They look fcuken good
Printable View
They look fcuken good
^holy $hit hawt
Quick question for the skinny ski/pivot mags - thoughts on whether 75mm pivot brakes will fit on the RC85? I've had no issues fitting 95mm brakes on ~106mm skis before, so should I assume that 75mm pivot brakes can go on an 85mm ski without much fuss?
I used to rock 75mm Pivots on my 89mm powder skis in 2004. It was a bit of a stretch, 85mm should be fine and way better than 95mm.
Question for the collective. Sorry this is long regarding the RC85...
iriponsnow is about my size and he felt the 183 was a bit long (beta run of that ski.) I'm 5'8" 165... aiming to lose weight for 155ish. I'm fairly small, but when I ski I'm fairly strong, fast, and deliberate. Racing and big mountain comp background. I generally haul as much ass as possible.
My 2001 188 Volkl G41 (the green machine) of yesteryear were one of my favorite skis. I can't remember the dimensions, but close to RC85.
My 2006 186 Nordica Hot Rod Jet Fuel, 126-84-112 r20 were perhaps my favorite spring/groomer-zoomer of all time. Just beasts, no rocker, lots of camber. Two layers of metal. I was a different animal on those skis. I could rip monster-esque GS turns and surf spring forests. It was essentially a spring/hard snow comp ski.
The 183 RC85 feels like my choice. But I'm notoriously a "second-longest ski" skier... by whichever company is making the ski... I always choose the second longest ski because I know I'm not of the "larger size skier."
This puts me at a dilemma... the 175 on paper (second longest size) feels way too short. 183 already feels too short, especially with rocker in the tips and tails and a shorter effective edge. Yet-- we have all these ripping skiers all over the world requesting a 175 and calling Iriponsnow a badass for skiing the 183.
I'm stumped.
Is my perspective skewed? My Hot Rod was a 2006... 18 year-old tech. Am I just naive? Can a 175 pull the same duty of a previous generation's 187-ish... basically wide GS ski?
Also, my Ren is 186, and my R110 is 187.
This RC85 will be driven by an RS130 and a Pivot or a Strive.
Thoughts? Experiences going shorter? I'm not huge, but 175 feels short.
^ Your perspective is 100% spot on & im going to give you a more comprehensive answer when I can- but sounds like you are a 183 man for certain.
Good topic here!
I would suggest thinking about the length on the RC85 less as “what size” and more as “what turn”. The 175 will round out turns more and come across the hill quicker. The 183 will open the turns a bit and provide a bit more stability in variable snow and that sort of thing.
but I don’t think either is “the wrong size”, it’s more how do you want to use it?
im much bigger than either of you, and would be totally fine on the 175 (though as a 225lb dude, I’d pop a race plate on it)… but where and how I ski slants me to the 183. It’s the fat gs shape. The 175 is a little more carvy than that
Quote:
Originally Posted by gaijin
Basically I was in the same boat as you until the last 18 months. Here's what changed it for me - everything is different now. It's easier to look at the extremes for an example the OG Bro. The tune was a lil off the bases concave / convex, the flex was hinky and the ski worked based upon mass. I found the same to be true of the Kastle 83 / 88 ; loved the 88, but the skinny variant just got bounced all over.
Today the tunes are wild! Variable in the shovels. Mounting points are better dialed. The boots are more supple / damper and the enhanced ski construction gives to a better flex. Home tuning and waxing supplies are much better for a consistent ride.
Where I could never see myself at a sub - 180cm, now I find that the better ride quality and maneuverability really work in the 175cm package. That said, I am a quiver guy and if I only had one ski, it would not be the 175. I'd still rock a 183.
Don't buy any of the hype - skiing is a gravity glide sport. I'm finding more and more rippers into their 60s charging hard. I think more ppl are are just seeing the benefits of a slightly shorter ski. Fear not I still have some >190 planks. Hope this helps.
