Heritage Lab Skis - AM 50/50 Skis Have Arrived - Dedicated Thread

[Marshal Olson]

Marshal; you have my attention, finally. Between hoarhey urging you to PM, to which I regrettably never responded, and your recent appearance on the Blister podcast - I'm very curious.

I've been searching for a narrower all-mountain ripstick. After picking up a minty set of Moment Belafontes last season; I'm reminded of how much fun a modern, forward-driven, charging ski can be in marginal conditions. In the past, I skied (and loves) the Dynastar Legend Pro XXL, and the ON3P Wrenegade before they split the line into several sizes.

While I do enjoy funshapes - I currently ride a Moment Deathwish for storm days and small accumulations, ON3P BillyGoats for most big days, and on old pair of 4FRNT Renegades for the really deep days - a narrow charger seems like a hole that needs to be filled in the quiver.

In browsing the site, it seems to be a toss-up between the R99 and R88. I also have a pair of Moment Tahoes that come in at 94mm underfoot but aren't the chargers that your Race Room skis would be. The R99 maybe seems to be the right choice for out west. So I guess it's a question of which construction and in which length?

Am I thinking that the AM build in the 182 length is the jam? I'm not skiing 40 days at Big Sky anymore, so big, long, missiles do hamper the tighter, shorter steeps we have here in the PNWet. Am I tracking right on that?

What's the difference between the layups?

Hey Man- thanks for the note.

with respect to builds, the Comp layup is going to be a very stiff (9/10) ski, made with denser wood, heavier fiberglass and about 3x the titanal. The comp build will require high speeds and lots of skier input on every turn. Amazing if that’s what you are after and a handful if it isn’t.

The AM build sounds closer to what you are after, as it will feel like a much more clean, refined, and precise ski than some of the fun shapes you have been on, and it’s still a substantial ski (7.5/10) stiffness wise. But it’s going to be far less demanding and modest speed in the trees, for example.

In the west, I definitely think of the R99 as an ideal DD, and the R87 as a performance low tide ski. Really depends on what you are after.

regarding length, I would assume that you are on the 182 Belafonte? If so, and that feels right, then the 180 R99 is the ticket. If you are on the longer size, or wish the belafonte was bigger, go for the 188.

holler with more q’s if you have em!

[Marshal Olson]

@Norseman
@2Funky
@GBB

eager to hear what you (and everyone else with skis) thinks of them after the weekend

[bw_wp_hedonism]

I want more stoke from those that just got sticks! And Marshal, I’m working on properly killing my dictator 3 in the hopes you come out with a 10X next season to fit in the quiver.


Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

[lowsparkco]

In for the follow. Just ordered the 99’s AM 50/50.

Excited to see how they turned out!

[2FUNKY]

Mini review; 188 R99 50/50 AM
Me: 5’10” 205 with gear, strong athletic build.
Skis I like: Head Monsters, Dynastar LP’s, Heavy hitter 5 flex Lhasa, Mfree 108, 4 flex protests.
Style: Smooth, powerful, prefer big fast turns, not real jibby spinny but can be playful. Aging so don’t do big drops anymore, 52yo. Like to drive my skis.
Enough of the lame shit, now the on to the skis.
Spent just over 3hrs putting them through the paces. Perfect conditions for them. Majority of the mountain was firm chalk with areas if real soft chalk and spots of boot top pow and chopped boot top pow. Perfect firm carveable groomers. Blue skies made it ideal to smash the pedal.
The fit and finish is impeccable. The top sheet texture is really nice, snow never stuck to it.
Flex, shovel is very soft for about the first 12” then stiffens quickly. This is one of my complaints for ME and what not I’m looking for. That soft tip gave me some issues in really soft chalk and chopped pow. That tip would really flex up in a way it would pull the ski into a much tighter radius than I want or expected, spooked me a few time. I did not detune anything on these as I wanted to run them straight out the package and feel the bevel Marshal put on them. I will be detuning them a bunch before skiing them again. The tips also chatter at speed. I can tolerate that in pow skis but not in a firm snow type of ski.
The rest of the ski has a great flex pattern.
Shovel: 6.5
Tip:7-8
Mid:9
Tail:8
The tail is awesome and finishes a turn beautifully. The ski has a ton of pop out of turns, you better be ready if you really load them at speed as they will pop you into orbit if not ready, so damn fun.

