WC 108 tour vs Raven vs BC100

[thurmondmb]

Looking to complement my new lighter version of the BC120 for touring on non-pow days. Still soft snow. Not looking to ski the iciest of couloirs cause I'm usually mountain biking by then. Want something I can take on a hut trip when I don't know what the conditions will be. BC120 is too wide for sawtooth skin tracks.

Currently ski the wc108 for most days and a first gen devastator I ski during early season.

Looking at the Raven (cause similarity to devs) or a wc 108 tour (I ski the inbounds version)
or BC100

Has anyone skied any of these and have some feedback? Unfortunately, the WC108 topsheets are not red this year. Disappointing.

Thanks

[Bamski]

Touring on the Ravens for 3 seasons now.

Pros:

Predictable and relatively easy to ski. Handles most types of snow well. Punches above its weight in pow.

Cons:

Walks well enough, but can struggle on bad skin tracks (steep and/or icy). The lack of camber can make certain types of terrain (steeps, Billy goating) kind of scary.

I’d buy them again, but like any ski they have strengths and weaknesses.

[altacoup]

I actually prefer full reverse camber on steps and billy goating. Puts the edge pressure right under foot where it’s most effective. py skin tracks is another thing. But if a skin track has been used too much it likely leads to less than stellar skiing. In that case I’d rather rage bumps from the chair.

[margotron]

i skied ravens for awhile. i loved how they skied. problem was just too in between for me. not fat enough to be a pow ski, i was always sinking more than i wanted on a pow day, and not light enough to be a spring corn ski. so like...when to grab them?

i have cut the ravens and been able to go with a corn ski and pow ski.

[GoSlowGoFar]

I just made the jump from then WCT 108 to the Raven but have yet to get it out yet as I’ve been on my Protests lately. The main reason I moved on from WCT 108s is I felt they need some speed to come to life and I’m not normally skiing fast in the BC. Will update maybe later this week when I get some time. I’d maybe also look at the Meridian Tour if you’re into the reverse camber thing. I had the standard Meridian and really enjoyed it in the resort, especially for spring type conditions.

[jacob_dbu]

i skied ravens for awhile. i loved how they skied. problem was just too in between for me. not fat enough to be a pow ski, i was always sinking more than i wanted on a pow day, and not light enough to be a spring corn ski. so like...when to grab them?

i have cut the ravens and been able to go with a corn ski and pow ski.

I really wish they made a Hoji that weighed what the Ravens weigh.

[sruffian]

i picked up the wct 108 and have been very pleased. I mounted it up to have an all-around ski that is easy-going enough to have fun on with lightweight boots (tlt7). My impressions
- super predictable from the factory
- floatier than it should be for 108mm/184cm
- if you push them, they respond well

I have pow touring skis and some 190 deathwish tours for bigger alpine lines and drops. I honestly thought I would end up overpowering the 184s more when skiing them w/ a freeride touring boot, and I've been pleasantly surprised by how hard you can drive them. I like full-rockered skis for all purpose touring, but these have a lot of the pros of full rocker while being a bit more lively due to camber. I've skied some absolute shit tricky breakable crust on the 108s while skiing ultralight boots and they definitely held their own. Skied them in a surprise foot of windloaded the other day and they're nice and surfy. Nice weight and dampness

[DGamms]

OP, I’ve owned (or own) the BC 120 184cm, the Raven 184cm, and the OG Dev 184 cm. All good skis, or great skis depending on personal preferences.

The tail of the Raven is the stiffest of those three skis, by far. And it’s the most tapered.

Like Margotron, I liked the Raven a lot as a ski touring quiver of one for awhile. But if you are looking for a two ski touring quiver with BC 120 as the big ski, I’m not sure the Raven is the call.

I think you have to decide (assuming you keep the BC 120 for deep days):

1) How stiff you want your skinny touring ski to be? Tail in particular?
2) How rockered you want your skinny touring ski to be? You like a twin tip or not?
3) How wide you want your skinny touring ski to be? Are we talking 90-98 underfoot or 104-112 underfoot?
4) How heavy you want your skinny touring ski to be? To me the BC 100 is in a different category (1320 gm in a 180cm) than the Raven by weight alone.

*edit: my mistake, I read this as the Backland 100, not the Bentchetler 100. The Bentchetler 100 in a 180cm would probably be a good complement to the BC 120 too).

5) How progressive of a mount you want for your skinny touring ski? Something like -2 to -5 cm from TC like the BC120 or something more traditional?

Heavier skis like the WNDR Vital 100 or lighter skis like the Line Vision 98 come to mind as reasonable skinny touring options for the Sawtooths to complement a BC120 IMHO. But personal preference likely matters most…

[margotron]

OP, I’ve owned (or own) the BC 120 184cm, the Raven 184cm, and the OG Dev 184 cm. All good skis, or great skis depending on personal preferences.

The tail of the Raven is the stiffest of those three skis, by far. And it’s the most tapered.

Like Margotron, I liked the Raven a lot as a ski touring quiver of one for awhile. But if you are looking for a two ski touring quiver with BC 120 as the big ski, I’m not sure the Raven is the call.

I think you have to decide (assuming you keep the BC 120 for deep days):

1) How stiff you want your skinny touring ski to be? Tail in particular?
2) How rockered you want your skinny touring ski to be? You like a twin tip or not?
3) How wide you want your skinny touring ski to be? Are we talking 90-98 underfoot or 104-112 underfoot?
4) How heavy you want your skinny touring ski to be? To me the BC 100 is in a different category (1320 gm in a 180cm) than the Raven by weight alone.

