vario2 heel seems robust, if overengineered.Quote:
Originally Posted by ktoor
Printable View
vario2 heel seems robust, if overengineered.Quote:
Originally Posted by ktoor
thanks for the input! to "crunch" the numbers (only here as id be embarassed in any other thread...) from what i can see the vario2 heel is about 228g (309g stated weight minus 81g toe piece) vs 62g heel of plum + 44g adjustment plate = 106g. meaning the difference is 122g. this is obviously *very* important as its the difference between a ~1280g setup and an ~1160g setup!Quote:
Originally Posted by Benneke10
info about the heel elasticity was the type i was after as there seems to be a material advantage to keeping them even on a mountaineering setup. ill give em a few resort laps and see if i take to them.
Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums
I thought the Vario.2 weighed in at around 250g total? Skimo co has them at 254g with verified specs. I don't know where the extra weight would come from, I have personally weighed the adjustment track at around 80g.Quote:
Originally Posted by ktoor
hmm thats interesting. it does say its 254g verified but on ski trab website says 309g. theres a comment on skimoco as well about it but may be the case its only 254g.Quote:
Originally Posted by Benneke10
ill give em a go and see how they feel. very excited to check out the ski trab hype.
Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums
With brakes but here are some weights:Quote:
Originally Posted by ktoor
https://photos.app.goo.gl/zmga5SDCrF85LUKy6
thanks westcoaster! this looks more in line with the 254 measurement by skimoco without brakes given how chunky them brakes look.Quote:
Originally Posted by Westcoaster
Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums
Which one of you wrote this?
Attachment 482557
hahaha i saw this too and had a big chuckle. solid gold. well done whoever it was.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jonathan S.
Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums
Soon to be deleted for sure.Quote:
Originally Posted by ktoor
What are folks' thoughts on multiple mounts on race skis? I've got a line on a good deal for a complete setup, but it's already been mounted twice (282 and 309 bsl), and I would be drilling a 3rd set of holes in it (294 bsl). I wouldn't be particularly worried about this with a heavier, more durable ski, but with a race setup...
Go for it. The underfoot part of those skis is the only part that can take some abuse, and your BSL splits the old ones well.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeb McHardman
If there’s any adjustability with either the toe or heel (don’t know what bindings you’re using) you might be able to move either the heel or toe back to the old holes and make it work too
Good to hear. That was my thought, but glad to have it confirmed. The bindings don't have any adjustability, but they do evenly split the old holes, so it should work out wellQuote:
Originally Posted by Climber Joe
I have race skis on their third mount, and they've been doing fine. The main worry I'd have is hole spacing - if the mount pattern is the same, the holes for 294 will be 6mm c-c from the 282 ones. If it was me I'd consider reusing the 282 mount for the toe (i.e. moving the mount back 6mm), and using an adjustable plate for the heel (if available).
Some race skis are designed for the toe to be mounted on a "pin line" regardless of BSL, which can make remounts easier. On an unrelated note, I have some race skis I need to get rid of and would give a mag a great price...Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeb McHardman
Which skis are they and how much are you asking for?Quote:
Originally Posted by Benneke10
Atomic Backland UL 65 https://classifieds.ksl.com/listing/74331602Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeb McHardman
I'd do $600 with bindings + ship for mags. I also have a friend selling used Dynastar Pierre Menta skis with ATKs with heel plates that would fit your BSL, I could facilitate for those if interested, $500 with bindings. Subtract $275 on either ski if you want them flat.
Hm, I am interested, especially in the Dynastar setup. Let me get in touch with my friend who found the other deal and make sure he didn't already purchase itQuote:
Originally Posted by Benneke10
I have two different pairs of race skis that I have mounted with three sets of heel holes.
And the holes are overlapping!
But that's with a Hagan race ski with an internal mounting plate, which has amazing retention powers.
As for structural integrity, I fill the old holes with JB Weld (i.e., not just plastic plugs).
Each successive mount though was slightly longer. I worry about plugged holes that are immediately behind the tail edge of the binding plate, as that tail edge is always acting as a fulcrum on the ski, and if the ski is weaker there b/c of a prior mount...
I hear those Dynastar Pierra Menta race skis are supposed to be especially good in firm conditions -- like a skimo race ski designed specifically for New England!Quote:
Originally Posted by Benneke10
To the collective, I'm looking at fat skinny-ish (90ish width) skis for spring touring duties with the occasional steep/techy descents. I'm 172cm/150lbs. Will a ski that's 168cm, ~1200g and moderately rockered be the right size? I'm mainly concerned about the length, but let me know of other factors I'm not thinking of. Thanks in advance!
If your priority is nuking down big open corn runs then that would probably be a good size ski. If you will be focusing more on steep and technical skiing you might enjoy something slightly shorter.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pins and Skins
1200g will definitely serve you better in difficult spring conditions than a 1-kg ski, IMO 1200g is where skis start calming down at that width when descending. 80-mm, 1200g skis do great, 90-mm probably 1200-1400g is optimal for that width. I'm about the same height, 170lb nekkid and 170 is my short ski for such duties. I'd say you're in the right ballpark.
You are on the right track so long as it isn't actually fully-rockered.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pins and Skins
Nope, not fully-rockered. Thanks mags!