Page 2 of 7 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 LastLast
Results 26 to 50 of 175
  1. #26
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    BC
    Posts
    1,923
    Quote Originally Posted by kid-kapow View Post
    The price difference is not that big over here - surprisingly small in fact given that BMTs are expensive as shit. Saw all three in person today and they look very interesting, in fact - they made me consider getting K2s... No, there is nothing wrong with K2, but I usually gravitate towards other, more niche brands.

    FriFlyt - aka the people behind the skitest graphics I post all the time re below - seem to not like them much though. They gave the 110 6/10 - which is super low by how they usually score things - while the 120 did slightly better at 7/10. I have not read the reviews. They often like K2's more turnier offerings, I dunno.

    It will be interesting to get more feedback on them as people get them out in the wild.
    What does m and SB stand for?

  2. #27
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Bodenseekreis
    Posts
    920
    Quote Originally Posted by mr_pretzel View Post
    What does m and SB stand for?
    SB= Set Back. Boot center line in relation to ski center.
    M= Midje. Center of sidecut/Waist narrowest point in relation to ski center.

  3. #28
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Sun Valley, ID
    Posts
    2,527
    For the weight and specs the 110 looks like a TGR skier suitable tourer.

  4. #29
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Somewhere else
    Posts
    5,676
    The rocker profile on the 120 looks a lot like the 2nd generation Pon2oon.

    Sent from my SM-A536W using Tapatalk
    Goal: ski in the 2018/19 season

  5. #30
    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Location
    Seattle, WA
    Posts
    2,184
    I have the 110s and they indeed rip. I wish I would have mounted them +1 instead of on the line. But otherwise they stomp landings, ski very easy and the little bit of camber keeps things cordial on the skintrack.

  6. #31
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    West Side WA
    Posts
    468
    Looks like a sweet ski. Maybe a little heavier and longer radius than I like for touring. But if they grip on ice, that's great. I'm more of a wayback style tourist, but I could be swayed into a heavier design with how light bindings are these days.

    It's been said already, but the K2 ski engineers are all really nice folks and wicked skiers.

  7. #32
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Banff
    Posts
    22,210
    I've been mostly happy with the 101, just a bit stiffer then I like


  8. #33
    Join Date
    Feb 2020
    Posts
    22
    The 120 looks like it could be the perfect Wasatch pow ski. Sub-2000g in a 192 with shitloads of rocker....do want. Wish it were just a hair lighter but c'est la vie

  9. #34
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Eastside
    Posts
    387
    How do the 110's float?
    Been continuously impressed with how well my backland 107s float, but kind of tired of managing that tail in wind and temperature crusts that we ski a lot of in search of soft snow around here. The dispatches seem like a versatile touring shape that should handle funky snow well, hold an edge when necessary and be a blast in soft snow with that rocker profile.

    Someone tell me I'm wrong and save me some money.

    Any review that complains about groomer performance is really missing the point with these.

  10. #35
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Eastside
    Posts
    387
    Someone left the following comment on blister.

    "Ive spent some time on a prototype 101 and I own and ski the final production model dispatch 110. They are very different skis than the wayback 106, which I also have owned. The dispatchs are way stronger, want much longer turn shapes, yet are easy to cut loose and shut speed down if needed. The wayback was very easy going, the dispatch wants to run and will punish you a bit if you get too far backseat. The very high turn radius will keep running if you aren’t able to stay centered and forward. I wouldn’t say that the dispatch is hard to ski, just that compared to the wayback it has a lot of material length and mass and a much higher turn radius. The wayback always felt like a hippie pow ski for nice tidy easy going turns. The dispatch is a lot more aggressive. Feels similar to 4frnt skis except you can notice the bit of camber for better and worse depending on perspective. Compared to 4frnt I feel more fore aft balance on the dispatch because of the camber. But on tight icy luge track exits you are definitely reminded that these have 25m+ turn radii and they require good technique or a lot of strength to maneuver in those areas. All in all they are way more capable skis than the waybacks but require more effort to pilot, and because of that you are rewarded with a very damp very stable ski that is predominantly loose and surfy feeling but has enough camber that you have a predictable ride in the firm."

  11. #36
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Banff
    Posts
    22,210
    seems about right. I LOVE the hojis. DISLIKE most skis with camber, The 101 dispatch was one of the best cambered skis I have played on


  12. #37
    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Location
    Seattle, WA
    Posts
    2,184
    Quote Originally Posted by WhetherMan View Post
    How do the 110's float?
    The 110s float great, especially with the more traditional mount point. I agree with that review. These things want to straightline but are very easy to slash and shut down like a Hoji is. Also agree that fore-aft balance is easier on them than Hojis, but I wouldn't call these hard to ski, they're just not going to pull you across the fall line when you carve.

