Where are the WNDR reviews?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ASmileyFace

I am with you on that. It really needed to come in closer to 1250g at that waist width imo. The 1500g category is loaded with good skis right now and an 88mm ski just doesn't fill a need for most who are looking in that range. You can buy a Zero G 108 for the same price at that weight.

---

Yeesh.. that price! I can't imagine anyone buying these at $900. I had a spirited discussion with Matt and Pep last year when they were still prototyping them, and they don't like to make any compromises in downhill performance. I feel like dropping under ~95mm wide you are compromising performance in any backcountry snow condition, so if you're going skinny you might as well go light. Most people are never going to be skiing super fast on a skinny ski unless the snow is perfect, in which case you can get away with a light ski. There are some light skis that perform extremely well on the down like the Atomic UL85, so I could never justify carrying an extra 450g per ski if I'm not also getting a lot of extra width as well.

Yeah, I kinda agree with the above. I've got a 1500 gr Countdown 104L that does pretty great in all conditions. I'd want to drop a decent bit of weight to go skinnier. But these prob work well for someone, and cool that there's a reverse version - prob punches above its weight and width in 1-2' of new snow

Bumping this up. Older models are on discount on WNDRs "last call" section of their site. Anyone skied the intention 110 as well as the Deathwish? My 2019 deathwishes are only 2000g/ski in 190cm, which seems similar to the advertised weight of the 192cm intention 110s. Looking for something a bit better in untracked snow, especially snow that has sat in the sun for an afternoon.

I was looking at the Nocturne, but I am pretty leery of wood skis with no fiberglass, carbon, or metal reinforcement. What kind of durability and impact resistance can you expect from these skis?

The only comparable skis that come to mind are the Volkl Blaze. They have a plate in the binding area and no reinforcement elsewhere. Anecdotal reports seem to suggest durability / impact resistance is poor relative to Volkl’s other skis.

I haven’t seen any broken WNDRs in Golden and we have lots around here.

All the guides who get them on big discount love them.

Our tech said when you squeeze glue into one binding hole, the glue in the next hole will bubble. Low density core?

The Volkl blaze is the least durable ski I have ever seen. Non stop breaking last year with a low snow season.

I really like the Vital 100. I’m sad the new 98 has a much reduced turn radius and more traditional mount.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by auvgeek

I really like the Vital 100. I’m sad the new 98 has a much reduced turn radius and more traditional mount.

---

Ah man thats a bummer, I don’t really see why you would by this at the offered weight then. The old radius allowed this ski to absolutely rip

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mr_pretzel

Ah man thats a bummer, I don’t really see why you would by this at the offered weight then. The old radius allowed this ski to absolutely rip

---

100%. There are so many light skis with trad mount points and sub 20 m radius. The Vital 100 was unique and worth carrying a little extra weight.

I thought the tip could be a touch stiffer with more splay right at the end but otherwise that ski is sick.

Do we think those comments on the vital 100 vs 98 apply to intention 110 vs 108? Initially I was intrigued by the more directional mount of the 108, but the shorter radius makes me hesitate. For me it would also be 188cm 108 vs 192cm 110. My 190cm deathwishes have always felt like the correct size. Never too long, never too short (although I would like more tip in the deep, hence my desire for a more rearward mount). I ski deathwishes at -2 from rec and would probably do the same on the 110s, maybe -1 on the 108s.

Not sure if I had posted this or not, but I had a really good friend work there, and he left because he didn't trust the tech. He had a pair of skis he was going to give to another one of our friends but he "didn't want to subject him to these"

ymmv. I almost bit on the super deal earlier this fall.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by auvgeek

100%. There are so many light skis with trad mount points and sub 20 m radius. The Vital 100 was unique and worth carrying a little extra weight.

I thought the tip could be a touch stiffer with more splay right at the end but otherwise that ski is sick.

