Surprisingly no one has yet commented on the title of this thread, surely an homage to Derek & The Dominos: Layla And Other Assorted Love Songs
Attachment 409610
Printable View
Surprisingly no one has yet commented on the title of this thread, surely an homage to Derek & The Dominos: Layla And Other Assorted Love Songs
Attachment 409610
Thanks. Any idea what year we're talking? Although I'm probably talking about a bit longer ski. 183 is probably long enough, but maybe not to approach the same ridiculous stability as the SuperbrosQuote:
Originally Posted by MagnificentUnicorn
Marshal & I did the graphix for our first Pro Model last nite - will let him decide when to share.
I’m 6’4” and 245. The 183 mx83 is ridiculously stable at any speed. Enough to scare me. I even skied them on a sleeper new snow day Sunday. They were a blast in 4-6” of dense wind blown. A little more work than a modern fat ski but railed through the snow. I would bet the r87 would be the same.Quote:
Originally Posted by sf
I’m not sure what year mine are but same vintage as the square tail mx98
Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums
Very intrigued!Quote:
Originally Posted by iriponsnow
Sent fra min LYA-L29 via Tapatalk
I just got a heritage coffee cup in the mail!
Thanks marshal and Arild.
Someday I hope to get a Freeride 120. Someday.
Thanks for this project. It’s so cool.
Note: my son is now kyping my OG 200 cm L120s.
This should up the ante.
Right?
Right?
Buster; FL113s. Do it. I know. Shorter, narrower and obviously less straight than L120s, but should be a nice travel pair.
Sent fra min LYA-L29 via Tapatalk
to those of you with experience designing skis: is there some say golden ratios wrt the placement of the mount point between the contact points to help facilitate certain feels / characteristics, both on hard and in softer snow?
Especially on more rockered skis where the widest points are in the rockered sections?
I never really thought that much about it before I started comparing different skis in the last few weeks and discovered some differences between skis that I thought were a lot more similar than they turned out to be. I realize that a lot of things factors into these things, but it would be interesting to get some thoughts on the matter.
hereticQuote:
Originally Posted by arild
I have not and will not forget about the 120mm pintail directional pow ski!
OK - so there is no perfect answer to much of this... But there are also some key fundamentals and commonalities that often get overlooked.Quote:
Originally Posted by kid-kapow
1. Tip and Tail taper **should** inform the mount position vs. the overall length of the ski. if there is a lot of tip taper and very little tail taper, then the recommended line will be set quite far back. If there is the same tip and tail taper, then the mount line should be roughly center mounted.
2. Sidecut Taper Angle (ie the % difference between width of tip and tail) **should** inform the mount position. so in a pintail ski, with a 12-15mm delta between tip and tail widths, you would typically see a pretty far set back mount (-12.5 or -13.5). For a more modern ski, with a 6-8mm delta, you typically see a more forward mount point, around -5 to -7 for example. Note: the length of effective edge influences the outcome of this.
3. Waist location **should** inform the midsole line (or vice-versa really). In classically designed skis, the skinniest point of the ski is located where the midsole is. In many modern skis, the recommended line is about +2cm from the narrowest point of the ski (which is why I personally mount -2ish on them). This also gets into my point above/previously about locating your BOF at/near the center of the chord length of the sidecut, and generally wanting to avoid putting your BOF in front of the center of the ski unless you are in very upright boots.
4. The flex pattern **should** be built around the intended midsole/sidecut/taper design as well, but is generally more foreviging to moving around on it, as it really is following the rest of the ski (these days, with rocker and taper, etc). Because flex pattern is simlay milling a chunk of wood to space out the laminates, it is a predictable factor in terms of stiffness and feel.
5. Rocker is, IMO mostly perfected now, with a few differ profiles based on the overall shape-class. Look at most of the best skis, and they share similar traits, with subtle differences between models and intended feel. But it is wild to see how similar so many skis are in rocker now when you line them all up. The key part is to ensure there isn't too much kink in the rocker profile right where the radius of the sidecut gets widest and transitions into the taper. That makes the ski hooky, weird, and hard to tune.
