Printable View
Thanks, yea I'm 5'8" 170. I've been dabbling in the 190 class the past few weeks, but I think I could get by with the 183 straight pull with HB splay. I never once had tip dive on the 179 HB, even center mounted.
On blister they were saying the flex might be a little stiffer than the OGs. How would you rate the flex, in regular ski terms.
6'1 220.Quote:
Originally Posted by JRainey
The flex is interesting. It hand flexes soft but till has a ton of support, once again lending to the theory that weight is great. The soft flex makes the shockingly carvable and planes likes crazy. Really never been on anything like it.
Agreed.
I’ve taken to calling them the skis that defy the laws of physics. Perfectly supportive without ever being boardy or a handful (at least IMO).
They are as close as I could get them profile wise to the OG, but they do have more torsional rigidity and don’t flap in the same way. Might be a touch aggressive for hella-nose butters, but for ripping around in soft conditions (from pow to soft tracked out powder bumps), they are an absolute blast.
To CouloirInTheLines point; once the snow is refrozen or super scratchy under, you definately start feeling the width, as is true on 115+ mm wide skis. They obviously are a different vibe than the other HL skis, but a super fun compliment IMO. Really enjoying them myself.
Id say the 189/193 skis like a 185cm ski 90% of the time, and then there is just that little extra support when you really need it both in the tip and tail. With that said, if you were happy with the 179 (actually 183), prolly not worth changing it up here either.
lastly, if you have the speed and angles to round out a 30m radius, they carve REALLY well, way better than every other similarly surfy and drifty ski that I’ve ever been on. And they kick up enough spray to rival a jet ski.
All good info.
A little stiffer than the OG is fine, cuz I fell in love with those at 700" in Brighton. Once I got back to JHole, they didn't cut it.
Now I'm in a less mogully place with wet storms, and pining for the good ole days (aren't we all). I remember some bottomless day at brighton, just bouncing down these little muffins, and just how high vertically they would let me pop out of total fresh.... I'm daydreaming.
I've tried the 192 BentChet and 191 Reckoner 122, and the length feels fine for both. But sizing up at my weight the mid section (and the tips for BC) just got too stiff to bend and were a little planky (bc alot planky). I think with flat camber it's less of a big deal, but I'd be worried about being able to load up the bow in fresh snow, vs the 179/183.
You 220 guys just need more support me, fair, but I don't like the extra surface area.
Yeah man, with that background, I’d go for the 183 straight tape (185 material length) ones. Definitely sounds right to me. I got 50lbs on you!
Also skied them at -6.5 and liked them there. Didn't experiment with anything else. As for conditions, I would say there was the minimal amount of soft snow available that I personally would want to ski these things on the day that I really wrung them out. I took them out a couple days later (Wednesday) and got the opening of Road to Provo where they were most excellent, but then skied scratchy firm snow all the way back to the base which was quite challenging and less fun. I supposed it should also be noted that my day 2 on them was also day 6 in a row that included a couple days at JHole in challenging conditions and then chasing Marshal around Snowbird. As a 35-45 days a year weekend warrior, I was pretty cooked that day but at least I wasn't hungover like the day before on the FL105s!Quote:
Originally Posted by CouloirInTheLines
While I'm thinking this will be my double-digit new snow ski, Marshal maintains that I'll ski them far more often than expected. We shall see, my daily driver is slated to be an R105 which is gonna slay the 4-6" fresh situations that I get down here.
6'2" 200lbs buck naked I got some cushin' for da pushin'Quote:
Originally Posted by JRainey
Stepping up to 190s has been interesting to see how the Rocker/Camber profiles are tuned for the 180ish version of a ski, and they just grow the camber in the middle for the bigger dudes. The rocker mold "ends" seem to be the same as the shorter skis.
Which seems like they are getting a shittier powder ski in that they might need that stiffness on harder/denser snow. But their weight is dramatically increasing the front half of the skis ability to bend as it contacts the snow. Given snows low density, the increase in flex force from pow at 170lbs or 220lbs probably isn't dramatic.
Now this all goes out the window with Reverse Camber, where the longer the ski gets, the more curve the mold hold. I had a pair of RC Down CD4s at 180, I think the mold was designed for a bigger ski, and the ski was damn near flat. Like 2cm splay at the tip. So the short skis suffered there.
It seems like big dudes should get more rocker because they need more displacement to float.
Interested in your thoughts on this Marshal, how you think about the mold changes between sizes?
ok... so! ask and you shall recieve a longer and more detailed reply than maybe you wanted!
But I have been thinking about nbot only the ~180 skis, but adding 173 and 165cm skis (at least in the 110 shape) too.
