Page 2 of 8 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 ... LastLast
Results 26 to 50 of 186
  1. #26
    Join Date
    Aug 2020
    Location
    SLC
    Posts
    1,958
    Quote Originally Posted by Marshal Olson View Post
    I haven’t experimented with them, but something like the plum rental toe setup would be really cool.

    https://skimo.co/plum-adjustment-plates
    I have a pair of these lying around somewhere that you could probably put to better use than me

    https://skimo.co/aski-adjustment-plates

    Compatible with Dynafit, ATK and Trab toes

  2. #27
    Join Date
    Nov 2018
    Posts
    622
    Quote Originally Posted by Benneke10 View Post
    I have a pair of these lying around somewhere that you could probably put to better use than me

    https://skimo.co/aski-adjustment-plates

    Compatible with Dynafit, ATK and Trab toes

    oh man, that would be sick. I’ll text you

  3. #28
    Join Date
    Jun 2018
    Location
    Portland, OR
    Posts
    1,106

    Return of the R/R - Heritage Lab 132 - Dedicated Thread

    Quote Originally Posted by Marshal Olson View Post
    yes, exactly.

    and as a 200lb human who cracked a few SSL toes, I like the steel radicals. Or at least I have used them for 100’s of days with no issue!
    Right on. It looks like the ATK FR14 is good that way, both toe and heel. The Trofeo+ adjustment plate is pretty narrow. Unless the spread on the heel screws doesn’t matter as much. Maybe the freeride spacer makes up the difference.


    ::::@::::
    Last edited by lucknau; 12-03-2022 at 04:57 PM.

  4. #29
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Wilson, Wyo.
    Posts
    4,432
    OK, so I'm a bit late to the game in just learning about HL. I need another pair of skis like I need a hole in the head BUT... I'd love to support M.O., and I've got a soft-spot for something like this.

    Should I pull the trigger on a carbon pair in 190?

    My scenario:
    * I tour 100% of the time — 100-150 days a season.
    * I gravitate toward lighter gear (see above)
    * I've owned the original Spatulas, which were life-changing. While they felt light on the feet while skiing due to the concentrated weight under foot, @ 2,760g per ski there's no way I'd tour on them. For years I kept my pair around thinking I'd mount a set of tech bindings on them but never did. I sold them to a TGR member currently putting them to use, and I get a little wistful about them.
    * I've owned the Lotus 138 in 202cm. For me, they were an AK heli ski. I personally found them overkill @ JHMR.... except when maybe getting the first box and crushing that very first lap top-to-bottom.
    * The heft of the Spatula allowed it to crush chop. Because I'm skiing backcountry, I tend to ski lots of untracked pow. Any ski works for me in pow.... but the Spats were SUPER playful, and I miss what they did in any type of crust/wind-skin/etc.
    * I remember the Lotus was better than the Spats on firm stuff and could be skied a little more centered.
    * Even though I'm skiing pow, sometimes a skin track is going to be firm in spots.

    Not sure how the HL 132's rocker profile compares to the Lotus 138 202.

    @ 1,950g/ski, I'd consider the HL 132 a fairly heavy touring ski. Will it be as playful as the Spatulas? Will the much lighter weight mean it isn't as good in any crust/wind-affected snow?

    Thanks for any thoughts!

  5. #30
    Join Date
    Nov 2018
    Posts
    622
    @UAN! What up man. how goes it?

    Obviously I am biased, but here is my thinking...

    1). I loved how SMOOTH the Spatula was on windbuff and that sort of thing. In part that is the weight (2700g), part of that is the fact that they are narrower than some of the subsequent R/R skis, and part of that is a slightly more round flex pattern.

    2). I loved how much more stable and functional (skintrack, skiing, traversing, etc etc) the R/R skis with small flat spots underfoot, both in sidecut and in rocker profile.

    So with the 132, there were a few things that really mattered to me.

