It’s a great ski regardless of ones bias. Can’t wait to hear more takes on it once the season gets going. So many kickass skis coming out of HL it’s ridiculous.
P.S. you and MO nailed this ski as well man!
Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums
Printable View
It’s a great ski regardless of ones bias. Can’t wait to hear more takes on it once the season gets going. So many kickass skis coming out of HL it’s ridiculous.
P.S. you and MO nailed this ski as well man!
Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums
I could ski either and be happy. We’re talking about marginal differences that probably will really come down to the conditions.
Knowing Norseman and his propensity towards skis like the Billygoat, I think he’ll like the marginally extra surf of this ski.
Marshal hit me up in less than ten minutes of you posting this... dude knows his clientele. I'll give them a good home.Quote:
Originally Posted by Norseman
I get what you're saying about the tail on the R99; it likes to bring the ski around. And flat tails with a lot of shape don't lend themselves to detuning as much as a partial twin or slightly tapered tail, like the new RC95. Even if you round it off, the tail is still present and in the snow, they kind of do what they do unless you're on smooth groomers. But there is a pretty big sweet spot on the R99 once you get settled in to it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Norseman
I'm very interested to hear more feedback on the 95 once folks get more miles on hard snow. Looks to be much easier to get a variety of turn shapes without having to hammer on it, and without making the tail a washy, lifeless affair. But I still think the sidecut lends itself to finishing a turn across the fall line, with an easy option to drop out of the turn instead of really having to smoosh the tail like on the R99 to get it to break loose.
Might not be relevant, but I typically look at sidecut as a ratio rather than a radius. I.E. tip-to-tail variance if you subtract the waist width out of everything. R99 is 135-99-122; If you take 99 out of the tip and tail dimensions it yields 36/23, or a ratio of about 1.5. The RC95 is 125-95-115, so that gives you 30/20, which is exactly 1.5 (Coincidentally, that's my preferred ratio on basically anything that's not a pow ski). It's a longer radius, but the shape of the turn is built in to the dimensions of the ski; it'll make a bigger arc, but that tail will still be most happy finishing a turn unless the pilot wishes otherwise. The slight taper and partial twin on the RC95 will definitely make that easier to do than with the R99. The RC85 is close to the same ratio, 120-85-110 > 35/25 > 1.4. Most of my favorite skis of all time share roughly the same ratio, from GS skis all the way to pow sticks, because so much of the end of the turn is built in to the ski and it suits my style. 1.4 is about as low as I'm happy with, any more tail than that and versatility goes right out the window.
Per the rocker reducing the EE, I think that depends heavily on the splay and how the rocker ramps up. Taper, however, inexorably changes the EE and I definitely agree that it needs to be balanced between the tip and tail.
I hope you didn't detune those R99s too much; I run mine pretty even front to back with just a little gummi work to take the bite out of the tail. I'd love to ski the RC95 head to head to see what it do.
Great points and I like your ratio method. Nice concise way to characterize a shape. Gonna have to play around with that a bit. I usually just look at the absolute difference in (tip) - (tail) to see degree of pintailyness, then look at other attributes like radius, location of center of sidecut etc.
Re. rocker and taper with EE change... totally agree. I think that with a ski as stiff as the r99c, on hard snow it is a little tougher to access edge pressure at the very forward end when that part of the edge is rockered away from the surface, even though the ski is bent enough to include it in the arc. On a softer ski where a rockered region is more accessible in a carve, I'd be disinclined to claim a change to EE. And it's pretty minimal rocker on the 99.
Spring snow was my fave for this ski, as I felt like I had full edge support for the tips and could really mash the shin pressure gas pedal, without having to back off to keep the tails in line as would be needed in cold soft snows.
Such a great ski, I am a little sad to let them go.
I'll take some pictures of the edges if you'd like.
I love my 175 R87COMP and have a 188 R99AM (from the outlet) on the way!
They look fcuken good
^holy $hit hawt
Quick question for the skinny ski/pivot mags - thoughts on whether 75mm pivot brakes will fit on the RC85? I've had no issues fitting 95mm brakes on ~106mm skis before, so should I assume that 75mm pivot brakes can go on an 85mm ski without much fuss?
