Return of the R/R - Heritage Lab 132 - Dedicated Thread

whoa

Yeah, that's spicy.

@soul skier - nice line mang, expected nothing less! Quick q, how supportive did you find the tails? Looks like a clean ski out, but curious if they propped you up enough. Thx!

@chewski - thanks for the write up! Interesting thoughts on the crust performance. I’ll personally take it as a win that they edged out your BGS, as those things handle crust better than any other ski I’ve been on! Great thoughts on the skiing position. I like to ski closed an compact on my 132 in the woods and tight lines, and then nice and tall when letting them run. My recommendation, next time you get some untracked pow on them However, is to forget turning entirely. Straight line in and then power drift your turns. I think they is a turn you will not only love, but get immediately addicted to that might me lurking in the shadows! Cheers man. Can’t wait for you to keep spending time on them!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Marshal Olson

@soul skier - nice line mang, expected nothing less! Quick q, how supportive did you find the tails? Looks like a clean ski out, but curious if they propped you up enough. Thx!

@chewski - thanks for the write up! Interesting thoughts on the crust performance. I’ll personally take it as a win that they edged out your BGS, as those things handle crust better than any other ski I’ve been on! Great thoughts on the skiing position. I like to ski closed an compact on my 132 in the woods and tight lines, and then nice and tall when letting them run. My recommendation, next time you get some untracked pow on them However, is to forget turning entirely. Straight line in and then power drift your turns. I think they is a turn you will not only love, but get immediately addicted to that might me lurking in the shadows! Cheers man. Can’t wait for you to keep spending time on them!

---

The tails are plenty supportive in anything resembling 3d snow. I wouldn't hate having a bit more stiffness but I also recognize that I'm using the C132s in places and conditions where the FL132s and a extra few hundred grams of weight would probably be a more appropriate choice. I've had zero issues as long as I land with my weight centered,

The ski out was clean for the first few seconds after the landing, but I washed the tails out and went down to my hip crossing the avy debris towards the bottom of the runout out of frame. Not a slight on the 132s, I think it would have been an issue even if I was on the FL113s, I have yet to find a ski that handles refrozen chunky debris well at speed.

@chewski - The turn Marshal is talking about is how I tend to ski the 132s after things start to get a bit cut up inbounds. Run in a straight line from untracked patch to untracked patch then put a big mcconkey drifting turn in to scrub speed and redirect to the next patch of snow you intend to turn on. It also has the benefit of manufacturing absurd face shots. R/R skis and turns like that are the only setup i've used where the face shots are not in the 'white room' but rather in the 'black room' as there is so much snow flowing over your head that light can't penetrate it and it goes dark for a moment. Its always a good idea to take a mental snapshot of what the 30 ft in front of you looks like before you go under so you can ski fluidly and not stop every time visibility gets compromised.

This makes me want to take them out again. I’ve been loving them
For WA tree skiing, plenty nimble and quick. However! I’m going to look forward to the sensations described in the last few posts. I’m hoping my kilo class boots and skillset can make it work.



Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by chewski

Last week i took the trip of a lifetime (for me) and did 4 days of heli skiing in BC just outside of golden. I went out on a limb and took the FR132 after previously only getting one full day on them and having no previous R/R experience. As a backup I brought my trusty 189 pre-asym BG's that i know like the back of my hand. There was no significant snowfall for 2 weeks leading up to my trip, so I was understandably a bit apprehensive about using this ski and heli skiing in general. Thankfully the heli operation did an amazing job of getting to the goods despite the lack of new snow and warming spring temperatures. For the most part, other than the occasional sun crust every few runs, i was amazed at the amount of soft, dry powder we were able to ski over 4 days. Conditions were mostly binding to boot top, cold and dry with the aforementioned crusts thrown in every couple of runs. Most of my commentary about this ski probably has more to do with someone coming from more conventional pow skis (volkl 3's and on3p bg's) switching to R/R than the actual FR132 itself.

My first day we easily encountered the grabbiest, crustiest snow of the four days. Honestly, i felt the grabby snow and crust more than i was expecting having heard people wax poetic about R/R handling funky snow just like it was pure pow. It was still enjoyable and relatively easy skiing in crusts, but i guess i was expecting to barely feel it at all. For reference, everyone else was on ~108-116mm mustache rockered skis, and one of my buddies on an m-free 108 was really on the struggle bus that first day. I figured the slight catchiness i was feeling was actually quite bad for others on conventional pow skis. But obviously heli skiing for the first time the stoke was still very high.

