Yeah, yeah. Looked at all the Tool covers and didn’t see a match. I guess an artist probably has other art besides album covers.Quote:
Originally Posted by TAFKALVS
Printable View
Yeah, yeah. Looked at all the Tool covers and didn’t see a match. I guess an artist probably has other art besides album covers.Quote:
Originally Posted by TAFKALVS
oOoO 187 RC95 Comp Flex
Comp flex can still rip moguls, or go regular flex for that?
For reference I absolutely loved 184 Monster 98s in moguls, and then they still had a fairly high speed limit. 191 Monsters and 192 Pro Riders have ridiculous speed limits, but are just too much work in big moguls.
I would probably go with the regular flex unless you’re a real big dude.Quote:
Originally Posted by forumskier
It’s inspired by but not anything beyond that.Quote:
Originally Posted by Conundrum
Quote:
Originally Posted by forumskier
What he^ said and I prefer a little softer ski than these in moguls, it just makes them more fun. They will work, best bring your A game.Quote:
Originally Posted by TAFKALVS
Signed,
Dude with mass.
Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums
Nice dude!!Quote:
Originally Posted by iriponsnow
Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums
hey man, if you want 184 M98 or a little more, go for the productions version. The comps will have a level of demanding more like a 191 m108.Quote:
Originally Posted by forumskier
+1 to the RC85 high pressure crew. Order placed with the doctor.
I’m having a hard time figuring out which I want more, RC95 or R105, even though they are very different skis.Quote:
Originally Posted by Marshal Olson
My last mogul skis were those 184 Monster 98s, which I’d replace with RC95 production version. I was always looking for slightly more ski when riding 184 Monsters, but 191 Monsters stepped it up too much when in bumps (I still have 191s)
My current mogul skis are full rocker 191 Mantras with the 28m radius and ridiculously heavy old demo bindings. I could replace these with R105..I find myself again looking for slightly more charger ski than those Mantras, heavier, but not much more difficult in moguls.
I ski a lot of moguls, thinking full rocker might be best..I compared FR110s back to back with 191 Katana 108s this past winter, and I really liked the feel of FR110s in bumps. I would go for a pair of those, but ideally thinner is better for me right now.
The correct answer is both!
If I was flush, I’d have a bunch of HL skis by now.
Thanks for the information. FR110s were definitely like cheating in bumps. The day I skied them, there was moderately funky Tahoe mashed potato bumps. I came into a tight little spot at speed with them, that I didn't pre-adjust for a little zipper motion, and they just rolled with the punches great, no hesitation.. Did the same thing later on Katana 108s and they are good too, but their heavier swing weight, and stiffer and cambered nature caused for a slightly longer hesitation for me, in order to set up that little 3 bump zipper motion at speed. FR110s are amazing skis, I just felt a touch too much tail behind me. Probably could adjust to that easily with more time, I only put like 5 runs on them. I'd buy a pair of FR110s right now if I found some.
What I got from Bry's 192 FL105 review, was that they were slightly more easy going than Pro Riders. A heavier, but much looser, full rocker version of that sounds absolutely perfect to me. Pro Riders are my favorite ski I own (tied with BO118s), but they are way too tiring when the bumps get big and I can't just go over the top of them anymore. I'd love something with almost the speed limit of Pro riders, but full rocker so can slither through VW Beetle sized moguls often enough.
The full rocker Mantras don't quite have the flat base presence of the older full rocker Katanas, nor the speed limit. Which is what I'm looking for in a thinner full rocker all mountain ripper. FR110s had a better flat base presence too, and a bit higher speed limit than the Mantras in my opinion. Mantras hand flex stiff, but ski very soft. Makes them damp and they absorb a lot, but also makes them too greasy sometimes.
There is a full rocker HL 100 ski
In the works…
The R100
Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums
Finally got a chance to compare the shape and hand flex of the RC85s to my old Solly X-Drive 8.8s. Tip rocker on the 2 are very similar, but the xdrives' tip is a bit fatter. The tail flex of the 2 is in the same ballpark, but the biggest surprise was the flex in front of the toe - going from flexing the RC85 to the xdrive makes the xdrives feel like they're broken. Granted they have been in desperate need of retirement for a few seasons, but the contrast in flex is wild.
Overall though, the RC85s flex is amazingly consistent and yes, very, very stiff. It's actually a biti similar feel to my Wrenegade 88s, just a lot stiffer. The 88s have much deeper rocker lines too so I doubt they're gonna feel remotely similar on snow, but they both have a smooth, consistent flex
Bump. I am beyond excited to ski these this year.
I saw there was a bit of stock left and started considering one again.
Although it says "1 left" on the regular stiffness RC95, but "sold out" if you actually try to grab it...anyone know if there might actually be another pair available to order?
Good Q
With the skis arriving in about 10days, there have been a bunch of substitutions.
