Down Skis Lowdown 90

[auvgeek]

This ski doesn't have it's own thread yet, so I figured I'd start it. The boys at Down came up with what looks like a great mountaineering ski: 177 cm long, 90 mm underfoot, 29 m turn radius, bit o' tip rocker, and 3mm camber. I don't have a postage scale, but claimed weight is just over 6#/pair. A while ago we were trying to convince Pat to make a 90-95 waisted 179 Bro model, and I'm hopeful this is a perfect spring/summer mountaineering ski.

I haven't skied them yet, but I'm very excited! Review to follow. I know adrenalated also has a pair, so maybe he'll share his thoughts here, too, after he gets some time on them. Some preliminary thoughts:

The flex is sweet and round. Stiff, but not overwhelmingly so for the weight, with no "hinge" points. I don't anticipate a jarring ride.

According to the Down site, the mount point is -10 cm from true center. I'll probably mount +1 cm (-9 cm from center). I do kind of wish the sidecut was centered a little further forward on the ski for a more-even swing weight during jump turns, but I realize I'm probably in the minority of people who want that—the Blizz Zero G 95 and 85 both have very rearward mount points, too.

The rocker profile looks sweet. One observation is that the camber seems stiffest pretty far back in the ski, i.e., pressing the skis flat right underfoot results in a triple-camber situation with the camber not quite disappearing near the tail. Probably no big deal, but might mean there's more pop from the tail when jump turning.

Pics (185 Blizzard ZeroG 108 for reference):

[galibier_numero_un]

Thanks for priming the pump! In the thread that inspired you to start this one, you mentioned the rocker profile of the 2014 Countdown 102's I bought from you as not being what you were after.

I checked the Down website - comparing this year's Countdown 104 against the Lowdown 90. I see what you're looking for.

To add another datapoint for the Countdown series (my 2014 102's and I believe the current 104's), I sited down my 2014 Countdown-102's (179 cm). It's rocker profile is low, and starts early - very much like the profile of my Praxis GPO's (182). I'll do some measuring and update this post.

Cheers,
Thom

[auvgeek]

To add another datapoint for the Countdown series (my 2014 102's and I believe the current 104's), I sited down my 2014 Countdown-102's (179 cm). It's rocker profile is low, and starts early - very much like the profile of my Praxis GPO's (182). I'll do some measuring and update this post.

I'm pretty sure the Countdown 104 is totally unrelated to the 2014 CD 102. I believe the evolution of that ski line was: Countdown 4, Countdown 102 (and CD 102L), YW8, and currently the LowDown 102. To me, that ski was just too pow-specific for its size, mainly in the rocker profile but also in the shape. The Zero G 108 fills the do-it-all slot for me and does it quite well. Some people love the 102, and I've already voiced my dislike more than once, so I don't want to criticize it any more. But I was interested to learn that they had no base bevel from the factory, and I'd love to ski them with the new tune you gave them.

Speaking of tunes, can anyone from Down comment on the factory tune of the LD90? Is it supposed to be 1 deg base and 1 deg side? I would like to ensure they are tuned correctly before I ski them. I may adjust the tune to my liking, but I would like to ski them "as intended" before messing with it.

[kevino]

I can test those for you while you're busy on the east coast!

But seriously, looks like a good ski. Look forward to what your bring to canada!

[SiSt]

I'm pretty sure the Countdown 104 is totally unrelated to the 2014 CD 102. I believe the evolution of that ski line was: Countdown 4, Countdown 102 (and CD 102L), YW8, and currently the LowDown 102. To me, that ski was just too pow-specific for its size, mainly in the rocker profile but also in the shape. The Zero G 108 fills the do-it-all slot for me and does it quite well. Some people love the 102, and I've already voiced my dislike more than once, so I don't want to criticize it any more. But I was interested to learn that they had no base bevel from the factory, and I'd love to ski them with the new tune you gave them.

