Page 4 of 12 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... LastLast
Results 76 to 100 of 280
  1. #76
    Join Date
    Aug 2020
    Location
    SLC
    Posts
    2,055
    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	IMG_1465.jpg 
Views:	128 
Size:	687.1 KB 
ID:	444080
    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	IMG_1447.jpg 
Views:	131 
Size:	480.1 KB 
ID:	444081

    I was very lucky to ski the 187 C113 today. I generally prefer skis with minimal sidecut and little/no camber, so these were already right up my alley. You can go straight if you want, shut it down easily, and ski with your weight forwards or backwards. They are the longest skis I have ever used, and I am a wuss who normally skis <175cm skis but these did not feel uncomfortably long, even though I was using 1200g Skorpius boots. I've only spent a day on the BMT 109s but they are the most similar skis I have used to these. My main ski right now is the newer Dynafit Beast 108 and these are just so much better. As others have said in other threads, the Beast has a seesaw/rockinghorse type feeling that I take as an acceptable tradeoff for their excellent agility and predictability in different snow types, but these have all the positive qualities of the Beast while also feeling super planted and not seesaw-like at all. The snow was excellent today so not the best testing conditions but I wanted to share because I imagine not many others have had the privilege to try these yet.

  2. #77
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Wenatchee
    Posts
    13,197
    Quote Originally Posted by Marshal Olson View Post
    yeah man, that ski, along with the monster 98, are the exact skis I am going after with the comp build R99!
    I think the AM is pretty close to my 187 OG LPRs.


    Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

  3. #78
    Join Date
    Oct 2017
    Posts
    1,954
    Quote Originally Posted by Benneke10 View Post
    I've only spent a day on the BMT 109s but they are the most similar skis I have used to these.
    High praise indeed - BMT109s are fantastic imho.

    I guess these could be a future option then, especially if you guys decide to make 182 or so version.

  4. #79
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Middle of Norway.
    Posts
    2,441
    Quote Originally Posted by Benneke10 View Post
    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	IMG_1465.jpg 
Views:	128 
Size:	687.1 KB 
ID:	444080
    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	IMG_1447.jpg 
Views:	131 
Size:	480.1 KB 
ID:	444081

    I was very lucky to ski the 187 C113 today. I generally prefer skis with minimal sidecut and little/no camber, so these were already right up my alley. You can go straight if you want, shut it down easily, and ski with your weight forwards or backwards. They are the longest skis I have ever used, and I am a wuss who normally skis <175cm skis but these did not feel uncomfortably long, even though I was using 1200g Skorpius boots. I've only spent a day on the BMT 109s but they are the most similar skis I have used to these. My main ski right now is the newer Dynafit Beast 108 and these are just so much better. As others have said in other threads, the Beast has a seesaw/rockinghorse type feeling that I take as an acceptable tradeoff for their excellent agility and predictability in different snow types, but these have all the positive qualities of the Beast while also feeling super planted and not seesaw-like at all. The snow was excellent today so not the best testing conditions but I wanted to share because I imagine not many others have had the privilege to try these yet.
    Dude, this warms my heart! They even look as badass as we wanted them to be, and that's saying quite a bit!

    MO told me my skis are being shipped today. I'm kinda psyched.



    support the raddest project going: http://heritagelabskis.com

  5. #80
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Posts
    42
    Quote Originally Posted by kid-kapow View Post
    High praise indeed - BMT109s are fantastic imho.

    I guess these could be a future option then, especially if you guys decide to make 182 or so version.
    I am in the same camp. I love the design, but I think the 187cm would be too long for me. I skied the BMT 109 in the 186cm length and sold it because it was too long for me. If the C113 has a similar flex pattern as the BMT 109, I would likely buy a ~177cm version of the C113.

  6. #81
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Winthrop, WA.
    Posts
    1,463
    I'm most interested in them as a replacement for my 186 BMT 109's. REALLY REALLY want to hear comparisons to that exact ski. I went back and fourth about buying C113 or C132's this year and went 132 because I've got my 109's which will be extremely hard to dethrone since they work so well in so many conditions. But, the gear whore in me always leaves that possibility open. So all you guys who get a pair of these C113's need to post as much detailed info as possible, as soon as possible.

