Page 18 of 18 FirstFirst ... 13 14 15 16 17 18
Results 426 to 446 of 446
  1. #426
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Southside of heaven
    Posts
    3,030
    I'm in for a pair of 104s when the group buy comes along. Will be my do it all travel + touring ski.

  2. #427
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Location
    Colorado Front Range
    Posts
    3,740
    Quote Originally Posted by Boissal View Post
    Economic uncertainty be damned, I'd like to see a fatter 114L, say a 122 or so in a 190 length. I've spent a lot of time on the 104L and it's basically taken over from the 114L which is a tad too heavy considering the limited benefit of the extra 10 mm of girth. Now a loooooong radius 120ish-waisted ski with no camber, (or even, dare I ask for it, a couple mm or reverse over the length of the ski) and a slight pintail and really long but low shovel. Preferably coming in at max 1900 g per ski. Make it without edges to save weight, that ski would only ever see Wasatch fluff...
    I'd buy a few pairs.
    I suspect you may be right about a jump from 104 to 120'ish being better quiver spacing. Of course, here In Colorado, we have to meadowskip in the winter, so fat is even more beneficial (so you can keep moving on 25 degree terrain).

    That spot in my quiver is currently taken up by GPOs with Helio 200's. I can't complain about them, as this and the CD 114 are my two favorite (most versatile) mid-teens skis to date.

    Quote Originally Posted by mall walker View Post
    I've got 3 days on my (Thom's old) 181 CD104s and I'm pretty damn impressed so far. I've skied absolutely nothing but the worst imaginable snow conditions, including some steep "probably don't fall here" kind of places, and they're great. I can see having a 2-ski quiver of the CD104 and the CD104L for bigger days, lol. Maybe a 3 ski CD104 quiver, because I kind of want a heavy CD104 with race bindings (my current ones have Vipecs, which I am grudgingly learning to appreciate the virtue of)

    It would be worth doing just to see the look on my wife's face when I explain why I need 3 pairs of the same ski!

    Blasphemous! At this rate you'll be wearing spandex and I'll be lugging around BGs with Shifts!

    Edit: as with the LD90, the only change I'd make to the CD104 so far is to lower the shovel a couple cms. 3 or 4cm tip rocker height is plenty for this ski imo.
    Three pairs of the same skis. I love it!

    I've often wondered about dropping the front rocker height on the CD 104s. My only minor nit with them is that I don't feel quite enough bite in the tip when it's scratchy. Tip control on hard snow is much, much better than the CD 102s however, and perhaps the design hits the sweet spot in this regard. I wouldn't want to give up the solid performance in manky stuff to get a bit better grab on hard stuff.

    I'm pretty sure I wrote about this earlier in this thread - their great performance in manky snow as well as on refrozen chicken heads. They're not like a beast layup (ON3P). Instead of blasting through, they deflect a bit and then return ... almost as if there's a gyroscope in them. All in all, a brilliant design, and I'm hoping my 104Ls don't give too much up in this regard. I couldn't justify two such closely related skis (104 & 104L), although I admire your tendencies ;-)

    ... Thom
    Galibier Design
    crafting technology in service of music

  3. #428
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    181
    The 104 / 104L look great. I think that the 104L is basically what I'd design for my perfect touring ski.
    But, I need a length / flex designed for lighter skiers. a 175pls?
    I skied the 179 102 (not 102L) for a few years - there was a lot that I liked about that ski - it skied powder obsurdly well for it's modest width and the straight sidecut was nice and predictable, but the stiffness length and sidecut were a lot of work for me to flex (particularly at 'touring speeds') so I sold them. I bought the 177 Raven as a replacement this year - hoping that it will be a bit more easygoing but haven't had the chance to ski them due to the CV and not so sure about the super forward mount / long tail for touring.

    Anyway Down - let's have some shorter lengths pls

    P.S. Down measures (or at least did) after pressing, so the 179 102's were about the same length as my 182 GPOs.

