Attachment 246577Quote:
Originally Posted by Betelgeuse
We will accept you with open arms, son.
Printable View
Attachment 246577Quote:
Originally Posted by Betelgeuse
We will accept you with open arms, son.
The Backcountry Jong title was perfect! Why did you guys get rid of that title!?
I am a backcountry JONG.
Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums
i represent a very small sample size, but one located near tahoe. i tour in tahoe and the western slope (usually more on the western slope because it's a shorter drive). my favorite touring skis are my 2007/2008 (?) r1 192cm lotus 138. i weigh 150. i have a flexible full time day job, kids, and property, so life is full, i don't buy skis often, and my tours are often short (mornings or dawn patrol). i try to get after it when the snow is 3d (only needs to be a handful of inches), which means i grab my l138.
when avi conditions are not to my liking, i ski lower angle stuff. at one of my spots, the low angle is dense second-growth forest. even in very deep snow, the l138's are great in that forest. i can't get other narrow skis to plane-up enough to get downhill momentum for that forest to be much fun for me in the deep dense maritime snow - i've had to push myself downhill in that forest on narrow skis in those conditions
when avi conditions are mo better, i'm in more open terrain having a grand time. i've accidentally skied them on windscoured hardpack several times, i survived w/o slide for life. i often skate with them on flat/uphill snowmo packed FS roads - it's a PITA, but not a deal-killer. i've also descended super deep isothermal south facing late spring snow, it was great (and a bit sketchy because it was probably too late in the day).
in the skin track, it's not been a problem for me. the width has not been an issue in existing tracks, because of splitboards or because it's a soft powder track. also, i'm breaking trail often. i've toured a few times where it's deep/light enough that my poles were useless (sinking down below the handles), but i'm only knee-thigh deep with the l138. friends with me tried to take lead breaking trail and were well past their waist (wallowing) on narrower skis.
i once loaned a friend my l138's, and he got about 30 touring days on them in a month and a half time during a great spring tahoe powder cycle. he loved them. during that same timeframe, he also skied some l120 and a few other models of fat skis with acceptable weight for him. he ended up searching far and wide and found a pair of r1 l138 for himself. he felt all others were a compromise for powder-oriented touring.
at the time, i bought the L138 because they were light for their size and on sale.
peeps on this forum have taken my l138 love, bought some for themselves, and seem to have been disappointed. different strokes....
I don't like the red ones: too much rocker; I love, love LUV, the edgelength on that older profile and wished and have asked for that ski to be made again. Alas, no Buster Highmen model ….yetQuote:
Originally Posted by Core Shot
Broke them last Monday:
Thanks, NM. Betel can ski very well in difficult conditions. Everyone can technically ski more better.
It’s often a beater fest in the well-traveled backcountry here in NE, at least in the spring when I’ve been out there. Lots of dudes rockin sick touring gear who blow at skiing IMO.
NE gots nuthin on the Mazamas, Mountaineers or lots of TAYsters.Quote:
Originally Posted by Self Jupiter
Do they sport their breeding gaiters in the spring or fall?
Different strokes same old strokes.https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/201...ae55ef83ee.jpg
BC JONG and Good Skier aren't mutually exclusive. Just figured it was a good opportunity to post the link.
And yeah, shiny gear often conceals gapertude.
The black ones lost their mate sadly.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mofro261
DPS are the reason you are da best?Quote:
Originally Posted by Mofro261
Attachment 246578Quote:
Originally Posted by Leavenworth Skier
Hear ya, appreciate it, I was just trying to make the point that some doods should ski more in the resort before gettin out there for the Instagram shots. At least betel doesn’t have that problem!Quote:
Originally Posted by Norseman
For example, if the chutes at Jay Peak would eat you up, do you really belong at Tuckerman’s?
No. I have more DPS skis than anyone I know. I think we have at least 12 pairs in our house.Quote:
Originally Posted by Betelgeuse
And mofro is a better skier than I am; d00d fucking rips.
I console myself with my superior age.
I have heard mofro rips. Cant wait get to BBI and get put into place (probably middle of the pack among TGR xpert skiers)Quote:
Originally Posted by Buster Highmen
Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums
I only have one pair of touring skis, kusala mounted w dynafits. Not really a RR ski but kind of. I like them, give up a bit on the skin track in tight kick turns but that may be my technique.
Thinking when the Lhasa/praxis fats roll in I may mount them up to tour...or remount my GPO. Just to get a more flat tail.
Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums
Padawan, assume not the linearity of adoration. The stars spin, some closer, some further, but none can compare to one another.Quote:
Originally Posted by Betelgeuse
Multiple outfits for maximum ‘Gram-ageQuote:
Originally Posted by Buster Highmen
I’m really going there for the stoke, and to have fun.Quote:
Originally Posted by Buster Highmen
Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums
I'm with bodywhomper - L138 is a killer touring ski to have in your quiver if you can justify it. It's not for massive vert days, not for skimo, not for steep skintracks on ice, but for so many other days it's so damn good
Jezus fuck this went sideways for a bit (to be expected on TGR, but still...) Moar R/R stoke, please and thank you.
Palate cleanser
https://vimeo.com/3888353
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
That's a lot to read...
Anyway, adimmen has been touring on 138s for over a decade. Still his go to touring ski.