    1). Nailing the flex so the ski WOULD feel poppy, lively, and smooth (ala Spatula), but NOT boardy, planky, or unweildy.
    2). Having two builds so that there was the chop mowing inbound freeride build (2700g fiberglass option) and a light skinnable Carbon build.
    3). Find the right width that maximizes float and pivot, while being skinny enough underfoot, and the right amount of taper tip/tail to slice through and "powify" windskin.

    For me, personally, I will use my C113 187cm as an everyday backcountry ski (50% of days), and then the 190 C132 as a soft snow ski. (25% of days). But that doesn't only mean perfect low density snow w/ the 132. I think the R/R shine best in funky snow and tight terrain as much as they do in great snow. In particular when the snow comes in upside down, in windskin, surface hoar, and when skiing is confined to low angle trees - R/R makes that sooooo much more fun.

    I am mounting my first article pair tonight, and just waiting for the skins to arrive. Hoping to ski them this weekend or early next week! I will be looking to also test them with both my bigger boots (1450g Vanguard) as well as my little boots (900g Raceborg), because I think the R/R will pair with freerided out race boots in an amazing way.

    More to come! Let me know if you have any follow up questions!
    Last edited by Marshal Olson; 12-07-2022 at 11:20 AM.

  6. #31
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    SLC
    Posts
    3,441
    Quote Originally Posted by Marshal Olson View Post
    Unfortunately nobody ordered any 200cm FR132
    After all the posturing last spring that is disappointing...

    Quote Originally Posted by upallnight View Post
    OK, so I'm a bit late to the game in just learning about HL. I need another pair of skis like I need a hole in the head BUT... I'd love to support M.O., and I've got a soft-spot for something like this.

    Should I pull the trigger on a carbon pair in 190?

    My scenario:
    * I tour 100% of the time — 100-150 days a season.
    * I gravitate toward lighter gear (see above)
    * I've owned the original Spatulas, which were life-changing. While they felt light on the feet while skiing due to the concentrated weight under foot, @ 2,760g per ski there's no way I'd tour on them. For years I kept my pair around thinking I'd mount a set of tech bindings on them but never did. I sold them to a TGR member currently putting them to use, and I get a little wistful about them.
    * I've owned the Lotus 138 in 202cm. For me, they were an AK heli ski. I personally found them overkill @ JHMR.... except when maybe getting the first box and crushing that very first lap top-to-bottom.
    * The heft of the Spatula allowed it to crush chop. Because I'm skiing backcountry, I tend to ski lots of untracked pow. Any ski works for me in pow.... but the Spats were SUPER playful, and I miss what they did in any type of crust/wind-skin/etc.
    * I remember the Lotus was better than the Spats on firm stuff and could be skied a little more centered.
    * Even though I'm skiing pow, sometimes a skin track is going to be firm in spots.

    Not sure how the HL 132's rocker profile compares to the Lotus 138 202.

    @ 1,950g/ski, I'd consider the HL 132 a fairly heavy touring ski. Will it be as playful as the Spatulas? Will the much lighter weight mean it isn't as good in any crust/wind-affected snow?

    Thanks for any thoughts!
    I am in a very good position to answer this question, especially since Marshal dropped off my 190 FR132 yesterday. They will get alpine bindings, but the rocker profile and dimensions are identical to the carbon layup.

    Touring on these types of skis is different but very doable. Weight wise (for the carbon version) you will be just fine if your legs are in shape. Crusty/variable snow you will wish for more heft, but they are very manageable and quite often you can just float ontop of crusty snow if desired. Skin tracks with the minimal sidecut underfoot (spats were full curve sidecut, so infinite turning radius) are very manageable.

    rocker profile comparison will depend on which version of the 202 lotus 138s you had, but here is a comparison to the older 192 bamboo sidewall ones (08/09 i think?). You can see that I think touring on these types of skis is well worth it.

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	PXL_20221207_170357967.jpg 
Views:	133 
Size:	1,011.1 KB 
ID:	437178

    tip rocker comparison (Heritage labs, then lotus 138, then spoons) HL and 138s are really close here
    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	PXL_20221207_170234813.jpg 
Views:	139 
Size:	716.6 KB 
ID:	437180

    tail rocker comparison, they are all nearly identical
    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	PXL_20221207_170243591.jpg 
Views:	127 
Size:	994.9 KB 
ID:	437179

  7. #32
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Wilson, Wyo.
    Posts
    4,432
    Thank you both!

