The current super pre-order price is probably good for another couple weeks or month.
all depends on how fast the fence sitters get on board!
Printable View
The current super pre-order price is probably good for another couple weeks or month.
all depends on how fast the fence sitters get on board!
The rocker on those Monsters looks like the old Movement Goliath tip shape.
What are the odds of an R99 without *gasp* metal? All wood, a bit less destroyer and a bit more does everything?
Questions about sizing the C138 and whether to mount alpine, tech, or CAST.
6', 195lbs. Ski in California/Tahoe, so maritime snowpack. All touring or resort; sadly, I'm not a heli-skier.
I tour winter months on 187 Protests with pin bindings (Alpinist). For resort, have 188 Rustler 11s for resort pow, and a pair of 196 Protests I just bought off gear swap. (Plus narrower skis for other applications of course.)
It seems everyone says the 202 is surprisingly easy to ski, and saw lots of folks similarly-sized to me liking the 202. Which size do I want? Seems like the 202 might be unicorn that I need to ride before she disappears forever.
I was also very surprised to read folks talking about them as daily drivers, even the day after the storm :eek: Can't decide whether to point a pin binding or CAST on there. Leaning towards CAST, but I sure do love touring on my Protest/Alpinist combo. Any insight on touring versus resort applications?
That R99 also looks very tasty.
I think 138s as a daily driver would be an ambitious choice, at least the earlier version shape these are. Unless you ski at a cat or heli-op daily.
202s ski like a 185 in most spots unless you need to throw them sideways in a gulley or very tight trees. Then the length can become apparent. But they pivot/slide/turn easy but offer float and running surface like a 202 when it gets deep.
I'm about your size/weight and ski in the same area. If I were buying a new set, I'd get the 202cm L138 - partly because it isn't terribly hard to locate a used set of 192s, but the 202s are much more rare. Either size will be fine to float you in any pow.Quote:
Originally Posted by meter-man
My touring pow ski is an old L120, 190cm. I've never toured on the 138.
The 138 is not a daily driver, and IMHO not even a day after the dump ski for Tahoe - that width is hard on my knees once it's chopped up. Utah fluff skis fine a day or two later on a 138, Sierra cement not so much.
I personally plan to mount alpine bindings on 202s and light tech bindings (like alpinists) on 192s.Quote:
Originally Posted by meter-man
But more the point is I plan to own both, as I regret greatly selling the pairs I have owned, in retrospect.
Ok Marshal, trick question for you. I'm a total noob to the whole R/R universe but am now deeply curious. I'm 5'11" and a tender 220lb. Primarily looking for a deep, and or shitty snow, touring meadow skipper and a 50/50 ski for Japan. Typically a very strong, directional skier but adapt when necessary to staying off the cuff of the boot. (read - really good at burying the tips and going over the handle bars.) 202 is too long for me to kick turn which is the reason I gave up on my beloved Lhasa 196's. Is a 192 going to have enough surface area to float my heavy ass and let me carry speed in low angle slopes like Japan?
Was out of town on a ski trip when this launched and can hardly express my excitement for this project! I'll be getting at least 2 pairs but for anyone on the fence about the 138s, I just spent a few days in a heli skiing waist/chest deep pow and there is no tool like a 138 for that kind of snow. I'm looking forward to having 192s for below treeline terrain and 202s for days when the alpine is in play. 138s made this photo possible: Attachment 400914
Love that shot.Quote:
Originally Posted by soul_skier
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lord Thomas
Ok, good question. With your Lhasas, did you have more trouble with the tail length or the tip length in kick turns. My challenge with long skis skinning is the tails tripping over the other foot. 190 is as long as I would go normally, but never had a problem with 192 138s, based on how the tail is turned up and quite skinny.
I'd be curious for other people's feedback though, since I have pretty long (34-35") inseams.
Marshal, you’re quite a bit taller than Tom and me. I chopped 5 cm off the tails of my 192 wailer 99s.
