What you saying about my ski?Quote:
Originally Posted by Winkler
Printable View
What you saying about my ski?Quote:
Originally Posted by Winkler
Do I need to scan in the cocktail napkins to shut you up?Quote:
Originally Posted by Hohes
"ho-test" is something completely different.
Git it right, bud.
Ho-Ride.
Ho-Ride.
I'm definitely not "completely dissatisfied" with the ski. Now that I've seen the 2.0, do I regret buying the 1.0? Probably.
Hell...how could I even give an opinion of 1.0? I've skied them 6 times all the opposite of what it was designed for.
But let's to the "everyone unloads the ski" math on this:
1. I paid $550. Mounted once on the line with Vertical STs.
2. Current re-sale value of new in the wrapper Woo 1.0 $350 (ish)
3. Current retail price of Woo 2.0 (with stiff flex customization and a code or two) $700-800
If I'm going to unload my 1.0s today, I'm instantly down $200. If I want to replace them with the 2.0 which I imagine is a better version, I'm down $900-1000 (ballpark). That doesn't add up for me.
1.0 are going to be a great ski in the right conditions, so I'll hang onto them and when they're shot in 1-2 years, there will be something out there that is better.
Patience is a virtue, if you're willing to wait! :)
What are the right conditions for these? Or I guess I should ask where people aren't liking them, groomers?
I picked up some $350 woo 1.0 and it seems like the beside the square tip grabbiness, they seem like they'll be fine. Are the tails really that hard to break loose?
For sure I think the woo 2.0 looks good, but I wasn't gonna buy any new skis this year, but I couldn't give up an 8.5lb pow ski for so cheap.
I'm interested to ski them and e-compare them to the W00.2, but it won't be until the first of the year.
Just to be clear I wasn't upset with the performance of the Wootest 1.0 at all. I'm just a tinkerer and not scared to try and make something better.
Truth is, with any ski like this, you aren't using the edge that is in the taper/rocker anyway. So I'm killing it. Totally beveling it to provide the most hook free performance.
The tip shape is being altered slightly...but that's really not that big of a deal. I feel strongly any hookiness has very little to do with the tip shape.
The biggest thing I did was add a bit more tail rocker to keep the ski loose. Its basically done. Time to test!
How'd you do this? Thinking about doing the same to my pair of 1.0.Quote:
Originally Posted by JeffreyJim
Heat gun and patience.
And cinder blocks
The 1.0 is the best floating skinny ski I personally have ever been on (even better than the 2.0 from what I can tell so far in total blower). My gripes were almost exclusively at the resort in tracked up snow. It was less of a priority but the reason for 2.0 is that I and a lot of people who skied it think we can come up with something that suffers in neither. That's all. It's not like the 1.0 sucks. It's just that we thought we could do better.
Just detune the everloving shit out of them. Maybe not with an angle grinder but you know.......pretty detuned.Quote:
Originally Posted by JRainey
10-4.
I'm all for tinkering and making stuff better, I just wanted to get an idea of what i'm working with.
Really glad to hear this. Don't plan on using them in the resort or on hard snow, so I think they'll be perfect for what I need. And yeah, I'm thinking some heavy textbooks will be perfect. Don't have any cinder blocks laying around.Quote:
Originally Posted by kidwoo
DISAGREE!Quote:
Originally Posted by kidwoo
Kidding, the angle grinder was a bit excessive. I just figured, if I'm messing with the tip shape, why not detune them to a whole different level? Downside? I can't see one...
It took me many tries to get them detuned enough but now there money. The little bit of hookiness is all but gone and I really only noticed it when the skis were factory sharp in heavier tracked snow. Still much less than my 112RP's in the same conditions. The woos have less sidecut, more weight, and are a little stiffer in the tip.
Angle grinder action is priceless!
It took me a lot of passes with the panzer at a 45 to the edge to round them over to the point of no return.
Kidwoo- Did you mount sollyfits to your 2.0's?
Of course. There's no mileage like chairlift mileage and at some point I need to do a write up on these things.Quote:
Originally Posted by xtrmjoe
I have the 1.0 in 196 stiff and I have to say the float is amazing for a ski of this width and I think the original nose shape is the key. I also really like the stiffness through the ski and I have been checking back through the comments in the original thread and those with the stiff layup (and have done the necessary detuning) seem to be happier with the shape. I do think more tail rocker will add some looseness that is missing at points and I have been trying to add a bit more over the summer by doing the cinder block thing.Quote:
Originally Posted by kidwoo
I haven't really used them in resort much but the new more bullet nose on the 2.0 should make it better for this, I just hope there is no impact on the float.
I love the 1.0 for the purpose I bought it for but would definitely like to add a 2.0 and the additional versatility I think it will bring.
^^Yup. Wishing I would have ordered the stiff. I was on the fence, and now I regret not manning up and going for it.
But I also haven't skied them, so I'm just armchair quarterbacking based on my evolving understanding of what I like in a ski.
Interesting stuff here. I really like the 1.0s, alot. The changes in 2.0 seem to be taking the design away from the backcountry purebred end of the scale in the pursuit for versatility. And im still not getting the lack of tail rocker talk, I have a 187 protest and woo1.0 side by each and they look pretty much identical, if not more rocker in the woo.
Love the fact that they ski damn near exactly the same as the protest. Suspicious of pushing the taper forward, has the mount moved forward as a result? Just a concerned woo owner.
Not even. We had a really shitty snow 'pack' last year and there were enough instances of that tip grab in some funky crusty manky stuff that we thought it was worth addressing. I've only skied the 2.0s hiking so far and about the only gripe I've had is some tip drag in some absolute blower. Not 'tahoe blower' some genuinely really dry super low water content stuff that fell here a few weeks ago.....a few feet of it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Winkler
It's true. The tail rocker is the same or even more than the protest. But it's also got much less surface area and doesn't stay on top of the snow as well as the protest.....hence locks in harder because it's not planing out as easily. That's why I and some other folks are on the more rockered tail idea for the 2.0. As far as pushing the taper forward.....sometimes hard snow happens. On chute entrances, on wind/sun crusted aspects. The 1.0s are fine and get through those conditions but they felt a little weird with all the side cut at and behind your foot......with little to none in front. Long story short, I and a few others were convinced that literally just making a narrower protest would be the shit. The truth is we had to admit that cutting down on all that surface area did affect the ski enough that some tweaks were needed, or some features exaggerated if you will to get the narrower version to do the same things as the protest.Quote:
Originally Posted by Winkler
And right now my 2.0s are a cm back from where I ended up on my version 1.0s. So far I think it's good.
I picked up my Woo 2.0s, 187cm, medium/soft flex (one notch softer than stock), Concept Tattoo top sheet yestereday. 8lbs, 9oz. Seem plenty stiff enough via hand flex, time will tell. Will be skied with TLT5Ps, Plums.
Only discussion of mounting point here said mount on the line. Any reason to mount elsewhere?
I skied my woo 2.0, dynas, and Mercuries yesterday at Kwood. They did better than my 186 Billy Goats with alpine boots in fresh breakable crust, a great test for them. In the crust, they slarved consistently. They also did well in the soft after the pow was broken up, and on runs that were bumped out. In the bumps, I did notice that I had to be careful not to be tossed backwards onto the tails, but that might have been the Mercuries. I could carve or skid as desired.
They held and edge well on a firm roll over at the top of a run and on some traverses, but they were funky trying to make turns on groomers. They were grabby and didn't skid or carve consistently. In the same conditions, the BGs skied just like my traditional skis (note that these were very soft groomers on a pow day, not packed pow groomers a few days old.)
Keith says he shipped them with a 1/1 bevel. I usually run a 1/2 on most of my skis. Also, I detuned them considerably with a file from an behind/in front of the contact points. Will more detuning or putting a 1/2 on them improve their groomer performance? Also, the detuned section of the edges are pretty rough, I just took a file to them at 45 deg. Should I take a diamond stone to smooth them out?
Nice! Thanks for the update.
The closest thing to packed snow I've been on is still a chewed up track from a snowcat. They didn't feel weird to me at all.....but I wasn't really trying to arc big open turns or anything either. Been in quite a few varieties of sluge and shit snow and I'm pretty psyched with them.
I've been working long days for the last two weeks with no weekends off. Immabout to get a whole lot of time on these things. I need a multiple day sanity break. Just talked a buddy into buying a sled too so we'll be all over the place.
