
    Location
    Mid-tomahawk
    Posts
    439
    Can you elaborate on what didn't click with the Toggas? The shape looks pretty awesome to me, but I haven't found much on the flex pattern yet.

  9. #34
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Middle of Norway.
    Posts
    2,040
    Considering the exchange ratio between USD and NOK these days, I don't think you'll suffer much.

  10. #35
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    367
    Quote Originally Posted by kid-kapow View Post
    2020 Tunnelvisjon is surprisingly soft, especially give their position in SGN's lineup and the snow coastal Norway often get. I do not get the flex pattern at all - especially given their size, but I have not skied them. The only partial test I've seen is FriFlyt's. I think their tests are crap, though their measurements found below can be somewhat helpful.

    https://www.skitest.com/Ski/SGN-Tunnelvisjon2
    With that limited tip to tail taper and having a tail shape not too unlike the tip in regards to rocker and taper, I would expect a somewhat more progressive mount location than -8.

    Is that really where the recommended line is? Dims speak more for a -4 to -6 mount in my view.

  11. #36
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    1,799
    KidKapow have you ever tried Klint Krypto?
    Or any of you other Scandi's?

  12. #37
    Join Date
    Oct 2017
    Posts
    774
    sorry in advance for a wordy post.

    Quote Originally Posted by HAB View Post
    Can you elaborate on what didn't click with the Toggas? The shape looks pretty awesome to me, but I haven't found much on the flex pattern yet.
    My time on them was very limited, so take my input with a grain of salt+++. I also clicked with my C&Ds like crazy later the same day - aka going from meh to instant cold dead hands status - meaning I stopped trying to figure out how the Toggas needed to be skied and went with the C&Ds+BMT122 quiver instead. Given more time I am sure my impression of them would have changed for the better. It is a very, very popular ski around here.

    Flex pattern - fairly supportive if slightly softer nose (a fair bit stiffer than Hoji's front third) followed by very stiff center and tail. When you look at the rocker profile and amount of splay the flex pattern makes a ton of sense. The back 2/3s is not meant to be bent a lot, but if you do then you probably get pop off the charts (that is what I've been told). With the pin tails, straight shape and rocker/splay combo they are very easy to throw around in soft snow.

    My main issue with them was two fold. First - they are too specialized for me. Meaning, their rocker lines and stiffness makes them not very fun in anything but deep snow (duh - I know). Secondly, in spite of being light and small for the length I had - 186 - I had issues with nose dive. Sure, we had a ton of snow my final day on them and the parts the submarining + somersaulting happened in was neither steep nor especially high speed, but given their shape and width float should not be an issue.

    Again, it was probably me and not the ski. Trying them was still useful as it made me realize that I prefer slightly cambered designs, or fully rockered designs that are a bit more mellow (BMT122s). I have since sold both Toggas and Hojis. I still think BMT122s are a better take at a light weight fully rockered, pow slaying touring ski - but then again, nobody bought BMT122s seemingly.

    And yes - the exchange rate right now is quite favorable for you guys. Especially as the end of season sale is on, where up to 50% off is not uncommon - and foreign sales means and additional 20% off due to VAT removal. Jesting Sport have several of the skis at quite competitive prices too, though I have no idea if they ship abroad


    Quote Originally Posted by tuco View Post
    KidKapow have you ever tried Klint Krypto?
    Or any of you other Scandi's?
    I have not.
    Last edited by kid-kapow; 03-27-2020 at 09:23 AM.

  13. #38
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    BC
    Posts
    721
    Quote Originally Posted by kid-kapow View Post

    Tunnelvisjon - yeah, they are quite a bit softer than say Rustler 11s in 192 - to take a somewhat comparable shape/size. It's been a while since I looked at them though. Considering how tall Asbjørn is (the pro rider who designed the ski) and where/how he skis the redesigned ski was not what I was expecting. It is probably a very good soft snow and tree ski though.
    That such a bummer, I am really intrigued by the shape, but if its softer than a rustler 11 and pretty light for its size it’s a no go for me. Maybe the urRakkars would be a better fit. What is their flex like?