Speaking of tunes, can anyone from Down comment on the factory tune of the LD90? Is it supposed to be 1 deg base and 1 deg side? I would like to ensure they are tuned correctly before I ski them. I may adjust the tune to my liking, but I would like to ski them "as intended" before messing with it.

1/1. I normally detune tip/tail to the start of the sidecut, but ymmv.

[Breomonkey]

Any comparo's on these vs the blizzard OG85/95 or the Salomon Mtn Explores? Looking hard at something shorter & lighter than my Praxis BC's.

[auvgeek]

I haven't skied mine yet, and I don't have access to a 0G 95 to compare against. My wife skis the 0G 95 in a 164, which I have fondled extensively. The 0G 95 is quite a bit lighter, hand flexes noticeably stiffer, and has more sidecut, less tip rocker, and more camber. So I'm pretty sure the 0G95 will be more demanding in funky snow, but probably rail a carve turn better in smooth corn. The LD90 seems like a great stiffness for the weight, with enough tip rocker and taper to float unexpected pow.

Will report back after I get a chance to ski them, and maybe I'll try to find some 0G95s to ski as well.

[mall walker]

Anyone got time on these yet? I know a few of you got in on the group buy. I am hoping someone didn't like them and will sell them to me

[adrenalated]

I got out on mine this weekend for the first time.

In the group buy I asked about the factory tune and didn't get a lot of feedback. I found that the bases were flat and had a good structure. The edges were tuned to 1/1 but not very well - the edges were not consistently flat at those bevels across the entire edge. So I did retune them right away at 1/1. For detune I fully rounded the edges from the sidecut taper point forward, gave the rockered sections in time and tail a couple light passes with a medium stone, and one pass over the entire edge with a light stone. I do not like sharp skis.

I mounted with Speed Radicals on the line and skied them with TLT6P's, tongue in, with world cup Booster strap.

Our intended line was a no-go so we ended up skiing 3,000' of refrozen garbage on angles up to 45*. Some turns were smooth, most were not. So lots of hop turns and survival skiing.

Swing weight is pleasantly low. The skis hold an edge well and are very predictable. They're stiff but not overly so. I'll probably detune the tip just a touch more. I love the longer radius (29m), it's much easier to get full edge engagement without the tip and tail hanging up. On lower angle terrain or softer snow, where I was able to just roll on edge and arc turns rather than making jump turns, they never felt difficult to turn or sluggish.

The only two skis I can really compare to are the G3 Zenoxide Carbon Fusion 93, which these replaced, and my 184 Praxis Freerides (all maple core, carbon hybrid layup). The G3s always felt hooky in the tip on steep, firm snow, and when conditions got rough, they transmitted a ton of feedback to my feet, as carbon skis often do. The LD90 still feels like a carbon ski, but it feels much less like a carbon ski. So far I'd say it's an acceptable tradeoff for the weight. Compared to the Praxis, they are obviously much lighter and jump turn easier, but are not quite as damp. I had some 179 Bros long ago, too long ago to compare in much detail, but the shape feels similar, which is a really good thing.

I do think they're a bit more demanding than the G3s and maybe even than the Praxis. I'm not totally dialed on the TLT6s yet and frankly the TLT6 is right at the limit of how soft a boot I can ski. The LD90 is not tolerant of tailgunning at all, and I found I had to really focus on keeping my ankles constantly flexed in the TLT6s to avoid getting backseat and going for a ride. I'm not sure if it's something in the forward lean of the boot, lack of rearward support, or just my shitty skiing, but I'm probably going to ski the LD90s with my Maestrale RS at some point just to compare.

So far, I like 'em.

[auvgeek]

^^Awesome info all around. Thanks!

[mall walker]

^^Awesome info all around. Thanks!

Ditto, yeah that is awesome info. Sounds like I need a pair now I think it's funny that you mention the LD90 being radically intolerant of tailgunning, my CD102Ls are 100% the same in that respect. Fwiw I also ski all my skis on TLT6Ps w/tongue in and expert boosters and don't find any of the rest of them (G3 Manhattan, 179 Bros when I still had em, Movement Response-X) at all anti-backseat like my 102Ls.

