Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 LastLast
Results 26 to 50 of 79
  1. #26
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    417
    Ghosthop, did you demo the 184 or the 194 Devastator?

  2. #27
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Squamish, BC
    Posts
    733
    so what's a barely-used pair of 194's with STH16 worth?

  3. #28
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    entrapped
    Posts
    919
    Quote Originally Posted by benfjord View Post
    Thanks - I wrote that review last season. After another season on them I found myself liking the Devastator even more this year. The ski just plain rips in every condition (although I ski a Renegade on big days).

    Although I agree with the poster wishing for a 189. 184/194 is just a massive split. That said the 194 is pretty damn easy to ski.
    Agree. A 189 would be sweet. I really likely 184 devastators for crud and pow days after it gets tracked or when I'm not feeling strong on the 196 renegades (wish I had the renegades in 190 though even more than a middle sized devastator.) I'm only 5'9" #175.
    No matter where you go, there you are. - BB

  4. #29
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    220
    Got a full day on 184 devastators today. I'm 6' 175lbs. I currently have 186 bodacious, 186 supernatural 108, and 187 xxl's in this big mountain charger category. i have owned or ridden 188 invictus 108ti, 185 cochise, 185 motherships, 192 legend pro 105's. All had their merits, but i have kept the ones i jive with the most.

    After the skus arrived, i called 4frnt at 4:45 PST on a friday (5:45 in SLC) and matt sterbenz himself picked up. Super nice guy. The ski looked pretty short, the tips and tails weren't that stiff, and the mount looked way forward. I was overthinking the -5cm from center recommended mount point since too much tail has been a dealbreaker in the past, so i was thinking -2cm from recommended. Matt already had gotten the sale, so there was no salesmen BS he needed to throw my way, he just really really believes in reflectech and said just mount at recommended, so i did.

    Conditions at mammoth today were typical spring. We still have excellent coverage. Hard fast courderoy in the morning. They gripped amazingly well for being fully rockered and 108mm. they are good bases flat or making large, high angle gs turns. The steeper it gets the easier it is to shorten up the turn radius or slarve em into a smaller turn. They also have an incredible ability to scrub speed without catching. I always change my base bevel to 1.5 degrees out of the wrapper on this type of ski, so that helped a little, but the reverse camber is mostly to credit. I also got em sharp underfoot, detuned the tips and tails to the tip/tail inserts, and waxed em good before taking them out, so the bases were FAST.

    They were as stable and damp as i could've wanted, even having extensive history with metal-laden chargers. I honestly cannot explain the dampness AND pop you can get out of this metal-less fully rockered ski. It's crazy. In the refrozen bumps and offpiste that never thawed above 9,500' they were as good as could be expected in big, hard, rutted up moguls. Totally survivable, but something with camber like the supernatural 108 would've done a little better. Honestly, the only ski i have ever had that made this enjoyable was the 184 xdrive 8.8, but that ski was pretty one dimmensional, so i sold it.

    They even ripped the shit out of slush bumps and let me straight line the rotten groomers faster than anyone else at the end of the day. The length and stiffness ended up being just fine. I don't wish i had gone 194, because i was able to spin 360's in the park and the poppy nature of this ski had me looking for slashes and ollies i normally don't go for.

    Overall these were a huge success. I cannot explain what a dichotomy of traits this ski is: damp and poppy, stable and maneuverable, edgy and slarvey. It's seriously a new experience i did not think i could have after trying so many skis over the years. They could take a forward driving or neutral (still with shin pressure) stance. The mount felt good. The tails DID feel a bit long the more bumped up it got, but the overall balance is there. They probably could've done just fine at -2cm, but i have no regrets so far.

  5. #30
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    seatown
    Posts
    3,427
    why would the maker of a ski tell you to mount at a point other than what their research had already concluded?

  6. #31
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Squamish, BC
    Posts
    733
    I called them for each of my 4fnt skis (Devastator, Hoji & renegade) and they actually told me different than recommended because I'm big. They were super receptive to chatting about it and they were generally rad to deal with.

  7. #32
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    220
    Quote Originally Posted by Judo Chop! View Post
    I called them for each of my 4fnt skis (Devastator, Hoji & renegade) and they actually told me different than recommended because I'm big. They were super receptive to chatting about it and they were generally rad to deal with.
    Word. You have to talk to them. Matt was genuinely interested in being helpful after hours on a friday evening. That's all i can say

  8. #33
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    417
    Nice review chewski. If I had to summarize the ski, I'd go with something like your wording at the bottom: crazy dichotomy of damp stability vs playful slarveyness for a 184 cm, nonmetal, fully rockered ski. I do think I'd buy the 189 cm Devastator if it existed though...

