Printable View
Yeah, although I just looked at the site - I was thinking the base price on the BC would include the UL core since that's the stock build, so you would've only had to pay for the camber adjust and veneer. But it looks like you still have to pay $150 for the UL core, so it doesn't really pencil out to be much cheaper.Quote:
Originally Posted by galibier_numero_un
I think that's a bug in the software, and UL/Carbon is std. It's obviously worth checking.Quote:
Originally Posted by toast2266
Something just occurred to me. I always thought of my nicely worn Automatic 109s as being junior GPOs. The main difference is how they deflect a bit more in manky snow. Also they don't rail as well on edge in harder snow.
I should try to take measurements. At a casual glance, they appear to be quite similar.
If they match up, then perhaps it is indeed the BCs we want and a -10 GPO will be too squirrely.
I'll study this tonight ... because ... I must ;-)
... Thom
Subscribing. Cool to see where you end up Thom.
Sent from my SM-A536W using TGR Forums mobile app
Was considering an MVP or skinny Q , but after having my Q 118 as my only ski with me on last trip to LCC, I don't know if I can justify a soft snow oriented 108 ish ski . The Q is obviously slower edge to edge , and is a handful in firmer bumps, but in anything softish, including groomers, it's money.
I already have a hardpack/ EC ski (Enforcer 94) and would like a western ski for travel when it isn't so good and spring corn / bump days (obv a lot of snow and fresh in LCC right now), but not sure if the MVP is still to wide and soft snow oriented for that slot.
Heh, MVP is my low tide ski for pretty much exactly this and I think it’s great in that slot. Although, one of the cool things about the custom sale is you can order some PJ’s [emoji2]Quote:
Originally Posted by Duffman
So, some geeking out with the numbers - comparing my Automatic 109s with rocker photos of both older and less used GPOs.
It would appear is if the Auto-109 leans more toward the BC (actually, more directional by the numbers). Knowing how pivot-y the 109 can be (more so than the numbers would predict), I think I'd be fine with passing by any subtle differences between the BC and a -10 GPO.
I believe Keith's camber spec is for one ski, and I measured 12mm with the Automatics base to base, so you'll see 6mm in the chart entry I generated below.
I measured the Atomic as best as I could. Taper was pretty easy. Laid side to side I slid a piece of paper from both sides and averaged the 2-3cm difference.
The overall length was nearly identical to Praxis' 182. In the side photos below, my well-worn MAP/Carbon/Nylon/#4 is a bit more "relaxed" looking than the newer 182 on the right.
Anyhow ... here are the numbers and two side shots:
https://galibierdesign.com/images/ot...-Automatic.jpg
Tip rocker (left to right): old GPOs, Automatic 109s, newer GPOs:
Ignore the black marker lines on the Atomic's orange sidwalls. They're from a detuning exercise.
https://galibierdesign.com/images/ot...ic-01-tips.jpg
Tail rocker (left to right): old GPOs, Automatic 109s, newer GPOs:
https://galibierdesign.com/images/ot...c-02-tails.jpg
To add another data point, my 190 BCs in flex 4 with UL core + veneer are 1815 g/ski. I'm a bigger guy (6'4, 220 lbs), and I ski them inbounds regularly (with shifts). The only time I think about their weight is when it's super slushy (slushier than conditions you'd really want to be skiing in the backcountry), because they don't smooth out the terrain as much as heavier skis. I've skied shit snow, chalky snow, groomed snow, crusty snow, corn snow, moguls, anywhere between 10-50 cm of powder on them, and they're great.
I may be in the minority here, but I think they're a less demanding ski than my 192 enduro+veneer GPO––my GPOs feel more like rocket ships, and serve a different purpose (charging inbounds). You should get the BCs.
Thanks! All roads lead to the BCs. Pulling out my Automatics convinced me that I'm splitting hairs ... this, and the fact that Keith has had years to tune the design and he never saw a reason to do so.Quote:
Originally Posted by powder_to_the_people
... Thom
I have some BC's which I like. Haven't used them a ton, but when I have I have been happy.
