Page 7 of 26 FirstFirst ... 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 ... LastLast
Results 151 to 175 of 636
  1. #151
    Join Date
    Nov 2018
    Posts
    372
    Quote Originally Posted by glademaster View Post
    Marshal, the C120 page states that the tip height is "65cm." May need an edit.
    thats not right!
    thanks for catching it. Will update.

    thanks to you all!!!
    Last edited by Marshal Olson; 01-14-2022 at 08:49 AM.

  2. #152
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    F'n Midwest again
    Posts
    2,474
    Might not be the right thread, but maybe a quick answer is available?

    Was there ever any move towards a narrower version of the Lotus 138?

    Like -10 mm all around (Lotus 128)
    Aggressive in my own mind

  3. #153
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Middle of Norway.
    Posts
    2,228
    Down made a few(? ) protos of the CD5, which I believe was 117 at the waist. @SiSt or @geo039 would have to confirm.

    Sent fra min LYA-L29 via Tapatalk

  4. #154
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    F'n Midwest again
    Posts
    2,474
    I just saw that in another thread


    Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums
    Aggressive in my own mind

  5. #155
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    2,601
    Quote Originally Posted by arild View Post
    Down made a few(? ) protos of the CD5, which I believe was 117 at the waist. @SiSt or @geo039 would have to confirm.

    Sent fra min LYA-L29 via Tapatalk
    CD5 was available for at least 1 season. It was 117 @ the waist. It was shaped closer to a Praxis PowderBoard. Can't remember if there was uf sidecut like PB's though or came to a wide point then tapered to ends like a Spat.
    They were targeted for variable snow crushing

  6. #156
    Join Date
    Nov 2016
    Location
    SEA>DEN>Spokanistan
    Posts
    2,350
    I知 so stoked, scoured the interwebs for real world feedback.

    Some things I was reading, seemed one of the initial versions had hooky tips. Per my reading this later was addressed by adding the spoon tip? If this is the case since these are not spooned what say they collective about the rocker lines and how it will perform on snow?

    I like the longer flat section as it should give it a bit more stability and allow one to find a better balance point when skiing vs hunting for the sweet spot.

    Again, could be way off on this but without real work experience on them I知 attempting to digest what is written about them mainly on here.


    Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

  7. #157
    Join Date
    Nov 2018
    Posts
    372
    Quote Originally Posted by SkiLyft View Post
    I’m so stoked, scoured the interwebs for real world feedback.

    Some things I was reading, seemed one of the initial versions had hooky tips. Per my reading this later was addressed by adding the spoon tip? If this is the case since these are not spooned what say they collective about the rocker lines and how it will perform on snow?

    I like the longer flat section as it should give it a bit more stability and allow one to find a better balance point when skiing vs hunting for the sweet spot.

    Again, could be way off on this but without real work experience on them I’m attempting to digest what is written about them mainly on here.


    Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums
    I **think** the hooky tip feedback was on the "rocker 0" skis. They were very pointy, which made them insanely fast to turn, but also felt in some ways like more sidecut in the front. I'd be curious Soul Skier's feedback on this version, as he has probably the most time on this version of anyone. I know El C I has extensive time on that verison as well as later "round tip" versions. Assuming the skis are properly prepared, I have never felt or heard of the round tip versions being hooky, just FWIW.

    If anyone recalls the original spoon designs (fully convex base with cleats), the intent was to make skis with limitless drift (aka taking mcconkey turns to 11). In practice the convex skis were neither producible or skiable in any conventional way. When I made the initial design for what became the spoon, and when Stephan and I landed on the final details on a train from Munich to Zurich, the design was really only for the 148mm Spoon ski. The feature was added after the fact to the last gen 120 and later 138s in a much smaller way and really for marketing purposes. They were subtle certainly, though the skis all performed well IMO.

    When the 120 became the 124, the spoon shape was abandoned pretty quickly. It was just too much of a PITA to make vs. a specific performance attribute. I have no idea if more recent 138 still have the spoon (I think so), but haven't paid much attention in the last few years.

    Hope some of that background helps, and hoping others share their feedback too!


    Quote Originally Posted by hoarhey View Post
    Was there ever any move towards a narrower version of the Lotus 138?

    I made a sketch of what it would look like, and that evolved into the RPC, which ultimately got moved into the Lotus family (where it should have started to begin with!). It has more sidecut and effective edge than a 138 by far, but the long tip taper and super stiff tip really make it a dream in zipper crust and the like.

    The tour1 version of the 124 (not the pure3/alchemist ones) is also more like a 138 than a 120. That is an awesome ski.
    Last edited by Marshal Olson; 01-14-2022 at 10:24 AM.

  8. #158
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Dystopia
    Posts
    16,077
    Wow. Serious inside baseball that Marshal was at the right hand of the master.

    But I can’t agree that RPC is a narrow 138.
    It’s a stiffer flatter RP for sure.

    An RPC with more tip and tail rocker. While still keeping the longer radius and the flat (non rocker) under foot would be a great ski. But also please make it more damp.

    The Freeride edition 120 200cm is going to be a game changer.

