CAST
Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums
Printable View
CAST
Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums
I cannot remember who I bought them from here, but my 19-yo daughter loves her Black Pearl 98’s. Her skiing has improved and confidence has increased dramatically after her first two days on them. She loves skis with metal now. [emoji4]
Yeah, the Black Pearl 98 is a winner - many of our male testers thought it was the best ski they tried at WWSRA last spring.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bandit Man
My wife loved her older Black Pearls. I tried a pair back when it didn't have a number- I think it was 88 underfoot. Seemed good but at my height/weight they kind of folded up under me. Which is fine, if you're a 170 lb woman who skis hard you should go ahead and get a "man's" ski.
Has anybody used this year's Cochise? I'm really curious about the idea they might have tried to make it like the OG Cochise, but haven't heard any firsthand info.
Yes. +1000Quote:
Originally Posted by counterfeitfake
(Personally, I think we have about the same chance of the Easter Bunny being real as Blizzard making the OG Cochise again. I'd love it, but I seriously doubt they're headed that way. OG Bodacious gone, lots of other skis getting more "playful" etc. That seems to be the exact opposite direction.)
But would love to see someone's honest take that's been on the OG Cochise, Carbon Cochise (last 5 years?) and the new 20-21 Cochise. I'm not rushing out to buy one, either way - but still would love to hear.
I'm leaning towards the tecton or kingpin option since I plan to ski them at the resort now and then.
I’ve beat on kingpins hard inbounds. Go with them. They are great.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gentleman Skier
Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums
The front elasticity of Tectons should make them the better choice for inbounds skiing. Hell, Vipecs could be a good option too.Quote:
Originally Posted by skibrd
Then again - I would either go lighter - something like a 300gr tech binding - or heavier - Cast.
Argument for lighter: these will primarily see soft snow use. As such, the weight and shape of the skis vs the snow it will see is what makes the larger impact, not the bindings. So you might as well optimize an already heavy setup a bit for the up. Sure, Tectons could be a way of optimizing for the up, but investing for the down, but are the conditions going to be that demanding? If not, go light - ATK FR14 / Moment Voyager or some such. Yeah, your knees will not be super happy during skiing in variable, but that is not what you bought these skis for right?
Argument for Cast: The weight difference between a Kingpins and Cast is pretty marginal - like 220grs. So where the Cast will suck more - going uphill, they will suck less relatively speaking, than hammering through variable where the front elasticity is going to make a huge difference. So if you want to do Kingpins you might as well go Cast imho. That way you can go throttle on the downs, but yeah - they will be a bit on the heavy side walking to the top.
so kingpins are in a no mans land inbetween imho. I do not get why people buy it anymore. Weight focus: Tecton. Full on alpine: Cast or Shift. Heavy, non-elastic tech toe binding - Kingpin.
edit: my bad - the correct weights of Kingpins are 690 for the 13 version and 630 for the m works version. So the differences are bit larger than stated above ie more favorable for the Kingpins. I still would not buy either version though (or I would pick Kingpins over Dynafit's offerings). ATKs, MTNs or Vipec/Tectons are just better options imho. I run Vipecs, Shifts and Casts for my >110mm powder skis that will see occasional touring (so yeah, no overlap in my quiver at all ;)) The lighter weight skis - BMT122s - have Vipecs, where the Cast/Shift is mounted on standard layup resort skis from ON3P.
This exactly 100%.Quote:
Originally Posted by kid-kapow
I don’t really like Tecton/Vipec but I get why people buy them.
For me it’s either ATK R12/FR14 either the Shift.
ST Rotation, Ion, Guide, etc are basically worse (more fiddly, worse climbing aids) than a R12 and weight almost twice as much.
I own Tecton, Kingpins and Shifts. Haven't skied the new version of the Kingpins, but the old version is my least favorite of the three.
Kingpins are the only one of those three which use the same crampons as all my other backcountry bindings.
