Get Down with Down (skis)

I'm getting ready to box (for re-shipping) a few of the skis that shipped to Colorado, and I want to emphasize to go with Simen's numbers.

I checked a few pairs. On one pair, the silk-screened line is 1.5cm forward of recommended center. On a couple of other pairs the silk-screened center line straddles the recommended line by about 1cm - one ahead of and one behind the line. I didn't measure every pair - even I'm not that OCD.

Simen's idea moving forward is brilliant. It should be industry standard. It may take us a while to get there, but we get there [emoji3]

Thanks again for wrestling this issue into submission, Simen!

... Thom

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by N1CK.

I was temped by the 187cm 105s ... sanity prevailed.

---

I should have my 202s in hand this week!
I'm 6'7"ish and 250lbs. Finding a charging ski I don't feel like is a park ski under me is challenging. That being said I'm slightly terrified of these already. Also ordered the 196 cd114!

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

I'm glad this topic was raised. The line on my 95s is forward of the -10 target mark ... closer to -8.

West coast shipment is here! Holy hell these 202s are monsters!!https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/201...bf35b30ebe.jpg

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pyromaniacman129

West coast shipment is here! Holy hell these 202s are monsters!!https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/201...bf35b30ebe.jpg

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

---

Jesus those 202s make the CD104s look like 168s.

The td 105 looks like a center mounted Kartel. Generous, rounded rocker lines, thick-ish core. Will post photos once I mount - stoked to try them.

Slightly off topic question. These are replacing the only ski I have left without substantial rocker. Anyone here ever worry about keeping a traditional old school ski in the quiver if only to keep your form and technique honest? Or is that a stupid thing to worry about? Maybe a more appropriate question for dgamms old man park skiing thread

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SupreChicken

The td 105 looks like a center mounted Kartel. Generous, rounded rocker lines, thick-ish core. Will post photos once I mount - stoked to try them.

Slightly off topic question. These are replacing the only ski I have left without substantial rocker. Anyone here ever worry about keeping a traditional old school ski in the quiver if only to keep your form and technique honest? Or is that a stupid thing to worry about? Maybe a more appropriate question for dgamms old man park skiing thread

---

Nothing wrong with that. I got the other pair of TD105s but will ski some traditional shapes early season to get the legs ready for deep snow. I like crud cutting stiff planks when the snow isn't fresh, especially in Colorado.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SupreChicken

Slightly off topic question. These are replacing the only ski I have left without substantial rocker. Anyone here ever worry about keeping a traditional old school ski in the quiver if only to keep your form and technique honest? Or is that a stupid thing to worry about? Maybe a more appropriate question for dgamms old man park skiing thread

---

I have a pair of second year Coombas that come out a couple of half days each year. They remind me I'm not as good as I think I am ;-)

They also remind me that not all 181s are short.

... Thom

I enjoy it. Ski a Rossi sickle still.


Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SupreChicken

The td 105 looks like a center mounted Kartel. Generous, rounded rocker lines, thick-ish core. Will post photos once I mount - stoked to try them.

Slightly off topic question. These are replacing the only ski I have left without substantial rocker. Anyone here ever worry about keeping a traditional old school ski in the quiver if only to keep your form and technique honest? Or is that a stupid thing to worry about? Maybe a more appropriate question for dgamms old man park skiing thread

---

I've always had a cambered, early rise tip ski. Def a place and lots of fun on those not-so-fresh days.

SD105 2017/2018 vs SD105 2018/2019 :
https://skipass.fr/p/imagebank/1/7/4/174903.jpg

2018/2019 have more camber and weight a little more : ~4900g vs ~4800g
https://skipass.fr/p/imagebank/1/7/4/174904.jpg

holy... Those skis look like they wanna haul!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bubulefou

SD105 2017/2018 vs SD105 2018/2019 :
https://skipass.fr/p/imagebank/1/7/4/174903.jpg

2018/2019 have more camber and weight a little more : ~4900g vs ~4800g
https://skipass.fr/p/imagebank/1/7/4/174904.jpg

---

Sick.
Double check the line measurement against the info SiSt posted in this thread. Mine was forward a bit.
When I saw the amount of camber on the 95s I was concerned at first. Having been out on them I can say it feels/works great.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by N1CK.

Sick.
Double check the line measurement against the info SiSt posted in this thread. Mine was forward a bit.
When I saw the amount of camber on the 95s I was concerned at first. Having been out on them I can say it feels/works great.