    I’m so stoked about that ski.
    Riding carbon 120 for years. Inbounds. And out the gates. Super fun and versatile.
    But making it more damp and slightly more heavy is the bomb.

    I can’t wait for heritage labs in a year or two. It’s one thing to reproduce old skis. But Marshal has the knowledge to make new skis.
    FYI he’s not just reproducing old skis. He’s tweaking them as well.

    So psyched about this project.

  9. #159
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    LV-426
    Posts
    19,213
    I had the rocker 0 (pointy tip) version of the 192cm 138s at one time, which IIRC I bought here from xtrmjoe. That version had a tip shape very similar to the Spatula, and low rise tip compared to the rocker 1 and 2 versions. Mine were flex 3 and had black sidewalls. They had a rather forward mount point, and I definitely managed to stuff the tips in a few times. Mounting farther back would probably have resolved it, but by the time I considered remounting, I had picked up some rocker 1 192s (white with red stripe, bamboo sidewall), and I preferred those in every condition other than wind crust. So I sold the rocker 0.

    I don't remember the rocker 0 feeling hooky in any way. Mostly I remember them needing some speed before starting to turn, or I risked diving the tips.
    Quote Originally Posted by powder11 View Post
    if you have to resort to taking advice from the nitwits on this forum, then you're doomed.

  10. #160
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    In Your Wife
    Posts
    8,285
    Quote Originally Posted by Core Shot View Post

    I can’t wait for heritage labs in a year or two. It’s one thing to reproduce old skis. But Marshal has the knowledge to make new skis.
    That's a fact, which I why I threw down for a pair now. Gotta get this thing off the ground.

  11. #161
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Location
    Before
    Posts
    25,549
    .
    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails Click image for larger version. 

Name:	IMG_0274_LI.jpg 
Views:	153 
Size:	1.76 MB 
ID:	401120   Click image for larger version. 

Name:	s-l1600[1].jpg 
Views:	153 
Size:	204.0 KB 
ID:	401121  
    Merde De Glace On the Freak When Ski
    >>>200 cm Black Bamboo Sidewalled DPS Lotus 120 : Best Skis Ever <<<

  12. #162
    Join Date
    Nov 2016
    Location
    SEA>DEN>Spokanistan
    Posts
    2,350

    Bringing Back The Best: Lotii And Other Assorted Love Songs

    ^^ great info and thanks filling in more of the picture.

    Since this could give some useful information to those waffling on size what痴 your take?

    In 6ft 190# with gear

    After talking to LVS and ACH seems if I知 getting a C138 better make it 202 as at that point the conditions are going to have to be prime to pull it.

    Aside from a cat trip or an eventual heli trip. @marshall do you feel with my size the 202 is appropriate? Would plan to ski IB as well on deep days out in the secret stashes here in the INW.




    Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

  13. #163
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    idaho panhandle!
    Posts
    8,894
    Quote Originally Posted by hoarhey View Post
    Might not be the right thread, but maybe a quick answer is available?

    Was there ever any move towards a narrower version of the Lotus 138?

    Like -10 mm all around (Lotus 128)
    That痴 a Protest.

  14. #164
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    F'n Midwest again
    Posts
    2,474
    I know that's that the same width as a protest, I have one, but I would think that the skis shapes are quite different and that would translate to better powder performance (Lotus138 vs Protest).

    Sounds like you are thinking it's mainly due to width? (138 vs 128)

    Marshal, I can't subscribe to the 115RPC as the skinny Lotus 138.
    I've skied the 112rp and the red Lotus 120 (but not the 138), and the 115rpc was just a stiffer/longer radius rp.
    Last edited by hoarhey; 01-14-2022 at 12:21 PM. Reason: clarity
    Aggressive in my own mind

  15. #165
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    California
    Posts
    2,687
    Quote Originally Posted by Marshal Olson View Post
    I **think** the hooky tip feedback was on the "rocker 0" skis. They were very pointy, which made them insanely fast to turn, but also felt in some ways like more sidecut in the front. I'd be curious Soul Skier's feedback on this version, as he has probably the most time on this version of anyone. I know El C I has extensive time on that version as well as later "round tip" versions. Assuming the skis are properly prepared, I have never felt or heard of the round tip versions being hooky, just FWIW
    The hooky tip feedback on the Rocker 0 skis is a real thing in conditions I would describe as 'challenging upside down snow' or a breakable crust. The pointy shark nose tip with low rocker is more challenging than the round nose lotuses in those conditions as once the tip breaks into the higher density snow it can try to drag the rest of the ski out and away from the direction you're trying to turn. Its not a huge deal and manageable with a bit of practice but something that I have not found to be prevalent on subsequent iterations of the 138 with more rocker and rounder noses.

    I love my rocker 0s and they will always have a place in the quiver, but i'm excited to try what Marshal is putting together!
    Three fundamentals of every extreme skier, total disregard for personal saftey, amphetamines, and lots and lots of malt liquor......-jack handy

  16. #166
    Join Date
    Nov 2018
    Posts
    372
    Quote Originally Posted by hoarhey View Post
    Marshal, I can't subscribe to the 115RPC as the skinny Lotus 138.
    Totally! I was just sharing that is how it started its life, conceptually, and evolved from that to what was released. I read the original question to be "was it ever considered"?

