Sure wish they made a ~180. 176 seems short but 186 seems awfully heavy for my aging knees. Anybody on the 176? I'm really curious about this ski as a replacement for my beaten and battered 2018 Pinnacle 118s. Favorite pow ski ever.
Printable View
Sure wish they made a ~180. 176 seems short but 186 seems awfully heavy for my aging knees. Anybody on the 176? I'm really curious about this ski as a replacement for my beaten and battered 2018 Pinnacle 118s. Favorite pow ski ever.
Skiis &Bikes have them on for $569 in Canada.
https://skiisandbiikes.com/products/...s-118-ski-2023
Corbetts and others with the same price on the 176cm.
What’s your size and what length are the Pinnacle 118?Quote:
Originally Posted by yeahman
If you mount the BO 118 back -3cm to -4cm in either size, it would ski longer but still be playful.
I'm 5'8" 165 pds. Pinnacles are 177 but K2 measurements are true, even conservative. The 177 K2s are longer than some supposedly 180 skis I have. Fairly heavy too, 2350g, they crush chop. I think they made them lighter after that year.
Anyway I would be curious to know if the 176 measurement is accurate. According to Blister the 186 measures a couple cm short at 184.2. I wonder if that applies to the 176 as well.
After seeing Blister's measurements on the various M-frees, I'm not sure I'd trust any Rossignol ski without someone measuring it with a tape measure. Apparently the 182 M-free 108 measured at 181.5, but the 192 measured at 189.7. To top it off, the 185 M-free 99 also measured at 181.5. Makes me feel like they just slap any length on the ski they want, regardless of the actual measured length.Quote:
Originally Posted by yeahman
So since Rossignol is the same company, caveat emptor I would say.
I bet the 176cm Blackops 118 would tape measure around 174cm if I had to guess like most twins not named K2 or ON3P.
If you’re used to a 177cm K2 with a more traditional mount and some weight behind it, I’d think the 176cm BO 118 even mounted back from rec would feel short. The 186cm closer to rec though might be fine as it will “ski shorter” mounted forward. 186cm BO 118 right around 184cm tape measure.
Blister guys in the 160lb range are skiing the 186cm at -2cm/-4.5cm total without issue.
I'm still hesitant on the BO98s. I didn't demo them this season. When I saw them at the shop, they reminded me too much of the 189 Kung Fujas that I didn't jive with. Most reviews say they are not simply thinner Blackops 118s, however a lot of reviews are positive. I would buy whatever ski is a thinner BO118s. Should never have sold 187 Menace 98s, although that ski was slightly too soft.Quote:
Originally Posted by noslow
IDK if I can still see 192 BO98s directly replacing 2015 Mantras either. I could be wrong, I should have demoed a set.
I did just grab some Blackops Sender Squads today though. It was a no brainer on sale.
How did you like the Sender Free 110s? I'm going to have to find some of your posts and read through them.
As I’ve said before, the BO 98 is a stiffer(especially torsionally)Menace 98 with better sloped tips for passing over crud. It’s your ski.Quote:
Originally Posted by forumskier
Sender Free 110 are a slightly stiffer, more precise and faster edge to edge Blackops 118. Not quite as damp as them but very similar feel. The 191cm Sender Free 110 will be more stable than the 185cm BO 118 and more playful than a Sender Squad. You’d love the 191cm I’m sure of the SF 110.
Got my kid some 176’s at a too good to pass up price. They measure 174-cm, as suspected.Quote:
Originally Posted by noslow
Sent from my iPad using TGR Forums
I want SF110 for sure. I regret not demoing those more than BO98. I can get deals on 18Xcm SF110, and part of me is thinking they would be fun shorties for me. Versus the new 184 Reckoner 110.Quote:
Originally Posted by noslow
A lot also to do with length on my BO98 hesitance. They seemed a bit long for a jib stick in the 192, specifically for being as creative as possible and learning new stuff. I like the shorter length 187 Menaces and 186 BO118s for that, and I’m less sensitive to a heavier ski affecting that than length.
In the shop BO98s felt like noodles compared to Wildcat 108s. My WCs feel like comp skis, no way BO as stable. And I’d prefer other shorter skis for fun…If I can find 98s for $300 new maybe I’d jump on them, since I AM on a rossi/dynastar binge lately.