    Quote Originally Posted by Marshal Olson View Post
    1). I loved how SMOOTH the Spatula was on windbuff and that sort of thing. In part that is the weight (2700g), part of that is the fact that they are narrower than some of the subsequent R/R skis, and part of that is a slightly more round flex pattern.
    Yeah. I think the weight matters but wonder how much is related to weight.

    Quote Originally Posted by Marshal Olson View Post
    3). Find the right width that maximizes float and pivot, while being skinny enough underfoot, and the right amount of taper tip/tail to slice through and "powify" windskin.
    I am fortunate to ski a lot of "perfect" snow — which could be skied on literally anything. A Spatula-like ski for the hooky/windbuff/grabby snow would be ideal for me... plus the fun-factor in any kind of pow/trees.

    Quote Originally Posted by Marshal Olson View Post
    In particular when the snow comes in upside down, in windskin, surface hoar, and when skiing is confined to low angle trees - R/R makes that sooooo much more fun.
    YES!

    Quote Originally Posted by Marshal Olson View Post
    I am mounting my first article pair tonight, and just waiting for the skins to arrive. Hoping to ski them this weekend or early next week! I will be looking to also test them with both my bigger boots (1450g Vanguard) as well as my little boots (900g Raceborg), because I think the R/R will pair with freerided out race boots in an amazing way.
    Interesting! Which light boot is this?

    I used to ski both Spatulas and 138 202s with Scarpa Denali boots (yes, really).

    Quote Originally Posted by mc_roon View Post
    Weight wise (for the carbon version) you will be just fine if your legs are in shape.
    Anything is doable... it's just a question of how far and how fast. I have many days of 5-10k vert, and there's a difference between 1,550g skis (Zero G 108) vs 1,950g (Corvus Freebird).

    Quote Originally Posted by mc_roon View Post
    Crusty/variable snow you will wish for more heft, but they are very manageable and quite often you can just float ontop of crusty snow if desired.
    That's the real concern. I don't *need* more skis, and if I'm going to be giving up the funky-pow-slaying character of the Spats as a trade-off for the lighter weight, I really need to think that over.


    Thank you for all the detailed info!

    Definitely pondering this. Much appreciated!

  8. #33
    Join Date
    Nov 2018
    Posts
    622
    Quote Originally Posted by upallnight View Post
    Yeah. I think the weight matters but wonder how much is related to weight.
    Interesting! Which light boot is this?
    I would say the biggest factor in making a ski smooth and slice through funky snow is the weight. The next biggest is the flex pattern (suspension as blister would say).

    For me, on these carbon skis, I wanted them light, but not overly so. The c132 @ 190cm is 1950g, and that, as you say, is about the same weight as a much narrower and slightly shorter Corvus Firebird. But it's not crazy light like the Bd 115/116 @ ~1600g. At least for me, this build strikes the perfect balance between been light enough to skin bigger days on, but not being too light and, literally, harshing the mellow. I also am super happy with the flex pattern, as I believe it will feel poppy, smooth and responsive, even on firmer snow.

    Regarding boots, my heavier boot is the La Sportiva Vanguard (approx 1450g as setup) when the snow is variable, unpredictable, etc. My light boot is a La Sportiva Raceborg (approx 950g as setup) for when the snow is more consistent. I am literally dying to ski my Raceborgs on C132 w/ U-spring bindings. Just waiting for fresh skins to arrive. Such a dreamy setup for slashing around.

  9. #34
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Wilson, Wyo.
    Posts
    4,432
    Quote Originally Posted by Marshal Olson View Post
    I would say the biggest factor in making a ski smooth and slice through funky snow is the weight. The next biggest is the flex pattern (suspension as blister would say).
    Thanks!

