And in good news, the fall run of skis is headed my way next week, so I should have all the preorders shipped to everyone by the end of august!!! Can't wait for everyone to check them out
Printable View
And in good news, the fall run of skis is headed my way next week, so I should have all the preorders shipped to everyone by the end of august!!! Can't wait for everyone to check them out
Hype!Quote:
Originally Posted by Marshal Olson
I just finished skiing for the season last weekend. This year was an exercise in A/B'ing HL vs old tried and true favorites. looking forward to doing it again next season!Quote:
Originally Posted by Marshal Olson
You seem to have done a bunch of this already, but the article may have something new:Quote:
Originally Posted by Marshal Olson
https://www.merchantfraudjournal.com...m-file-denied/
Wow they even make Anthony look good [emoji57]
Duplicate Post from 105 thread.
- The Carbon skis receive a subtle full reverse profile across the line. It is essentially the same for all skis in this construction.
- The FL113 reverse is unchanged. The FL105 has 3mm per ski camber new, that will ski into about 1.5mm per ski with a few days. The FR110 is full reverse.
- Production weights for the 187 C113 is 1750g, the 185 C105 is 1650g, the 184 C90 is 1525, and the 177 C90 is 1420g.
- Production weights for the 194 FL113 is 2500g, the 192 FL105 is 2425, and the 185 FR110 is 2350.
As always, holler with Q's! Lots of QC and shipping to do in the coming weeks :D
My target is to have all preorders shipped by the end of August
Thanks Marshal! Beautiful skis! Adding the C105 or 90 to my wish list for next year
Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums
Wait, will the FR110 ship in August, or are they the run after?
Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums
Good Q! The 186cm FR110 ordered to-date (and the 4 pair of unclaimed skis) will ship in August. The newly added 192 and 180 are currently slated to ship around X-mas/New Years.
Damn those look fantastic! I am psyched I could jump back on the FR110s since my doc thinks I might actually get to ski this season.
Also the C90s look incredible. I 100% see that ski in my future as my long day/spring ripper.
Awesome! Hope you're feeling better, too, not just doctor good. [emoji846]Quote:
Originally Posted by ASmileyFace
support the raddest project going: http://heritagelabskis.com
This koolaid looks tasty.
Most of my days are on with 186 OG LP or 184 LP 105.
I used to crush the 192 LP 105 (and 194 XXL prior to that) but I guess I’m getting old and had to downsize. I still giver pretty hard (I think?) and aspire to lay super-G trenches wherever I go.
Which Heritage Labs am I?
185 FL105s seems like what I need but can they super-G like the LP105? Are they a modernized LP105?
188 R99 looks like a pretty good fit too. How do the Comp and AM flexes compare to the OG LP 186?
I rode my 187 xxl's for the last weekend of my season, and damn are those srill good! I rode the fl 113 most of the season and would call those a modernized xxl. I have some 185 fl 105's headed my way soon, so I would guess those are modernized 186 legend pros by extrapolation (only demoed the LP once before starting a 15 year relationship with the xxl instead). The 188 r99 comp sounds like an unmodernized (and probably a more actual match) to the old 186 LP from what I see others postQuote:
Originally Posted by gwat
Honestly, I think you'd enjoy the FL105 the most, in either length.Quote:
Originally Posted by gwat
1) the 192's sidecut radius is right in between that of the Xxl and the LP105 (actually much the same as the 189 b-squad).
2) the 185's sidecut lies super close to that of the 192 LP105 AND the OG 186.
What differs is the flex pattern. The 186 had a fairly stout uniform flex, and the 192 had a pretty strong tail combined with a solid mid body and a softer shovel.
The 105 flex pattern and layup is based on that of the FL113, only uniformly softened a bit, which means that the front and mid section is stout, and the tail is a bit more forgiving, based on Marshal's old favorites, the Head Monsters.
Now, there's no metal in either the 105s or 113s, but the sweet, sweet layup makes that point moot, at least to me.
Honestly, all of these skis are meant to go really fast, designed to excel in varied conditions, and I think you'd be happy with either length. The tails of the 192 will make it more forgiving if you mess up a landing than either the 192 LP or the 194 XXL, as will the 185 compared to the OG 186 or the LP105 184. Make your choice depending on how relatively young you feel.
Chewski is right. On paper, the 188 R99 looks really similar to the OG 186, and some reviews say they feel very similar, but as I've neither been involved in the design process, nor skied them, I can't really comment. Depends just what you want!Quote:
Originally Posted by chewski
support the raddest project going: http://heritagelabskis.com
Spot on, thanks Arild! Agree with all points.
Regarding the R99 Comp / AM, I'd say the comp is the direct comparison to skis like the OG LP. Less taper Tip/Tail, so a long EE, very high torsional and lateral stiffness, and built to ski pedal-to-the-metal. Incredibly smooth, but not for passive skiers. The R99 Comp may be a hair stiffer than an OG LP, especially if, you know, your pair is close to 20 years old and super skied in! haha.
The AM is going to take the stiffness, both lateral and torsional, and back that off a bit. Still ultra smooth and stable, but more versatile and a broader range of speeds on tap. A little less top-end than the comp build, but very few / essentially no modern skis have that top-end anyway. More foregiving to passive skiing, where the ski will give you a gentle reminder to get in the driver's seat, rather than punch you in the face.
I think the HL 99 comp “turns” better than the OG LP, yet pivots ~ same due to the wicked awesomeness on the race room construction. Some may recall, while Blossom didn’t to the best of my knowledge have a hand in Dynastar; they did do race room work for Nordica & …… Rossi. So it’s not a surprise that the feel would be similar.
Random HL thought, this week someone was dumping a small warehouse of skis ~ 20 years of age in town & all those shapes circa 2005 made me smile & be grateful for Marshal’s efforts bringing this project to life.
Appreciate the stoke, and love some old school EWF, but man those f'n dildo poles!!Quote:
Originally Posted by byates1
Yeah they are like wtf for me but whatever.
Got my bc90s yesterday. They’re very nice. A little different than the description, full reverse camber, maybe a little flat under foot. Very similar to the Raven but less flat length under foot. Curious to see how they’ll do on firmer wild snow.
Pics or it didn’t happen
Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums
Got my BC90s the other day also, planning to A/B them with my BMT94s this winter.
Sent from my Pixel 3 XL using Tapatalk
What’s the camber like on your pair?Quote:
Originally Posted by fleaches
Was waiting for a thread to get started but since there is some BC info popping up I’ll put in here for now. BC110
Attachment 467770Attachment 467773Attachment 467774Attachment 467775Attachment 467776Attachment 467777Attachment 467778Attachment 467779Attachment 467780
C105s showed up today. The finish on these things is gorgeous as has been said many times now. Skis weighed 1660g and 1710g. Rocker lines are deep and low, reminiscent of BMT 109 and 100eight volkls – but a touch more splay at both ends. About 18” of flat as expected, but the flat spot is more centered in the ski than dead underfoot given the mount setback. Will be interested to see whether the tail splay drops a few mm more with the weight of a boot and binding heel piece pushing back into the rocker. These skis are begging to rage in wild snow, going to be a long antsy wait until the snow starts falling. EDIT ok on further review Ravens are definitely a closer match to the rocker lines, the volkl RC skis stay lower for longer.
I’m biased but I hafta say, I think this is my favorite topsheet out of the bunch. Looks sublime in the matte finish, the pics upthread still in plastic don’t do it justice.