Nice score! What a cool dad. These things are like 2014 Billy Goats mixed with Dynastar Slicers.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bandit Man
BO98s are certainly not noodles - they are in fact fairly supportive underfoot if relatively soft in their rockered section (which are all rubber). The underfoot support is delivered through their construction, not only their flex pattern. Their ride feel is akin to BO118s in that they are fairly damp for their segment. WCs are planky, while wc108s are hardly super stiff - BO118 and SF110 should have better suspension than either within their respective segments.Quote:
Originally Posted by forumskier
there are very few skis like the 192 BO98 on the market. Their combination of shape, mount point and construction (heavy use of rubber and titanal underfoot) is somewhat unique imho. Sure, you need to be a fairly strong skier to make them your play sticks, and they can haul too.
I am frankly surprised at how well I get on with my BO98 + SF110 + BO118 quiver. They are all so freaking versatile - pack a punch while also being loose.
Agree with kid-kapow that the 192cm BO 98 would outperform a 190cm Wildcat 108 or 101 as far as suspension and being quiet on the snow goes. Soothski doesn’t have the current 190cm Wildcats but have the 190cm Bibby on there and it’s shockingly similar flex pattern to the 192cm BO 98.
BO 98 just a bit softer tip/tail and it doesn’t ramp up quite as quickly as Moments do but very similar underfoot. 192cm BO 98 softer tip/tail than the 186cm BO 118 but the 98 noticeably stiffer underfoot.
So with hand flexing you’re just feeling the softer tips/tails that rise less abruptly in stiffness vs Moments.
Bet the stability of the 192cm BO 98 would be similar as well to the narrower Wildcats as the BO uses a multi radius sidecuts. Lots of stability when flat but initiate turns easier.
If you mounted the 192cm BO 98 around -3cm back from Center(+2cm from rec) it would be plenty playful for a larger skier.
I love my 184cm Sender Free 110 mounted back -3cm as it’s very fun even at moderate speeds and super easy in tight spots for my 175lbs. Should be more precise than the K2 Reckoner 110 but less loose and more substantial than the old 112. Should be 2-3cm longer than the Sender Free 110 in the 184cm though as the SF 110 is only 181.5cm Tape measure.
https://www.datocms-assets.com/55942...ack-ops-98.jpg
I think this graphic is very interesting. Just look at the radii -25m in the shovel, 26m underfoot 22m in the rear. That an a supportive shovel = they do what you tell them to, but are not inherently turny. I dunno - I looked at that infographic and thought "ah, so that is why I love em so much". Strong section underfoot with titanal, rubber aft/up front and a flex pattern that lets you easily unlock the looseness in the design as given by the rocker lines and mount point.
So dead easy to ski most of the time, yet capable and very willing to play for stronger skiers. Dialed ski.
I've looked at the BO118 for ages but never pulled the trigger. Now they're on sale and hard to resist. Not crazy cheap, but decent price.
Thing is, I've got a pair of unmounted OG Squad7 from like 12/13 lying around. Heavy, damp, rubbery with similar construction and dimensions. But loads of taper and a more rearward mount (drilled on rec, looks about -6 cm from true center).
Anyone who knows how they compare? Similar ride? Worth the upgrade?
If you read the Blister Buyers Guide from like 2021, the free one, they rank the 190 Wildcat 108 quite a few steps above 192 Blackops 98 in terms of stability. That was also back when the Wildcat 108 was a decent bit lighter with the different layup.Quote:
Originally Posted by noslow
I also thought I saw on blister somewhere them talking about the Menace 98s being noticeably more damp than BO98s. But I believe that was comparing the shorter 182cm-ish versions. Idk if the BO98s gets beefier as it goes to 192cm.
On snow, I’m pretty much just as fast on WC108s as I am on Katana 108s. WCs ski on snow stiffer than my M4 Mantras or Katana 108s, are more demanding, and are more predictable for me without full rocker/3D radius. If BO98s come close to that, while being more playful, that’s impressive
The WCs are obviously less damp than the Volkls I listed due to lighter weight and no metal, but it doesnt affect me much. Greg we talked about this, I may just “get along” with WC design perfectly.
I just don’t find WC108s very playful, besides from the rocker profile. To me, WC108s feel like comp skis designed to throw big tricks over big features at 50mph. I love the WCs, but I do want something similar, that’s significantly more accessible in the tip/tail without giving up much stability. That’s were the BO98 might win me over.
But again for me, if the ski is going to be solely for “freestyle” mindset, I’d rather it be around 185-187cm true length. A stiffer 187 Menace 98 would be money I think.
The Sender Squads were a much easier purchase. No overthinking necessary. Lemme find some BO98s for $300 this summer, then I don’t have to overthink.
Don’t get me wrong, I trust you and Kid Kapow, but my gut is screaming at me “don’t buy em” for some reason..