I come from the perspective of liking directional, damp, smooth skis. I basically run mostly old skool skis now. Old Stockli SR95's, Legend Pro 105's (184cm), and the Comish pro model Praxis RX w/ more tip rocker than standard and less tail rocker, mounted quite a ways back from his line. I have taken the BC's touring a few times and found them solid. Light weight, and certainly not as damp as the above, but worked well when touring. Sorry, with 3 kids on race team I don't tour as much as I would like so can't help split the hairs like I could on my in bounds quiver, but I like em and won't be selling them.
I'm gonna agree with this.Quote:
Originally Posted by mr_pretzel
I bought some 184cm FRD's on there. Keith said they are the stock build so HH core carbon fiber 4 flex. I'm 5' 9", 165 and found these to feel light, way more lively, and poppy than I like. I think the shape feels quite versatile, but I just love that smooth damp feel of a Legend Pro 105 for this slot in the quiver. Not sure what I'm going to do with these. My custon RX's w/ the enduro core have a much damper smoother feel.
My hypothesis is it's the carbon in these that I don't like.
Oh yeah, for data points, my 180cm BC's weigh 1620 and 1622g. Again shockingly close. They are flex 3 as well. I wonder about the BC in a +10 for pow touring? When I was in Utah in Jan. I didn't find them a bit skinny. Ridiculously easy to skin on and make kick turns, etc., but wanted a bit more float/width for the down.
182 GPO is likely the more capable cheaper ski you seekQuote:
Originally Posted by comish
Keith verified that UL/C is a $150 "adder" on the BCs. Pricing for paulownia and carbon has gone through the roof.
I'm still mulling over the choice between Enduro/C and UL/C. I'm a measly 155 Lbs these days and knowing how good of a job veneer does with damping, I'm wavering toward UL.
... Thom
I'd go with a touring layup on GPOs if you wanted something fatter - for the inverse reason that I'm going with a BC as a downsized GPO.Quote:
Originally Posted by comish
Veneer definitely quiets the carbon down.
My (since sold) Quixotes were Enduro/Carbon/Veneer and they were much more quiet (damp) than my GPOs in Enduro/Carbon/Nylon. The characteristics of the veneer are the key factor that have me leaning toward a UL core over Enduro, although I'm still waffling ;-)
... Thom
Im not sure but i believe the wider the ul/c ski is the higher the ratio of palownia is compared to the amount of maple. The maple stringers for edge/sidewall strength and binding retention stay the same size while the amount of palownia increases with a wider ski. My ul/c nylon topsheet gpo and my concepts w ul/c veneer get kicked around a bit on hardpack or icy conditions while my 88 waisted exp's with an ul/c veneer build ripped hardpack even with a light 1100g boot
Sent from my SM-A536W using TGR Forums mobile app
How loose is the FRS? Im torn between the 188 and 194. Does it float well enough that tip dive will not be a problem in the 188? Im 6’ 220 lbs and can adapt to accommodate the ski I’m on. Loved the “powder Moment Bibby” (2014/15) and have read the FRS is a looser comparison of the current Wildcat which sounds great. So does it ski long or short and does it go sideways like a flat camber ski? Seems like the rocker is mellow and long which I really get along with.
Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums
I think you were reading my mind. I'm heading out on Friday and was pondering taking those EXPs out for a couple of test runs. I've always wondered how much total mass counts vs. density.Quote:
Originally Posted by grinch
It's a tricky question.
Is the 106-waist, 1800g ski more stable than a 116-waist, 1800g ski (all other things being equal, which of course, they can't be)? My UL/Carbon/Veneer +10 GPOs come in at 1900g and they're remarkably stable, and they really ripped when I broke through the dust to the crust.
