Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 1 2 3
Results 51 to 73 of 73
  1. #51
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Hokkaido
    Posts
    1,295
    I skied them last year during the Backcountry Magazine gear test as one of the techs. They were my favorite ski of the test but I thought the 182 skied short. I am 6', 180 pounds. Skied them with AT bindings but all my gear is tele. I thought the edging was impressive on corn and firm snow and when we got about 15" of pow the next day I took them out again and thought they just ripped. The terrain was not very steep and pretty open so I didn't get a feel for billygoating at low speeds but I'm living in Hokkaido now and more of a fall line skier in pow so at the end of the season I pulled the trigger and got a pair of 189s at a small discount. Mounted them with Lynx and inserts on the line. Got some G3 Alpinist skins from S&C and tapered the rockered section of the skins as I always do because I don't like drag. I won't ski them until next season but I liked them so much alpine that I'm confident I will like them tele as well.

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	IMG_2234.jpg 
Views:	117 
Size:	1.13 MB 
ID:	285679

    I boiled my thermometer, and sure enough, this spot, which purported to be two thousand feet higher than the locality of the hotel, turned out to be nine thousand feet LOWER. Thus the fact was clearly demonstrated that, ABOVE A CERTAIN POINT, THE HIGHER A POINT SEEMS TO BE, THE LOWER IT ACTUALLY IS. Our ascent itself was a great achievement, but this contribution to science was an inconceivably greater matter.

    --MT--

  2. #52
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    North Vancouver/Whistler
    Posts
    11,959
    Quote Originally Posted by meter-man View Post
    On mount point - I mounted at recommended, and did not like how far out and vague the tip felt. Remounted at +1.5 cm - perfecto! They seem way more balanced there, but have not had them out yet in soft wintry snow.

    On hardpack and spring conditions, these things shred.
    I went + 1 on the 189 length and thought it improved aggression.and turn initiation without hurting pow performance. Not a ton of difference but just a subtle change

  3. #53
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    PRB
    Posts
    23,204
    Quote Originally Posted by telepariah View Post
    I skied them last year during the Backcountry Magazine gear test as one of the techs. They were my favorite ski of the test but I thought the 182 skied short. I am 6', 180 pounds. Skied them with AT bindings but all my gear is tele. I thought the edging was impressive on corn and firm snow and when we got about 15" of pow the next day I took them out again and thought they just ripped. The terrain was not very steep and pretty open so I didn't get a feel for billygoating at low speeds but I'm living in Hokkaido now and more of a fall line skier in pow so at the end of the season I pulled the trigger and got a pair of 189s at a small discount. Mounted them with Lynx and inserts on the line. Got some G3 Alpinist skins from S&C and tapered the rockered section of the skins as I always do because I don't like drag. I won't ski them until next season but I liked them so much alpine that I'm confident I will like them tele as well.

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	IMG_2234.jpg 
Views:	117 
Size:	1.13 MB 
ID:	285679
    Whoa, haven't seen you posting here in forever.
    "fuck off you asshat gaper shit for brains fucktard wanker." - Jesus Christ
    "She was tossing her bean salad with the vigor of a Drunken Pop princess so I walked out of the corner and said.... "need a hand?"" - Odin
    "I'd eat a bag of Dicks and wash it down with a Coke any day." - iceman

  4. #54
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Hokkaido
    Posts
    1,295
    Been a while. I forgot my password and was too lazy to reset it for the longest time. Then I stumbled across a thread here searching for something related to skin repair and decided I need to be back. Somebody turned on the lights and I like it.

    I boiled my thermometer, and sure enough, this spot, which purported to be two thousand feet higher than the locality of the hotel, turned out to be nine thousand feet LOWER. Thus the fact was clearly demonstrated that, ABOVE A CERTAIN POINT, THE HIGHER A POINT SEEMS TO BE, THE LOWER IT ACTUALLY IS. Our ascent itself was a great achievement, but this contribution to science was an inconceivably greater matter.

    --MT--

  5. #55
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    PRB
    Posts
    23,204
    Well, glad to see you back. This place suits you.
    "fuck off you asshat gaper shit for brains fucktard wanker." - Jesus Christ
    "She was tossing her bean salad with the vigor of a Drunken Pop princess so I walked out of the corner and said.... "need a hand?"" - Odin
    "I'd eat a bag of Dicks and wash it down with a Coke any day." - iceman

  6. #56
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    CA
    Posts
    2,108
    LL, shoulda heeded your earlier post (and my gut). Oh well.

    telep, I would love to hear your impressions of the Lynx! There's a thread with a whole lotta nothing if you can provide some actual user info, that'd be sweet. https://www.tetongravity.com/forums/...ch-toe!)/page2

  7. #57
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Hokkaido
    Posts
    1,295
    Thanks MM. Posted what I know over there with a link to Dostie's description of setting the preload on the springs, which was a problem for me when I skied them in the Backcountry Magazine gear test. Now I know how to do it.

