Has anyone on the board mounted these up with freerides or naxos? With the benefit of lighter weight it seems like that combo could make a great powder day big gun/soft snow sidecountry/occasional soft snow touring setup.
Printable View
Has anyone on the board mounted these up with freerides or naxos? With the benefit of lighter weight it seems like that combo could make a great powder day big gun/soft snow sidecountry/occasional soft snow touring setup.
UAN has 120s mounted w. dynafits, and hev has FR +'s on his.
i personally can't wait to put dukes on mine.
wasn't that the post that you were supposed to post a photo of my newly mounted skis?Quote:
Originally Posted by marshalolson
i put the bindings on upside down on accident sorry. ;)
its cool that is why they have twin tipsQuote:
Originally Posted by marshalolson
no, like, to the bases. reverse camber anyone?
i like a good challengeQuote:
Originally Posted by marshalolson
ok got mine out finally today at TSV.
ski: 190 cm Lotus 120 flex 2
me: 220lbs, 6ft
conditions: ice, chalky powder (after a LONG hike, TR to come), hardpack, slush.
thoughts:
these things destroy it on anything. impressive that they carve like a normal ski on hardpack. my turns on the groomers felt great.. the light weight make them VERY easy to control and manouver. pintail is really nice and makes for easy turning. as others have said, u just dont believe u have a 120 waisted ski underfoot. fingers crossed, ill be in jackson in 2 weeks and there will be a dumparoo so i can open them up on some untracked goodness. these are by far, the best ski i have had the privelege to ride. versality, versatility and durability!
one more thought:
the bases are FKNA bomber. during my hike to kachina peak, i had to traverse grass and rocks, where snow had melted and I got away with one small yet real scratch only to the bases.
Which flex did you go with--2 or 3--and why did you choose it? I'm of similar size and am thinking about a pair of 120s for next year.
Been a long time since I skied Taos--like 30 years! Nice memories though.
Quote:
Originally Posted by gamma
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dromond
OK... so, I was waiting to get some more days on my 120s before posting a review, as I'd rather supply more meaningful commentary, and that's only possible with more time.Quote:
Originally Posted by marshalolson
Take this review for what you will -- given that it was only during a span of 2 days. By the time the skis arrived at my door (pretty much Feb), and by the time I got around to drilling holes in 'em, it was late into a low-snow year.
Snow conditions
Conditions during those 2 days were the best we've had all year -- the two biggest powder days back-to-back. I mounted the skis in a hurry, because our season hasn't given us a ton of opportunity to pull out these kinds of skis. I got these skis hoping they would become my go-to BC pow ski. I wanted to shake them out for a couple days at or near the resort/sidecountry before taking them for long trips.
If you knew where things were filling in, conditions were as much as above-the-knee pow (which, on a 120mm-waisted ski, is quite a bit). During those 2 days, I skied deep pow, moderate pow, a few inches of pow over groomers, cut-up stuff, some (sun-)crust and scraped-off stuff (S-facing steep aspects that had a little new snow that would slide off a firm surface).
I have this feeling that review skis in pow makes for a tough review as most skis ski well in pow (it's easy), and the fact that it's an "epic" day clouds your judgment -- it's easy to assume the ski has something to do with it, when in reality it got lucky to be picked for that day.
So...these were "epic" days indeed, for this year.
[/end of long diatribe]
Equipment, weight, other stuff
I've got Dynafit Comforts (no brakes) mounted to mine, and it is retarded how light these things are. Put 'em on your shoulder and it feels like *nothing* is there. I weighed them before, and while I don't recall the exact weight, I believe they are <10 pounds WITH the bindings. That is just plain silly for their size. For reference, I have a shorter & narrower pair of Seth Vicious w/ Dynafits that weighs 20% more than this setup. I'm skiing these with AT boots...but I ski those AT boots full-time, every day in the winter/spring.
So tell us how the hell they ski, already!
In soft snow, these are great skis. It's definitely easy to "carve", smear, or "slarve" your turns in any amount of soft snow -- and you can do this at speed. In my short review, I wasn't able to find a top speed for them in those conditions (I was limited more by the large amount of new snow than by the ski) -- so it seems they have more speed stability than a Spat. I found they want to go faster than slower (which is cool...so do I :)). In tight spaces, they don't pivot as well as a Spat in my experience. I would not expect them to -- Spats have full reverse camber & reverse sidecut, so pivoting and billy-goating in tight spots is where they shine. Spats also seem to accel in dealing with any breakable crust.
The 120s perform really well in the pow and, while not a Spat, can still do well at lower speeds in tight spots, though not quite *as* well.
The 120s are quite light, but they're torsionally very stiff. This is immediately noticeable on firm terrain. I felt like I could set -- and hold -- an edge. This is a good thing. The combination of an injured knee and the rigidity of the ski + Dynafit binding = a very sore knee.