While it's nice that they use a more common crampon, that doesn't feel like a great reason to buy them. Especially when we're talking about a 12x underfoot pow ski.Quote:
Originally Posted by XavierD
Sometimes you need to cross the constantly windbuffed to a hard shine aspect ha going over some rectum puckering exposure to get first tracks down that very deep very fun well protected couloir.Quote:
Originally Posted by HAB
Kingpins ski fine and I doubt most folks can tell the difference between them and Tectons or even shifts on 120mm skis in most conditions where you are skiing 120mm skis. They are also pretty consistently available for cheaper than Tectons.
Tectons are easy to use for sure, and honestly a phenomenal touring binding but using standard crampons has got to be the easiest ask out there. Many of this community of mediocre fucks want hole patterns standardized so they can go to the pain of installing inserts.
I am about to drill my pair. I have some 2015's these are replacing, (OG shape with a little bit of camber instead of flat). I put some days on the 20/21 ski at Big Sky last January. The models in-between were fine skis but I always liked my older pair better so I never moved on. These definitely inspired me to get a new pair, they still charge and are stable but perform a better in the fresh snow. I was stoked to find that you can still lock in and do huge arcing turns even though the radius came down a touch, its not dumbed down that's for sure. Thankfully Blizzard didn't do anything stupid and try to rewrite the script here, this ski was best in class at its roots IMO and I feel they have improved it with this iteration. If you like skis like this these are certainly worth a go.Quote:
Originally Posted by counterfeitfake
What do these things weight? They look really interesting.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gentleman Skier
Yeah, I hear you on crampons being a useful tool sometimes, even on huge pow skis. My point was more that I don't think most people (and it sounds like the OP falls into this camp) don't have multiple pow touring skis with different bindings on them, and therefore likely don't have a pair wide enough to fit said pow skis anyway. If you're going to end up buying a pair regardless...Quote:
Originally Posted by XavierD
I don't disagree for a second that it would be nicer if crampon mounts were better standardized. I just don't see it as being a deciding factor on bindings, especially for a ski that's an outlier on width in a lot of touring quivers and therefore unlikely to share crampons anyway.
So I've been cheating on my R11s....as I bought some Nordica Enforcer Free 104s and Salomon QST 106s....first 5 ski days have been on those. Today I got back on the R11s at Whistler. It was shit snow, shit vis in the am, and everyone was saying it sorta sucked. I’m just glad to be skiing. And I was on my R11s....man they're so so good. We skied steep icy crap, dust on crust, little bit of pow, groomers....didn't have a bad run.
Attachment 352913
That empty rack makes me cry - Whistler so close and yet so far away . . . same experience with my R11's today on dust over boilerplate at Crystal.
That pic was taken as I came out of an empty lodge around 12:30 pm after lunch. Zero line-ups today.Quote:
Originally Posted by gregL
Ya'll are making me want to get a pair of R11s as a DD.
You could do a lot worse.Quote:
Originally Posted by thejongiest
You should. They do it all pretty damn well.Quote:
Originally Posted by thejongiest
Sent from my Pixel 3a using TGR Forums mobile app
Just unboxed by 186 Bodacious. Wow. Haven’t been this pumped in a while, closest thing to my dearly departed Katanas (12-15 made in Germany ones) I’ve seen in a while, damn near flat and gradual rocker with a flat tail and metal!?! Fkna a, sploosh.
Hell yeah. I need to track down another pair, I forgot how beat the one functioning pair I have has become.Quote:
Originally Posted by volklpowdermaniac
Cochise collection:
Just got my hands on the 20/21 model today. Pretty excited to see how the ski has changed again.
Stats (they’re all 193/192cm)
Flex: they are all similar stiffnesses with a round stiff flex, the new pair is way more snappy probably because it is new, but I’s assume Blizzard has more carbon in the layup these days.
Weight: Basically the same for all of them 2013: 2460g, 2015: 2450g, 2021: 2440g
Shape: you can see the subtle increase in sidecut between the versions. The newest version has significantly more sidecut in the tail. The tip shape for the V3 is also less tapered and somewhat of a middle ground between the OG and the V2.
Rocker line: OG has no camber and a bunch of mellow tail rocker, V2 has 2mm of camber maybe, but is very easy to compress to flat, but has minimal tail rocker. V3 has the most camber(4mm?) and requires significant more pressure to flatten, it has some tail rocker which increases into the ski when flat. All three tip rockers are really similar.
