Printable View
I think this is a good rule of thumb, if you want to size up, move the binding to +1. A buddy who is 5-4 skis the 193 Mindbender 108 ti at +5 and absolutely loves them. He tried the 18X and hated them at various Mount points.Quote:
Originally Posted by gregL
Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums
That makes sense. I'm 6' and a lazy 200lbs and I can't do the new/old school upright bs. I'm middle school lean forward skiing.
What’s the recommended line on the 188 Rustler 11? Like -8-cm? Not what I would call “progressive”.
It is -8. Slightly progressive but can be driven. Not sure how they would be at -1.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bandit Man
Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums
I tried to ski the 188 hard and it wouldn’t do it. Not enough skiQuote:
Originally Posted by Bandit Man
Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums
I got -7. Not super progressive, but I think I'd prefer -8, ha.
-7/-8 is kind of progressive. It's not supposed to be as twinny as a Gunsmoke or Wildcat right?
I guess it's not as progressive as a DPS Koala, but it's kind of
The women's version of the 2016 Zero G 85 is available for $250 Canadian on Corbetts in 171 right now. Is there any differences with the men's version other than topsheet color? Have there been any meaningful changes to the ski since 2016 that would justify paying more for a newer model?
No differences between the men’s and women’s back then. I have the women’s zero g 85 in that 171 size and they work well.
Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums
I also have a women's ZG85 in that build and prefer it to the new ones - men's and women's are the same. The newer skis are lighter and more forgiving.Quote:
Originally Posted by Benneke10
Anyone been on both the symmetrical and asymmetrical spurs? Beta please!
I am sure you've already seen these reviews, but if not Jonathan Ellsworth and Paul Forward of Blister have been on the last three iterations between them (though it has been debated earlier in this thread - so sorry if you already have listened to it). Paul's take on the original Spur is outside of your question, but i dunno if you are interested in understanding the various iterations - if so then go here. But the various Spurs are supposedly very different skis - the asym one being loose and forgiving, the newer one stiffer and not what Paul wanted it to be.Quote:
Originally Posted by schindlerpiste
Based on wasatchblack's comments in this thread it kinda sounds like something went awry in the production of a batch of the latest gen Spurs, with them comming out stiffer than originally intended. He seemed very surprised at the current iteration being labeled as stiff at least (again, from earlier in the thread).
I have both. White is big mountain and very fast. But not too difficult to ski. Used it four days in Whistler and great on long groomers after high alpine pow.Quote:
Originally Posted by schindlerpiste
Black impaler is even easier. Not as stiff and very surfy. Feels like a bigger rustler 11 really. Lighter and really enjoyed it last year on pow days.
Do over I just the new one. But OG is still fun when I want to turn it up to 11
Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums
I know that you loved the black ones. I'm considering selling my Lhasa Fat and going in that direction. I haven't heard anything about the argyle ones. k-k thanks. Not sure what to think of that, but it certainly makes me suspect.
I really enjoy the Rustler 11, and would love to upgrade from my green pair. It suits me in all conditions. I think that I would like to trade my Lhasa Fats for Spurs, but I'm not really sure how much I really need anything fatter than 114.
well, for the price one can find new ones for it could be worth a shot (there are probably quite a few out there at really competitive prices - this was literally a 30sec google search).
Skis like the Spur have a way of making a great day fantastic as I am sure you are aware. It is just hard to mimic the prowess of fat skis on a deep ass day. I also just read the review for the asym version again, and it was a lot more positive than I remembered. They make it sound like a really appealing ski for deep days and/or tree skiing. In fact, they seem like a very good wider quiver partner to R11s. R11s do well too, but they are capable across alot bigger spectrum. :)
Based on wasatchblack's comments in this thread it kinda sounds like something went awry in the production of a batch of the latest gen Spurs, with them comming out stiffer than originally intended. He seemed very surprised at the current iteration being labeled as stiff at least (again, from earlier in the thread).[/QUOTE]
Can it be that only Paul’s batch went wrong ? Bit surprising. Could also be interesting to know which length he had been skiing eventually.
Still no proper test and review yet but new stuff getting published online with winter coming up. Hand flexing does not seem that bad. Hopefully we’ll get more insight soon abt those new green spurs !
https://youtu.be/c-K7d7hKwfo
Envoyé de mon iPhone en utilisant Tapatalk
to be fair, we don't really know if there was anything wrong with said batch - either in the production or with the tune, we just know that it did not ski like Paul & crew expected or thought it should. It would be interesting to get an update post tune or a lot of use to hear if they improved.
As for the review, I really like SkiEssentials and have watched a shit load of their videos, but their reviews of the widest powder skis seem to be based on conjecture more often than not and not by skiing them in their natural habitat. That is fine, they do not live in Hokkaido exactly, so the reviews are still a lot better than nothing for sure. I dunno, especially Bob's reviews of said segment were really similar / nonspecific for the 2022 skis with the one dimensional gong being banged in each. I am probably being too critical here, even if they do have kind of a positivity bias as they are in the business of selling the skis they review. But still, I really appreciate the work that they do - it is great when looked at together with other sources such as Blister and TGR.
I agree with you. This one does not really sound « hands on » but it’s a good run down of the ski..
Envoyé de mon iPhone en utilisant Tapatalk
Some 193 OG Cochise posted on CL, not my sale...
https://sacramento.craigslist.org/sp...368101576.html
Sent from my SM-N981U using Tapatalk
I agree... I appreciate their enthusiasm, they know alot of the builds, comparisons and details really well, and they seem like nice enough guys.Quote:
Originally Posted by kid-kapow
Sent from my SM-N981U using Tapatalk
I’m going to go out on a limb here, but unless you are skiing in AK, Japan, or heli/cat skiing in BC a lot, you don’t need any of the Spurs. It’s over kill, and that’s coming from someone who likes big fat skis. If I went to any of those three places tomorrow, the third ski I’d grab would be Pon2oons, the first two would be 112 and 115mm wide.
Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums
Huh. I think I could cover all the bases in those places and my home hill w/ my 125uf Boneshakers. Wouldn't want to do any extended tours but just sayin ....
I picked up a pair of the black symmetrical Spurs this spring. I have friends that love them, and ski them way more than just the uber deep days.
Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums
Lol those Monster 108s are your "thin groomer zoomer" skisQuote:
Originally Posted by tuco
Well. Not the biggest fan of groooomerz. Ennui sets in fast. So groomer skis need to be able to oftpiste some(a lot).Quote:
Originally Posted by AEvospace
Truth is, those Monsters just sit. Haven't skied anything that skinny in yrs(except for the blue n white 193 im103's i traded for. Few runs and they sit too:smile:).
.