Bringing Back The Best: Lotii And Other Assorted Love Songs

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ASmileyFace

Hey Marshal,

I may have missed it, but why did you drop the camber on the BC90? I saw the post on gear swap (not that I am in the market considering I just had another surgery) but was curious if you ever went over the reasoning

---

Ahoy! So yes, we tested some stuff with it in the spring. The pair in GS was one of those development skis. It was sold through my site's outlet.

I landed on the full reverse setups as it has close to the same skin contact patch on perfectly smooth surface (measurements made on a sheet of melamine), skins just fine in normal touring conditions, but the full reverse skis zipper crust and other funky snow with more aplomb.

The development ski that is for sale in GS right now had essentially the C132 rocker profile on it, so it floats really damn nicely in pow and does quite good in funky snow. Really cool ski.

Hey Marshal, will the carbon construction of the FL113 be back for next season? My G3 Sendrs will definitely need to be put to pasture after this season and the 113s look like the perfect replacement

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by McShortyShorts

Hey Marshal, will the carbon construction of the FL113 be back for next season? My G3 Sendrs will definitely need to be put to pasture after this season and the 113s look like the perfect replacement

---

Yessir! I expect to have the C113 shipping Summer/Early fall of 2024

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Marshal Olson

Ahoy! So yes, we tested some stuff with it in the spring. The pair in GS was one of those development skis. It was sold through my site's outlet.

I landed on the full reverse setups as it has close to the same skin contact patch on perfectly smooth surface (measurements made on a sheet of melamine), skins just fine in normal touring conditions, but the full reverse skis zipper crust and other funky snow with more aplomb.

The development ski that is for sale in GS right now had essentially the C132 rocker profile on it, so it floats really damn nicely in pow and does quite good in funky snow. Really cool ski.

---

Ah I gotcha, basically the minimal camber wasn't worth the loss of funky snow capability. I wish I was fully healthy this season because I'd have a pair of BC90s already in my hands, but alas walking uphill is unlikely this season at least.

Thanks Marshal

Holy crap these things are fun

What ski is that?


Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

Oh, haha. Just got out for a first quick rip of the season with the bc90. It’s so damn fun. Will post a few more thoughts tomorrow after I get a few more laps on em.

Noice!!


Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

As someone who tends to find a lot of joy in the old heavy metal classics AND ski nerdery, just checking in to say I’m stoked on this…

and I can’t wait to get my BC110s!!




Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

Username checks out


Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

I have been getting a large number of inquiries on the reverse camber BC90 this fall, specifically how it skinned, so wanted to share a few quick impressions now that I have a little time (4500 vert) on very very hard snow w/ conditions being mostly refrozen and pockets of lightly wind-buffed man-made snow. But before I get into it, standard disclaimer of significant bias applies!

TL;DR - for me, skinning the reverse 90's was basically totally drama free w/ 100% mohair skins and DAMMIT they are fun to ski on buffed snow

UPHILL

• GLIDE ON FLATS: General glide is quite good, similar to a very cambered ski, since unweighted contact patch is fairly small.
• SKIN GRIP ON STEEP HARD SNOW: Skinning straight up steep blue ski runs, again with refrozen man made snow (ie the tip of the pole sunk in past the carbide tip, but only 1" up the tip & not up to the basket), was drama free w/ good technique. If I intentionally over-stepped and over-weighted the front of the ski, I could make it slip, but then again, just not looking to skin that way. Generally I would say they are at least as capable as the BMT94 here.
• SKIN GRIP ON HARDEST "SNOW": On pockets of water-ice and refrozen/glazed man made ice (ski pole's carbide tip didn't penetrate) required concentration on lower angles and general avoidance on high angles. In the real world, I would mainly encounter conditions like this high up on a tall mountain that is absolutely blasted by wind + freeze/thaw. Realistically, I might switch to crampons or booting on a slope a few degrees less steep than with a full cambered ski, but that isn't really something I am looking to squeeze a small amount of optimization from on this particular ski.
• SIDEHILLING UP VERY HARD SNOW: when intentionally taking funky sidehill routes across glazed man-made snow piles, I really appreciated my decision to make the ski a couple mm narrower than the BMT94 and for more flat spot underfoot w/ less kink that the BMT94. The uphill edge bites better and the downhill edge rolls noticeably less, which my ankles appreciated and less slipping occured.
• HEAD DOWN AND HAMMERING - I would say that in general, reverse camber skis are not as capable in as many snow conditions of just putting your head down and pushing hard, the way one can with a fully cambered ski, unless the skintrack is somewhat soft and relatively consistent. But a nice upright stance accommodates fairly quick paces without trouble.

