Kind of a moot point-Quote:
Originally Posted by HHTELE
The 104Ls are on their way.
I am officially down with Down.
Printable View
Kind of a moot point-Quote:
Originally Posted by HHTELE
The 104Ls are on their way.
I am officially down with Down.
^ thank you for buying them lol. that was tempting
You made a great choice. I had to talk myself down from the ledge on those.Quote:
Originally Posted by HHTELE
I feel like it was a public service. I am that altruistic.Quote:
Originally Posted by homebrewd
My only concern about this ride is that while it seems perfect for a planned trip to the Dolomites- Combo of lifts and hut to hut, it is also going to be my workhorse touring ski. That means a lot of low speed, low angle maneuvering through tight Maine trees.
We'll see.
I can tell you my buddy doebedoe got the same ski for his Swiss Alp haute trip (this year's). They are a one ski quiver from having them in hand (I was storing them for him for a couple weeks). Nice stiff flex, damp in all the right places, I think they ended up ~1540/ski give or take a few gs. Not crazy light but with probable variable snow conditions they will still do what you need them to do. Perfect daily AT ski.Quote:
Originally Posted by HHTELE
All these stories of mystery mounting point and topsheet graphic shift on the Downs are making me reconsider my mount on the Countdown 114L. I have mine on the line but didn't measure the distance from the tail when I mounted them and when I stood them up next to my Lotus 120s (190 vs 189 for the Down) the mount was forward by about a full toepiece, 4 or 5 cm forward. I know the line of the DPS is way back but that much difference is shocking to me for skis with a somewhat similar shape. I love the way the CD114 skis but feel that it has a bit too much tail and it's taking a bit more effort to maintain fore-aft balance at speed in variable snow, something which was never an issue with the Lotus. And kick turns are harder than they need to be with at that tail (that's what she said). I'll measure them tonight and report back.Quote:
Originally Posted by mall walker
Edit: Mall walker, nice work, those pics makes me regret not getting the LD90s for this season. I have a pair of LD102s from last year and was trying to convince myself I didn't need the skinnier ones. I was wrong.
I mounted mine without adjustment plates (a decision I may come to regret) but if you happen to be a 296 BSL you're welcome to try them outQuote:
Originally Posted by mall walker
Getting ready to do my first mounts and want to buy the proper bits since i'm sure in the future i'll be doing more.
I got the paper jigs and all that for my px18s and fks 18s im going to mount and saw the post about measuring from the tail with a straight pull (still not clear if you measure as if there was no skin clip and just estimate where the true tail would be?).
for the bit sizes since the showdown 105s have metal i'm planning on using the 4.1x9.0mm bit
for the countdown 114s (no metal, right?) im going to use the 3.6x9.0mm bit.
i couldn't find any mount info on downs site but assuming that i just drill to the shoulder with each respective bit?
Most jong thing i've ever posted.
My motto - post 10x, measure twice, drill once ;-)Quote:
Originally Posted by pyromaniacman129
It's obviously a minor difference (even for OCD me), but measure as if the tail notch wasn't there. See Simen's reply in post #186.
If you tap your holes (consider it mandatory for metal top sheets), you can use a 3.6mm bit for both metal and non-metal top sheets.
Note that I haven't tapped a lot of metal skis. Someone who has tapped a lot of metal top sheets might advise that using an undersized (3.6) bit isn't healthy for the tap (i.e. use a 4.1 bit), so take this part as anecdotal.
Correct about no metal in the CD114s.
... Thom
The depth is a function of the binding screws, and not the ski, so drill to the shoulder. 3.6x9.0 oughta work. Make sure you buy good bits, like from Tognar.com or Slidewright.com for example. There's a cheaper bit available on eBay, that doesn't have the shoulders filed down and it will dig right into your ski surface.Quote:
Originally Posted by pyromaniacman129
Someone also mentioned they got a spinner (stripped threads) in one of the "L" models. If you have any concern about that you can probably avoid this by pre-tapping the hole (sink the screws, then remove, then install binding and re-sink into the existing threads).
Do a test mount or two on a 2x4 to make sure your boot center line looks right. A lot of the templates are not 100% accurate. I was looking at the G3 template last night and it was 0.5mm off on all 4 heel screws. Seems like a small amount, but it affects how the screw shoulders clamp the binding, and can cause the binding to not be true, depending on what order you tighten the screws down.
