Page 20 of 20 FirstFirst ... 15 16 17 18 19 20
Results 476 to 495 of 495
  1. #476
    Join Date
    Mar 2017
    Location
    SLC, Utah
    Posts
    2,124
    Quote Originally Posted by North View Post
    Finally mounting my CD104Ls. Instructions couldn't be clearer on where to mount. What I don't understand is why they've included a crisp transverse line on the topsheet that doesn't seem to correspond to any useful measurement. Doesn't match stated mount point, doesn't match true center. Do I need remedial tape measure training, or can I continue to ignore this line completely?

    Ha, I had the same problem and confusion. Ended up mounting where the arrow points towards more or less (effectively at a -11cm I believe?) Lame topsheet instructions.

    Sent from my Pixel 4a (5G) using Tapatalk

  2. #477
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    SLC burbs
    Posts
    2,860
    Ignore the line and the arrow. I think the drawing is an attempt to clarify the text and shows you that you drill forward (direction of the arrow) of the true center (horizontal line). It's a visual aid that doesn't correspond to anything which makes it a bit weird.
    Regardless, I prefer to have instructions printed on the top sheet and measuring myself rather than relying on a centerline that may or may not be accurate (as was the case with some of their previous skis). The instructions could use some improvement (namely removal of the arrow and line, the text is all that's needed).

    That being said, both of you definitely fucked up your mount beyond hope. I'll be over soon to collect the skis for disposal, they're unusable.
    "Your wife being mad is temporary, but pow turns do not get unmade" - mallwalker the wise

  3. #478
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Location
    Colorado Front Range
    Posts
    4,349
    Scroll up to post #149 in this thread for mount points, or click this link:

    https://www.tetongravity.com/forums/...88#post5490388

    ... Thom
    Last edited by galibier_numero_un; 04-01-2021 at 07:34 PM.
    Galibier Design
    crafting technology in service of music

  4. #479
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    398
    Figure best to tag this onto this thread...
    Background... So for late spring/early summer climb-ski missions, I've been using blizzard zero g 85s, and they have been surprisingly good - obviously very light, jump turn great, ski hard snow and corn great... but inevitably you can't time consistent snow on a 3k+ descent and you have some funky heavy snow that they struggle in. So this has me thinking on adding to (or replacing the zero g) with a down ski that's pretty short and light but be more conditions versatile. (One more piece of context - my winter BC ski is a 190 4frnt raven which I like alot, although very different.)
    So this got me looking at the Down options, since these appear to be addressed at my kinda unique niche...
    - First, I'm intrigued by a short (177) Lowdown 102 since I really dig long radius skis (4frnt's) and think this could be a light couloir ski that I can determine the turn radius on, and not get hooked up. But... reading the reviews, it sounds like the tail is super flat and firm and maybe this thing is a wolf in sheeps clothes (in the tail in particular)
    - So then the Lowdown 90 gets much better reviews here, but would it be a more conditions versatile Zero G (ie, light and quick but much less hooky and more rocker to allow to throw around more)? How different is it really from the 102 version?
    - And last, there's the Countdown 104L which people really really love. It's getting heavier and seems more daily driver-like, but could I get it short (181) and use it as a couloir ski? Is it stiff enough?
    - And then last-last, the Down rec mount points seem pretty traditional (10-11) and I generally prefer forward. I'll search around more here, but have people been ok going say 2-3 forward on these?
    In a nutshell, I guess I'm considering adding/replacing with a new ski that = pretty light for skinning and on pack, therefore will be on short end vs my normal skis, strong enough and with some camber and sidecut for steep and hard conditions, but with some more width and rocker to be more versatile in heavier/deeper/crustier snow (less locked in or hooky). I feel these Downs are kind of unique in these attributes. But still not sure which of the 3 best fits the bill.
    Thx for any insights!

  5. #480
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Location
    SLC
    Posts
    5,815

    Get Down with Down (skis)

    the 102 comes in a 179 iirc and it’s definitely something you have to handle, not easy going. an acquired taste, but it would be great for what you’re talking about. the 90 is awesome too, much more manageable, and is probably more of a reasonable step from your 0Gs in the direction you’re looking. the 104 is goldilocks, but more soft snow biased.

    if I were buying again today for this spot I’d take the 102 but it’s not a shape or radius that vibes with everyone. the 90 is the conservative choice (and it skis great for a ski that size), the 104 is heavier and wider and accordingly it skis better.

    they’re all plenty stiff and plenty capable in nasty snow IME. you can’t go wrong with any of these shapes or layups really, and a 181 104L would be a decision you could have zero doubts about.

    I definitely preferred being a little forward of the line on all of mine

  6. #481
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Maine Coast
    Posts
    3,261
    Sure pulling for them to make a comeback

  7. #482
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    398
    ^^^ Excelente, thx MW. On the 102, I get that the tail is stiff/unforgiving, but will it come around and out of the snow fairly easily - ie, can you throw it sideways, or is it super flat and locked in? I'm definitely intrigued by it, just being so outta the box. And my fave skis are still the 40m ehps & rens! Thx

  8. #483
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Location
    SLC
    Posts
    5,815
    ^ you can throw it around easy enough IMO, it just requires input from you or else it will go straight in whatever direction you aimed it. I loved them, great for steep skiing and junky snow and I never felt it was too locked in, but it definitely has no inclination to turn of its own. possibly the newer ones are a bit less loose in the tail too, as I was on an older model with more rocker area.