... Thom
So I have G3 Sendr's which are I think 112 underfoot for the fatter skis. I just hadn't found a place to mount the ATK's and I was traveling so couldn't do it one my own and got "stuck" up LCC and no one up there does it. So I'm not really contemplating a fatter BC, but then again, this is TGR and that's what we do, right?Quote:
Originally Posted by galibier_numero_un
1900!? Cool. Take into account my theory may be bs. All things werent exactly equal with my test skis.Quote:
Originally Posted by galibier_numero_un
I think youll really enjoy burning around the hill on those exp's. I was surprised how well they handled absolutely everywhere. I started with groomers and then kept thinking of different spots to try them. It was a chopped up day with some boot deep fresh left with some searching. Steeps, trees , moguls were just fun. Ski never flinched
Sent from my SM-A536W using TGR Forums mobile app
I've been waffling on which boots to take out tomorrow. Maybe I should stay in "ski test" mode and go with out with my Zero Gs, so I can bring the EXPs out for a run or two.Quote:
Originally Posted by grinch
Ya ... they do most things exceedingly well. Those poor little neglected things. Whenever I'm making a choice for the day, I always opt for the wider ski, and those poor little EXPs don't get to come out and play much. They deserve better.
... Thom
All-righty ... UL/Carbon/Veneer it is for my 180, flex #3 BCs. Order placed.
I took my EXPs (173, UL/Carbon/Veneer/flex #3) and my 181 Down CD 104Ls out on Friday for another ski test day. This was another Spring day at A-Basin where it was 3" over crust. Both skis beat me up a bit on this snow, but it was a good crucible for what I was trying to learn (will the BCs in UL be damp enough).
The EXPs (coming in at about 1400g) were just as damp as my CD 104Ls (1550g). So, I figured that BCs at 1620g or so would be plenty damp as a dedicated touring ski.
On the topic of the EXPs, I'm facing up to the fact that a 3 year layoff due to COVID constraints along with a gimpy knee have eroded my aerobic base. I can't envision long Spring missions this year, and most likely next year either. I'm just happy to get out for an easy tour.
So ... the EXPs (mounted with Plum Guide 12s) will go up on gear swap. I'll snap photos soon, but PM me if you want a jump on these.
... Thom
Hey Thom, are you sure? I mean they look really cool in veneer?
Attachment 456718
I’m just messing w/ you.
I'm pretty messed up without any help :biggrin:Quote:
Originally Posted by plugboots
[edit]The EXPs found a new home[/edit]
... Thom
To any folks in this thread who remember my compound camber quixote adventures - I'm letting the second pair go over in the sale section.
After an injury last year and subsequent re-evolution of my setup/style/approach to movement on the mountain, these are seeing less action than they deserve. Did putting double camber on a quixote make it the next best thing? No, but it did crank the surf levels to 11. Extremely damp with hovercraft-like behavior, onlookers have described these skis as "rippling" over terrain.
Wanted to give a heads up here as there was some interest and excitement over the idea back then. price is obo no reserve until they move on to the right skier that's stoked to continue the experiment.
My shorty +10 mm Sluggers (112 mm with 176 cm length) were pressed a while back
Looking forward to these this season and seeing how they are as a big brother my 175 cm Standard Sluggers, which I’ve really liked
Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums
I've long looked at the Temple of Praxis but I've never entered. I'm now tempted as I hunt for my next pair.
I'm after a pair I can use on low tide days, goofing off on the mountains with my friends, and something with a backbone, able to lay it down on the groomers. I don't need or want a proper twin, but something with a mini twin or tail rise is good. This skier raced back in the day and skiing switch isn't part of my repertoire.
Something fun like the Moment Tahoe (waist of 96mm) and the backbone and construction of the ON3p Vicik (waist width of 104mm). Think directional ski that's fun, with a bit of rocker, and a waist of +/- 100mm. I love indie skis, owning several ON3P, 4FRNT, and Moment references over the years. In fact, I think ON3P and Moment comprise my entire quiver at the moment.
In scoping the custom ski builder on the site, it seems that the MVP 94, the 9D8, or the Slugger (maybe) might fit the bill. Am I tracking on that? What would you recommend and why? WWMD?