  4. #429
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    SLC
    Posts
    1,635
    Quote Originally Posted by sruffian View Post
    Bmt 122
    Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums
    I want Down to make that ski, couldn't care less if it already exists.

  5. #430
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Location
    SLC
    Posts
    5,220

    Get Down with Down (skis)

    Quote Originally Posted by gritter View Post
    The 104 / 104L look great. I think that the 104L is basically what I'd design for my perfect touring ski.
    But, I need a length / flex designed for lighter skiers. a 175pls?
    I skied the 179 102 (not 102L) for a few years - there was a lot that I liked about that ski - it skied powder obsurdly well for it's modest width and the straight sidecut was nice and predictable, but the stiffness length and sidecut were a lot of work for me to flex (particularly at 'touring speeds') so I sold them. I bought the 177 Raven as a replacement this year - hoping that it will be a bit more easygoing but haven't had the chance to ski them due to the CV and not so sure about the super forward mount / long tail for touring.

    Anyway Down - let's have some shorter lengths pls

    P.S. Down measures (or at least did) after pressing, so the 179 102's were about the same length as my 182 GPOs.
    I can do a straight pull on my 181 104s if you are curious, but imo with the tail shape it's fairly nimble for the size. also the 25m radius imo is a LOT more manageable than the 41m on the 102s.

  6. #431
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Location
    Colorado Front Range
    Posts
    3,740
    So my spreadsheet says that the straight pull on my 181 CD 104Ls is 179.5. Curiously, I show 180 for the CD 104s that @mall walker is riding.

    The CD104s will feel a bit shorter than the LD 102s, but more important is how differently you stand on them which I can see might lend an impression of them skiing longer. I found the LD 102s to be a bit quirky for my taste, although I didn't really give them a fair shot.

    Faced with quiver overload (having a pair of 104s, and a pair of 104Ls on the way), I wanted to thin the herd before people stopped thinking about buying skis for the year (little did I know how soon this would be).

    Selling the LD 102s so quickly may have been an overly impulsive move, but usually I can tell in one inbounds day of testing if a ski is going to work for me - assuming I can get them out in their intended conditions.

    So, in the one day of inbounds testing on them, I figured out how to stand on them, but I wasn't all too thrilled about how differently I'd have to do so. If they were my only skis, I'd get used to them and call it done. With a touring ski however, I didn't want something that I'd take a third to half a lap to remember how to ski 'em, however.

    So yeah, the LD 102s ski a bit longer, but it's more about how wacky they felt than their perceived length. In fairness, I couldn't find any soft snow that day, and as I said, I may well have been too impulsive.

    ... Thom
    Galibier Design
    crafting technology in service of music

  7. #432
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    SLC
    Posts
    1,635
    Quote Originally Posted by galibier_numero_un View Post
    So my spreadsheet says that the straight pull on my 181 CD 104Ls is 179.5. Curiously, I show 180 for the CD 104s that @mall walker is riding.

    The CD104s will feel a bit shorter than the LD 102s, but more important is how differently you stand on them which I can see might lend an impression of them skiing longer. I found the LD 102s to be a bit quirky for my taste, although I didn't really give them a fair shot.

    Faced with quiver overload (having a pair of 104s, and a pair of 104Ls on the way), I wanted to thin the herd before people stopped thinking about buying skis for the year (little did I know how soon this would be).

    Selling the LD 102s so quickly may have been an overly impulsive move, but usually I can tell in one inbounds day of testing if a ski is going to work for me - assuming I can get them out in their intended conditions.

    So, in the one day of inbounds testing on them, I figured out how to stand on them, but I wasn't all too thrilled about how differently I'd have to do so. If they were my only skis, I'd get used to them and call it done. With a touring ski however, I didn't want something that I'd take a third to half a lap to remember how to ski 'em, however.