I've got a 32'' inseam and have toured a lot on the 192 L138. Like you, I rarely find tip length to be an issue for kick turns (in general, not specific to the Lotus) but run into issues with tails hanging up on the other foot sooner. The L138s are super manageable for the reasons you stated, plus the pretty rearward mount though.Quote:
Originally Posted by Marshal Olson
Are those the white ones that you had in that Japan video from way back?Quote:
Originally Posted by soul_skier
Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums
These are the purple spoons in a 192 from a few years back, picked them up used here in gearswap for a song and have found them to be a great tree ski and a more versatile option in variable snow with the smaller sidecut radius. I still have the white rocker 0 flex 3s for Alaska days where the shark tip and lower rocker are more suited to the terrain in question, but at this point those are about ready to be retired and replaced with a 202 version that Marshal is making.Quote:
Originally Posted by hoarhey
Yes, problems hanging up on the tails of the lead foot on a kick turn. 32" inseam. I took BMT 122's in a 186 on a trip to Japan and they worked really well for the climbing and skiing and I'm running a BMT 109 as my touring DD. Totally good on doing kick turns with them. Problem is I wouldn't mind having a longer, stiffer ski for the down. I miss both the 196 and 191 Lhasas for going down hill and a 202 138 sounds even better. I'm sure I could make the 192 work for climbing but have no idea if it would have sufficient surface area to float me going down. Wouldn't have minded a little more float on the 122's in Japan or our local, low country mank.
I'm more of a 33-34 inseam and ski the 200s and yes, I experience the kick turn tail hang up and stumble sometimes.Quote:
Originally Posted by Marshal Olson
But I just love the platform the bigger ski gives, especially the bounce and float capabilities. I don't get the same lift off the 190s, although they're easier to manage in tight couloirs. Honestly, though, I'm doing more lift served skiing these days, so the kick turn issue doesn't come up.
Last question is about your skintracks themselves. Based on the small amount of touring I have done around Alpental... the tracks temselves are not that different that the Wasatch (Steep, lots of switchbacks, can get packed and slippery pretty quick). The touring I have done from the lifts at Baker/Shuksan was different, and I'd take 202s gladly. Not sure what it is like where you are.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lord Thomas
At least for here, I'd tour on 192 gladly and without issue, but wouldn't on 202s. However, based on the touring I did when I lived in Colorado, I'd totally tour the 202s as I broke trail a lot more, and had the luxury of doing more sweeping turns. Which begs the point... you can always skip blown out crappy switchbacks and set your own track around them anyhow, it just can be a bit more work and slower, but easier to navigate on big skis.
Talking myself in circles here, hopefully it helps in some way!
I'm 5'10" with a 30" inseam, but fairly flexible. I did quite a bit of touring on some old 190 Lotus 120's. I now use some 187 UL Protests and just bought a pair of used 186 BMT 109's. They all have a similar amount of tail (83-84 cm behind boot center, iirc). For me this is fine for kick turns, but does require a bit of concentration. 85+ cm behind boot center starts to get a little annoying (190 Praxis BC, 188 Rustler 11's). If I'm making kick turns all day, or just focused on covering a lot of ground, I want 80cm or less from boot center to tail. Then kick turns are automatic.
Anyway, you might be able to figure out what works based on looking at the measurements of skis you've used in the past. Mashall's point about the type of skin track you encounter is a good one. If I skied in the Wasatch I'd probably prioritize a shorter tail. On the other hand I wouldn't prioritize float as much. On steeper slopes 110mm underfoot is plenty wide for me most of the time. But when persistent weak layers in CO keep me on low angle slopes, fatter is faster, looser and more fun. Skiing the Protests is like have little jets on my backpack.
I am subscribing to this thread. Actually more interested in the race room skis. This is fucking rad Marshal.
subscribing to thread. I could really see getting rid of a grip of skis and skiing the 19x c120 here.
[emoji383] where my [emoji105] is
202 - C138 in bound
STOKE.
Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums
same, it has a lot of my boxes checkedQuote:
Originally Posted by Phall
I forget if it was answered, what are bases going to be? If that has yet to be selected my vote is for black (it’s easy to ptex).
Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums
Niiiiice!
I am glad to confirm all black bases
[emoji119][emoji144]♂️Quote:
Originally Posted by Marshal Olson
Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums
In for some C120's.
Very cool project.
Marshal, the C120 page states that the tip height is "65cm." May need an edit.
Yep 120's for sure. Rad. Good work!
Yes bases should be all black…Quote:
Originally Posted by Marshal Olson
Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums
How short an light can you be and still make a 192 C138 work?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eluder
I'm 5'7" and weigh around 155 pounds without gear, and found the 192 Lotus 138's of yore worked well for me. They were plenty maneuverable because they pivot so well, plane at low speeds, and between the construction and sidecut, are easy to throw around (i.e. the skis are light to begin with, and have very low swing weight).
I found the width underfoot more cumbersome than the length. Skating, side-stepping, etc. are a pain in the ass with 138mm underfoot. Maybe it isn't as noticeable for tall folks with longer legs, but for me and my 29" inseam, they were absolute magic while turning, but a bit of a handful getting around on.
thats not right!Quote:
Originally Posted by glademaster
thanks for catching it. Will update.
thanks to you all!!!