[adrenalated]

Ditto, yeah that is awesome info. Sounds like I need a pair now I think it's funny that you mention the LD90 being radically intolerant of tailgunning, my CD102Ls are 100% the same in that respect. Fwiw I also ski all my skis on TLT6Ps w/tongue in and expert boosters and don't find any of the rest of them (G3 Manhattan, 179 Bros when I still had em, Movement Response-X) at all anti-backseat like my 102Ls.

That's real good to know. I didn't recall getting bucked around on other skis with the TLT6s but I hadn't skied them since last year, either.

[Boissal]

I mounted with Speed Radicals on the line and skied them with TLT6P's, tongue in, with expert Booster strap.

I have a pair on the way and can't seem to find any info on the mount, did you drill with 3.6x9.5 or 4.1x9.5??

[SiSt]

I have a pair on the way and can't seem to find any info on the mount, did you drill with 3.6x9.5 or 4.1x9.5??

3,6 on anything non-metal. Always remove the volcanoes after drilling and you'll be good.

[adrenalated]

OK got a couple more days on my Lowdown 90s, in a greater variety of conditions.

I've now skied smooth corn, rough corn with old tracks underneath, some shallow hot pow, some untracked mush, tracked mush/mank, and a bit more ice. You know, typical spring backcountry conditions. I've also had a chance to ski them again with the TLT6Ps, and with my Maestrale RS w/ expert booster (edited above post to clarify my TLT6Ps have the world cup booster, not the expert).

In smooth corn these skis fucking crush it. I mean, what doesn't, but still. They have a much higher speed limit than a 177cm ski should have when conditions are smooth. They are predictable and never difficult to turn at whatever speed you need to go, if you know how to unweight. The camber helps here and the skis have plenty of life.

In un-smooth corn with old frozen tracks underneath, they get kicked around. They are not damp. They are pretty damp for a 6.5lb ski, but they are not damp like say... a 10lb ON3P Wrenegade. Duh. Mass matters. If you're skiing a 6.5lb ski you should either be going far enough to avoid a ton of old tracks or accept the fact that you're an idiot.

Hot pow, tracked and untracked mush, they're not really any better or worse than any other similar ski I've been on. They get kicked around in chop. They're totally manageable in smooth mank.

As for the boot choice, this is definitely a ski that seems to benefit from a stiffer boot. Which is a bit unfortunate, as I'd prefer to pair a ski this light with a softer boot. I actually still found myself kicked in the backseat a bit on my Maestrale RS's, but it was much easier to recover from and the ski easier to control. I've never really had this feeling from any other ski before. I'm starting to wonder if I should move the mount forward 1-2cm to make it easier to get pressure onto the front of the ski, but concerned that will make the tail even more unforgiving. I've never actually needed to move a mount forward - always back - so not sure what exactly it will do.

Note: I'm sure there are many things I could improve on in my technique but considering I've been able to rally skis like a 191cm and 186cm ON3P Wrenegade, 190cm Icelantic Seeker, 189cm Praxis RX, etc. on tele boots and bindings without ever feeling like they're throwing me in the backseat makes me think there's more going on here than my lack of ability.

Overall, despite my complaints, I think these have edged out my old 179 Bros as the best spring touring skis I've been on.

[1000-oaks]

Anyone know the recommended mount line for the 172 YW8 89? I read -12 from center somewhere, and see the 10cm scale on the topsheet. How do they measure center, straight pull or along the base?

[auvgeek]

The LD90 is the best spring corn ski I've used. It's light, predictable, and can be skied faster than you'd suspect in hero corn. You might rattle out a tooth filling on refrozen avy debris, but that's par for the course for tech binders on a 6.5# ski. For reference, they're mounted with the SSL 2.0 and I'm using the Vulcan (both with and without tongue). Down continues to make the best value carbon skis in the industry, IMHO.