---

A little plug for Heritage Lab BC90s to fit that niche. Just got mine mounted up but the flex and shape seem like an ideal versatile skinny backcountry ski.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TeleBeaver

Do we think those comments on the vital 100 vs 98 apply to intention 110 vs 108? Initially I was intrigued by the more directional mount of the 108, but the shorter radius makes me hesitate. For me it would also be 188cm 108 vs 192cm 110. My 190cm deathwishes have always felt like the correct size. Never too long, never too short (although I would like more tip in the deep, hence my desire for a more rearward mount). I ski deathwishes at -2 from rec and would probably do the same on the 110s, maybe -1 on the 108s.

---

Woodsman 110/108 tour would be my recommendation here.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GoSlowGoFar

A little plug for Heritage Lab BC90s to fit that niche. Just got mine mounted up but the flex and shape seem like an ideal versatile skinny backcountry ski.

---

Too traditional mount point, unfortunately.

All the changes make the RC Vital 98 seems like it could be exactly what I’m looking for as a narrower touring ski, but can someone confirm the more traditional/directional mount, as I’m not seeing anything in the WNDR copy. I’m still a bit skeptical, and the pathetic skiing in the Vital 98 promo video doesn’t inspire confidence in the brand (if they can’t recognize good skiing,how can they make good skis). A detailed and credible review would certainty help.

Sounds like my memory is skewed. Vital 98 spec sheet says mount point is -7 cm from center.

Old Vital 100 spec sheet doesn’t have that but the mount points are the same from the tail notch so I assume the old one is about the same. ( Blister says -6.7 cm)

I could have sworn the Vital 100 was -6 cm but guess I’m wrong.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by auvgeek

Too traditional mount point, unfortunately.

---

ya, doesn’t quite hit that point but full reverse and -9 doesn’t feel like there’s too much ski in front of ya imo.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by auvgeek

Sounds like my memory is skewed. Vital 98 spec sheet says mount point is -7 cm from center.

Old Vital 100 spec sheet doesn’t have that but the mount points are the same from the tail notch so I assume the old one is about the same. ( Blister says -6.7 cm)

I could have sworn the Vital 100 was -6 cm but guess I’m wrong.

---

Is the Raven too wide?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Phall

Not sure if I had posted this or not, but I had a really good friend work there, and he left because he didn't trust the tech. He had a pair of skis he was going to give to another one of our friends but he "didn't want to subject him to these"

ymmv. I almost bit on the super deal earlier this fall.

---

What do you mean didn’t trust the tech? Any folks have issues with the algal core?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kootenayskier

All the changes make the RC Vital 98 seems like it could be exactly what I’m looking for as a narrower touring ski, but can someone confirm the more traditional/directional mount, as I’m not seeing anything in the WNDR copy. I’m still a bit skeptical, and the pathetic skiing in the Vital 98 promo video doesn’t inspire confidence in the brand (if they can’t recognize good skiing,how can they make good skis). A detailed and credible review would certainty help.

---

@kootenayskier - you wind up getting these? I just scored a pair and am excited to get on them in a few weeks for some volcano skiing. Would love to hear about your experience on them (camber or reverse)?

Sent from my Pixel 7a using Tapatalk

I ended up with a pair of camber 183 vital 100, have skied them about 30 days now. Damp, stable, predictable would be the first adjectives that come to mind.

Currently would rank them better than Navis FB, Backland 100,

I have about 30-35 days on Vital 100 (cambered) mounted with Tectons, including a few inbounds laps. Killer, versatile ski.
I'd love to try their Reason 120 reverse someday (I've really fallen in love with reverse camber skis the past few years)

Any folks been on the Intention 108? Specifically the reverse camber? Some folks seem high on them, have heard a smattering of rumored concerns with their cores, but crickets on TGR for the most part.

Kind of juggling between this and the WCT 108 as a daily driver or travel touring ski when I’ll be in a mix of conditions.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GoSlowGoFar

What do you mean didn’t trust the tech? Any folks have issues with the algal core?

---

I have a close friend that pulled the toe piece out of his. Bad mount? Hard to say. They had probably 100 days when it happened. WNDR replaced the ski at 1/2 price. He loves them and rips on them. Camber version, not sure which model.