  13. #38
    Join Date
    Oct 2017
    Posts
    2,282
    Quote Originally Posted by kid-kapow View Post
    FriFlyt - aka the people behind the skitest graphics I post all the time re below - seem to not like them much though. They gave the 110 6/10 - which is super low by how they usually score things - while the 120 did slightly better at 7/10. I have not read the reviews. They often like K2's more turnier offerings, I dunno.
    I've read the reviews by now, and yes - the reviews are freaking terrible. They are more about finding the favorite ski of the testers, not describe the various skis and who could get along with them, and who they are not for. The reviews are so poorly written and lacking both from a methodological point of view (seemingly endless bias) and informative point of view that they are not worth the paper they are written on imho. "Most uncompromising ski tests in the world" my ass.

    I still enjoy the graphics though.

    I still really want to try these, but the "problem" is that I already have BMTs in these slots - skis I think are close on perfection.

    Thanks for the reviews and blister quote - very interesting

  14. #39
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    821
    I do like the measurements Friflyt posts with set back and such, but they definitely have a bias towards easy to ski, friendly skis. I always thought K2 was a preferred Friflyt brand (maybe due to deals/product flow to the magazine / miljø) though that I'm a bit surprised the dispatch is rated so low.

    Guess it fits if it's not a super easy going ski though

  15. #40
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Somewhere else
    Posts
    5,676
    Am I crazy to want to get a pair to ski these inbounds?

    I know it's paulownia wood but their website mentions flax and a damping mat and a sheet of metal that's almost the full length of the ski and I'm wondering if all of that might add up to a pretty damp ride despite the light weight.

    Sent from my SM-A536W using Tapatalk
    Goal: ski in the 2018/19 season

  16. #41
    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Location
    Seattle, WA
    Posts
    2,184
    Ok update after another couple days skiing some tight-ish couly's. They're not my favorite when the snow is variable and you have to shut it down frequently and often. They're not as easy to slash as a Hoji until you get some speed up, so they do a lot better with speed than slow jump turns. It must be the little bit of camber. I also think the mount point is too far back for the shape, it feels a little unbalanced to throw them completely sideways when you're not moving with speed. I am skiing the 184, which is longer than most of my inbounds skis FWIW.

    But with speed and in good snow they are extremely easy to slash and extremely fun to ski.

    I think they would probably do pretty damn well inbounds to be honest. This shape with a -8cm mount and another 400g per ski would be awesome.

  17. #42
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Somewhere else
    Posts
    5,676
    I went to a local shop to look at and flex a pair of the 120s.

    They seem pretty uniformly stiff to me... maybe a little softer tips and tails but I didn't feel anything that seemed as soft as a 5 like blister suggests for the tip.

    The shape and rocker profile are a wet dream for me. I love my 180cm rocker2 122 but in really deep snow the low ish tip rocker and more central mount aren't ideal. The dispatch is a few cm back for mount and more tip rocker... pretty much exactly what I would want.

    Still not sure about the weight for inbounds.

    Sent from my SM-A536W using Tapatalk
    Goal: ski in the 2018/19 season

  18. #43
    Join Date
    Jun 2020
    Posts
    5,522
    Quote Originally Posted by Shorty_J View Post
    I went to a local shop to look at and flex a pair of the 120s.

    They seem pretty uniformly stiff to me... maybe a little softer tips and tails but I didn't feel anything that seemed as soft as a 5 like blister suggests for the tip.

    The shape and rocker profile are a wet dream for me. I love my 180cm rocker2 122 but in really deep snow the low ish tip rocker and more central mount aren't ideal. The dispatch is a few cm back for mount and more tip rocker... pretty much exactly what I would want.

    Still not sure about the weight for inbounds.

    Sent from my SM-A536W using Tapatalk
    Sooth Ski shows a pretty normal flex pattern (Rustler 11 included for comparison):

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	A59455C2-821E-4EDC-BA07-46809D4362CD.jpeg 
Views:	76 
Size:	123.8 KB 
ID:	444437

  19. #44
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Eastside
    Posts
    387
    Quote Originally Posted by thejongiest View Post
    Ok update after another couple days skiing some tight-ish couly's. They're not my favorite when the snow is variable and you have to shut it down frequently and often. They're not as easy to slash as a Hoji until you get some speed up, so they do a lot better with speed than slow jump turns. It must be the little bit of camber. I also think the mount point is too far back for the shape, it feels a little unbalanced to throw them completely sideways when you're not moving with speed. I am skiing the 184, which is longer than most of my inbounds skis FWIW.

    But with speed and in good snow they are extremely easy to slash and extremely fun to ski.

    I think they would probably do pretty damn well inbounds to be honest. This shape with a -8cm mount and another 400g per ski would be awesome.
    Appreciate all the comparisons to the hoji.