Groomers:
They haul the mail and carve RR tracks. Not ad damp as I would like either but not super bad. Tip chatter is more than I like. Never felt uncomfortable at mach chicken though.
Smooth Firm snow and firm chalk:
Point and shoot. Really fun. Ski is planted and makes these conditions really fun. Easy to slide to dump speed, popping small features was a hoot.
Soft cut up chalk:
Party time. Set edges and ride the rails. That soft shovel is starting to be evident. Pull the ski a little and wants to go up and over instead of through.
Really soft chalk and chopped pow:
Really fun ski if speeds are kept lower. That tip was really giving me issues here. Snow would cause it to over flex pulling the ski into much tighter turns than I wanted/expected. Really pushing me up over piles instead of knifing through. I slowed down a bunch and just made small playful turns and popping off the chop piles and that calmed their tits. I wanted to go mach chicken and knife through them tho.
Boot top pow:
Really fun here. Shovel flex still an issue for me but it also made them come up in the snow and give the ski some lift.
Trees:
They really shine here. Slower turns in the soft trees was really fun and effortless.
Overall:
This is a really kickass ski. Maybe once I detune the tips that will alleviate the tip pulling issue. I think lighter guys or someone who doesn’t ski as fast, more playful, will really really dig this ski for it’s intended purpose. I really had a great day and was getting really comfortable on them to where I could let them really rip down the areas I feel they shine.
The ski I’m really excited about now is the Comp R99. THAT is the ski that fits my style and wants.
I’m really interested in Norsemans review as he rips, is lighter and more finesse than me.
Bravo Marshal!! Thanks so much for putting a pair of these in my hands. I have a handful of maggots that can step right into these so we can get a lot of different feedback. Your skis are awesome man and absolutely cannot wait for my Comp pair!!




Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

[NW_SKIER]

Nice writeup. Looking forward to skiing them over New Years to give a 40lbs lighter perspective.

[DumbIdeasOnly]

thank you @2Funky!

I share your anticipation for the R99 Comp build now, the part of what I'm going to call the "design blurb" I was least personally excited about on the comp builds was super stiff. I was stoked enough on very damp, heavy and long radius to order the comp build but I do find stiff often makes skis feel like a lot of work in tighter off piste terrain in a way even heavy traditional shapes often aren't if they're a bit softer like a Legend Pro Rider.

Soft is obviously relative and nobody is going to mistake a Pro Rider for a Soul 7 but I can only think of a couple of skis where I felt like stiffening them would make them more gooder for me personally (and most of them are on piste focused), so I'm kind of glad that someone my size-ish finds the shovel on the AM a bit soft. Maybe the Comp won't be some unbendable 50 mph + missile.

Out of curiosity, those on the R120 AM like the flex right? Could easily see that softer than big guys like tip plaining up well in pow or soft crud on the wider chassis. It will be interesting to see whether the community comes to a consensus on core profile by width. Think Marshal may have mentioned something like that on the podcast...

[Bobcat Sig]

Hey Man- thanks for the note.

with respect to builds, the Comp layup is going to be a very stiff (9/10) ski, made with denser wood, heavier fiberglass and about 3x the titanal. The comp build will require high speeds and lots of skier input on every turn. Amazing if that’s what you are after and a handful if it isn’t.

The AM build sounds closer to what you are after, as it will feel like a much more clean, refined, and precise ski than some of the fun shapes you have been on, and it’s still a substantial ski (7.5/10) stiffness wise. But it’s going to be far less demanding and modest speed in the trees, for example.

In the west, I definitely think of the R99 as an ideal DD, and the R87 as a performance low tide ski. Really depends on what you are after.

regarding length, I would assume that you are on the 182 Belafonte? If so, and that feels right, then the 180 R99 is the ticket. If you are on the longer size, or wish the belafonte was bigger, go for the 188.

holler with more q’s if you have em!

Much appreciated for the response, Marshal. I thought about email or a PM, but that more beta for everyone to read might be better.

If I might, a bit more context. Me 190 lbs (thanks, Pandemic), 6'0", and a fast, powerful skier with a race background. While my quiver is peppered with fun shape skis, I still like to drive skis, with my shins on the front of my boots. I've always prized my chargey, ripper skis like my 186 ON3P Viciks, 186 Moment Belafontes, and my departed 191 ON3P Wrenegaes, and Dynastar Legend Pro XXL.

I rarely ski when it's low tide, usually preferring to ride motorcycles until the conditions are better, so I think what I'm hearing is that the R99 is right up my alley in that it should serve me well for those groomer days and be a great daily-driver when it isn't storming. The AM layup also seems like my jam as it should provide enough backbone to rail without being race-room stiff.

So I think the million-dollar question is length. Despite skiing 20 years in Montana, the Tetons, and the Wasatch and loving long, burly skis - I'm finding that a slightly shorter ski suits both my local terrain better and is a little kinder now that I'm not regularly skiing 50-ish days per year. And my metric for that is effective edge. Case and point; a few years ago, I bought a pair of ON3P Wrenegade 108 in the 189cm length, thinking I'd love them. I didn't. Way too long. So I'm curious on the effective edge of the R99 188 skis versus that of the 180.

Mini review;
Me: 5’10” 205 with gear, strong athletic build.
Skis I like: Head Monsters, Dynastar LP’s, Heavy hitter 5 flex Lhasa, Mfree 108, 4 flex protests.
Style: Smooth, powerful, prefer big fast turns, not real jibby spinny but can be playful. Aging so don’t do big drops anymore, 52yo. Like to drive my skis.
Enough of the lame shit, now the on to the skis.
Spent just over 3hrs putting them through the paces. Perfect conditions for them. Majority of the mountain was firm chalk with areas if real soft chalk and spots of boot top pow and chopped boot top pow. Perfect firm carveable groomers. Blue skies made it ideal to smash the pedal.
The fit and finish is impeccable. The top sheet texture is really nice, snow never stuck to it.
Flex, shovel is very soft for about the first 12” then stiffens quickly. This is one of my complaints for ME and what not I’m looking for. That soft tip gave me some issues in really soft chalk and chopped pow. That tip would really flex up in a way it would pull the ski into a much tighter radius than I want or expected, spooked me a few time. I did not detune anything on these as I wanted to run them straight out the package and feel the bevel Marshal put on them. I will be detuning them a bunch before skiing them again. The tips also chatter at speed. I can tolerate that in pow skis but not in a firm snow type of ski.
The rest of the ski has a great flex pattern.
Shovel: 6.5
Tip:7-8
Mid:9
Tail:8
The tail is awesome and finishes a turn beautifully. The ski has a ton of pop out of turns, you better be ready if you really load them at speed as they will pop you into orbit if not ready, so damn fun.

Groomers:
They haul the mail and carve RR tracks. Not ad damp as I would like either but not super bad. Tip chatter is more than I like. Never felt uncomfortable at mach chicken though.
Smooth Firm snow and firm chalk:
Point and shoot. Really fun. Ski is planted and makes these conditions really fun. Easy to slide to dump speed, popping small features was a hoot.
Soft cut up chalk:
Party time. Set edges and ride the rails. That soft shovel is starting to be evident. Pull the ski a little and wants to go up and over instead of through.
Really soft chalk and chopped pow:
Really fun ski if speeds are kept lower. That tip was really giving me issues here. Snow would cause it to over flex pulling the ski into much tighter turns than I wanted/expected. Really pushing me up over piles instead of knifing through. I slowed down a bunch and just made small playful turns and popping off the chop piles and that calmed their tits. I wanted to go mach chicken and knife through them tho.
Boot top pow:
Really fun here. Shovel flex still an issue for me but it also made them come up in the snow and give the ski some lift.
Trees:
They really shine here. Slower turns in the soft trees was really fun and effortless.
Overall:
This is a really kickass ski. Maybe once I detune the tips that will alleviate the tip pulling issue. I think lighter guys or someone who doesn’t ski as fast, more playful, will really really dig this ski for it’s intended purpose. I really had a great day and was getting really comfortable on them to where I could let them really rip down the areas I feel they shine.
The ski I’m really excited about now is the Comp R99. THAT is the ski that fits my style and wants.
I’m really interested in Norsemans review as he rips, is lighter and more finesse than me.
Bravo Marshal!! Thanks so much for putting a pair of these in my hands. I have a handful of maggots that can step right into these so we can get a lot of different feedback. Your skis are awesome man and absolutely cannot wait for my Comp pair!!




Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

Nice beta. Thanks for sharing. On which length are you skiing?

[Marshal Olson]

Thanks @2Funky - appreciate you giving them a rip, and thanks for writting that up. Sounds very helpful to many folks, and echos my .02 nicely as well. Cheers!

I share your anticipation for the R99 Comp build now, the part of what I'm going to call the "design blurb" I was least personally excited about on the comp builds was super stiff. I was stoked enough on very damp, heavy and long radius to order the comp build but I do find stiff often makes skis feel like a lot of work in tighter off piste terrain in a way even heavy traditional shapes often aren't if they're a bit softer like a Legend Pro Rider.

Soft is obviously relative and nobody is going to mistake a Pro Rider for a Soul 7 but I can only think of a couple of skis where I felt like stiffening them would make them more gooder for me personally (and most of them are on piste focused), so I'm kind of glad that someone my size-ish finds the shovel on the AM a bit soft. Maybe the Comp won't be some unbendable 50 mph + missile.

Out of curiosity, those on the R120 AM like the flex right? Could easily see that softer than big guys like tip plaining up well in pow or soft crud on the wider chassis. It will be interesting to see whether the community comes to a consensus on core profile by width. Think Marshal may have mentioned something like that on the podcast...

Good thoughts here. If you are coming from a legend pro and want something that substantial, then yes, you want the comp build. If you want something close to that smooth, but a broader performance spectrum, and maybe a little more forgiving, then you are after the AM Build.

[2FUNKY]

Bobcat, the 188. Fixed my post to reflect that.


Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

[Marshal Olson]

Much appreciated for the response, Marshal. I thought about email or a PM, but that more beta for everyone to read might be better.

If I might, a bit more context. Me 190 lbs (thanks, Pandemic), 6'0", and a fast, powerful skier with a race background. While my quiver is peppered with fun shape skis, I still like to drive skis, with my shins on the front of my boots. I've always prized my chargey, ripper skis like my 186 ON3P Viciks, 186 Moment Belafontes, and my departed 191 ON3P Wrenegaes, and Dynastar Legend Pro XXL.

I rarely ski when it's low tide, usually preferring to ride motorcycles until the conditions are better, so I think what I'm hearing is that the R99 is right up my alley in that it should serve me well for those groomer days and be a great daily-driver when it isn't storming. The AM layup also seems like my jam as it should provide enough backbone to rail without being race-room stiff.

So I think the million-dollar question is length. Despite skiing 20 years in Montana, the Tetons, and the Wasatch and loving long, burly skis - I'm finding that a slightly shorter ski suits both my local terrain better and is a little kinder now that I'm not regularly skiing 50-ish days per year. And my metric for that is effective edge. Case and point; a few years ago, I bought a pair of ON3P Wrenegade 108 in the 189cm length, thinking I'd love them. I didn't. Way too long. So I'm curious on the effective edge of the R99 188 skis versus that of the 180.

Nice beta. Thanks for sharing. On which length are you skiing?

Love it, thanks man! Lots of folks asking the same Qs via email so glad to surface all of this. Thanks!

Firstly, 2Funky is on the 188 AM R99 currently (on loan till his comp build arrives), and he is actively looking for it to replace a Monster 98 - which between that ski and the 187cm LP 97mm are the two skis I am targeting with the 188 R99 Comp.

To more specifically answer your questions on effective edge, I just took the measurements. The 188 R99 is a 165cm ee and the 180 R99 is a 156cm ee.

Based on the 189 Wren being overkill for you and your terrain, I would rule out the 188R99Comp, as those will be pretty comparable (r99 is longer ee and way less rockered). At your size and background, I would also rule out the 180R99AM. I just don't think it will quite be enough. That leaves us with the 188R99AM and the 180R99Comp. My suggestion would be to go for the 188R99AM if you want something a bit more round firm snow, a little more surfy in soft snow, and a bit more biased towards modest speed in bumps and trees. I would suggest going for the 180R99Comp if you are like... I want to charge the mountain, just don't need the length for the stability.

