Printable View
Turns out Blister really likes this year's wrens :) I thought it was impossible to get more excited about w114s, but apparantly not.
They are also relatively positive on BGs! ;) And Kartels, and Magnus'.
http://blistergearreview.com/winter-buyers-guide
hi gang,
I read the forums often but rarely post.
I'm curious... I just bought a new pair of Billy Goats... size 179.
I'm 5'9 190lbs
Skiing primarily the inland NW but will be making trips (chasing storms) to the Cascades and Montana Rockies probably every other week.
I'll be mostly inbounds with them until I get more comfortable doing sidecountry excursions.
I'm really thinking that I should have gone with the 184 size...I'll be dropping about 15 lbs (happens often during my winter ski season) and hoping to ski some great tree runs (not just bombing down an open face all the time) so maybe the 179 are the right size.
Is that 2 inches (5cm) really that much difference?
I also ski the 15/16 cochise in a 185 and they feel like they're supposed to feel...a stable charger able to handle mach-whatever.
Am I over thinking the 179 choice?
If you don't feel like the Cochise is too long in the 185 length, I'd be really surprised if you didn't feel the 179 wasn't too short. But everyone's a little different in what they want out of a pow ski. Personally, I like my pow skis to be longer than my daily drivers. But others prefer to go short for maneuverability with the idea that you still get a lot of float because they're wide.
Can you post the PDF? HeheQuote:
Originally Posted by kid-kapow
Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums
there isn't anything new or that they didn't print in a review over the Summer.Quote:
Originally Posted by SkiLyft
Oh well that’s quite lame. [emoji19]
Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums
I think the current 189 BG (currently own it) is easier to ski than the 15/16 Cochise in a 185 (I used to own it). You are way too big for the 179 IMO. I'd put you on the 184 or even 189. My buddy who is 155-lbs skis the 179 and likes them, but even at 175-lbs, I think you are going too small.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sawtooth Tiger
Agree with this. Sawtooth, you should be on the 189, maybe the 184. I’m just a touch bigger than you and owned the 191 and never wished for shorter, skied the 184 and they just felt like toys. Would never even think of the 179.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bandit Man
Yup, if you ski fast, don't worry about going long.
SkiLyft - just press the link - this year's online guide is free as long as you give em a/your email :) Just press on the picture of the cover of the guide, and it should open. If not, just press the open-symbol with the arrows on the bottom of the picture of the cover.
I have not read their flash reviews, so the w96 and w114 info was all new for me at least. The w108 info was not news per se, but reading a condensed version being super positive about w108s is still strangly satisfying (since it confirms that i have done some excellent choices ;) So yeah, confirmation bias/confirmation seeking through and through on my part).Quote:
Originally Posted by N1CK.
The only thing i did not like is Blister's way of giving somewhat back handed compliments. Sure, the new version a particular ski might be better or improved, but why are you now stating deficiencies in previous versions you did not mention in previously very positive reviews of the same skis? To be balanced - sure, sometimes one needs something new to realize what was off or could be improved with the previous design, but it could also lessen the perception/credibility of their reviews as a whole (why should i now believe you when what you said was awesome before suddenly is mediocre?) - which is a pity as they really do very good job that should be commended. Damned if you do, damned if you don't i guess - but again - i really appreciate the work they do :)
re BG: I am 175cm/68kg and am quite happy on 179cm w108/BGs. If i had even more soft snow i would def consider getting 184s as they are very manageable in soft snow, but i found 184 w108s to be a bit of an hassle in rotten corn mixed with ice and moguls (conditions i would not have used BGs in). W108s in 179 didn't really loose a lot of punch compared to 184s, but are easier to throw around. 184s sounds like a happy compromise for you and 179s do sound a bit on the short side given your weight.
Hey all, I have some 2018 184 BG’s up for sale in the Squamish/Whistler area. One mount and 9/10 condition, selling flat. Would rather not ship right now as I am real busy and won’t be able to get them to the post for a while, PM if you are interested. Will post in gear swap too.
Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums
***Sold pending pickup***
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sawtooth Tiger
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bandit Man
FWIW. 5 foot 9. 210.Quote:
Originally Posted by 2FUNKY
I prefer the BG in the current 184. I have also enjoyed the 191, but felt it unnecessary for me, where I ski, and how I ski. 179 feels small, but YMMV.
That being said, I also prefer the Kartel stock layup while everyone else is talking about extra carbon.
