Page 3 of 10 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 ... LastLast
Results 51 to 75 of 234
  1. #51
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    3,675
    I remember those skis, for sure. But question is were they any more capable than the newest monster 108, LEgend pro rider, down skis etc iterations of today?

  2. #52
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    3,675
    Quote Originally Posted by Betelgeuse View Post
    This is what I dont understand? How the F can you get anything burlier? My 191 108s are uber heavy, and planky stiff. Burliest skis I have ever owned/seen.

    You arent the only one to say this though. What the heck was in those im103s? They were made of 2x4s and steel?


    Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums
    No rocker

  3. #53
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Kilpisjšrvi, Finland
    Posts
    858
    Quote Originally Posted by Summit View Post
    So much metal.. sometimes it would respond to turn inputs with "I'll take that underadvisement, but my preference is STRAIGHTLINE!"

    I like my Rossi RC112 better
    Haven't tried those Rossi's. Heard they are good skis too. Head A-star is my goto ski now, easy to ski, but still very cabable ski.

    Sent from my PLK-L01 using TGR Forums mobile app

  4. #54
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Alta
    Posts
    1,088
    Might have to reconsider my pair. I was skiing 103m team edition to start my season just the other day and they felt pretty easy. If Tuco claims these are girly boards compared to those they must be pretty easy to ski.

  5. #55
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    9,300ft
    Posts
    18,623
    Quote Originally Posted by Ville View Post
    Haven't tried those Rossi's. Heard they are good skis too. Head A-star is my goto ski now, easy to ski, but still very cabable ski.

    Sent from my PLK-L01 using TGR Forums mobile app
    The little bit of rocker made them less likely to submarine at sub-mach speeds... also a little less shocky in bumps. It's basically an M103 that is a little wider with slight tip rocker.
    Quote Originally Posted by blurred
    skiing is hiking all day so that you can ski on shitty gear for 5 minutes.

  6. #56
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Tahoe
    Posts
    3,106

    Head Monster 108

    Quote Originally Posted by Self Jupiter View Post
    No rocker
    The 16 and 17 ones still barely have any rocker. Maybe 10-15cm? Almost full camber.. I like this type of design.

    Quote Originally Posted by sgsbet86 View Post
    Might have to reconsider my pair. I was skiing 103m team edition to start my season just the other day and they felt pretty easy. If Tuco claims these are girly boards compared to those they must be pretty easy to ski.
    They are pretty darn easy to ski for how burly they are. Itís surprising. Must be the sidecut and that 10cm of tip rocker.

    I spoke too soon on my 184 Monster 98s.. I should have waited to judge them once I got my ski legs under me. I got another day on them today, and had a much better time in bumps than the past two days. AND the bumps were larger and more uneven today! They can ďslarveĒ when you need them too, even though the design of the ski would have you thinking otherwise. Also, they slay ice like its not even there.

    I came away from today really enjoying them, and definitely reconsidering keeping them.


    Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

  7. #57
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    3,675
    Quote Originally Posted by Betelgeuse View Post
    The 16 and 17 ones still barely have any rocker. Maybe 10-15cm?

    Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums
    The rocker makes the difference, even that little. thatís my uneducated opinion

  8. #58
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Reno
    Posts
    482
    I doubt the 191s are as burly as my old RC112 198s. Those were true race room fat skis with a bit of tip rocker. NO speed limit.

  9. #59
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Tahoe
    Posts
    3,106

    Head Monster 108

    Quote Originally Posted by Nevada29er View Post
    I doubt the 191s are as burly as my old RC112 198s. Those were true race room fat skis with a bit of tip rocker. NO speed limit.
    Blister thinks the 184 Monster 108 is burlier than the 188 RC 112.. The 198 might take the cake over the 191 Monster though. Itís close however.

    I have hand fiddled 198 RC112s, but never skied them. They hand flex similarly to the 191 Monsters, but have more rocker. The length is where the 198 would be more burly. The Monsters have a lot of camber, but arenít hard to ski.

    Multiple, very reputable mags have told me the old IM 103s are significantly burlier than the new Monsters. I really want to try a pair of those.

    What were Line Motherships like? Iíve read they were over 3000g/ski, but were they soft or stiff?

    What changed in 6 years, that companies no longer make skis like this?? It seems like between 1999-2011, companies made UBER burly planks, and still sold them without issue. Now, they just dont sell. What happened?



    Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

  10. #60
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    NCW
    Posts
    2,977
    Quote Originally Posted by Betelgeuse View Post
    What happened?
    Newschoolers

  11. #61
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    idaho panhandle!
    Posts
    8,220
    Quote Originally Posted by Betelgeuse View Post
    Blister thinks the 184 Monster 108 is burlier than the 188 RC 112.. The 198 might take the cake over the 191 Monster though. Itís close however.

