Page 128 of 134 FirstFirst ... 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 ... LastLast
Results 3,176 to 3,200 of 3327
  1. #3176
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Montucky
    Posts
    1,656
    Ordered the Commander Tour 104 and planning to mount a steezy yellow Dynafit super lite binding to them.

    Will this be my spring touring white whale?

    Only time will tell.


    Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

  2. #3177
    Join Date
    May 2021
    Location
    Denver, CO
    Posts
    12
    Quote Originally Posted by stealurface831 View Post
    I'm in a similar situation. Been eyeing the C98s in 188 for awhile now but don't get my next paycheck for another week. I check the inventory multiple times a day and similarly drive myself up the wall. They are going a lot slower than I thought they would but still only 4 left. With 20 C108s left as of this morning, I'd say you are safe for a few weeks.

    If the 188s sell out before I can snag some, I'm just gonna go with DW104s.
    Damn only 4 of the 188 C98 left. I would be shitting myself. That deathwish 104 looks sweet. I would need to dump a few skis from the quiver first to make room for it.

  3. #3178
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Front Range
    Posts
    234
    Any idea on restock date for WC108s? In the same boat and nervously watching those tic down in inventory as well...only 4 left in 184.

  4. #3179
    Join Date
    Oct 2017
    Posts
    1,293
    Quote Originally Posted by joeshek View Post
    Any idea on restock date for WC108s? In the same boat and nervously watching those tic down in inventory as well...only 4 left in 184.
    Don't stress - WC108s do not have any titanal in them, so they should be restocked multiple times during the season according to demand/set production cycles.

    The same cannot be said for Commanders re this post
    Quote Originally Posted by Melee View Post
    We will try to make more but the earliest we will receive more Titanal is Q1 2022. Currently titanal lead times with the manufacturer are about 8 months...on top of that international freight shipping is super delayed and messed up so who knows how long it will actually take to arrive.

    If you want Commanders (skis with titanal) this year in any width or length I suggest grabbing some sooner than later because we may not have the ability to make more this winter.
    Quote Originally Posted by SUPERIOR View Post
    Ordered the Commander Tour 104 and planning to mount a steezy yellow Dynafit super lite binding to them.
    I am really looking forward to mags providing feedback on how the new Commander Torus. They are without any doubt def one of the most exciting touring skis to be released in years, especially for the chargy crowd who tours to do lines. It just seems like such an awesome ski

  5. #3180
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    SLC
    Posts
    3,406
    Talk to me about 194cm Commander 124 mounting points. I got a used set and will need to remount - I love all my bibby's at -1, 193 CBs at -1. Not a lot of info/reviews out there & I want to get this right.

  6. #3181
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Reno, NV
    Posts
    521
    Quote Originally Posted by mc_roon View Post
    Talk to me about 194cm Commander 124 mounting points. I got a used set and will need to remount - I love all my bibby's at -1, 193 CBs at -1. Not a lot of info/reviews out there & I want to get this right.
    Call Fasa at Moment--I believe he skis those as his DD...

    Sent from my SM-G986U using Tapatalk

  7. #3182
    Join Date
    Dec 2019
    Posts
    123
    Quote Originally Posted by scmartin69 View Post
    Call Fasa at Moment--I believe he skis those as his DD...

    Sent from my SM-G986U using Tapatalk
    He rotates the GT Comm 118 and DW. Hit him up in the chat though he should have the skinny on the mount.

    Also the man tours on last years Comm118 because..... reasons.

  8. #3183
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Reno, NV
    Posts
    521
    Quote Originally Posted by K1mJ0ngTr1ll View Post
    He rotates the GT Comm 118 and DW. Hit him up in the chat though he should have the skinny on the mount.

    Also the man tours on last years Comm118 because..... reasons.
    That's right, it's the C118s... My bad.

    Sent from my SM-G986U using Tapatalk

  9. #3184
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Movin' On
    Posts
    2,916
    I'm sure this has been discussed many times, but any chance for a women's triple camber DW clone?

