Printable View
The RC85 fits my high pressure east coast groomers ski perfectly. Damp, stable, quick and are so much fun. I appreciate how they can break free mid carve and jump right back on the rails. Unlike those low radius skis, they aren’t locked into one turn shape. Straight rowdy they are. Gidy-up hard pack cowboys
You don’t happen to have a pair hiding in a corner or some “demo” returns coming back in do you?:FIREdevilQuote:
Originally Posted by Marshal Olson
High pressure setting in. Pretty sure I’m not going to find the limit on the RC95c’s. Really fun skis. I’m heavy, had a lot on my mind and was skiing a bit angry. Right ski for the day.
Attachment 510465
We’re in genuine hardpack with very firm spots. These things are incredible. Hook up when you want to but go flat base and they drift/slide/surf like a much bigger ski. I had a blast ripping groomers at mach looney leaving clean arcs and then throwing them sideways in shaveice on the side in big surfy drifted turns. So much damn fun.
Are you skiing with Bode?
Are you able to railroad GS on firm with the 95? Or are you limited to super G? And what’s your weight?
Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums
Just lost and confused friends who got free skis. I skied the peak 104 and it was horrendous.Quote:
Originally Posted by Conundrum
Yes, I can or smaller radius even with speed, commitment,and pressure. I’m 220lbs naked.Quote:
Originally Posted by gaijin
Ok. A bit of mass on me at 155. The radius on paper seems a bit high @twenty-six/seven but my ~twenty-four/five-ish ROneTen with reverse camber is more turny/Carvy than anticipated.
The AMHundred and the RCEightyFive make the most sense for a low twenty radius, but for some reason the Ninety Five keeps on calling me.
This slot will see ice duty and melt/freeze. And I just don’t know if I really arc shorter radius hip to hip turns anymore.
Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums
"I just don’t know if I really arc shorter radius hip to hip turns anymore."
You're still a young buck, and you ski lots. Don't sell yourself short.
The 95 is a great ski. It very much reminds me of a mix of the Head Mojo 94 and OG raceroom Legend Pro Rider.
Do what your heart tells you. The 187 RC95 skis pretty big and skis a ton bigger than the R110 (at least from the run I took on them.) But it’s not some unmanageable death plank. One of my friends on the Peaks is 160lbs and when we switched skis he didn’t die. He’s also a former racer and former ski instructor (passed his PSIA L3) so he knows how to work a ski. He skied a lot faster on the RC95 but also couldn’t make carved SL turns.
I don’t know which direction you just pushed me— haha.
With the HL build, I’ve been surprised at how I can open it up Mach-looney through chunder and then arc it out in through the apron. Hence— I think my style is adapting to higher speeds/letting it run.
I’m definitely skiing faster than skis prior. Hence my battle.
Other people are paralyzed, too. MO threw off our spider sense in predicting skis.
Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums
I’m not pushing you one way or another. Buy the one with the topsheet you think is prettiest and be a dick about it.Quote:
Originally Posted by gaijin
We posted at the same time.
Haha. I meant Island Bay— but you’re right about choosing a top sheet.
Sounds like me.Quote:
Originally Posted by TAFKALVS
And don’t really carve SL anymore anyway.
I like the “buy the top sheet you like” and you’ll be surprised with what a ski can do beyond what conventional “skis on paper” should do
“Ice duty, melt and refreeze” to me means the RCeighty five. But ymmv.
Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums
ThisQuote:
Originally Posted by 2FUNKY
Anything under 90 waist is made for those conditions. 95 is a DD
@gaijin
id say the sizzle from the RC skis comes from its edge performance. Bending, loading, driving, and riding the edge. They are super fun off edge and can do a lot more than anything else I’ve ever tried outside the sizzle-zone. But the sizzle is where it is.
the inverse applies to the AM100. Its sizzle comes from boosting and popping and being creative all while carrying tons of speed through broken snow like a mad man. It’s certainly carves and is more fun that it has any right to, but it’s strongest strengths are where they are.
last thing tho … skiing is an expression of our passion for being in the mountains. So sometimes it’s best to go for the skis that speak to you. Think with the heart homie, they will all be super fun no matter which way you go. And worst case, it it doesn’t play out quite right, I will ensure you wind up on exactly the right ski anyhow.
@gaijin and @Marshal, the above was sort of what I was hinting at in my post.
Woody knows the skis and can advise you much better on the tecnical front, but I was thinking about myself and my years skiing LP105s. I really have no business being on those, but they've lifted my skiing - and my spirits - and made me a better, stronger, faster skier.
Finally got a chance to put the RC95s through their paces at Alpental today. Snow was firm and chalky/icy. Groomers in spots were really nice (Edelweis) and scraped down in others. These skis are total foot missiles! I was hoping these would be a more refined Wizard Explosiv (still ski these quite a bit) and they definitely fit the bill. Suspension like many have said is top notch while not feeling dead or planky. Hopefully is snows soon, but it’s nice have a ski that makes firm conditions fun!
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
RC85 sounds pretty compelling for a hard-snow-only ski for me. Mainly ski Palisades/Alpine although I travel to JH, Steamoat, Abasin, and SLC.
5’10 200-215lbs most of the time, strong skier. I like to ski fast and have a pretty directional skiing style.