6. the sidecut itself is usually very simple to design as well. A circle is defined by three points, so based on where the are located relative to one-another, you have defined a circle. Locate the center of the circles radius in line with the waist of the ski, and you are off to the races. However, so many brands now want to make multi-radius skis for marketing purposes, and frankly, I have yet to ski any of these skis and been like... wow... that carves better than a normal single radius ski. But many of them carve worse. But good marketing!
In short, it is pretty easy to make a ski that is wonky/love it/hate it/narrow use kind of a ski, by missing on some of these details. Skis that are universally loved share commonalities in geometry. The convergence of all the above points to a common location for mount almost always makes for a banger cult classic ski. The problem is that many companies keep neutering these cult classics to make them mass-market ready, or nail these commonalities on one model then blow it on the next - like they didn't understand what made the ski awesome the first time...
Hopefully some of that is helpful!
Long story short, when the designer converges the midsole line with the inputs from selecting taper, overall length, sidecut, and design in rocker that matches well with the intended use, make it super smooth via construction, and stiff enough to be fast and fun, with a flex pattern than makes sense and doesn’t beat you up, well… that’s a banger of a ski that lots of people will like.
^^^ Marshal's last sentences 2 posts above is so true.
The industry just can't leave itself to "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" as every product cycle requires some marketing innovation to talk about to stimulate sales, hence altering ( ruining? ) a previous good thing. I wonder just how long that Blossom 77 wide mold ( White-Out / AM77 model ) has been in existence -> a couple decades at least with no changes other than top-sheet, you don't see that too often.
It is interesting the mass-marketing of lighter = better for the almost 10 years, and this applies to almost all classes of skis. I get it -> I ( and probably the masses ) don't go fast on my wider skis and trying to smash my way through crud / whatever, so weight, and damping, and charge-ability isn't my thing. I'll take nimbleness at moderate speeds to go around stuff, but that's me. I get that there is a whole 'nother crowd that is under-serviced by the major ski manufacturers. This leaves opportunities for guys like Marshal. I do look forward to my R87 !
There is lengthy thread over at SkiTalk forums on the 2021 Faction Candide CT 1.0, 2.0, 3.0 which are all heavy twin-tip All-Mountain skis, not really park skis as they are heavy in total weight ( 2 sheets of metal ) and swing-weight. Only the 2021 year was built at Fischer plants, and build quality is excellent IMO. The previous and following years were almost 400g lighter. Those 2021 Factions may be a ski that is not built again for a long time. I drank that Faction Kool-Aid and bought a CT 1.0 ( 92 wide ) and debating grabbing one of the last sets of CT 2.0 ( 102 wide ).
thanks for taking the time to write such in-depth replies - very interesting stuff.Quote:
Originally Posted by Marshal Olson
And yeah, do not get me started on marketing and their ability to screw things up.
Not to hijack but interested as well, where can you find a pair of those metal heavier CT? (also thinking about maybe just getting a pair of Dictators)Quote:
Originally Posted by ARL67
^^^ Sold out most everywhere, and even globally.
Sierra was blowing out the last ones at $299. GregK who started that Faction thread at SkiTalk just posted a shop in Quebec ( SkiMichel.com -> French website only ) has some CT 2.0 for $431 $C but only in 178 & 165 , and not sure if they ship to USA.
Marshal, I respect your knowledge and experience, and maybe it's because I'm not as good a skier as you... but the multi radius skis from volkl are amazing.
I have never been as hard a charger as I wanted to be so maybe that's it... and maybe they don't pure carve as well as a traditional sidecut? ... but the 3d radius in my K108 allows me to rail turns or not at will... it makes a long effective edge more approachable and not punishing, but still rewarding when you push it.
Again, I'm not rad so maybe my perspective is not not target audience... but that feature is something I'm fully on board with.
My 0.02
I don’t want to speak for Marshal, but I think the point is that “3d radius” or whatever variation a company uses is just marketing. The radius is assumed to be the radius of the maximum arc the sidecut will follow running on edge on some ideal surface. The K108 has such a maximum, but volkl is defining it as “triple radius” for the consumer.Quote:
Originally Posted by Shorty_J
For the record, I think the k108 carves well for a ski as wide as it is, but it’s no better than many “single radius” midfat skis in that regard because I can get them on edge and bend them into any radius I desire.
Coolio! Since I don’t have the design files, so I wouldn’t want to comment and be unintentionally misleading, but looking at the tip/waist/tail and eyeballing the skis, it points to: pintail design with a lot of sidecut!
I think the only other 10x ski I know with that big of a tip was the Q Lab, which was 1mm narrower tip and 1mm wider underfoot, and stated a 20m radius. They are also well regarded skis, like the K108 - so not surprised you like the K108 @shortyj. I am just skeptical about attributing what you like about the ski to the “3D Radius” thing :)
I like long radius skis because they turn where I want them to turn, whether short or long. Short radius skis (say 18m or less) seem to want to make short turns only, and get hooky fast, especially in soft snow or going straight.Quote:
Originally Posted by jackattack
Had a discussion a few days ago with someone who was looking for what he described as a "big ski" (in his words 104mm waist), and kept going on about how he only skied slalom skis for years because he was coaching during all that time, and didn't understand how a long radius ski would be more useful and fun. It's as if we were speaking completely different languages.
Got some cool merch in the mail. L fits pretty true to size.
My wife thinks it's hot, real happy for me to increase my usable tee collection by 300%. https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/202...ecb0b972b3.jpg
Sent fra min LYA-L29 via Tapatalk
got an expected on my feet date?Quote:
Originally Posted by Marshal Olson
the rest of this is cool and all but
not what i spent my ducketts on
Fischer Ranger 107 also had a similar shape/radius. Stiffer and slightly narrower tip (3-4mm), but a hair more tail. I think the stiffer tip and more tail, plus camber and weight, makes it a bit less accessible, though the much smoother and more predictable ride is what I was looking for to replace the k108 (which fleetingly replaced my qlab) and is still my DD.Quote:
Originally Posted by Marshal Olson
Maybe 3d/multi radius side cut is just for marketing, but it isn’t just marketing. It is a thing that you can feel and it is different from the norm. Obviously balance point is important with that multi radius sidecut, which is an interesting twist I hadn’t quite thought about vis a vis implications on progressive/trad mount preferences. As the ski is on edge with moderate angulation, I could move my balance point forward and backwards and feel different parts of the sidecut engage, somewhat abruptly. It was a weird feeling and I couldn’t quite sort the applicability…. Why do I want a 30m radius on my tails and a 17m radius under my balance point? Not sure what it’s for…. Does that really make a ski hooky or not?
Instead of taper, it seems a straight sidecut on those rockered sections could have merit, kind of like the Head Kore shape.
Hey Dibs!Quote:
Originally Posted by skifishbum
Sent you a text. Are you back in the states? I will pop over and catch up.
Cheers
I also bought the CT 1.0 and found it to be extremely fun. It feels very stable, but also very easy to pivot. IDK enough about ski shapes or construction to say why this is the case but I'm also trying to get a hold of the other CTs.Quote:
Originally Posted by ARL67
^^^ if you have the CT bug, head on over to SkiTalk forums and check out the lengthy Faction thread.
https://www.skitalk.com/threads/2021...reviews.23385/
The 2021 CT have 2 sheets of metal, a layer of rubber, thick edges, heavy, and built at a Fischer plant -> they are not your typical twin-tip. If you are in Canada, there is a CT 2.0 183 with Warden 13 Demo listed at a Toronto Buy & Sell site ( Kijiji )
FYI: I'm glad I put a demo binding ( first-gen Attack 13 Demo with low stand height ) as I found the CT 1.0 's character quite different with a 1 or 2 click adjustment. The ski could go from quite directional, to pivoty, with a 0.5 or 1cm mount change. I also grabbed a CT 2.0 178 a couple weeks ago, not that I need it, but it popped up at a place in Quebec and was probably the last set in Canada. I'm mounting it with the new Salomon Strive 13 Demo ( lighter weight and low stand height ) -> I grabbed 2 sets from ColoradoDiscountSkis
Hopefully my R87 provides a different enough experience to the CT 1.0 that I can justify both in the quiver. Regardless, both will see plenty of duty next season and we'll see how things shake out if both or keepers or one of them gets sold off. My next skinniest ski is a K2 Disruption STi ( 72 wide ). With my CT 1.0 and where/how I ski most of the time, I don't feel the need ( other than R87 if I like it) for a mid-80's in between the Faction and K2 as I find the Faction very versatile for its 92 width.