    Really want to have a norwegian ski in the quiver. Maybe I should get Hals to build me a pair.

  14. #39
    Join Date
    Jan 2019
    Location
    Mid-tomahawk
    Posts
    439
    Quote Originally Posted by kid-kapow View Post
    sorry in advance for a wordy post.

    My time on them was very limited, so take my input with a grain of salt+++. I also clicked with my C&Ds like crazy later the same day - aka going from meh to instant cold dead hands status - meaning I stopped trying to figure out how the Toggas needed to be skied and went with the C&Ds+BMT122 quiver instead. Given more time I am sure my impression of them would have changed for the better. It is a very, very popular ski around here.

    Flex pattern - fairly supportive if slightly softer nose (a fair bit stiffer than Hoji's front third) followed by very stiff center and tail. When you look at the rocker profile and amount of splay the flex pattern makes a ton of sense. The back 2/3s is not meant to be bent a lot, but if you do then you probably get pop off the charts (that is what I've been told). With the pin tails, straight shape and rocker/splay combo they are very easy to throw around in soft snow.

    My main issue with them was two fold. First - they are too specialized for me. Meaning, their rocker lines and stiffness makes them not very fun in anything but deep snow (duh - I know). Secondly, in spite of being light and small for the length I had - 186 - I had issues with nose dive. Sure, we had a ton of snow my final day on them and the parts the submarining + somersaulting happened in was neither steep nor especially high speed, but given their shape and width float should not be an issue.

    Again, it was probably me and not the ski. Trying them was still useful as it made me realize that I prefer slightly cambered designs, or fully rockered designs that are a bit more mellow (BMT122s). I have since sold both Toggas and Hojis. I still think BMT122s are a better take at a light weight fully rockered, pow slaying touring ski - but then again, nobody bought BMT122s seemingly.
    That's helpful, thanks! All of that (apart from the tip dive bit) sounds pretty great actually. How tall/heavy are you, if you don't mind me asking? Their chart has me borderline on the 186/194. I've got 192 Praxis Protests which I like a lot as a big mountain pow ski, but they're more ski than I need a lot of the time as a pow touring rig.

  15. #40
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    The Chicken Coop, Seattle
    Posts
    2,691

    Att EHP/Protest fans

    Posted these in the MYOFS thread. I wanted a heavier 192 bent chetler and a Scandinavian ski. 191 Urrakkar looked like it fit the bill nicely. Hopefully I get to drop a review in 8-9 months.

    I will say hand flexing (which tells you Eff all IMO about how a ski performs) they are a bit softer (particularly in the tail) than I was expecting. As a result, I went -5.5 from TC. Line is at -7cm. I’m at -4.5 from TC on the chets.

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	IMG_6278.JPG 
Views:	42 
Size:	144.1 KB 
ID:	322277
    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	IMG_6279.JPG 
Views:	45 
Size:	162.3 KB 
ID:	322278
    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	IMG_6280.JPG 
Views:	43 
Size:	155.5 KB 
ID:	322279

    Bent chetler rocker for reference

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	IMG_6281.JPG 
Views:	43 
Size:	151.2 KB 
ID:	322280

    Edit to add: exchange rate and sale price is what sealed it as worth trying for me.
    wait!!!! waitwaitwaitwaitwaitwaitwaitwait...Wait!
    Zoolander wasn't a documentary?

  16. #41
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    583
    Quote Originally Posted by kid-kapow View Post
    My main issue with them was two fold. First - they are too specialized for me. Meaning, their rocker lines and stiffness makes them not very fun in anything but deep snow (duh - I know). Secondly, in spite of being light and small for the length I had - 186 - I had issues with nose dive. Sure, we had a ton of snow my final day on them and the parts the submarining + somersaulting happened in was neither steep nor especially high speed, but given their shape and width float should not be an issue.

