Printable View
Will be very interested to hear the result of the A/B testing with Sickles. Definitely looks like more tip and tail splay than my flat sickles. Im guessing thats where the line about it not carving as well comes from. They actually look really similar to Volkl Ones that I used to have. Those were very smooth/ stable but always felt kind of "boaty" so I think the shorter radius may help with that.Quote:
Originally Posted by ASmileyFace
Also very intested to hear about that testing against the sickle. The fr110 has way more taper so the effective edge is shorter that the sickle. I’m also keen to hear about the carbon layup for a touring rig. Great looking products.Quote:
Originally Posted by KillerMonkey
Sorry to hijack the thread but can you elaborate on this a bit? Are you loading the tails and then pulling your feet under your COM to get over the tip?Quote:
Originally Posted by gaijin
COM— center of mass?Quote:
Originally Posted by Cork7 Belly Flop
I guess that would be a good explanation, but it’s more of an ankle flexion.
It’s surfing/drifting turns, locking the tails, and then slowly drifting the tips into place. And then being in a full carve.
At high speed it feels backwards, and fast as fuck because the exit accelerates… because you’re reducing drag.
Surfing into a carve instead of surfing out of a carve.
Yeah, I guess it’s loading the tails, then pulling my feet under my COM to get over the tip, but all of that sounds like way more effort than reality.
I’m just driving the base of the ski from my heel to the toe.
And reverse camber taught me that. Because I had to learn how to make it work.
It’s backwards. From a base-of-foot perspective, it’s backwards.
Shane wrote a whole column on it. Mental Floss. He didn't know it, but he was brilliantly speaking to downhill racers. Driving your soles. Skiing with your soles at the bottom of a spoon, and mashing everything from that focal point.
He called it a Spatula.
Sounds like you’re describing what racers would call a ‘stivot’, or are you talking about something different?Quote:
Originally Posted by gaijin
Funny, I spent plenty of time skiing reverse camber skis like OG Katanas, OG Cochise, OG Bodacious, 2nd gen Noctas, current Corvus, OG Devastators, OG Spurs but never noticed something particularly different about skiing technique compared to cambered skis. But maybe they were all not reverse enough?
Or forward-mounted enough. I can get on OG katanas/scouts and there’s minimal/no adjustment needed from cambered skis. On my ravens, I have to do it like Gaijin describedQuote:
Originally Posted by roQer
Thanks for sending me down this rabbit hole. Not a ton there on the technique but what a fun read. Watch out for Unstable Hookers.Quote:
Originally Posted by gaijin
https://unofficialnetworks.com/2009/...r-powder-skis/
Not sure about all of those you listed, but something like the Cochise or the Katana is relatively flat. They definitely don't smear off the tails in the same way a more significantly reverse camber ski does.Quote:
Originally Posted by roQer
I think skis like that are all about charging, and the mild reverse camber makes it easier to throw them sideways at speed. But it doesn't make them a playful ski, nor is that the goal, and they're still a bit punishing if you get back on your heels. With the more significantly reverse cambered skis (like the FR110, I hope), they give up some charging ability, but float better, slash more easily, and you can make them work from almost any balance point - you can get over the front and push them through a turn in some semblance of a carve, but you can also sit back on your heels and feather them into a turn like gaijin was describing (I think).
You nailed it. This--Quote:
Originally Posted by J. Barron DeJong
Reverse camber Rens taught me this in soft snow in the forest.
Andyski mentioned it above with his Rens...
Hoji had something figured out with ReflectTech. A sidecut matching the reverse camber and being stiff. It makes it so easy to just haul ass, throw it sideways, and then feather into a carve and exit out of hell.
Sorry to thread-jack this place. I hope the FR110 can get back to conversation.
We were talking about reverse camber and why it's a cult-- Here it is--
Reverse camber makes hauling ass a suitable solution to every line so long as you're willing to throw it sideways and shut it down. Reverse camber makes shutting it down really fucking easy.