Might not be the right thread, but maybe a quick answer is available?
Was there ever any move towards a narrower version of the Lotus 138?
Like -10 mm all around (Lotus 128)
Down made a few(? ) protos of the CD5, which I believe was 117 at the waist. @SiSt or @geo039 would have to confirm.
Sent fra min LYA-L29 via Tapatalk
I just saw that in another thread
Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums
CD5 was available for at least 1 season. It was 117 @ the waist. It was shaped closer to a Praxis PowderBoard. Can't remember if there was uf sidecut like PB's though or came to a wide point then tapered to ends like a Spat.Quote:
Originally Posted by arild
They were targeted for variable snow crushing
I’m so stoked, scoured the interwebs for real world feedback.
Some things I was reading, seemed one of the initial versions had hooky tips. Per my reading this later was addressed by adding the spoon tip? If this is the case since these are not spooned what say they collective about the rocker lines and how it will perform on snow?
I like the longer flat section as it should give it a bit more stability and allow one to find a better balance point when skiing vs hunting for the sweet spot.
Again, could be way off on this but without real work experience on them I’m attempting to digest what is written about them mainly on here.
Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums
I **think** the hooky tip feedback was on the "rocker 0" skis. They were very pointy, which made them insanely fast to turn, but also felt in some ways like more sidecut in the front. I'd be curious Soul Skier's feedback on this version, as he has probably the most time on this version of anyone. I know El C I has extensive time on that verison as well as later "round tip" versions. Assuming the skis are properly prepared, I have never felt or heard of the round tip versions being hooky, just FWIW.Quote:
Originally Posted by SkiLyft
If anyone recalls the original spoon designs (fully convex base with cleats), the intent was to make skis with limitless drift (aka taking mcconkey turns to 11). In practice the convex skis were neither producible or skiable in any conventional way. When I made the initial design for what became the spoon, and when Stephan and I landed on the final details on a train from Munich to Zurich, the design was really only for the 148mm Spoon ski. The feature was added after the fact to the last gen 120 and later 138s in a much smaller way and really for marketing purposes. They were subtle certainly, though the skis all performed well IMO.
When the 120 became the 124, the spoon shape was abandoned pretty quickly. It was just too much of a PITA to make vs. a specific performance attribute. I have no idea if more recent 138 still have the spoon (I think so), but haven't paid much attention in the last few years.
Hope some of that background helps, and hoping others share their feedback too!
Quote:
Originally Posted by hoarhey
I made a sketch of what it would look like, and that evolved into the RPC, which ultimately got moved into the Lotus family (where it should have started to begin with!). It has more sidecut and effective edge than a 138 by far, but the long tip taper and super stiff tip really make it a dream in zipper crust and the like.
The tour1 version of the 124 (not the pure3/alchemist ones) is also more like a 138 than a 120. That is an awesome ski.
Wow. Serious inside baseball that Marshal was at the right hand of the master.
But I can’t agree that RPC is a narrow 138.
It’s a stiffer flatter RP for sure.
An RPC with more tip and tail rocker. While still keeping the longer radius and the flat (non rocker) under foot would be a great ski. But also please make it more damp.
The Freeride edition 120 200cm is going to be a game changer.
I’m so stoked about that ski.
Riding carbon 120 for years. Inbounds. And out the gates. Super fun and versatile.
But making it more damp and slightly more heavy is the bomb.
I can’t wait for heritage labs in a year or two. It’s one thing to reproduce old skis. But Marshal has the knowledge to make new skis.
FYI he’s not just reproducing old skis. He’s tweaking them as well.
So psyched about this project.
I had the rocker 0 (pointy tip) version of the 192cm 138s at one time, which IIRC I bought here from xtrmjoe. That version had a tip shape very similar to the Spatula, and low rise tip compared to the rocker 1 and 2 versions. Mine were flex 3 and had black sidewalls. They had a rather forward mount point, and I definitely managed to stuff the tips in a few times. Mounting farther back would probably have resolved it, but by the time I considered remounting, I had picked up some rocker 1 192s (white with red stripe, bamboo sidewall), and I preferred those in every condition other than wind crust. So I sold the rocker 0.
I don't remember the rocker 0 feeling hooky in any way. Mostly I remember them needing some speed before starting to turn, or I risked diving the tips.
That's a fact, which I why I threw down for a pair now. Gotta get this thing off the ground.Quote:
Originally Posted by Core Shot