Printable View
I dont know who you are, but you are eerily similar to me. i also have beat to shit old lotuses I am replacing and I also daily drive bibbys for both touring and inbounds.Quote:
Originally Posted by wapiti hunter
Very curious as to where you have your bibbys mounted and your feedback on the mounting point. My 190FR 132 are awaiting bindings and some real world feedback on mounting points but your input would be perfect.
Here are my suggested mount details:Quote:
Originally Posted by mc_roon
-11.5 (~84cm from tail) => full directional/alpine setup, comparable to the old stuff
-10 (~85.5 from tail) => Lightweight AT bindings and/or "neutral" skier
-8.5 (~87cm from tail) => "modern skier" mount.
Specific to touring use, I have my personal C132 mounted at -11.5, and I really like it skiing, and will put my Fr132 at that spot, but might move the toes forward so that the tails drop and the tip stays up better on kick turns.
For someone coming off a Bibby (-6ish mount, yes?), going 2-3cm forward, between -9.5 and -8.5 should work well IMO.
Ho shit they shipped [emoji869][emoji41][emoji869]
Anyone have experience (or wild speculation) about how these compare to Armada ARG II UL?
I’ve never been on a reverse/reverse ski but I’m very curious about the C132. I’m trying to replace 196cm ON3P Pillowfights (first gen). They are getting beat and starting to feel like a lot to get around. I mostly used them in inappropriate situations (1’ of quickly chopped up resort pow) with a little touring. I’ll go back to Japan but that’s the exception; inbounds to resort access backcountry Colorado is the rule. 6’4” 185lbs hooligan. I’m a strong skier but just out there trying to have a good time not win medals. Hauling ass popping up and over stuff instead of blasting through it.
Skis I like:
181cm Line Blade - awesome for hardpack shenanigans. Drag a hip, land switch, and pop over a small child all on the same run. All dads or immature people approaching middle age should own this ski.
190cm Line Sir Francis Bacon - for everything else. Have two pairs, one with Cast, both mounted on the rec line (-2.8cm I think). Nimble, light, tons of float, insane pop, first time I’ve landed switch in powder with any consistency.
190cm Kastle XX110 - what I loved before the SFB
190cm Faction CT 3.0 - mounted on Candide line. This thing absolutely trucks for a light ski. Surprised it wasn’t more popular here.
Note: having typed that out, it appears I really really like forward mounted poppy light skis that carve well
Powder ski failures:
189cm ON3P Cease and Desist (asymmetrical) - boring, lifeless, heavy. Very stable and competent. Not fun.
191cm K2 Reckoner 122 - they were fine I guess. I feel like your powder ski should inspire more than “it’s fine”
189cm ON3P Jeffrey 116 - found them pretty generic. Didn’t do anything well enough (including float) to keep in the rotation. I don’t think ON3P has their side cuts dialed at all. Would probably like them a lot more in tour layup. At this point I’m probably done with ON3P after one ski I liked and 3 I disliked.
186cm Line Outline - I don’t think they offered anything over the SFB. 4cm of length for 9mm width wasn’t a good trade. I think I’d like them in some combo of longer and/or wider.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TexasGortex
Hey man, so I have never skied the ARG or ARG II, and am obviously deeply biased, but if I am reading it right, it looks like the current version is 187cm and 2250g. The width looks great (133mm) as I have found >135mm to noticeably put extra torque on my body, and <130mm to miss on the full benefit of R/R.
I would say the R/R skis are insanely responsive, and 187 (or 190+) feels much quicker and easier to turn than normal shapes in similar sizes. IMO - unless you are looking for a tight tree pow ski, and based on all the 190cm skis you like along with the 196 Pillowfight, the 190 (actually 191.5 straight tape) 132 might make a little more sense and fit your ski preferences.
I'd also say the the 2200g ARG is pretty middle of the road weight wise. Will be more lively for sure than a 196 On3p, but IMO it's neither heavy enough to mach through tracked/chopped snow, nor light enough to be super responsive in untracked snow. But I do think it will be versatile and fun.
So in conclusion, if you think the 2600g HL FR132 is too heavy, or the 1950g HL C132 is too light, and/or you want something shorter than 190, then the ARG should be super fun!
As I was wrapping up work yesterday and my wife came into my office and said "I have your birthday present" and handed me these beauties! Marshall even hand delivered them to my house. Talk about service.
I am super pumped and kind of shocked. I need to figure out what I am going to mount them with. Kind of leaning towards some Casts since I would like to take these heli skiing and maybe cat skiing (Sorry honey, you bought me skis that need untracked, I am just trying to get the most out of them). For sure want to get them out on the surprise 9" we got last night, but that probably won't happen today.
Thanks Marshall! The build quality is amazing.
Attachment 444478
^^^^dude, that’s fucking amazing. My wife did that for me with protests years back and it might be the reason we’re still together.