The next three days had far better snow overall, but always with the lurking crust every so often. I really found these good in tight areas as we would drop back into the tree line. On 5-10' drops and taking pillows these were so effortless and the landing platform they provide is just awesome. In deeper pow, i still need to get used to the feeling of float coming from underfoot rather than the tip (the volk 3's with their giant tips still float better), but if you trust it the float is always there. Because of this lack of push back/resistance from the tip, the stance required seems to be mostly upright with light shin pressure at all times. Because of the smaller tips, super forward pressure would cause the ski to overturn if going really fast on steep faces. Because of the rearward mount (I went with -11.5cm), letting off the shins would result in a lack of control. So adapting to this hybrid neutral/forward stance took some getting used to on my part, but worked really well when i stuck to it.

On day three I switched to my BG's just so i could benchmark the difference R/R was really having on my experience. I still had a blast on BG's, but I confirmed my suspicion that the R/R definitely mitigated the affects of crusts and grabby snow I had encountered on day one. The funky snow was easily more perceptible on the BG's, and they are no slouches in grabby snow themselves. In pure pow, i honestly had just as much fun on the BG's with their smaller waist, but more tip-biased float (which i still prefer overall). The thing that stood out most (other than crust performance) was how perfectly balanced I needed to be on the FR 132 to make BIG and FAST turns than on my other pow skis. The FR 132 does quick turns well, but to do long, sweeping turns it felt like you need to apply steering AND counter steering simultaneously (like controlling fishtailing in a car). This was kinda odd for me at first, but the more i focused on that upright/light shin pressure stance the more easily i could dial in my radii.

All in all, just like i said in my original review after one resort pow day, these are very intuitive in anything 3D and allow you to just hop on and ski reasonably well. The more nuanced aspects of their performance take some time and getting used to, but i think I am getting the hang of it. I had messaged Marshall right before my trip about edge tunes on R/R, and I have skied mine exclusively at his original 1* base/2* side. But he informed me that he now sends all 132's out with 1.5* base. As these definitely had advantages to conventional skis in grabby snow, but not to the MIND BLOWING levels i had mentally hyped myself up to, i will be goingto 1.5* or 2* base bevel. I definitely resisted because of my unfamiliarity with this shape of ski. However, overall build quality and durability is proving to be absolutely extraordinary. On3p is the only other manufacturer I have tried that makes skis this bomber. After my trip it was obvious to me that i needed more heli in my life moving forward, so hopefully these will be getting the nod more often.

---

The comparison makes sense. I think the strength of the RES nose on the BG is that the front of the ski acts a lot like an R/R ski in 3D snow.

132s are fun in pow. That is all.

https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/202...d72b7ce754.jpg

NIIIICE.

Is there a verdict on lightweight touring bindings for the c132s? I've been on salomon MTNs and steel toed dynafits radicals for a bit now and have had no issues, but am wondering if there is something else out there I should look at? Is there a better sub 300g leashed setup that folks feel comfortable skiing hard on with a ski this wide? I'll admit I haven't paid attention to touring binding developments over the past few seasons, so I'm probably a bit out of the loop.

I have Plum oazo with leashes on mine, no problems. The two you mention seem like they would be fine too. Honestly, climbing is probably where the bindings get the most load; the toes that is. If you’re out on appropriate conditions for these beautiful beasts, edging power isn’t the top priority.


Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by soul_skier

Is there a verdict on lightweight touring bindings for the c132s? I've been on salomon MTNs and steel toed dynafits radicals for a bit now and have had no issues, but am wondering if there is something else out there I should look at? Is there a better sub 300g leashed setup that folks feel comfortable skiing hard on with a ski this wide? I'll admit I haven't paid attention to touring binding developments over the past few seasons, so I'm probably a bit out of the loop.

---

There was a lot of discussion of this up thread somewhere. I ended up putting Alpinists on mine and they have been solid, but I'm not skiing real hard on them and I'm not real heavy.

My other favorite light binding right now is the atk haute route/helio 200, which I have on my Billy goat tours. Alpinists won out here because they were super cheap and have a wider toe pattern (still no idea how much that matters).

Sent from my Pixel 3 XL using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by soul_skier

Is there a verdict on lightweight touring bindings for the c132s? I've been on salomon MTNs and steel toed dynafits radicals for a bit now and have had no issues, but am wondering if there is something else out there I should look at? Is there a better sub 300g leashed setup that folks feel comfortable skiing hard on with a ski this wide? I'll admit I haven't paid attention to touring binding developments over the past few seasons, so I'm probably a bit out of the loop.

---

Went with Trab Vario.2s - only skied two days on them this year but was really happy overall.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by soul_skier

Is there a verdict on lightweight touring bindings for the c132s? I've been on salomon MTNs and steel toed dynafits radicals for a bit now and have had no issues, but am wondering if there is something else out there I should look at?...