As for any heroics, that test ski was an I beam.
What's your binding setup here? Our hip angles are nearly identical... with myself being a bit less Candide. ;-) But only because I have a history of shoulder dislocations and can't afford to ski with wings.Quote:
Originally Posted by iriponsnow
Anyway, all jokes aside-- what's your binding mount on those? MO mentioned wanting a plate if he were to ski the 175 and I'm now realizing all my skis of this shape have had plates/risers. I didn't really think this through... I kinda wanted to mount without plates for a surfier, more casual all mountain carver/ripper. But I don't want to be booting-out when hips get low. Because hips are gonna be getting low on this rig.
I was hoping I was done with system bindings. But maybe there's no way around it. IDK,
I have an FIS 916/Plate system down the street I could grab for 50 bucks and pull it off an old GS ski... that again, sat in a closet for 20 years off an ex-fis racer that had too many skis that were too good for him.
But I'd rather just throw a flat pivot on it and feel a bit looser.
I think so, but...Quote:
Originally Posted by iriponsnow
This has me thinking even deeper. Thanks!Quote:
Originally Posted by Marshal Olson
The I-Beam makes sense. I thought/read so. But it's also rad to read that I am actually naive about modern tech. I've pigeon-holed myself into believing that I can ski anything, because I can... but I have also created a void in needing modern tech. To me, a GS ski has been a GS ski forever. The wider, the better.Quote:
Originally Posted by iriponsnow
I need to explore this more. And no, that doesn't mean demoing skis. That means owning skis.
I still haven't figured out which length I'll buy. 183 calls my instinct, but 175 calls me to try something new that I know I won't regret.
FWIW, I ski Zao... the Stowe of Japan. Long groomers with deep patches of forests. This ski will be a groomer-zoomer when snow sucks or a high pressure runs through. It will also serve double-duty for spring melt/freeze in the resort forest, which is sporty/dirty and fun as fuck.
Both lengths have their appeal.
I like the STH2 WTR or MNC - I think the evolution of contemporary skiing is getting away from edge locked turns and bending the 'f outta the ski to pull radius. I can do this on a ski w/ a plate, but it takes a lot of commitment and 'body English'.Quote:
Originally Posted by gaijin
Attachment 501298
Takes a lot of effort to make turns like these w/ a plate.
Attachment 501299
Attachment 501300
A lot easier minus the plate.
Yea, if this was my DD, I would ski the 183cm at plus 1cm. This is going to be more of a tactical tool and I intend to ski it with my clients who may be hauling a lil less. Teaser: we are working hard on the rc70 and this ski I may place Piston plate one set for pure carving and run a set of Pivots on another for more of a spring / surfy bumps feel. Hope this helps.Quote:
Originally Posted by gaijin
Data point:
I wanted 182 R87, but due to the FedEx shipping conundrum switched out my order to a FL105.
Picked up a 175 R87 from the outlet; a bit concerned as I hadn't been on a ski that short since high school.
It rips.
Serious train tracks.
:D
PS 5'10", 150#
After chatting about it with Marshal, I've decided to mount my RC85 with a Freeflex 16X RD binding, no plate. I'm hoping this allows for what you describe, the possibility to bend the ski in a more natural manner.Quote:
Originally Posted by iriponsnow
2 Days on the RC85 (I-beam edition) 183 cm length
- Stiffness as advertised
- In the words of MO, "skiing them is more about hitting your edge angles and leverage vs brute force." I 100% agree with this
- A bit of a handful at slow speeds
- Absolute racecar when you can open them up
Heck yeah! Literally can't wait for the resorts to open here to get on my set. 98% chance of buying a few lift tickets at the "other" resort, since mine is 6 days late to open. Fired up!!!
I consider the Super Comps to be the final boss fight of performance skiing for skiers 180lbs (hard minimum).
The production RC85s sure won't be a slouch in any way either. Can't wait for more folks with time on these!!!
Soon...