Based on your data point on the 189cm Wren, my gut is pointing you toward the 180R99Comp.

[DumbIdeasOnly]

Good thoughts here. If you are coming from a legend pro and want something that substantial, then yes, you want the comp build. If you want something close to that smooth, but a broader performance spectrum, and maybe a little more forgiving, then you are after the AM Build.

Yep, makes sense. The thing I was sort of clarifying for myself as much as anyone else is that it doesn't sound like the comp build is that likely to be 2x4 stiff. Good news to me if it's a Pro Rider/Pro Rider + level of stiffness, unfortunately I've never ridden the Monster 98 to compare there.

Maybe this is one of those things where my absence of a racing background is a handicap, but I sort of feel like if I'm thinking about the flex of a ski it's almost always because it feels a bit off - maybe the tip feels weird because it's too soft or the ski feels harsh and less damp than I want because it's too stiff. By comparison really dialed flex patterns usually sort of disappear on my feet, the ski bends when I want it to and not when I don't.

[otto parts]

MO, as designed/construction spec’d out is it likely that the softish tip becomes a medium flex tip on the comp build? That is, should the flex pattern stay the same but with everything bumped up-or did you design in a different flex profile?

actually hoping the tip stays a bit forgiving as that has worked on other skis I’ve liked…


Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

[2FUNKY]

MO, as designed/construction spec’d out is it likely that the softish tip becomes a medium flex tip on the comp build? That is, should the flex pattern stay the same but with everything bumped up-or did you design in a different flex profile?

actually hoping the tip stays a bit forgiving as that has worked on other skis I’ve liked…


Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

In my discussion with him via text, he mentioned they are 25-30% stiffer than the 50/50. It’s exactly what they need for my preference. Marshal will have to answer the rest.


Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

[GBB]

188 R99 AM review time.

Me: 6'1, 165 lbs w/o gear. 0 race background but have taught myself how to bend a ski. I rely more on brute force than technique at times. Have skied with Norseman and 2Funky and not as good as they are. I'm lucky enough to ski nearly daily at Shane's Valley.

Skis I've liked in the past: 05/06 Legend Pro, 05/06 Gotama, 187 Blizzard Bonafide, 192 Mfree 108

Skis I haven't liked: 184 Wren 96ti, 187 Woodsman 116

You can see what I said about the build quality and why I decided to go with the AM build over the Comp build here.

I was looking for two things in this ski:

1) a damp ski that wasn't as intolerant of mistakes as the old LP. This is not to be confused with being easy to ski. In my opinion, the R99 demands skilled input. However, it won't try to eject you in protest if you make a mistake like some skis will. I appreciate that, especially in bumps. Most of where I ski, in the conditions the R99 will be used, consists of nice wind blown chalk guarded on both ends by a gauntlet of bumps and/or bad snow. Though I found myself wanting a touch more stiffness in the shit snow, I felt the stiffness and dampness was dialed for the conditions I actually want to ski these in. I'm not going to be the guy going mach looney down a refrozen bump field.

2) a ski more well suited to the steep and narrow between storms than my MF108. The R99 grips when you lean into it, drifts when you back off, and uses its tail to pop you into the next turn. I actually appreciate being to feel myself pressuring the tip and having it respond in less than ideal conditions without having to use every ounce of concentration Maybe if I was heavier I'd feel differently. Do the tips flap a bit hauling ass on groomers? Yes. Does that bother me? No.

Marshall hit the bullseye.

[Marshal Olson]

MO, as designed/construction spec’d out is it likely that the softish tip becomes a medium flex tip on the comp build? That is, should the flex pattern stay the same but with everything bumped up-or did you design in a different flex profile?

actually hoping the tip stays a bit forgiving as that has worked on other skis I’ve liked…

Yes, exactly, so I am using the same flex pattern (ie same core profile) in both skis. I would say that it is biased toward the tail (meaning the tip is a touch softer and the tail a touch stiffer). I think 2Funky did a good job describing the AM flex. Increase each of his number 1 (underfoot) and 1.5 (ends) for the Comp build. This flex pattern is going to be VERY similar to the OG charger skis like the tanker, LP97/LPR105, exploders, v1 Mx98, etc. Just with a more mordern rocker/camber profile and materials.