That said-- every major ski manufacturer has determined that full-reverse camber is not a sellable product.
Hence-- Heritage Lab.
I wouldn't doubt that the FR110 becomes a comp ski. I can see younger jibbers grasping this concept.
Until I saw this video I had no fucking idea what you were talking about. Looks fun.
And I had no idea what other racers were talking about. Reverse camber in soft snow taught me a new skill that I wish I had known when I was 20. Not clearly seen in the video is the feathering from tail to tip as they engage the edge.Quote:
Originally Posted by CaliBrit
We do this in wild snow now, at 60mph, through forests. (40mph? Whatever. Fast as fuck.)
And that's why you should be buying this ski. It's another cult ski.
If you're still porpoising your soft snow turns (unweighting your skis to turn) you're missing out on the mashing.
Unfortunately, porpoises are the masses and why every major ski company can't afford to make reverse camber skis anymore. it's a niche market, for niche skiers, who have quivers, and don't rely on one ski.
Just sayin'.
Thank you, Marshal, for making dope-ass shit. I love how you shook up the industry by introducing a line-up of niche products.
Hey dude, I am so sorry for not having more details on this specific question yet. This spring has conspired against getting out for A-B'ing so far. I will text a few buddies now and see if we can't get something setup this or early next week. I really want to post something meaningful that I can stand behind on these questions rather than surface level impressions, hence wanting to do it right. Cheers!Quote:
Originally Posted by skisurfmirth
The FR110 definitely has notably more taper, but I need to measure the Sickle's EE, as the ski itself is only about 182cm true length vs the FR110's 186.5cm true length. They may be closer than they look on paper. More to come. I promise!Quote:
Originally Posted by skisurfmirth
Hey, Marshall, is the measured weight of the 186cm ski 2400g, or is that the preproduction estimate in your graphic in the first post? Do you think the 192 might be +150-200g?
Hey man,Quote:
Originally Posted by lucknau
Yes, exactly, so I expect production 186's to be 2350-2400g. My samples are 2355g and 2370g.
I expect the 192 to come in 100g heavier, so 2450-2500g.
Cheeers!
[QUOTE= More to come. I promise![/QUOTE]
Thanks Marshall. Look forward to hearing about it.
I’m into the taper profile. In my experience the OG Devastator was kind of a hog in untracked powder for a 111mm under foot full reverse camber ski, at least until you were really hauling ass. They weren’t as drifty and surfy in fresh as I would have hoped for. A ski that can still carve well and maintains most of the feel the OG Dev had in chop, all mountain and corn conditions while being more fun in powder seems ideal to me.
Got damn, these specs just get better and better! These skis are gettin me randy AF, I have got to stay out of this damn thread.Quote:
Originally Posted by Marshal Olson
more to come ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by skisurfmirth
Quote:
Originally Posted by CaliBrit
Quote:
Originally Posted by gaijin
Like CaliBrit, I couldn't picture this in my head until you posted that video, so just saying thanks gaijin for posting that link!
After watching the sequences starting around ~1:33 and ~1:41 with speed slowed down, you can see the racer dig his tails in to scrub speed, and then see the effect of pressure being shifted from the tails back to the tips, to initiate and then complete the carve. I'm gonna be working on this technique for the rest of the season.
And echoing another big "Thanks!" to Marshal for making HL a reality--the demo 180 R99 AM50/50s should arrive this week, and I can't wait to get them on the hill!
In addition to the R99, the FR110 (as well as potential shorter 180ish FL105 and C105 if/when available) are now all on my radar too, so it's no longer a question of "Should I buy?", but "How many models can I afford?"
Ok, so super fun testing yesterday. Really glad to have gotten it in, and Thanks for OldSchool1080's for the loaner Sickles. Standard caveat that this is just one guy's opinion, with inherent bias.