    My GF is 5'5" and 120 lbs. She'd probably be looking for something in the 162-165 length. 174 just seems a bit long for her (she floats well on a 162 pow ski).

  10. #3185
    Join Date
    Jan 2019
    Location
    Mid-tomahawk
    Posts
    1,324
    Quote Originally Posted by Kevo View Post
    I'm sure this has been discussed many times, but any chance for a women's triple camber DW clone?

    My GF is 5'5" and 120 lbs. She'd probably be looking for something in the 162-165 length. 174 just seems a bit long for her (she floats well on a 162 pow ski).
    You mean like the Sierra?

  11. #3186
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Movin' On
    Posts
    2,916
    Quote Originally Posted by HAB View Post
    You mean like the Sierra?
    Yep, but ideally 105MM or wider.

  12. #3187
    Join Date
    Aug 2021
    Posts
    43
    Quote Originally Posted by Kevo View Post
    Yep, but ideally 105MM or wider.
    How wide and heavy is this 'pow' ski? Float's more about total surface area than running length. And frankly if you're asking for maximum float in a DW you're looking at the wrong ski. Triple camber doesn't do anything if you have nothing to dig an edge into!

  13. #3188
    Join Date
    Oct 2017
    Location
    Evergreen Co
    Posts
    613
    For a lighter skier, a Sierra will ski like a Deathwish does for a heavy skier. My wife is about the same proportions and floats way way better on her 112 mm underfoot skis than I do on my 125mm underfoot Skis.

    The Sierra is wide enough for a light skier on a modest powder day but not enough for a truly deep day… just like the Deathwish is wide enough for 6” days but not enough (IMO) for 15 inch days. Anything 105mm or wider is a loose equivalent to a powder ski for lighter skiers. Just commenting as I’m this took a bit before it clicked for me. A women’s ski beyond 105mm without a powder friendly rocker profile just seems silly to me.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kevo View Post
    I'm sure this has been discussed many times, but any chance for a women's triple camber DW clone?

    My GF is 5'5" and 120 lbs. She'd probably be looking for something in the 162-165 length. 174 just seems a bit long for her (she floats well on a 162 pow ski).

  14. #3189
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Movin' On
    Posts
    2,916
    Quote Originally Posted by SnakeMagnet View Post
    How wide and heavy is this 'pow' ski? Float's more about total surface area than running length. And frankly if you're asking for maximum float in a DW you're looking at the wrong ski. Triple camber doesn't do anything if you have nothing to dig an edge into!
    Quote Originally Posted by Tailwind View Post
    For a lighter skier, a Sierra will ski like a Deathwish does for a heavy skier. My wife is about the same proportions and floats way way better on her 112 mm underfoot skis than I do on my 125mm underfoot Skis.

    The Sierra is wide enough for a light skier on a modest powder day but not enough for a truly deep day… just like the Deathwish is wide enough for 6” days but not enough (IMO) for 15 inch days. Anything 105mm or wider is a loose equivalent to a powder ski for lighter skiers. Just commenting as I’m this took a bit before it clicked for me. A women’s ski beyond 105mm without a powder friendly rocker profile just seems silly to me.
    Hmm, maybe you guys are right.

    Doing some back of the napkin math (only using waist width x length to make it easy)-

    A pair of 190 DW has 4256 cm2 of surface area. At 88.5 KG, that's 48cm2 of surface area per KG of body weight for me.

    A pair of 162 Sierras has 3078 cm2 of surface area. At 55 KG, that would give my GF 56 cm2 of surface area per KG of body weight. In theory, she'd float better than I do on the DW, no?

    And yeah- DWs are my every day ski at Targhee, so I ski them all the time from 0 up to about 6-8 inches of new snow. If it is deeper and inbounds/tracked out, I usually want to go wider and a little stiffer. In untracked snow I find the DW can handle its own in bottomless pow.

  15. #3190
    Join Date
    Aug 2021
    Posts
    43
    Quote Originally Posted by Kevo View Post
    Hmm, maybe you guys are right.

