Bringing Back The Best: Lotii And Other Assorted Love Songs

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ARL67

^^^ keep in mind that Marshal's Raceroom skis are based on Blossom's Formula series molds, which are their lightweight touring skis, but with Marshal's much heavier build spec. They also don't have much side-cut, so are a long way from an SL ski shape, certainly more GS in radius for the R87 and the rest. Blossom does not list weights for their Formula series, however the blurb on the Blossom Xplore 85 ski says it is 1200g per ski. So guessing that the Xplore 87 is a bit heavier, both Marshal's AM50/50 spec and the Comp spec are much much heavier than what Blossom is offering. Either way, both of Marshal's build offerings are super interesting, and with the AM50/50 still having 1 sheet of Titanal. If I was honest with myself, I am more a candidate for the AM50/50 for my realistic needs, but what fun is that -> so Comp for me. If I didn't binge-buy a few skis at end of season deals, I'd probably grab both R87 builds.

---

Yes, exactly, the standard Explore 85/87 are lightweight for sure with no titanal and a pauwlonia core.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by m5d5cb

I'm a bit torn here as well, it almost seems like the 50/50 would be too light, and something in the middle of the Blister weight list is what we are looking for? But I'm not sure I know enough to know what I am looking for.

I would be changing an order from the heaviest to the lightest on the list. Or maybe that's exactly the idea, offer either end of the spectrum that doesn't currently exist...

Looking for a good carver for varying conditions on a non powder day so I thought the R87 Race would fit the bill. But I am not on the autobahn (no limit) so maybe the 50/50 would be better. Seems light for the width?

---

I shared this via email to someone, and thought it would be relevant to you and ARL67 as well.

The punchline on the AM skis, overall, was a mix between a good number of folks keen on the Heritage Lab concept, but wanting a ski that was less intimidating. That dovetailed with my own desire to have a touring-compatible ski in these shapes, that well... didn't ski like a touring ski.

As such, I went with a single layer of metal to add torsion and life, a lighter core, and less dense fiberglass. The comp skis will be much stiffer and heavier: Alpine skis with high din bindings for strong skiers. The AM skis would be either a travel/touring ski for a strong skier or an alpine ski for a lighter finesse skier.

Specific to the R87 AM50/50, I am super fired up to mount my pair with race-style tech bindings. I usually quite touring in the spring outside of pow days because I never have found a good ski for the snow... and so specific to the 182cm R87 AM50/50, that is EXACTLY what I want to ski on. I will also probably throw Tectons on the R120 and R99 AM50/50 for trips with mixed bag snow expectations.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by arild

I'm he, no commercial background in the ski business. 36 year old Norwegian skier (sometimes snowboarder), dad, husband and scrub wearing drug/airway enthusiast. Never been happy about the swing towards accessibility, to the detriment of true performance,since about 2012. Been CAD drawing skis and snowboards since before then, had one of each made by Igneous back in the day. They kill it.

Been drawing and perfecting what's become the 113s the past eight years, with the goal of having them made by Igneous/Prior/Prog (Hals) or a similar manufacturer, but started talking to Marshal this winter, figured we had aligning interests re:chargers, and a history of liking the same or similar skis. Then, we started tweaking the design of the 113s until we had a concept drawing both were happy with, about 70 e-mails later.

To put any scepticism to rest, Marshal is chief on the 113 design, I just happened to draw it. It's an honor being a small part of this idea revolution.

All time favorite skis:
Faction 13s
Down SD105s
LP105s
OG LPs.

Hope that clears it up!

Cheers,
Arild

Sent fra min LYA-L29 via Tapatalk

---

Here is the thread in question that Arlid mentioned on the 113 concept ski, if anyone is curious:
https://www.tetongravity.com/forums/...ted?highlight=

Just completed my order for the FL113's after trading emails with Marshal. This ski sounds bananas awesome. Thanks very much Marshal (and Arild), the stoke is real here in Seattle.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by resolute goggles

Just completed my order for the FL113's after trading emails with Marshal. This ski sounds bananas awesome. Thanks very much Marshal (and Arild), the stoke is real here in Seattle.

---

Cheers! Which length?

Sent fra min LYA-L29 via Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Marshal Olson

Yes, exactly. There shape is quite similar across the molds. There is ~2mm camber on the R120, 2.5mm camber on the R99, and 3mm camber on the R87 - which when combined with the hand tune I will be putting on every pair will be radnasty. Super clean drift, very engaged on edge.

---

Sweet, looks perfect for a daily driver here. Kinda what I wished the monster 98 had for tips and tails.


Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

FL113 - 187.

I skied the K2 MB 108's at 186 all year and thought they were great. Length was one of the questions I had for Marshal on the FL113s. Great advice. Thanks again.

