Any mags actually been on this ski? Not much on snow info apart from the Blister review. Snagged a pair and interested on mount point recs/riding notes.
Printable View
Any mags actually been on this ski? Not much on snow info apart from the Blister review. Snagged a pair and interested on mount point recs/riding notes.
I'll be watching this thread closely, very interested in this ski. I remember Paul Forward making a comment on the mount point. He ended up experimenting and trying them WAY different than the recommended. That review should be showing up pretty soon I would hope. Looking at a pair of 178's for the wife
Necro bump from a different place in the multiverse. Esp 3.0 Mega La Machine.
I picked up the short model for bc and have been loving it in the Sierra. We've had a really nice run of powder skiiing (until last night and today when it rained up high) and I've skied the Machine every day since I got them mounted up. I mounted +3 and have been very happy. Quick and agile at slow speeds and stable with no surprises at speed. I was a little worried about the 178 length, but it was the right move for me. Light on the up, easy to kick turn and no tip dive even at +3. Last few days it warmed up and the south facing was torn up with ski and snowshoe tracks, but the Machines handled it beautifully as long as it had softened. I ski tele and really like reverse camber skis, so there's that.
The deal was too good to pass. Currently have Nocta 190 mounted with Tectons, plan on moving binders to La Machine and compare them in similar conditions. Nocta is longer and heavier, but the profile looks pretty similar besides the mount point.
Sent from my Pixel 7 Pro using Tapatalk
Just pulled the trigger on a set for my wife. 287bsl, you can be first in line if she doesn’t like them.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lord Thomas
Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums
Grabbed the last pair of 186s. $299 is a score. I love renegades and the blister review said they were similar. In the past I’ve absolutely hated light weight skis so we’ll see.
Thank you all for the replies !
@178cm……what’s your height and weight? I’ll probably get 3.0 Mega 184 cm at 6’2” 192 lbs in my birthday suit.Quote:
Originally Posted by hopelesslyadolescent
I too ski the Sierras, mostly bc in north Lake Tahoe where I live (Incline Village).
5'9" 160. I'm south of you on Hwy 4, ski mostly in the Bear Valley bc.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim S
Picked up 186 today, they came at 1840g on my kitchen scale. The profile reminds me of Black Crows Nocta. Still haven't decided whether to mount ATK FR14 or Tectons.
Sent from my Pixel 7 Pro using Tapatalk
La Machine Mega 3.0 184cm incoming .
Me 6’2” 195 lbs
Has anyone gotten time on the new skinnier ones yet?
I’ve had two days on the La Machine Mega mounted w Momentum Voyager XII.
The setup is delightfully light with each ski 1625 g totaling 2005g with binding and brake.
The skis are excellent. Big smiles here.
Mounted ~ -8 at the factory Progressive line (in between Classic and New School line).
the Mega are quick, forgiving, maneuverable and versatile; quite responsive to different techniques and weight emphasis. Easy to carve, slarve, and turn pressuring the back half of the ski and tails especially in tight trees. Driving a bit forward pressuring the shins engaged a more aggressive carved directional turn engaging the forebody and tips.
Because they are so light, I anticipated the skis getting deflected quite a bit by firm Sierra snow and bumps. This occurred far less than I anticipated, which is a good thing.
MOUNTING
I took them to Alpenglow and the tech did a super job. He was concerned because the bindings appear to be mounted directly to the paulownia wood in the middle of the ski, which he thought was unusual and concerned about the bindings possibly pulling out with aggressive skiing.
I contacted Faction and Matt replied with this:
“Hey Jim!
Thanks for reaching out. Your ski has a Phenol plate built into the mounting zone- and passes all the binding retention tests we can throw at it, so you should have no issue. The Phenol mount plate is very very strong (indeed, stronger than the equivalent titanal option) and we have never had an issue with it. “
Attachment 443238
Anybody have feelings about sizing? I asked about the La Machine in a thread yesterday with no responses. I'm 6'0" 160 and I think I'm going to pull the trigger on the 186. Probably mount them toward the progressive line. Can't beet the current pricing fir a dedicated pow stick.
Eff it.... ordered the 186 as only 1 pair was left. STH2 13 with 130 brakes for $170. Why not? My kids can pay for their own college. Under $600 with tax.
Skied quite a bit on the micro (91mm) this last spring, did a 5 pair boot-test with the same pair of skis over 2 months. About 40k vert all in all, zero lifts.Quote:
Originally Posted by Benneke10
They are very light for the amount of float that they provide, however we are not spoiled with powder here in Sweden and in refrozen crust or just boiler plate they felt too unstable, nervous and jittery for me. I would see that ski working great for longer tours or dawn patrol in places where there is a higher chance of soft snow more often.