    Doing some back of the napkin math (only using waist width x length to make it easy)-

    A pair of 190 DW has 4256 cm2 of surface area. At 88.5 KG, that's 48cm2 of surface area per KG of body weight for me.

    A pair of 162 Sierras has 3078 cm2 of surface area. At 55 KG, that would give my GF 56 cm2 of surface area per KG of body weight. In theory, she'd float better than I do on the DW, no?

    And yeah- DWs are my every day ski at Targhee, so I ski them all the time from 0 up to about 6-8 inches of new snow. If it is deeper and inbounds/tracked out, I usually want to go wider and a little stiffer. In untracked snow I find the DW can handle its own in bottomless pow.
    I'm pretty sure the Moment crew spent a lot more time (and money) than we all do engineering their skis to suit the needs of their clientele. Since women are always on average going to be lighter by ratio to height their test riders probably ran 'short' deathwishes and found them excessive or not engaging the pockets correctly for the lighter weight, hence the trimming of the waist.

    For women that are outliers, whether heavier aggressive or just flat out tall, they just buy 'men' skis.
    Last edited by SnakeMagnet; 09-10-2021 at 01:47 PM.

  16. #3191
    Join Date
    Oct 2017
    Location
    Evergreen Co
    Posts
    613
    One tweak, you’re thinking of a this as “float” and surface area, when in reality skis are more about “lift” in soft snow. Instead of thinking about a boat standing still, think of it once it’s moving and starts to stand up lift out of the water due to the shape of the hull. I have some Line Pescado’s that have limited surface area but do great in powder because the tip is massive and the tails sink (generating more lift but it’s also a noticeably ‘slow’ powder ski). Point being, your calculation over emphasizes the length of the ski. The tip width, rocker lines, and flex pattern matter more.

    Point being, I’m not smart enough to calculate this, but my hunch is the sierras would float better for your GF than the Deathwish does for you.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kevo View Post
    Hmm, maybe you guys are right.

    Doing some back of the napkin math (only using waist width x length to make it easy)-

    A pair of 190 DW has 4256 cm2 of surface area. At 88.5 KG, that's 48cm2 of surface area per KG of body weight for me.

    A pair of 162 Sierras has 3078 cm2 of surface area. At 55 KG, that would give my GF 56 cm2 of surface area per KG of body weight. In theory, she'd float better than I do on the DW, no?

    And yeah- DWs are my every day ski at Targhee, so I ski them all the time from 0 up to about 6-8 inches of new snow. If it is deeper and inbounds/tracked out, I usually want to go wider and a little stiffer. In untracked snow I find the DW can handle its own in bottomless pow.

  17. #3192
    Join Date
    Dec 2020
    Posts
    191
    Any thoughts on the old 2013 era Ghost Chants?

    I ski mostly in the Sierra, but also planning a longer trip through the Wasatch, JH, and interior BC this winter. I already have Wildcat 108s and 116s. I don't need these Ghost Chants (or do I?), but there is a pair for sale at $200 w/ bindings in good shape. I've never skied a reverse camber ski, and I'm curious. Is this a ski worth owning or should I seek out a newer reverse camber ski or something that's reverse / reverse instead?

  18. #3193
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Livingston, MT
    Posts
    1,342
    Quote Originally Posted by Pinned View Post
    Any thoughts on the old 2013 era Ghost Chants?

    I ski mostly in the Sierra, but also planning a longer trip through the Wasatch, JH, and interior BC this winter. I already have Wildcat 108s and 116s. I don't need these Ghost Chants (or do I?), but there is a pair for sale at $200 w/ bindings in good shape. I've never skied a reverse camber ski, and I'm curious. Is this a ski worth owning or should I seek out a newer reverse camber ski or something that's reverse / reverse instead?
    For that price you absolutely need them.


    Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

  19. #3194
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    in the shadow of the white rocks
    Posts
    2,445
    +1

  20. #3195
    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Posts
    319
    Quote Originally Posted by Pinned View Post
    Any thoughts on the old 2013 era Ghost Chants?

