Bringing Back The Best: Lotii And Other Assorted Love Songs

[Whiteroom_Guardian]

Fuck yes. FR110 will be my everyday ski most likely.

[Daywalker]

The BC90 at 1250g for 177cm length is pretty wild... seems super competitive in weight for what should be a better skiing experience!

[riff]

I’m also pretty interested in the bc90, could be the replacement lowdown 90 I’ve been watching for….


Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

[muted reborn]

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?

[ASmileyFace]

Preorder placed for the FR110. Can't justify the BC110 today, but might in the future. So psyched!

[Core Shot]

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

[m5d5cb]

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.

[waxloaf]

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

[toast2266]

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.

[rigbone]

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

[meter-man]

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.

[GoSlowGoFar]

Dang Marshal, I should probably just start cutting you a percentage of my paycheck now…

[bw_wp_hedonism]

On that note, Marshall, do you take indentured servitude as a method of payment?


Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

[arild]

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

[Marshal Olson]

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"!

[Marshal Olson]

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.

[Marshal Olson]

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.

[XtrPickels]

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.

[Self Jupiter]

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.

[chicken feathers]

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.

Oh…I was gonna ask if a shorter C132 would be possible. Say for someone who’s 5’4”. I was thinking a 175 or 168ish. I’d feel bad if my wife couldn’t get a pair.

[ApexSkua]

Anyone have a report for the R99 180/188 Comps? Very interested in how those perform

[jackattack]

Anyone have a report for the R99 180/188 Comps? Very interested in how those perform

They just entered production recently.

[meter-man]

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!!

[waveshello]

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.

[m5d5cb]

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.