---

Can't wait to get on my 202s. Feel like they're going to want to go fast and straight for some reason....

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

http://galibierdesign.com/images/other_forums/Down_CD-114-01.jpg[/IMG]

^those look fast!

My pair from last year got new bindings. Slightly stoked
Attachment 255819
I also checked mounting line, was off by maybe 3mm

http://galibierdesign.com/images/other_forums/Down_CD-114-01.jpg[/IMG][/QUOTE]Glad you stuck with the pivots. They look bomber.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by homebrewd

Glad you stuck with the pivots. They look bomber.

---

More bomber than I am ;-)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JanIdar

^those look fast!

My pair from last year got new bindings. Slightly stoked
Attachment 255819
I also checked mounting line, was off by maybe 3mm

---

What sice brake did you get? I'm looking to get a pair of shifts for my cd114 aswell, the look great with last year's graphic!

Skickat från min ONEPLUS A6003 via Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OWA

What sice brake did you get? I'm looking to get a pair of shifts for my cd114 aswell, the look great with last year's graphic!

Skickat från min ONEPLUS A6003 via Tapatalk

---

110 brakes, very good fit without bending

Didn’t snap photos, and probably doesn’t matter, but just an addition to the notes.

The line/dimple on the TD 105s is 3mm behind the recommended mount point on both skis. Imma just use the line because center mounts aren’t super natural for me yet.

Geo, how big is the sweet spot on the TD 105?

How far back could I go before it started to get weird?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SupreChicken

...
The line/dimple on the TD 105s is 3mm behind the recommended mount point on both skis. Imma just use the line because center mounts aren’t super natural for me yet.
...

---

About the same on the pair Homebrewd and I measured today.

His are getting Attack demo binders tomorrow night.

the line on my LD90s was about 1cm forward of the measurement I got from Down... but eyeballing it, with the tail splay, against my other mounts, I went with the line (i.e. +1) as it’s only +0.25 ahead of the mount on my Movements which are a radically more traditional ski. I also felt my CD102L mounted on the line were a bit too far back for my
taste.

btw, the skis are absolutely beautiful. <1300g/ski on my scale, hand flex excellent, the tail splay is perfect. The tip splay might be a touch larger than I expected (remembering auvgeek saying the tips were hard to engage) but I suspect I'll make use of it, as I will likely ski these in a lot of different conditions including plenty of 3d snow.

it's been rough this week doing dawn patrols on other skis while these sit in the garage, but we need a bit more snow and a lot more stability to justify the terrain these things want to be skied in

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SiSt

So, list of straight pull from tail to recommended mounting point:

CD114 (all layup versions are the same):
182: 830mm
189: 862mm
196: 894mm

---

Sorry to bring this back up again, i think i'm becoming just as ocd as galibier :D
The base of the cd 114L (and cd 114 i think?) has an indent for skins, are you measuring from there or from the edge before the indent starts?
From the outer edge > line on the topsheet i'm getting 861mm = well with in norms for me
From the indent > line is 855mm, which would mean moving mount point forward by ~7mm.
Which one is the recommended mount?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by McDee

Sorry to bring this back up again, i think i'm becoming just as ocd as galibier :D
The base of the cd 114L (and cd 114 i think?) has an indent for skins, are you measuring from there or from the edge before the indent starts?
From the outer edge > line on the topsheet i'm getting 861mm = well with in norms for me
From the indent > line is 855mm, which would mean moving mount point forward by ~7mm.
Which one is the recommended mount?

---

Forgot the indent, as it's not on my original drawings, just on the one for the tail inserts...

Go with the edge measurement!

Sent from my SM-G950F using TGR Forums mobile app

the line on my SD95s was forward of rec too. As were the last pair.

Just measure from the tail with the info in this thread.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by N1CK.

the line on my SD95s was forward of rec too. As were the last pair.

Just measure from the tail with the info in this thread.

---

I think he's asking if the tail measurement includes the fact that there's an indent in the tail for skin clips. Because that makes a difference versus if the measurements were from where the tail edge would be with no skin insert.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

i backchecked my 196 cd114's
one ski was forward (think it was the right ski based on top sheet pattern continuity) by about 5mm...3/16" in freedom units
i never questioned the line last year, tho left turns were amazingly easy :rolleyes2

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SiSt

Forgot the indent, as it's not on my original drawings, just on the one for the tail inserts...

