Results 601 to 625 of 937
-
03-02-2023, 06:21 PM #601Gel-powered Tech bindings
- Join Date
- Dec 2004
- Location
- Amherst, Mass.
- Posts
- 4,684
Trail was closed for the race:
https://www.strava.com/activities/1997064590
One of the podium'ers hit the low 70s.
Compared to racing SG or DH back in the day, way scarier, since, well, my skimo race skis aren't exactly (or even inexactly) my (long since sold) SG or DH race skis.
(My skimo race skis were kind of doing the equivalent of hydroplaning at those speeds.)
The following year, lower speeds:
https://www.strava.com/activities/2886063481
... since snow fencing was installed to essentially create a GS course on the upper pitch leading in the flats.Mo' skimo here: NE Rando Race Series
-
03-02-2023, 07:08 PM #602Registered User
- Join Date
- Feb 2005
- Posts
- 674
-
03-02-2023, 08:47 PM #603
I have a pair of the Recons that I wore last spring in the Cascades and on a few warmer tours in the CO Rockies so far. They are REALLY thin but held up to me falling on my ass a few times last year when I should’ve had ski crampons on. Only thing that is funky is the built in belt.
-
03-03-2023, 07:47 AM #604Gel-powered Tech bindings
- Join Date
- Dec 2004
- Location
- Amherst, Mass.
- Posts
- 4,684
That actually wasn't a concern: full cf skimo race boots are far more than stiff enough for straightlining on moderately pitched smoothly groomed terrain @ ~60mph, and Hagan-rebranded ATK race bindings have a release value somewhere in the high single digits, so similar to my GS race binding settings, and although not high enough for making turns at those speeds, fine for easy (albeit terrifying) straightlining.
Mo' skimo here: NE Rando Race Series
-
03-06-2023, 12:44 PM #605Registered User
- Join Date
- Nov 2013
- Posts
- 1,109
Well the space blanket on the liners definitely did insulated my feet better. They are starting to wear a bit (which I expected) but not too bad. Will upload photos later.
TLDR; Ski faster. Quit breathing. Don't crash.
-
03-06-2023, 01:57 PM #606Registered User
- Join Date
- Dec 2014
- Posts
- 45
-
03-06-2023, 03:20 PM #607Registered User
- Join Date
- Nov 2013
- Posts
- 1,109
Big toe is a little cramped but this is one of the only boots that doesn't crush the shit of out my instep (which is one of the key areas for hot blood to go to your foot). There is a few local/close enough shops that are willing to punch the cf plastic in these so want to get just a smidge of a medial punch on the big toe and see if I can convince them to do a little punch on the most rearward section of my 5th metatarsal since that's the only other area that bothers me. The heel and cuff fit is awesome which is usually a challenge for my foot. Zero hot spots on our 7m 3k approach with a 45lb pack.
TLDR; Ski faster. Quit breathing. Don't crash.
-
03-07-2023, 03:24 PM #608Registered User
- Join Date
- Jan 2023
- Posts
- 21
Looking to build out a setup for long tours in the sierras this spring. Also flexible enough for big winter missions. My heavy setup is a 4frnt Raven 190cm.
I like to ski aggressivly down the fall line. Typically in bigger radius turns and have fun on the runouts, but will dial it back a bit if I'm many miles into the woods. I havent skied anything under 100mm waist or shorter than 190cm in...a decade?
I'm looking at at the Atomic Backland 85, the Blizzard ZeroG 85 and Zero G 95... Any thoughts on these as potential options? Or something else I should look at?
Thanks!
Alex
-
03-07-2023, 05:14 PM #609
-
03-07-2023, 06:44 PM #610Registered User
- Join Date
- Nov 2013
- Posts
- 1,109
Yeah the ZeroG 95 is definitely a pretty amazing ski for how light it is vs how damp it feels.
TLDR; Ski faster. Quit breathing. Don't crash.
-
03-07-2023, 10:09 PM #611Registered User
- Join Date
- Feb 2023
- Posts
- 97
Another vote for the Zero G 95. I also have ravens also and find that they complement each other well. If I expect 3-D snow I take the Ravens, 2-D snow, I’ll take the Zero G.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
03-08-2023, 09:01 AM #612Johnny Poppinoffastuff
- Join Date
- Jan 2013
- Location
- Eastside
- Posts
- 395
The zero g 95 seems like a good pick. I'm 215 and they will likely be my next "skinny" touring ski.
The zero g 85 is considerably softer and friendlier than the 95.
