Check Out Our Shop
Page 5 of 10 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 LastLast
Results 101 to 125 of 250
  1. #101
    Join Date
    Nov 2018
    Posts
    1,343
    Quote Originally Posted by Shorty_J View Post
    Paging @mntlion to the white courtesy phone to tell us about his black crows daemons.

    Sent from my SM-A536W using Tapatalk
    Yup, shoot me your email, happy to explore it in more detail in a working doc.

  2. #102
    Join Date
    Feb 2019
    Location
    Ellensburg
    Posts
    1,252
    Quote Originally Posted by MagnificentUnicorn View Post
    Flat camber with rocker, like your Ravens. Use your imagination. Rails firm, pivots like crazy and is a blast in soft snow. What’s the downside? Please elaborate


    Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums
    Ok I'll try. I feel like we're getting close to this ski:

    Faction CT 1.0 - low tide newschool charger

    Make it reverse camber. Bit longer radius. I guess it would be more soft-snow friendly, drifty-er, less carvy? Just hard to imagine it would be more fun without camber. I know you CAN rail hardpack on reverse camber skis, but I don't feel like I get the same joy out of it as I do skiing RC in soft snow. If I know I'm skiing mostly firm conditions, I like some camber underfoot.

    I guess I should have just asked--what kind of day is it where y'all are wishing you were skiing a 2200g 90mm reverse camber charger? Could this be a DD somewhere? INW? Seems like a pretty specific use case. And I'm not against that... Just curious...

    This is all speculation because I've never skied a RC 90mm ski, ha. Just extrapolating from other data points.

  3. #103
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Posts
    2,729

    Push the Envelope: Heritage Labs RC85 and RC95

    Quote Originally Posted by waveshello View Post
    I guess I should have just asked--what kind of day is it where y'all are wishing you were skiing a 2200g 90mm reverse camber charger? Could this be a DD somewhere? INW? Seems like a pretty specific use case. And I'm not against that... Just curious...
    I'll go ahead and say it. Never. I can't imagine a single-use case where I'd prefer a reverse-camber ski less than 100 underfoot.

    I was skiing spring corn today on my M102s. You know what I wanted? I wanted the stupid carbon tip to go away. It hurts my ears. I wanted less metal. It felt too tight. I wanted an FL105. Glass, wood, slight camber, and silence.

    You know what wasn't in my way? My 2mm of camber.
    Last edited by gaijin; 02-18-2024 at 04:55 AM.

  4. #104
    Join Date
    Aug 2022
    Posts
    139
    Quote Originally Posted by gaijin View Post
    I was skiing spring corn today on my M102s. You know what I wanted? I wanted the stupid carbon tip to go away. It hurts my ears. I wanted less metal. It felt too tight. I wanted an FL105. Glass, wood, slight camber, and silence.
    These are the exact reasons why the FL105 has replaced my M102.

  5. #105
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Wenatchee
    Posts
    14,949
    Quote Originally Posted by gaijin View Post
    I'll go ahead and say it. Never. I can't imagine a single-use case where I'd prefer a reverse-camber ski less than 100 underfoot.

    I was skiing spring corn today on my M102s. You know what I wanted? I wanted the stupid carbon tip to go away. It hurts my ears. I wanted less metal. It felt too tight. I wanted an FL105. Glass, wood, slight camber, and silence.

    You know what wasn't in my way? My 2mm of camber.
    I doubt that the 2mm of camber made any difference at all


    Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

  6. #106
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Winthrop, WA.
    Posts
    1,612
    I'll just go ahead and disgrace myself now and say that I liked the M4 Mantra. The little bit of time I got on them I used them like a skinny metal Katana and they delivered. Very few really understood where/how to use them. Great sticks. Now that that's out of the way I will say that Volkls evolution of the long-low rocker with modest cambered section underfoot is the answer to this debate. Shit works. You may not like breaking glass sound etc., but that rocker/camber profile is the biz, floats above ist's weight class, strong on edge, supportive tail - but the tail can still release in the goo. A 190 Kendo with the HL layup sounds sublime.

