We all know there is only one solution to this.
Ski off.
Bushwhacka will give $1,000 to whoever can ski in Vermont with a fixed seat post.
Let it be so.
Printable View
We all know there is only one solution to this.
Ski off.
Bushwhacka will give $1,000 to whoever can ski in Vermont with a fixed seat post.
Let it be so.
I should prolly buy some bad ass inbounds skis for the ski-off….K108s would be perfect?Quote:
Originally Posted by Mustonen
Yeah, but get them mounted and then sell them before ever skiing them to use some MSP 107s instead.
Today I skied my k108 and some 2021 faction candide 5.0 (full reverse/flat camber with much more rocker) in conditions including: predictable wind sift, horrible breakable punchy wind slab, cut up powder, stashes of fresh powder, tight trees, and groomers.
I found the k108 the same or easier to ski, and as good or better than the candide in all conditions except the few softest patches of snow, and maybe a little in the tight trees... but even there the katana didn't give up much.
Still need to play with the mount on the 5.0 and get used to them (including some more detuning) but I never had to do that on the more intuitive k108 that has just worked from the first run.
Hardboiled,Quote:
Originally Posted by hardboiled
I ski the 184 K108 with the Lange XT130's. No issues. Great set up for me. The K108 is less demanding than you would think... Still charges...
Let my buddy ski my 184 Katana K108’s today and my 192 Dynastar MFree108’s. He loved both but preferred the limitless stability Katana.
Here’s evidence of the gathering (those are M102’s in the middle).
Attachment 404457
So far I have converted my son to M102’s and my two ski buddies to K108’s.
Sent from my iPad using TGR Forums
Considering replacing my 182 M-Free 108s with some K108s, as I want a bit more hard snow performance and stability.
What length should I be looking at, 177 or 184?
I am 6' and 150 lbs. Do the K108s ski long considering their stoutness? I am used to skis in the 184 range, but am thinking the 177 might be nice in tighter spots, and still hold up since they are stiff. Or am I overthinking this and should just go with the 184s?
Quote:
Originally Posted by dub2
I own the 192 Mfree108 and 184 &191 Katana K108. The 184 K108 feels like "more" ski than the 192 Mfree108. I skied them back-to-back last Friday for the first time and was amazed how the shorter K108 made the Mfree108 feel even more playful in comparison. So, that difference is probably going to be even more distinct between the 182 Mfree and 184 K108. That being said, the 184 K108 isn't hard to ski. it's just damp and heavy and prefers higher speeds.
My 155 lb/5' 9" ski buddy also skied the 192 MFree108 and 184 K108 back-to-back recently. He initially thought that the 184 K108 was a lot of ski. I swapped him for the 192 Mfree108 and after a few runs he wanted the K108 back and decided to "man up and ski with his weight more forward". Guess what...he now prefers the 184 K108 and wants to buy a pair. It just required a more "attentive" style but the reward was a super stable and damp ride.
Not sure if that helps or confuses the issues further.
G’day. Looking at a pair of Katana 108s. I’m 6ft 210pounds, ski here in NZ. Tossing up between 177 and 184. Don’t have miles of vert to let them run here and dodging people. Thinking 177 may be more appropriate. I see the 177 Volkls measure closer to 179 and 184 measure 183. So not a huge gap. K108 rocker looks shallow enough to ski true to length. Thoughts?? Cheers Nick.
6ft, 210lbs, NZ = 184 if not 191. The 177 should not be on your radar, imo. NZ is very open.
Maybe I'm old. And maybe I'm skilled. But I can't imagine why someone at 6ft/210 would want a 177.
Ahh reminds me of the old days when we used to say "short skis suck & long boards truck".Quote:
Originally Posted by Nicksouth
Skier weight is the single largest factor in ski design these days, and at 210 lbs a 177 would be like a Ferrari with a 4 cylinder. Sure a 177 is going to be more maneuverable but at what cast to the true design intent of the ski? At your size I would think the conversation would be more between a 184 and 191.
I'm going echo the other comments... I'd say go 184 even if you don't want to pin it all the time.
I'm about 5'7" and 175 pounds and on the 177 and personally that's enough ski for me but you are much bigger than me.
