Printable View
If it is based off the original shell, change that "t nut" that holds the end of the cable on the lateral side of the foot. The hole in the plastic is nearly the same size as the T nut and if you stretch it at all, that piece won't stay in anymore.Quote:
Originally Posted by tompietrowski
I'll second that. My DB Lupos are an okay substitute, but the fit and performance of that classic Raichle/FT shell is still unmatched. The evo shell and subsequent Descendant/Ascendant were total misses for me because of the sloppy fit and low cuff height.Quote:
Originally Posted by kootenayskier
Layup is basically an M-pro 99 tailored for a wider, stiffer ski. Rocker isn’t that far off og LP if I remember right.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bandit Man
New Salomon MTN series. Looks like 76, 86, 96.
dude those skis are sexy as hell. also have a pro and not pro line. THe boots are in the insta story too, the one with the boa.
Attachment 404428
https://i.imgur.com/AhPwmFJ.png
https://i.imgur.com/m514uiE.png
That'd be why all the old ones have suddenly gone on sale on the (euro, at least) webshops.
Should I grab a bargain or wait d'you think?
if you read cody's insta post from today these are different skis. all depends on what you want to spend and what you want in a ski.
I was thinking of picking up some MTN 95s anyway as a firm snow/spring lightish weight BC setup. I'd certainly grab a pair of the current version if they are on sale. Reviews look pretty solid.
Anyone have any info on how these new MTN's are different from the outgoing?
Anyone know whether Dalbello krypton are going full gripwalk this season?
They already didQuote:
Originally Posted by ddgdl
Strange enough according to Salomon the ‘pro’ line is designed for ‘entry’ to ‘mid’ level ski tourers. The carbon line is designed for mid to high level ski tourers.
Clearly:
Pro = For Beginners
Carbon = Better than Pro but you should be able to ski the fall line on blues.
Quote:
Originally Posted by NBABUCKS1
That got me too. I think they must be taking a cue from MTB naming conventions.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tailwind
Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums
Their boots use to have stupid names too.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tailwind
X Max - 98mm narrow last
X Pro - 100mm medium (but huge) last
The stiffness indicators on the back of the boots have something dumb like this also.
Leave it to the french to come up with some confusing names.
Oh lets not act like silly marketing terms like this don't permeate the whole industryQuote:
Originally Posted by XavierD
Yeah but calling the narrow high performance option “MAX” and the wider kinda meh option “PRO” is a pretty unique way to describe your boots.
Possible new Raven on 4FRNT’s IG. Interesting binding choice.
Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums
It's not like the superlights ski any worse than the RadicalsQuote:
Originally Posted by dub_xion
I think those are new renegades. Probably just putting a hoji hole in em is my guess.Quote:
Originally Posted by dub_xion
Speaking of meh options, Pro Bowl is this weekendQuote:
Originally Posted by XavierD
Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums
They said it's not the Raven in the comments. Hoji was putting holes in some Rens to try out recently but those prototypes don't have it so IDK
Actually I think they ski better.Quote:
Originally Posted by NorCalNomad
M-pro 108: Le 108 sera proposé en trois tailles : 172, 182 et 192 cm. (it'll be produced in these sizes)
WTF are 172,182? What size is that for a charger?!!! I mean why not something in between 182 and 192 like 187 (old XXL)?
https://www.ledauphine.com/skichrono...ous-les-rayons
^^ you realize teens and women need chargers too.
If you’re a dude — the 192 is the charger. If you’re a light weight teen the 182 will be perfect. And for the women the 172 will be money.
Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums
This. ^Quote:
Originally Posted by SkiLyft
Smaller/lighter guys benefit from the 182.
Females will get along with the 172.
192 for taller/ heavier guys.
I agree but not completely. Guys in Europe are smaller.
I'm 175cm and 76kg. The 182 is too short and the 192 MIGHT be too long.
Something in between would've been great. XXL Sizes were perfect: 187 and 194. Why did they change that?
172: yeah good for kids and women. How many are they gonna sell?
Have you skied either/both lengths?
Replied in the other thread...:biggrin:Quote:
Originally Posted by 2FUNKY
no...I'm basing my thoughts on the fact that I love the 187 XXL... I would never go any shorter,...or longer (tried the 194 XXL and were waaay too long).
I'll probably get a 185 Cochise then.
You missed the most important part: "long radius of 20 metres". What is that for a DYNASTAR charger radius?Quote:
Originally Posted by teosickrider
I'm off Dynastar for good. https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/202...0117f77cd2.jpg
Sent fra min LYA-L29 via Tapatalk
Blizzard measures short so welcome to 182 anywayQuote:
Originally Posted by teosickrider
Sent from my SM-G981U using Tapatalk
LOL [emoji23]Quote:
Originally Posted by arild
I remember when there was whining that the Katana K108 turned into a fat carving ski…but at least it has a 21-m radius in the 191. But it sounds like that might be bigger than the M-Pro 108. I’m hoping it is larger. Even mid-20’s wouldn’t be terrible for most resorts.
It just dawned on me…my 186 K2 Mindbender 108 has a 22.9-m radius. Next year it will have a larger radius than the M-Pro108. [emoji15]
😲😲Quote:
Originally Posted by Bandit Man
Friendly reminder everyone here forgot to pay retail in any significant number for LP105s, Bodacious, RC 112s or any other long radius ‘chargers’ over the last decade. Worth noting as we start our annual bitch fest about individual specifications on skis we haven’t skied.
Noted, but every reputable company should have at least one model that's so badass they lose money on every model sold,as an aspirational idea. Then they can sell a shit ton of lower performing skis with virtually the same graphics to tourists. Because it's the right thing to do.Quote:
Originally Posted by XavierD
I actually did pay retail for both Ragnaroks and LP105s circa 2011, though.
Sent fra min LYA-L29 via Tapatalk
Yep. As is judging a ski based on the turn radius alone since shapes play a big role as well. But hey can’t brag in the lift line about your 50m super duper macho skis while riding P18’s set to 8. LolQuote:
Originally Posted by XavierD
Does anyone [here] pay full retail for anything we buy skiing related? But point taken. Those skis never sell in volume and never make money.Quote:
Originally Posted by XavierD
I like getting all the charger folks stirred up with the smaller radius chatter. I bet most people here will actually like the new M-Pro108. Based on the MFree108, I’m optimistic.
Sent from my iPad using TGR Forums
Skorpius II for next year: http://www.mountainblog.eu/product/l...inter-2022-23/
So who skied anything cool at mission