Marshal sent out this email earlier this afternoon.
I'll post it here for some stoke !
Howdy friends of Heritage Labs!
This email has been a long time coming, but I am very excited to share some great news fresh off the presses... and a lot of it at that!
1. Carbon and Freeride 132 and 113 shapes are ready to order
0. I currently expect a Jan 1st-ish shipping date for orders.
1. I was able to only secure the limited production capacity, and about 1/2 of these skis are pre-reserved from January, so I expect the shapes to sell out quickly. Get yours in now!
2. The 132 is my ultimate expression of a deep untracked powder ski. 190 and 200cm in length are both offered in Carbon and Freeride constructions
3. The 113 is a collab with Arlid. The Falline fiberglass ski is our modern take on big mountain freeride skis of yore. The Carbon version deploys the same shape but in a bit more soft snow-biased flex pattern.
2. The Raceroom skis are on track and add an "All Mountain 50/50" layup!
0. I currently expect to ship Raceroom skis in December.
1. After testing the Raceroom skis, I am super excited. The rocker and camber turned out amazing, fit and finish is beautiful, and the skis rip.
2. I am also excited to announce that I have added an "All Mountain 50/50" version to the Comp build.
3. If the Comp skis are a 4.5 stiffness, the AM 50/50 builds are a 3.5 stiffness and about 350g lighter than the comp skis (details on each model's product page)
4. I am planning a full run of the AM 50/50 skis and am able to slide a few pairs of comp skis into the production, now is the time to pull the trigger if you want a pair!
5. If you have a Comp ski on order and would like to sub it out to the AM 50/50 build, just reply to this email and let me know....super easy!
3. The return of ginormous 120mm pintails
0. I will open up a very special and limited run of long dong big wide directional pow skis this fall. Stay tuned!
Attachment 415136
Attachment 415137
--
Marshal Olson
Heritage Lab Skis
Mobile: +1.303.579.6989
Very exciting Marshal! Can we see more photos?
I want to know more about the 113
Marshall and Arild know skis.
How does it compare to the ginormous 120?
More traditional? But tip splay and damp and long radius?
more like a legend pro?
PS. Marshal. What is new about the 132? How is it compared to all the lotus 130 rockers over the years.
I'll be waiting at the very special limitEd short bus stop.
"3. If the Comp skis are a 4.5 stiffness, the AM 50/50 builds are a 3.5 stiffness"
Can anyone throw some reference skis at these stiffness #'s? Like where would a Mantra M5 or Enforcer 100 land on this scale?
Okey Dokie!Quote:
Originally Posted by Core Shot
So, first of all, on the 113 skis, I would think of the constructions distinctly. The shape itself is your classic large radius ski, with modest taper tip and tail, but the carbon skis will have a classic soft snow biased surfy shovel compared to a supportive mid-body and tail. The Falline skis will be more biased toward blowing up chop and thus stiff throughout. The rocker lines are designed to be the same, but as a theme across the skis, just enough kick tip and tail to make them work right, but subtle enough that the skis track and slice correctly. The Falline version will slot in with skis like the RC112, thirteen, and 115mm legend pros. The carbon version is more like a narrower directional pow ski.
With respect to the 132's... I have spent alot of time of wide mega rocker pow skis. For me, I always felt like 135+ was a touch wider than I needed 95% of the time and than <130 was too skinny for highly tapered reverse/reverse skis. So this version is my "perfect" choice at 132mm. I have also paid alot of attention to the taper tip and tail of many skis, and zoomed in on ratios for the angle and run length of the taper vs the overall length. Some skis just slice into windskin better than others, and the best ones have very consistent geometry. The rocker geometry again blends my favorite aspects of skis that track really well at speed, are super surfy in soft snow, but hold well in funky/manky stuff.