    So yeah, the LD 102s ski a bit longer, but it's more about how wacky they felt than their perceived length. In fairness, I couldn't find any soft snow that day, and as I said, I may well have been too impulsive.

    ... Thom
    The CD104L in 187cm is about as maneuverable as the LD102 in 179cm and a lot more compliant. I wouldn't say it skis short either. It's not so much that the LD102 skied long that made me sell them, it's the fact that I always left like I was in an argument with my skis over the direction we should take: I wanted to turn and they were having none of it, they were going straight.

  8. #433
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Location
    Colorado Front Range
    Posts
    3,740
    Quote Originally Posted by Boissal View Post
    The CD104L in 187cm is about as maneuverable as the LD102 in 179cm and a lot more compliant. I wouldn't say it skis short either. It's not so much that the LD102 skied long that made me sell them, it's the fact that I always left like I was in an argument with my skis over the direction we should take: I wanted to turn and they were having none of it, they were going straight.
    I found the LD 102s required a fore/aft weight shift in mid-turn on hard snow (low angle, medium radius turns), and this took a conscious adjustment that I found non-intuitive. I'd start a turn mid-center and then have to drive my shins mid-turn.

    On steeper terrain/shorter radius turns, they felt like a traditional ski (more consistent - skied forward). I would have loved to see how the 102s behaved in 3D snow, but I lost interest based on their hard snow behavior (that, and liking how well my CD104s were in 3D snow).

    I could have gotten used to them, but there are so many other skis (including other skis from Down) that are more intuitive to me, so why bother?

    It was a fun experiment, but they weren't for me. The only other skis I've been on that wanted me to ski two fairly different ways were my Praxis Qs, and a demo of Billy Goats - both of them being asym. The wonky behavior (for me) was on 2D snow.

    ... Thom
    Last edited by galibier_numero_un; 05-08-2020 at 11:50 PM.
    Galibier Design
    crafting technology in service of music

  9. #434
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Location
    Colorado Front Range
    Posts
    3,740
    So I was cleaning up my photo folder and came across shots of the pair of CD 102s that I picked up from @auvgeek a while ago, and subsequently moved on from.

    It's tough to keep track of all of the Countdown generations (and slight width changes), and I forgot that this one from about 2014 was a 102 width. This is the generation with the blue, textured topsheet.

    I mention it because of the references made by @gritter to "102s" and any possible ambiguity with the LD 102. When this generation CD 102 was out, I believe its "L" version was called the YW 102, but perhaps the YW 102 was a longer radius ski and the precursor to the LD 102.

    Anyhoo, I mention all of this because the rocker profile has been successively dialed over the years, and in comparison with the current the burgundy topsheet 104s that @mall walker has, the tip on those blue CD 102s was considerably more squirrely on hard snow.

    I suspect that by this point, they've dialed it to where they think it's most versatile. OTOH, I can see where the 'L' would retain this rocker and the "heavy" might reduce it further ... or not.

    ... Thom
    Galibier Design
    crafting technology in service of music

  10. #435
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Location
    SLC
    Posts
    5,220

    Get Down with Down (skis)

    ^ fwiw there was a CD102L, with a similar topsheet but the blue/gray were inverted. I had and loved a pair of those, though the rocker was pretty strange. I still kinda wish I kept them, but they’re in the capable hands of another SLC mag, living a good life.

    the CD102L was 179, 120/102/107, 41m radius. light, I have pics floating around somewhere.

    edit: these bad boys, with the absolutely perfect tip rocker height

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	IMG_6098_Original.jpg 
Views:	40 
Size:	881.0 KB 
ID:	327958

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	IMG_6099_Original.jpg 
Views:	40 
Size:	796.9 KB 
ID:	327959

    if any of this vintage is still floating around, I would love to get some back in the fold... ideally the CD102 (non-L) but either way. I think I got these from ISBD!

    double edit: and now they're helping a mag finish his last line in the chuting gallery
    Last edited by mall walker; 05-10-2020 at 02:47 PM.

