That’s with your skis standing vertically on their tails, though right?
Marshal’s are lying flat on their bases so the ski weight is flattening the ski a bit.
A couple ounces of pressure and they’ll be completely flat.
Looking ideal for what I would want out of a carver that can be shut down from high speeds.
Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums
Straight pull on the few I've had has always been less then 1cm over stated length, so yes, long, but not K2 long.Quote:
Originally Posted by otto parts
At your height/boot size and given wanting a performance carver, I recommend 74cm from the tail, which is where the factory line should be, and works out to -12.5 from center. Cheers!Quote:
Originally Posted by m5d5cb
ON3P measure true to stated length after pressing to my understanding where other manufacturers measure at material length prior to pressing so obv curvature will absorb some cms. Or other approaches to measurement that create a variance between stamped length and straight pull. All my ON3Ps measure true to stated length (just tested this and the 179s Wrens pictures by the HL 99s above measure 179.4cm straight pull).Quote:
Originally Posted by otto parts
Thanks, yes the line is just under 74cm from the tail. I'll go with a 74cm from tail (-12.5cm traditional).Quote:
Originally Posted by Marshal Olson
Any reason not to go on the factory line for the 188s? I'm 5'11", 155lbs, 307 bsl if it matters, plan on using these as inbounds daily drivers for anytime there hasn't been new snow in the last 2 days.Quote:
Originally Posted by Marshal Olson
Knowing the skis you like, I’d say in the line, or no more than +5mmQuote:
Originally Posted by soul_skier
And sitting here after shoulder surgery, so increbly stoked the first batch is In peoples hands. So fired up for first impression on snow!!!!
"I personally cannot wait to mount my own R120 AM with 50/50 bindings and use them them often when it snows, not only in the wastach, but everywhere else too (Tahoe, Jackson, etc)."
Marshal, very curious what your sentence here will be for the Comp R120?
I've got the Comp 120 and 99 on order. My daily drivers are Head Monster 88 and 108. Love love love them. I weigh 190 at 5'8" and am really wondering if I should ask you to swap me over to the AM for the 120s?
Interested as well. I have Comp R99 on order but just emailed Marshal to swap me over to the R120 AM based on that description and upcoming trips to Japan and Gaspe’.Quote:
Originally Posted by puhisurfer
Hey gents!
For me and my own personal skiing, the comp build is for Snowbird. Open runs, chopped up snow, and racing trams.
Regarding the R120 AM vs Comp, would think about the AM as something more like a directional, chargey pow ski. I would think about the comp build as a chop/crud destroyer. Given that you have monster 108’s already, the question is if you want a bigger version of that, or something a touch surfy and manueverable.
@Singlecross, Ill ping ya back via email shortly and get that going!
I love this place so much! It’s nice to know that I’m not alone in my depravity.Quote:
Originally Posted by Doremite
Hi all,
Thought I would share that the 185 R120 AM is down to only 1 pair left, and the 180 R99 AM is down to only 2 pair left!
If anyone is curious, there are 3ea of the R87 AM's and a few more 188 R99 AM.
The snow is flying and so eager for the reviews to start coming in as well!
Cheers!
Yeah man, looking shapr! Can't wait to hear your thoughts once you (and everyone) get them on snow.
With respect to the R99 AM, one of my favorite skis I have ever owned was back in 2005/2006/2007: an all-white era 190cm Igneous FFL (98mm waist, 27m radius IIRC) and 235# stiffness. A bit softer and lighter than the other Igneous I had owned at the time, but one of the best too. It was a true 50/50 ski for me. Toured as much as I skied inbound, and it really did everything great.
The R99 AM slots in the same use, mindspace, and design intent. So excited to get on my pair!!!
How much more demanding do you think the AM vs the Comp build will be?
Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums
I estimate it to be 15% stiffer and heavier.
Relative to stiffness, one “notch” is 7%, and much less than that begins to get hard to clearly detect (at least for me as a ski tester). Most skiers might need a 10% jump if a-b’ing a ski to really truly notice.
So the comp should be one to two “notches” more ski.
I’d think of The Comps as more of a battle axe where you can just ski straight at rough questionable snow and throw your skis sideways and the ski will just smooth it out vs the AM skis as more of a precision tool.
Do you scale up each part of the ski by 15% or do you mostly make one section of the ski stiffer?Quote:
Originally Posted by Marshal Olson
I think I’ll stick with comp build on my 99s. I’m large, 6’5” 240#. Doesn’t sound like they’re going to be too unwieldy.Quote:
Originally Posted by Marshal Olson
Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums
If this 195lb dude is going comp, you’ll be just fine.Quote:
Originally Posted by MagnificentUnicorn
Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums
Rocker Porn! Rocker Porn!Quote:
Originally Posted by soul_skier
(Camber porn, but whatever).
:D
you bet!Quote:
Originally Posted by alude
in this particular case, the ski has thicker titanal and heavier fiberglass. The profile and thickness are not changed.
I think they will feel great for you… but if they don’t, let me know and I’ll just trade you out for a pair of AM’s.Quote:
Originally Posted by MagnificentUnicorn
180 50/50 R99s came in today! Can't wait to get these on snow. Will be putting some tyrolia attack demos on them to play with mount points, and so any interested mags can take them for a spin
Build quality is top notch.
Attachment 435221
Attachment 435222
I too just received a pair of R99 50s ... these look DIALED.
Initial thoughts are the quality is excellent and these should be a ripping no-fresh ski.
As my intent is for these to replace my Enforcer 93s, I'll likely use those Attack2 binders.
Christmas came early - just found a pair of R120 AM on my doorstep.
They are just beautiful. I am too stoked!