Page 38 of 48 FirstFirst ... 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 ... LastLast
Results 926 to 950 of 1190
  1. #926
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    On a genuine ol' fashioned authentic steam powered aereoplane
    Posts
    15,816
    Fuck yes. FR110 will be my everyday ski most likely.

  2. #927
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Seat 2B
    Posts
    2,513
    The BC90 at 1250g for 177cm length is pretty wild... seems super competitive in weight for what should be a better skiing experience!
    dayglo aerobic enthusiast

  3. #928
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    No longer somewhere in Idaho
    Posts
    1,639
    Im also pretty interested in the bc90, could be the replacement lowdown 90 Ive been watching for.


    Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums
    Gravity always wins...

  4. #929
    Join Date
    Apr 2021
    Posts
    2,013
    i think I'm too stupid to buy these skis, I have no idea what ski is based on what old ski (except that DPS one) and it doesn't seem like I've ever skied any of the old skis they are based on, and the more I read about each ski the easier I give up on understanding it. And what is up with Raceroom skis? Is that a brand or line of skis from yesterday I never knew about? Or is it just named after a factory called 'race room' that is famous for making FILLINTHEBLANK skis back in the day?

  5. #930
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    SW, CO
    Posts
    1,245
    Preorder placed for the FR110. Can't justify the BC110 today, but might in the future. So psyched!

  6. #931
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Dystopia
    Posts
    18,925
    Raceroom just means hand built and stiff

    The reverse 110 is boner city. Reverse is so fun. Never rode a sickle. Not even with a pickle.

    But reverse is all time fun. But reverse sucks in chunder bumps.

    Hoping this is the dream sickle. A reverse ski with enough side cut and dampness to survive chunder. But also enough reverse to slarve.

    I had some great times on the RP. Slarvy. Went RPC and fun ski. But minimal slarve in comparison

  7. #932
    Join Date
    Jan 2021
    Location
    Idaho
    Posts
    138
    I am very tempted to try the Reverse FR110 because, well, nobody else is building them? But why aren't they?
    What is it bad at?
    What is it good at?

    Otherwise the FL105 seems like an interesting daily driver choice, but the FR110 intrigues me.

    Most recently have been having the most fun on a Rustler 11. Heavier, damped, and cuts through everything. Still fairly maneuverable as well and also decent on groomers when needed.

    My main concern is the length... I don't have anything over 180cm and the only option is 186cm.

  8. #933
    Join Date
    Nov 2018
    Posts
    545
    It’s hard to really describe the ride of a full rocker ski to someone who hasn’t been on one. Once you try one you’ll know pretty quickly whether you dig it or not. If you dig it, its hard to beat in soft conditions, and the fact that Marshal is making this is awesome. Moving soon so money is tight but I’ll absolutely be putting an order in this spring

  9. #934
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Hell Track
    Posts
    12,656
    Quote Originally Posted by m5d5cb View Post
    I am very tempted to try the Reverse FR110 because, well, nobody else is building them? But why aren't they?
    What is it bad at?
    What is it good at?

    Otherwise the FL105 seems like an interesting daily driver choice, but the FR110 intrigues me.

    Most recently have been having the most fun on a Rustler 11. Heavier, damped, and cuts through everything. Still fairly maneuverable as well and also decent on groomers when needed.

    My main concern is the length... I don't have anything over 180cm and the only option is 186cm.
    Plenty of companies make full rocker pow skis. Not very many make narrower full rocker skis. And the reason is that full rocker skis are pretty clearly less versatile - the firmer it is, the worse they are. Everyone is trying to make their ~108 waisted skis a quiver of one that does everything well, which, for 90% of the skis in that category means a pretty standard rocker / camber / rocker profile. Companies don't want their quiver of one skis to be not so great when things firm up. But a ski that does everything well also doesn't really do anything *great*.

    But full rocker skis are still shitloads of fun on soft-but-not-deep snow, and there's definitely a use for narrower full rocker skis. That ski just needs to be part of a quiver, with something else in the stable for when things firm up.

    The full rocker makes them super easy to smear and drift around, but you can also lay them over, engage the edge, and rail a carve through soft chop. They're much easier to feather between an engaged edge and a drifting edge. But they can feel snow-bladey on hard snow, and they don't offer much suspension, so you need the snow to be soft so it provides the suspension.

  10. #935
    Join Date
    Oct 2020
    Posts
    56
    I'm also very intrigued by the FR110. I really want to get on a reverse camber ski again, I used to have a pair of Dynafit Chugachs and liked em but they had a very small contact patch. I like to see that the FR110 has a longer contact patch, and like to see they are heavier weight. Only thing I'm on the fence about is the length and worried it might be a little short at 6' 200lbs? My current DD is a 190cm Wildcat 108, also have Blister Pros for when its deep.

    I can see the FR being a great soft day ski and keeping the WC108 for when its firmed up. Am I overthinking the length difference? I believe in reality its probably only 1cm-ish shorter straight pull. Will there be a noticeable difference with chargablility and float? Also heard that reverse camber skis don't land jumps and drops as well but maybe I'm out to lunch on that

    Sent from my SM-G960W using Tapatalk

  11. #936
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    CA
    Posts
    2,759
    That BC 110 looks money. BC 110 and C 132 may be headed my way for next year.