While they were very capable of bombing down groomers, I would not take these out without at least a few inches of fresh. In contrast, I have spent about 20-25 days on EHP 193s this year (w/ NX21s), and I would not (have not) hesitate to bring them out on firmer days.
The Dynafits *could* be a contributing factor, but I found the 120s to be very sensitive to subtle edging movements -- that is, subtle movements either brought you on or off edge, altogether. They seemed to be "binary" in that regard, whereas some other fat skis had more feel of the edge initially hooking up (and you can ride that for a while & release easily) and progressing to a deeper carve. WIth the 120s, I was either on edge -- and on it all the way -- or I was off. This is less an issue with soft snow, but for skiing a long stretch of firm snow (and late in the day inbounds on a pow-day) it is prominent.
My opinion (others may have different thoughts):
* They want to go fast -- really fast -- in soft snow. A definite plus.
* They are not difficult to handle in terms of length (190), width and flex (2) -- light weight probably helps
* At slower speeds this shape is not going to do what a full reverse-camber (reverse/reverse) ski does.
* Their width and shape should be a pretty good indication that they are not designed for hardpack performance (so don't hold that against them). While they were OK on that stuff (and I was able to stand confidently on my edges on steep/exposed/firm lines), they would not be my first choice of fat ski.
* They are so incredibly light, that they will tour very well on the up-track or on your back...and for soft snow/variable conditions/crust, they are definitely a "go-to" ski. They are versatile in terms of the snow they can handle. When I look at my quiver which has 5 skis with touring bindings >99mm waist, I'd probably choose the 120 *every* time.
* I'll keep my EHP 193s for more resort pow days (granted, my home resort tends to have some big, open terrain) as I found them a bit more fun on runouts or the occasional groomer. Could I be happy with 120s in those conditions? Maybe...but I have the luxury of a choice there. They *did* handle that firm terrain -- or the long traverses out of JH sidecountry terrain...they just weren't quite as much fun as the EHP was on that bit.
* They like to stomp and are confidence-inspiring in the air -- although I only took some modest air into soft landings over those 2 days (although their weight causes one to wonder about durability with firmer or back-seat landings)
* Their bases are durable... so far. I definitely hit rocks and charged lines I've wanted to ski all year (knowing full well they would have some rocks under the fresh blanket of snow). Most hits caused nothing more than a tiny scratch, and one firm hit did much less damage than it might have to, say, a Gotama.
My last word on the 120s
If you ski alot in the backcountry and want a big ski that handles well at speed and can arc in all kinds of soft snow & crust, the 120 comes HIGHLY recommended. I really feel like they are THE main option in this category.
If you want a resort pow ski for your quiver (and have something 105 or less), then these are worth considering -- although the rider in this category has more options to consider.
There's at least 1-2 months of skiing left this year. Why are you hanging up these skis?
I'd love to take mine out more and on some longer tours to give better feedback... but it seems that spring is in full effect (50s tomorrow??? :eek:). While you never know what the weather will bring around here, we're definitely heading to warmer days and there's more ground exposed (meaning any new snow melts fast). Plus, it's time for me to stop skiing on a damaged knee, call it a season at about 100-110 days, and schedule surgery. I'll likely have to hang up the sticks in a week. :( [I reserve the right to recover from surgery fast and do some tours in the event of a good spring! :D]
I hope this helps some folks out.
Great review, and I hope the surgery goes well.Quote:
Originally Posted by upallnight
awesome review UAN.
Its nice to know that the "binary" feeling I have on my wider skis (100-104) with dynafits isnt just my. Heal up fast. In the meantime, enjoy your music and everything else.
really useful, thanks!
In retrospective, wouldn't be a quiver of wailers 95 + lotus 138 better than the 120 alone?
more is always better ;)
i'm not sure, as i don't think i'd want to go on long tours with the 138 (could be wrong, but i think the 120 is more versatile for touring & could even sidehill/traverse well).Quote:
Originally Posted by verbier61
if you're just talking about the downhill, then maybe the 95 + 138 is better... but i think there's a strong place for the 120 as a backcountry ski, and i have little doubt that it would handle variable and deeper conditions better than a 95.
the 95 would be lighter (of course), so it's faster and can go farther -- but i suspect it would be more like a mid-fat and not quite as good on the downhill.
with the amount the 120 weighs, i think it's a pretty reasonable chioce for a great number of winter BC days. the 95 sounds more like a full-on spring day/LONG tour ski with less pow (maybe corn harvesting). i'm guessing it would be about 2/3 the weight of the 120 (=light).
i'll tell you my dream quiver:
195 wailer 95 flex 3 - everyday inbounds ski.