    This makes sense. I have always felt that there are certain things that a heavy ski can do that a light ski

    Quote Originally Posted by Marshal Olson View Post
    For me, on these carbon skis, I wanted them light, but not overly so. The c132 @ 190cm is 1950g, and that, as you say, is about the same weight as a much narrower and slightly shorter Corvus Firebird. But it's not crazy light like the Bd 115/116 @ ~1600g. At least for me, this build strikes the perfect balance between been light enough to skin bigger days on, but not being too light and, literally, harshing the mellow. I also am super happy with the flex pattern, as I believe it will feel poppy, smooth and responsive, even on firmer snow.
    Thank you. As you said before, the carbon version is not going to do what your heavier, all-mountain version will do in cut-up/funky snow, but that's the reason you are making both. I'm mostly interested in the untracked, funky snow one tends to encounter in the backcountry.

    Quote Originally Posted by Marshal Olson View Post
    Regarding boots, my heavier boot is the La Sportiva Vanguard (approx 1450g as setup) when the snow is variable, unpredictable, etc. My light boot is a La Sportiva Raceborg (approx 950g as setup) for when the snow is more consistent. I am literally dying to ski my Raceborgs on C132 w/ U-spring bindings. Just waiting for fresh skins to arrive. Such a dreamy setup for slashing around.
    Thank you! I didn't realize at the time the Raceborg was a model — I thought it was something you had modified!

    I do have a set of F1 LTs that I occasionally use if I want to go fast and light up our local ski resort While I thought I might take them on some bigger tours, I simply haven't done so. I use my Zero G Pro Tours (with different liners) for pretty much everything in the Tetons as I appreciate what they do on the way down.

    But.... you bring up an interesting point. I have a set of ATK Trofeos laying around... and the F1 LTs.... hm.

    This is tempting. (Trofeo not the best for a super wide ski, but we're not talking about railing turns on firm snow with a wide ski....)

  10. #35
    Join Date
    Nov 2018
    Posts
    622
    Quote Originally Posted by upallnight View Post

    But.... you bring up an interesting point. I have a set of ATK Trofeos laying around... and the F1 LTs.... hm.

    This is tempting. (Trofeo not the best for a super wide ski, but we're not talking about railing turns on firm snow with a wide ski....)
    I love it. Please let me know if you had other q's!

    Last thought I have is that on a wide ski like this, I would recommend considering an adjustment plate for the trofeo heel -- two reasons. Firstly, so you can easily use your light touring boots in low density pow and heavier boots when windskin and zipper crust are likely. Secondarily, I have not had problems personally, but I just like to have a larger screw footprint on a super wide ski. FWIW!!!

  11. #36
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Wilson, Wyo.
    Posts
    4,432
    Quote Originally Posted by Marshal Olson View Post
    I love it. Please let me know if you had other q's!

    Last thought I have is that on a wide ski like this, I would recommend considering an adjustment plate for the trofeo heel -- two reasons. Firstly, so you can easily use your light touring boots in low density pow and heavier boots when windskin and zipper crust are likely. Secondarily, I have not had problems personally, but I just like to have a larger screw footprint on a super wide ski. FWIW!!!
    Agree with you on a wider footprint for tech bindings on wider skis. My Trofeo heel adjustment plates are not materially wider than the Trofeo heel screws. The plate is longer (obviously), but the 4 screw on the plate are basically the same width. Is that different from your experience?

    I'm more of a finesse skier and have never experienced an issue either — but fully agree that wider is better. I tend to think wider toe mounting point might be more important than wider heel mount if one has to choose between the 2. I have no real basis for that — just a hunch.

    Out of curiosity, what are your thoughts on the 132s vs a ski like the Armada JJ (/JJ Ultralite)?

  12. #37
    Join Date
    Nov 2018
    Posts
    622
    Quote Originally Posted by upallnight View Post
    Agree with you on a wider footprint for tech bindings on wider skis. My Trofeo heel adjustment plates are not materially wider than the Trofeo heel screws. The plate is longer (obviously), but the 4 screw on the plate are basically the same width. Is that different from your experience?