Now I just want to try to see if I can handle the final boss…Quote:
Originally Posted by Marshal Olson
Sweet, thanks for the quick first day review.
I am so pumped to ski the 95comp. It is the most compelling ski on the rack right now for me... I've not had anything quite like it, with the business flex plus subtle releasable rocker, but I expect it'll get a lot of use here in dry ass montucky. Loved the r99comp for this but the 95 gonna shred.
I keep grabbing it to hand flex. There's a fuckin bruise on my wrist from flexing it so much, lol.
Hey Sylvan, you beast...
You think a guy like me (5' 8", 165lb / 73kilos) could arc a 187 RC95 on smooth, near-firm snow? Albeit mid-winter or spring melt/freeze?
I know I could surf it, but could I arc it into GS railroads from medium speeds? Or, do I have to be Ted Ligety? I don't want to always have to be going mach-looney to make it work.
My hip angles are decent for a middle-aged cowboy, I like to haul ass, but two things-- 1) The 183 RC85 makes more sense on paper, but 2) The 187 RC95 is more attractive to my heart.
This will be a high-vis ski on high-pressure days, where I just kind of go straight until I have to turn and then drop my hip and let the magic happen. But it's still JP, where I'll be playing in late spring, crusty, sporty forests and high alpine off-piste.
Only a budget for one of these skis. The RC85 would work in that late season stuff, but it would be a slower, carvier approach to lines as opposed to faster, driftier styles of 95.
Main question is -- can I arc the 95 mid winter?
/fuck bullet-proof. I don't ski that stuff anymore. /that was long, sorry.
Pro tip(s) for lighter guys looking to slay the final boss:Quote:
Originally Posted by gaijin
*Work w/ your brain ; buy w/ your heart
*Tune ur skis
*No 'detune' but run a generous gummy on the tips and tails
*Finish with 6-7 hard passes w/ a sideguide/200 grit stone to leave a hanging burr under the binding area only
I do tune my skis. Quite well, I thought. I hate detuning, I use gummies to polish/clean, not really detune. I like clean and sharp and leave the releasability to shape/bevel.Quote:
Originally Posted by iriponsnow
But a hanging burr (from side edge to base edge?) So make under-foot grippy as fuck and loosen the exterior a bit? That sounds like hockey skates. But not in a bad way. Just a big... hmmm....
Hmmm...
Just my .02, you should consider the 175 rc85. It’s a lot drifter ski than I think you think. I know it’s sacrilege to ponder anything but the longest length on TGR.Quote:
Originally Posted by gaijin
That said; follow your heart, and I’m sure you’ll be stoked on the RC95. But you probably wont achieve a carve tighter than GS+ radius unless you really really know how to work a ski.
At your dimensions were you able to bend the OG Race Room Legend Pro Rider or similar skis in to a tight arc?
The RC95 feels like the first gen comp skis from the 00s with a little surfier shape and rocker profile.
Maybe NWskier can chime in on the 183 RC85, he’s your dimensions.
Quote:
Originally Posted by gaijin
So I sat down to sketch up what a 180cm RC95 would look like. And its really just a 5mm narrower 187 AM100 with a bit of the ends up off the snow cut off.
So... IMO the correct answer is 187 AM100 and maybe an RC85 one day when you are ready to replace your euro carver since the RC85 can pull double duty as performance carving ski and good times high pressure / slush bumps all mountain ski
I think you're right about the 175 RC85, the little voice in my head knows it, too.Quote:
Originally Posted by TAFKALVS
As for the OG LPRs, I could ski them... later in the season after my legs got under me... 25 years younger, too. I had to train into them. But I'm kind of famous for skiing skis that are too big for me. I've always liked the ski to do all the work, so long as I can hang on. Part of me does want a modern, surfier comp ski of yester-year, but that's admittedly going to only get harder to ski as I go through my 50's. It's hard admitting the mild mid-life crisis going on at the moment.