    I have hand fiddled 198 RC112s, but never skied them. They hand flex similarly to the 191 Monsters, but have more rocker. The length is where the 198 would be more burly. The Monsters have a lot of camber, but arenít hard to ski.

    Multiple, very reputable mags have told me the old IM 103s are significantly burlier than the new Monsters. I really want to try a pair of those.

    What were Line Motherships like? Iíve read they were over 3000g/ski, but were they soft or stiff?

    What changed in 6 years, that companies no longer make skis like this?? It seems like between 1999-2011, companies made UBER burly planks, and still sold them without issue. Now, they just dont sell. What happened?



    Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums
    I've owned both the RC112 198 and the IM103. They were absolute crushers. I cannot compare them to the M108 as I have not skied them but the previous two where the ski I would bring out when there was big vert with skied out snow to be destroyed. They instilled pure confidence if you had the quads and balls to ride the rails.
    Quote Originally Posted by kai_ski View Post
    Newschoolers
    Word, damn skidders.

  12. #62
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Location
    Imaginationland
    Posts
    3,896
    Quote Originally Posted by 2FUNKY View Post
    I've owned both the RC112 198 and the IM103. They were absolute crushers. I cannot compare them to the M108 as I have not skied them but the previous two where the ski I would bring out when there was big vert with skied out snow to be destroyed. They instilled pure confidence if you had the quads and balls to ride the rails.


    Word, damn skidders.
    #tailgunner4lyfe

  13. #63
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Saaaan Diaago
    Posts
    3,485
    I️ have kept a delammed pair of iM103s around for Wagner to emulate for me one day when Iíve got the dollars, stones, and legs.

    Would be nice if I️ didnít have to!

    Anybody ski both old M103s and new 98 and/or 108s? Which is more similar?

    When my legs worked back in college it was soooo fun destroying shitty snow at speed on those 103s... now I️ slarve on wailer 105s cuz I️ got fat in med school...
    "I said flotation is groovy"
    -Jimi Hendrix

    "Just... ski down there and jump offa somethin' for cryin' out loud!!!"
    -The Coolest Guy to have Ever Lived

  14. #64
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    9,300ft
    Posts
    18,623
    Get your very own RC112 188s here: https://www.tetongravity.com/forums/...nafit-Crampons
    Quote Originally Posted by blurred
    skiing is hiking all day so that you can ski on shitty gear for 5 minutes.

  15. #65
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    1,992
    Quote Originally Posted by Self Jupiter View Post
    The rocker makes the difference, even that little. that’s my uneducated opinion
    Nope. I already detailed a little before but, hand fondle difference:iM103--2 thick sheets titanal(108 has 1), core measures significantly thicker underfoot than 108. old skool flat square tail(sidecut ends 7/8" from tail),longer running length. Way straighter too--103 measures 126-103-118=41.5tr---108 measures 144-110-129=27.6tr
    iM103 also has piezo chip, which makes them space age n shit
    Like I said, girls skis compared
    Quote Originally Posted by Betelgeuse View Post
    Blister thinks the 184 Monster 108 is burlier than the 188 RC 112.. The 198 might take the cake over the 191 Monster though. It’s close however.

    I have hand fiddled 198 RC112s, but never skied them. They hand flex similarly to the 191 Monsters, but have more rocker. The length is where the 198 would be more burly. The Monsters have a lot of camber, but aren’t hard to ski.

    Multiple, very reputable mags have told me the old IM 103s are significantly burlier than the new Monsters. I really want to try a pair of those.

    What were Line Motherships like? I’ve read they were over 3000g/ski, but were they soft or stiff?

    What changed in 6 years, that companies no longer make skis like this?? It seems like between 1999-2011, companies made UBER burly planks, and still sold them without issue. Now, they just dont sell. What happened?



    Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums
    Never skied RC, but I've fondled them and I would say the build is more similar to the 103. Bliste3r might be full of shit on that one

    Quote Originally Posted by Deep Days View Post
    I️ have kept a delammed pair of iM103s around for Wagner to emulate for me one day when I’ve got the dollars, stones, and legs.

    Would be nice if I️ didn’t have to!

    Anybody ski both old M103s and new 98 and/or 108s? Which is more similar?

    When my legs worked back in college it was soooo fun destroying shitty snow at speed on those 103s... now I️ slarve on wailer 105s cuz I️ got fat in med school...
    Sidewalls popping off?

  16. #66
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    1,992
    Quote Originally Posted by sgsbet86 View Post
    Might have to reconsider my pair. I was skiing 103m team edition to start my season just the other day and they felt pretty easy. If Tuco claims these are girly boards compared to those they must be pretty easy to ski.
    Little embellishment there, but now that I've got both skis next to each other, its true. Without skiing them, I can tell they are much more user friendly. Keep those bitches! You still slayin those C&D's I sold you? Those were badass skis!