    Judo, why are you selling yours?

  9. #34
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    entrapped
    Posts
    919
    Anyone have a skied comparison of the 2016 vibe veil vs pre-2016 non-vibe veil skiis?
    No matter where you go, there you are. - BB

  10. #35
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Squamish, BC
    Posts
    733
    Quote Originally Posted by DGamms View Post

    Judo, why are you selling yours?

    I like them. Just too much overlap with my Hojis and Rens. They're also mounted with alpine binders and I don't like my alpine boots and spend 100% time in Vulcans. Just trying to simplify my choices in the mornings. Still not decided to sell them. Just thinking about it.

    They were surprisingly great on hardpack. And they served the job of an alternative to Cochise with better float.

  11. #36
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    417
    Quote Originally Posted by Judo Chop! View Post
    I like them. Just too much overlap with my Hojis and Rens. They're also mounted with alpine binders and I don't like my alpine boots and spend 100% time in Vulcans. Just trying to simplify my choices in the mornings. Still not decided to sell them. Just thinking about it.

    They were surprisingly great on hardpack. And they served the job of an alternative to Cochise with better float.
    Interesting, I don't find they overlap much with the Rens. The 2D and firm 3D snow performance is much better on the Devastators IMHO. I couldn't carve a groomer turn on the Rens even if my life depended on it.

    I think your Cochise comment is telling though. Even though the Cochise is mounted at - 11 cm and has metal, vs the Devastator mounted at - 5 cm and lacks metal, the skis are both in the "damp charger" category. But you can actually ski switch, spin in the park, and ollie off the tails of the Devastator, none of which are very natural on the Cochise.

  12. #37
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Squamish, BC
    Posts
    733
    yeah. mostly overlap with the hojis

  13. #38
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    417
    Quote Originally Posted by skinipenem View Post
    Anyone have a skied comparison of the 2016 vibe veil vs pre-2016 non-vibe veil skiis?
    I'm with you Skinipenem. I've only skied non VibeVail Rens and Hojis, and never skied the Devastator without VibeVail. I'm VibeVail curious for the new Hojis is particular. If they ski with more vibration dampening and come in at sub 2000gm, I think they could be the ideal Wasatch pow touring or soft conditions resort/side country ski (like Alta or Canyons slackcountry skiing). Still wish they had the more subtle EHP rocker profile though...

    I will say the Devs have that very damp, low resonant frequency thunk when you clunk them together. Very similar to the pre 2011 metal Katana or the Rossi Sickle. While the OG Rens feel stiffer and heavier that the Devs, they never did a good job of absorbing vibration in shitty snow for me. Still waiting to hear from someone who has skied both the OG Rens and the new VibeVail Rens to see if they think their vibration dampening has been improved.

  14. #39
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    725
    Would love to hear a Kartel 106 vs devastator comparison. Considering the kartels come a wider size range.

  15. #40
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    417
    Quote Originally Posted by slowroastin View Post
    Would love to hear a Kartel 106 vs devastator comparison. Considering the kartels come a wider size range.
    Second that. I was going to go to the Alta demo day just to ski the new Kartel 108, but the forecast was for rain (10 days ago) and I didn't get up there. I'd love to hear more Kartel 108 vs Devastator vs the Metal vs Sickle vs Peacemaker/Gunsmoke vs MVP vs Liberty Helix vs PB&J vs Kastle West 110 vs Line Supernatural 108 vs Nordica Enforcer vs (insert your Salomon/Atomic/Fatypus/RMU/Armada/Ramp/Romp/Black Crows/Down/KittenFactory/Icelantic/DPS/Folsom/Wagner/Down/Kingswood/ comparisons here).
    Last edited by DGamms; 04-18-2016 at 08:15 PM. Reason: Misprint

  16. #41
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Zurich, Switzerland
    Posts
    5,649

    Is the 4FRNT Devastator the new and improved Rossignol Sickle?

    FWIW, I've done a one day comparison of a good number of the 10x skis on a demo day back in November and posted the review here.
    Last edited by Lindahl; 04-19-2016 at 06:48 AM.

  17. #42
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    220
    Quote Originally Posted by DGamms View Post
    Second that. I was going to go to the Alta demo day just to ski the new Kartel 108, but the forecast was for rain (10 days ago) and I didn't get up there. I'd love to hear more Kartel 108 vs Devastator vs the Metal vs Sickle vs Peacemaker/Gunsmoke vs MVP vs Liberty Helix vs PB&J vs Kastle West 110 vs Line Supernatural 108 vs Nordica Enforcer vs (insert your Salomon/Atomic/Fatypus/RMU/Armada/Ramp/Romp/Black Crows/Down/KittenFactory/Icelantic/DPS/Folsom/Wagner/Down/Kingswood/ comparisons here).
    own the supernatural 108 in addition to the devastator, have owned the metal and sold it, and have skied a buddy's enforcer 100's. the metal and enforcer are very similar with the main differences coming from the less metal and more rocker in the metal vs. the enforcer, but otherwise very similar. not anywhere near the supernatural 108 and devastator in terms of stability.

    as for the supernatural 108 and devastator, i skied the devestator on saturday and the sn108 on sunday in similar conditions. they are similarly grippy, stable, and damp, with the slight edge in grip and dampness going to the devestator. they both smooth out variable and grip in refreeze pretty well for 108, and they both have a decent amount of pop when loaded up. the devestators are way more pivoty and the sn108 require a much more driving stance, whereas the devestator can take being driven, but it isn't necessary. the sn108 is a little better in refreeze and less maneuverable. when things softened up and when i was skiing deep corn and slush bumps, take your pick because they both are freakin awesome. i would say they are very similar and the main factor between them is if you prefer a traditional mount, camber and driving a ski or a more neutral, rockered, centerish mounted ski. otherwise they are both great. keeping both.

  18. #43
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    417
    Chewski, are you mounted on the line on the 184 cm Devastators? I mounted - 1cm from recommended, which I like but I've never tried them anywhere else.

    The Devs do measure short. It seems like they are all about 2-2.4cm short on straight pull vs stated length (e.g. the 194 cm is actually about 191.6 straight pull, and the 184 is about 181.6 straight pull). So, if you do mount them on the recommended line, 87 cm from tail per 4FRNT, you are actually about -4 cm behind true center (with true center being 90.8 cm from tail).

    I think this is why some prior Devastator owners like the ski more when they mounted -1 cm or - 2cm back from recommended. This puts them at somewhere around -5 cm to - 6 cm from true center. For me at least, that seems like the sweet spot for the ski to feel both chargey and playful (and is also the recommended mount point for the old Sickle).

    Edit: never mind, I see from your prior post that you ended up on the line.
    Last edited by DGamms; 04-19-2016 at 09:33 AM.

  19. #44
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    220
    Got the devastators out for 1.5 more days in lots of different conditions. Yesterday was very firm refreeze above 9,000' as a storm was rolling in after a typical two weeks of spring conditions. I once again found the devastators to be totally adequate in refreeze conditions, but they are not fun here. It needs to be somewhat soft or these won't be getting the nod if you have a quiver. If it's truly one ski quiver for you, then hey have at it and don't worry, it'll do the job.

    Today was HEAVY snow (even by sierra cement standards... This stuff would stick 6" thick on your SIDE windows) that was deep in some spots and completely blown off by crazy winds in others. It went full bluebird and was in the 50's by quitting time, so it got baked denser and denser throughout the day and as people tracked it out. But due to low crowds this time of year, i was able to get quite a few laps in while it was still fresh. Once again the devastators were stable and damp and made nice transitions between surfing the softer snow and bouncing off wind exposed sections of pure ice. I could ski pretty relaxed in these conditions without worry. The deeper/grabbier it got, the more you had to let off the driving stance and get more neutral, byt once you did the stability and float returned. These are not crazy floaty or pivoty in sticky mank, and a true pow ski would do better. but given the refrozen variable mixed in with the fresh snow, these were excellent for today's conditions. Still stoked on these

  20. #45
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    Denver
    Posts
    147
    Quote Originally Posted by DGamms View Post
    Chewski, are you mounted on the line on the 184 cm Devastators? I mounted - 1cm from recommended, which I like but I've never tried them anywhere else.