It does help! Thanks for getting back and reassuring my doubts. ;-)Quote:
Originally Posted by Sylvan
Makes sense... I'm eyeing the AM100, too, as it would be the logical move narrower from my R110. All of this debate will end once I learn how firm of a snow it takes to upend the R110. I have a pretty good idea, maybe, but apparently your skis are damp as fuck... so it's throwing off my ride-dar.Quote:
Originally Posted by Marshal Olson
Thanks for the humble feedback, everyone!
Sick man!
Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums
Attachment 508247
Just did a remount on my RC85 super comps to play around with balance point. Went -1.5cm from the original mount.
Skied a lot of chopped up schmoo this week on them and felt like I wanted a little more tip and a little less tail (this should be unsurprising to anyone who knows me.
While I was at it, I threw some of the “rossignol super” color pivots that came out this year for extra bling.
That’s a pretty incredible color-way.
Also super (see what I did there?) interested to hear about your thoughts on a rearward mount.
I grew up racing gates in the 80’s in MN. It was a different world. I’m admittedly lazy now, or more finesse than power. Whatever you wanna call it.
I’m now curious how much reward I can get from actually driving an HL build that I do thoroughly enjoy letting do all the work for me.
I wonder if I have the nervous system (ie— reaction time) to make an HL my bitch.
Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums
So far liking the updated mount point a lot. Skied 4-5” deep wind blown pow over a soft base and 1” on firmish groomers. The ski feels more stable, a little less responsive but a lot more comfortable and relaxed off piste. If I was to split hairs I’d probably go -1 but I’ll probably keep them at their present location.
Woody,
Keep the opinion/info coming on these RC85's. I'm about ready to mount my super comps this week and want all of the latest data on mount points before I start augering holes. EXTREMELY excited about these things. Wanted something like this for a very long time.
I’d go -1 without hesitation especially on super comps. You like pretty trad mounted skis.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lord Thomas
I could see that on the SC’s. The standards are pretty rad at recco.
Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums
I only moved them back for off-piste skiing, if the skis were groomer only I’d stay on the line I think.
Thought folks would enjoy this email I recieved! My feelings are the same. So fun for lower tide and firmer snow conditions.Quote:
Just a quick note to reiterate how much fun I'm having on the RC85. We just returned from the Dolomites where I put six days on them. Absolutely perfect for the conditions. They ripped the freshly groomed trails in the morning, but late in the day when the conditions were essentially spring-like, they were equally at home making old-school parallel turns on the margins and cruising through slush-bumps. The versatility is astounding.
Not to mention how I was blowing past all the Euros on their low-radius SL skis. These things love to run and fit nicely with my desire to try to keep them in the fall line as much as possible.
And so damn stable. With my knee issues, I'm sensitive to every "bump" in the road, and the RC85 excels at flattening out every imperfection in the terrain.
Now... have you considered making that low-radius SL ski? Ha! I don't know if I'm serious. I think I would get dizzy making so many turns.
Anyone with buyer's remorse or not jiving with their RC85 (or possibly 95) and want to unload the pair?
I'm feeling non-buyer's remorse...wish I hadn't waited until they went out of stock.
Super comps in stock. You buy now. https://heritagelabskis.com/products...44426872127676Quote:
Originally Posted by singlesline
This makes me very happy. So excited about my AM100.Quote:
Originally Posted by Marshal Olson
Oof. While I do weigh in at 200lbs, that seems like more ski than I am really looking for in this quiver spot.Quote:
Originally Posted by jackattack
But maybe not? The slot I am filling is somewhere between replacing my thrashed short MX84s with something a bit longer/longer radius for mostly-groomer days and/or for replicating cruddy snow days I had last season that were made much better when my dad left his old Bonafides here for a couple months.
If you are looking for something more inline with Bones/Brahma, I'd go for the production verion of the RC85. The Super Comps are a full notch or two more demanding.