Go with the edge measurement!

Sent from my SM-G950F using TGR Forums mobile app

---

Cheers SiSt, all i needed to hear.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pyromaniacman129

I think he's asking if the tail measurement includes the fact that there's an indent in the tail for skin clips. Because that makes a difference versus if the measurements were from where the tail edge would be with no skin insert.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

---

Yeah, i should have phrased it like that, much clearer.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SiSt

Forgot the indent, as it's not on my original drawings, just on the one for the tail inserts...

Go with the edge measurement!

Sent from my SM-G950F using TGR Forums mobile app

---

I didn't think it worth mentioning (gasp!), but I measured from the end of the ski and not the skin cutout/notch/indent when locating the mount point on my 114s.

Even I didn't lose sleep, worrying to ask. Maybe I'm slipping ;-)

... Thom

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by galibier_numero_un

I didn't think it worth mentioning (gasp!), but I measured from the end of the ski and not the skin cutout/notch/indent when locating the mount point on my 114s.

Even I didn't lose sleep, worrying to ask. Maybe I'm slipping ;-)

... Thom

---

Thats ok, i had you covered this time round :D

Just checked mounting point on my 104L's, 1,4cm off. Yes, they are mounted couple days before those mounting point infos.
Attachment 258032

Looking for beta on the CD-104L.
The pair in gear swap caught my eye. But, I don't know much about the ski other than the basic numbers, and that folks in these parts like the brand.
Replacing Carbon Converts in a 180. I like the ski a lot, on most natural unskied snow, Except that on trips, I occasionally end up with this ski at the resort, and unless the snow is soft, not so great. They definitely improved when I went from Speed Radicals to Vipecs, which will be going on my next ski.
Other skis on my list that I know at least a little about:
Helios
Superchargers
Backland 107s

My basic touring quiver will be whatever replaces my Converts, plus a fishscale Vector, both with Vipecs. So, versatility is key. This ski will do hut to hut, day tours, and lots of short, low angle dense tree skiing in my neighborhood- Maine.


Can some of you cd104 L fans fill me in a bit on this ski?

Quick first takes on my CD 114s (182 cm). It's still low tide on this side of the Divide, so today was only about groomers and some bumps. I couldn’t wait any longer to get on them. I'm going to get back on touring skis for a few weeks – or at least until I can get on more interesting terrain inbounds and in deeper/variable snow, so a follow-up may take a few weeks.

First off, the CD 114’s DNA is readily identifiable as being a twin of the 104s I picked up last Spring. They are thoroughly intuitive and initiate the same way as the CD 104s. It's clear that Simen, Geo and the team did a lot of testing to translate one width to the other. You know all too well how you can't expect to just widen or narrow a design by 10mm and expect it to work well.

The out of wrapper tune was great. The base was dead-flat, and I verified the bevel by lightly running my 1 degree base beveler over them. I took a guess and heavily detuned to the contact points (file, not gummy) – about 25cm from the tip and about 20cm from the tail. This seemed about perfect. I doubt I’ll have to play with this – still great edge hold. As I get onto steep and tight terrain, they might like some subtle fine-tuning based on how I can release the tips/tails, but they seem really close.

I like the length of both of my Praxis skis - my 182 GPOs and 182 Quixotes. I'll give up a bit of top end speed to have an easier time navigating in tight spaces (Colorado trees, narrow chutes, etc.).

Earlier in this thread, @dschane recommended 182cm for me ("un-TGR like", he called it - based on my GPOs & Qs) and he was spot on. Today, on low tide groomers, I would have enjoyed the 189s, but in general, you have to put a gun to my head to make me ski this stuff. 182 is the right call for me, and I suspect the 189 is right for most on this forum.

Turn radius-wise, the CD 114s fall between my two Praxis skis - perhaps slightly more toward the Q's (longer) than the GPOs (shorter). They initiate more like the Q’s (edging vs. GPO-pivot), but the difference is subtle. While the CD 114s and Qs initiate more with edging, you need to be slightly more forward on the CD114s (see below). The Qs like the fall line the most, with the CD 114s approaching them and the GPOs at the other end of the spectrum.

The tip/rocker design is a tour de force. No tip flapping while straight running ... gentle rise. Of course, the proof will come when I get them in their intended habitat, but my initial takeaway is that they are equally intuitive as my CD 104s and remembering how the CD 104s handled crappy snow, my expectations are high.

