Paging Kidwoo - Woo 2.0

Printable View

Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page

10-20-2012, 10:50 AM
kidwoo

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hohes

Anyone skied the Hoji 187 and Woo (2) 187?

For their differences, are these skis about the same type of skiing?

I was looking at those and kind of thinking the same thing. The Hoji is continuous reverse camber so I imagine it wouldn't skin as well but maybe feel a little more loose in the deep. It'll probably be heavier than the wootest. But it looks like a lot of the same goals for sure.
10-20-2012, 11:42 AM
Shorty_J

I haven't been following this as close as I could, I guess, but I thought the Woo was said to have less tail rocker than the protest... but it looks like more there?
10-20-2012, 06:46 PM
Nic.A

wow those look hot. Looking forward to reading reviews and maybe adding to my herd.:biggrin:
10-20-2012, 06:51 PM
spindrift

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shorty_J

I haven't been following this as close as I could, I guess, but I thought the Woo was said to have less tail rocker than the protest... but it looks like more there?

One of the 2.0 changes is more tail rocker than the original...
10-20-2012, 06:57 PM
neck beard

Whatsupdoc- very nice looking Woo's man. Damn.

Quote:

Originally Posted by kidwoo

I was looking at those and kind of thinking the same thing. The Hoji is continuous reverse camber so I imagine it wouldn't skin as well but maybe feel a little more loose in the deep. It'll probably be heavier than the wootest. But it looks like a lot of the same goals for sure.

I was just fondling the Hoji and was struck with how appealing the stick was, especially the tail. Don't know why I got a boner over the tail, but I did. Would prefer a longer contact area like the Woo for skinning, agreed. Pointless romance, can't afford either, let alone the bindings to go on them.
10-20-2012, 09:22 PM
Nic.A

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hohes

was struck with how appealing the stick was, especially the tail. Don't know why I got a boner over the tail, but I did.

same here dude, and w/ the ren too. I am def. more of a tits kind of guy, but i was really into the Hoji's tail...everything about it is sexy. but i think the woo2.0 is def. more of what i want for a ski on the up and down.
10-20-2012, 11:58 PM
kidwoo

Quote:

Originally Posted by whatsupdoc

Hohes, I should get time on both this winter, but can't say anything until the snow flies.

New Woo 2.0s arrived yesterday. Damn they're sexy.

I don't have a scale but they feel pretty light for the size (187s). I wouldn't doubt the shade under 9 lbs others are touting above. Mine are medium flex and still pretty damn stout. The stiffer layups must be f'in stiff.

The tips/tails are rounded and very low profile. Minimal camber, 1 mm max. My protests have more camber. Compared to my protests from last year the Woos have more tail splay (but about the same amount of tail rise). Widest point in the tip is definitely a few inches further forward on the woos compared to the protests.

Where did you mount them things?
10-21-2012, 01:28 AM
whatsupdoc

On the line. Rec mount point is 100.5 cm straight tape pull from the tip and 84.5 cm from the tail by my measurements, so -8 cm from center. Looked good to me.

Quote:

Originally Posted by kidwoo

Where did you mount them things?
11-11-2012, 10:06 AM
kidwoo

Finally got my pair out yesterday. Only two runs at one of the not yet open resorts. Superlight blower on top of very little to no base.

It's hard to tell much in really light snow since pretty much all skis work in that stuff but they're definitely a different ski than version 1.0. Moving the sidecut forward underfoot was the right call for sure. I deliberately went down some churned up shit from the machines driving around the mountain and could tell right away some of the feeling of the entire ski and sidecut being behind you is gone. Pretty stoked so far with nothing to really bitch about.

Just incredibly pleased that these are made by praxis because I fucking nailed some pointy volcanic rock more than once. :D
Just a few scratches.

Anybody else get some time on 'em yet?
11-11-2012, 05:52 PM
CaliBrit

Awesome! Sounds like a step in the right direction.
11-12-2012, 06:02 PM
Jim S

I saw the new Woo graphic at Keith's today. Very pretty...really nice.
11-12-2012, 06:09 PM
hoarhey

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jim S

I saw the new Woo graphic at Keith's today. Very pretty...really nice.