I did a straight pull last night and found that the stamped center lines on my CD104Ls were consistently 3mm forward, which I consider fine. I pulled from the center of the tail, and am wondering the same thing about whether that was the right spot, since it's about 1cm shorter than the edges.
Thanks, I'm a 303 I think otherwise I'd take you up on it! Not that I need the skis but hey, I kinda want them.Quote:
Originally Posted by mall walker
Measured with crap kitchen scales so take that into consideration, was the only thing i had to hand as i'm not at homeQuote:
Originally Posted by margotron
CD114L (189cm) Ski 1: ~1830g / Ski 2: ~1840g. Well within range
I measured from the side of the skin clip indent:Quote:
Originally Posted by pyromaniacman129
Attachment 258508
For the CD114Ls I got 861mm on the line for both skis, which seems virtually spot on to what SiSt put up. I'm mounting on the line as is printed on the topsheet
Please don't say that. I have LD102s, really like them, and also told myself I don't need 90s.Quote:
Originally Posted by Boissal
LD90 (177cm): 1300g
CD104L (181CM): 1610G
CD114 (182cm): 2060g
CD114L (189cm): 1835g
Keep'em coming.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mall walker
Quote:
Originally Posted by galibier_numero_un
Quote:
Originally Posted by McDee
Quote:
Originally Posted by JanIdar
I'll get you a CD104L in 181 tonight.
CD104L (181cm):1610g (ski1: 1600g & ski2: 1620g)Quote:
Originally Posted by margotron
Ready to roll!
https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/201...3549fa3d53.jpg
Probably just the angle, but your fore/aft locations look different.Quote:
Originally Posted by lucknau
Are those zeds?Quote:
Originally Posted by lucknau
RIP
Is the angleQuote:
Originally Posted by HHTELE
No worries, he's got the stomp pads installed! ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by margotron
I seriously hope he has a better experience. The binding looks really good on paper.
LOL, yeah. But I installed the stomp plate so they're probably totally safe.Quote:
Originally Posted by margotron
Oooooh just seen the new limited edtion CD114. They look nice!
https://www.downskis.com/shop/countdown-114f-2018
Attachment 258882
They look better in person. We just need some more snow in the background to try them out...Attachment 258889Quote:
Originally Posted by McDee
Sent from my SM-G950F using TGR Forums mobile app
Man those are rad! Too bad they didn't do the 196 like that!
Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk
Trial run for the Zeds and christening the CD104LsQuote:
Originally Posted by lucknau
https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/201...2eaa675e8c.jpg
As someone who has that ski and that boot sitting at home. TELL ME FUCKING MORE!Quote:
Originally Posted by lucknau
Well I've got one run in now. Will expound in the evening if still in one piece!Quote:
Originally Posted by doebedoe
I am not sure those would be the conditions I'd use to try out a new pair of carbon skis and tech binders, but new ski stoke is occasionally not compatible with delayed gratification I guess ;) Or perhaps the conditions are better than what they look like. I am also very interested in feedback on those skis - I was very, very close to buying a pair before I went with some Mantras instead :)
CD114ltd looks nice. Would prob be even nicer if matte, but that is just like my opinion man. :)
edit: holy crap CD114s are priced aggressively!
Lifts need to start spinning here...
Attachment 259070
Attachment 259071
Attachment 259072
wow - those are some pretty deep rocker lines! Must be a blast in softer snow :)
Those are gorgeous
Sent from my PH-1 using Tapatalk
In person the throw downs are even better: like a slightly jibbier devastator.
We find out tomorrow.Quote:
Originally Posted by doebedoe
Got a first day in, on my CD104L setup.
https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/201...9d7ad21fb1.jpg
Given recent drama with the G3 Zeds, I decided to spend a day at the resort in case of early catastrophic binding failure. Conditions at Mt Hood Meadows were less than ideal: Temperatures at or below freezing, no new snow in two weeks, with wind packed powder, sun crust on windpacked powder, well skied hardpack, coral reef, or tracked out refrozen crud. The CD104L did a fine job in all of this, which is great, because if I were ever to be touring on a wind scoured slope, these are the skis I intended on using.
