Page 6 of 26 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 ... LastLast
Results 126 to 150 of 635
  1. #126
    Join Date
    Nov 2018
    Posts
    372
    Quote Originally Posted by meter-man View Post
    Questions about sizing the C138 and whether to mount alpine, tech, or CAST.

    6', 195lbs. Ski in California/Tahoe, so maritime snowpack. All touring or resort; sadly, I'm not a heli-skier.

    I tour winter months on 187 Protests with pin bindings (Alpinist). For resort, have 188 Rustler 11s for resort pow, and a pair of 196 Protests I just bought off gear swap. (Plus narrower skis for other applications of course.)

    It seems everyone says the 202 is surprisingly easy to ski, and saw lots of folks similarly-sized to me liking the 202. Which size do I want? Seems like the 202 might be unicorn that I need to ride before she disappears forever.

    I was also very surprised to read folks talking about them as daily drivers, even the day after the storm Can't decide whether to point a pin binding or CAST on there. Leaning towards CAST, but I sure do love touring on my Protest/Alpinist combo. Any insight on touring versus resort applications?

    That R99 also looks very tasty.
    I personally plan to mount alpine bindings on 202s and light tech bindings (like alpinists) on 192s.
    But more the point is I plan to own both, as I regret greatly selling the pairs I have owned, in retrospect.

  2. #127
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Winthrop, WA.
    Posts
    1,237
    Ok Marshal, trick question for you. I'm a total noob to the whole R/R universe but am now deeply curious. I'm 5'11" and a tender 220lb. Primarily looking for a deep, and or shitty snow, touring meadow skipper and a 50/50 ski for Japan. Typically a very strong, directional skier but adapt when necessary to staying off the cuff of the boot. (read - really good at burying the tips and going over the handle bars.) 202 is too long for me to kick turn which is the reason I gave up on my beloved Lhasa 196's. Is a 192 going to have enough surface area to float my heavy ass and let me carry speed in low angle slopes like Japan?

  3. #128
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    California
    Posts
    2,686
    Was out of town on a ski trip when this launched and can hardly express my excitement for this project! I'll be getting at least 2 pairs but for anyone on the fence about the 138s, I just spent a few days in a heli skiing waist/chest deep pow and there is no tool like a 138 for that kind of snow. I'm looking forward to having 192s for below treeline terrain and 202s for days when the alpine is in play. 138s made this photo possible: Click image for larger version. 

Name:	PXL_20220109_183730265~2.jpg 
Views:	137 
Size:	623.9 KB 
ID:	400914
    Three fundamentals of every extreme skier, total disregard for personal saftey, amphetamines, and lots and lots of malt liquor......-jack handy

  4. #129
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Driving2VT
    Posts
    4,065
    Quote Originally Posted by soul_skier View Post
    Was out of town on a ski trip when this launched and can hardly express my excitement for this project! I'll be getting at least 2 pairs but for anyone on the fence about the 138s, I just spent a few days in a heli skiing waist/chest deep pow and there is no tool like a 138 for that kind of snow. I'm looking forward to having 192s for below treeline terrain and 202s for days when the alpine is in play. 138s made this photo possible: Click image for larger version. 

Name:	PXL_20220109_183730265~2.jpg 
Views:	137 
Size:	623.9 KB 
ID:	400914
    Love that shot.
    Uno mas

  5. #130
    Join Date
    Nov 2018
    Posts
    372
    Quote Originally Posted by Lord Thomas View Post
    Ok Marshal, trick question for you. I'm a total noob to the whole R/R universe but am now deeply curious. I'm 5'11" and a tender 220lb. Primarily looking for a deep, and or shitty snow, touring meadow skipper and a 50/50 ski for Japan. Typically a very strong, directional skier but adapt when necessary to staying off the cuff of the boot. (read - really good at burying the tips and going over the handle bars.) 202 is too long for me to kick turn which is the reason I gave up on my beloved Lhasa 196's. Is a 192 going to have enough surface area to float my heavy ass and let me carry speed in low angle slopes like Japan?

    Ok, good question. With your Lhasas, did you have more trouble with the tail length or the tip length in kick turns. My challenge with long skis skinning is the tails tripping over the other foot. 190 is as long as I would go normally, but never had a problem with 192 138s, based on how the tail is turned up and quite skinny.

    I'd be curious for other people's feedback though, since I have pretty long (34-35") inseams.

  6. #131
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    NCW
    Posts
    3,770
    Marshal, you’re quite a bit taller than Tom and me. I chopped 5 cm off the tails of my 192 wailer 99s.