If a thirteen or RC112 is a 5, Cochise, monsters & legend pros are a 4.5, I would guess newer Mantras are about a 4 as well. Rustlers and that sort is about a 3.5.Quote:
Originally Posted by ticketchecker
I'll snap a few more this evening!Quote:
Originally Posted by mr_pretzel
Also, posting this repsonse to an email quesiton on the AM50/50:
The 50/50 is a single layer of titanal, with VDS strips (not full rubber) and a less dense core (still hardwood).
So they will be very smooth, for sure, and about 15% softer. More lively in soft snow, but less mass and punch in chop. The 120 am50/50 is still 2250g, so not a featherweight. But it will not be damp like the comp skis. More lively and responsive and less bulldozer.
If you like really really nicely made skis, and are a bit lighter person, like more finesse skis for alpine, or are looking for an amazing travel setup, this is it. If you are after a chop destroyer and have a meathead mentality, then the comp skis are your ticket.
Sorry if it's been covered Marshall, but how are you measuring your skis? I keep coming round to that R120 , but the 185 part! Pressed length? Or do you have a 190 in the works? Or is the tail serious enough I'm not gonna miss~2"?
Hey Marshal,
I have the R87 175 on order so am curious:
Any ballpark weights on the R87 in 175, in both Comp and AM50/50 build ?
You posted:
R87 AM50/50 is down 450g in 182 weighing in at 1750g ( Comp 2200g )
R99 AM50/50 is down 400g in 188 weighing in at 1950g ( Comp 2350g )
R120 AM50/50 is down 250g in 185 weighing in at 2250g ( Comp 2500g )
Just looking at various Blister reviews for 80-something wide skis, the R87 AM50/50 182 at 1750g puts it in the lightweight camp. I'm still going to stick with my order for a Comp build as such a heavier ski will be unique, and certainly a different experience than most all the other 80'ish skis that are much lighter.
Here is weight list from Blister's 2020-2021 Brahma 88 Review:
1784 & 1800 Liberty V82, 179 cm (19/20–20/21)
1790 & 1828 Black Crows Orb, 179.1 cm (19/20–20/21)
1790 & 1831 Salomon XDR 88 Ti, 186 cm (17/18–19/20)
1864 & 1882 Armada Invictus 89 Ti, 187 cm (18/19–19/20)
1869 & 1894 Atomic Vantage 90 Ti, 184 cm (18/19–20/21)
1911 & 1917 K2 Disruption 82Ti, 177 cm (20/21)
1931 & 1932 DPS Foundation Cassiar 94, 185 cm (18/19–19/20)
1947 & 2022 Liberty V92, 186 cm (19/20–20/21)
1959 & 1985 Renoun Z-Line 90, 180 cm (17/18–19/20)
1990 & 2036 Blizzard Brahma 88, 177 cm (20/21)
1997 & 2001 Blizzard Brahma 88, 180 cm (17/18–19/20)
2008 & 2015 Folsom Spar 88, 182 cm (18/19–20/21)
2049 & 2065 Volkl Mantra M5, 177 cm (18/19–20/21)
2062 & 2063 Rossignol Experience 94 Ti, 187 cm (18/19–20/21)
2077 & 2092 K2 Ikonic 84 Ti, 177 cm – weight includes binding plates (17/18–19/20)
2098 & 2105 Nordica Enforcer 88, 179 cm (19/20–20/21)
2115 & 2149 J Skis Masterblaster, 181 cm (16/17–20/21)
2171 & 2176 Head Monster 88 Ti, 184 cm (18/19–19/20)
I know Marshal's bona fides from WWMD and Drake's Ski Co...who is Arild and what is his/her ski design/manufacturing background?
I'm sure it's legit - just curious.
Sweet project - still very interested in the 132 for touring and 99 for resort erryday.