I used to rock 75mm Pivots on my 89mm powder skis in 2004. It was a bit of a stretch, 85mm should be fine and way better than 95mm.
Question for the collective. Sorry this is long regarding the RC85...
iriponsnow is about my size and he felt the 183 was a bit long (beta run of that ski.) I'm 5'8" 165... aiming to lose weight for 155ish. I'm fairly small, but when I ski I'm fairly strong, fast, and deliberate. Racing and big mountain comp background. I generally haul as much ass as possible.
My 2001 188 Volkl G41 (the green machine) of yesteryear were one of my favorite skis. I can't remember the dimensions, but close to RC85.
My 2006 186 Nordica Hot Rod Jet Fuel, 126-84-112 r20 were perhaps my favorite spring/groomer-zoomer of all time. Just beasts, no rocker, lots of camber. Two layers of metal. I was a different animal on those skis. I could rip monster-esque GS turns and surf spring forests. It was essentially a spring/hard snow comp ski.
The 183 RC85 feels like my choice. But I'm notoriously a "second-longest ski" skier... by whichever company is making the ski... I always choose the second longest ski because I know I'm not of the "larger size skier."
This puts me at a dilemma... the 175 on paper (second longest size) feels way too short. 183 already feels too short, especially with rocker in the tips and tails and a shorter effective edge. Yet-- we have all these ripping skiers all over the world requesting a 175 and calling Iriponsnow a badass for skiing the 183.
I'm stumped.
Is my perspective skewed? My Hot Rod was a 2006... 18 year-old tech. Am I just naive? Can a 175 pull the same duty of a previous generation's 187-ish... basically wide GS ski?
Also, my Ren is 186, and my R110 is 187.
This RC85 will be driven by an RS130 and a Pivot or a Strive.
Thoughts? Experiences going shorter? I'm not huge, but 175 feels short.
^ Your perspective is 100% spot on & im going to give you a more comprehensive answer when I can- but sounds like you are a 183 man for certain.
Good topic here!
I would suggest thinking about the length on the RC85 less as “what size” and more as “what turn”. The 175 will round out turns more and come across the hill quicker. The 183 will open the turns a bit and provide a bit more stability in variable snow and that sort of thing.
but I don’t think either is “the wrong size”, it’s more how do you want to use it?
im much bigger than either of you, and would be totally fine on the 175 (though as a 225lb dude, I’d pop a race plate on it)… but where and how I ski slants me to the 183. It’s the fat gs shape. The 175 is a little more carvy than that
Quote:
Originally Posted by gaijin
Basically I was in the same boat as you until the last 18 months. Here's what changed it for me - everything is different now. It's easier to look at the extremes for an example the OG Bro. The tune was a lil off the bases concave / convex, the flex was hinky and the ski worked based upon mass. I found the same to be true of the Kastle 83 / 88 ; loved the 88, but the skinny variant just got bounced all over.
Today the tunes are wild! Variable in the shovels. Mounting points are better dialed. The boots are more supple / damper and the enhanced ski construction gives to a better flex. Home tuning and waxing supplies are much better for a consistent ride.
Where I could never see myself at a sub - 180cm, now I find that the better ride quality and maneuverability really work in the 175cm package. That said, I am a quiver guy and if I only had one ski, it would not be the 175. I'd still rock a 183.
Don't buy any of the hype - skiing is a gravity glide sport. I'm finding more and more rippers into their 60s charging hard. I think more ppl are are just seeing the benefits of a slightly shorter ski. Fear not I still have some >190 planks. Hope this helps.
As for any heroics, that test ski was an I beam.
What's your binding setup here? Our hip angles are nearly identical... with myself being a bit less Candide. ;-) But only because I have a history of shoulder dislocations and can't afford to ski with wings.Quote:
Originally Posted by iriponsnow
Anyway, all jokes aside-- what's your binding mount on those? MO mentioned wanting a plate if he were to ski the 175 and I'm now realizing all my skis of this shape have had plates/risers. I didn't really think this through... I kinda wanted to mount without plates for a surfier, more casual all mountain carver/ripper. But I don't want to be booting-out when hips get low. Because hips are gonna be getting low on this rig.