    Again, it was probably me and not the ski. Trying them was still useful as it made me realize that I prefer slightly cambered designs, or fully rockered designs that are a bit more mellow (BMT122s). I have since sold both Toggas and Hojis. I still think BMT122s are a better take at a light weight fully rockered, pow slaying touring ski - but then again, nobody bought BMT122s seemingly.

    Tunnelvisjon - yeah, they are quite a bit softer than say Rustler 11s in 192 - to take a somewhat comparable shape/size. It's been a while since I looked at them though. Considering how tall Asbjørn is (the pro rider who designed the ski) and where/how he skis the redesigned ski was not what I was expecting. It is probably a very good soft snow and tree ski though.


    This. It has more of a rocking chair effect than other full reverse skis I've been on. I love BMT109s.
    Yeah, Asbjørn is a big guy. But he's getting "older" and probably prefer different terrain now? .....which made me look up some early 2000-retro-stoke :-) This is the guy, from 27:00 ...... as usual the embedding-game is weak

    https://www.fftv.no/kong-vinter-4


    Quote Originally Posted by HAB View Post
    That's helpful, thanks! All of that (apart from the tip dive bit) sounds pretty great actually. How tall/heavy are you, if you don't mind me asking? Their chart has me borderline on the 186/194. I've got 192 Praxis Protests which I like a lot as a big mountain pow ski, but they're more ski than I need a lot of the time as a pow touring rig.
    How tall are you? I bought 186 Toggas because I wanted to tour on them. Kickturns on a 194 was not an option for me. But some of the problems from float comes from sizing down. I def. should have been on the 194s if downhill was the sole consideration. I'm 190, directional skier. Which might be my other problem. This is more of a "Hoji" ski, than a "Turdell" ski, if you understand?
    Last edited by sf; 03-26-2020 at 12:43 AM.

  17. #42
    Join Date
    Oct 2017
    Posts
    774
    Quote Originally Posted by HAB View Post
    How tall/heavy are you, if you don't mind me asking?
    175cm / 68kg w/o gear - so no clyde.

    As for sizing on Toggas - I am not sure I would size down. It is a heavily rockered ski so it will ski a bit short. Together with their straight shape, deep rocker lines and significant splay, sizing down could make them ski poorly.

    Just not to be overly negative and clear - my time on Toggas was very limited and I am sure that given more time we would've clicked. Their local following is fairly robust. At their price people can get just about any other ski, yet choose Toggas.

    UrRakkars have me more than a bit intrigued. They are not very stiff in the tips/tails (a fair bit softer than Tunnelvisjon if I remember correctly - will check later on today at the local ski pusher) while being more supportive underfoot. Yet their flex profile makes a lot of sense when considering their shape and intended use. They are probably not what you bring out to crush variable, but for the tree skiing we see here - from deep and slacker to just about as steep as you wanna ski - they should be awesome. SC's pair look very nice, and this year's graphic is the best in their entire lineup imho. They look sensational in person. Hell, if I can find a pair for a steal then I am very tempted to get a pair too - in 185 though.

    But Supre - hand flexing tells you eff all, yet influenced where you mounted your pair? Don't get me wrong - I get your point and agree to certain degree.

    https://www.skitest.com/Ski/SGN-Ur-rakkar

    The main guys over at SGN rip and are super friendly guys. If you need a bit of SGN stoke to help sway your decision, then check out these IG accounts:
    https://www.instagram.com/asbjorn_eggebo/
    https://www.instagram.com/ivar_lovik/

    The terrain you can find about 10-15 min drive from SGN HQ.
    https://www.fftv.no/v.ihtml/player.h...%5fid=59534619
    Last edited by kid-kapow; 03-26-2020 at 03:51 AM.