  9. #484
    Join Date
    Mar 2017
    Location
    SLC, Utah
    Posts
    2,124
    I love my 104L's. I don't think that they are quite as forgiving as LD90's but they are overall a much more capable ski. At 181cm I don't think that they ski short at all though; not sure if I would want them as a couloir ski; there's a fair bit of ski in front of the binding and they aren't quite as nimble as the LD90s. What you lose in agility though, you make up for with more stability, better float, and more dampness.
    Last edited by tgapp; 06-15-2021 at 08:33 AM.

  10. #485
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Not Brooklyn
    Posts
    7,361
    The 102's are impressive powder skis for the width and weight. On hard snow they feel unbalanced to me. The front of the ski doesn't interact with the snow until you are at pretty high edge angles. They're never sketchy, but they really need to be skied a certain way. It requires an adjustment in style which I didn't ant to deal with.

    I think the ski you want is the Zero G 105. They have the width to deal with slop, but a shape that works well on firm. I think you live near me (Boulder County). You're welcome to try my 180's out if your BSL is close. I have SSL 2.0's on adjustment plates. I believe I mounted for a 300 BSL so I could use both my F1's and Hawx Ultras.

  11. #486
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    No longer somewhere in Idaho
    Posts
    1,245
    I sure dig my Lowdown 90’s, bought from mallwalker. Sadly, I broke an edge this spring so the clock may be ticking....
    Excellent long range all around weapon, I love the long radius!


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

  12. #487
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    398
    ^^^ Thx again all... I think one of the LDs is pretty well suited.
    And black diamonds, yes Boulder and thx much on the ZG105 offer. I agree that that is another great option. My brother has the Zg95 and loves it. We just skied together out in the SJ's (sneffels) and his is more versatile for sure. The 105 more so I guess. The ZG85s served me well enough this season as we knocked out a bunch of objectives on the list. Several times though they really bit in on soft heavy steep sections (when we mis-timed things) and they almost pitched me.
    If I obsess over this ski purchase for a year or so, then it will keep me from buying some other skis for 2 years!

  13. #488
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Location
    Colorado Front Range
    Posts
    4,349
    I had similar reactions to the LD102s that @ISBD had, to the extent that I gave them a chance. I bought them for Spring, and one key criterion was hard snow performance - for those times when you didn't time it right and things have yet to soften.

    I took them out for a test day on the lifts, and their hard snow performance was really wonky, so I cut my losses without even checking out their soft snow performance. I can make adjustments to my technique, but when a ski enforces dramatic changes, I don't see the point.

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

  14. #489
    Join Date
    Oct 2016
    Location
    tahoe de chingao
    Posts
    760
    Spent probably 20-30 days on the ld90 this year. Bought used on here in a 177, mounted with ssl 2.0's and skied with aliens and then tlt7's. Haven't owned such a small ski in a decade and this is my first season messing with light boots and ul bindings.

    For it's size and weight, the ld90 is an impressively versatile ski. The long radius meant that I could arc giant, pretty fast turns in consistent spring conditions. They are easy enough to break free and light enough that I actually really enjoy them in firm and steep conditions. Someone better than me at skiing might want a bit more camber there. Found a couple nice stashes when I was expecting shit conditions, and they're surprisingly loose in pow for their shape and size, too. What I am most surprised by is my willingness to point it on runouts, etc on these things. I'm used to skiing big ass skis, but the ld90s respond surprisingly when I let em run. Great spring ski, and for the price I can't argue. I might go a hair heavier in the future (like an older moment underworld, something like that), but when I'm six or eight hours deep on a spring day, I am grateful for the ld's

  15. #490
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    398
    ^^^ Thx both. I think the LD90 is the safe bet (vs the 102) - about as light as my existing ZG85s but more versatile in more conditions. The 102s are just so damn intriguing with the super long radius but sounds like they can be tricky... and most of these missions are tricky enough to begin with (ie, hours of access --> then the first 3-4 downhill turns are the hardest!)

  16. #491
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Location
    SLC
    Posts
    5,815
    the 102 is definitely a ski you want to take the time to adjust to before taking your first turn at 45+ degrees in a firm couloir or something

  17. #492
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Location
    Colorado Front Range
    Posts
    4,349
    Quote Originally Posted by mall walker View Post
    the 102 is definitely a ski you want to take the time to adjust to before taking your first turn at 45+ degrees in a firm couloir or something
    Ya ... I didn't spend all that much time with them. Interesting behavior on refrozen barnacles, and surprisingly, they were their wonkiest in long radius turns (go figure - with a 40m radius). Going from memory, I recall having to shift my weight, mid-turn and in the oddest way. I can't recall the specifics.

    Equally surprising (in spite of their long radius), I felt most on top of them on steep, tight stuff. They were plenty quick underfoot, but I remember the tip wanting to dig in unexpectedly in the uneven re-frozen crap that I was on. I can see where runnels in a couloir would be touchy ;-)

    ... Thom
    Last edited by galibier_numero_un; 06-20-2021 at 05:00 PM.
    Galibier Design
    crafting technology in service of music

  18. #493
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Nottingham, UK
    Posts
    1,172
    Are Down Skis even manufacturing again this summer?

  19. #494
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Middle of Norway.
    Posts
    2,080
    Hopes: yes.

    I need an LD102 186.and an sd115.

  20. #495
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Juneau
    Posts
    941
    Quote Originally Posted by Spyderjon View Post
    Are Down Skis even manufacturing again this summer?
    I hope so too.

Posting Permissions

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