All these pics are making me lose my fucking mind. UPS says mine will be here tomorrow. If they don't show up I'm gonna splode
190 Fr132 marked at 84cm from tail and ready to drill. Is it 3.5 or 4.1 drill bit?
Thank you and yes to confirm:
3.5 for FR/FL skis
4.1 for carbon skis
Pics tomorrow or gtfo! Just saying, feb 7 is almost two weeks from now. I'm dying!https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/202...19d455bd5d.gifQuote:
Originally Posted by Lord Thomas
support the raddest project going: http://heritagelabskis.com
Behold!!! They have arrivedQuote:
Originally Posted by arild
Attachment 444702
Included a pair of Volkl VWK's as a nice added bonus
Attachment 444703
Let the drilling and skin cutting commence. For the spandex nerds and out of shape old guys (me) out there the average weight for the C132's is
....1,949 grams. Doesn't get more dead nuts on the advertised weight than that.
I must have tuned 1g of wax and edge off them before shipping!
hell yeah. Can’t wait for everyone to make turns on em!
Mounted and wanted to share some stoke. Super nice fit and finish. For whatever reason either these have crazy dense cores or i just haven't mounted a 3.5mm drill hole in a while but i have NEVER had to crank so hard to get the bindings down flush. This is the 8th ski I've mounted for myself or a friend this year but when i finished with my highly calibrated "one hand snug and don't strip the threads" amount of pressure i swear the bindings were still 2mm off the deck. Thankfully I realized it and just went nuts cranking with two hands as hard as I could to get them down all the way. No way anybody gets a spinner or a pull out on these mofos. Ever
Attachment 444721
Those topsheets are super sexy.
When you were mounting, you may have been threaded into the plastic of the binding before you started, resulting in having to break through those threads as you tighten the screw into the ski.
When mounting new bindings I either make sure I'm backed right out of the plastic threads before I start into the skis, or drill out the plastic parts so the screw isn't bound to the plastic.
Sent from my SM-A536W using Tapatalk
It's possible but it happened on both toes and heels and in the last dozen or more mounts (mostly pivots and spx) I can't remember it happening any other time. I ended up having to two handed crank as hard as I could on all 16 screws. Now that they're on i feel it's as solid a mount as i've done, but man are my hands raw.Quote:
Originally Posted by Shorty_J
Ok fair enough.Quote:
Originally Posted by chewski
Maybe if the core material is that dense, on these skis people should be drilling with a 4.1 bit... and or tapping first?
Sent from my SM-A536W using Tapatalk
My thought as well but was just putting it out there to see if anyone else can corroborateQuote:
Originally Posted by Shorty_J
Those are absolutely spectacular looking. Can't wait to hear the reports
You can also hold the binding up off the ski while starting the screw into the tapped threads to avoid cross-threading.Quote:
Originally Posted by Shorty_J
Yesss
Of course as soon as these showed up the Sierra snow machine shut off for a while... Excited to try out the BMTs in the meantime! Thanks Marshal! Attachment 444758
Sent from my Pixel 3 XL using Tapatalk
Picture deliveries not working all that well to stifle my lust for new skis, but oh well.
Thanks!
support the raddest project going: http://heritagelabskis.com
How did you get summer delivery?Quote:
Originally Posted by chewski
Too much greenery
I keep telling myself don’t need another R/R . But then I see these pictures and I really need another R/R ski.
Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums
202’s in the house
Lighter and longer than expected…
If you’re on the fence, remember there is nothing even close on a cat or heli trip, but also the occasional inbound 12”+ storm days.
Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums
Well that’s pretty fukn spot on
Attachment 445071
Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums
I personally couldn't ever see having a need for a setup like this....but there is something really sexy about a R/R ski with a minimalistic tech binding on it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Norseman
Sent from my Pixel 6a using Tapatalk
[emoji7]Quote:
Originally Posted by Norseman
Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums
So hawt!Quote:
Originally Posted by Norseman
Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums
Pulled the trigger on 190 FR132. Plan is to go full marmite yolo with pit viper casts on them.
It randomly occurs to me, after the last couple of years have you considered changing your username to Norseperson to be more inclusive?Quote:
Originally Posted by Norseman
Finger mustache
Sometimes I think I’m funny early in the morning but I’m probably just annoying.
Dead sexy skis- makes it hard to resist one of the remaining pairs….
Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums
I thought I saw two weights posted so far in this thread for 190 C132’s
One was 1949g or 101 g under spec
Spec weight target is 2050 g for 190 C132
The other from Norseman which shows 2050g or bang on
100 g out of 2050 g isn’t bad, 5%
Do I have that right?
Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums
Sorry for the lack of clarity. I have not updated all of the specs on the website (only posted the production weights online in these threads). The production weights are:Quote:
Originally Posted by hoarhey
1950g @ 190cm
2050g @ 200cm
I will get the site all updated with final spec during the rest of the week.
Cool. Thanks for clarifying
Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums
Sorry should have specifiedQuote:
Originally Posted by hoarhey
the scale showing 2050 was for one of my 202s
they are sexy beasts for sure.
Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums
yeh I haven't posted weights... yet!
I'm at like 2220g *mounted* for the 190cm c132
these are light for the size and stiffness. So stoked. Hope I get to fkn use them soon... cmon snow
Ok, that was otto’s pair of 202’s then…Quote:
Originally Posted by Norseman
Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums
Thank god the 190’s are sold out…pondering may now conclude
Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums
C132’s incoming.
delivery scheduled for manana
Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums