Down Skis Lowdown 90

[mall walker]

Okay, so the problem with ramp angle conversation is: 1) the forward lean of the boot plays a part and some boots have even compensated for ramp angle by reducing the internal boot board angle and 2) everybody's anatomy handles different ramp angles differently. Some people are super sensitive (me) while others are less sensitive. My vulcan (on the upright setting) + SSL 2.0 feels about as upright (and maybe even more upright) than my Langes on P18s with the toe shims installed (aka just about flat). Further, I would guess that adrenalated has skied enough different setups to know whether the issue is the speed radicals or not. I was at his house a few weeks ago and noticed that he swaps bindings around on different skis, so I'd be surprised if he can't tell the difference between a characteristic of the ski and the binding.

I found they're about as tolerant of tail gunning as the 0G 108. Which is to say, not especially tolerant ... but I can't say it's my chief complaint or that I particularly noticed it. I suspect part of what adrenalated was feeling was that the stiffest part of the ski is behind the heel. If you press the skis together base-to-base, clamped at the recommended mount, there's still a pocket of camber behind the heel that won't disappear. I mainly had trouble accessing the tip on firm snow, which it sounds like adrenalated might have experienced as well from his comments about wanting a stiff boot and maybe wanting to move the mount forward. I'm not 100% sure what would fix that, but I have a hunch it has to do with the amount of taper. But it might be some other weird aspect of the ski's design, like how they blend the sidecut, etc. Frankly, I strive for skis that just disappear under my feet and don't require much thought and sadly these aren't quite there for me but the closest I've found in a spring ski. Like I said before, the only other ski that had me looking at the tip and not understanding why I couldn't make it engage the way I wanted was the CD102. These are much better than those, so if you like those, you'll probably be fine with the LD90.

yeah, good point on the ramp angle. I switched only the binding heel (same boot, same ski) which made a big difference to me, but that's the only reason I'm pointing at the binding, and you're right that it is very specific-to-the-person. I also suspect I'll be pleased on the LD90s if they're remotely close to what I think they will be.

I still really want to try a 179 Bro with just a touch of tip rocker. I actually really liked the 185 DPS W95 I had as well, but their float sucked for a 95-waisted ski and they were a little to long and too wide for dedicated spring ski (for me).

I've got one (as in, one single ski) you're welcome to mount up and try if you make it to BBIUT lol

[zion zig zag]

Bump. Anyone have further input or reviews on this ski? I'm looking for something to replace my Zero G 95's which I liked but didn't love. I liked the edge hold and the weight, but I feel like they required more boot, speed and input than I want in a spring/mountaineering ski.

My go to winter ski is a v-werks katana which I love. I'm 6' and 170ish with no gear, prefer traditionally mounted skis over center mounts. Also looking at the movement 94lt if anyone has time on that ski.

[mall walker]

I've been splitting time on my LD90s and 2 other pairs of touring skis this season. On the LD90s, it's 27 days and 86k' touring. I've got them mounted at +1.5 with Plum Race 150s, and I ski them with Fisher Carbon Travers boots. I'm 36 years old, 150lbs and you could describe my skiing style as fairly conservative. I make reasonably symmetrical turns down the fall line, I never deliberately go backwards, and I almost always stay on the ground. I ski them here in the Wasatch, and I use them for basically any conditions including milk run powder skiing, but what I got them for and what I feel they are best at is steep skiing. They're my go-to couloir ski, and I've skied them in a variety of steep terrain this season (Y Couloir, Memorials, Doubting Thomas, etc). FWIW, I typically buy my touring skis in the 175-180cm length range, so I do not feel like I had to "size down" for this ski, which is only offered in a 177cm length.

A note on mounting point: I intended to mount these at +1 due to my experience with the 102L; the topsheet markings were a little misaligned, and I also forgot to tell the shop to go +1. So I ended up at +1.5, which is where the "center line" on the graphic ended up being. I like the mount point (but if I were redoing it I might do it at +1 exactly), but whatever your mount preference is, I would measure from the tail based on the numbers Down provided somewhere in the group buy thread iirc... I can find it later.