Man I really want some R99's but really dont need a pair of skis in this category.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Eluder

Man I really want some R99's but really dont need a pair of skis in this category.

---

“need”

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by resolute goggles

FL113 - 187.

I skied the K2 MB 108's at 186 all year and thought they were great. Length was one of the questions I had for Marshal on the FL113s. Great advice. Thanks again.

---

Awesome! I've got 194s,along with carbon 187s and FR132s on order, thinking really hard about getting fall line 187s aswell, or be more sensible and order R87s. The latter would put the icing on the cake. All the skis i need from one brand.

Sent fra min LYA-L29 via Tapatalk

"want" >>> "need"

From our cult leader!

Quote:

---

Hello from Heritage Labs!


It's hot outside and I had my earliest powder dream last week... so here is a quick update on how we are progressing. Many thanks to everyone who has hopped on and pulled the trigger. It is so gratifying that you want to be a part of this crazy little dream.


With this email, I have locked quantities and all my deposits go to the manufacturers in the coming weeks. This means however many skis are listed on the Heritage Labs website are what I will have to sell this coming season... and that's it for this run! Once they are gone, they are gone till next year. Additionally, I expect to increase prices from the pre-order super deal on September 1st.


As a quick reminder, Heritage Labs has the following shapes:

132mm reverse / reverse shape, offered in your choice of Carbon or Freeride layups.

113mm directional charger, offered in your choice of Carbon or Freeride layups.

120mm soft snow charger, offered in AM or Comp flexes

99mm mixed snow crusher, offered in AM or Comp flexes

87mm free piste slayer, offered in AM or Comp flexes

Please let me know if you are interested and have any questions.


All the best,

Marshal

---

Charging forward, y'all!
Only a few pair of most lengths/models remain.

Oh well. https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/202...63a1ec6393.jpg

Sent fra min LYA-L29 via Tapatalk

FKNA awesome!! Ive got some 182 r87s coming as well!!

Right on!

Sent fra min LYA-L29 via Tapatalk

I'm on the 182 R87 train as well!

The R120 has caught my eye, but I have a cherry 191 Katana that I've yet to ski that seems pretty similar?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pfluffenmeister

I'm on the 182 R87 train as well!

The R120 has caught my eye, but I have a cherry 191 Katana that I've yet to ski that seems pretty similar?

---

Hey Pfluffen!

I would say the Katanas are a little different, mainly due to the super rearward mount point (191 line is like -14.5cm IIRC). I'd add that the even more OG 190 Katana profile is probably more like the Heritage Lab skis. FWIW.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Marshal Olson

Hey Pfluffen!

I would say the Katanas are a little different, mainly due to the super rearward mount point (191 line is like -14.5cm IIRC). I'd add that the even more OG 190 Katana profile is probably more like the Heritage Lab skis. FWIW.

---

Cool, good info.
I'll probably mount the Katana @ +2.0.

How do you think the F113 compares to the Lhasa Pow? (pin tail 112 waist).

Good question!

the c113 will be in the same vein, for sure, as the Lhasa.
where the flex/stiffness of the fl113 is much more in the RC112, Thirteen, comp ski vein.

cheers man!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Marshal Olson

Id add that the even more OG 190 Katana profile is probably more like the Heritage Lab skis. FWIW.

---

Nice! The OG 190 Katana was a good ride.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Marshal Olson

Good question!

the c113 will be in the same vein, for sure, as the Lhasa.
where the flex/stiffness of the fl113 is much more in the RC112, Thirteen, comp ski vein.

cheers man!

---

Although the 194 FL113s are my dream skis, I'm actually a lot more curious as to how the pure carbon 187 C113s will behave.

Having never skied Lhasas or OG 120s, from all that's been said over the years on here, I believe I'm in for a treat,though I believe the 113 shape will be more speed friendly than both, at least in variable.

Sent fra min LYA-L29 via Tapatalk

For the 87's on EC, would you vote FR or 50/50 for someone that's been away from skiing for a few years but used to daily drive explosivs?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by schuss

For the 87's on EC, would you vote FR or 50/50 for someone that's been away from skiing for a few years but used to daily drive explosivs?

---

Hey man! If you still want something as stiff and stable as an explosive, then the FR would be the right call. If you would like something that is a bit less demanding and a touch more round and clean on edge, then I would go 50/50.

Hope that helps!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Marshal Olson

Hey man! If you still want something as stiff and stable as an explosive, then the FR would be the right call. If you would like something that is a bit less demanding and a touch more round and clean on edge, then I would go 50/50.

Hope that helps!

---

Thanks, didn't know if FR was "regular titanal charger stiff" or "OG stormrider stiff"