So with that in mind, the inventory (ie if you can actually add them to cart) is always right, but there may be a few hour lag on my updating the qty remaining text during a work day or over a weekend.
and I’m always available via email for specific / time sensitive type questions.
I've been looking for an x-drive 8.8 for ages with no luck! Nothing I've tried has been similar. Hopefully the RC85 is.Quote:
Originally Posted by McShortyShorts
Sent from my SM-G991B using Tapatalk
TAFKALVS let me fondle his test sled rc95.
Now I'm trading my r99 comps for some rc95 comps :zap:
:D
^..color me intrigued
Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums
Nice work, Norse.Quote:
Originally Posted by Norseman
The Comps would be too much for my weedy 165 lbs surf body, so I'll probably just be sensible and order AM100s.
Me too.Quote:
Originally Posted by east or bust
Though I still haven't mounted my r99s yet.
I have the regular r99s and added comp rc95s. Thinking r99s when I’m hungover and 95s when I’m not when there’s not much new snow. I’ll test the efficacy of my decisions over the next winter.Quote:
Originally Posted by Norseman
I love my r99 comps. The ski is so good.Quote:
Originally Posted by abraham
Yeah, from my cold dead hands will my R99COMPS be removed. I skied the two back to back as well.
Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums
Speculation of course but I think the 95comp is gonna be the better-rounded ski, in that it can bring bawlz to a more diverse realm, with different turn shapes being unlocked yet not really giving up any speed or stability. TAFKALVS preached this, but it wasn't until groping the 95 that I came to see it, too. I loved the 99comp and it will still rule in the right conditions, but for me I think the 95 comp will be the ticket.
The 99comp is fkna awesome but it wants to kinda remain 1-dimensional. The 95 is almost flat, just a hair of camber, plus a tad of tail rocker that looks just so sexy. And it's 3m straighter in radius. These three differences I think will let them be faster and easier in soft snow, and so much looser in steeps, bumps, chutes, etc. where one doesn't always want to finish a turn... yet still completely rail the groom. An update to the 99 is what I hope to find when riding the 95.
This pleases me.Quote:
Originally Posted by Norseman
Oh dude, don’t get me wrong, the RC95 is a great ski, more soft snow oriented is all. If not for the fl105 the rc would be in the quiver. I don’t feel the 99 is one dimensional at all as I have a lot of days on them in varying conditions. Someone should swoop them up when they hit the outlet! Stoked for you Norse! You’ll dig them!
Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums
I think Zombi Labia might be just the homie...Quote:
Originally Posted by 2FUNKY
:fm:Quote:
Originally Posted by ZomblibulaX
Forgive my pontification here for a minute. I feel the need to expand on what I said.
I, too, have skied the 99comp in a range of conditions, pretty much always with a shit-eating grin, and have but one minor hang up with it. It's not the build... my word what a feel! So solid and composed.
It's geometry-based: that the tail dominates the character and demands the most attention. Even though the tip rocker is minimal, it is still there and reduces the EE a little. But since the tail is flat, this puts the rider's CG forward on the EE when on edge. I often felt the need to pull back from pressuring the tips in order to keep the tails under control, which is counter to how I think a ski like this should be ridden.
Of course edge tuning plays in, but I am very picky about edge detuning and felt like I couldn't dull them or move the feather inboard any further without taking away their hard snow bite.
Another ski that had this effect for me was the Praxis RX, but much more pronounced with its tip-only hinge point rocker. Fuck I hated that ski so much. Couldn't get my ass back far enough or dull the tails enough to make them edge acceptably.
It is my opinion that if the EE is reduced due to rocke and/or taper, it should be done both in the tip and tail, to keep the mount point/CG at the right spot along the EE. I think this allows for more balanced, intuitive edge pressure, and actually allows for more aggressive skiing.
I loved the 99comp and it shreds for sure. But I think the 95comp will amplify the shred.
My take is that the r99 is a more "tip to tail" technique ski and the rc shape is more of a progressive / contemporary "ski from the middle" shape. One is more pure carve & one is more slarve n pivot between digging those trenches.
Love these discussions. Thanks for taking the time for that write up Norse. I think it highlights how drastically different some peoples' ski styles are.
Personally, the Praxis RX is still probably my favorite do-it-all ski to date. There really aren't any conditions you'd typically find skiing in the intermountain west that I wouldn't take them out in. Maybe not coincidentally, my experience with the R99comp has been a bit different. I find their proper home is definitely as a front side ripper. However, to my surprise in a few inches of fresh and even in bumps, I've found them to be much more skiable than I would have thought. Would agree that skiing them off a groomer does require different body positioning and perhaps a less aggressive style overall.
In any case, very excited to hear the first impressions coming from those of you who have had time on the R99comps or have the ability to do a direct A-B comparison with the RC95.