  7. #132
    Join Date
    Jan 2019
    Location
    Mid-tomahawk
    Posts
    1,534
    Quote Originally Posted by Marshal Olson View Post
    Ok, good question. With your Lhasas, did you have more trouble with the tail length or the tip length in kick turns. My challenge with long skis skinning is the tails tripping over the other foot. 190 is as long as I would go normally, but never had a problem with 192 138s, based on how the tail is turned up and quite skinny.

    I'd be curious for other people's feedback though, since I have pretty long (34-35") inseams.
    I've got a 32'' inseam and have toured a lot on the 192 L138. Like you, I rarely find tip length to be an issue for kick turns (in general, not specific to the Lotus) but run into issues with tails hanging up on the other foot sooner. The L138s are super manageable for the reasons you stated, plus the pretty rearward mount though.

  8. #133
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    F'n Midwest again
    Posts
    2,474
    Quote Originally Posted by soul_skier View Post
    Was out of town on a ski trip when this launched and can hardly express my excitement for this project! I'll be getting at least 2 pairs but for anyone on the fence about the 138s, I just spent a few days in a heli skiing waist/chest deep pow and there is no tool like a 138 for that kind of snow. I'm looking forward to having 192s for below treeline terrain and 202s for days when the alpine is in play. 138s made this photo possible: Click image for larger version. 

Name:	PXL_20220109_183730265~2.jpg 
Views:	137 
Size:	623.9 KB 
ID:	400914
    Are those the white ones that you had in that Japan video from way back?


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

  9. #134
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    California
    Posts
    2,686
    Quote Originally Posted by hoarhey View Post
    Are those the white ones that you had in that Japan video from way back?


    Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums
    These are the purple spoons in a 192 from a few years back, picked them up used here in gearswap for a song and have found them to be a great tree ski and a more versatile option in variable snow with the smaller sidecut radius. I still have the white rocker 0 flex 3s for Alaska days where the shark tip and lower rocker are more suited to the terrain in question, but at this point those are about ready to be retired and replaced with a 202 version that Marshal is making.
    Three fundamentals of every extreme skier, total disregard for personal saftey, amphetamines, and lots and lots of malt liquor......-jack handy

  10. #135
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Winthrop, WA.
    Posts
    1,237
    Yes, problems hanging up on the tails of the lead foot on a kick turn. 32" inseam. I took BMT 122's in a 186 on a trip to Japan and they worked really well for the climbing and skiing and I'm running a BMT 109 as my touring DD. Totally good on doing kick turns with them. Problem is I wouldn't mind having a longer, stiffer ski for the down. I miss both the 196 and 191 Lhasas for going down hill and a 202 138 sounds even better. I'm sure I could make the 192 work for climbing but have no idea if it would have sufficient surface area to float me going down. Wouldn't have minded a little more float on the 122's in Japan or our local, low country mank.

  11. #136
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Location
    Before
    Posts
    25,519
    Quote Originally Posted by Marshal Olson View Post
    Ok, good question. With your Lhasas, did you have more trouble with the tail length or the tip length in kick turns. My challenge with long skis skinning is the tails tripping over the other foot. 190 is as long as I would go normally, but never had a problem with 192 138s, based on how the tail is turned up and quite skinny.

    I'd be curious for other people's feedback though, since I have pretty long (34-35") inseams.
    I'm more of a 33-34 inseam and ski the 200s and yes, I experience the kick turn tail hang up and stumble sometimes.

    But I just love the platform the bigger ski gives, especially the bounce and float capabilities. I don't get the same lift off the 190s, although they're easier to manage in tight couloirs. Honestly, though, I'm doing more lift served skiing these days, so the kick turn issue doesn't come up.
    Merde De Glace On the Freak When Ski
    >>>200 cm Black Bamboo Sidewalled DPS Lotus 120 : Best Skis Ever <<<

  12. #137
    Join Date
    Nov 2018
    Posts
    372
    Quote Originally Posted by Lord Thomas View Post
    Yes, problems hanging up on the tails of the lead foot on a kick turn. 32" inseam. I took BMT 122's in a 186 on a trip to Japan and they worked really well for the climbing and skiing and I'm running a BMT 109 as my touring DD. Totally good on doing kick turns with them. Problem is I wouldn't mind having a longer, stiffer ski for the down. I miss both the 196 and 191 Lhasas for going down hill and a 202 138 sounds even better. I'm sure I could make the 192 work for climbing but have no idea if it would have sufficient surface area to float me going down. Wouldn't have minded a little more float on the 122's in Japan or our local, low country mank.
    Last question is about your skintracks themselves. Based on the small amount of touring I have done around Alpental... the tracks temselves are not that different that the Wasatch (Steep, lots of switchbacks, can get packed and slippery pretty quick). The touring I have done from the lifts at Baker/Shuksan was different, and I'd take 202s gladly. Not sure what it is like where you are.

