Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 1 2 3
Results 51 to 63 of 63
  1. #51
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Hokkaido
    Posts
    1,222
    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:	57 
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
    11,244
    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
    20,849
    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:	57 
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

  4. #54
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Hokkaido
    Posts
    1,222
    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
    20,849
    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

  6. #56
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    CA
    Posts
    1,710
    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
    sproing!

    FS: 184 4FRNT Raven (2017) with momix skins https://www.tetongravity.com/forums/...17-2018-model)

    FS: 187 Praxis GPO with STH14 binders https://www.tetongravity.com/forums/...TH-14-bindings

    FS: crampons, lightweight winter down sleeping bag, and stuff https://www.tetongravity.com/forums/...ost?highlight=

  7. #57
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Hokkaido
    Posts
    1,222
    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
    2,846
    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
    1,222
    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
    231
    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

Posting Permissions

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