In my discussion with him via text, he mentioned they are 25-30% stiffer than the 50/50. It’s exactly what they need for my preference. Marshal will have to answer the rest.

Yes, exactly. The Comp build has 2x the fiberglass and 3x the metal. The ski should measure about 25% stiffer overall, but the tip will feel about 30% stiffer vs. the AM build. Again, I would put the AM at about a 7.5 of 10 stiffness wise and the Comp as a 9 of 10 stiffness wise.

I am digging the Am build currently, and VERY excited to get on the Comp skis once the Dr clears me to rip around snowbird this spring!

[Bobcat Sig]

I love this sort of discussion. Old school Tech Talk at its best!

Love it, thanks man! Lots of folks asking the same Qs via email so glad to surface all of this. Thanks!

Firstly, 2Funky is on the 188 AM R99 currently (on loan till his comp build arrives), and he is actively looking for it to replace a Monster 98 - which between that ski and the 187cm LP 97mm are the two skis I am targeting with the 188 R99 Comp.

To more specifically answer your questions on effective edge, I just took the measurements. The 188 R99 is a 165cm ee and the 180 R99 is a 156cm ee.

Based on the 189 Wren being overkill for you and your terrain, I would rule out the 188R99Comp, as those will be pretty comparable (r99 is longer ee and way less rockered). At your size and background, I would also rule out the 180R99AM. I just don't think it will quite be enough. That leaves us with the 188R99AM and the 180R99Comp. My suggestion would be to go for the 188R99AM if you want something a bit more round firm snow, a little more surfy in soft snow, and a bit more biased towards modest speed in bumps and trees. I would suggest going for the 180R99Comp if you are like... I want to charge the mountain, just don't need the length for the stability.

Based on your data point on the 189cm Wren, my gut is pointing you toward the 180R99Comp.

Love it, Marshal. Thank you.

I realize that without time on these skis it's hard for everyone to get a bead on how they feel and behave, so I appreciate you sharing your experience with these skis.

I assumed you'd slot me in for the RM99 AM 188, so I'm intrigued by the recommendation of the RM99 Comp 180. My assumption is that the AM RM99 would be a touch more forgiving while still providing some backbone to let the skis run and have plenty of energy. Is that the case? I also realize I'm hung up on the length due to my PTSD with the Wren 108. So maybe the better question is; do the 188 RM99 AM ski shorter than the stated length?

188 R99 AM review time.

Me: 6'1, 165 lbs w/o gear. 0 race background but have taught myself how to bend a ski. I rely more on brute force than technique at times. Have skied with Norseman and 2Funky and not as good as they are. I'm lucky enough to ski nearly daily at Shane's Valley.

Skis I've liked in the past: 05/06 Legend Pro, 05/06 Gotama, 187 Blizzard Bonafide, 192 Mfree 108

Skis I haven't liked: 184 Wren 96ti, 187 Woodsman 116

You can see what I said about the build quality and why I decided to go with the AM build over the Comp build here.

I was looking for two things in this ski:

1) a damp ski that wasn't as intolerant of mistakes as the old LP. This is not to be confused with being easy to ski. In my opinion, the R99 demands skilled input. However, it won't try to eject you in protest if you make a mistake like some skis will. I appreciate that, especially in bumps. Most of where I ski, in the conditions the R99 will be used, consists of nice wind blown chalk guarded on both ends by a gauntlet of bumps and/or bad snow. Though I found myself wanting a touch more stiffness in the shit snow, I felt the stiffness and dampness was dialed for the conditions I actually want to ski these in. I'm not going to be the guy going mach looney down a refrozen bump field.

2) a ski more well suited to the steep and narrow between storms than my MF108. The R99 grips when you lean into it, drifts when you back off, and uses its tail to pop you into the next turn. I actually appreciate being to feel myself pressuring the tip and having it respond in less than ideal conditions without having to use every ounce of concentration Maybe if I was heavier I'd feel differently. Do the tips flap a bit hauling ass on groomers? Yes. Does that bother me? No.