    At least for here, I'd tour on 192 gladly and without issue, but wouldn't on 202s. However, based on the touring I did when I lived in Colorado, I'd totally tour the 202s as I broke trail a lot more, and had the luxury of doing more sweeping turns. Which begs the point... you can always skip blown out crappy switchbacks and set your own track around them anyhow, it just can be a bit more work and slower, but easier to navigate on big skis.

    Talking myself in circles here, hopefully it helps in some way!

  13. #138
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Not Brooklyn
    Posts
    7,875
    I'm 5'10" with a 30" inseam, but fairly flexible. I did quite a bit of touring on some old 190 Lotus 120's. I now use some 187 UL Protests and just bought a pair of used 186 BMT 109's. They all have a similar amount of tail (83-84 cm behind boot center, iirc). For me this is fine for kick turns, but does require a bit of concentration. 85+ cm behind boot center starts to get a little annoying (190 Praxis BC, 188 Rustler 11's). If I'm making kick turns all day, or just focused on covering a lot of ground, I want 80cm or less from boot center to tail. Then kick turns are automatic.

    Anyway, you might be able to figure out what works based on looking at the measurements of skis you've used in the past. Mashall's point about the type of skin track you encounter is a good one. If I skied in the Wasatch I'd probably prioritize a shorter tail. On the other hand I wouldn't prioritize float as much. On steeper slopes 110mm underfoot is plenty wide for me most of the time. But when persistent weak layers in CO keep me on low angle slopes, fatter is faster, looser and more fun. Skiing the Protests is like have little jets on my backpack.

  14. #139
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    On a genuine ol' fashioned authentic steam powered aereoplane
    Posts
    15,027
    I am subscribing to this thread. Actually more interested in the race room skis. This is fucking rad Marshal.

  15. #140
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    8530' MST/200' EST
    Posts
    3,688
    subscribing to thread. I could really see getting rid of a grip of skis and skiing the 19x c120 here.
    "If we can't bring the mountain to the party, let's bring the PARTY to the MOUNTAIN!"

  16. #141
    Join Date
    Nov 2016
    Location
    SEA>DEN>Spokanistan
    Posts
    2,348
    where my is

    202 - C138 in bound

    STOKE.


    Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

  17. #142
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    An Anheuser-Busch Barley Field
    Posts
    5,601
    Quote Originally Posted by Phall View Post
    subscribing to thread. I could really see getting rid of a grip of skis and skiing the 19x c120 here.
    same, it has a lot of my boxes checked

  18. #143
    Join Date
    Nov 2016
    Location
    SEA>DEN>Spokanistan
    Posts
    2,348
    I forget if it was answered, what are bases going to be? If that has yet to be selected my vote is for black (it’s easy to ptex).


    Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

  19. #144
    Join Date
    Nov 2018
    Posts
    372
    Niiiiice!

    I am glad to confirm all black bases

  20. #145
    Join Date
    Nov 2016
    Location
    SEA>DEN>Spokanistan
    Posts
    2,348
    Quote Originally Posted by Marshal Olson View Post
    Niiiiice!

    I am glad to confirm all black bases
    ♂️


    Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

  21. #146
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    In Your Wife
    Posts
    8,299
    In for some C120's.

    Very cool project.

    Marshal, the C120 page states that the tip height is "65cm." May need an edit.
    Last edited by glademaster; 01-14-2022 at 05:42 AM.

  22. #147
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Posts
    3,137
    Yep 120's for sure. Rad. Good work!

  23. #148
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    SLC
    Posts
    2,585
    Quote Originally Posted by Marshal Olson View Post
    Niiiiice!

    I am glad to confirm all black bases
    Yes bases should be all black…


    Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums
    If ski companies didn't make new skis every year I wouldn't have to get new skis every year.

    www.levelninesports.com
    http://skiingyeti.blogspot.com/

  24. #149
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    The Fish
    Posts
    3,960
    How short an light can you be and still make a 192 C138 work?
    a positive attitude will not solve all of your problems, but it may annoy enough people to make it worth the effort

    Formerly Rludes025

  25. #150
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    In Your Wife
    Posts
    8,299
    Quote Originally Posted by Eluder View Post
    How short an light can you be and still make a 192 C138 work?

    I'm 5'7" and weigh around 155 pounds without gear, and found the 192 Lotus 138's of yore worked well for me. They were plenty maneuverable because they pivot so well, plane at low speeds, and between the construction and sidecut, are easy to throw around (i.e. the skis are light to begin with, and have very low swing weight).

    I found the width underfoot more cumbersome than the length. Skating, side-stepping, etc. are a pain in the ass with 138mm underfoot. Maybe it isn't as noticeable for tall folks with longer legs, but for me and my 29" inseam, they were absolute magic while turning, but a bit of a handful getting around on.

Posting Permissions

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