  17. #67
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Reno
    Posts
    482
    With the RC112 198s, boots become the limiting factor, at least in my case. Typical 130 flex is not going to drive those skis, you need a real plug boot.

  18. #68
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    SLC
    Posts
    2,537

    Head Monster 108

    Because Chuck used to rip on the 103 https://youtu.be/xHFF9BeZNPs
    If ski companies didn't make new skis every year I wouldn't have to get new skis every year.

    www.levelninesports.com
    http://skiingyeti.blogspot.com/

  19. #69
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    3,675
    Quote Originally Posted by tuco View Post
    Nope. I already detailed a little before but, hand fondle difference:iM103--2 thick sheets titanal(108 has 1), core measures significantly thicker underfoot than 108. old skool flat square tail(sidecut ends 7/8" from tail),longer running length. Way straighter too--103 measures 126-103-118=41.5tr---108 measures 144-110-129=27.6tr
    iM103 also has piezo chip, which makes them space age n shit
    Like I said, girls skis compared
    Do the m103s flex stiffer? Been a long time since Iíve fondled a pair of those. Also monster 108 has sight tail rocker, which I imagine loosens the tail significantly on snow vs m103.

  20. #70
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Tahoe
    Posts
    3,106

    Head Monster 108

    All the videos on youtube of the Monster 98 and 108 say they have two sheets of titanal.


    Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

  21. #71
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Bellevue
    Posts
    5,813
    Quote Originally Posted by fat yeti View Post
    Because Chuck used to rip on the 103 https://youtu.be/xHFF9BeZNPs
    So did Kenjiro

  22. #72
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    1,992
    Quote Originally Posted by Betelgeuse View Post
    All the videos on youtube of the Monster 98 and 108 say they have two sheets of titanal.


    Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums
    Haha, it appears I talked out my ass! Top metal is not full width and covered up by the topsheet. I didn't even fact check Core profile is still thinner. Must be the graphene because......
    Quote Originally Posted by Self Jupiter View Post
    Do the m103s flex stiffer? Been a long time since I’ve fondled a pair of those. Also monster 108 has sight tail rocker, which I imagine loosens the tail significantly on snow vs m103.
    they definitely flex stiff. My 103's have delammed sidewalls so they will not flex true to their nature. Personally, I think these look more fun---like I said, the 103 was a true bottom feeder!

  23. #73
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    3,675
    Quote Originally Posted by tuco View Post
    Haha, it appears I talked out my ass! Top metal is not full width and covered up by the topsheet. I didn't even fact check Core profile is still thinner. Must be the graphene because......

    they definitely flex stiff. My 103's have delammed sidewalls so they will not flex true to their nature. Personally, I think these look more fun---like I said, the 103 was a true bottom feeder!
    Haha yeah, Iím just armchair QBing my POV on the difference on snow.

    I blew the sidewall out on my DP Pro +s from the same vintage- also stiff as fuck, also bottom feeders. My uneducated unsubstantiated bs opinion on the matter is these skis were all too stiff to last all that long - break, not bend - howís that for engineering know how? 🧐

    And yeah bottom line the new skis seem like more fun and just as capable on anything but maybe rock hard ice.

  24. #74
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Alta
    Posts
    1,088
    "I blew the sidewall out on my DP Pro +s from the same vintage- also stiff as fuck, also bottom feeders. My uneducated unsubstantiated bs opinion on the matter is these skis were all too stiff to last all that long - break, not bend - how’s that for engineering know how?"

    Did the same thing to 3 pair of Stockli and 2 m103. Problem has less to do with stiff flex and more with construction. They basically took race construction and made them wider. Stockli had ceramic sidewalls that were very fragile. As cool as race room construction sounds it's actually not very good at all when skiing through rocks. Other similar skis had the same problem. Race room construction grips hard snow great but isn't durable.

    "You still slayin those C&D's I sold you? Those were badass skis!"

    Still break them out every so often, coolest topsheet ever. When the snow is heavy they're my go to. But I ski 4frnt renegades on most pow days. Complete opposite construction of skis mentioned in this tread. I've gone 20 ft to rock on those with out even a core shot, where as I've broken stockli and old heads with minimal rock impact. For durability ON3P cannot be beat. Praxis comes close but not the same.

  25. #75
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    SLC
    Posts
    2,537
    Quote Originally Posted by abraham View Post
    So did Kenjiro
    Yes he did he ripped on those things as well. Lars used ski on the 193 as well
    If ski companies didn't make new skis every year I wouldn't have to get new skis every year.

    www.levelninesports.com
    http://skiingyeti.blogspot.com/

Posting Permissions

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