Construction:

For a ski in this width/weight/length class they have a fairly generous amount of tip rocker height, a low tail splay (think what G3 used to call "stealth tail rocker") and a minimal amount of camber underfoot. They hand flex stiff, slightly less so in the tips, and they ski that way too. Mine weighed something like ~1275g/ski. Mounted with the Plum Race 150s they are 1462g/ski, screws and all. They come beautifully finished, as nice a factory finish as any ski I've purchased. As many others have said, detuning the tips and tails a bit prior to use is highly recommended. The topsheets are light in color, smooth, durable, and shed snow very effectively. The bases are imo far too soft for a dedicated backcountry ski; this is really my only complaint with a ski I otherwise could ski basically 100% of my touring days. I have taken a P-Tex candle to them at least three or four times already. The bases on my Movement Response-X or Ski Trab Sintesi are far, far harder and more durable.

Comparisons:

I can do a fair comparison against the other skis in my quiver as well as my past few pairs of touring skis; unfortunately I have not skied the ZG95 or the V-Werks Katana, so you may have to do some translation. All of these skis are or were mounted with some sort of skimo race bindings with fairly low ramp angles, so I have left out mention of them; I don't think the bindings have made a huge difference, but if you have any questions on bindings I'm happy to answer them. I also mostly ski very light skis, so these comparisons are going to be largely to other ultralight skis. The LD90s are actually very slightly the heaviest of my 3 touring skis right now. If you're used to something in the 1800g class, take this all with a grain of salt.

Vs Down Countdown 102L 179cm (120/102/107; 41m radius) - this was my everyday touring ski for a couple seasons. This ski was the predecessor to the LD102, and it had a much different rocker section. Compared to this ski, the LD90 is much more intuitive and has a far larger sweet spot, I suspect due in part to the substantially shorter turn radius (29m in the LD90 vs 41m in the 102L). The tip rocker height is higher in the LD90, and the rockered section of the ski is shorter. I actually find the LD90 a much more pleasant ski in powder than the 102L, because it's an easier and more relaxed ski to drive; I always felt that the 102L required a very precise and balanced stance, and punished you immediately for getting into the back seat. The LD90 definitely does not like to be skied from the back seat either, but it's got a much bigger sweet spot and is much more forgiving. The 102L was a better ski in downright bad snow than the LD90. The LD90 is still a good bad-snow ski, but the 102L (with that giant radius) could handle the most heinous conditions imaginable and still manage to be predictable. The LD90 is by no means twitchy, but if you are skiing wind-blasted ridgeline sastrugi, the ski won't magically make those conditions fun.

Vs Movement Response-X 177cm (128/89/116; 18m radius) - this has been my powder touring ski for the past couple seasons. Slightly lighter than the LD90s (~65g lighter mounted), these are a very different ride. The Movements have a shorter tip rocker section, lower tip rise, a good deal more camber, and a flat tail with only the tiniest amount if tail splay. I love the Response-X; in soft snow, they are as fun as anything I've skied. They can be skied shockingly fast for a ski this weight, the ski comes alive at speed and likes to sling you from turn to turn. In predictable snow (powder, chalk, corn), this is awesome. However, they have a huge sidecut and very wide tips, so in variable snow they can be scary. The LD90 skis powder very differently; you can ski hard, but you are doing all the bouncing from turn to turn on your own. The tip rocker on the LD90 lets the ski float up in powder as well as you have any right to expect from a ski with these dimensions, but it is somewhat less of a powder-oriented ski than the Response-X. In steep terrain and the typical snow I am skiing this terrain in, the LD90 is easily superior. The two skis jump turn similarly, and both enjoy a large sweet spot to make the finish of jump turns a lot less scary than it could be. I have been very surprised by how often I have reached for the LD90 this season in powder; last season, the Response-X got all of the powder day duty.

Vs PMGear Carbon Bro 179cm (125/99/116; 31m radius) - these were my first truly lightweight setup, and enjoy the dubious credit for pushing me toward weight-weenieness. They remain my all-time favorite powder touring skis. If I hadn't broken one, I'm sure I'd still be using them happily. That said: the LD90 is a far stiffer, more stable, predictable ride in anything besides soft snow. The carbon Bro was light and chattery in bad conditions; even with the long radius, it was not as predicable in chalky steep conditions as I would have liked, and the LD90 really shines in these spots (think springtime in Wolverine Cirque).