*edit: my mistake, I read this as the Backland 100, not the Bentchetler 100. The Bentchetler 100 in a 180cm would probably be a good complement to the BC 120 too).

5) How progressive of a mount you want for your skinny touring ski? Something like -2 to -5 cm from TC like the BC120 or something more traditional?

Heavier skis like the WNDR Vital 100 or lighter skis like the Line Vision 98 come to mind as reasonable skinny touring options for the Sawtooths to complement a BC120 IMHO. But personal preference likely matters most…

my 2 ski touring quiver is the line vision 98 and BC120. minimize weight, maximize fun

[gritter]

I've just started skiing some Ravens and my initial feeling is that they are pretty much as described on Blister etc... very intuitive, but I've only had them in the resort so far. As a backcountry ski however, the mount is just too far forward IMHO. I have the 177 (which is a 'normal' length for me) but it skis really short and yet at the same time the crazy long tail is going to make kickturns really painful. This may or may not be an issue for you depending on the kind of terrain that you ski, but is something to consider.

Except in really deep powder I'm not convinced that the last 10cm of the ski really does anything apart from looking radical and getting in the way. I'm almost tempted to find a pair of 184s and chop the tail off. Until then though, I'm still looking for my ~95-100 underfoot, ~30m sidecut, no camber / generous rockered tip, 1500/1600g ski.

[tang]

Until then though, I'm still looking for my ~95-100 underfoot, ~30m sidecut, no camber / generous rockered tip, 1500/1600g ski.

This... with so many skis out there, this is still a hole. Down kinda hit that, but the LD90 is skinnier and narrower - and Down is either gone or mothballed. SGN almost hits it with the Hurr Carbon

[thurmondmb]

Heavier skis like the WNDR Vital 100 or lighter skis like the Line Vision 98 come to mind as reasonable skinny touring options for the Sawtooths to complement a BC120 IMHO. But personal preference likely matters most…

I was looking at the vital as well. I agree, looks like a good compliment.

[gritter]

This... with so many skis out there, this is still a hole. Down kinda hit that, but the LD90 is skinnier and narrower - and Down is either gone or mothballed. SGN almost hits it with the Hurr Carbon

I hadn't considered that - looks quite nice and could go on my short list. Pricey though. Generally the Down skis were inline with what I am looking for but the sizes were all too large for me. I skied the LD 102 for a couple of seasons but struggled to flex it properly at 'backcountry' speeds. The Volkl BMT94 sounded like it could have been an option. I also considered various Praxis options such as the Yeti / BC. From what I can tell after only a few days, the Raven skis great - I'd love it if they would make a ski based on this that had a slightly more traditional mount point.

[altacoup]

I hadn't considered that - looks quite nice and could go on my short list. Pricey though. Generally the Down skis were inline with what I am looking for but the sizes were all too large for me. I skied the LD 102 for a couple of seasons but struggled to flex it properly at 'backcountry' speeds. The Volkl BMT94 sounded like it could have been an option. I also considered various Praxis options such as the Yeti / BC. From what I can tell after only a few days, the Raven skis great - I'd love it if they would make a ski based on this that had a slightly more traditional mount point.

The more progressive mount point is part of the entire design of the Hoji designed skis. Once you get used to it you’ll never want to go back. More ski weight behind the pivot point actually helps the tip pop up when kick turning.

[Andyski]

Drift, but how close do you think some custom builder could get to a bmt 94? Yeah, the angled topsheet and air channel shit isn’t gonna happen, but the turn radius, rocker profile, dimensions, mount point….

[Benneke10]

Drift, but how close do you think some custom builder could get to a bmt 94? Yeah, the angled topsheet and air channel shit isn’t gonna happen, but the turn radius, rocker profile, dimensions, mount point….

Left to right, Blaze 94 in 172, BMT 94 in 176, Rise Above 98 in 177. The Blaze 94 is pretty darn similar to the BMT 94, and the 172 Blaze weighs in around 1500g per ski, about 70g heavier than the 176 BMT at a way way lower price. Use the savings to buy fancy bindings and skins to make up the weight.

In my personal quest for BMT magic, I recently bought a used pair of custom WOVN skis with long rocker and very low camber and have high hopes for them. I don't have a pair on hand but the Raven rocker lines aren't far off from the BMT94, but much heavier than the BMT and Blaze.

[kc_7777]

The Bentchetler 110 in a 180cm has me excited for next year. Light. Progressive mount. Lots of tip/tail rocker. Fun. Could see me throwing some Tectons on that.

[thurmondmb]

I really wish they made a Hoji that weighed what the Ravens weigh.

Yea and then made a heavier version for inbounds

[Andyski]

Left to right, Blaze 94 in 172, BMT 94 in 176, Rise Above 98 in 177. The Blaze 94 is pretty darn similar to the BMT 94, and the 172 Blaze weighs in around 1500g per ski, about 70g heavier than the 176 BMT at a way way lower price. Use the savings to buy fancy bindings and skins to make up the weight.

Any comparison on how the two 94s ski? That does sound like the ticket!

[Benneke10]

I havent been on the Blaze yet so can't give real feedback. There is more sidecut to the Blaze fwiw

[Andyski]

I havent been on the Blaze yet so can't give real feedback. There is more sidecut to the Blaze fwiw

Yes, and having and loving the m102 has me less concerned about that than I otherwise would be.