Taken from HL's website on the r99. Shral gave an accurate and fair description of the ski.Quote:
Proper GS flex and construction in a 99mm footprint.
Probably why it's a rad ski and why the tail feels locked the way it does. I personally dig it a lot. Having not skied the stiffer version, I would guess it's even moreso.
Yes yes but my point is that the presence of a little tip rocker makes the flat tail stand out more, and IMHO detracts from the overall balance of the ski. Just a little.
I think I'd prefer it with 10cm more length in front of the boot with the present shape.
It's okay to not love every ski. Some of my ski pals love skis I'm not into and vice versa. I'm stoked to try out the 95 this winter. Who knows, maybe the 99s get hung up or sold. But I'm skeptical on that.
My RC95 comps have demo bindings on them, for further scientific analysis of the maggot hoard.
For me, the rc95 felt more stable and more planted yet less locked in than the r99. I preferred the feel but that’s not to say the r99 isn’t awesome… I mostly talked Marshal in to making these because I couldn’t get a pair of r99 comps. In the process we made a different mouse trap that’s a little closer to what I prefer to ski.
YMMV and all that
It’s a great ski regardless of ones bias. Can’t wait to hear more takes on it once the season gets going. So many kickass skis coming out of HL it’s ridiculous.
P.S. you and MO nailed this ski as well man!
Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums
I could ski either and be happy. We’re talking about marginal differences that probably will really come down to the conditions.
Knowing Norseman and his propensity towards skis like the Billygoat, I think he’ll like the marginally extra surf of this ski.
Marshal hit me up in less than ten minutes of you posting this... dude knows his clientele. I'll give them a good home.Quote:
Originally Posted by Norseman
I get what you're saying about the tail on the R99; it likes to bring the ski around. And flat tails with a lot of shape don't lend themselves to detuning as much as a partial twin or slightly tapered tail, like the new RC95. Even if you round it off, the tail is still present and in the snow, they kind of do what they do unless you're on smooth groomers. But there is a pretty big sweet spot on the R99 once you get settled in to it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Norseman
I'm very interested to hear more feedback on the 95 once folks get more miles on hard snow. Looks to be much easier to get a variety of turn shapes without having to hammer on it, and without making the tail a washy, lifeless affair. But I still think the sidecut lends itself to finishing a turn across the fall line, with an easy option to drop out of the turn instead of really having to smoosh the tail like on the R99 to get it to break loose.
Might not be relevant, but I typically look at sidecut as a ratio rather than a radius. I.E. tip-to-tail variance if you subtract the waist width out of everything. R99 is 135-99-122; If you take 99 out of the tip and tail dimensions it yields 36/23, or a ratio of about 1.5. The RC95 is 125-95-115, so that gives you 30/20, which is exactly 1.5 (Coincidentally, that's my preferred ratio on basically anything that's not a pow ski). It's a longer radius, but the shape of the turn is built in to the dimensions of the ski; it'll make a bigger arc, but that tail will still be most happy finishing a turn unless the pilot wishes otherwise. The slight taper and partial twin on the RC95 will definitely make that easier to do than with the R99. The RC85 is close to the same ratio, 120-85-110 > 35/25 > 1.4. Most of my favorite skis of all time share roughly the same ratio, from GS skis all the way to pow sticks, because so much of the end of the turn is built in to the ski and it suits my style. 1.4 is about as low as I'm happy with, any more tail than that and versatility goes right out the window.
Per the rocker reducing the EE, I think that depends heavily on the splay and how the rocker ramps up. Taper, however, inexorably changes the EE and I definitely agree that it needs to be balanced between the tip and tail.
I hope you didn't detune those R99s too much; I run mine pretty even front to back with just a little gummi work to take the bite out of the tail. I'd love to ski the RC95 head to head to see what it do.
Great points and I like your ratio method. Nice concise way to characterize a shape. Gonna have to play around with that a bit. I usually just look at the absolute difference in (tip) - (tail) to see degree of pintailyness, then look at other attributes like radius, location of center of sidecut etc.
Re. rocker and taper with EE change... totally agree. I think that with a ski as stiff as the r99c, on hard snow it is a little tougher to access edge pressure at the very forward end when that part of the edge is rockered away from the surface, even though the ski is bent enough to include it in the arc. On a softer ski where a rockered region is more accessible in a carve, I'd be disinclined to claim a change to EE. And it's pretty minimal rocker on the 99.
Spring snow was my fave for this ski, as I felt like I had full edge support for the tips and could really mash the shin pressure gas pedal, without having to back off to keep the tails in line as would be needed in cold soft snows.
Such a great ski, I am a little sad to let them go.
I'll take some pictures of the edges if you'd like.
I love my 175 R87COMP and have a 188 R99AM (from the outlet) on the way!