I am targeting the same flex profile and stiffnessQuote:
Originally Posted by chewski
Printable View
I am targeting the same flex profile and stiffnessQuote:
Originally Posted by chewski
“ Keep it niche, people, keep it niche. ”
22m radius 85mm waist seems pretty niche.
Want
after emailing you and declaring i wouldn’t buy more skis, i’ve got monster replacements on the way. and since i was there already, swallowtails. damn, you’re good at this.Quote:
Originally Posted by Marshal Olson
Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums
Am I the only person who thinks the 95 with a R reverse profile is the ticket?
Sent from my SM-A536W using Tapatalk
No, we want a flat/reverse R90 in 191Quote:
Originally Posted by Shorty_J
Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums
For an inbounds ski in these waist widths, I want some camber underfoot. I love my reverse camber skis, but if it's firm enough to be on an <95mm ski, reverse camber is not that fun IMO.
Ok you lost me at 191 but I'm glad I'm not the only insane person.Quote:
Originally Posted by MagnificentUnicorn
Sent from my SM-A536W using Tapatalk
I think it's an indictment on my physical shape, but I sometimes think I might be done with camber.Quote:
Originally Posted by waveshello
My katana 108 have pretty much none but still have a good suspension and are one of the best carving skis I have ever tried.
I understand the reason people want it but I'm not sure I'm one of those people anymore.
Sent from my SM-A536W using Tapatalk
When the ski is well executed I'm kinda with you on this statement. Having camber can be more limiting than not having camber.Quote:
Originally Posted by Shorty_J
#sickleQuote:
Originally Posted by Lord Thomas
Sent from my SM-A536W using Tapatalk
I’m glad I’m not the only weirdo here
Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums
My Sickles got stolen and I bought a replacement pair but it turned out it was one of the mis-pressed pairs... so instead of subtle reverse camber they had subtle positive camber.
NOT the same ski. I got rid of them.
Sent from my SM-A536W using Tapatalk
Those are 108mm and 106mm skis. Like I said, I like reverse camber--in my 108mm dev, 104mm raven. Just trying to imagine what the use case for a 90mm reverse camber inbounds ski is. I get why the BMT 94 exists, but why would anyone want to ski a ski like that inbounds, even if it was 800g heavier?
I feel like the scimitar was the narrowest reverse camber inbounds ski that really makes sense. Already wondered if that might end up being a HL shape at some point
Flat camber with rocker, like your Ravens. Use your imagination. Rails firm, pivots like crazy and is a blast in soft snow. What’s the downside? Please elaborateQuote:
Originally Posted by waveshello
Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums
So I’ve skied the BC90 w/ reverse camber on hardpack early season quite a bit this year. it works pretty well, drifty and loose. Crazy playful. If anyone is actually serious about a limited run of these at some point, the best thing to do is dm me your email address.
the RC85 and 95 are obviously intended to be technical all mountain skis that hook up and carve while also having HL DNA in cut up snow, windbuff, corn, etc. high edge angles, pulling g’s, that kind of thing. Essentially the opposite of what an R90 would be.
Another ski that is narrow by today’s standards but was an absolute charger and great powder ski was the 192 G3 Reverend at 92 under foot with a 26 meter radius. No metal but heavier and damp. A similar ski with the BC90 shape and flat camber would be a really fun all mountain ski.
Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums
Yup, shoot me your email, happy to explore it in more detail in a working doc.
I was thinking about this exact ski when I posted above.Quote:
Originally Posted by waveshello
I don't think narrow and reverse camber are mismatched.
Sent from my SM-A536W using Tapatalk
Paging @mntlion to the white courtesy phone to tell us about his black crows daemons.
Sent from my SM-A536W using Tapatalk
Yup, shoot me your email, happy to explore it in more detail in a working doc.Quote:
Originally Posted by Shorty_J
Ok I'll try. I feel like we're getting close to this ski:Quote:
Originally Posted by MagnificentUnicorn
https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/202...5386b126ab.jpg
Faction CT 1.0 - low tide newschool charger
Make it reverse camber. Bit longer radius. I guess it would be more soft-snow friendly, drifty-er, less carvy? Just hard to imagine it would be more fun without camber. I know you CAN rail hardpack on reverse camber skis, but I don't feel like I get the same joy out of it as I do skiing RC in soft snow. If I know I'm skiing mostly firm conditions, I like some camber underfoot.
I guess I should have just asked--what kind of day is it where y'all are wishing you were skiing a 2200g 90mm reverse camber charger? Could this be a DD somewhere? INW? Seems like a pretty specific use case. And I'm not against that... Just curious...
This is all speculation because I've never skied a RC 90mm ski, ha. Just extrapolating from other data points.
I'll go ahead and say it. Never. I can't imagine a single-use case where I'd prefer a reverse-camber ski less than 100 underfoot.Quote:
Originally Posted by waveshello
I was skiing spring corn today on my M102s. You know what I wanted? I wanted the stupid carbon tip to go away. It hurts my ears. I wanted less metal. It felt too tight. I wanted an FL105. Glass, wood, slight camber, and silence.
You know what wasn't in my way? My 2mm of camber.