I do get into the bumps a fair bit unless it’s just pure ice. Palisades has a pretty good mix of tight spaces, steeps, and places to let things run a bit. Even without new snow, refreeze leaves things variable with icy patches a lot when I’d have these skis out.
175cm or 183cm? I got along well with 184cm M102/M6/Kendos when I demod them, had an older pair of 180cm Brahmas I liked a lot too. My spring skiing/soft low tide pair is 187cm Masterblasters which are the right length for that ski. Their edge grip on anything icy can be sketchy though.
Leaning 175cm R85, but don’t want to be limited by their top end in more variable snow so not sure to weigh bump performance (175) or top end speed and stability (183) more heavily.
Btw if anyone is looking to offload a pair of R85’s (maybe even R95’s) hit me up.
Thanks
Based on your description of style and conditions you would want to grab these skis, I would recommend the 183. I jump from these to the 187 Rdimes in my quiver. Before getting them I thought I was buying a hard pack/ice ski only but they have so much range. They somehow ski with matched stability on the top end and the loose quickness in tight spots/bumps. They are pretty special for sure. I’m six foot and may have an extra lunchbox on you in weight FWIW.
FWIW, I'm considering ordering a OneEightyThree RCEightyFive and I'm a mere One hundred sixty pounds. Five feet, eight inches. I've never thought about going shorter, although I know people here do.
I'm not a powerhouse. I'm a ballerina. I dance a finesse style.
the One Eighty Four Mantra One-O-Two was stable, intuitive, but boring as all hell. They just kind of existed. They did hold a decent edge, though.
this gap has been interesting to me. From an ROne-Ten down to an RC Eighty-five... I was a bit skeptical. That seems like a big gap in waist width. But I've realized my spectrum--
I know I'm in the forest-- Ren
I don't know where I'm going-- ROneTen
I know I'm ripping groomers-- REightyFive
Gaijin I fixed your typo
I know I'm in the forest-- FR120 ST - because I’m a pirate
I don't know where I'm going-- ROneTen
I know I'm ripping groomers-- REightyFive
Muggydude, at your height/weight I think you'd get along well with the 183cm RCeighty-five. I'm 6'1" 185lbs and have the super comp RCeightyfive and do most of my time at Palisades and Mt. Rose. This season, I've done most of my days on the RCeighty-five, with the lack of any good snow. For 'science' I've taken my super comp version into some bumps and it is not a good time, on account of its insane stiffness. That being said, from talking with Marshal, it sounds like the production version of the RCeighty-five flexes softer and is more utilitarian or different conditions. TLDR: get the 183cm RCeighty-five
Muggy, grab the 183 RC85 and don’t look back.
^ yep. I’m the same weight/height as you muggy and that ski feels perfect for me. Super quick yet very stable.
Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums
Sweet one eighty three sounds like the move.
Anyone have much time on the RC85 and can compare it to some of the bigger brand damp metal skis (I.e. Volkl kendo, kastle mx88, etc)?
Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums
I know. But please... it hurts. It hurts knowing the FR120 ST is my Ren's replacement. If only my Ren would somehow snap in half this season. ;-) Maybe then my wife would understand.Quote:
Originally Posted by L8APX
In the meantime, all that to say how well I trust the HL build that my R110 can punch below it's waist into chalky, grippy snow that my predictions of the capability of the RC85 having an ability to punch above its waistline, with the pics of the tail splay a few pages back, (quoted below)I believe, are well accredited.
I was debating for months if the AM100 would be sufficient enough during carving season, still think it would be, but I've since come to the belief that the 85 will be enough into the slush season to warrant the gap in waist widths for my quiver.
For nerdy reference--
My coming-of-age ski was the 2001 188 G41. The green machines. (118-82-106 ?) no rocker anywhere. I was an animal on those things. Bent them crashing into a rock. Ha.
Tried to replace with an 186 Nordica HotRod JetFuel (126-84-112 r20) Two sheets of metal and a shit-fuck ton of fiberglass and loads of camber. Zero rocker. I had to train into that ski but come february/March, I could make it sing and absolutely loved it. But I blew my knee on it in 2018 and couldn't even look at it anymore.
Been eyeing this RC85 for a while now. I got a hunch it's just as carvy as my past machines but likely way more user-friendly with the subtle 2.5mm camber and slight tip/tail rocker. My hunch is that shape is drastically more playful than anything else of this category. (Montero, Anomoly, etc.)
And to let us not forget-- the profile...
Quote:
Originally Posted by waveshello
In case you were curious those pictures are of my pair of super comps. Everything on the standard RC85 is the same except that they are not about 3/4" thick clear out at the tips and tails like in the pictures. As a-star said, super comp = fucking stiff.
Absolutely the correct take.Quote:
Originally Posted by gaijin
Rc85 absolutely wins slush-bump season too, fwiw @gaijin
Course so do r110
Any update on the 17-somethings?
I'm sure it's in here somewhere, but where'd the flex on the production rc95's end up? I believe the AM100 and R110's are both an 8/10?
Sent from my SM-S901U using Tapatalk
Yessir! The production skis for Fall 2025 are 8.5/10
Nice. I might be sending some money your way in the near future.
And the 85s?Quote:
Originally Posted by Marshal Olson
Also 8.5 IMO
So does that make the super comps about a 13? Also want to confirm that the recommended mount is -10.5 / 81 cm from the tail for the 183?