Thanks guys, 1910g is disappointing, 1800 would be more acceptable.
Plug, after skiing the 184 would you have any interest in skiing the 190?
Printable View
Thanks guys, 1910g is disappointing, 1800 would be more acceptable.
Plug, after skiing the 184 would you have any interest in skiing the 190?
This reminds me of a Turbo with more rocker.
I really liked the Turbo. Not great anywhere, but not bad anywhere either. They were the ski to take when you didn't know what the conditions would be like.
The 190 would be really good with my Atomic Hawx 130’s. My heavyweight touring package is the Lhasa Pow 196 with Tectons. This would be probably a better ski/replacement.
I should add that the guys at the shop talk to the rep or somebody who skis them all the time, and he’s a big guy, 6’4” 225 or something and he skis the 184
Sorry if this is tangential, but anyone in the market for the Nevar also get on the Transalp 105 cti and have any thoughts? Kinda feeling like that’s the best fit for me of the Nevar, 0G 105, and Backland 107, mostly in regards to pow/soft snow and weight, while still having some edge hold and stability/performance. Thx!
I had the Backland 107s before the Nevar - pretty different ski. Backland feels lighter and a lot more carbony. They ski pow great and love to go fast with a forward stance. But I never found them confidence inspiring in hard / bad snow. The Nevar skis pow just as well, especially with the rockered tails vs. the relatively flat tail on the Backland and is awesome in icy steep stuff as well. The weight keeps them planted going through junk but you have to adjust your style to be a lot more centered than on the Backland which rewards charging. Obviously have to deal with them being 300g heavier. I took them to Chamonix and that was a amazing place for them given the lift access.
Never skied the ZG but I have heard it's better than the Backland in firm steep snow. Still fundamentally will feel closer to this ski with the carbon and weight than the Nevar. Hope this helps.