I think I'd opt for that graphic (woo 2.0) on whatever praxis model I'd buy next...

and congrats on the Powder Warrior feature
11-20-2012, 07:19 PM
harpo-the-skier

What width skins r people using for the woo 2.0?
11-20-2012, 09:04 PM
kidwoo

120 should gitter dun.
11-20-2012, 09:17 PM
harpo-the-skier

Quote:

Originally Posted by kidwoo

120 should gitter dun.

The BD skins I want to get only come in 125 and 110. The woo 2 tip is 124 and the tail is 116. Would a 110mm skin work?
11-20-2012, 09:42 PM
kidwoo

Quote:

Originally Posted by harpo-the-skier

The BD skins I want to get only come in 125 and 110. The woo 2 tip is 124 and the tail is 116. Would a 110mm skin work?

You ever throw a pair of skins on some skis that are just a teeny weeny bit too narrow for the widest point at the tip and tail? It fucking sucks on any sort of sidehill (you know.....'skinning').

I'm sure someone will jump down my throat but I'd get the 125s. I don't remember what mine were since I got them last year for the version 1.0s but I know they were 120 or greater. They're the orange BDs so probably exactly what you're looking at.
11-20-2012, 09:49 PM
neck beard

Quote:

Originally Posted by harpo-the-skier

The BD skins I want to get only come in 125 and 110. The woo 2 tip is 124 and the tail is 116. Would a 110mm skin work?

I've used 110mm BD's on 112mm skis quite a bit, and it was fine for me. But then I can skin. Unlike Da Woo. Who sounds like a beginner... ;)

Caveat: that set up was almost always used on freshly broken trail in powder, not hard snow side-hilling.
11-20-2012, 09:59 PM
davieboot

Woo is right, get the 125 if you are ever plan to skin on a spring morning. If you only ski pow, 110 is fine.
11-20-2012, 11:00 PM
kidwoo

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hohes

I've used 110mm BD's on 112mm skis quite a bit, and it was fine for me. But then I can skin. Unlike Da Woo. Who sounds like a beginner... ;)

Caveat: that set up was almost always used on freshly broken trail in powder, not hard snow side-hilling.

Shut yer fithly word hole. Windward slopes happen!
11-20-2012, 11:04 PM
neck beard

I know yeah, you are right.

[But I still calls ya Kookwoo when I reads yer screen name]
11-20-2012, 11:14 PM
kidwoo

[But I still calls ya Kookwoo when I reads yer screen name]

Who gives a fuck.

Just buy my skis and I'll hear the muffled thank you from across the pacific. :D

New ones are damn good.....fo reals.
11-20-2012, 11:18 PM
neck beard

Oh, "my" skis now are they? farrk.

I'll honor you by owning and riding them one of these days. Says so in the scriptures.
11-20-2012, 11:40 PM
kidwoo

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hohes

Oh, "my" skis now are they? farrk.

I'll honor you by owning and riding them one of these days. Says so in the scriptures.

Sounds like they're YOUR skis brother :D

I've only skied them in pretty compromised early season conditions but god damn....I wish this is what we'd done the first time around.
11-25-2012, 11:41 PM
MTslackcountry

Can someone tell me how the stock medium flex woo 2.0 compares to the 186 ehp. Specifically 2010-2011 model. Thanks
11-26-2012, 12:15 AM
sf

I guess the flex is pretty similar. I have med/stiff BCs and they are a bit stiffer than the 186 ehp. Except from that; no idea
11-26-2012, 10:52 AM
MTslackcountry

Thanks SF... Anyone else care to chime in???
11-27-2012, 08:37 AM
Micol

Other than the tip width this seams similar to a Lhasa Pow Hybrid, flex too. How do they compare? anyone skied both?
11-27-2012, 11:24 AM
sierraskier

Quote:

Originally Posted by MiCol

Other than the tip width this seams similar to a Lhasa Pow Hybrid, flex too. How do they compare? anyone skied both?