These are the exact reasons why the FL105 has replaced my M102.Quote:
Originally Posted by gaijin
I doubt that the 2mm of camber made any difference at allQuote:
Originally Posted by gaijin
Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums
I'll just go ahead and disgrace myself now and say that I liked the M4 Mantra. The little bit of time I got on them I used them like a skinny metal Katana and they delivered. Very few really understood where/how to use them. Great sticks. Now that that's out of the way I will say that Volkls evolution of the long-low rocker with modest cambered section underfoot is the answer to this debate. Shit works. You may not like breaking glass sound etc., but that rocker/camber profile is the biz, floats above ist's weight class, strong on edge, supportive tail - but the tail can still release in the goo. A 190 Kendo with the HL layup sounds sublime.
I've been DD'ing the current gen Corvus, out on the east cost through a less than steller winter, ~ 20 days. I think the flat under foot, long progressive tip tail rocker with super low splay is amazing. The back and forth between drift and carve is endlessly entertaining. You can ski the same line over and over and attack it lots of different ways. Groomers, poor mans pow, chalky bumps and trees, I've loved it.Quote:
Originally Posted by waveshello
I've thought to myself on many occasion something in the mid 90s with a similar build would be awesome. Just a little less to haul around all day. ~2000g, would be more than fine for me.
I looked at the bc90 but I think even with the R profile and build the turn radius, would be a bit long for groomer fun (could be wrong) given the Corvus is stated around 21m. Plus i like the more progressive mount point. Anyways I'll keep lurking here to see how things evolve.
The radius on the Corvus is actually longer, it’s really 25 meters. The mount point is pretty forgiving going +\- 2cm. The effective edge is really long. Actual calculated dimensions here- https://soothski.com/compare/Quote:
Originally Posted by Shu Shu
Just input Black Crows Corvus
Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums
I have done as MO requested and sent a message offline to talk about a new ski so we don't bog down this thread talking about something these skis are not.Quote:
Originally Posted by Marshal Olson
Let's get this thread back on track.
Sent from my SM-A536W using Tapatalk
MO,
Are you going to be rolling on any prototypes of the RC85/95 this spring?
Yeah man, I should have my production samples in 3-4 weeksQuote:
Originally Posted by Lord Thomas
Quick comparison on RC95 vs AM99 in simpleton terms?
simpelton terms he says!Quote:
Originally Posted by Conundrum
biggest differences I think folks would notice:
(1) the RC95 will be a bit heavier (150-200g) and ride a little more smashy in variable snow
(2) the RC95 has a 10% bigger turn radius
(3) the RC95as a little more rocker (still not a ton) and a little less camber, so a little better off edge in the woods/bumps/etc
MO,
Since, tragically, very few of us have had a chance to ski the R99 and R87 can you do a similar comparison as above to the Monster 98 and 88? Lot's more of us have those as a reference point. The comparison to the AM99 was informative
I think you could pretty much apply the same logic to the Monsters. Rocker/camber profile is very similar. All of the HL Raceroom skis have a longer radius than the M88/98. The AM is a bit lighter with 1 sheet of ti and the Comp might be heavier, it is certainly stiffer and more demanding than the M88 I've skied. The M88 is extremely damp, borderline dead feeling, whereas the R99 has some liveliness to accompany the damping. R99 comp is a bit more refined and more energetic out of the turn than the M88 even being +1cm in the waist. The quality of HL builds is what sets them apart imo.
I think the key difference from a design perspective is that the R87/99 and Monster are primarily piste and firm-snow biased whereas the more progressive design principles of the RC series will be more fun in the woods and firm off-piste conditions but should still be a hoot on a groomer. The r99 comp can certainly handle shitfuck off piste, but you have to ski it like a comp ski with high edge angles and really drive it. The AM build is a little more forgiving.
Agreed @Jackstraw
Just to add, I do think the Monsters are a very good benchmark for the RC (as in, probably the most similar ski out there). Just with the RC's being a bit more updated shaping (ie a little more taper, -10.5 mount vs -12.5 mount, slightly larger turn radius, etc). The explicit design intent was to keep what makes the monsters awesome @ low tide while also being a little less one dimensional.
Very interdasting. My biggest complaint about the monsters was that they felt dead and generally had the personality of an artichoke. Not my idea of a DD, more of a niche player.
Just the thinking about the possible use case(s) for the RC85 is starting to over stimulate my want gland.
I can't wait to A/B the 183 RC85 to my 177 Monster 88's!
The RC85 rings spec-wise to my ear to be close the Vertigo G41 from ~2000 or 2001 (118-83-106 ?) I loved that ski.
I then tried to replace it with a Hotrod Jet Fuel in 2006 (126-84-112.) It was close, but much stiffer. Eventually I broke it in a bit and did love that ski when my legs were in shape and I could really push it. I really gelled with it and when FWT came to JP in 2017 and I decided to compete just out of sheer principal, a bro was like-- you ski different on that ski and you should compete on it. I was like-- "Only if it's firm, which is doubtful for January."
I blew my knee on that ski in the forest, though, in late spring. So, I won't ski it again as it's now cursed in my mind. It's like the girl that cheated on you, you just can't trust her anymore.
As such, the RC85 (or 95) might have to enter my radar next year to return the sport of melt/freeze forest/slalom racing. It's that firm, scrapy snow where I hate my M102, which is very capable, just a noisy son of a bitch.
It's springtime where my legs are dialed and the forest has a special "sporty" spirit to it where I could see either of these skis really filling a hole in my heart.
95 sound amazing. Always wanted my 98 Monsters with slight rocker.