Vs Ski Trab Sintesi 171cm (107/75/94; 20m radius) - these are not really in the same class, but I ski them, so here you go. I use these for racing, spring, big huge days, and fitness skiing when conditions are truly dreadful. They are a very un-TGR ski but I actually like them quite a bit, though they are obviously much more of a quiver ski. The Sintesis have an ultra-traditional mount point and so the balanced stance differs greatly from the LD90, which again enjoys a greater sweet spot and is less demanding. Not a huge amount else to say about this comparison, obviously the LD90 is better in soft snow, firm snow, basically everything except corn, where it's more of a wash.

The LD90s are the stiffest and dampest of any of the skis mentioned here; they have as big a sweet spot as any of the skis here, and they are absolutely competent in any conditions. Though obviously not a powder ski, they are capable and fun in powder. Properly detuned, they are predictable in downright bad snow, and they are outstanding in steep terrain and/or variable snow conditions. Depending on your style, size and where you ski, they could easily be either a daily driver, or the narrower half of a 2-ski touring quiver.

TL;DR:

I'm super stoked on them. I knew, based on my experience with the Down CD102L, that I was probably going to like the skis. The first few days out I was vaguely disappointed; like the 102L, there is a little bit of a learning curve with these. Some of this may be due to my +1.5 mount point (after two-ish days on them I thought of remounting on the line, but I didn't, and I am very happy with them at this point in the season). However, once you get used to the way they ski, they are predictable and forgiving, fun in basically any reasonable snow conditions, confidence-inspiring in steep terrain, and as stable as you can expect a ~1300g ski to be at speed. The only downside is that the bases are very soft for a ski that will realistically never ski inbounds, and this is compared to other backcountry-specific skis. With P-Tex 4000 bases, these would be a 10/10 for me. I deliberately ski about 1/3 of my days on these, the Response-X and the Sintesi, but there's really never a day when I feel I couldn't bring the LD90s; the same is not true of the other two skis.

[zion zig zag]

Damn. Awesome review, thanks for taking the time. This sounds like a ski that I may get along with.

[mall walker]

Damn. Awesome review, thanks for taking the time. This sounds like a ski that I may get along with.

Unfortunately I mounted my pair without any sort of adjustment plates, but if you happen to be a 296 (or can fit into a boot with a 296) you're welcome to try my pair out, if you make it down to SLC at some point! Or if you're within a couple mm and are willing to risk the pre/no release...

[zion zig zag]

Appreciate the offer, but unfortunately I wouldn't fit in those.

[tgapp]

Bumping this thread because I got a pair of Lowdown 90's this year, and I can't wait to mount them (thinking BD Helio 200's). Does anyone know if the shape/materials changed from last year's?

[riff]

This is a ski I would love to try....


Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

[tgapp]

This is a ski I would love to try....


Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

If you're in Salt Lake, have a BSL of close to 300, and wanna take mine for a spin, shoot me a note.

[SiSt]

No changes.

Bumping this thread because I got a pair of Lowdown 90's this year, and I can't wait to mount them (thinking BD Helio 200's). Does anyone know if the shape/materials changed from last year's?

[mall walker]

If you're in Salt Lake, have a BSL of close to 300, and wanna take mine for a spin, shoot me a note.

This is better than my offer (also outstanding to curious mags who make it to SLC) because for mine you need exactly a 296 BSL, but I'll extend the offer anyway

[riff]

Thanks guys! I’m in the central cascades and a 287, if you make a volcano tour look me up!


Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

[tgapp]

Thanks guys! I’m in the central cascades and a 287, if you make a volcano tour look me up!

Ha! I do want to ski a volcano (I've climbed plenty of them, but only with pointy things on my feet). I'll let you know. BSL is close but I think it'll work.

Every winter I think about doing Gibb Ledges on Rainier, but I've yet to see a high pressure weather window big enough for me to bet the farm (or my toes) on.

[tgapp]

Okay, so I spent my first (easy) day out on the LD90's, and I was absolutely blown away by how well they handled 7-8" of fresh powder. Never dealt with tip dive, and the skis were playful, fun, and incredibly predictable. They responded well to being driven, felt plenty lively, and were a joy to skin up with. Like others have mentioned, they're not super tolerant of back seat drivers, but I was surprised at how forgiving they felt the few times I found myself in the back.

I know this isn't even a skinny powder ski, but I have no qualms skiing these boards in anything, say, 10" or under. Great ski.

[mall walker]

^ yeah I skied mine in plenty of pow last year with the same reaction. they’re even better in sketchy steeps. super well-rounded ski.

[tgapp]

^ yeah I skied mine in plenty of pow last year with the same reaction. they’re even better in sketchy steeps. super well-rounded ski.

Do you have any experience with the LD102? I have a pair I picked up from someone here that I intended to give to a friend, but they went another direction. Curious if it would be worthwhile to keep the 90 and 102, especially because I like the 90's way more than I ever thought I would.

[mall walker]

Do you have any experience with the LD102? I have a pair I picked up from someone here that I intended to give to a friend, but they went another direction. Curious if it would be worthwhile to keep the 90 and 102, especially because I like the 90's way more than I ever thought I would.

I had the old 102L, the predecessor to the LD102. Also an awesome ski, but harder to ski and less intuitive... for how well the LD90 handles soft snow, I don’t think there’s much reason to hoard both.

That said, I was trying to scoop Boissal’s pair so....

[Boissal]

I had the old 102L, the predecessor to the LD102. Also an awesome ski, but harder to ski and less intuitive... for how well the LD90 handles soft snow, I don’t think there’s much reason to hoard both.

That said, I was trying to scoop Boissal’s pair so....

That's the pair in question actually.
Having now skied the CD104L I'd say it's vastly superior to the LD102 for the average Wasatch day. More versatile shape, better float, not much heavier. The 102s shine in harder/shittier snow but for soft days I can't imagine not being on a flat ski with a progressive shovel.

[tgapp]

That's the pair in question actually.
Having now skied the CD104L I'd say it's vastly superior to the LD102 for the average Wasatch day. More versatile shape, better float, not much heavier. The 102s shine in harder/shittier snow but for soft days I can't imagine not being on a flat ski with a progressive shovel.

Ugh man you're making me jealous! Still though, I was blown away by just how awesome the LD90's were yesterday. Granted I wasn't skiing very much (or very hard - I'm recovering), but if the CD104 is better than either of the LD skis, I guess I should start saving now for next year's preseason sale.

[tang]

Resurrecting this thread... I posted my LD90s for sale a few weeks ago since I've been driving myself crazy on what to mount them with, where to mount, working around holes, etc. I now think I'll keep em and put some new ATK Kuluar or Crests on them. Rec mount line is -11. I'd prefer to go more forward than that. Optimization of re-using existing holes would put me around -8.5 to -9ish... Not a big delta, but has anyone skied em forward like that? Per the comments here, the possible concern would be exposing more of its stiff flat tail. Thx on any insights.

[tgapp]

Resurrecting this thread... I posted my LD90s for sale a few weeks ago since I've been driving myself crazy on what to mount them with, where to mount, working around holes, etc. I now think I'll keep em and put some new ATK Kuluar or Crests on them. Rec mount line is -11. I'd prefer to go more forward than that. Optimization of re-using existing holes would put me around -8.5 to -9ish... Not a big delta, but has anyone skied em forward like that? Per the comments here, the possible concern would be exposing more of its stiff flat tail. Thx on any insights.

Ask benneke10, he mounted his at +2 or so and hated it. I think that tail can be pretty punishing with a forward mount.

Sent from my Pixel 6 Pro using Tapatalk

[Benneke10]

Yeah what Tgapp said, I think I was at +1.5 from the rec line and I found the tails to be punishing at that point.

[adrenalated]

Even at recommended I found the tail pretty punishing. I could ski them well with stiff boots (Atomic Hawx XTD 130) but with soft boots (TLT6P) they kicked my ass if I wasn't perfectly balanced on them. Worth noting that I'm light (145lbs soaking wet) but ultimately I sold mine because the tail was just too demanding for the type of tours I wanted to use them for. I can't see mounting them forward.

[tang]

Yikes, glad I asked. I'm big-ish (180) and ski everything with Maestrale RS's... but that's pretty universal feedback. Hmmm, now I'll probably ponder for another year! Thx all

[cat in january]

My experience as well. I tried to ski them in tlt5p, but remounted for dynafit beast boots. Your Maestrale RS should be fine