Page 5 of 5 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5
Results 101 to 112 of 112
  1. #101
    Join Date
    Oct 2020
    Posts
    7
    Anyone else running these as a soft snow DD? Have narrowed down my next ski buy to something wider than 105 and seems like this could be more versatile than Wildcat 108, Woodsman 108, etc. but still a little nervous about pulling the trigger on something this wide. I like to ski squirrelly steeps and then run bases flat back to the lift for another lap. Strong legs so not worried about weight. Want float and chop stability. I’m 5’11” 190 and ski forward so a little worried they could be too short also. Would mount around -3 from the line.

  2. #102
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Hell Track
    Posts
    10,171
    Quote Originally Posted by CouloirInTheLines View Post
    Anyone else running these as a soft snow DD? Have narrowed down my next ski buy to something wider than 105 and seems like this could be more versatile than Wildcat 108, Woodsman 108, etc. but still a little nervous about pulling the trigger on something this wide. I like to ski squirrelly steeps and then run bases flat back to the lift for another lap. Strong legs so not worried about weight. Want float and chop stability. I’m 5’11” 190 and ski forward so a little worried they could be too short also. Would mount around -3 from the line.
    Caveat: I'm new to the BO 118 - have maybe 5 days on them. Have owned the WC108, and the BO replaced my old Bibbys. I think the BO works well as a soft snow inbounds daily driver in that it's damp and stable (or at least, stable by the standard of skis with a fairly progressive mount) and it handles chop well. That said, it feels like a big ski - bigger than the Bibby. It floats better, but it also feels excessive and kind of klunky when the snow is soft but not deep. In other words, it's maybe a better option for the day of the storm, but a worse option for the day after the storm (or, as is the case these days, better the morning of the storm, worse by 11:00 when everything is thrashed).

    To put it yet another way, I like the ski a lot, but it also makes me want something a little narrower and more manageable for when its soft but not fresh. That'd be in addition to the BO, not instead of it (n+1, obviously). A Moment Deathwish comes to mind.

  3. #103
    Join Date
    Nov 2019
    Posts
    36
    Quote Originally Posted by CouloirInTheLines View Post
    Anyone else running these as a soft snow DD? Have narrowed down my next ski buy to something wider than 105 and seems like this could be more versatile than Wildcat 108, Woodsman 108, etc. but still a little nervous about pulling the trigger on something this wide. I like to ski squirrelly steeps and then run bases flat back to the lift for another lap. Strong legs so not worried about weight. Want float and chop stability. I’m 5’11” 190 and ski forward so a little worried they could be too short also. Would mount around -3 from the line.
    I grab my blops 118 most days it seems. Not the absolute best in every condition but itís really hard not to have fun on them.

    For really deep untracked powder, I wish they were longer (even with them mounted -2 from rec), but as soon as it gets tracked out they are amazing, just monster truck over/through anything, incredibly stable. After a few days on them, I stopped noticing the weight and have no issue with them in narrow steeps/trees or even big moguls. Once it it turns to 100% chalk or hard pack Iíll grab my ranger 102s but if there is any hint of softness I am grabbing the black ops.

    For context Iím 5í10Ē, 160-165lbs.

  4. #104
    Join Date
    Oct 2020
    Posts
    7
    Good feedback, thanks. Also some potential news on a longer length. Big if true:
    https://www.tetongravity.com/forums/...79#post6243279

  5. #105
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Posts
    510
    i mounted mine -3.5 from the line and it's too much. seems like consensus is -2 from line?

  6. #106
    Join Date
    Nov 2019
    Posts
    36
    Quote Originally Posted by greenmachine View Post
    i mounted mine -3.5 from the line and it's too much. seems like consensus is -2 from line?
    -2 works well for me, though I havenít tried them anywhere else...

  7. #107
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    LCC
    Posts
    792
    They really need to make these in the 192-194 range....

  8. #108
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Golden B.C.
    Posts
    386
    Sounds like they will be

  9. #109
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    LCC
    Posts
    792
    Quote Originally Posted by skisurfmirth View Post
    Sounds like they will be
    gahhh that'd be just swell...

    where have you heard about this being possible?

    *the link a few posts up wasn't working*

  10. #110
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Golden B.C.
    Posts
    386
    21-22 Gear rumour thread here and NS. Same poster I think.

  11. #111
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    LCC
    Posts
    792
    Quote Originally Posted by skisurfmirth View Post
    21-22 Gear rumour thread here and NS. Same poster I think.
    copy that....for some reason the link worked this time. If that intel is from who they say it's from, that does sound promising.

  12. #112
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Posts
    510
    update. i chagned moumnt from -3.5 to -2 and it made a big difference. skied groomers way more intuitively and was overall a much more manageable ski for me. i'm on the 186 - 5'9 170lbs. i do think they have a large sweet spot and are super damp but i don't find them very responsive. maybe just my size and the ski size. great ski for day after pow or heavy pnw pow.

Posting Permissions

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