The backland 85 is also likely to be overpowered by a large human. I haven't skied the backland 95, but i believe it's the stiffest of the narrow backlands (vs 85 and 100)
-
03-08-2023, 09:12 AM #613
I have tried pretty much all the skinny skis. For the most part, they all have too much sidecut and get hooked up in weird snow, and most have very stiff, punishing tails. The only skinny ski that will ski like a Raven is the discontinued Volkl BMT 94, but you can find a used pair of 186s if you look (176 are almost impossible to find). The upcoming Heritage Lab C90 is also very promising. The Down LD90 is nice, I found the tails to be too stiff but I had to mount forward due to a hole conflict and I only weigh 145lbs. While I think the BMT 94 is an excellent ski, I like having something closer to 1kg and I've found the Atomic Backland UL85 to be the least-bad 1kg ski because it has a nice round flex and relatively low camber. I haven't skied the Backland 95 but I found the Backland 100 to have a very punishingly stiff tail, the Backland UL85 is a much better ski for lighter skiers.
-
03-08-2023, 10:02 AM #614
Question on boot/ski compatibility - recently skiied Down CD102L w/ LS Skorpius, which I've found to be fine on corn and pow. In breakable/heavy windslab really struggled to get the skis to turn in a way that made the skiing not fun, surprising for a ski w/ a 25m turning radius, and not experienced with the same ski and ZGTP. The question is, would that kind of problem be mitigated by a shorter/softer ski with the same boot? Or, is that just part of the compromise with a soft boot.
My mid-winter touring setup is significantly heavier and fatter, but skis great in any sort of bad snow like that.
-
03-08-2023, 10:10 AM #615
My bad-snow setup is Dynafit Beast 108 with LS Skorpius. I could probably ski a bit better with a 4-buckle but the Beast is a very friendly ski that releases easily in all types of snow. You can ski fat skis with light boots in all snow types if they are friendly shapes, but you can't go as fast as you would on a bigger boot.
-
03-08-2023, 10:25 AM #616
I like the backland 95 a lot, i weigh 220 pounds with my touring gear though. I have the 177 and it’s stable enough for any speed i’m interested in going in weird snow
Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums
-
03-08-2023, 10:30 AM #617Registered User
- Join Date
- Nov 2010
- Posts
- 1,426
-
03-08-2023, 10:45 AM #618Registered User
- Join Date
- Feb 2023
- Posts
- 97
I think that the recommended mount points on the Backland 100 and 107 are way too far forward, which results in the tail feeling too stiff or unruly, especially with lighter boots. I moved my bindings 2cm back on my 100’s and found it completely changed the feel of the ski. Much friendlier now, and better behaved in 3-D snow.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
03-08-2023, 10:49 AM #619
-
03-08-2023, 11:29 AM #620Registered User
- Join Date
- Mar 2005
- Location
- Livingston, MT
- Posts
- 1,792
I’m wondering if you’re to light for the backland 100? I’m 180 and feel like the 100 is super easy to get along with. I mounted 1.5 behind the line. I use the 100 for my touring far when I don’t know what kind of snow I’m going to encounter ski. Really enjoy it for a wide range of conditions and for it weight to width it’s pretty darn good. I really like how the ski can ski pretty loose with tips and tails pretty heavily detuned. Take all this with a huge grain of salt though cause it’s all just my opinion
I gave up on owning anything under 100 underfoot a few years ago with our shit snow pack.
Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums
-
03-08-2023, 12:14 PM #621
I don't think the Backland 100 are bad skis, I think the shape and weight are very nice and there aren't many any skis in that weigh class that I would say are significantly better. I just felt that they were much more demanding than my BMT 94s and even the Backland UL85.
Last edited by Benneke10; 03-08-2023 at 12:56 PM.
-
03-08-2023, 12:49 PM #622Registered User
- Join Date
- Feb 2023
- Posts
- 97
The backland 100 handles very similarly to a ZeroG 95 IME. The 2nd gen and current versions do, at least.
The 1st gen Zero G was a lot looser than all three of those IME. I’m looking at mine now, and the camber has faded so much that they look like a flat ski with early rise tip and tails. It’s a closer rocker pattern to my BC Daemon’s than my newer Zero G’s.
I think the Backland 100 would be absolutely dreamy in its current construction, but with a low splay, rocker/flat/rocker profile like this.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
03-08-2023, 02:49 PM #623Registered User
- Join Date
- Mar 2005
- Location
- Livingston, MT
- Posts
- 1,792
Ah, that makes sense. For sure the bmt 94 is easier. I loved that ski, but my well over used knees had to go back to camber for a little added suspension BMT 94 was such a sick ski, bummer they quit making it.
Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums
-
03-08-2023, 03:04 PM #624Registered User
- Join Date
- Dec 2008
- Posts
- 824
I'll second the 85 UL being a nice, predictable ski for the weight. I prefer progressively mounted skis, am skiing these on the line and am not experiencing any notable issues in anything but breakable crust which was to be expected anyway. Pleasantly surprised, I'm using them way more than i anticipated.
-
03-08-2023, 06:42 PM #625Registered User
- Join Date
- Jan 2014
- Posts
- 876
This prob belongs here more than anywhere else; wildsnow was purchased by the quacks who run bikerumor and gearjunkie.
https://allgeardigital.com/
My assumption is that it is effectively dead. RIP.
Bookmarks