Due to EPIC late season conditions in the Alps, I got one more day of testing on the BO118.
St Anton, last day of the season, dense snow, 3 feet of it. Cold at the top, slight warming at the bottom.
Mount point concerns alleviated! Turns out on the line works great for bottomless powder.
The characteristic of this ski are paradoxical.
They hand flex stiff, but I find them to be the easiest flexing skis through the middle I've ever ridden. They almost become reverse camber on demand.
I'm not going to say I was charging way out over the tips, put when the pitch or speed was there, I could easily ride the front of my boots. When I needed more float, it was so painless to just lean back into the tails a little.
The tails sink without feeling like I'm in the backseat (but more pressure on the calves than the shins).
But what's really nice is how easy it is to just shift your weight backwards and forwards. It really is like an RC ski with gutter bumpers (bowling alley). You still get the bounce back when you roll onto the tails to airplane turn, or whatever else.
Driving up I was thinking, well, maybe this is the day that proves mounting on the line was a bad idea. Or, maybe, I can pull out my OGs rens for bottomless days in the future. Like the poster above, there is no need to have 'deep snow only' weapon with these in the quiver, even mounted on the line.
They really are super loose in deep snow, they feel almost identical the BC120 in effort (easy). I will say they are more able to be ridden from the heels when needed though.
The ultimate test will be 3' of upside down snow, but none of my other favorite skis were so great there, maybe Rens or EHPs. But my thought is that the BO will be fine; with the fat tips and easy bending nature.
I did find the tips sliced well when they got under the snow, no pitching forward.
We also got into one run that had been hammered the day before and set up with an intense breakable crust. BO goodness kept me having way more fun than my buddy on Hojis.
I'm just gonna say, if you are used to progressive mounted skis and like to shift your weight fore/aft then don't be afraid of the line (-2.5 from TC).
Did people stare at you because they thought you had two snowboards strapped to your feet? Euros are probably eyeing the 118 as an opportunity to get a two for one deal, slice them down the middle and you get two asym 59mm euro pow slaying machines.Quote:
Originally Posted by JRainey
I need to stop reading this thread or my quiver is going to look like kidkapow’s
Also doesn’t help that Parker white and I grew up together and I trust his intelligence. Definitely a smart dude and has a crazy passion for skiing. Watching him throw a 1080 at 9 years old was nuts. Especially cause it was almost 25 years ago and pros were just starting to throw down that hard. Canadian Airforce was still flying in those days
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Where are most directional skiers mounted on the 118s?
-5ish?
I’m at -2.5 from recommended (about -5) and that feels about right. It’s still a more newschool ski and probably not the right choice if you want something very traditional feeling, but -5 feels balanced to me.Quote:
Originally Posted by forumskier
Ha, St. Anton am Arlberg has more pow dorks than JH or Alta on any given day.
My home resort in Montafon, does not, lucky for me, and the cadre of young freeriders who grow up here. Lots of freshies for ourselves.
I heard that Parker White and the Jib Kids mount at center or -1cm, and while they are obviously super cool, my pow skiing technique is still more traditional than theirs. Although, the wheelie vibes are hard to resist on these skis.
Forum: Everyone says -5cm.
Baker Boyd says -4 to -5. See comments here: https://www.instagram.com/reel/C3RLL...RmZjcwZmVxb3pwQuote:
Originally Posted by JRainey
The awesome thing about the 118 is that they can work for many types of skiers.
Checking in from the tram line to reiterate just how fucking much I love the Sender Squad. Today it's 3-6" of hot pow on top of an isothermal to slightly crusty base with soft 6"+ roller balls everywhere and they just don't give one tenth of a fuck. Slice right through all of it like butter.
Kicking myself for forgetting the gopro today.
Find the mount on the BO 118 is less sensitive to mount point compared to most skis so directional skiers mounting depending on weight for good float and stability will still being playful.
160lb range about -2cm/-4.5cm total back, -2.5cm/-5cm total back for the 175lb range, -3cm/-5.5cm total for 200lbs range and -3.5cm back/-6cm range for those heavier still. I’m 175lbs and -2.5cm/-5cm total perfect for me.
Hmm, maybe I should mount mine up for the end of this seasonQuote:
Originally Posted by Dantheman
The Squads are the truth. The way. The light. I just need to find another pair!Quote:
Originally Posted by Dantheman
Sent from my SM-S926U using Tapatalk
I just posted a pair of new Squads in Gear Swap…..
The suspension on these skis is absolutely ridiculous. Best I've ever felt. Stay a bit more centered and they absorb vibrations from refrozen coral reef noticeably better than 191 Katana 108s or 186 Bodacious. Katanas and Bodacious are similarly heavy and still really great skis in crappy conditions, but you can just meander into refrozen weird stuff on the BO118 and you don't feel much at all. It's almost mind boggling. Even MUCH more charger skis like Monster 108/Pro Rider, you feel a bit more vibration.
BO118 do feel a bit wide for refrozen bumps though, just like Bodacious. Not as much of a daily driver as some other wide skis I've tried. Very doable, but Wildcats at 118mm underfoot ski thinner and more like an all mountain ski. Wildcats, although maybe faster in certain conditions, don't have near the suspension nor chop monster truck performance of BO118.
Surprisingly I'm not finding the BO118 as surfy in slush as I thought. I find them surfy in many other instances and in different conditions, but weirdly not in slush. They are still great skis in the sloppy stuff, but I gotta lean them and they feel more old fashioned and carvey. I find them surfy and loose in powder and certain mid winter soft conditions. Maybe I'm just feeling this because I'm skiing more groomers than during winter.
This is where Sender Free 110s enter the chat. I find them to ski really similar in softer low tide conditions like corn and slush to how BO118s ski in deeper, colder snow regardless of denseness/moisture content.Quote:
Originally Posted by forumskier
What length BO98s have you owned/skied?Quote:
Originally Posted by kid-kapow
182s - two pairs.Quote:
Originally Posted by forumskier
I really like them too, though they ski a little bit differently to SF110s and BO118s due to their different rocker profiles. Still loose and fun and capable though, and they can all be skied with the same stance - both upright and more forward. Great skis all three, and their shapes and the slight changes just makes a ton of sense given the different conditions they are meant to excel in.
https://images.finncdn.no/dynamic/12..._452309415.jpghttps://images.finncdn.no/dynamic/12...1373720051.jpghttps://images.finncdn.no/dynamic/12...1142869783.jpg
I recently read a line- "Why so much camber on a wide ski in 2024?"
It's true that modern pow shapes have toned down the camber and have also gone full-reverse camber. I prefer full-reverse for my GS style in the forests.
That said... I'd be really keen to hear more about how athletes are preferring trampolines under their feet. I think I get it. These aren't tree-tronning, pow-arching skis. They're trampolines. They're jibby as fuck, and they accel in Mario Land.
Anyone found a high-camber, wide ski that they like in big mountain lines, or surfy forest lines? I get the jibby aspect... wondering if a ski manufacturer can meld the two approaches to soft snow.
ahh I thought you had skied 192s. Im looking for more information on the 192s, it’s a lot harder to find than on the 182s.Quote:
Originally Posted by kid-kapow
The 192s have less reviews, and even still a higher percentage of them are negative. Seems like the 192 is a different ski completely. NoSlow was saying how he thinks a lot of the earlier 192s had tune issues, and that he spoke with some owners of 192s this year and they all said they loved them.
I’ve been trying to get firsthand info on the 192s for years and it’s still difficult.
I’m totally overthinking the ski. The amount of time I’ve spent researching them (probably 10 hours now over 5 years), I could have just worked more and spent the money actually buying/trying them.
I don’t notice the BO118 camber feeling super high, and they are a bit heavy to feel like a “trampoline”, but they are very good in both open terrain or tight trees.Quote:
Originally Posted by gaijin
I prefer them in trees, mainly because they are shorter for me and I have them mounted -3.5 from true center. I haven’t taken them on anything truly “big”, but they have no problem straightlining over anything in their path, no matter the terrain or snow conditions. They simply eat everything up if I stay fairly balanced. A slightly longer version, mounted back slightly, could be a true big mountain ski for me.
Rossignol Super 7 RD 190cm is damn awesome in all kind of soft snow. Camber makes powder skiing so effortles, just load the ski and fly to next turn. Also in trees. But one has to like ski agressively and not sliding around.Quote:
Originally Posted by gaijin
Lähetetty minun LYA-L29 laitteesta Tapatalkilla
camber + weight + supportive but still round flex pattern = suspension
ah, no - my bad. I do not think that they change drastically from size to size though, and yes - the tune has been off on both of my pairs as well. Detuning the edges makes a for a ton of difference. If they reviews state that they are unwieldy, the tails get kinda stuck or are hooky and they are generally a handful -> detuning the edges forward/aft of the contact points and resetting the edge bevel underfoot will likely be the ticket. I did so on my latest pair, and it transformed them from being unexplainably a lot of ski off piste to being easy as can be, yet supportive.Quote:
Originally Posted by forumskier
you can prob find them at killer prices now too, as they the current mountain graphic ski does not carry over to 24/25 - only the super black ops with neon colors do. BO98s are no longer in the catalogue. So you might as well just buy a pair, and sell them with a minimal loss if they are not what you hoped that they would be.