---

I’m not very heavy, don’t ski that fast or hard but I cracked a set of alum Dynafit toes on a set of Protests. I’ve now switched back to steel toes on my wide skis (TLT 5 hole on 112 waist, steel radical toes on the protests or other 120+ skis).

If you still have steel radical toes use those with the tech heel of your choice. Superlite 2.0 are pretty solid aka the “Super Radical” set up.


Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

Marshals latest mail reminded me I still haven't mounted my FR132s, so looking for advice.
Boots are 306 bsl RS130 and XT140 with pivot/cast. I am in respectable shape, 175cm 80kg, so 5'9 176 lbs? Not sure what type of skier I am - I am fond of driving my 186 black Bodes and equally enjoy surfing on my whiteroom 186 Rens.
Thinking of going neutral @ 85.5 from tail (10,25 from midsole) or the heavy ski/boots/clamps combo should weigh in towards the more traditional mount?

Hey man, just one guys opinion, but I’d say IMO, most people will enjoy going with recommended the most, as it gives the broadest performance bandwidth in my experience.

Going forward will make the 132 more like a spatula. Super fast and quick in trees, but a little less horsepower in open terrain skiing the fall line. Going back will open the turn up, and make the ski a little less pivoty.

lastly, for folks skiing alpine-ish equipment on the carbon skis, I’d definitely go back, unless you are looking for a tree assassin, as the ski is so damn responsive, when paired with an alpine boot and binding, you just don’t really need to be forward.

I spied mine in the back of the ski shelf this morning and got all stoked- so good in tight trees, so worth it. They disappear completely in tight quarters, so nimble. Of course also fun in the open! More versatile than expected….


Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Marshal Olson

lastly, for folks skiing alpine-ish equipment on the carbon skis, I'd definitely go back, unless you are looking for a tree assassin, as the ski is so damn responsive, when paired with an alpine boot and binding, you just don't really need to be forward.

---

Dude, this speaks volumes! I will stash this in the back of my head for future reference.

I might never be on the skis in question per se, but as a general rule of thumb, for my personal
alpine <-> tour setup mount wonderings, this is gold. Thanks, Marshal. 😃

Hey Marshall,

What would it take to make a tourable properly fat ski for the medium/short ladies?

I’m fortunate that my wife and I get to tour together a lot but it seems like twice a year on the deepest days we bail early because she doesn’t have enough flotation and is reduced to just slowly straight lining my tracks while I am grinning ear to ear on my 140 underfoots. For some context she’s 5’3 and has the 165 voile v8. On these days we typically ski 22-29 degree trees in light-for-a-maritime-snowpack Tahoe pow. Sure, she could just ski faster or bump up to a 175ish ski but that’s not really how she skis and despite being a very good skier she loses a lot of nimbleness and maneuverability when going way longer. Both these options are fun suckers for her. The best option I can currently find is the 164cm voile hyperdrifter at 115 underfoot and 150 in the tip anything fatter (122 BMT, la machine max, dps lotus) is no shorter than the high 170cm range.

I’m curious whether the pre order and manufacturing setup of HL is more conducive to small volume runs of something like at 170cm c132. Or any other suggestions on skis to help us both enjoy the deepest days of the year.

Thanks!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Blaster

Hey Marshall,

What would it take to make a tourable properly fat ski for the medium/short ladies?

I’m fortunate that my wife and I get to tour together a lot but it seems like twice a year on the deepest days we bail early because she doesn’t have enough flotation and is reduced to just slowly straight lining my tracks while I am grinning ear to ear on my 140 underfoots. For some context she’s 5’3 and has the 165 voile v8. On these days we typically ski 22-29 degree trees in light-for-a-maritime-snowpack Tahoe pow. Sure, she could just ski faster or bump up to a 175ish ski but that’s not really how she skis and despite being a very good skier she loses a lot of nimbleness and maneuverability when going way longer. Both these options are fun suckers for her. The best option I can currently find is the 164cm voile hyperdrifter at 115 underfoot and 150 in the tip anything fatter (122 BMT, la machine max, dps lotus) is no shorter than the high 170cm range.

I’m curious whether the pre order and manufacturing setup of HL is more conducive to small volume runs of something like at 170cm c132. Or any other suggestions on skis to help us both enjoy the deepest days of the year.

Thanks!

---

I know this a HL thread, but Praxis makes Protests in 163. I tour in a stock pair (187 with Alpinists) and love them so much I haven't been able to pull the trigger on a C132 to replace them.

My wife skis on a 177 Protest inbounds (5'8, 140#) and those work well for her, but I expect they need a bit more speed to come alive than a fully rockered C132.

