Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4
Results 76 to 89 of 89
  1. #76
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Sun Valley, ID
    Posts
    1,825
    Quote Originally Posted by 1000-oaks View Post
    Anyone at -2.5 wish they were back further? I drilled mine at -3.25 and like them there just fine, but am about to install inserts and wonder if I should leave them there, or move forward to say -2.75.
    Skied my 105ís 185 for first today at -2.7 (skiied my 310 resort boots mounted for 306 touring boots at -2.5). Felt great. Would go back not forwards. -3 ish is money I think. Just ordered some 302 bsl zgtp so might remount further back.

  2. #77
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Simi Valley, CA
    Posts
    5,677
    ^ Nice, was at -3.25 with Cochise last season. Now have ZGTP, which is 2mm shorter from toe sockets to midsole line, so right about -3. With the ZGTP in the quiver, doubt I'll ski them with the Cochise any more.

    Didn't realize the 105 line is way forward too. Did they have Armada or 4FRNT's pro's choose where to put the line or what.

  3. #78
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Sun Valley, ID
    Posts
    1,825
    Quote Originally Posted by 1000-oaks View Post
    ^ Nice, was at -3.25 with Cochise last season. Now have ZGTP, which is 2mm shorter from toe sockets to midsole line, so right about -3. With the ZGTP in the quiver, doubt I'll ski them with the Cochise any more.

    Didn't realize the 105 line is way forward too. Did they have Armada or 4FRNT's pro's choose where to put the line or what.
    Yeah itís very odd. Iíd kind of expect BD to be more traditional. Especially as no one wants huge long tail for touring.

  4. #79
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Tahoe
    Posts
    817
    I have some 18/19 186 Helio 116s mounted on the line. Scarpa Maestrale RS2 boot. About 8 days so far, all pow, including some ridiculously deep days here in Tahoe.

    I haven't had any issues with them mounted there, but I'm only 5'10" 175 lbs. I typically ski touring skis more in the 180 range. My inbounds pow skis are 186. I could definitely see going a cm or 2 back if you're bigger. I find the float to be fine and didn't want to lose too much quickness so I think I'll stay on the line for the time being.

    I measured the BC line at - 9 cm from true center, so it's not that much of a new-school mount.

  5. #80
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Sun Valley, ID
    Posts
    1,825
    Had my helio 105 185 at -2.5. Hated them. Remount at -4.5. Skied the resort today and much more balanced. No 3D snow yet but i can now ski on the front of my boots instead of having to drive the ski through my heel. I actually think -4 would be perfect. But Iím happy where Iím at.

  6. #81
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Simi Valley, CA
    Posts
    5,677
    In case anyone was wondering, the 2020 176 Helio 116 is 1,590g. When centered on top of the 2017/2018 186 length, the line on the 2020 176 is 5mm further forward.

  7. #82
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Sandy
    Posts
    102
    Just picked up a pair of helio recon 105s at the Black Diamond outlet in Lehi for cheap (good deals there). Read this whole thread for mount location help because the recommended line on the helios is way forward of my other skis. So I went 81cm from the tail, which is about -3cm from the BC line on the 185s. I think this will work for me after skiing them at the resort, although I could probably go a bit further back. Feel nice and balanced on the groomers. They ski powder well the way I like to, which is driving the front of the boots. Nice ski so far, and I went with the recon instead of the helio carbon version because I generally don't like carbon skis and prefer damper constructions. They are a bit heavier than the carbon, but with vipecs, a reasonably light setup that skis pretty well, which is my priority.

  8. #83
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    77
    STP briefly had the 116s and snagged a pair in 186. Was planing on using them with atk trofeos as ultralight powder skis but they weight in at 7 lbs 10 oz/ 3450g in the plastic or a few ounces heavier per ski then the old version. According to blister I guess they added some rubber to help with damping. Anyone skied them and think this change is worth the weight? Or did they just dumb down a light touring ski to make it ski better in inbounds ski reviews?

  9. #84
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Simi Valley, CA
    Posts
    5,677
    The white/green 186 pair I had was 1,630g each. Downsized to the new black 176, and they're 1,600g each.

  10. #85
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Posts
    929
    Quote Originally Posted by ryan b View Post
    STP briefly had the 116s and snagged a pair in 186. Was planing on using them with atk trofeos as ultralight powder skis but they weight in at 7 lbs 10 oz/ 3450g in the plastic or a few ounces heavier per ski then the old version. According to blister I guess they added some rubber to help with damping. Anyone skied them and think this change is worth the weight? Or did they just dumb down a light touring ski to make it ski better in inbounds ski reviews?
    Wouldn't think the 100 extra grams would make that much of a diff uphill.
    TLDR; Ski faster. Quit breathing. Don't crash.

  11. #86
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    LaLa Land
    Posts
    3,273
    Quote Originally Posted by ryan b View Post
    STP briefly had the 116s and snagged a pair in 186. Was planing on using them with atk trofeos as ultralight powder skis but they weight in at 7 lbs 10 oz/ 3450g in the plastic or a few ounces heavier per ski then the old version. According to blister I guess they added some rubber to help with damping. Anyone skied them and think this change is worth the weight? Or did they just dumb down a light touring ski to make it ski better in inbounds ski reviews?
    What color are yours? Which year, 19/20's?
    He who has the most fun wins!

  12. #87
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    77
    Mine (the 3450g ones) are the current top sheet...mostly grey/black with a small green bar and white tails.

    I stuck trofeo+'s on them to keep the weight down. Fun skis, I haven't got as much time as i'd like on them due to global pandemics but found them to be pretty stable. More at home going fast in the wide open spaces then tight trees coming from synapse 109s.

  13. #88
    Join Date
    Feb 2017
    Posts
    12
    Recommendations on where to mount a 176 116 and/or 105 for someone who is 5'8" 165lbs? I've just picked up some of the 19/20 116s and am going to get some 105s this summer replace my Ravens.

    The 116 looks like it might be good on the line for someone my height. Or maybe 1cm back. I don't have the 105 in hand yet but any input would be appreciated.

  14. #89
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Posts
    929
    Quote Originally Posted by -Ghost- View Post
    Recommendations on where to mount a 176 116 and/or 105 for someone who is 5'8" 165lbs? I've just picked up some of the 19/20 116s and am going to get some 105s this summer replace my Ravens.

    The 116 looks like it might be good on the line for someone my height. Or maybe 1cm back. I don't have the 105 in hand yet but any input would be appreciated.
    Depends on how you want to ski them I guess. I'm just a little lighter than you but 5'11" and I definitely liked having more length and and a more reward mount on my 116's since it'd rather never have tip dive. I did though demo them at the 176 length and with the demo binding I'm guessing I was around -1ish. It wasn't a powder day but I got along alright with them. Enough to make me want to buy some :P
    TLDR; Ski faster. Quit breathing. Don't crash.

Posting Permissions

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