I instantly knew where to stand on them. If you watch some of Mika's skiing (like the end of his run at the Verbier finals from last year), you'll see how he stands on his skis when cutting long radius turns. This is how they feel to me, and it's exactly how I like to stand on a ski (wouldn’t we all like to ski like Mika?).

I'd guess is that you could probably drive them with a bit less shin pressure than that. If you stand on your skis more like Tabke, these might not work as well for you, but perhaps I'm wrong. I’m not the person to tell you about this. Since I like the front of my boots, it's no issue to me.

This is going to be a fun Winter - trading off (inbounds) between the Q's and the CD 114s. If things go as I expect, I'm guessing that the CD 114s are more my kind of ski. I may be splitting hairs about this as they share many common attributes, but frankly, I can't see what asym. does for a ski other than force me to pay more attention. They’ve caught me sleeping on more than one occasion.

I'm still re-building left knee strength, but I ventured into some easy bumps that were getting pretty scratchy. If you stay on top of your skis, you can wiggle through pretty easily. This is another case where they fall between my GPOs and Qs (GPOs being quickest and Qs being slowest). Both the Qs and the CD 114s penalize you more than the GPOs when your weight gets back a bit, but both skis really reward you when you stay on top of them (drive the shins). I find something really gratifying about a ski that demands that you stay forward through this stuff. [edit - this is the only situation where the Qs like you to be a bit forward on them.]

I tend to carve over the uphill side of a bump and through the troughs, rather than smashing into or flying over them (I’d like to keep skiing until I’m 100, so I ain’t abusing my bushings unnecessarily). A tail that doesn't hang up is a good thing, and the CD 114s were fine in this regard. As another datapoint about tail hangup, I had a pair of Praxis Freerides and their tails made me absolutely miserable when I took them into bumps (Keith agrees).

Given that (under normal circumstances) when things get scratchy, I'm out on touring in search of soft snow, so skis like my GPOs, Qs, and CD 114s are my inbound daily driver width. My GPOs are mounted with Vipecs, so either or both of the CD 114s or Qs will take over inbounds duty. It’s a win/win scenario :D

... Thom

^ thoughtful stuff, thanks for posting.

my LD90s will be making their maiden voyage storm-skiing trees in the pitch dark by headlamp in about 10 hours...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mall walker

^ thoughtful stuff, thanks for posting.

my LD90s will be making their maiden voyage storm-skiing trees in the pitch dark by headlamp in about 10 hours...

---

Post pics.

I have 3 pairs of downs and wish I had more. I love this little company

Can we get some weights from the 2018/19 crowd?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by margotron

Can we get some weights from the 2018/19 crowd?

---

CD 114 (182 cm): 4122 g. / 9.04 Lbs.

... Thom

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by margotron

Post pics.

---

Attachment 258293

Attachment 258301

Attachment 258302

Attachment 258303

Attachment 258304

these things are gorgeous

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by margotron

Can we get some weights from the 2018/19 crowd?

---

a bit under 1300g/ski when I weighed them; 1460g/ski including Plum 150s + screws. so far just this morning on them, in blower, and they were fucking great. I'll write a more thorough review once I've had time on them in steep terrain + bad snow (where I suspect they will excel)

fwiw my mount might even have been +2 (or maybe right on the line??)... I am still unclear on whether to include any of the tail skin attachment piece when measuring the mount; in other words, do I measure the mount point from the edge of the ski graphic, or from the back edge of the tail insert? I think measuring from the notched piece of the tail insert was a no-go. Anyway I used the printed line, and so far so good.

edit: the recommended on these is listed as 765mm from the tail. my mount is 771mm from the edge of the graphic (+6mm) and 781mm from the back edge of the tail insert (+16mm). compared to my other 177cm skis (Movement Response-X), the mount point is almost identical, maybe +5mm from the Movements... but those are a super traditional ski, with camber to the very edge of the tail and minimal tip rocker. given that I felt my old CD102Ls were mounted perhaps 1cm back from where I'd like (and they were on the printed line) I opted to go with the printed line on these. but I'm curious where that landed me.

I didn't feel like there was a lot of extra tail on these this morning, but time will tell...

oh and an additional edit: the tune and just overall finish on these is superb. I'm guessing I'll have to detune the tips/tails at some point once the snow gets bad, but man these are nice. very happy to have finally gotten them out in some snow... they should see plenty more days this season :D