I haven't skied the 2.0 yet, but I have time on the 1.0 and lots of time on Lhasa Pow and OG Protest, and I can tell you that the Lhasa Pow and Wootest are very different skis. Lhasa Pow is basically a larger version of a traditional/pintail shaped directional ski and Wootest is narrower, modified version of a reverse/reverse ski. Basically two skis coming from opposite origins.
11-27-2012, 05:12 PM
Micol

Quote:

Originally Posted by sierraskier

I haven't skied the 2.0 yet, but I have time on the 1.0 and lots of time on Lhasa Pow and OG Protest, and I can tell you that the Lhasa Pow and Wootest are very different skis. Lhasa Pow is basically a larger version of a traditional/pintail shaped directional ski and Wootest is narrower, modified version of a reverse/reverse ski. Basically two skis coming from opposite origins.

I thought the 2.0 specs showed 1cm or of camber , or is that 1mm ?
11-27-2012, 05:29 PM
CaliBrit

Quote:

Originally Posted by MiCol

I thought the 2.0 specs showed 1cm or of camber , or is that 1mm ?

1mm pretty close to flat.
11-29-2012, 10:38 AM
auvgeek

Just saw a prototype of what I think was a skinnier Whitedot Redeemer at Pro Ski in Seattle last night. Seems like it has similar design goals as the WooTest, like a skinnier Redeemer with a 21 m radius (according to the guy), quite a bit of taper and a slight pintail. Dude even said it was a "backcountry-specific tool." But it is still more like a 5-point design than a R/R.

Just interesting is all.
11-29-2012, 12:49 PM
JeffreyJim

I'll be taking a heat gun and and an angle grinder to my 196 1.0s later today.

Goal: Completely ruin the edge in the rockered part of the ski. Possibly round off the square tip a bit more. Increase amount of tail rocker.

I'll let you know how it goes...
11-29-2012, 02:42 PM
travel_to_ski

Quote:

Originally Posted by auvgeek

Just saw a prototype of what I think was a skinnier Whitedot Redeemer at Pro Ski in Seattle last night. Seems like it has similar design goals as the WooTest, like a skinnier Redeemer with a 21 m radius (according to the guy), quite a bit of taper and a slight pintail. Dude even said it was a "backcountry-specific tool." But it is still more like a 5-point design than a R/R.

Just interesting is all.

Might it have been the director?

http://gb.whitedotskis.com/director/
11-29-2012, 03:02 PM
auvgeek

^^Might have been. Guy seem to imply it was a prototype, but maybe of the new Director. He was on his way out when I walked in, so I didn't get to chat with him much. Anyway, kinda neat to see another ski with a similar goal, though like I said, more like a chargier 5-point than a skinnier R/R.

Looks like a 27 m turn radius in the 188. Be curious to hear feedback from anyone who's skied both (unlikely). Maybe blister can work something out?

JeffreyJim - Will be curious to see what you end up with. Haven't decided what to do with my unmounted 1.0s.
11-29-2012, 03:44 PM
travel_to_ski

Rode the 188 directors for a few days last spring. Good ski in anything soft and very good in funky snow. I didn't care for them on groomers though...
11-29-2012, 05:27 PM
JeffreyJim

1 Attachment(s)

Attachment 126637

I wasn't kidding...
11-29-2012, 06:16 PM
MJbumper1121

And the result?

Quote:

Originally Posted by JeffreyJim

Attachment 126637

I wasn't kidding...
11-29-2012, 07:18 PM
kidwoo

Fuck yeah! :D

Sounds like you're on your way to a 2.0 without having to buy one.
11-29-2012, 08:28 PM
Winkler

Wow. Are folks really that unsatisfied with their 1.0s?
11-29-2012, 08:38 PM
kidwoo

Quote:

Originally Posted by Winkler

Wow. Are folks really that unsatisfied with their 1.0s?

I'm not.

I just know what would make them better and hence the 2.0.

If people were really completely dissatisfied I'd think they'd just get rid of them.

Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 04:45 AM.