    Considering the hoji is a ski that I'd consider "very/extremely easy" to slash and shutdown, I'm wondering if you feel like the K2s are more challenging in tight spaces just relative to the hoji, or if they're challenging in general compared to the broader range of skis, including cambered?

  20. #45
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Banff
    Posts
    22,210
    ShortyJ

    I have 101 in 182cm mounted for 295mm boot. You can try


  21. #46
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Somewhere else
    Posts
    5,676
    Quote Originally Posted by mntlion View Post
    ShortyJ

    I have 101 in 182cm mounted for 295mm boot. You can try
    Thanks... might take you up on that.

    Sent from my SM-A536W using Tapatalk
    Goal: ski in the 2018/19 season

  22. #47
    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Location
    Seattle, WA
    Posts
    2,184
    Quote Originally Posted by WhetherMan View Post
    Appreciate all the comparisons to the hoji.

    Considering the hoji is a ski that I'd consider "very/extremely easy" to slash and shutdown, I'm wondering if you feel like the K2s are more challenging in tight spaces just relative to the hoji, or if they're challenging in general compared to the broader range of skis, including cambered?
    Compared to the Hoji they are more challenging. Compared to the K2 Wayback 96 or Dynafit Beast 98 they are also more challenging but that may be more a length thing as I have those skis in 177. But those skis have a much more traditional design with tighter sidecuts, so it’s not really an apt comparison.

    Like I skied a 15-30ft wide 45deg couloir last week with them and I wished I had the other skis in my quiver, that’s where I’m coming from. But I also skied 38 deg open faces where the Dispatch was a riot. With speed the Dispatch is extremely easy to shutdown while feeling very stable. It’s mostly what I was hoping from the Hoji, I just found the Hoji too much effort to maintain fore-aft balance (for my skiing style). The dispatch doesn’t have an enormous sweet spot for me, but I think part of that is my preference for a mount around -8cm so I feel a little too backseat all the time.

  23. #48
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Eastside
    Posts
    387
    Thanks for the feedback. It really sounds like this ski is pretty much exactly what it looks like. A good thing imo. I'd guess you're correct about the extra length, 7cm is definitely enough to notice

  24. #49
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Golden
    Posts
    1,023
    Looking at the dispatch 110 today it looks like the new Hoji but mounted back quite a bit. I would put any loss of agility, pivoting, slashing to the mount point. The designer says you could go up to 2cm forward.

  25. #50
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    128
    I lurk here from time to time when i'm bored at work, but never post. Saw this thread and thought i'd chime in as i have intimate knowledge of this collection; along with the aforementioned Jed, these are my brainchild.

    To the people closely involved in the development of these skis, they're affectionately known as "The Facemelters", with the 120 being "The Master of Puppets" https://www.urbandictionary.com/defi...=Face%20Melter
    Name:  facemelter.PNG
Views: 820
Size:  477.9 KB

    To unlock the magic of this ski you need to be able to hear MOP in your head as you drop into a big line. If your skiing can match the speed and intensity of the music, you'll start to taste the special sauce. They can be skied less aggressively, but never passively. Stomp, clap, hey, has it's place, but not in this ski movie. Jed also likes to listen to metal when he designs skis; it works on a lot of levels. The 110 and 101 have names too, but the stories aren't quite as good, and IMHO the 120 is the clear standout of the trio.

    Unfortunately, there's a fair bit of misinformation out there about these skis, most of it perpetrated by K2 sales and marketing. Despite what K2 S&M would like you to think, these skis were never intended to be 50/50 skis. Just look at the radii, these are clearly not mass market skis. They are unapologetically designed for expert and pro level skiers to push their own limits in the backcountry, far away from lifts. That's a pretty small market though, so a square peg was driven into a round hole and now there's a lot of people who have tested these skis in conditions and terrain they were not designed for, and came away with the impression they're not very good skis. I'm not going to disagree, if i used them at an industry demo, i'd probably have a similar opinion.

    Development on the Facemelters started immediately after we saw the film Numinous; Pep clearly didn't have the right skis for what he was doing and we told him we'd build him what he needed. Two other non-K2 athletes heavily featured in that film also played a huge role in the design and testing of the 120, and to a lesser extent the 110, along with a couple of other K2 athletes and a few well known guides we work with that probably ski as much powder as anyone on the planet. Almost everyone except the lead engineer wanted the mount point further forward, but it is where it is, and the sidecut, flex, and baseline are all tuned to the recommended mount point. You can move it forward but it comes with drawbacks or at least tradeoffs. The 101 doesn't family quite as well, it doesn't have any of the soft snow characteristics of the 110 and 120, it was steered a little more in the direction of steep skiing. I wish it was more like the Raven, but i don't work in the ski industry anymore, so nothing stopping me from owning and skiing a Raven. Master of Puppets and Raven would be my two ski quiver for the BC. Nothing you can't do on those two skis.

Posting Permissions

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