That said, IMHO, the 177 LD90 has just a little too much soft-snow bias for a ski 90 underfoot. I understand why Down made that decision -- they wanted it to be skiable in 3D snow, especially considering it's 90 underfoot. But for my style and size (5'11", 165# + gear), the amount of tip rocker and tip taper make them feel a little weird on firm snow for a ski 90 underfoot. Perhaps that much soft-snow bias is necessary for a 90 mm ski in Europe, but on my feet, they're way more likely to see typical spring conditions (refrozen snow, corn, and isothermal mush) than deep pow. And while the additional rocker and taper helps them float and turn in pow, no amount of rocker/taper can really help a 90 mm ski avoid sinking and thus getting locked into a turn shape in isothermal mush. Basically, the downsides outweigh the benefits for a 90 mm underfoot spring ski because that amount of rocker/taper really hurts the feel on hard snow. I have a hard time accessing the tip when I'm skiing because the tip just isn't on the snow. For the record, I love rockered skis, and haven't had this problem accessing the tip with any other rockered ski...except the last pair of CD 102s I owned. So anyway, I would love to see like 10 cm less rocker and taper for more hard-snow bias.

Also, there's a weird amount of stiffness behind the boot heel until the minimal tail rocker starts, which may contribute to the issues adrenalated described above. If you wrap a voile strap around the mount point, the whole ski will decamber...except there's still a pocket of camber behind the boot heel. You can kind of see it in that photo I posted above.

I bet fixing these three issues would make it perfect for the majority of people looking for a spring ski with a long radius. Unfortunately, it sounds like Down isn't able to sell enough to justify production, let alone design tweaks.

Here's a photo in their natural habitat, though:

[geo039]

The LD90 is the best spring corn ski I've used. It's light, predictable, and can be skied faster than you'd suspect in hero corn. Down continues to make the best value carbon skis in the industry, IMHO.

That said, IMHO, the 177 LD90 has just a little too much soft-snow bias for a ski 90 underfoot. I understand why Down made that decision -- they wanted it to be skiable in 3D snow, especially considering it's 90 underfoot. But for my style and size (5'11", 165# + gear), the amount of tip rocker and tip taper make them feel a little weird on firm snow for a ski 90 underfoot. Perhaps that much soft-snow bias is necessary for a 90 mm ski in Europe, but on my feet, they're way more likely to see typical spring conditions (refrozen snow, corn, and isothermal mush) than deep pow. And the problem is, while the additional rocker and taper would help them float and turn in pow, no amount of rocker/taper can really help a 90 mm ski avoid sinking and thus getting locked into a turn shape in isothermal mush. It really hurts the feel on hard snow -- decambered with me standing on them, I have a hard time accessing the tip because the tip just isn't on the snow. For the record, I love rockered skis, and haven't had this problem accessing the tip with any other rockered ski...except the last pair of CD 102s I owned.

Anyway, I would love to see like 10 cm less rocker and taper for more hard-snow bias. Also, there's a weird amount of stiffness behind the boot heel until the minimal tail rocker starts, which may contribute to the issues adrenelated described above. Like if you wrap a voile strap around the mount point, the whole ski will decamber, except there's still a pocket of camber behind the boot heel. (You can kind of see it in that photo I posted above.) I bet fixing these three issues would make it perfect for the majority of people looking for a spring ski with a long radius. Unfortunately, it sounds like Down isn't able to sell enough to justify production, let alone design tweaks.

Here's a photo in their natural habitat, though:

Thanks for the review and insight. This skis comes back next year and with some adjustments based EXACTLY on this type of feedback. Thanks again for the support and more to come.

PS: prices will still rock!

[Norseman]

Cool. I may seek a set if those updates are made.

[auvgeek]

Thanks for the review and insight. This skis comes back next year and with some adjustments based EXACTLY on this type of feedback. Thanks again for the support and more to come.

PS: prices will still rock!

Thanks for being so receptive to feedback. But dang, I haven't skied my current pair enough to justify the upgrade!

[galibier_numero_un]

Thanks for being so receptive to feedback. But dang, I haven't skied my current pair enough to justify the upgrade!