    The Devs do measure short. It seems like they are all about 2-2.4cm short on straight pull vs stated length (e.g. the 194 cm is actually about 191.6 straight pull, and the 184 is about 181.6 straight pull). So, if you do mount them on the recommended line, 87 cm from tail per 4FRNT, you are actually about -4 cm behind true center (with true center being 90.8 cm from tail).

    I think this is why some prior Devastator owners like the ski more when they mounted -1 cm or - 2cm back from recommended. This puts them at somewhere around -5 cm to - 6 cm from true center. For me at least, that seems like the sweet spot for the ski to feel both chargey and playful (and is also the recommended mount point for the old Sickle).
    So far I think this is the only actual post from someone who did mount the Devs -1 or -2. DGamms- Would you say it changed your stance from being more upright to more traditional, and were you able to drive the shovels a bit more? I have mine mounted on the line and it's definitely a stance I'm not a fan of yet. I think I'll likely move them back if that has worked for others, or sell. Thanks!
    "...AT LEAST I'M ENJOYIN' THE RIDE..." -JB

  21. #46
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    417
    PowXer, I've only skied the 184 Dev mounted -1 cm from rec. So I'm not sure how different it might ski when mounted in other locations.

    And for me, after 150 days or more skiing the Rossi Sickle 186 (mounted at rec) as a daily driver, the balance point on the Devs feels totally natural. Of note, it took me more than 10 days on the Sickle to really fall in love with it. When I transitioned from the metal Katana to the Sickle, the front of the Sickle felt way too short and I felt like I was falling over the front of the ski when I tried to lean in and drive the tips.

    If you looking for a ski that allows you to drive the front of the ski with more pressure and a more forward stance, there are probably better options out there. But I found once you get used to skis like the Sickle or Devs and the stance that matches them best, you can still charge hard like you would on an old Katana, but you have more fun slashing, jumping, and playing around the whole mountain too.

  22. #47
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    da hood
    Posts
    943
    Quote Originally Posted by powXer View Post
    So far I think this is the only actual post from someone who did mount the Devs -1 or -2. DGamms- Would you say it changed your stance from being more upright to more traditional, and were you able to drive the shovels a bit more? I have mine mounted on the line and it's definitely a stance I'm not a fan of yet. I think I'll likely move them back if that has worked for others, or sell. Thanks!
    Yes, mounting on the line is a very centered stance, at least on the 194.

    I like centered stances, but I thought the 194 Devastator could be mounted -1 or -2 and still maintain a pretty neutral stance.

  23. #48
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    417
    2017 update

    I've put back to back days on both my 186 Sickles and 184 Devastators. Again, both mounted with STH14s, the Sickles at rec'd and the Devs at -1cm from rec'd.

    TLDR: they are pretty much the same ski.

    Subtle differences
    - the fatter (and maybe softer?) tip of the Sickle might plane a bit faster in pow
    - the more consistent rocker profile of the Devs, paired with its blunter (and maybe stiffer?) tip, might make it faster/more stable in deep chop
    - though the total ski weights are quite similar, the swing weight of the Sickles might be a bit less (thinner tips/tails?)
    - the base material of the Devs is faster and more durable to rock hits
    - even mounted at - 1cm from rec'd, the Devs measure about 1 cm shorter from the binding toe piece to the ski tip when compared to the Sickles (but heel piece to ski tail are equal at the above binding mount points)
    - the rooster tail spray from the Sickle tail is much worse than the Devs

  24. #49
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Reno
    Posts
    482
    Only 2 days on the 194 so far, but I am blown away by how good these are. They kind of remind me of a mini Protest, with a more refined flex pattern. Generally, I am not a fan of center mounted skis, and I was worried when I saw how little tip was in front of me. However, skiing they felt totally natural, no major balance adjustments required and was able to keep shin pressure without washing out the tips.

    They're happiest when up on edge and just slicing through crud, and anything else that happens to be in your way. Also super easy to pivot and scrub speed. The dampness is quite impressive given the lack of metal. Some tip flap when running bases flat, but as mentioned they want to be on edge. Ice isn't their forte, but I wouldn't expect it be either.

    Props to Undertow for hooking me up with these. If I was doing the first mount, I probably would have gone back 1.5, but since he has the same BSL and had already drilled em, I kept them on the line. Looking forward to trying them in powder, but that will likely need to wait until next year.

  25. #50
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    BC
    Posts
    790
    Has anyone skied the new updated version?

Posting Permissions

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