My 138s are mounted with Tectons and I love to tour in them if I don't need the lightness or edge of something more traditional.
138s grip extremely well on the uphill and sidehill well. Rarely is track width a concern. Skin drag is a concern for some.
You can tour on big ski, no problems. It makes you strong! My good day touring ski and avarage day touring ski. Attachment 246613
Sent from my FIG-LX1 using TGR Forums mobile app
I guess others' experience with fatties in the skin track has been different from mine. Even with my 120s I've found that they don't fit into established skin tracks sometimes.
Ya there are some opposing views on touring on super fat and powder specific skis. Which is to be expected. I’ll have to find out which camp I fall into.
Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums
It's entirely possible the 138 won't be the widest ski on the track, if someone preceeded you with a ski with a tip wider than ~140 (which many modern pow touring skis are). The Helio 116 is actually 5mm wider than an R1 L138, which is kind of ironic.
^ It seems to many on here focus on the dimension under foot and forget about the giant shovel on most skis when discussing the issue of R/R skis on the skin track.
The drag directly at your feet combined with no flat section is the issue. A r/r ski does not track straight nor glide well in comparison to a more traditional shape.Quote:
Originally Posted by 2FUNKY
I can see problems with ready skintracks. Where I live, it's quite rare to get to use ready skintrack on powder days. Opening track on big r/r skis is actually nice and easy. And you don't want to use big skis when it's not powder day.
Sent from my FIG-LX1 using TGR Forums mobile app
Quote:
Originally Posted by 1000-oaks
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2FUNKY
Talking about skin track width and if a lotus 138 would have fitment issues in a skin track where a ski with a shovel well over the lotus set the track. I was just going by basic math but maybe real world use is different.Quote:
Originally Posted by Leavenworth Skier
Whos holding? I WTB
Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums
Andy's purple L138 spoons were damn sexy and didnt seem to hold him back on the skin tracks either. Too bad he got the croup and couldn't ski after day 3. I was tempted to pick up some L138s to play on after that, but internally I cant justify having 120 and 138 touring skis. Yet.
If anyone wants a L138 with a little more sidecut and flat underfoot and a bit of camber, check out the Hangfire Staunchwall. http://hangfireskis.com/skis/
I picked up a used pair but haven't skied them yet. They're not as stiff as L138, but look like a fun ski.
I’ve got some 202s. Good for learning how to kickturn
Bump. Where do people mount these? DPS site says they recommend +1.5cm (what's the point of a "recommended" line then?), different recommended mounts for Pure and Alchemist, very confusing. Most of my other skis are mounted -1 to -5 of ski center, so I'm comfortable with forward mounts, but if I get tip dive that would be embarrassing.
Oh yeah, I should mention that mine are R3.2, flex 2, Pure, 192cm.
DPS mount chart, etc:
https://www.dpsskis.com/company/faqs/tuning-mounting
I’m at +1.5 on my R3.2 hybrids. I like them there. They’re waaaaay further back, -11.15 from center, than my other whips (mostly around -5 to -8) but they’re money there, IMO.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
im at 1.5 or 2 on my 3.2 pures w mega shovel rocker and they rule there. I also have the new spooned ones too, but i cant figure out their sweet spot. I need to mess with the bevel this season and see if that loosens them up.
On all the 138s I've had, I like them at 0 -- with the exception of the R0 (pointy tip), where 0 was way too far forward, and -2 would probably have been pretty good.
My old bamboo sidewall ones (R1 ?) were submarines at +1 or +.5, something like that -- I was trying to re-use as many of the old holes as possible, and mounted some Griffon demo bindings on them. Slid them back to 0, or maybe -.5 (somewhere in the vicinity), and they are much better there.
I like more rearward mounted skis generally, so YMMV. I almost never mount a ski ahead of the 0 or recommended line.
Bump. Groomers were terrifying the other day.
Attachment 265330
Think the recommended mount for the R1 is -1 or so. I ended up at -1.5 due to existing holes, and like them there.Quote:
Originally Posted by El Chupacabra
I've owned spats and got rid of them when I got powder boards. I regret that because I think I likes the spats better... Just a little more loose and more fun in tight trees.
I still have the powder boards and keep them for cat skiing. They're still super fun in the right conditions, but I don't take them in resort for fear of the splits.
I had protests and didn't love them... But it could have been the mount point.
I haven't read the entire thread to see if it was mentioned but I also have a pair of bluehouse maestro (134-118-131). Like has been described of similar skis, they make a few inches of pow ski like way more... They are especially fun in heavier and wind effected pow.
Like most of the boutique brands there were subtle differences from year to year.. Some intentional and some not. The pair I have now has a tiny bit of camber and they're super fun, but a later model year (panda) had a pressing "error" where they came out completely flat camber and were base high by a small amount. While this was not intentional and normally considered a flaw, it made these skis ski almost exactly like the spats in powder but still fun on firm. They're just a little more loose than my current pair.
The pandas were in my car when it was stolen... Those skis.
Always wanted to try the 138 but haven't yet.
Spent today on 138s in 12”+ of windhammered heavy Vermont mank. Pretty much ideal R/R conditions and they killed it, as usual. A little more challenging once shit was tracked out and bumped, but still fun as hell.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk