Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 26

Thread: G3 Seekr 110

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Simi Valley, CA
    Posts
    5,188

    G3 Seekr Skis

    G3 makes nice skis and the numbers look good, anyone ski the 110 yet? Comparison to Backland 107, VTA 108 or 0G 108?
    Last edited by 1000-oaks; 11-07-2018 at 11:01 AM.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Simi Valley, CA
    Posts
    5,188
    Nobody has skied the Seekr? How about the 100 width?

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Winthrop, WA. Methow valley
    Posts
    742
    Curious to hear about the 110's as well. I did take one run on the 100's at last years NW demo but it was totally bulletproo/refrozen, so not ideal test conditions. At least in terms of edge grip on ice they preformed about in the middle of the pack though not nearly as well as the VTA 98 or 108, and backland 95.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Simi Valley, CA
    Posts
    5,188
    ^ Thanks for the info.

    Wonder how much the tune had to do with it, surprised that the VTA 108 would be better on hard snow. That steers me toward the VTA 108 or Backland 107, basically I'm looking for something versatile like the 0G 108 but with better pow performance even if it erodes hard snow performance a little.

    How would you compare the VTA 108 vs others in that class?
    Last edited by 1000-oaks; 10-25-2018 at 01:16 PM.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Winthrop, WA. Methow valley
    Posts
    742
    Well, the sum of my experience is a couple of runs in bulletproof conditions, and no real way to compare how each of the skis was tuned. Stunning how often you will see skis at the demo with totally shitty tunes. And a few companies, like Kastle and Liberty, will have flawless tunes, each can give you a distorted view of how the skis perform in the reality that most of us occupy. On the opposite side of the spectrum I was expecting the Salomon Mtn 95's to be at or near the top of the heap for edge grip; NOT. Worst of the bunch on both the 184's I tried and the 77's my wife skied. Tune? Now, as far as how the VTA 108 compares to the others we tried, in terms of edge grip, they were at least as good as any of them. Stunningly good really, and noticeably better than the seekr 100. Totally confident on snow that you couldn't barely dent with the tip of your pole, same with the 98. How they perform in other conditions, I have no idea, but somebody needs to buy a pair - ski the shit out of them in all conditions - and report back to the masses. They could be a tremendous option for a lot of us.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    9,293
    i tried the 100s on some windbuff mank. performed better than expected but i canít compare it to what you asked, and conditions were not easy that day. it was easy turning which i liked but seemed to go up a notch if you wanted. iíd recommend trying it at least.
    .....I hope you know that this will go down on your permanent record

    http://procatinator.com/?cat=80

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    Eagle River Alaska
    Posts
    10,909
    Haven't skied them (yet), but the seekr has a different rocker profile than the backland 107 and is a bit softer. The tail rocker is going to make it a more surfy ski, with less tail hook. I'm glad g3 put camber back in their skis. Full rocker is not ideal for touring.
    Its not that I suck at spelling, its that I just don't care

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Simi Valley, CA
    Posts
    5,188
    Quote Originally Posted by ak_powder_monkey View Post
    seekr has a different rocker profile than the backland 107 and is a bit softer. The tail rocker is going to make it a more surfy ski, with less tail hook. I'm glad g3 put camber back in their skis.
    Any more you could describe about the differences in rocker profiles? Will probably have to pull the trigger on one of these Black Friday, without seeing either.

    Yeah, liked the dimensions & weight of the fatter Synapse skis, but didn't want the full rocker.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Location
    Lower Mainland
    Posts
    196
    /hijack
    How about the Findr series? Anyone used those? Looking to put together a setup for technical (read: climbing) ascents, North Face of Baker with a Coleman/Deming ski descent on the radar.
    /endhijack

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Seattle
    Posts
    4,575
    These look like they thread the needle of being just fat and rockered enough for legit pow without being inefficient or having annoying amounts of tail rocker. Do G3 skis not break these days? I've only run into one person with Synapse 109's but I think they had gotten them for free. There were at least a few reports of people snapping those. In any case I'm curious to see what people think of these.

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Simi Valley, CA
    Posts
    5,188
    Maybe they had an issue with just the Synapse cap skis? All of the G3's with sidewalls I've had have been very stout.

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    VT
    Posts
    219
    I have the xcd version of the Findr 94 (with fishscale base), which I've only skied tele (I put inserts in them for both Switchbacks and Tectons). I didn't get a lot of time on them last year to really assess their capabilities, but I was pleased with them overall. While their dimensions and rocker profile are the same (I think) to the Seekr, the construction is a bit different (Seekr are lighter and more of a high performance "mountaineering" ski). My initial impression is that the Findr is less turny and requires a little more input than my other primary ski (Voile V6), which is effortless and a super fun ski in all conditions. Findr has less rocker and a flatter tail than the Voile, although the dimensions are similar. I only skied it 4-5" of powder, corn, and windblown chalk, all pretty low-angle tree skiing. Since it's not a ski I would take to the resort, it's a bit tough to get a lot of turns on them in order to really evaluate their performance. I can attest to their fine construction, typical of G3. The topsheet does a really good job of shedding snow, and they appear to be really durable.

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    whistler
    Posts
    972
    findr and seekr are completely different skis.

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    VT
    Posts
    219
    Yeah, thatís kind of why they have different names.

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    whistler
    Posts
    972
    did you not just post about how you thought the findr had the same shape and rocker profile to the seekr? that's how your previous post reads. Or perhaps night shifts are melting my brain?