A shorter C132 would be sweet, but if not on the horizon, check out Protests. You can get the UL layup in the next custom sale, but the stock one is on sale now for not much.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Marshal Olson

Hey man, just one guys opinion, but I’d say IMO, most people will enjoy going with recommended the most, as it gives the broadest performance bandwidth in my experience.

Going forward will make the 132 more like a spatula. Super fast and quick in trees, but a little less horsepower in open terrain skiing the fall line. Going back will open the turn up, and make the ski a little less pivoty.

lastly, for folks skiing alpine-ish equipment on the carbon skis, I’d definitely go back, unless you are looking for a tree assassin, as the ski is so damn responsive, when paired with an alpine boot and binding, you just don’t really need to be forward.

---

Interesting comment on the difference between mounting tech and alpine bindings.

That squares with what Salomon did on the QST Echo 106. As cy whitling wrote:

Quote:

---

"The QST Echo comes with two recommended mount lines, one at -8 cm from true center, for pin bindings, and one at -9 cm for Alpine bindings or Shift. I really like this philosophy, I’m a big fan of mounting skis further forward for lighter boots and bindings. It makes them easier to turn and control, and while it compromises the chargeability, that’s not the point with lighter pin bindings and boots."

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Blaster

Hey Marshall, What would it take to make a tourable properly fat ski for the medium/short ladies?

---

Hey man! Thanks for the thoughts and I look forward to "getting there" and being able to offer a collection more tailored to ladies. I would say, after having skied with women on OG 172cm Volant Spatula, I don't really think reverse translate to lengths shorter than 185cm. You just run out of real estate for tapers, having the right taper angles, etc etc and lose much of the benefit, but gain more downside (namely tip dive).

However, I DO think something with a proper carbon build in a ~122 shape, with a bit wider of a tip (ie more float up front), and a progressive rocker profile around 170cm would be amazing.

To agree with meter-man, as far as I know, the smallest Praxis Protest (163 and 119mm waist) and Wndr 120 (170 and 120mm wide) are about the only other skis that approach tourable weights, but are 1700-1800g, which is certainly not light. A 150mm wide tip combined with Voile's more setback mount (compared to these other two) is quite frankly going to float her at least as well in deep snow, honestly, and at ~1300g, be way more fun on the up.

With respect to small runs, sure, I can do it, it's just cost prohibitive! For skis to be less than $1k/pr, we'd need to get 8-10 orders together per mold/construction. To be certain, I'm all about it and would love to. But I am realistically 1-2 years away, unless someone wrangles together enough ladies to get it going faster than that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by meter-man

I know this a HL thread, but Praxis makes Protests in 163. I tour in a stock pair (187 with Alpinists) and love them so much I haven't been able to pull the trigger on a C132 to replace them.

My wife skis on a 177 Protest inbounds (5'8, 140#) and those work well for her, but I expect they need a bit more speed to come alive than a fully rockered C132.

A shorter C132 would be sweet, but if not on the horizon, check out Protests. You can get the UL layup in the next custom sale, but the stock one is on sale now for not much.

---

With apologies for the threadjack, I'll second that. My wife has a pair of 163 Protests, and has toured a fair bit on them in Japan.

Renegade is available in a 177 these days, ~1950g.

Thanks for the insights. I hope Heritage Labs keeps growing and filling voids in the ski world

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Marshal Olson

Hey man! Thanks for the thoughts and I look forward to "getting there" and being able to offer a collection more tailored to ladies. I would say, after having skied with women on OG 172cm Volant Spatula, I don't really think reverse translate to lengths shorter than 185cm. You just run out of real estate for tapers, having the right taper angles, etc etc and lose much of the benefit, but gain more downside (namely tip dive).

However, I DO think something with a proper carbon build in a ~122 shape, with a bit wider of a tip (ie more float up front), and a progressive rocker profile around 170cm would be amazing.

To agree with meter-man, as far as I know, the smallest Praxis Protest (163 and 119mm waist) and Wndr 120 (170 and 120mm wide) are about the only other skis that approach tourable weights, but are 1700-1800g, which is certainly not light. A 150mm wide tip combined with Voile's more setback mount (compared to these other two) is quite frankly going to float her at least as well in deep snow, honestly, and at ~1300g, be way more fun on the up.

With respect to small runs, sure, I can do it, it's just cost prohibitive! For skis to be less than $1k/pr, we'd need to get 8-10 orders together per mold/construction. To be certain, I'm all about it and would love to. But I am realistically 1-2 years away, unless someone wrangles together enough ladies to get it going faster than that.

---

Mounted @85 from tail. How do you ski a painting?
Attachment 474583