    How have the carbon layups been skiing for folks? Especially for any skis smaller than the C132.
    sproing!

  12. #937
    Join Date
    Nov 2015
    Location
    Reno, NV
    Posts
    818
    Dang Marshal, I should probably just start cutting you a percentage of my paycheck now

  13. #938
    Join Date
    Jul 2018
    Posts
    453
    On that note, Marshall, do you take indentured servitude as a method of payment?


    Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

  14. #939
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Middle of Norway.
    Posts
    2,441
    Quote Originally Posted by muted reborn View Post
    i think I'm too stupid to buy these skis, I have no idea what ski is based on what old ski (except that DPS one) and it doesn't seem like I've ever skied any of the old skis they are based on, and the more I read about each ski the easier I give up on understanding it. And what is up with Raceroom skis? Is that a brand or line of skis from yesterday I never knew about? Or is it just named after a factory called 'race room' that is famous for making FILLINTHEBLANK skis back in the day?
    I don't think you need to know exactly which one ski a HL ski is based on to buy one, as it's pretty simple. None of the skis are based on just one shape, they're all built on meeting certain conditions and perform very well there.

    FL113 - Pow, chop, speed, pivot, slarve. Straight shape, long low rockers. -11.5 mount.

    FL105 - Speed, chop, crud, smash through stuff. More sidecut, camber and shorter rockers. -12 mount.

    FR110 - full reverse, bi directional camber, wideish all terrain ski, for float, fun and smashing through stuff at a larger variety of speeds. Designed to be able to ski switch to the road. -6 mount.

    support the raddest project going: http://heritagelabskis.com

  15. #940
    Join Date
    Nov 2018
    Posts
    786
    Quote Originally Posted by rigbone View Post
    I can see the FR being a great soft day ski and keeping the WC108 for when its firmed up. Am I overthinking the length difference? I believe in reality its probably only 1cm-ish shorter straight pull. Will there be a noticeable difference with chargablility and float? Also heard that reverse camber skis don't land jumps and drops as well but maybe I'm out to lunch on that
    So, if I am reading my blister measurements right, the Wildcat length is material length, and straight tape is just over 188cm. The FR110 will straight tape a shade over 186, so the in-practice length difference is about 2cm. I would also add that the FR110 is about 200g heavier, so overall on snow would feel pretty comparable to be honest.

    Regarding drops and such, I would say reverse and lots of tail rocker skis are not as foregiving as a cambered ski if you land backset, but with a progressive mount (more tail overall), that really helps. The upside is that they (the reverse and super rockered) are also more foregiving with preventing with going over the handlebars. So ultimately, in this one, its probably more "the barber" and less "the scissors"!

  16. #941
    Join Date
    Nov 2018
    Posts
    786
    Quote Originally Posted by meter-man View Post
    How have the carbon layups been skiing for folks? Especially for any skis smaller than the C132.

    Very interested to hear non-my-own-bias results, but I find them in the same league as the BMT volkl construction. At lighter, a little more responsive, but similarly smooth, at least in BC snow.

  17. #942
    Join Date
    Nov 2018
    Posts
    786
    Quote Originally Posted by m5d5cb View Post
    I am very tempted to try the Reverse FR110 because, well, nobody else is building them? But why aren't they?
    What is it bad at?
    What is it good at?

    Otherwise the FL105 seems like an interesting daily driver choice, but the FR110 intrigues me.

    Most recently have been having the most fun on a Rustler 11. Heavier, damped, and cuts through everything. Still fairly maneuverable as well and also decent on groomers when needed.

    My main concern is the length... I don't have anything over 180cm and the only option is 186cm.
    One quick additional thought... There are a whole lot of mid-fat cult classic reverse skis, to be honest... on the inbounds/alpine side: OG Katana and Mantra, Devastator, Sickle, etc. The original Cochise and Bodacious also fit into this IMO. My view is that they don't exist any longer and have been mostly dumbed down in the name of "versatility"... and that is why HL exists in the first place. To make niche skis that don't pretend to ok at alot of things, but rather excellent at select things, and honestly acknowledge their shortcomings as well.

    I this case, as referenced about, Reverse DD type skis can get rough on refrozen since the energy is concentrated a bit more underfoot than to the ends on a camber ski. But well... why ski 110mm fully rockered skis in those conditions in the first place? That is an R87 day!

    Oh and lastly, the subsequent round from this preorder will add ~180-182 lengths on many of the skis, and a few 175/168 sizes as well.

  18. #943
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Boulder
    Posts
    5,897
    Quote Originally Posted by toast2266 View Post
    Plenty of companies make full rocker pow skis. Not very many make narrower full rocker skis. And the reason is that full rocker skis are pretty clearly less versatile - the firmer it is, the worse they are. Everyone is trying to make their ~108 waisted skis a quiver of one that does everything well, which, for 90% of the skis in that category means a pretty standard rocker / camber / rocker profile. Companies don't want their quiver of one skis to be not so great when things firm up. But a ski that does everything well also doesn't really do anything *great*.

