Get Down with Down (skis)

[GBB]

I'm in for a pair of 104s when the group buy comes along. Will be my do it all travel + touring ski.

[galibier_numero_un]

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.

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

[gritter]

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.

[Boissal]

Bmt 122
Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

I want Down to make that ski, couldn't care less if it already exists.

[mall walker]

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.

[galibier_numero_un]

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

[Boissal]

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.

[galibier_numero_un]

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

[galibier_numero_un]

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

[mall walker]

^ 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





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

[riff]

I have to chime in here and say that I’m really digging the ld90’s you hooked me up with, mall walker.


Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

[mall walker]

hell yeah!! I’m glad THOSE are living their days out well. the circle of life...

[gritter]

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.

[Eluder]

I’m 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.

[galibier_numero_un]

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

[McDee]

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.

[mall walker]

but dropping 5 cm in length for kick turns is only 2.5cm on each end.

only on a center mounted ski...

[galibier_numero_un]

only on a center mounted ski...

So, more like 2.1cm for the tail "half", but who's counting ;-)

[YaBoyBlue]

Any idea if Down is actually shipping to the US? It’s an option on their website, which is new...


Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

[mall walker]

^ I emailed them, they are. I was quoted 50euro shipping, which isn’t nothing but when added to the price of the skis, still a killer deal.

[galibier_numero_un]

That's a smokin' deal on shipping!

[kevino]

Anyone got time on the 102 carbon? Late winter to spring touring and ski mountaineering ski? I tend to like width for our snow conditions in NW Montana hence my looking at that one or the 104L over the 90

[galibier_numero_un]

@mall walker has been on pretty much everything. My experience runs to a limited trial of the LD102s and a couple generations of the CD104s (not Ls, but read on).

I I wrote about the LD102 earlier in this thread [edit]in post #433, above[/edit], but here's a quick background/recap ...

I was looking for a Spring ski in this general width - a category which for me has been elusive, given the varied the conditions one encounters in the Spring. I doubt this Goldilocks Spring ski exists, but the CD104 profile is much closer to what I'm after than the LD102. The 104 is close enough for me that I took a chance at the 104L.

I had a short term, inbounds trial of the LD102. When possible, I like to suss out a ski inbounds, to quickly get some mileage on them. I also tend to choose a ski for what it does worst and not what it does best. On the first day, I found what was for me a show-stopper and because of this, I didn't pursue this further to see what the ski did well.

The reason I've become so quick to judge was because of my experiences with some Praxis Quixotes. While I learned a lot about my preferences with this ski, I spent way too much time in getting to the point where I decided they weren't for me. These days, I don't ski enough to spend 7-10 days getting used to a ski and so out they went.

The LD 102 along with the Praxis Quixote have been the two weirdest skis I've ever been on and both because of what I'd call a quirky fore/aft balance point. Two days of whiteout (dust over crust conditions) and I was done with the Qs. BTW, the Qs were great in soft snow, but their quirky balance point on anything hard was enough for me to move on. Parenthetically, it was the CD 114s that kicked the Qs out of my quiver. The CD114s were great on those two whiteout days and to date, I haven't found conditions where I miss the Qs (although the Qs may initiate a bit quicker in tight trees ... just a bit).

So, my experience with the LD102s in re-frozen Spring snow was the key reason for moving on from them.

I couldn't fully embrace the 40m turn radius of the LD102 but not for reasons you'd expect. I could easily make quick turns with them. The problem for me was the stance on long radius turns.

With the LD102s, I found that medium/long radius turn initiation on hard snow required a centered balance point. Mid turn, I had to quickly transition to driving them hard with my shins. It was a transition that didn't appeal to me, and it was the fact that I never was able to adjust to the weird (for me) weight transitions the Q required of me that informed my perhaps hasty decision with the LD102s.

I can get used to one stance or another on a ski, but this mid-turn transition really bugged me and at that point, I was more or less done with the skis. On steeper, tight terrain (also hard snow) they were fine. I think they'd do really well in a narrow couloir as long as there weren't runnels to deal with (admittedly challenging for any ski).