lotus 120 flex 2 w/ AT - touring - they are so light and turn so well that there is really no reason to tour with anything else.
lotus 138 w/ alpine & trekkers - sidecountry, inbounds POW, and mini-golf. they rip and stomp the shit out of stuff.
agreed... unless it's an early or late season tour when the snow's more firm than soft.Quote:
Originally Posted by marshalolson
marshal...you should be pretty well on your way to that quiver, no? :D
That's pretty much perfect.Quote:
Originally Posted by marshalolson
wailers 175 for no-soft-snow days and extensive AT
120 178 for limited AT on soft
138 for soft w/o AT tasks
:D just need to buy some 195's when my FFL's die, and get some dukes whenever marker gets off their asses and lets me have a pair... ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by upallnight
UpallNight:
I agree with most of your views. The only thing I don't relate to in your review is how this ski performs in tight places. I found it to be extremely easy to get around. Comparing it to easy to handle skis such as XXX or k2 launchers; I'd say the lotus is easier. Which was a BIG suprise to me (and a good one, as we have a lot of tight tree skiing up here).
For general backcountry/off-piste skiing I'd say that the biggest negative is how confident you feel if you hit some steep hard/icy places. The width of this ski doesn't make you feel the most confident if you're in a steep/icy "no-fall zone" (to be fair I was only in a "it is a good idea not to fall zone").
When it comes to the perfect quiver, I have my doubts regarding the w95 for a resort allround ski. I think I might prefer a heavier ski. The kind of ski that would enable you to go with high speed through mank and cut up hardpack (?) and so forth. I have a feeling that the weight of the w95 would make it be thrown around a bit to easily (never skied it though).
The Lotus 120 is definately a quiver ski. But a very good one at that:smile:
x2 on the heavyQuote:
Originally Posted by KANUTTEN
Im also having a hard time imagining anything that would be better than a lp.
i think the wider a ski is, the more sensitive it might be to subtle edging movements. when you're tipping this ski on edge, there's a very small 'sweet-spot' where you can veary the amount you're on-edge -- and it's VERY easy to go just a tad beyond that spot. the net result is the feeling that you're either on- or off-edge, and not much in-between.Quote:
Originally Posted by pechelman
i think the lower standover height of the dynafits plays into this as you have to exert a bit more energy to tip the wide ski on edge vs. a "tall" binding -- and it's hard to back off that as you go.
just something i noticed, not really a comment specifically about the 120s, though they are prone to it as a wide and particularly torsionally-stiff ski. a less torsionally-stiff ski would not be as susceptible.
i feel it is an easy ski to get around, but i don't feel it is the 'easiest'. spats -- in my experience with probably 50-100 days one them -- are far easier in slow and/or very tight spots. i've only skied the 120s 2 days, but i did not find them as maneuverable as spats.Quote:
Originally Posted by KANUTTEN
that said, i am skiing big, open terrain much more often than steep tight trees. i would not hesitate to take the 120s everywhere -- it would not alter my thinking of where i'm going on a given line. BUT...if you told me we're spending a day with tight tree lines and deep pow (lift-served), i'd probably take my spats since i have the choice.
light & stiff can be a problem for a ski.Quote:
Originally Posted by pechelman
i have no idea if that is true of the wailer95, but it is true of skis in general.
What is the recommended midsole line for 06/07 lotus 120 flex 2 178cm with AT binding (fritschi freeride plus)?
Is it +.75cm for that setup too?
Didn't ride last year's pair and just got the 06/07 model back and hoping to set them up this weekend.
Just seeing this pic in another thread is getting me stoked on getting them setup and ready to use. And hopefully shortly after we'll get a good dump and I can contribute to the review.
http://homepage.mac.com/ars062.01/.P...92D1D811DB.jpg
not sure. didn't dp send you an email with the information? if not, you should just give them a holler.Quote:
Originally Posted by eb
I wanted to write some more here after 2 days of skiing the Lotus 120 in A+ blower powder conditions.
my thoughts: WOW. HOLY SHIT! IVE NEVER GONE THAT FAST ON SNOW SKIS IN DEEP SNOW! these sticks have no speed limit at all!
really, these things have exceeded every expectation I had. u point them, the fly ( I mean fly, like ur surfing snow not skiing it) , and they turn on a dime. when i was straightlining them, they were slapping snow like nuts, kinda like waterskiing...
they have a HUGE roostertail in blower snow. my ski buddy was saying it was difficult to ski behind me because couldnt see anything due to all the spraying snow! I would let people go for like, 2-3-5 minutes ahead and then still beat them to the end of the run with no problems. more like blow by them at mach insane.
the other really nice thing, is that they handle ICE really well. if u want, u just lay them right into the hard stuff and they hold with no issues.. really, this ski handles variable conditions with ease..
trees&tight spots: a little difficult for me, but I think thats my level of skiier rather than the ski. u can scrub speed and slarve real easy with them..