At 150 lbs though, assuming the 177 is the way to go?
Depends on your preference. It’s not a handful of a ski. At 160lbs I had a 184. Cool ski and nothing really bad to say about them, but I kind of wished it was the 191. I would not have liked the 177. But I prefer skis that, by all rights, are a little too long for me.
I much prefer the Ranger 107ti in a 189, partially just due to the increased length.
👌
Picked up a pair of Kendo 92s, anyone know what the 3 lines indicate with regards to mounting? I assume the middle is rec. and the other two are +1 or -1?
No…the bottom line is rec…..then +1 and +2……standard Volkl mount lines.Quote:
Originally Posted by nyskirat
No. At least, not on the katanas. The back line is recommended. It’s also the bigger line.Quote:
Originally Posted by nyskirat
I've played with mount and I like +1cm even on the 177.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mustonen
Yeah I think that sounds good at 150 lbs.Quote:
Originally Posted by dub2
Thanks, first pair of Volkls so that's new to me.Quote:
Originally Posted by BC.
184 it is, bring on the southern winter!
Anyone compare these to Monster 108? I assume Monster has a higher speed limit (none) and carves better, but is a beast in tight spots.
Still haven't mounted them up?Quote:
Originally Posted by 1000-oaks
Thats a lot of low rise rocker! Awesome. Did they feel significantly more ski than the 102?
Had a fun back to back to back between 184 M5s, M102s, and K108s this week. Almost universal agreement that the Katanas were the most fun. M102s were turny little GS skis and the M5s felt strangely light and playful comparatively.
Love the K108s!
https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/202...2bf8a9fac2.jpg
Are you asking about an M102 vs K108 comparison? The ski really similarly. The M102 feels a bit more comfortable on firm snow and the K108 a bit more natural in soft snow. The tail on the Katana is a bit softer.Quote:
Originally Posted by Nicksouth
Last year we had lots of fresh snow and I mainly skied the K108. This year we have had lots of high pressure dry stints and the M102 have been my go to.
Yep. Thanks.
Hasn't snowed in almost two months so been on skinny sticks, but you're right - it's time to punch these mini guns. Still want to try the new 'Tana, but no point buying a pair the way this season is going.Quote:
Originally Posted by ntblanks
Da WWW reveals no 191's out there? Is that possible? Doing my wallet a favor I suppose.
I'm in the same boat - not yet mounted. Not even in the next 3 pair queue. What would be better for the gnarly chop piling up next to groomers, though? Might be monster time.Quote:
Originally Posted by 1000-oaks
I’ve been looking for 191 all winter as well, nothing out thereQuote:
Originally Posted by Fred Pabst
Not the new school 108’s…..but I’ve got these I’m ready to part ways with?…..2014 Katana (191).Quote:
Originally Posted by SWskier
Attachment 406179
pm'd
Not my sale...
https://www.kijiji.ca/v-ski/calgary/...kis/1605544837
Normally I would offer to facilitate but this is about a 1 hour drive from me so don't really want to do it this time.
Those skis are almost literally next door and i've been watching it for a week. The ad calling them backcountry skis always provides a chuckle. What a price..
But it's not 2013. I'll reasonably overpay for a not-trashed 184 of that year at this point if the shipping isn't evil. Even consider a 191. That's my late-to-the-party unicorn.
So look who rocked my (albeit ladies sized 177cm) Katanas all day today... this 145 pound ball of gorgeous intermediate skier.
How many times did this ski punish her? Zero. Usual skis are 172cm salomon qst 98.
These are not demanding skis and can go as slow or as fast as you want.https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/202...8894d178ba.jpg
When are you getting some 184’s so she can have the 177’s?Quote:
Originally Posted by Shorty_J
You make good points.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bandit Man
That was not the intention of this experiment but it may be the beneficial side effect.
For you guys who have skied both the K108 and the M102 and say it doesn't make sense to have both models in the same length, would it makes more sense to have the 184 K108 and the 177 M102 instead, if you're someone who normally skis ~180? That would get you two "same-same but different" skis. (I already have the 177 M102.)