It’ll be a while until i really get to test these against each other in the right conditions, the alpine needs a lot more snow for now.
Attachment 353061
Attachment 353062
I'm pretty stoked to see the rocker profile on the OG version. I decided to try and track down a pair after spending a whole season on the OG Bodacious. The combination of flat camber and slightly narrower shape is exactly what I have been looking for.Quote:
Originally Posted by mr_pretzel
I almost grabbed a newer pair, but I'm glad I waited for the old ones.
Anyone ski the Rustler 11 that has also been on the Head Kore 117?
My current daily is the Experience 100. I'm old school, so more traditional and less rocker is appealing. I just wish the 11 was a little fatter. I'm looking for something closer to 115 for a dedicated pow ski.
Kore feels stiffer in the shop, but also has more tip rocker. Tails appear similar. Thoughts?
114 isn’t close enough to 115 for you?
I might have measured against the 180 Rustler. In holding my current model against the Rustler, I was expecting more width.
Currently on 184 Experience 100. Thinking with the rocker to bump up to the 188 (6', 190lbs).
Sent from my SM-N975U using Tapatalk
There’s technically less carbon in the tips of the 20/21 model. No more carbon anywhere else.Quote:
Originally Posted by mr_pretzel
The flex and camber has more to do with you comparing a brand new ski to a used one.
New ones are a lot more fun than Gen 2 for sure. I liked the 192 of the Gen 3 more than Gen 1 personally.
You want the 188 for sureQuote:
Originally Posted by Iowagriz
188 is 114
192 is 116
🤣🤣🤣 my thoughts exactly!!Quote:
Originally Posted by XavierD
Anyone know the recommended mount from true center on the new 2021 Spurs?
I’ve heard -11cm. Hoping for -8cm.
Attachment 353245
So put them at -8?Quote:
Originally Posted by kc_7777
Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums
Just circling back to sing more praises of the Rustler 11s. I skied them today in zero visibility dust on crust which later turned to pow on crust at the Ghee.
I've never had a ski that inspired more confidence in those conditions. They are an incredible blend of dampness, stability and maneuverability without being dead. They make effortless slow speed, tight radius turns but keep their shit together at higher speeds in open terrain with a little bit of crud underneath. The metal underfoot ads stability and dampness, whatever magic is in the wood core allows the tips and the tails to bend on command but still bust through soft crud and crust. I can drive them hard when I want and let up on them without them taking more for a ride. I can't think of a more perfect ski for the conditions I skied today.
Ya I’ve been having similar experience/thoughts about my R11s. They make tough snow conditions manageable. Scary to think that I almost sold mine this year. Glad I didn’t.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kevo
The R11 is a ski that I could justify having two pair in my ski quiver. One with Shifts and one with STHs.
I love this view....
Attachment 354379
Season of to a very slow start. Only two days on busy, skied out groomers. Low vert, bad visibility etc
The good news is the Brahma 82s.
Compared to the Enforcer 88s I skied last year the 82s are slightly softer, and with less rocker and taper they have a longer effective edge in comparable sizes.
This makes it 1) easier to engage the sidecut 2) easier to bend them into whatever shape you want 3) in combination this gives them far better grip
- they are however not difficult to release
- bases flat they have a slightly slower speed limit than the Enforcer 88s, but when you ski them on edge they are very confidence inspiring
For now they are by far the best hard snow / groomer ski I've been on. But I haven't had them on ice yet.
On 187s - 190cm/83kg
So skied my 188 Rustler 11 today in 6” on crust layer. They are so easy and float great. Fast and stable on groomers. Caught a little on the ice but any ski would and just let them run a little and solved that. They are quick, intuitive and very easy to bring around in the steeps. All around a great resort ski
Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums
man. The 186 bodacious. So so so so good. Wow.
I pulled out the Brahma 82 for six dry days (minus one) in Big Sky. Had not been on them in close to two seasons. Perfect ski for hard pack/boiler plate. Killer edges, 2 layers of metal power, want to go fast, very unforgiving. I don't think they make 'em anymore.