  18. #43
    Join Date
    Oct 2017
    Posts
    774
    yeah, so I owe you guys an apology. I stopped by the local SGN pusher today, and Tunnelvisjons are not as soft as I remembered. I dunno if the last pair I fondled was softer or if it is bleed over from urRakkars, but Tunnelvisjons are no noodle.

    urRakkars in 185 are very soft in the shovels and tails, while Tunnelvisjons transitions from being fairly soft in the tips to about a few centimeters below the SGN mark (approx where the ski is widest). They then are a tiny bit more supportive to about the middle of the black field on the mountain, and from then on is quite supportive/stiff toward the tail. The final 2/3s of the ski is no noodle and quite supportive. I looked at the graphic after I wrote this - so I am not just repeating what it says.

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	SGN-Tunnelvisjon-crop450.jpg 
Views:	37 
Size:	57.7 KB 
ID:	322490

    The back 2/3s is quite similar Rustler11s, though to be honest - I can't remember how the shovels of R11s in 192 flexes. I think they are a bit more supportive in the 192 lenght, but can't remember.

    My experience with R11s is that the parts aft of the titanal inserts have a bit of lateral give - it is part of what makes them so easy to ski. I would think that Tunnelvisjons have less of that - aka a more uniform on snow flex. As such, the final third part of Tunnelvisjons might in fact feel more supportive than R11s in part caused by more mellow rocker lines and less splay.

    So no - given speed these things should crush coastal snow quite well, at least if their flex and dimensions are any indications wrt how they will ski. If you really lay them over in dense coastal snow and drive the shit out of the tips, then the tips might cause abrupt turns. But I think they should be quite predictable in all kinds of soft snow with a high top end speed.

    urRakkars in 185 is one of the softest skis I've fondled, though I suspect they will be more supportive on snow than what they feel like in a store. I imagine them being a riot in trees.

  19. #44
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    BC
    Posts
    721
    Cool, maybe if they go on sale I’m give a pair a shot!

    Thanks for checking them out!

  20. #45
    Join Date
    Mar 2017
    Location
    FR&CH
    Posts
    219
    How is the camber on the Tunnelvisjon ? Is it really 3mm total (1.5mm per ski) like they say on skitest.com, so a bit like a Mantra VW ?

  21. #46
    Join Date
    Oct 2017
    Posts
    774
    I will stop by another day and measure

    They have a pair of MVWs too, so I will measure both.

  22. #47
    Join Date
    Oct 2017
    Posts
    774
    The local pair of Tunnelvisjons measured in at somewhere between 4.5 and 5mm of camber, MVWs at 3mm. I dunno if the camber will mellow out a bit after the skis have been broken in - probably.

    Tunnelvisjons are also noticeably more supportive in the back two thirds of the ski compared to MWVs. As such, the camber on Tunnelvisjons requires a bit more force to go to flat, compared to MVWs that take hardly any.

    Too bad they only come in 193.

    The camber on urRakkars is less than MVWs. I am really starting to like the shape of them.
    Last edited by kid-kapow; 03-28-2020 at 09:25 AM. Reason: length error

  23. #48
    Join Date
    Mar 2017
    Location
    FR&CH
    Posts
    219
    Thanks for the measurements :-)
    Well yes I realized that it’s only made in a 193 ... I thought they made also 187 but that’s only previous years it seems ?

  24. #49
    Join Date
    Oct 2017
    Posts
    774
    yeah, but who knows what their 2021 lineup looks like. I have not seen it, though it will probably be released soon

  25. #50
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    The Chicken Coop, Seattle
    Posts
    2,691
    I bet a 187 tunnelvisjion would be a nice rival option to a 190 deathwish. The 108-112 waist size for inbounds riding is always a tough one for me. I like billy goats so much, I feel like that the 110 size is generally unnecessary. 100 mm for park/firm and up to 115+ for anything soft. Will see how I feel about the urrakkar, but I could see adding the rakkar as a firm snow option - like a sir Francis bacon or Jeff 108
    wait!!!! waitwaitwaitwaitwaitwaitwaitwait...Wait!
    Zoolander wasn't a documentary?

Posting Permissions

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