Where is the mount point on these is it the tiny divet on the sidewall?
Yep. That's it.
Keep talking...Quote:
Originally Posted by harpo-the-skier
http://a2.ec-images.myspacecdn.com/i...b5235393/l.jpg
Is that He-Man?
hehe ...so wrong.
Yes, very wrong. :o
Are you guys detuning the hell out of the ski from the rocker out or from the taper out?
I detuned from the rocker on out, but I might do some more from a few cm's closer to the middle. At this point I detuned from a point about 1cm inboard from the contact points and they felt a bit catchy on groomers. I am open to suggestions.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MTslackcountry
I have not skied them yet but detuned from the rocker out. Are they catchy in the tips or tails or both? I plan to ski them this Sat and will have a gummie stone with me to dull down the rest of the ski slightly if I feel that its too catchy. The edges are really sharp. someone had mentioned that the base bevel was 1 deg so it shouldnt be that but they also could be at 90 which could make them catchy in and out of turns too.Quote:
Originally Posted by harpo-the-skier
There's a few mentions in this thread and the 1.0 one about how the woo holds up just fine on firm entrances, etc. does anyone have more time on the 2.0 yet to comment on how it compares in those firm conditions vs. a more traditional ski like the Praxis Backcountry?
I'm currently on 186 Lhasas for touring but they've sustained some pretty serious damage and the dynafits on them are also slightly broken, so I could probably use a new setup. I love my Powderboards and tend to prefer a more pivoty ski than one I have to drive hard (I don't really have the confidence or skill to do so on the Lhasas in difficult BC terrain), hence my interest in the woo 2.0.
The woo sounds great, but since my touring happens around mammoth, corn, windboard, and steep entrances are more the norm than powder. Should the woo still handle everything safely despite the lack of camber and sidecut and significant rocker?
I'll give ya my take on the Woo 1.0 in firmer conditions, they are like popcorn without butter. Not bad and it certainly ain't gonna kill ya but rather bland and uninteresting.Quote:
Originally Posted by Skeeze
^Haha!
Pretty accurate I'd say.
I'm just now to the point of getting the 2.0s off their gillette sharpness edges. But I've got no problems getting on my shins on hard snow moreso than the 1.0 versions. They're still an absolutely huge radius ski so 90% of your turns need to be slid rather than carved. But even when they aren't, that hookiness just isn't there now. It was at first but that was all the edges. It's taken me a while to get convinced of that but I am.
I've skied a pair of lhasas on hard snow for a few runs and they're definitely more a traditional response in that you can just stay hard on your shins the whole time. Kind of a matter of preference IMO. I'll have my 2.0s up on the plateau at somepoint this year with no reservations if that tells you anything.
We've finally got some normal elevation snow coming to tahoe in the next few days so I'll be getting a much better feel for the snow they were designed for. I have no question that they're better all around than the 1.0s (with maybe a little sacrifice in tip drag in super deep stuff).
Okay. This these things rule.
Very happy. :)
Got the 187 Woo 2.0, mounted Dynafits minimally behind the dot (0.5 or 1.0 cm), and toured and skied them today. Per Keith, Kevin OMeara put a +1 bevel on the edges. Boot is Dynafit Mercury. Moi 6'2" and 186 lbs.
Just fantastic in pow, crud, slush, crust, and tight trees.
Thought this is a good place to put this comment.
I've been thinking about shorter skis, and a shorter protest like ski, but narrower than 128 mm underfoot.
After talking to Keith yesterday, sounds like he'd be willing to make a shorter wootest at 177'ish cm for next year. Might be time to start chiming in, and emailing him at praxis dot com... if you'd want this ski.
How tall are you? I'm no giant at 5'8" and am perfectly comfortable on the 187s in tight places (kind of the point of the ski). I imagine a 177 would feel really really short......maybe even prohibitively so.
Ummm. 5'8", but I'd like something shorter than a 187...maybe a 182?Quote:
Originally Posted by kidwoo
Kind of telling when 6'+ 200lb guys are skiing the 187 without a problem..
Makes me think, why do I have to be on the same ski they are...
I'm a little guy who might be interested in a 180-2