    I'm more of a finesse skier and have never experienced an issue either — but fully agree that wider is better. I tend to think wider toe mounting point might be more important than wider heel mount if one has to choose between the 2. I have no real basis for that — just a hunch.

    Out of curiosity, what are your thoughts on the 132s vs a ski like the Armada JJ (/JJ Ultralite)?
    Aha! Just looked at the spec on the Trofeo and its plates vs the Plum and Kreutzpiste heels I use. I'd say the standard 30mm plate (which I think you have), would be perfect.

  13. #38
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Wilson, Wyo.
    Posts
    4,432
    Quote Originally Posted by Marshal Olson View Post
    Aha! Just looked at the spec on the Trofeo and its plates vs the Plum and Kreutzpiste heels I use. I'd say the standard 30mm plate (which I think you have), would be perfect.
    To be clear, what I was saying is the ATK Trofeo plate does not have a *wider* mount for the bindings. Yes, it's 30mm of fore/aft adjustment (=good), but it's not going to provide a wider platform for skiing. I thought you were talking bout increasing the width of mounting screws.

    Be curious on comments on the 132 vs the JJ (/similarly-shaped) skis.

    Thanks!

  14. #39
    Join Date
    Nov 2018
    Posts
    622
    Ok, my bad! So the Plum/et al race heels are a 20.5mm hole width. The ATKs are 25mm, so ~20% wider footprint. I'd still recommend the adjustment plate to spread the holes a bit, but I think that pairing would be solid (on any fat ski).

    Regarding the JJ UL -- Man I really don't know, I haven't skied or looked at those things since c. 2006 when they first came out, sorry I can't be of more help, but at a glance I see a 116mm ski with 18m radius and designed for a -4cm mount, which is pretty different.

  15. #40
    Join Date
    Jan 2021
    Posts
    6
    Pulled the trigger on 190 c132s a few days ago. Psyched to get these out for AK pow touring this year! Hopefully the snow stays as good as its been these last few weeks.

    Marshall, can you comment on mount point a little bit? I've been skiing the Armada ARG II UL quite a bit this season. That thing is mounted pretty far forward (-5.5 I think), but it seems to ski well at this point. I understand that the mount point on this vs the c132 are quite different and is likely attributed to differences is rocker/taper profiles/etc. Any reason to deviate from -11.5 as recommended on the c132?

  16. #41
    Join Date
    Nov 2018
    Posts
    622
    Quote Originally Posted by nkimmes View Post
    Pulled the trigger on 190 c132s a few days ago. Psyched to get these out for AK pow touring this year! Hopefully the snow stays as good as its been these last few weeks.

    Marshall, can you comment on mount point a little bit? I've been skiing the Armada ARG II UL quite a bit this season. That thing is mounted pretty far forward (-5.5 I think), but it seems to ski well at this point. I understand that the mount point on this vs the c132 are quite different and is likely attributed to differences is rocker/taper profiles/etc. Any reason to deviate from -11.5 as recommended on the c132?
    yeah man!

    Great question. So I definitely updated the shape to be more accommodating to modern mounts. The -11.5 mount is as far back as anyone might want (ie max directionality & alpine boots inbounds on the FR132). I would say -9.5 would be good for most skiers in somewhat more upright boots, and -7.5 for “modern” skiers.

    after testing the first sample a bit now, I have confirmed that I will be skiing the c132 with my lightest most upright boots the most, and will be moving my mount to -10 (I like very far setback mounts typically).

  17. #42
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Wilson, Wyo.
    Posts
    4,432
    Quote Originally Posted by Marshal Olson View Post
    I would say the biggest factor in making a ski smooth and slice through funky snow is the weight. The next biggest is the flex pattern (suspension as blister would say).

    For me, on these carbon skis, I wanted them light, but not overly so. The c132 @ 190cm is 1950g
    Quick question — I'm getting closer to placing an order. You wrote in the first post +/- 1,950g/ski, and sounds like you may have gotten your sample above @ 1,950.

    When I went back on the website I noticed it says "Target weight 2075g at 190cm." Is that old info?