  17. #167
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Carbondale
    Posts
    11,611
    Quote Originally Posted by SkiLyft View Post
    ^^ great info and thanks filling in more of the picture.

    Since this could give some useful information to those waffling on size what’s your take?

    In 6ft 190# with gear

    After talking to LVS and ACH seems if I’m getting a C138 better make it 202 as at that point the conditions are going to have to be prime to pull it.

    Aside from a cat trip or an eventual heli trip. @marshall do you feel with my size the 202 is appropriate? Would plan to ski IB as well on deep days out in the secret stashes here in the INW.




    Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums
    At 5' 7" I would waiver on the two... add 5" and go with a 202
    www.dpsskis.com
    www.point6.com
    formerly an ambassador for a few others, but the ski industry is... interesting.
    Fukt: a very small amount of snow.

  18. #168
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    F'n Midwest again
    Posts
    2,474
    Quote Originally Posted by Marshal Olson View Post
    Totally! I was just sharing that is how it started its life, conceptually, and evolved from that to what was released. I read the original question to be "was it ever considered"?
    Thanks for that history. Very cool you had a significant hand in the actual evolution of that narrower Lotus 138.
    Aggressive in my own mind

  19. #169
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    idaho panhandle!
    Posts
    8,894
    Quote Originally Posted by hoarhey View Post
    I know that's that the same width as a protest, I have one, but I would think that the skis shapes are quite different and that would translate to better powder performance (Lotus138 vs Protest).

    Sounds like you are thinking it's mainly due to width? (138 vs 128)

    Marshal, I can't subscribe to the 115RPC as the skinny Lotus 138.
    I've skied the 112rp and the red Lotus 120 (but not the 138), and the 115rpc was just a stiffer/longer radius rp.
    They are pretty similar, the L138 or C138 in this case is maybe 5% better in pow than a protest. The Protest is a much better ski inbounds tho.
    Not trying to steer this into a debate between the two as they both absolutely rule pow and funky snow.

  20. #170
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    1,150
    Marshall, when you can justify a 17x mold of the 120 I'm here for it.

    Good luck with yr project. I always wished I had grabbed a pair of the 179 Lhasa when they weren't such unicorns.

  21. #171
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    In Your Wife
    Posts
    8,285
    Quote Originally Posted by 2FUNKY View Post
    They are pretty similar, the L138 or C138 in this case is maybe 5% better in pow than a protest. The Protest is a much better ski inbounds tho.
    Not trying to steer this into a debate between the two as they both absolutely rule pow and funky snow.
    As someone who has owned and spent a lot of time of L138's and Protests, they aren't pretty similar, they aren't even remotely similar. But since getting out of your depth is your game, and dishonesty is your name, I'm not surprised by your post.

  22. #172
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    NCW
    Posts
    3,794

    Bringing Back The Best: Lotii And Other Assorted Love Songs

    Quote Originally Posted by glademaster View Post
    As someone who has owned and spent a lot of time of L138's and Protests, they aren't pretty similar, they aren't even remotely similar. But since getting out of your depth is your game, and dishonesty is your name, I'm not surprised by your post.
    Praxis Rx

  23. #173
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    7,338

    Bringing Back The Best: Lotii And Other Assorted Love Songs

    I知 excited to see this happening!

    I have a pair of l138 192 cm rocker 1. Mounted with tele bindings. I知 510 and 150-155 lbs without gear. I live in the Sierra foothills and have skied them quite a lot in the tahoe area and western sierra slope. I致e posted a bit about them in the 登de to thread. I love them. I can try to answer questions about those skis from a tele skier perspective.

    I致e resort skied with them and done a lot of touring with them. I致e also used them when I壇 wished I was on different skis.

    Only other rockered ski that I致e had multiple days of use are the original continuous curve 滴ybrid, which became the Protest (they belong to lightranger). I also frequently ski 184 bibby痴. All tele.

    My other main quiver are 184 full camber mantras, 189 liberty vmt76, 188 wailer 95痴, 180 explosives, 184 10.ex, and original 194 BIGs.
    Last edited by bodywhomper; 01-15-2022 at 01:47 AM.

  24. #174
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Middle of Norway.
    Posts
    2,228
    Sucks that the only ski in there I need is the R87. Also sucks that I can invent uses in the quiver for both a c120 and a c138. And that Marshal has further plans. This means financial ruin, and I'm not about to sell any of the hoard. Time to sell a few guns..

  25. #175
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Dystopia
    Posts
    16,077
    Rumour has it that the big ski shapes are likely being offered in a more damp Freeride layup.

    I am fully excited.

    A 120 that’s more damp and more heavy will be an amazing resort pow day party.

    A 138 Freeride should be way more survivable inbounds.

    Stephan was always pushing light snappy carbon. Which works if you are earning your turns. The hybrid came out as a low budget version, but many preferred that feeling.

    So stoked. This. Is. Awesome.

    PS. A lotus 128 would be cool. 138 is so planky on runouts.

Posting Permissions

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