Too small... I'm 5'5" 135lbs and I just jumped on the 179 coming from an older 2014 176cm because a wished it was longer from time to time... you are too big for the 179 in my opinion, you should go at least 184 if you prefer smaller skis, but could probably go 189 as well it seems.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sawtooth Tiger
That's my opinion as well!Quote:
Originally Posted by auvgeek
The 184 would definitely work for him. They were ok for me but I had just come off the 193 SG 1.5 and man did they feel tiny. I probably should have skied them before the SG but other skis I was on that day were all 190ish. The 179 is way to tiny, even for our tight trees here in the INW where Sawtooth says he’s skiing most.Quote:
Originally Posted by PhiberAwptik
I literally don't know any good skiers who think this way (the latter, not the former). I'm sure they exist, but they're few and far between. Going wider for more surface area but not taking advantage of surface area from additional length makes zero sense.Quote:
Originally Posted by auvgeek
Funny enough. Lots of the better skiers, freestyle pros, do this in the resort. The shorter length helps them get tricky and be maneuverable, and get better footy. Was just talking to Tuco about thisQuote:
Originally Posted by TahoeJ
I can name about 5 pros who ski 190s out of bounds, 180 pow skis in bounds. Im sure there are more among the “freestyle” crowd.
I just bought some 185 Bent Chetlers for supreme maneuverability. It really depends on the purpose of the ski and your intentions. I also have long skis though, so i dont go “one way or the other”. Both are good
Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums
It makes sense when you think about it in terms of surface area:Quote:
Originally Posted by TahoeJ
180cm x 105mm ski == ~1890cm2
180cm x 115mm ski == ~2070cm2
190cm x 105mm ski == ~1995cm2
In short, wider waist increases surface area at a much faster length than longer skis. And it puts surface area where it matters underfoot.
Yup.Quote:
Originally Posted by Betelgeuse
After I graduate (aka have more money and ski more), I think it'd be sweet to get a shorter, lighter pow ski with SHIFT binders and Lange Freetour 140. That sounds like fun. Like maybe a Wildcat or Faction CT 4.0.
It really does have a lot to do with bumps for me lol. How they do in bumps..And tight spots and just beat up deep days at the resort. Speed is all relative. I am faster on a shorter jibbier ski in certain situations. That being said. I doubt the 185 BCs are much quicker than Billy Goats, I just like the -2.5cm mount to vary up my quiver a bit.Quote:
Originally Posted by auvgeek
When I was 185 lbs, I could rally around at 45mph (through anything) on 179 K2 shreditor 112s, and now at 220lbs I can still rally on 184 Shreditor 92s. One of the best skiers I ski with at squaw, 6’2 190lbs, 21YO, shreds harder than most I know on 175 line chronics and 180 soul 7s. No joke. He skis fast through chunder, launches off shit, 360s, 540s switch, all that charging big mtn squaw. Another kid, wayyyy better than I’ll ever be, my size but less fat on 180 QST 106s.
All this TGR talk about the big brand skis (and short skis) suck cuz they “noodle” out..they are designed to noodle out and be skied not too long, so athletes and people with better balance can progress the sport into the future..
Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums
This made me laugh out loud - anchoring effect in practice! :)Quote:
Originally Posted by 2FUNKY
hm, all this talk of 184 makes me rethink if i should've kept my 184 custom stiffer pre-asym ones around instead of selling them. Oh well, too late now :)
But the inbounds vs. out of bounds thing reinforces my point of powder vs. other conditions.Quote:
Originally Posted by Betelgeuse
It would be goofy to have a 189cm 98mm ski and then a 185cm 120mm ski.
In untracked powder, for sure. I get what youre saying now, and yes that is uncommon.Quote:
Originally Posted by TahoeJ
Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums
Thanks for all the input. I appreciate it.Quote:
Originally Posted by PhiberAwptik
The shop is being really nice and saying they will work with me on sizing (even after drilling them) saying "take them out for a couple days" and if I really think I should size-up...they will make me happy.
So I guess I can't lose either way.
P.s. I'll be posting in the "conditions" forum looking for ski partners for sidecountry and day trips this year....anyone willing to take a newbie under their wing so he can get his backcountry legs? haha
thanks for all the advice. It helps for sure.
I’m having a bit of a hard time figuring out my quiver for the Winter. Replacing 2012 Squad 7’s that were the model right before they dropped the weight. Looking for something that is more stable but i tend to like at least a bit of tail rocker. Wondering about SuperGoats vs Wren 114’s in a 189. Has anyone skied both and have any comments? Is the Supergoat a looser feeling 114 or are they even more ‘aggressive’? Also wondering about overall stability between the the two.
Looking for something to compliment other setups mainly days of skiing fast open terrain. I’m on the lighter side, 6’2” and 165lbs but haven’t had any issues with big skis.