Hey, Jim, are your Megas full reverse camber?Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim S
Something I saw on the Faction site made me wonder if they have a bit of camber. Thanks.
I have some megas and they’re definitely full reverse
Sent from my iPad using TGR Forums
It looks like there’s a touch of camber to me.Quote:
Originally Posted by hopelesslyadolescent
Attachment 444297
Attachment 444298
Mine should be here Thursday. I'll take a pic.
More snow coming next week. Hopefully I'll get a chance to ride them!!
Yup. Mine are here. Zero camber. I’m getting them mounted and we should get some fresh snow Sunday. Hopefully I’ll have a report.Quote:
Originally Posted by altacoup
Now, where do I mount them??? I’m thinking progressive (+1.5 from classic) or new school (+3 from classic). Per my understanding, the entire Blister review is based on the new school mount point.
I'm thinking progressive since my other pow skis are Bent 120’s and they’re pretty “new school.” Not sure I need two sets of near center mounted pow skis.
The new school mount on the factions is like 4cms further back than the bent 120. I wrote an email to faction and they said the furthest forward I could go is -6.5 from true center. I’m going to mount mine at -7 from true center, which is +4 from classic.
Sent from my iPad using TGR Forums
I ended up mounting them +3 from classic (new school line) and rode them yesterday in 15-24" of fresh. End of the day we had the mountain to ourselves and free refills. I'm really happy with that mount point.
For me, they are a lot more ski than the 120 Bents in 184. Longer running surface, a lot more ski out front, heavier, etc.
I'll be darned if they dont want to turn down the hill and go. Once I realized how much pressure I could put up front, I had a blast. Even at +3 they are unsinkable. I didn't ski them in much chop, but cut up powder was no issue. Sit back and let those long noses power through. They broke loose easily and would go sideways without a problem. They even ski switch fairly well if it isn't too deep. I found myself going really fast a lot of they day. Making big turns on them at speed is too much fun.
They don't pivot around in trees like the Bents. I wouldn't really call that a complaint. It just takes more active skiing in the tight trees. They're still full rocker, so that's relative, but the Bents go where you want in trees no matter where you are on the ski. At one point I looked to the left of a tree at decent speed and I just wasn't going there. I dodged right and took a deep breath knowing that it could have gone bad quickly.
Anyway, I'm completely happy. These are the skis for a big back country day. If you can open it up on fresh snow you'll have a blast. They have enough flexibility that I know I'll ride them inbounds a few times per year. Most days it's probably more ski than I need but I could easily be happy on them.
btw, could someone summarize what BlisterGear review said? There's only a flash version and it's behind $80/year paywall 😳
Please- I am finally retiring an old pair of dynafit beast 98 and the minis look like a natural replacement if they didn’t add camber to the lineup
Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums
Edit to clarify that I'm talking about the La Machine Max, NOT the Mega.Quote:
Originally Posted by paroofka
Here is a free version of their review: https://blisterreview.com/gear-revie...ion-la-machine
Also, listen to Paul's comments in this podcast: https://blisterreview.com/podcasts/r...forward-ep-144
Historically I've always enjoyed the same pow skis as Paul Forward and bought the Factions based on his comments. I spent many seasons as a Lotus 138 fanatic but my local resorts involve a bunch of icy traversing and long groomers for pow laps, and I'm more of a weekend warrior, so 138s were only getting used a few times/year (at best). 138s are also heavy/unwieldy for really long tours and/or tours that involve sections of junk snow.
My factions are mounted with Tectons at -8 from center. I ski Lange 130s inbounds, and for long tours switch to Scarpa F1s.
So far I've been really pleased with the Machines. Paul compared them favorably to the Renegade and that feels right to me (Ravens are my daily driver). They definitely have a speed limit in heavy, chopped pow, but less than I was expecting given their weight (and no worse than 138s). They're perfectly fine on groomers and icy traverses (big upgrade vs 138s) and they are damn good in untouched pow (although nothing will ever touch 138s when you aren't crossing tracks). Just yesterday I did a long tour with amazing pow for the first 2k and then a sketchy/icy luge track for the bottom 1k. The Factions did great in the exit where 138s would have been a handful.
There are better skis for cut-up pow (something heavier), and better skis for the deepest days (138s) but I think the Machine is the perfect pow touring ski and it is a pretty decent inbounds pow ski. For the price they are a no-brainer.