I suspect that you'll really warm up to my last years' CD 104's based on our shared observations about both your Lowdowns as well as the 2014 CD 102's we shared. I suspect that you still might like a bit more tip, but in a 104 that you'll agree the design makes a lot of sense.

Thanks for the review and insight. This skis comes back next year and with some adjustments based EXACTLY on this type of feedback. Thanks again for the support and more to come.

PS: prices will still rock!

Darn! You're good!

... Thom

[geo039]

I suspect that you'll really warm up to my last years' CD 104's based on our shared observations about both your Lowdowns as well as the 2014 CD 102's we shared. I suspect that you still might like a bit more tip, but in a 104 that you'll agree the design makes a lot of sense.


Darn! You're good!

... Thom

We take it all. Bad and good. This is 99% Sist, Marco, and me so all this feedback you give comes direct and influences what and how we do it. Again a huge thanks for the support.

[galibier_numero_un]

We take it all. Bad and good. This is 99% Sist, Marco, and me so all this feedback you give comes direct and influences what and how we do it. Again a huge thanks for the support.

One thing I love about skis designed with an eye toward Europe is that it's not all about blower powder. Much as we tend to buy so many skis for the conditions we hope to encounter (guilty as charged), it's nice to have tools for the conditions at hand

... Thom

[mall walker]

Re-reading this thread now as I'm committed for a pair of LD90s. I'm very excited that two of the most thoughtful TT posters (adrenalated and auvgeek) have skied this, given it their various pluses and minuses, and come out saying it's the best spring skiing ski they've been on. I suspect that for me, this ski will see more soft snow than for them, as I'm likely to break this out in mid-winter conditions when wind or funk is on the menu, or for things on the border of my comfort-level in terms of steepness. Which is a long-winded way of saying, I'll probably get more use out of the tip rocker than auvgeek.

auvgeek, I'm curious if you ever felt the tailgun-intolerance that adrenalated mentioned? I felt the same with Speed Radicals on my CD102Ls and am wondering if the difference in delta between those and your SSL2.0s (and my Kreuzspitze heels which should be closer yet to neutral even with the plates) somehow has to do with this. https://skimo.co/pin-heights has the Speed Radical at +16, SSL2.0 at +7.5, and the Kreuzspitze at -0.5, although I do have them mounted with plates which add some mm.

adrenalated you should swap your Speed Radical heels with the Kreuzspitze plates + either Kreuzspitze SCTT heels or Plum 150 heels blow some cash for science, you can reuse the speed rad heel holes and I am SUPER curious how that affects your perception of the balance of the ski.
Mostly just meaningless summer bump for stoke...

[auvgeek]

Re-reading this thread now as I'm committed for a pair of LD90s. I'm very excited that two of the most thoughtful TT posters (adrenalated and auvgeek) have skied this, given it their various pluses and minuses, and come out saying it's the best spring skiing ski they've been on. I suspect that for me, this ski will see more soft snow than for them, as I'm likely to break this out in mid-winter conditions when wind or funk is on the menu, or for things on the border of my comfort-level in terms of steepness. Which is a long-winded way of saying, I'll probably get more use out of the tip rocker than auvgeek.

auvgeek, I'm curious if you ever felt the tailgun-intolerance that adrenalated mentioned? I felt the same with Speed Radicals on my CD102Ls and am wondering if the difference in delta between those and your SSL2.0s (and my Kreuzspitze heels which should be closer yet to neutral even with the plates) somehow has to do with this. https://skimo.co/pin-heights has the Speed Radical at +16, SSL2.0 at +7.5, and the Kreuzspitze at -0.5, although I do have them mounted with plates which add some mm.

adrenalated you should swap your Speed Radical heels with the Kreuzspitze plates + either Kreuzspitze SCTT heels or Plum 150 heels blow some cash for science, you can reuse the speed rad heel holes and I am SUPER curious how that affects your perception of the balance of the ski.
Mostly just meaningless summer bump for stoke...

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.

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).

/rambling