    May not matter to most, but I'm 100% human-powered so want to know what I'm getting.

    Seems like many production samples I've seen/prototypes often come in heavier in the production versions (K2 Dispatch comes to mind).

    Thanks!!

  18. #43
    Join Date
    Nov 2015
    Location
    Reno, NV
    Posts
    804
    Quote Originally Posted by Marshal Olson View Post

    I am mounting my first article pair tonight, and just waiting for the skins to arrive. Hoping to ski them this weekend or early next week! I will be looking to also test them with both my bigger boots (1450g Vanguard) as well as my little boots (900g Raceborg), because I think the R/R will pair with freerided out race boots in an amazing way.

    More to come! Let me know if you have any follow up questions!
    You get ‘em out for the maiden voyage?

  19. #44
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Posts
    138
    Hey Marshal, forgive me if you answered this elsewhere but what was the reasoning behind changing the design from C138 to C132. Maybe I'm mistaken but I thought the first run were going to be C138 but I don't see anything about those on the website. Also, are there options for different, more plain graphics or just the one option? Thanks!

  20. #45
    Join Date
    Nov 2018
    Posts
    622
    Yo!

    So yes indeed, I have gotten a good number of turns on the C132, including this AM where it was 4" of cream cheese graupel-pow and I could back-to-back them against my BMT122's. In case it isn't obvious, these are just my honest unfiltered thoughts, but well... I am biased as hell so just calling that out at the onset.

    At the highest level, they turned out EXACTLY how I wanted, and truly and honestly believe that any R/R-lover or R/R-curious skier will be very mesh quite quickly with the 132.

    I am very glad that I went with the 132mm width. I have always thought that 125 (spatula) was too skinny and approaching/exceeding 140 (basically everything else) was too wide, and right around 130 (OG Pontoon) was perfect. The ski definitely skinned better on established tracks than I am used to on wider R/R skis and was noticeably more friendly on the knees when exiting tight sketchy luge runs.

    I was very curious of was how the tip would behave, as there is a magic angle on the shovel's reverse section that slices through setting-up snow, and the 132 nailed that in the funky snow I skied today. A side benefit is that since the tip is narrower, the ski has the laser-fast turn initiation of the original "pointy tip" R/R skisala the Spatula and its derivatives.

    I also updated the tail taper and flex pattern to have a larger sweet spot, where the 132 would/should be happy from -11 for directional chargers to -8.5 or so for modern/neutral skiers. The tail itself feels a bit more slashy as well.

    Lastly, it was very much eye-opening comparing the 132 to my BMT122s (which are rad skis)... honestly, I don't really ever see using the BMT again. The BMT122 was slightly easier to skin up firm off-camber sections, but the 132 is so much quicker and slashier coming back down. I much preferred the 132 in tricky snow, thought they were about the same on luge runs, skinning was pretty close (for me at least - as someone who has skinned ALOT on wide reverse camber skis), and the 132 just gives so much more real estate to move your body weight around (which is really nice on 1000g boots, as they are softer with shorter cuffs, so your body naturally moves more and the ski is so damn easy to ski in soft snow).

    Hoping Mc_Roon gets a chance to mount his FR132 and give them a spin at the bird sometime. Those things are going to annhilate inbound pow days, me thinks! Combining the mass and surfyness of a spatula with the width and length of the Pontoon, the stability of a damp charging ski, all in a R/R package. Can't wait!

    Anyhow, super fired up. Making those turns the last few days has really validated this project for me.

    I am also STOKED to share that the coming round of Freeride and Carbon skis (132 and 113 shapes) should be shipping to me quite soon... they are in finishing as we speak.
    Last edited by Marshal Olson; 12-31-2022 at 06:15 PM.