In comparison, the CD 104s are very nicely balanced. They like to be turned from a mid-forward stance but are quite forgiving and have a wide sweet spot. They're a mellower version of the CD114. If I were to improve anything on the CD104s, it would be to have a bit better grip in the tip on harder snow, but I suspect that too much would be sacrificed in their 3D snow performance to do so. I'm good with the compromise as they handle Spring slush, refrozen chicken heads and other challenging snow remarkably well.

Enter the CD 104L. A pair came my way about a week after the COVID-19 shutdown. I stare at them longingly and won't be able to get on them until next year, but I have enough confidence in them to have sold my CD104s (to @mall walker). Time will tell if this was impulsive. Interestingly, the 104Ls feel remarkably damp in the shop. When I pull back on the tip and let go (tail anchored to the floor), the tip flutter settles down remarkably quickly - much faster (for example) than my 2014 Billy Goats.

Will this shop test matter on snow? Beats the hell out of me, but I'm pretty confident in my decision to swap out the CD104s for the 104Ls. Time will tell how much of a fool I was (and still might be ).

One last thing ... I inspect/tune every ski I take out to 1/1, and have a pretty good handle on de-tuning the tip and tail.

... Thom

[mall walker]

I’ve been on the CD102L, the predecessor to the LD102. Boissal’s been on the more recent LD102. For my money I loved the 102, it definitely had a weird balance point and took some getting used to, but I found it incredibly versatile. I also loved the LD90, fwiw. I put a lot of mileage on my LD90s, which one to go with depends IMO on how much boot you’re gonna bring. With something like a TLT7 / Travers, the 90 is rad. With more boot, more ski.

I’ve now got Thom’s 104 heavies, which are a lot of fun. They LOOK a lot wider than either of the other two, but they ski great. They are much less weird to adjust to than my old 102s, super intuitive. Boissal loves the 104Ls I know, and he skis hard.

I have struggled between buying a 104L and a LD102 for next season, vs maybe just putting ultralight bindings on my 104 heavies. I dunno. The 104 shape is much friendlier for sure. None of them you can go wrong with imo, but the 102 definitely has to be skied differently than most skis, I felt. I happened to like that specific way it skied, and it felt a lot narrower in steep terrain than the 104, which is nice in certain terrain.

Now having yet another ski at that 100mm spot (Black Crows Solis) it’s hard to justify adding something else, but a ~1500g Down ski would round out my quiver nicely.

Sorry for the ramblings, in the car waiting for my takeout to be ready. If you want to be safe and get a ripping ski you’ll definitely like, get the 104L, imo.

[Boissal]

Buddy of mine just scooped the last pair of 2019 CD104L in 187cm right from under my nose while I was waffling and emailing Geo about things. Serves me right...

Re: LD102 vs CD104L, as MW say I'd pick the CD104L 95% of the time. It would take very specific conditions to get me back on the LD102 after having skied the CD104L, it's much more versatile and works well in all conditions. Perfect daily driver compared to the LD102 which takes some time to figure out and will slap you in the dick hard if you don't handle it right.

Perfect Down quiver for me would be LD90 for the steeps in hard snow (I don't ski those), CD104L most of the time (including huge days, no-fall zone gnar, and average pow day), and CD114L when things are really deep or really funky.

Wait, that's exactly the Down quiver I have! This year I skied 1 day on the LD90, 35-ish days on the CD104L, and 15-ish days on the CD114L.
When I had the LD102 and the CD114L as my 2 ski quiver I skied the big guys about 55 days and the small one 5 days, all in the spring. It was a really fat year though but the fact that I gravitated to a 190cm 115 underfoot ski for pretty much the entire season (again, including huge days, steep days, tight couloir days) is, to me, indicative of the fact that the LD102 is a specialty ski that gets squeezed out of the lineup in the Wasatch.