  11. #436
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    No longer somewhere in Idaho
    Posts
    1,064
    I have to chime in here and say that Iím really digging the ld90ís you hooked me up with, mall walker. Click image for larger version. 

Name:	IMG_3893.JPG 
Views:	43 
Size:	634.5 KB 
ID:	327962Click image for larger version. 

Name:	IMG_2732.JPG 
Views:	45 
Size:	904.3 KB 
ID:	327963


    Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums
    Gravity always wins...

  12. #437
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Location
    SLC
    Posts
    5,220
    hell yeah!! Iím glad THOSE are living their days out well. the circle of life...

  13. #438
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    181
    Quote Originally Posted by galibier_numero_un View Post
    So my spreadsheet says that the straight pull on my 181 CD 104Ls is 179.5. Curiously, I show 180 for the CD 104s that @mall walker is riding.

    The CD104s will feel a bit shorter than the LD 102s, but more important is how differently you stand on them which I can see might lend an impression of them skiing longer. I found the LD 102s to be a bit quirky for my taste, although I didn't really give them a fair shot.

    ...
    ... Thom
    Thanks Thom - I think that for an inbounds ski in open terrain that length would probably be fine (I get on OK with my 182 GPOs), but for touring with my skeletal build and the speeds/terrain that I'm happy skiing why push it with a longer length than I need? It's just extra weight for the uphill and harder kick turns.

  14. #439
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    The Fish
    Posts
    3,232
    Quote Originally Posted by frosted flakes View Post
    Iím in the group hoping for a CD114L in the 180-182 range...
    I'd put money on a pair 182' CD114L's right now. The 110-116mm touring ski options are slim.
    a positive attitude will not solve all of your problems, but it may annoy enough people to make it worth the effort

    Formerly Rludes025

  15. #440
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Location
    Colorado Front Range
    Posts
    3,740
    I never got the whole 5cm shorter thing for kick turns. I get going shorter because they work better for you on the down, but dropping 5 cm in length for kick turns is only 2.5cm on each end. Look at that on a ruler.

    Now, a heavy ski for kick turns could surely wear you out if you do a lot of 'em, but that's not a length thing.

    Part of me is hoping that a 182 CD 114L doesn't get released ... 'coz I'll have to buy them ;-)

    ... Thom
    Galibier Design
    crafting technology in service of music

  16. #441
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    272
    I had a little problem with the 114L to begin with until i broke the edges in. Since then i love them. Took them as a one ski quiver to japan this year. Still loved them even in a low snow year. Held up really well on the soft snow pistes as well. Only slight issue was the length in 189, low snow = lots of shrubs = tight trees could be a bit challenging. Had them out on a couple of pow days here in austria before the lockdown and they`ve become my go to pow skis now. The CD1s are just too heavy compared to the 114Ls and these perform just as well despite being 2 cm narrower.

  17. #442
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Location
    SLC
    Posts
    5,220
    Quote Originally Posted by galibier_numero_un View Post
    but dropping 5 cm in length for kick turns is only 2.5cm on each end.
    only on a center mounted ski...

  18. #443
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Location
    Colorado Front Range
    Posts
    3,740
    Quote Originally Posted by mall walker View Post
    only on a center mounted ski...
    So, more like 2.1cm for the tail "half", but who's counting ;-)
    Galibier Design
    crafting technology in service of music

  19. #444
    Join Date
    Sep 2019
    Location
    CA
    Posts
    145
    Any idea if Down is actually shipping to the US? Itís an option on their website, which is new...


    Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

  20. #445
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Location
    SLC
    Posts
    5,220
    ^ I emailed them, they are. I was quoted 50euro shipping, which isnít nothing but when added to the price of the skis, still a killer deal.

  21. #446
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Location
    Colorado Front Range
    Posts
    3,740
    That's a smokin' deal on shipping!
    Galibier Design
    crafting technology in service of music

Posting Permissions

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