I don't see a need for anything else for skiing powder. I havent skiied the 138, but now that I see the value in the dart shape, I am more and more interested in trying it out.
I think the consensus is that they are much easier to turn than a traditionally shaped 120-waisted (or even 100-waisted) ski but more difficult than a true reverse-camber/reverse-sidecut ski.Quote:
Originally Posted by upallnight
I'm hoping to get on a pair of spats and confirm this, comparing with say, a B3, which I found much harder to turn in 10" deep, heavy, creamy snow in trees. If I could ski the same type of thing on spats, I'd be happy to share my results.
These skis do not suck. The gumbo later this week, schral, is partly to thank you for fixing my BROs, but mainly to say thanks for a great ski recommendation.
I am also a man who would be interested in testing the effects of weight on crud performance. My supersoft BROs got bounced around a whole lot (less than my B3s when they were mounted alpine), and I attributed part of this to the very light weight (as well as to user error). Skiing an LP and a W95 (in the adolescent's length of 185) in the same day would definitely pique my interest.
Gamma, very interesting report. I have some 120's coming this week and I was interested to know how they do on ice. Seems like in AK, we have powder or ice. That's funny about you giving people a head start on runs.
Great topic. I've read it several times and will continue to do so.
sounds like you had awesome conditions & the skis to match, gamma!Quote:
Originally Posted by gamma
have you ever been on any other reverse camber/rockered and/or reverse sidecut/pintail designs to compare -- or other (traditional shape) skis over 110? what i would wonder is how much is specific to the 120 vs just any ski in the, say, 105mm or below class.
is that a good thing? :DQuote:
Originally Posted by gamma
One of my favorite DPS photos...
Quote:
Originally Posted by upallnight
Other fat skis I have rode would be:
Igneous FFL (98)
Rossignol BSquad (95?)
Armada ANT (105)
Rossignol Scratch BC (98?)
ANT & the Scratch are the only other twin tips and they are NOT pintails.
my experience is that they are ALL slow, less responsive and cumbersome compared to the 120. the light weight of the lotus makes them just much easier to control. the 120 waist and the rocker allows them to float, fly and surf instead of carve and sink like a normal ski(keep in mind, im a big dude, 225lbs dry). the reverse sidecut in the tip and the pintail as well allows the ski to deal with variable conditions.
they were demoing the 07/08 backcountry/powder/AT skis saturday at Jay and I would gander there was not one person out there who could match the speed and control I had in the deep/crud/cutup. there were peeps on karhu jak, atomic janak bro, pfd's, a lot of different fat skis..
Here's the response that I got from Stephen Drake for lotus 120 178cm:Quote:
Originally Posted by upallnight
------------
Yep, midsole should do it, unless you feel like with your At setup that you
have a hard time powering the shovel on other skis. In that case, if you
normally run your AT setup ahead of alpine, then try +1cm
-------------
Now my next question, does anyone know a shop in South or North Lake that would mount these to an Fritschi free ride plus?
Backcountry Store in Truckee recommended Dave's, but they don't work on AT setups and Backcountry Store won't work on the DPs.
the standard firschi jig fits on the 120 fine. what is the problem?
Why won't they work on DP's?Quote:
Originally Posted by eb
Carbon fiber and not what they're used to so that's why they recommended the other place. I guess they also had trouble with setting up a Goode ski too once.Quote:
Originally Posted by dk_alaskan
its a wood core ski with a thin sheet of carbon instead of a thin piece of metal (and def. not a goode carbon core ski...). they mount the same. put a jig on it, drill it with a 3.5mm bit, put some glue in there and screw the bindings in. not hard.
eb-- fritschis are one of the easiest bindings to mount. if you own a drill and feel confident in your ability to draw some lines and measure, i highly recommend doing it yourself.Quote:
Originally Posted by eb
the ability to measure carefully is the #1 skill. If the Truckee shops are giving you a tough time (which is odd), then I'd say just roll up your sleeves and get it done. if you intend to do it, post up and i (or any number of folks) can provide you with good info.
Peruse these instructions from Lou Dawson to see if you have what it takes.
Once I passed on the info about the carbon only being in the plate the tech felt more comfortable setting them up. I gave him misinformation initially since I didn't really know where the carbon was. Thanks both of you for the info - it was helpful. Some day I'll get around to setting up my bindings, but didn't want to risk it myself on DPS with my lack of experience.
Now just trying to find a look brake or other wide brake to fit on the fritschi. Otherwise I'm going to bend a pair of wide brakes.
http://tetongravity.com/forums/attac...1&d=1174627100
the fritshi brakes are fairly easy to bend. give it a go.