    I boiled my thermometer, and sure enough, this spot, which purported to be two thousand feet higher than the locality of the hotel, turned out to be nine thousand feet LOWER. Thus the fact was clearly demonstrated that, ABOVE A CERTAIN POINT, THE HIGHER A POINT SEEMS TO BE, THE LOWER IT ACTUALLY IS. Our ascent itself was a great achievement, but this contribution to science was an inconceivably greater matter.

    --MT--

  8. #58
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Location
    Colorado Front Range
    Posts
    3,782
    1000-oaks has a pair in gear swap, in case anyone is interested
    Galibier Design
    crafting technology in service of music

  9. #59
    Join Date
    May 2019
    Location
    Irvine
    Posts
    3

    175 or 182 legnth ?

    Quote Originally Posted by truax View Post
    Here goes...

    (preface – I am 5’10”, 150lbs sans gear. Skiing F1’s and Solly MTN bindings with these. I’m indiscriminate with my turn shapes and I usually gravitate towards the “lightisrightnotleft” movement. Just trying to make skiing great again )

    Hemmed. Hawwed. Studied. +2 just looked too far forward, which I've experienced in Hojis and a Helio 116 in recent years - not enough tip and too much tail. +1 looked to be centered over sidecut and camber. I found myself a beer into it and pulled the trigger at +1. Seemed prudent given info here and there and in front of me. We've had snow here lately, so I got out to testing the theories.

    ....

    how you feel on the 182cm ? I m 179cm 160lbs, mid- adv ski level. I m thinking get the 175 for more agility but would like to hear your thoughts here. will 182 better for me ? 60% off piste on this setup for non crazy steep/drop touring. appreciate your feedback.

  10. #60
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Posts
    2
    Quote Originally Posted by mf8bbe View Post
    how you feel on the 182cm ? I m 179cm 160lbs, mid- adv ski level. I m thinking get the 175 for more agility but would like to hear your thoughts here. will 182 better for me ? 60% off piste on this setup for non crazy steep/drop touring. appreciate your feedback.
    You should probably be on the 182, the swing weight on the ski will make them feel tiny on your feet.

  11. #61
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Hokkaido
    Posts
    1,295
    I also thought the 182 skied shorter than I would have expected. I have found that when sizing down to get more maneuverability powder performance suffers and I sometimes have felt like I was on the verge of going over the tips. HRZN Tech tip probably helps with that, but for a ski I intend to ski in powder, I don't think I will size down again regardless. My 189s *look* huge, but at 180 pounds I am fat and getting fatter so I'm ok with that.

    I boiled my thermometer, and sure enough, this spot, which purported to be two thousand feet higher than the locality of the hotel, turned out to be nine thousand feet LOWER. Thus the fact was clearly demonstrated that, ABOVE A CERTAIN POINT, THE HIGHER A POINT SEEMS TO BE, THE LOWER IT ACTUALLY IS. Our ascent itself was a great achievement, but this contribution to science was an inconceivably greater matter.

    --MT--

  12. #62
    Join Date
    May 2019
    Location
    Irvine
    Posts
    3
    Quote Originally Posted by boog View Post
    You should probably be on the 182, the swing weight on the ski will make them feel tiny on your feet.
    thx a lot!

  13. #63
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    SW Montana
    Posts
    237
    Quote Originally Posted by mf8bbe View Post
    how you feel on the 182cm ? I m 179cm 160lbs, mid- adv ski level. I m thinking get the 175 for more agility but would like to hear your thoughts here. will 182 better for me ? 60% off piste on this setup for non crazy steep/drop touring. appreciate your feedback.
    Go 182 and don't look back. They're plenty agile and you'd be undergunned on the 175's. My 2C

  14. #64
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    SoCal
    Posts
    5,720
    Cross post from Gearswap.

    Quote Originally Posted by telepariah View Post
    This is a great ski mags. I have a pair of 189s and skied the 182 in the Backcountry Magazine gear test last year. Super versatile, light and quite stable for their weight. Ski like a wider ski in deep snow and hold on better than you would expect on firm snow. re: the weight discrepancy, I have heard different weight reports in the range of 50 g within the 2019 model year from different sources. I'm not sure why that would be, but I also have never weighed different skis of the same model and size before. FWIW, my 189s come in at 1620.

  15. #65
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    CA
    Posts
    2,108
    Blister posted a review, but I'm paywalled out of it.

    My data point: I've weighed two pairs of 189 Backland 107s:

    3148g (no plastic wrap)
    3206g (plastic wrapped) I would wild-ass-guess it's 40g of plastic wrapping.