    I ski mostly in the Sierra, but also planning a longer trip through the Wasatch, JH, and interior BC this winter. I already have Wildcat 108s and 116s. I don't need these Ghost Chants (or do I?), but there is a pair for sale at $200 w/ bindings in good shape. I've never skied a reverse camber ski, and I'm curious. Is this a ski worth owning or should I seek out a newer reverse camber ski or something that's reverse / reverse instead?
    I skied them for about 10 days and sold. I really tried to love them, but they are such a unique and strange ski. They are basically only good for throwing tricks in backcountry or skiing mellow powder fields. I think these were driven by madmind of moment athletes back in the days, when they wanted backcountry park ski. They are symmetrical (read - suck at turning). Mount point on them is dead center. At 186 that leaves you with a UUGE tail. Rockers are just ridicilous, they are probably ~70cm in front and back (also symmetrical), they start just after the bindings. So if you decide to mount not on the recommended point, at, let's say -5, your heel will be already at the beginning of the rocker. I found them to be really fun in mellow forest and mellow powder fields. They can't really handle speeds above medium as they were designed to butter, not to charge. They were also very fun to land in switch, switch tricks to pow were never so easy to land. However, besides that, I really think they sucked at everything else. I can name at least dozen of 120mm+ pow sticks that ski much-much better.

  21. #3196
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Montucky
    Posts
    1,656
    FWIW my experience on the moment night train echoed that of the user above… similar ski, but slightly narrower construction and more camber


    Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

  22. #3197
    Join Date
    Dec 2020
    Posts
    191
    Quote Originally Posted by HukuTa_KydecHuk View Post
    I skied them for about 10 days and sold. I really tried to love them, but they are such a unique and strange ski. They are basically only good for throwing tricks in backcountry or skiing mellow powder fields. I think these were driven by madmind of moment athletes back in the days, when they wanted backcountry park ski. They are symmetrical (read - suck at turning). Mount point on them is dead center. At 186 that leaves you with a UUGE tail. Rockers are just ridicilous, they are probably ~70cm in front and back (also symmetrical), they start just after the bindings. So if you decide to mount not on the recommended point, at, let's say -5, your heel will be already at the beginning of the rocker. I found them to be really fun in mellow forest and mellow powder fields. They can't really handle speeds above medium as they were designed to butter, not to charge. They were also very fun to land in switch, switch tricks to pow were never so easy to land. However, besides that, I really think they sucked at everything else. I can name at least dozen of 120mm+ pow sticks that ski much-much better.
    This is kind of what I was thinking I'd hear given the total lack of info about them online - the model didn't last for a reason, it sounds like.

    I picked them up this morning for $150 with Rossi Axial 120s on them - owner claimed 1 day on them and it looks like they were mounted and put in the closet. I guess I'll see how I like 'em.

  23. #3198
    Join Date
    Nov 2016
    Posts
    800
    Picked up some DW tours based on input from this thread and the moment chat. Due to existing holes, I can mount on the line and -1. Inbounds ski is Jeffery 108 with demo bindings. I've played around with the mount point and can be happy anywhere from +2 to -1. I ski with an upright stance. For touring I'll be in the trees a lot and prioritize nimbleness and not that worried about float with this ski. Mount on the line yeah?

  24. #3199
    Join Date
    Feb 2016
    Location
    Los Angeles/Mammoth
    Posts
    1,073
    Quote Originally Posted by brundo View Post
    Picked up some DW tours based on input from this thread and the moment chat. Due to existing holes, I can mount on the line and -1. Inbounds ski is Jeffery 108 with demo bindings. I've played around with the mount point and can be happy anywhere from +2 to -1. I ski with an upright stance. For touring I'll be in the trees a lot and prioritize nimbleness and not that worried about float with this ski. Mount on the line yeah?
    Yeah mount on the line. Luke has suggested that before, particularly because of the triple camber. Its very balanced at that point.

  25. #3200
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Posts
    377
    Bahaha

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	Screenshot_20210914-232902.png 
Views:	211 
Size:	421.4 KB 
ID:	385460

Posting Permissions

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