Marshall hit the bullseye.

This is exactly the kind of beta I'm after. Thank you for sharing.

My hang-up is the length, so if you'll indulge me, some questions about how the 188 skis. Does it ski like it's all of 188cm or does the slight early rise and flex pattern have it ski shorter? The comments about the tip have me thinking that bending it in allows it to ski a little shorter and be a bit more forgiving. Is that the case?

[Marshal Olson]

I assumed you'd slot me in for the RM99 AM 188, so I'm intrigued by the recommendation of the RM99 Comp 180. My assumption is that the AM RM99 would be a touch more forgiving while still providing some backbone to let the skis run and have plenty of energy. Is that the case? I also realize I'm hung up on the length due to my PTSD with the Wren 108. So maybe the better question is; do the 188 RM99 AM ski shorter than the stated length??

Ok... so here is a little more of my thinking.

For you, I feel like the 180R99Comp will feel like a rally car. Very Fast. Very Responsive. A little loose in a straight line, but super quick to pivot and drift.

Compare that to the 188R99AM, which I think for you will feel like a luxury SUV (Porsche Cayanne or something). Still super fast, but a different ride. Smoother, less demanding, fast as crap in a straight line, but doesn't have the top end of a sports car, and is a little more cumbersome in a slalom due to longer wheelbase and suspension.

The Wren (and the 188R99Comp for example), is like a ferrari. Silly to drive at less than 100mph, stiff ride, hard to handle unless you have the right terrain and are stoked to put in alot of input, but so so soo rewarding when it clicks for you.

I would think of the 188 R99 to ski less demanding (ie more fun at normal speeds) than the 189 Wren, but not really shorter per-se, as you are still pushing around 188cm of snow either way (ie wheelbase in analogy above). The 188R99 is going to be about 2cm shorter in real life, but it's also less rockered at the ends, so .... easier to bend and make turn, but not that different in physical dimensions either.

No idea if those analogies are helpful, so LMK if not! haha.

[Norseman]

Got a couple low tide grippy chalk days on my loaner 188cm r99 AM.

I'll put together a more thorough report in a bit, but these are great skis and super fun.

[kokomas]

On the 188R99AM you guys mostly mounting at -11cm? I believe that is on the line? What'd you do 2Funky?

Sent from my Pixel 7 using Tapatalk

[2FUNKY]

On the 188R99AM you guys mostly mounting at -11cm? I believe that is on the line? What'd you do 2Funky?

Sent from my Pixel 7 using Tapatalk

Didn’t measure, just put them on the line.
Edit to add, i figured that the line was there for a reason. I wanted to ride then there to see if it needed adjusting. I also did my normal super scientific study of standing on them in my socks on the living room floor. By that method I really felt like the line was where it’s at. After skiing them, for me, I wouldn’t go forward. Not sure this ski would really benefit me forward of the line. They allowed me to have a very athletic stance and drive the ski but also was able to come up more neutral to drift the ski to dump some speed.

Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

[GBB]

I mounted at -10.5 per Marshall's rec to SoulSkier above. I found the line was at -12 on my pair.

[Full Trucker]

Attachment 436462

First turns of the season touring off Teton Pass on The R120 AM.

Really, really good! Super intuitive and easy to ski right from the first turn. These are awesome!

Curious where you mounted them? Also curious on Marshal's thoughts on appropriate mount for me since I've skied with him a bit.

Current DDs are Black Crows Atris and I tour on Corvus Freebirds, both in ~185 length. Both have a more forward/progressive/modern mount.

[singlecross]

Curious where you mounted them? Also curious on Marshal's thoughts on appropriate mount for me since I've skied with him a bit.

Current DDs are Black Crows Atris and I tour on Corvus Freebirds, both in ~185 length. Both have a more forward/progressive/modern mount.

I mounted my R120 AM on the line (-11cm, I believe) after talking with Marshal. I’m a 5’7” 170lb very directional skier who likes Volkls and Movements which are known for their rearward mount points.

Happy on the line. No tip dive and not too hooky for me, but I like sidecut.

[Full Trucker]

These showed up on the porch a bit ago... now just waiting on a pair of Shifts I bought from SupreChicken to arrive.



Thanks for the info @singlecross!