I was hoping I was done with system bindings. But maybe there's no way around it. IDK,
I have an FIS 916/Plate system down the street I could grab for 50 bucks and pull it off an old GS ski... that again, sat in a closet for 20 years off an ex-fis racer that had too many skis that were too good for him.
But I'd rather just throw a flat pivot on it and feel a bit looser.
I think so, but...Quote:
Originally Posted by iriponsnow
This has me thinking even deeper. Thanks!Quote:
Originally Posted by Marshal Olson
The I-Beam makes sense. I thought/read so. But it's also rad to read that I am actually naive about modern tech. I've pigeon-holed myself into believing that I can ski anything, because I can... but I have also created a void in needing modern tech. To me, a GS ski has been a GS ski forever. The wider, the better.Quote:
Originally Posted by iriponsnow
I need to explore this more. And no, that doesn't mean demoing skis. That means owning skis.
I still haven't figured out which length I'll buy. 183 calls my instinct, but 175 calls me to try something new that I know I won't regret.
FWIW, I ski Zao... the Stowe of Japan. Long groomers with deep patches of forests. This ski will be a groomer-zoomer when snow sucks or a high pressure runs through. It will also serve double-duty for spring melt/freeze in the resort forest, which is sporty/dirty and fun as fuck.
Both lengths have their appeal.
I like the STH2 WTR or MNC - I think the evolution of contemporary skiing is getting away from edge locked turns and bending the 'f outta the ski to pull radius. I can do this on a ski w/ a plate, but it takes a lot of commitment and 'body English'.Quote:
Originally Posted by gaijin
Attachment 501298
Takes a lot of effort to make turns like these w/ a plate.
Attachment 501299
Attachment 501300
A lot easier minus the plate.
Yea, if this was my DD, I would ski the 183cm at plus 1cm. This is going to be more of a tactical tool and I intend to ski it with my clients who may be hauling a lil less. Teaser: we are working hard on the rc70 and this ski I may place Piston plate one set for pure carving and run a set of Pivots on another for more of a spring / surfy bumps feel. Hope this helps.Quote:
Originally Posted by gaijin
Data point:
I wanted 182 R87, but due to the FedEx shipping conundrum switched out my order to a FL105.
Picked up a 175 R87 from the outlet; a bit concerned as I hadn't been on a ski that short since high school.
It rips.
Serious train tracks.
:D
PS 5'10", 150#
After chatting about it with Marshal, I've decided to mount my RC85 with a Freeflex 16X RD binding, no plate. I'm hoping this allows for what you describe, the possibility to bend the ski in a more natural manner.Quote:
Originally Posted by iriponsnow
2 Days on the RC85 (I-beam edition) 183 cm length
- Stiffness as advertised
- In the words of MO, "skiing them is more about hitting your edge angles and leverage vs brute force." I 100% agree with this
- A bit of a handful at slow speeds
- Absolute racecar when you can open them up
Heck yeah! Literally can't wait for the resorts to open here to get on my set. 98% chance of buying a few lift tickets at the "other" resort, since mine is 6 days late to open. Fired up!!!
I consider the Super Comps to be the final boss fight of performance skiing for skiers 180lbs (hard minimum).
The production RC85s sure won't be a slouch in any way either. Can't wait for more folks with time on these!!!
Soon...
Now I just want to try to see if I can handle the final boss…Quote:
Originally Posted by Marshal Olson
Sweet, thanks for the quick first day review.
I am so pumped to ski the 95comp. It is the most compelling ski on the rack right now for me... I've not had anything quite like it, with the business flex plus subtle releasable rocker, but I expect it'll get a lot of use here in dry ass montucky. Loved the r99comp for this but the 95 gonna shred.
I keep grabbing it to hand flex. There's a fuckin bruise on my wrist from flexing it so much, lol.