DOWNHILL
Holy crap are these things are fun. I have never been able to power drift turns with light touring skis on 40deg pitches and 950g boots before. The skis hook up and carve really nicely at shallower edge angles, make any turn/radius I wanted, and are likely the smoothest lightweight skis on very hard/glazed snow I've been one. Roughed up windbuff was extremely fun to ski. I feel they have a broader arsenal of turns in their bag than the BMT94. I can't wait to take them into funky crust and weirdness, actually legitimately looking forward to that. Because of this ski, I am certiain ski more BC on marginal days (ie days where I'd normally just go bomb a few hardpack laps).

WHO IS IT FOR
skiers who skew toward the lighter and higher ROM boot/binding setups (ie <1400g boots, <350g bindings) that are looking for a very versatile all-arounder.

WHO IT ISN'T FOR
Skiers on lower ROM boots and/or using high heel elevators may see more slipping when skinning very hard snow. Skiers looking for objective skis will find the ski too loose on very steep (“lose an edge and die”) mountaineering lines and would benefit from a stiff/fully cambered ski.

Overall very stoked, and hope these impressions help someone who is interested. I also think the c105 and c110 will see an even broader use-case since they are more soft snow oriented, their skin performance will be even broader too.

Marshall; I'm sure the answer to this is in here somewhere, but to sum up:

What's the camber radius on the 90 and 105, compared to BMT94 and 109?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sf

Marshall; I'm sure the answer to this is in here somewhere, but to sum up:

What's the camber radius on the 90 and 105, compared to BMT94 and 109?

---

Yo S,

Originally,the FL113 profile, which is the basis for the 90 and 105 touring profiles, was at about 85m radius in the 187 length(subsequently 184 and 185). Then Marshal wanted to reduce that radius a touch for the touring skis, while adding approximately 10mm of tail height, so if I were to make a pretty educated guess, about 60-70mR right now, at least for the mid eighties lengths. Keep in mind, there is a flat section on these skis as well, so the radius of the profile is more of an approximation.

I think for a direct comparison with the BMTs someone would have to measure tip height at the widest point, same with the tail height at the widest, measure the distance along the base, and post the numbers. In turn I, Marshal or anyone else with a working CAD app can quite quickly work out the radius length of the reverse camber profile.

Not a definite answer, I know, but hopefully somewhat helpful.

Cheers,
Arild

Sent fra min LE2123 via Tapatalk

Good topic! I’m out of town for the weekend, but can share a few more specifics on Monday. Key point is that the Volkl stuff are more of a hyperbolic curve rather than a radius, but we can make meaningful comparisons on contact patch and such for sure. Once I get to my notes, I’ll post the details I have :)

What boots are you using with the bc 90 and how big are you?


Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

MagU - I’m 6’2’’, ~220lbs and ski modified 1000g carbon skimo boots

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sf

Marshall; I'm sure the answer to this is in here somewhere, but to sum up:

What's the camber radius on the 90 and 105, compared to BMT94 and 109?

---

So, firstly, neither the BMT nor HL BC lines are strictly " circular radius". The BMT skis appear to have a rocker shape based on a hyperbola, meaning more kink underfoot and flatter tips/tails at the extremity. The HL has a rocker shape derived from a parabola, so flatter under foot and more rise at the ends. The 186 BMT122 was similar IIRC, and the measurements Friflyt posed on the 2015 BMT109 look similar too. The VWK is similarly hyperbolic, but has less splay (flatter) through the ends of the ski.

To better illustrate this, here are my measurements are on an old (first year) pair of BMT94 187 as it compares to the HL 177 BC90.

Ski contact - pair of skis clamped at midsole, but unweighted
- BMT94 @ 20cm
- HL BC90 @ 33cm

Skin contact - per ski, skin on, clamped at pin/heel lines, on melamine board (ie approximating perfectly hard/smooth surface)
- BMT94 @ 60cm
- HL BC90 @ 62cm

On the HL ski, the weighted contact area approximates the turn radius of the ski. For me, that gives better edge control both skiing and sidehilling up. The parabola also gives more rocker towards the ends of the ski to give the ski better support in soft or unconsolidated snow. For me, this translate to a more surfy feel, and while untested thus far, I expect it to perform favorably in breakable crust as the ski will naturally ride higher up in the snowpack.