I prefer BO98s to SF110s in slush. A bit more nimble, lighter but still heavy enough, and easy to schmear around.
yeah, on3ps are even looser off piste in corn/slush, but that flip side is that the Rossis are better on hard snow - so pick your poison :)
[QUOTE=Ville;7079569]Camber makes powder skiing so effortles, just load the ski and fly to next turn. Also in trees. But one has to like ski agressively and not sliding around. /QUOTE]
Ahhh. No. Camber does not make powder effortless. It's the last definitive feature of a ski that inhibits powder performance. Camber slows down flow in a forest. Camber forces the skier to unweight and "set up" the next turn.
We're not talking about "sliding around." We're talking about tree-tronning, hauling ass, when we are talking reverse camber in the forest.
I guess a better way to ask it is-- has a manufacturer yet made a high camber ski easily disappear? Can I have a mario-jibby ski that also doesn't require me to release the suspension?
Does a jibby reverse camber exist yet? Or, does a surfy, springy camber exist yet?
That's kind of the biggest hurdle that has plateaued the entire ski industry over the last 10-15 years.
[QUOTE=gaijin;7079814]From what I remember the Dynastar Menace Proto is a ski with a lot of camber that skis loose and jibby. But it still skis like it has side cut and a fatter tip in deeper snow. I started to really notice that in lower angle or heavier snow. They’re not as fast and frictionless and I would occasionally feel like I was plowing the tip and/or being pulled into a radius.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ville
The EHP was basically flat.
I’ve skied with guys on GPOs that can make them ski that way.
Reverse camber skis require more speed to provide pop out of a turn. Renegades, EHPs, Chipotle Bananas etc suck at just sliding around at slower speeds.
[QUOTE=gaijin;7079814]It's not so simple, it depends on skiing style. I have skied shitload of different powskis from powderboards to these different models with rocker-camber-rocker. While I enjoy how easy full rocker/flat skis are, I have always returned to relatively high camber skis or lower camber but stiff.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ville
There's no better feeling for me, than driving tips in powder and loading the ski properly and then getting pop to next turn. And it doesn't mean that you are skiing slow, just more in fall line. I guess kinda old school style.
It's awesome that there's variety of different skis for different skiing styles!
Lähetetty minun LYA-L29 laitteesta Tapatalkilla
I’ve been on a few full reverse camber skis and many skis with positive camber. I’ve liked the reverse camber skis in open spaces, where there is room to make big, open, smooth turns. For trees (at least around here), I prefer more snap from my skis, which I have found the reverse skis lack a bit more. The same can be said about tapered tips and tails.
There is a blend of all these features that keeps skis smooth and loose, but still keeps some responsiveness when using the sidecut/edges to make short turns. The M-Free 108 is an example of a ski that combines these attributes.
[QUOTE=Self Jupiter;7079831]It’s amazing how different skiers can have such different views on a ski. I find my 196 Renegades really easy to slide around at slower speeds billy goating to get into a line. Of course they really shine once up to speed.Quote:
Originally Posted by gaijin
Even a ski with a fair amount of camber like the M Free 108 doesn’t give you pop out of a turn slide around at slower speeds, they do require more input to get pop out of the turn in deeper snow.
Personally I find full reverse/flat skis to have plenty of suspension and liveliness in deeper snow. I’m 6’5” 245# though and can easily flex skis like the current 193 Corvus and my 196 Renegades.
It’s all dependent on how you match a given ski with your size and technique. I really liked the MFree 108 but it ultimately felt too short and soft for me. I think that if they made the same ski in a 202 with changes in flex like they have with the 172/182/192 it would have been a dream ski for me.
Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums
Gaijin, are you still on Renegades mostly for soft snow days??
Having owned the OG Renegade and the EHP in the past, I’d say those skis are legitimately faster in pow. The lack of camber and straight shape make them missiles, even when the entire ski is below the surface of the snow. Enough so that I had to adapt my technique in pow and turn more often when I used them.
But for my tastes, I do prefer the BO118 for resort pow days now. Interesting take on human size versus mount point above… I’m 5’9” 150lbs and have my 186cm BO118s mounted at -1 cm from rec (-3.5cm from TC).
As far as trampoline bounce Mario-jibby skis go: maybe Karl’s new pro model?? Never hand flexed or skied it but the Blister description is intriguing
https://blisterreview.com/gear-revie...k2-reckoner-kf