One day as budget allows I'll add a heavy inbounds chop-charger and and also add 138s back into the quiver, but for now I'm really stoked.
great info!
introducing Heritage Labs skis ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by doublet
Yes! Really stoked about that project as DPS will never get another dollar from me (and I actually think 6mm narrower at the waist would solve some of my complaints). One day I'll add C132 AND FR132 to complement the Factions. :)Quote:
Originally Posted by kid-kapow
Thx for the review of the Mega Jim!
I swooped on the Evo.com sub-$300 La Machine thinking it was that one - turns out it is for the 126 underfoot (non-Mega). Looks like an awesome ski, but not the hole in the quiver I want to fill right now.
Holler if anyone sees any deal on the La Machine Mega in 186. $900 USD retail is pretty spendy...
That's the ski that I grabbed. It's the Max. Great ski. Ridiculous at that price. But yeah.... it's a lot of ski if it isn't soft out. I can't wait to ski it more.Quote:
Originally Posted by meter-man
Was at a ski shop the other day and looked at the La Machine Mini and Mega. Both had camber, Mini had a fair amount more. Looks like some Megas are full reverse, others not...
Attachment 448309 Attachment 448310
Finally got around to mounting my la machine max. Mounted at -8 from true center, the marked line on mine wasn’t the -11 that blister states but rather -13 (maybe that’s why Sierra had them for so cheap). Skied them today, conditions were perfect so hopefully that’s not coloring my opinion, and they are awesome. Have that renegade feel of super easy to pivot, strong enough to ski at high speed and change directions at any time, but plane a little better than a renegade. They’re also lighter than the Hojis I was using for powder touring and over 10mm wider. I’ve toured on quite a few full reverse camber skis, so skin track grip isn’t an issue for me. But having such a massive ski also mean lots of skin in contact with the snow and ability to monster truck up and over short steep sections. Despite being light they tracked well and didn’t feel twitchy at all, suspension/dampness was very impressive for such a light ski. Very glad I picked these up they absolutely rip.
Sent from my iPad using TGR Forums
Any opinions on preferred length of the La Machine Mega? I'm 6'0" 170 lbs looking for a daily driver pow touring ski in the PNW. Debating between 178 and 184.
The 186 measures as a 184 I believe
Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums
I'm also super interested in buying the Mega. I am 5'7" 150 and prob getting the 184. I thin the 178 would be for sure too short for you skialpy. Anyone else have experience on the Mega? I'd love to hear how they do in slightly skied out pow.
Quote:
Originally Posted by greenmachine
Think you are referring to the fatty la machine in 186. Mega seems to come in 178 and 184.
I'm about 5'9 / 155vnet weight, daily drivers - OG Bibby and Bibby Tour in 184. Trying to decide between 178 and 186 La Machine Max - the skis would probably live in Japan permanently. We're talking Niigata though, not Hokkaido - massive dumps, but often on a heavy-ish side, so 184 Bibby's can be vulnerable to tip diving in neutral stance at lower speeds. I'm worried about 186 because much bigger guys (Paul Forward included) were happy with the length and didn't feel like it's not enough, which suggests it could be too big for me to throw it around in the trees. And I'm worried about 178 being not that unsinkable (especially forward-mounted) and ending up being just marginally better than Bibby's.
Any thoughts from La Machine Max owners? How big are you, which length did you pick, how do you like it, do you wish you went shorter or longer? Have you by any chance skied 184 Bibby's? Cheers!
I need to measure mine. I had them mounted on the "new school" line and they need to go further forward. I was thinking of bumping them +2.Quote:
Originally Posted by altacoup
I'm 6' 155lbs and have the 186's.Quote:
Originally Posted by duboix
I'd go 186 and mount way forward. See the Blister review and my prior comment. Skiing them further back has the tips wanting to point at the ski for me. They never sink. I'm going to move further forward of the "new school" line. I'm not sure what they were thinking with the mount points. It certainly wouldn't work for me on the "traditional" line.
At my weight, I disagree with Paul where he says they ski chop well. As soon as the snow gets chopped up I swap them for a heavier ski. I also think that would improve with a more forward mount. Right now instead of bashing through chop the tips want to deflect up and over.
Otherwise, they're surfy, fun and unsinkable. I skied them in a true 24" of light fresh snow last week. They were really fun.
That would definitely be more like what I'm used to ski. My only concern is that going further forward from what they recommend would move you way off the sidecut, flex, and rocker center points. I probably wouldn't care too much if I could get it for 300 bucks, but we're talking about just 20% off retail price, plus pricy shipping to NZ. Feels a bit steep for experimentation...Quote:
Originally Posted by SnowMachine