  7. #107
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    The Other Side
    Posts
    752
    Quote Originally Posted by waveshello View Post
    I guess I should have just asked--what kind of day is it where y'all are wishing you were skiing a 2200g 90mm reverse camber charger? Could this be a DD somewhere? INW? Seems like a pretty specific use case. And I'm not against that... Just curious...
    I've been DD'ing the current gen Corvus, out on the east cost through a less than steller winter, ~ 20 days. I think the flat under foot, long progressive tip tail rocker with super low splay is amazing. The back and forth between drift and carve is endlessly entertaining. You can ski the same line over and over and attack it lots of different ways. Groomers, poor mans pow, chalky bumps and trees, I've loved it.

    I've thought to myself on many occasion something in the mid 90s with a similar build would be awesome. Just a little less to haul around all day. ~2000g, would be more than fine for me.

    I looked at the bc90 but I think even with the R profile and build the turn radius, would be a bit long for groomer fun (could be wrong) given the Corvus is stated around 21m. Plus i like the more progressive mount point. Anyways I'll keep lurking here to see how things evolve.

  8. #108
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Wenatchee
    Posts
    14,949

    Push the Envelope: Heritage Labs RC85 and RC95

    Quote Originally Posted by Shu Shu View Post
    I've been DD'ing the current gen Corvus, out on the east cost through a less than steller winter, ~ 20 days. I think the flat under foot, long progressive tip tail rocker with super low splay is amazing. The back and forth between drift and carve is endlessly entertaining. You can ski the same line over and over and attack it lots of different ways. Groomers, poor mans pow, chalky bumps and trees, I've loved it.

    I've thought to myself on many occasion something in the mid 90s with a similar build would be awesome. Just a little less to haul around all day. ~2000g, would be more than fine for me.

    I looked at the bc90 but I think even with the R profile and build the turn radius, would be a bit long for groomer fun (could be wrong) given the Corvus is stated around 21m. Plus i like the more progressive mount point. Anyways I'll keep lurking here to see how things evolve.
    The radius on the Corvus is actually longer, it’s really 25 meters. The mount point is pretty forgiving going +\- 2cm. The effective edge is really long. Actual calculated dimensions here- https://soothski.com/compare/

    Just input Black Crows Corvus
    Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

  9. #109
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Somewhere else
    Posts
    5,700
    Quote Originally Posted by Marshal Olson View Post
    Yup, shoot me your email, happy to explore it in more detail in a working doc.
    I have done as MO requested and sent a message offline to talk about a new ski so we don't bog down this thread talking about something these skis are not.

    Let's get this thread back on track.

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

  10. #110
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Winthrop, WA.
    Posts
    1,612
    MO,

    Are you going to be rolling on any prototypes of the RC85/95 this spring?

  11. #111
    Join Date
    Nov 2018
    Posts
    1,343
    Quote Originally Posted by Lord Thomas View Post
    MO,

    Are you going to be rolling on any prototypes of the RC85/95 this spring?
    Yeah man, I should have my production samples in 3-4 weeks

  12. #112
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Idaho
    Posts
    11,039
    Quick comparison on RC95 vs AM99 in simpleton terms?
    Quote Originally Posted by Benny Profane View Post
    Well, I'm not allowed to delete this post, but, I can say, go fuck yourselves, everybody!

  13. #113
    Join Date
    Nov 2018
    Posts
    1,343
    Quote Originally Posted by Conundrum View Post
    Quick comparison on RC95 vs AM99 in simpleton terms?
    simpelton terms he says!

    biggest differences I think folks would notice:

    (1) the RC95 will be a bit heavier (150-200g) and ride a little more smashy in variable snow
    (2) the RC95 has a 10% bigger turn radius
    (3) the RC95as a little more rocker (still not a ton) and a little less camber, so a little better off edge in the woods/bumps/etc

  14. #114
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Winthrop, WA.
    Posts
    1,612
    MO,

    Since, tragically, very few of us have had a chance to ski the R99 and R87 can you do a similar comparison as above to the Monster 98 and 88? Lot's more of us have those as a reference point. The comparison to the AM99 was informative

  15. #115
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    NCW
    Posts
    4,633
    I think you could pretty much apply the same logic to the Monsters. Rocker/camber profile is very similar. All of the HL Raceroom skis have a longer radius than the M88/98. The AM is a bit lighter with 1 sheet of ti and the Comp might be heavier, it is certainly stiffer and more demanding than the M88 I've skied. The M88 is extremely damp, borderline dead feeling, whereas the R99 has some liveliness to accompany the damping. R99 comp is a bit more refined and more energetic out of the turn than the M88 even being +1cm in the waist. The quality of HL builds is what sets them apart imo.

    I think the key difference from a design perspective is that the R87/99 and Monster are primarily piste and firm-snow biased whereas the more progressive design principles of the RC series will be more fun in the woods and firm off-piste conditions but should still be a hoot on a groomer. The r99 comp can certainly handle shitfuck off piste, but you have to ski it like a comp ski with high edge angles and really drive it. The AM build is a little more forgiving.

  16. #116
    Join Date
    Nov 2018
    Posts
    1,343
    Agreed @Jackstraw

    Just to add, I do think the Monsters are a very good benchmark for the RC (as in, probably the most similar ski out there). Just with the RC's being a bit more updated shaping (ie a little more taper, -10.5 mount vs -12.5 mount, slightly larger turn radius, etc). The explicit design intent was to keep what makes the monsters awesome @ low tide while also being a little less one dimensional.

  17. #117
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Winthrop, WA.
    Posts
    1,612
    Very interdasting. My biggest complaint about the monsters was that they felt dead and generally had the personality of an artichoke. Not my idea of a DD, more of a niche player.

    Just the thinking about the possible use case(s) for the RC85 is starting to over stimulate my want gland.

  18. #118
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Location
    Imaginationland
    Posts
    4,800
    I can't wait to A/B the 183 RC85 to my 177 Monster 88's!

  19. #119
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Posts
    2,729
    The RC85 rings spec-wise to my ear to be close the Vertigo G41 from ~2000 or 2001 (118-83-106 ?) I loved that ski.
    I then tried to replace it with a Hotrod Jet Fuel in 2006 (126-84-112.) It was close, but much stiffer. Eventually I broke it in a bit and did love that ski when my legs were in shape and I could really push it. I really gelled with it and when FWT came to JP in 2017 and I decided to compete just out of sheer principal, a bro was like-- you ski different on that ski and you should compete on it. I was like-- "Only if it's firm, which is doubtful for January."

    I blew my knee on that ski in the forest, though, in late spring. So, I won't ski it again as it's now cursed in my mind. It's like the girl that cheated on you, you just can't trust her anymore.

    As such, the RC85 (or 95) might have to enter my radar next year to return the sport of melt/freeze forest/slalom racing. It's that firm, scrapy snow where I hate my M102, which is very capable, just a noisy son of a bitch.

    It's springtime where my legs are dialed and the forest has a special "sporty" spirit to it where I could see either of these skis really filling a hole in my heart.

  20. #120
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Land of the Long Flat Vowel
    Posts
    1,112
    95 sound amazing. Always wanted my 98 Monsters with slight rocker.

  21. #121
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    The greatest N. New Mexico resort in Colorado
    Posts
    2,199
    Anyone with an R99 Comp needs to free up some funds for the new RC hotness, send them my way. Just throwing it out there.

  22. #122
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    Vallee Teton
    Posts
    2,619
    After enjoying my first three days on my 175 cm R87 comps skiing in Jackson, I’d be interested in a shorter RC95. Hopefully some others might be interested in a 178-180 cm RC95


    Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums
    Aggressive in my own mind

  23. #123
    Join Date
    Nov 2018
    Posts
    1,343
    If we can get 8-10 confirmed “let’s do it” ~180 RC95’s I’ll be more than happy to run them!

  24. #124
    Join Date
    Aug 2022
    Posts
    139
    Quote Originally Posted by hoarhey View Post
    After enjoying my first three days on my 175 cm R87 comps skiing in Jackson, I’d be interested in a shorter RC95. Hopefully some others might be interested in a 178-180 cm RC95
    Quote Originally Posted by Marshal Olson View Post
    If we can get 8-10 confirmed “let’s do it” ~180 RC95’s I’ll be more than happy to run them!
    I'd prefer the RC85, but would definitely jump on board for an RC95 in a shorter version. Count me in if we can gather enough support!

  25. #125
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Jack
    Posts
    47
    I’d be in on a shorter 85 or 95.

Posting Permissions

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