    But full rocker skis are still shitloads of fun on soft-but-not-deep snow, and there's definitely a use for narrower full rocker skis. That ski just needs to be part of a quiver, with something else in the stable for when things firm up.

    The full rocker makes them super easy to smear and drift around, but you can also lay them over, engage the edge, and rail a carve through soft chop. They're much easier to feather between an engaged edge and a drifting edge. But they can feel snow-bladey on hard snow, and they don't offer much suspension, so you need the snow to be soft so it provides the suspension.
    Pretty spot on.
    I've had some of my best days on Meridians, so much so that I started skiing them all the time which lead to me having some of my worst days on them, which lead to me selling them.
    Which was a mistake that I've been trying to fix for a while now.

    Those FR110's are calling my name.

  19. #944
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Location
    MA
    Posts
    4,272

    Bringing Back The Best: Lotii And Other Assorted Love Songs

    IMO reverse camber ~110 under foot skis are way more fun in a few inches of heavy, upside down, grabby and/or crusty new snow here in New England.

  20. #945
    Join Date
    Jan 2019
    Posts
    488
    Quote Originally Posted by Marshal Olson View Post

    Oh and lastly, the subsequent round from this preorder will add ~180-182 lengths on many of the skis, and a few 175/168 sizes as well.
    OhI was gonna ask if a shorter C132 would be possible. Say for someone whos 54. I was thinking a 175 or 168ish. Id feel bad if my wife couldnt get a pair.

  21. #946
    Join Date
    Dec 2022
    Posts
    105
    Anyone have a report for the R99 180/188 Comps? Very interested in how those perform

  22. #947
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    NCW
    Posts
    4,158
    Quote Originally Posted by ApexSkua View Post
    Anyone have a report for the R99 180/188 Comps? Very interested in how those perform
    They just entered production recently.

  23. #948
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    CA
    Posts
    2,759
    Quote Originally Posted by Marshal Olson View Post
    Very interested to hear non-my-own-bias results, but I find them in the same league as the BMT volkl construction. At lighter, a little more responsive, but similarly smooth, at least in BC snow.
    That's rad.

    Wondering how to choose a BC110 v. a C113 for day-in, day-out, bigger touring days in the mountains seeking soft snow, ski. But sometimes, you encounter not soft snow. Kinda like a BMT 113 (halfway to a BMT 122?).

    BC110 seems more like a shape I recognize (just wish it had a squared-off tail for easier skin-clip stay-on power). The C113 throws me for a loop though - is that a more versatile shape, at least in terms of when the snow firms up or you encounter weird BC crusts? I don't know what I think about the rearward mount point...been on lots of Moments lately, which are all much more center-mounted.

    Which would surf and handle the powders better?

    Looking for something that would do better in pow, be less cambered, and have a flatter (but not flat) tail than my current Wildcat Tour 108. Both seem to much closer to that idea, with the BC110 with 2mm of camber and the C113 with flat camber.

    I have Praxis Yeti at 95 underfoot for post-consolidation/spring/summer skiing.

    ETA: this is for a maritime snowpack - California Sierra Nevada. Definitely different from the Wasatch!

    TIA, MO!!
    Last edited by meter-man; 02-08-2023 at 06:10 PM.
    sproing!

  24. #949
    Join Date
    Feb 2019
    Location
    Ellensburg
    Posts
    827
    Quote Originally Posted by XtrPickels View Post
    Pretty spot on.
    I've had some of my best days on Meridians, so much so that I started skiing them all the time which lead to me having some of my worst days on them, which lead to me selling them.
    Which was a mistake that I've been trying to fix for a while now.

    Those FR110's are calling my name.
    The old 184 Devastator is my current DD and this resonates. In the NW I can ski it 75% of days and have a great time, but if it's very deep or firm there are other skis that become more fun. However... in the NW, you might find all of those conditions in one top to bottom lap, so even if you have a quiver, having a ski that is so versatile is a big plus.

    Based on the shape, I think the FR110 could be a 90% ski for the NW, because it looks like there are some refinements that should make it behave better in conditions at the more extreme ends of the spectrum. So maybe that doesn't mean you ski it 90% of days, maybe that means it's really fun on 90% of the conditions you encountered on your run. The additional tip splay and taper at both ends should make it more fun/maneuverable in deep snow conditions. What appears to be a longer flat spot underfoot and full length rubber should make it more manageable/fun in firm conditions? Wondering how possible it is to improve a ski like the Dev in both directions without a compromise. If that's what the FL110 does, well that sounds pretty great.

  25. #950
    Join Date
    Jan 2021
    Location
    Idaho
    Posts
    138
    Quote Originally Posted by Marshal Olson View Post
    Oh and lastly, the subsequent round from this preorder will add ~180-182 lengths on many of the skis, and a few 175/168 sizes as well.
    Is the idea for the subsequent round to be a Winter 24 delivery? (With the first round being Winter 23 delivery?)

    I should probably just chat with you offline to see if a 186cm works for me. That's only ~2.3" and it already sounds like this may ski shorter given the reverse rocker.

Posting Permissions

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