    I haven't yet skied them in pow, but only spring hardpack, corn, schmoo, refrozen-schmoo-corn, and wintry hardpack. They feel like my old 190 Praxis BCs, but somehow 400g lighter per ski. Can't wait to try em in winter pow.

  16. #66
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Hokkaido
    Posts
    1,295
    After ten days skiing my 189s in a surprising amount of deep powder early season in Hokkaido as it seems like we aren't really getting much I am going to add a set of inserts tomorrow at +1.5. I tele and ski with my home brewed 3 buckle version of TX Pro frankenboot with Rush cuffs and a ghetto ski/walk mode that works amazingly well for how simple a block of plastic and a bungee can be. But with such a soft boot, the tip feels really far away and I don't ski by generating a load of tip pressure with a stiff boot and active binding. They are better the tighter I buckle the boots, but that gets to where it irritates some nerve damage in my left shin area and then I back off a notch and the tips feel way far away again. Also, on kick turns, the tail doesn't drop to my satisfaction. But mainly, it's that I just don't feel centered on the edge and they are slow to initiate when I am billygoating around tight trees in deep snow. There is no problem with them in deep snow with a modicum of speed. They ski like a much bigger ski underme. I like them a lot but I want to like them more so I figure another set of inserts won't harm anything and if it turns out I don't like them at +1.5 I can always move back in five minutes.

    I boiled my thermometer, and sure enough, this spot, which purported to be two thousand feet higher than the locality of the hotel, turned out to be nine thousand feet LOWER. Thus the fact was clearly demonstrated that, ABOVE A CERTAIN POINT, THE HIGHER A POINT SEEMS TO BE, THE LOWER IT ACTUALLY IS. Our ascent itself was a great achievement, but this contribution to science was an inconceivably greater matter.

    --MT--

  17. #67
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    SoCal
    Posts
    5,720
    Only tried the 107 for one run, but agree they feel like a bigger ski (in length and width) than you expect. Amazingly light.

  18. #68
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Alta Wydaho
    Posts
    211
    Handful of tours so far o the '19 Backland 107's in the 182cm, mounted up with the Atomic MTN bindings pretty much on the line. Love the low weight and the combo w/ the MTNs is a pure joy on the way up. Super easy to ski, nice and floaty and as mentioned above they ski a bit longer. No Regrets, perfect Teton area BC setup. Driving them w/ the new Maestrale XTs w/ Intuition Tour Wraps. These are my resort/bc boot this winter

  19. #69
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Hokkaido
    Posts
    1,295
    After a couple hours of voodoo I've decided on +2.

    I boiled my thermometer, and sure enough, this spot, which purported to be two thousand feet higher than the locality of the hotel, turned out to be nine thousand feet LOWER. Thus the fact was clearly demonstrated that, ABOVE A CERTAIN POINT, THE HIGHER A POINT SEEMS TO BE, THE LOWER IT ACTUALLY IS. Our ascent itself was a great achievement, but this contribution to science was an inconceivably greater matter.

    --MT--

  20. #70
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Posts
    841
    The recent Blister review update seems a bit negative on these, particularly with regard to the stiffer tail being somewhat demanding.

    Wondering if those of you with more time on them agree/disagree?

    As a lighter skier I was thinking they were a easier going alternative to a 0g105. Am i wrong?

  21. #71
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Boulder
    Posts
    327
    Quote Originally Posted by dcpnz View Post
    The recent Blister review update seems a bit negative on these, particularly with regard to the stiffer tail being somewhat demanding.

    Wondering if those of you with more time on them agree/disagree?

    As a lighter skier I was thinking they were a easier going alternative to a 0g105. Am i wrong?
    I like light skis and find the backland 107 to be the most fun ski I've had in years. Incredibly easy, perfect dimensions. I am 155lb, 6' on the 182 cm. I never skied the 0g105, but comparing the 85/95 backland to the 85/95 0g, I'd be amazed if the backland 107 wasnt way more playful than the 0g105.

  22. #72
    Join Date
    Aug 2019
    Posts
    150
    I have the 2019 pair mounted at the suggested mount point and they rip groomers(way too well) and do well in pow. I swear I prefer them on groomers over my enforcer 93s call me crazy. But they are kinda fragile. I blew a hole in the sidewalk and replaced em with the 2018 backland 109s which are a totally different ski. Mounted closer to center and just have a way burlier feel. Yet they have a ton more tip chatter and feel way worse on groomers. I don’t really know what I’m getting at but the new backlands the shit the old ones are just ok


    Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

  23. #73
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    The Vil
    Posts
    699
    Just got some 193 117s. Not sure if they are worth mounting as love my hojis. Any input?

    Sent from my SM-G973U using TGR Forums mobile app

Posting Permissions

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