bblaster- why the second pair, same construction and flex as first? what a dirty ski ho you are!
i would likely be interested when you put 1st on the market
Printable View
bblaster- why the second pair, same construction and flex as first? what a dirty ski ho you are!
i would likely be interested when you put 1st on the market
Thanks for the review!! I've been scoping these since last year and my stoke grows every time I hear/read something new about them. Hope to make them my go-to ride this winter if I can swing getting new skis.
Let me know if/when they do hit the market, I'd be interested!Quote:
Originally Posted by Bird Blaster
Please do. I was so excited to ski mine I just mounted them on the line without thinking twice.... They ski amazing there but still interested in a -2 mount....Quote:
Originally Posted by racesla
I'm really torn as to where to mount mine. I'm starting to think -1.5 would be best (187). I pressure the tongues a bit but usually I'd say I ski pretty centered, and I don't want to sacrifice too much maneuverability, but I definitely don't want any tip dive. hopefully a few more people chime in before I have to mount em in about a month.
They're pretty similar in shape. They're really damn close to the automatic in shape AND rocker profile, but I think alot more people have skied the RPC. My automatics and my new medium+ 187 GPOs are very similar skis in every respect, the flex is almost identical, though a bit rounder on the GPO. the only place they really differ is the tail. the GPOs have about 1/3 of the rocker and the taper is way less abrupt (overall, the sidecut on the GPO is very smooth, whereas it seems more abrupt on the autos, if that makes sense). The tail on the GPO looks alot more substantial, even if it flexes pretty much the same.Quote:
Originally Posted by XavierD
So it is a Billy Goat?
I've read through this thread now, and come to realize I have no reason to get a pair of GPOs since I have apparently been skiing on it for the last few seasons.
I suggest you buy a pair and let us know if they are that similar or if they differ - for the good of the community, you know. :fmicon:Quote:
Originally Posted by XavierD
I had the first gen billy goats a couple seasons ago and I really hated them, they didn't seem to do anything well for me. Whenever I was going fast in untracked my tails would sink in so much and I could never get far enough forward, it felt really awkward. I wish I had the first gens around still to compare and see how they were different other than dimensions. I remember them being heavy as fuck, don't remember how they flexed. I've heard the newer billygoats ski way differently and are a huge improvement.
I was skeptical when I demoed the autos last year because they were almost identical in dimension, but I ended up loving them and bought a pair. Still love the autos but they are a bit too turny when charging in fresh, and the tail isn't always supportive enough, it seems like the GPOs wouldn't have those issues. I'm sure the newer billygoats wouldn't either, but I got a smokin deal on the GPOs, not to mention the topsheets are way more rad...
First Gen BGs were very different from the current offering.
I guess I was just expecting more people to compare this to the BG, than the Auto (has metal) and RPC (pure carbon)
Current 186 BG:
186 BG: 142-116-126, 28m Radius, 140 cm effective edge, 2380 or 2160 g per ski
187 GPO: 140-116-128, 24m Radius, 133 cm effective edge, 2250 g per ski
I see how they are different on paper, however these seem to be the two closest comparisons, maybe the 190 Squad 7. RPC just seems very different, more shape, greater rocker profile, lighter construction.
I have 13/14 carbon mid/stiff GPO 187cm and 12/13 BG 186cm both awaiting bindings. I'll be happy to compare them once I get some snow time. However, my initial impressions are they are similar, but different skis.Quote:
Originally Posted by XavierD
GPO is noticeably lighter with the carbon layup. Tip rocker profile is very similar, as is positive camber. Tail rocker starts at the same point on both skis, but the GPO has less rise. BG has RES, GPO has noticeably more sidecut (visually). Recommended mount (and narrowest point) on GPO is more forward (but not by much). GPO is softer in the tip and tail; underfoot flex is similar.
My speculation is that the BG will charge harder and be more damp, and the GPO will be quicker and more nimble. The BG will hook less in funky snow. Both will have excellent float, but the GPO will be more manageable at slow speeds and the BG more stable going mach loony. Both will be very very enjoyable skis.
Thanks for the insight. Looking forward to hearing more.Quote:
Originally Posted by adrenalated
I tried a pair of BGs a few years ago, maybe toe 09-10 season and found I didn't like them. But I thought the shape them was more like an s7 with a lot of sidecut. It sounds like the ski has changed since then, I'll have to look at it.
If you're at stevens and have a boot close to a 305, I can let you take my 192's for a run or two.
I have a pair of 191 bg tours and a pair of gpos in 187. Skied the billygoats a few days last year, gpos still unmounted.Quote:
Originally Posted by XavierD
I think the biggest difference is the shape of the tip. While the bg has the wide RES tip for flotation and slarving, the tip of the gpo is more like a bulletnose. It looks like a slightly wider ehp IMO. My bg tours are great, but do get bounced around in chop, I guess the gpo while slice through chop better, but will float a bit less.
Flex of tours is a tiny bit softer than med+ gpo. Guess stock bg is stiffer than stock gpo.
I'm really looking forward to skiing the gpos as I think they have some of the best traits from the ehp (mellow rocker, bulletnose, a touch of tail rocker), but improve upon the ehp were I found the ehp lacking (a bit more surface up front, a bit more sidecut, a tiny bit less center-mounted)
I skied both 192 gpo and 191 BG back to back last season. BG has the better float, gpo is more nimble, neither appears to have a speed limit.
That thread is around here somewhere...
anyone with time on the GPO also have a place in their heart for the 05/06 ninja gotama (before added sidecut)? I'm looking for a everyday PNW ski replacement for my beloved gotamas, looking to keep the feel, characteristics of the gotama (very versatile, damp, even flex, etc) but try out some rocker, more girth and improved crud performance. I may be seeking a unicorn but.... GPO, BG and a couple others may fit the bill. thanks.
Could any of you do a GPO - Protest comparison?
I love my 187 Protests to bits, and find them stupidly versatile. However, I don't want to ski them all the time (mustn't dilute the magic), so I'm looking for another ski to do parallel NZ clubfield service.
If you don't know and want the long story, Blister has written lots lately about the Clubbies, but the abridged version is: No trees; big open bowls/faces for big fast turns, alternating with tighter couloirs.
Any type of snow you can imagine - and then some - but often windsift, chalk, shallow powder, corn.
The GPO sounds perfect for this; loves to go fast, can edge, yet will still smear/slarve.
Thanks
GPOs and Speed Superlights...just in time for the new snow on Baker!
Rather like the red binding and purple ski together.
Attachment 141864
I will be able to do a 196 protest vs 192 gpo later this season.
You're welcome
192 GPO and a 187 Protest here.
The 182s above are just for early and late season bc objecives.
Made a side by side of some DPS and my Protests yesterday. Use the rocker and camber profile of a 120 and the ski shape of the 138 or Spoon and you have what at least in appearence is a Protest. Reasuring having not been on the Protest yet :biggrin:
That is a sexy looking ski.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dane1
I meant to ask, Dane: where did you mount at?
-2.5cm behind the dimple for both pair. Fingers crossed I'll like them there!
I shall look forward to it.Quote:
Originally Posted by SupreChicken
Cheers
Gotta get the wife's 180 medium flex mounted. Any suggestions? I'm thinking -1 or -2cm.
You're talking 182 GPO, I assume. Women's mounts run forward typically (by +1 cm).Quote:
Originally Posted by concretejungle
I have the same ski (length and flex) and am thinking -2 cm or -2.5 cm.
I'll mount with marker tours, and use them mainly for resort based skiing.
I'd likely recommend mounting at -1 cm for her.
How tall is she?