  16. #16
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    VT
    Posts
    219
    My bad, you are correct, totally different skis.

  17. #17
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    northern BC
    Posts
    17,999
    Quote Originally Posted by nickel View Post
    findr and seekr are completely different skis.
    and don't forget the Roamr and the Sendr, they must have a had a pirate making up the names

    Junior had a pair of Sendr for half of last season
    Lee Lau - xxx-er is the laziest Asian canuck I know

  18. #18
    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Location
    Lower Mainland
    Posts
    196
    Quote Originally Posted by XXX-er View Post
    and don't forget the Roamr and the Sendr, they must have a had a pirate making up the names
    And yet they went with Ion and Zed, instead of the obvious Bindr.
    Seems like Seekr and Findr are similar construction with different profile from what I can tell (Seekr has more tail rocker and aggressive geometry for freeride touring, Findr has a longer effective edge that would be better in steep, technical skiing). That seem like an accurate assessment?

  19. #19
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    northern BC
    Posts
    17,999
    I always look at the turning radius bigger radius usually means more ski to handle so 16-21M for Seekr vs 21-25M for Findr, all the turning radius for the r series are on the G3 site except for the Sendr but I think its more like 28M

    Junior had been on the Wailer 112 his first wide ski after a hiatus from skiing, so I pointed him at the Sendr cuz it was just more ski which I thot he could handle and he could get a pro deal, he didnt seem to have any problem handling the Sendr but he sold em , I forget what he said about the Ski , I think he went Faction 3.0 this year
    Lee Lau - xxx-er is the laziest Asian canuck I know

  20. #20
    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Posts
    65
    I've now put 12 days this winter on a pair of 188 Seekr 110s in a variety of conditions on tours around Stevens, Crystal, Snoqualmie and Rainier. They're mounted with Zeds on the line for Maestrale RS2s. As hoped/expected, it's a really fun lightweight setup for soft snow touring.

    They've got a playful shape with wide tapered shovels, and in-hand they've got surprisingly deep rocker lines, especially up front -- so they're definitely powder-oriented and uninspiring (but not terrible) on hard snow. They flex soft, but they're not a noodle by any means and it's a nice round flex, except where the very end of the tip splay ramps up, you can feel a bit of a disconcerting fold. They've been decent in variable snow, but they're expectedly a little prone to hooking when it's higher density. Otherwise they feel solid underfoot, especially for how light they are. In good snow, they feel intuitive and effortless. I wanted a surfy/poppy feel that was fun even at lower speeds and with the stop-and-go nature of touring -- and while they definitely fit that description, I've pushed them harder and been more confident on them at speed and in the air than I anticipated, probably partly because they're the longer 188 length and mostly because I'm no longer on 1k boots. Build quality seems excellent. I got Phantom for them and they've been running great in all temps.

    I can't offer much in the way of comparisons since I've been on relatively few modern skis, but I was previously touring on 2016 190 Ravens (Dark Brown/Black). I liked them, but they felt pretty locked in and the long tails were unforgiving -- I also had them mismatched with TLT6s, so take my comments with a grain of salt... Just wanted to give G3 a shoutout because there's not much info out there about this new line (from folks not affiliated with the brand) and I've been enjoying this setup. For resort skiing, I'm on pre-asym 189 BGs. Cheers

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	G3-Seekr-110-188.jpg 
Views:	104 
Size:	113.3 KB 
ID:	266250

    Video

    Video 2

  21. #21
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Simi Valley, CA
    Posts
    5,188
    Thanks for the update, they look good. I ended up with the Backland 107, might get to finally try them this weekend.

  22. #22
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Rossland BC
    Posts
    1,091
    Thanks for the report. I'm very curious what the differences might be to the Synapse 109s I'm on now.

  23. #23
    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Posts
    65
    Quote Originally Posted by kootenayskier View Post
    I'm very curious what the differences might be to the Synapse 109s
    Similar dimensions and construction, especially with the 2018 Synapse+ that added PU sidewalls. Obviously the biggest difference is the camber of the Seekr vs the full rocker of the Synapse. And I imagine that the flex profile of the Synapse is stiffer, but I don't know by how much.

    I think I prefer the versatility and pop of camber vs flat or full rocker, though the underfoot camber is pretty minimal on the Seekr. But I'd be curious to ski the BMT series with their full rocker based on generally glowing reviews --looking at pictures, they have less splay that the Synapse 109, which looks fairly extreme. G3 Synapse 109 Volkl BMT 109

  24. #24
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Seattle
    Posts
    4,575
    Thanks for the photos and review, andrewpringle! I haven't skied this but briefly compared the 180cm to the 182cm Atomic Backland 107. Just looking in the store, the flex profile and rocker of these two skis looks quite different. The Seekr 110 appears stiffer, much more rockered front and rear, and perhaps even lighter. (I had no scale.) I have no idea how these skis compare, but I'm guessing that the Backland is more versatile across firm or resort snow, while the Seekr is more of a dedicated high performance backcountry pow ski. It was interesting to see the different approaches since at least on paper you'd think they are going after the same market.

  25. #25
    Join Date
    Mar 2016
    Posts
    94
    Anybody have any experience with the different lengths of the seekr110? 180 seems too short, yet 188 feels like they would be too long in tight trees. I usually ski 184-185 on my in bounds setups, which have been perfect for me.

    Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

Posting Permissions

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