  21. #46
    Join Date
    Mar 2016
    Posts
    295
    Quote Originally Posted by Marshal Olson View Post
    For me, on these carbon skis, I wanted them light, but not overly so. The c132 @ 190cm is 1950g, and that, as you say, is about the same weight as a much narrower and slightly shorter Corvus Firebird. But it's not crazy light like the Bd 115/116 @ ~1600g. At least for me, this build strikes the perfect balance between been light enough to skin bigger days on, but not being too light and, literally, harshing the mellow. I also am super happy with the flex pattern, as I believe it will feel poppy, smooth and responsive, even on firmer snow.
    I have found in my own experience slogging around on heavy skis that 2000g is the threshold for wanting to tour on a ski for any real amount of time. I've done 5k+ days on 2400g skis and while "doable" it isn't easy. 5k on 2000g skis that still rip feels a lot more reasonable. My 190cm Lotus 120s pure3 are about 2000g and fill that niche for me right now, but I am intensely curious about the C132... might have to put an order in come fall.

  22. #47
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Posts
    138
    Quote Originally Posted by Marshal Olson View Post
    Yo!

    So yes indeed, I have gotten a good number of turns on the C132, including this AM where it was 4" of cream cheese graupel-pow and I could back-to-back them against my BMT122's. In case it isn't obvious, these are just my honest unfiltered thoughts, but well... I am biased as hell so just calling that out at the onset.

    At the highest level, they turned out EXACTLY how I wanted, and truly and honestly believe that any R/R-lover or R/R-curious skier will be very mesh quite quickly with the 132.

    I am very glad that I went with the 132mm width. I have always thought that 125 (spatula) was too skinny and approaching/exceeding 140 (basically everything else) was too wide, and right around 130 (OG Pontoon) was perfect. The ski definitely skinned better on established tracks than I am used to on wider R/R skis and was noticeably more friendly on the knees when exiting tight sketchy luge runs.

    I was very curious of was how the tip would behave, as there is a magic angle on the shovel's reverse section that slices through setting-up snow, and the 132 nailed that in the funky snow I skied today. A side benefit is that since the tip is narrower, the ski has the laser-fast turn initiation of the original "pointy tip" R/R skisala the Spatula and its derivatives.

    I also updated the tail taper and flex pattern to have a larger sweet spot, where the 132 would/should be happy from -11 for directional chargers to -8.5 or so for modern/neutral skiers. The tail itself feels a bit more slashy as well.

    Lastly, it was very much eye-opening comparing the 132 to my BMT122s (which are rad skis)... honestly, I don't really ever see using the BMT again. The BMT122 was slightly easier to skin up firm off-camber sections, but the 132 is so much quicker and slashier coming back down. I much preferred the 132 in tricky snow, thought they were about the same on luge runs, skinning was pretty close (for me at least - as someone who has skinned ALOT on wide reverse camber skis), and the 132 just gives so much more real estate to move your body weight around (which is really nice on 1000g boots, as they are softer with shorter cuffs, so your body naturally moves more and the ski is so damn easy to ski in soft snow).

    Hoping Mc_Roon gets a chance to mount his FR132 and give them a spin at the bird sometime. Those things are going to annhilate inbound pow days, me thinks! Combining the mass and surfyness of a spatula with the width and length of the Pontoon, the stability of a damp charging ski, all in a R/R package. Can't wait!

    Anyhow, super fired up. Making those turns the last few days has really validated this project for me.

    I am also STOKED to share that the coming round of Freeride and Carbon skis (132 and 113 shapes) should be shipping to me quite soon... they are in finishing as we speak.
    Thanks for the info Marshal!

  23. #48
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    No longer somewhere in Idaho
    Posts
    1,556
    I’m having a hard time
    Not speculating how much fun I’d have on some C132’s set up with really tiny bindings….


    Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums
    Gravity always wins...

  24. #49
    Join Date
    Mar 2017
    Location
    SLC, Utah
    Posts
    3,419
    Hey Marshal, I was going through some pretty turbulent times (see the Tammy Wynette thread) while you were taking preorders for the c132, and I had neither the resources nor the emotional bandwidth to consider a new pair of skis. I assume the answer is "you snooze you lose", but if there ends up being an extra pair of c132s from this run, please let me know!!

    Sent from my Pixel 6 Pro using Tapatalk

  25. #50
    Join Date
    Feb 2019
    Posts
    307

Posting Permissions

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