Setup: 181 cm CD104L skis, G3 Zed bindings, Salomon MTN Lab boots
The CD104Ls have a nice interplay between rocker profile and turning radius. Turn initiation in dry powder and unfrozen chop was very intuitive, both on the flats and the steeps. Unless I stayed super focussed, and sometimes regardless, they deflected quite readily in the refrozen chop and chunked up windpack, which I expected, but being only ~1500g/ski, they were easy to get back in line. Other than on coral reef, I never really felt like I was getting thrown around on them. They're stiff enough that they do well skiing hard on higher angle slopes despite being light as a feather. I found myself really focusing on keeping legs more rigid and springy, if that makes sense, to damp out the ride and compensate for the lack of weight underfoot. At speed they seemed to carve okay, were not super chattery for me, and by the end of the day I felt confident that they wouldn’t slam me to the ground, except for the time I stopped paying attention and they did. User error.
This is by far the lightest setup I’ve ever skied on. They’ll never see the resort again, but maybe I now understand why I see so many boomers riding touring rigs at the resort. Normally I’ve got over 10 lbs hanging off of each ankle, damn near pulling my aging knees out of their sockets, so these just felt great riding the lifts.
I think they’re a great build, in terms of profile, sidecut, and stiffness, and the downsides, if you can call them that, are what you’d expect from any lightweight carbon ski. I’d love to ski the regular CD104s, and the CD114s, too, for that matter.
I mounted G3 Zeds on these skis, and learned after the first day on them that G3 is now saying their stomp pads won't avoid catastrophic failure for some boots. If this is true then my boots (Salomon MTN Lab) are are on the “won’t avoid” list.
https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/201...05871f3910.jpg
There's approximately 3 mm of open space between the sole and the stomp pad, rendering the pad effectively useless. G3 says that they'll provide taller stomp pads free to all purchasers of this binding, starting on 12/19/2018. I really don’t see how this will solve any problems, as the point of the stomp pad is not structural integrity, but rather just a place to put your heel when in walk mode. My first turn of the day, I immediately pre-released from the Zed. I normally set my DIN at around 7 early on in the year, because I'm old, out of shape, and have big feet. When setting these up initially they felt really loose to me so I set them at 8. After losing a ski on my first turn I timidly skied down to a flat place and bumped them up to 10, which seemed okay. I haven’t run a 10 DIN for over 20 years, though. I realized during the day that when I turn I put most of my weight on my heels, and maybe that's wrong, or at least it doesn't jibe with pin bindings, or at least with these pin bindings. I adjusted my technique to put more weight on my toes, or on my whole foot through the turns, and didn't have any more pre-releases. I did this also because I was pretty freaked out about blowing up the turrets. When I bumped up the DIN, the heels also moved forward slightly, and I had to move them back a half turn on their tracks in order to get my boot to fit. I thought that was kind of odd. For the half-day I was out there I put 21000 vertical feet on the bindings, and they’re still intact. That’s probably the equivalent of half to three quarters of a year of downhill for me, touring-wise, so I’m glad I did it, just to get used to them.
I have pretty damn imperfect form and get in the back seat more than I'd like, and I've skied at least half a dozen tech bindings (Rad 1.0, Speed Rad, SSL1.0, Gara Titan, Plum 150, Kreuzspitze, Ion 1.0, possibly others I am forgetting) without ever worrying about that or having any prerelease / binding destruction issues. It's a bummer that you ended up with these clamps, I certainly won't be buying them anytime soon after hearing about the failures + prereleases.Quote:
Originally Posted by lucknau
eta: skied my LD90s in pretty deep settled-ish pow (10") the other morning and they were great, much better than expected at those dimensions. Also skied some variable, some mank, some crust, etc and as expected they were outstanding. Hopefully gonna get them some steeper looks this week.
First time out on my new showdown 95s - skied like butter thru everything. Definitely gonna be my low viz ski, so nimble and carves strong.
https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/201...22222d4128.jpg
And before I retire my cd3s, thought I'd take a pic if them all together.
https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/201...6d9fd8eed2.jpg
Sent from my SM-A600FN using Tapatalk
Attachment 259620
took the LD90s down this puppy this morning. wooooo!!!!!!!! my new couloir skis for SURE. very stoked on these.