Hope this helps!

Thanks! Very descriptive. So in other words, the C105 should keep/improve upon the bmt109s float/looseness, while adding to edgehold underfoot?

Yes, pretty much, though my take is that that the c105 may be closer to “a little more surfy in soft snow and equivalent skinning performance in most conditions and incrementally better skinning performance in challenging conditions”.

can’t wait for more folks to get on theirs!

Yessssss


Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Marshal Olson

MagU - I’m 6’2’’, ~220lbs and ski modified 1000g carbon skimo boots

---

Very curious about the boot set up

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Charlie Don't Surf

Very curious about the boot set up

---

haha, sure thing. I think most folks that read Blister in it's early days have read some of my touring boot nerdery. It's pretty fun. I am actually quite glad with where I am landing with it all.

Inbounds, I ski 98mm lasted Nordica Dobermanns with Zipfit liners. I love them. But the big realization I have made in the past number of years is that I just don't ski at freeway speeds in the BC. I also usually only have 1.5-2hrs on any given day to get out, so the difference between only getting 1500 vert and 2500 vert is not only a significant amount more skiing, but also being able to access significantly better skiing too.

So after all sorts of boots the past 8 or so years, from Alien 1.1, Fischer Travers Carbon, Hoji Free and Tours, F1LT, LaSpo Vanguards, and so on, I have learned a few things...

1. Downhill, soft boots are terrible, and I'd rather have a VERY stiff but not smooth boot than something soft
2. To get the skiing performance I want, I essentially need a race boot fit with lots of compression on the ankle, and make sure the boot has sufficient forward lean adjustment to get everything in the right place
3. Uphill, ROM, both in its range, but really in its smoothness/lack of resistance is the #1 determining factor in how much skiing in get in the BC. I don't actually care about weight per-se, but do everyhting I can to make the boot as friction-free as possible on the up.
4. I am very good at breaking light boots, so very important to make sure the lower and walk mode are sufficiently strong, and that I have backups on hand just in case.

So my daily driver last year (about 40 touring days) was a La Sportiva Raceborg. I have added a full length liner (instead of the stock bikini liner), opened up the gaiter to accommodate the extra volume, added a spoiler to take up cuff volume, and added a velcro strap to better micro-adjust the amount of compression that the buckle produces. I am skiing this in a 27.5 (297mm BSL), and it fits awesome (very snug, no punches). All in with footbeds, spoilers, etc it comes in around 950g. It skis very well for what it is, but there are a couple quibbles I have with the boot.

1. The cuff is a little low for my tastes in the front.
2. There is a touch more resistance in the stride than I would prefer
3. The buckle takes kind of alot of force to close and is a little delicate

This season, I plan to use this boot on days that might include bootpacking on racks, a bunch of sketchy creek crossings, and other mildly abusive activities.

At Benneke's strong suggestion / peer pressure, I pulled the trigger on the PG MTN mid/end of last season, and got 5-8 days on them so far (size 28.0 305mm BSL 875g all in). holy F this thing is rad.

1. Double buckles on the cuff that can be micro-adjusted easily for compression
2. holster inside the shell allows for great foot inside the shell
3. truly awesome heel hold
4. friction free stride with more articulation than my ankle could ever achieve
5. nicely stiff with a smooth flex pattern
6. more comfortable that raceborf on long days or after a large number of days in a row
7. essmetially alpine boot cuff heights

The stock MTN liner ended up fitting my Raceborgs better, and the liner I had in there was ultra beat, so I subbed a lace-up Palau tour liner that was laying around into the MTN shell for a touch more compression around the ankle, added a spoiler again to take up volume, and put some helicopter tape on the medial side of the lowers to prevent excessive edge wear on the carbon. i do anticipate this boot to be a bit more fragile with the carbon lower, and plan to use the Raceborgs as mentioned. These things ski pow like absolute weapons.

Hope this was fun to read! Happy to chat more on it if anyone is interested. And yes, two boots in this category is beyond silly. but wtf. The drive the biggest skis I’ll ever ski them with no trouble. Plus its really fun and I am stoked at how well both of them are performing for me and anticipating running them for a number of seasons (until they die).

[emoji2962]

That's a lot to chew on, much obliged

Sent from my M2101K6G using Tapatalk

Sorry for the over-answer! Just thought the extra context might be helpful :)

The PG boots are on such a different level. Completely unobtainable for a lot of us price wise, but I get why people love them.