HIGH LEVEL. The sickle might be one of the most predictable "jack of all trades" skis I have ever been on. Huge sweet spot. Super round and easy to ski slow on a cat track. Loose and drifty off edge mid-speed. Engaged and carvy fast on groomers. In the below comparisons, I am A-Bing two skis, not trying to do indepth reviews, and not going to benchmark them with a lot of other skis, since I found them much more similar than different.
MODEST SPEEDS. The Sickle is a very easy ski to manage with light input. It is dead easy. Just does whatever you want skiing from the ankles. In comparison, the FR110 was still super easy, but may like a little more input, and in exchange can make more turn shapes at slower speed. With the FR110 keep your weight forward as you come across the fall line, and the ski releases into a super nice drift. Move your weight back and it rounds quite well. The Sickle is easier and requires less input, but doesn't have as many tricks up its sleeve IMO & needs a little more input to release and drift turns.
HIGH SPEED / CONSISTENT. Again, the sickle hooks up really well. With speed, its personality feels a little more subdued than the FR110. It is super there and confident, where the FR110 has a little more perkiness to its nature at speed. The FR110 is a little more torsionally rigid overall and a little stiffer underfoot, so I would say they hold an edge similarly, but a little differently. The Sickle grips a long EE (182 Sickle has +10cm EE vs. 186 FR110) and is quite round of a flex pattern, where the FR110 has more taper, more rocker, so looser at shallow edge angles, but tracks as cleanly for me once I was up on edge at relatively higher edge angles. At medium-fast speeds where the FR110 was nice and locked in, the Sickle was starting to come unglued from the snow.
SOFT SNOW / CHOP. Part of this may be due to length, but for me, skiing into hot pow, slush bumps, etc the FR110 thrives, where the sickle was more just competent. The combination of almost no taper, and basically dead flat rocker gave me a few "oh shit" moments in snow that the FR110 didn't flinch at.
FLAT RUNNING / REFROZEN. The FR110 is a notably more bumpy ride when running bases flat on refrozen / hardpack type snow. The Sickle tracks super smooth, where the ends of the FR110 are flapping around a little bit. In this snow, it took a good amount of speed and getting up on edge to approximate the smooth ride that the Sickle provided in this snow condition, no matter what you did to it (low angle turns, drifts, bases flat, etc).
CONCLUSION. The FR110 is a little more loose, a little more biased toward speed, and a little more biased toward soft snow. The Sickle reminds me of a Freeride Carving ski - super clean and round, very versatile, and never nervous. My view is that for folks that like the Sickle, and wish it was better in soft snow and chop or carried speed a little better in broken snow, then I think the FR110 would be awesome for you. For the folks who love the extreme predictability and plantedness of the Sickle on firmer snow, the FR110 may be a bit more lively and loose than what you are looking for (though, again, they are pretty similar compared to pretty much any other skis I have tried).
For folks without Sickle experience, I'd say it reminds me most of a hybrid of an EHP in soft snow and Devestator in bumps, corn, groomers, crud, etc.
LMK how they go for you!Quote:
Originally Posted by IJK2009
Cheers
Thx for the thoughts!
I'm extremely hyped for these.
Thanks for the comparison Marshal! My biggest complaint about my sickles is the lack of "top end" in deeper soft snow and chop. I've found myself wanted just a bit more length, stability and speed in those kind of conditions and it sounds like the FR110 have nailed that perfectly. The FR110 taking a little more input to get on edge and being slightly looser, sounds like a good thing overall too.
One thing I love about my Sickle's is the plantedness and stability in firmer snow. Between the FR110 being a little less stable running flat and losing 10+cm of EE I am sightly nervous I won't grab these skis when conditions are more variable. I tended to grab my sickles as long as there was a chance of softer snow anywhere on the mountain. Based on your comparison, I will likely grab the FR110 when I can guarantee soft snow on "most" of the mountain.
Do not get me wrong, I am still very excited for the FR110 but it sounds like they are more different than I initially expected.