  7. #82
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Hell Track
    Posts
    12,656
    How stiff did the FL113's end up coming out? Compared to, say, an XXL.

    Also, just in case I decide I need to punish my wallet a little bit, are there any 187's left?

  8. #83
    Join Date
    Nov 2018
    Posts
    786
    Quote Originally Posted by toast2266 View Post
    How stiff did the FL113's end up coming out? Compared to, say, an XXL.

    Also, just in case I decide I need to punish my wallet a little bit, are there any 187's left?
    I'd say they are right about as stiff as an XXL/LPR/Monster 108, but the flex pattern is a bit more like the Monster (slightly stiffer shovel, slightly softer tail), where the Dynastar stuff ihas a slightly softer shovel and stiffer tail comparatively speaking.

    They are quite similar flex/stiffness to my 1st gen 196 Renegades (which are now headed to Mr Pretzel).

    There are a couple pair of 187 FL113 left . The 194s are sold out till next fall tho.

  9. #84
    Join Date
    Nov 2018
    Posts
    786
    Quote Originally Posted by Lord Thomas View Post
    I'm most interested in them as a replacement for my 186 BMT 109's. REALLY REALLY want to hear comparisons to that exact ski. I went back and fourth about buying C113 or C132's this year and went 132 because I've got my 109's which will be extremely hard to dethrone since they work so well in so many conditions. But, the gear whore in me always leaves that possibility open. So all you guys who get a pair of these C113's need to post as much detailed info as possible, as soon as possible.
    I don't know if I am qualified to answer this, as I have owned the BMT122, VWK, and BMT94 but never skied the 109.

    But here is my .02

    1). Compared to the VWK I think skiers will find the C113 a little more lively, responsive, surfier, and close to 150g lighter. Lengthwise, they are very much a tweener between the 184 and 191 VWK. The Volkl, due to its weight, may feel slightly damper in chop inbounds.

    2). Compared to the BMT94/122 I think skiers will find the C113 to have a slightly more fall line personality, a touch more support in the tail, and to skin a bit better on tricky skin tracks. The Volkls may be a touch more forgiving at slower speed.

    Very curious to hear what others think, as the C113 gets on snow!

  10. #85
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Hell Track
    Posts
    12,656
    Quote Originally Posted by Marshal Olson View Post
    I'd say they are right about as stiff as an XXL/LPR/Monster 108, but the flex pattern is a bit more like the Monster (slightly stiffer shovel, slightly softer tail), where the Dynastar stuff ihas a slightly softer shovel and stiffer tail comparatively speaking.

    They are quite similar flex/stiffness to my 1st gen 196 Renegades (which are now headed to Mr Pretzel).

    There are a couple pair of 187 FL113 left . The 194s are sold out till next fall tho.
    Dammit. I was kinda hoping you'd say something that would make me not want them. I don't really need another set of skis on the rack right now, but those sound fun as hell.

    [Sigh]

  11. #86
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    PNW
    Posts
    7,355
    Quote Originally Posted by Lord Thomas View Post
    I'm most interested in them as a replacement for my 186 BMT 109's. REALLY REALLY want to hear comparisons to that exact ski. I went back and fourth about buying C113 or C132's this year and went 132 because I've got my 109's which will be extremely hard to dethrone since they work so well in so many conditions. But, the gear whore in me always leaves that possibility open. So all you guys who get a pair of these C113's need to post as much detailed info as possible, as soon as possible.
    Quote Originally Posted by Marshal Olson View Post
    I don't know if I am qualified to answer this, as I have owned the BMT122, VWK, and BMT94 but never skied the 109.

    But here is my .02

    1). Compared to the VWK I think skiers will find the C113 a little more lively, responsive, surfier, and close to 150g lighter. Lengthwise, they are very much a tweener between the 184 and 191 VWK. The Volkl, due to its weight, may feel slightly damper in chop inbounds.

    2). Compared to the BMT94/122 I think skiers will find the C113 to have a slightly more fall line personality, a touch more support in the tail, and to skin a bit better on tricky skin tracks. The Volkls may be a touch more forgiving at slower speed.

    Very curious to hear what others think, as the C113 gets on snow!
    I liked the BMT109 a lot but not as much as the BMT94 or carbonic Katana... or BG108t, which dethroned the 109 for me personally.

    The 94 and KVW are dang close in their rocker lines, long and low. I thought the 109 had more rocker than necessary which made the tail seem vague and less supportable than I wanted.

    The 113 is a pretty compelling shape and I'm keen to hear some reports soon, too.

  12. #87
    Join Date
    Jan 2018
    Posts
    494
    Planks arrived today and all the big dick energy from inside the box blew the carboard right open for me. Everything looks so good. 194s FL113s coming in around the same weight as my LP105s, woof so pumped.

    Thanks for it all Marshal!

    Sent from my Pixel 6 using Tapatalk

  13. #88
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Winthrop, WA.
    Posts
    1,463
    Umm, bry, full 3D pic set is required

  14. #89
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Middle of Norway.
    Posts
    2,441
    Quote Originally Posted by bry View Post
    Planks arrived today and all the big dick energy from inside the box blew the carboard right open for me. Everything looks so good. 194s FL113s coming in around the same weight as my LP105s, woof so pumped.

    Thanks for it all Marshal!

    Sent from my Pixel 6 using Tapatalk
    Please mount with gold pivots, post pics so I can live vicariously through you until feb 7. If UPS don't lose them over the Atlantic somehow.

    Carry on.

    support the raddest project going: http://heritagelabskis.com

  15. #90
    Join Date
    Jan 2018
    Posts
    494
    Last edited by bry; 01-26-2023 at 05:04 PM.

  16. #91
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    seatown
    Posts
    3,876
    oh baby

  17. #92
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Middle of Norway.
    Posts
    2,441
    Thank you.

    support the raddest project going: http://heritagelabskis.com

  18. #93
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Posts
    2,127

    Big Mountain Powder Chargers - Heritage Lab C113 and FL113 - Dedicated Thread

    Im pretty sure thats the raddest set of profile pics of all time.


    One gripe, that makes zero sense, but is stated to kill all further gripes. Theyre strapped together.

    Now, all of you internet nerds can fuck off and understand that when weighted with a penis, things go reverse.

    That FL113 is the shizzle.

  19. #94
    Join Date
    Jun 2020
    Posts
    3,218
    The profile pics are great, but Id like to see what else is residing in that garage.

  20. #95
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    NCW
    Posts
    4,158
    That's a lot more splay than I was expecting on the FL113. Is that a true representation or is it accentuated by the strap placement?

  21. #96
    Join Date
    Jan 2018
    Posts
    494
    Quote Originally Posted by J. Barron DeJong View Post
    The profile pics are great, but Id like to see what else is residing in that garage.
    I can assure you there's nothing spectacular going on, happy to share to some garage thread.

    Sent from my Pixel 6 using Tapatalk

  22. #97
    Join Date
    Jun 2020
    Posts
    3,218
    Quote Originally Posted by bry View Post
    I can assure you there's nothing spectacular going on, happy to share to some garage thread.

    Sent from my Pixel 6 using Tapatalk
    Dang. Fancy door and floor got me all excited.

  23. #98
    Join Date
    Jun 2020
    Posts
    3,218
    Quote Originally Posted by jackattack View Post
    That's a lot more splay than I was expecting on the FL113. Is that a true representation or is it accentuated by the strap placement?
    Spec is for 65mm tip height, so fairly significant amount.

  24. #99
    Join Date
    Jan 2018
    Posts
    494
    No straps no camber

    Sent from my Pixel 6 using Tapatalk

  25. #100
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    PNW
    Posts
    7,355
    Those look really awesome man

Posting Permissions

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