And there are a few important details to consider. The main one is skier weight (far more than height). a heavier skier needs a stiffer ski to bend the came amount. The next is turn shape - as foliks are buying skis not just to "fit" (like a shoe or whatever) but to make as big or small of a turn shape as they want.
So in order to keep optimizing at different sizes, I am really wanting to more holistically design each length more from the ground up.
A few conclusions:
(1) I find shortening just the effective edges and not the tapers to give up performance vs proportionally shortening all three factors
(2) generally I think with lighter skier on a shorter ski, a 1mm or so narrower per length at the waist makes sense
(3) through the lens of increased maneuverability, I think the radius steps should be more than 1-2m smaller per length step too.
(4) I generally like bumping the standard mount forward about 0.5cm per size too
rambling on thoughts, sorry. Where my mind is with all of this!
HB shape or FR shape?Quote:
Originally Posted by Marshal Olson
come visit in April and find out! ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by jackattack
Holy shit was this guy stoked to be pumped to learn about Heritage Labs HB122. The only way this picture could be better would be if I had my pair already.
Attachment 490602
Is that MO in his new fancy pants XT3s?[emoji16]Quote:
Originally Posted by Full Trucker
Sent fra min LE2123 via Tapatalk
That’s me, actually. Marshal has the XT3 Tour, which are bright blue with bright orange buckles.Quote:
Originally Posted by arild
i am, however, a full trucker doppelgänger.Quote:
Originally Posted by Full Trucker
I had the opportunity to click into Paul’s pair of 189 HB122’s for a few 15”+ midday runs at Alyeska during the storm this week.
Holy Hell !
I wasn’t really looking at these, with their more progressive mount and softer flex, preferring traditional mounts on stiffer skis, but was immediately blown away with the subtle yet powerful feel of the ski from the very first turn.
I was surprised by their ease and versatility, from annihilating steep fall line chop and quick pivots through pillow tops, to near hip dragging arcs on the groom, these skis fucking killed it!
So much so, that I ordered a pair that night, Ha!
I don’t know what it is, but the combination of mass, flex, and the shape of these skis has created a bit of magic, maybe even Black Magic, Ha!
*They are also really good looking in person.
They defy the laws of physics!
Glad you dug them so much
Now I'm getting a little more fucked up and confused than normal. Can somebody compare-contrast these with the FR 120ST? Where does one stop and the other begin. One way or the other I think one of these is in my future.
FR flexes stiffer and has a more rearward std mount. Both have big sweet spots and I feel the 187 vs 193 would come into play a bit. I should say the HB is a bit more lively and produces almost a trampoline effect in pow which is very addicting and a shitload of fun. My pre order for the HB why I ended up on the R120 instead of the FR having both a powder missile in the R that rips through chop and the HB where I’m looking to air off it!Quote:
Originally Posted by Lord Thomas
Agreed! I'd say the vibe of the skis is different. HB is more lively and responsive. The FR is more planted and damp. Both like to ski fast, but the FR has a bit more "charge and smash" mindset to it vs. the HB is "slash and boost".
I can't believe how much I like the HB. On paper, not the ski for me at all. But I freaking love them.
The FR120 ST will definately have the edge in hot pow, blowing up chop, and on big mtn lines tho.
So if I'm a more playful skier not tryna charge 100%, but I'm looking for an inbounds pow ski that can handle the inevitably chopped pow as the day goes on... Can the hb handle that or is it more of a princess looking for fresh only?
These are the droids
The biggest mindfuck is flexing them and then witnessing their chop performance lol.Quote:
Originally Posted by eSock
Can anyone compare an on3p jeffery to the HB?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I had the Jeff 118 in the 186 and am thinking about snagging another pair. I think that Jeff is super dialed.Quote:
Originally Posted by PeachesNCream
However, I do enjoy having a silly amount of options and giving myself analysis paralysis.
The HB floats a bit better in low angle due to the softer flex. Comapring the length (186.6 v 193.5) I think the 191 Jeff would probably be more of a center stance steam roller than the 186. The 186 and 193 actually feel close as far as suspension in chop with a slight nod to the Jeff. Both are super surfy and surprisingly versatile. I think if you click with one you will with the other!
Thanks for the info. This is going to be a tough call. Jeffs are one of my favorite skis ever but the fr110 is such a good ski, makes me want to try another HL ski. I’m looking for something kinda similar to the fr110 but more surfy and bouncey for a pow ski. Seems like a HB or a Jeff would be a good fit. They’re both bamboo which I’m a huge fan of. I’m thinking the Jeff is going to handle the chop better and the HB is going to be more surfy. I’d be looking at the 191 Jeff or 189 HB. When you’re talking about the 193, you’re talking about the 189 HB right?Quote:
Originally Posted by K1mJ0ngTr1ll
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk