Great info, thanks!Quote:
Originally Posted by Benneke10
Printable View
Great info, thanks!Quote:
Originally Posted by Benneke10
anyone interested in a 178 ZeroG with ATK and skins for $500?
manQuote:
Originally Posted by BFD
you got it goin on
Pm’d you mikeyQuote:
Originally Posted by ~mikey b
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
they’re sold
Anyone got any experience on the Kastle Tx Up vs. Tx?
Old threads said toe delam issues. Anyone know if this is still true?
Contemplating picking up a pair of salomon mtn explore 88s. Would strictly be a spring/corn/volcano ski. Anybody have any input? I hate super light skis that are too stiff and are easily deflected. Looking for something composed and damp. I know blister had rave reviews on the 95 and assume that the 88 shares similar construction.
If you're in the market for something cheap in that bracket, have some old g3 zenoxide 88 x 185. They are damp and ski well. But they are old...
No direct input about the Salomons but it sounds like a nice ski
I believe the up is more budget oriented and probably a little lower quality than the tx line. Haven’t heard anything about construction issues with the regular txQuote:
Originally Posted by nyskirat
Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums
I previously owned that ski. Used it on one hut trip in the sawtooths and sold it. Haven’t ventured back to really light skis since as that was such a gigantic pile of crap. Hoping tech has got better. I’m only looking because the new backland boots I got have such a short bsl they won’t work with my trusty praxis yetis.Quote:
Originally Posted by kamtron
Lol "such a pile of crap" depends on what you want I suppose. Rocker-camber-no rocker is not what everyone wants. Most of the light skis in that waist are built with a more traditional feel.
If you like those skis that’s fine. But they were the worst skis I’ve ever owned. It wasn’t the traditional shape. But rather the horrible construction. Least damp ski I’ve ever skied. IME the Salomon cfx construction is damp and mutes variable snow. But I’ve only skied the qst series not the light touring skis. Truth is I’d probably be better off (generally don’t ski anything smaller than 95 alpine) with the 95, but the price on the 88 is hard to pass on.
Interesting...Quote:
Originally Posted by ezgzy
I saw from the Ski Alper review they actually preferred the Tx Up 87 over the regular version.
My wife had some mtn 88s (women’s) for a while and disliked them. She’s skiing qst 92s (women’s) now and likes them much better. Obviously there’s a significant weight difference between the two. Her impression now is that the 88s were not stiff enough and so didn’t ski how she wanted them to but it’s been a while since she skied them.Quote:
Originally Posted by altacoup
There was a short thread including comments on the Salomon Mtn 88 skis a couple of months ago:Quote:
Originally Posted by altacoup
https://www.tetongravity.com/forums/...g-and-big-days
I have the Mtn 88 skis, and they're my first choice for most spring/summer BC days. They're light and hold an edge on the steeps, but they handle variable snow fairly well for such a light and narrow ski.
^^^
That’s pretty much exactly what I’m looking for. Hate skis that just get pushed around and feel uncontrollable. The cfx layup that Salomon uses has good dampening.
Sent from my iPad using TGR Forums
Bought a set on clearance last year and skied them once or twice. Keep in mind this from someone easing into touring and I’d only skied my Salomon q98s with shifts or heavier skis with daymakers. Mtn88s were incredibly light but I thought fairly damp for that weight. Edge hold was great and they can carve on all kinds of snow. I didn’t find them to be stiff for good or bad - they felt forgiving. I did rail them a touch on piste after touring up at a resort. They railed through warm spring conditions, corn and slush. It was strange to me because I thought they were more confident than my q98s (that can get pushed if I look at them funny). Was wearing the shift boot for reference.Quote:
Originally Posted by altacoup
Are light/soft boots the weak link in the chain?
In other words, with light, soft boots (Backland Pro in my case), is there any benefit to any of the ‘better skiing’ bindings? Ones that have something for the heel to rest on, and or anything else that helps with power transfer?
I could see it both ways:
1: a softer, less supportive and damped boot will be the ‘weak link’, you can’t put down much power anyway.
or
2: with less supportive, less damped boots, you need more support and movement transfer from under foot to make up for the lack of power from the boot upper: bindings with under heel support help with that.
Heel pads like ATK freeride spacers, with light boots, make a very big positive difference in my experience
I do think light boots are a bigger performance cost than light skis. But the really light stuff does sort of "pair well"... too much boot and you can overpower a tinny little ski. There is definitely a performance difference between gapless and gapped pin bindings when in my heavy-duty boots, although I haven't tried a stomp pad myself.
Makes sense. Have you experienced the same with lighter boots?Quote:
Originally Posted by kamtron
Because theoretically I could imagine both yes or no.
Marshall goes for yes on the heel support.
I’m with marshal on this
Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums
I have limited experience with light boots, i spend almost all my touring days in a zero g pro. I will say that it consistently overpowered my lightest skis (1.2k) with skimo bindings and that i had to be careful not to blow through the ski by pressuring the front of the boots too much and ski with a more neutral sense. I picked up some lighter boots for this year and transitioned to alpinists on everything which will hopefully make a difference
Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums
Yeah, that makes total sense to me. The less support you get from the upper of the boot, the more you have to control from your footQuote:
Originally Posted by riff