Printable View
My Hyper V6 BC are too damned draggy. They ski well though. Crest 10 and driving them with Technica Zero G Peak
So I was thinking of going for something around 102 for soft with lotsa rocker and then something skinnier for spring corn missions.
Maybe a Hyper Manti or Hyper V6 without the scales? Could go fatter with a Tour 1 or a Hyper V8?
For the spring missions... Objectives or Zero G 95? Something from Atomic or Dynafit?
Got the "new" Wayback 98, it's quite rockered and not too stiff, I need more days on them but they seem pretty good in soft snow, I've mostly skied slush with them though, pow not so much, got them 3 weeks ago and I'm in the alps so ...
I'll jump in (while forum is still working)...
For soft, I've been on Down CD104L which I find to be a total magic ski, but they redesigned and added like 200 gr to it so now I am also looking for its ultimate replacement. Front runner right now is the Armada Locator 104. 1500 ish gr weight ish my target. Its more cambered and prob more poppy, less pivoty than the Downs, but still hyper versatile. The Zero G 105 is another obvious candidate - kind of a benchmark ski in that width. Others are the Ski Trab Neve 104 version and K2 wayback 106.
I am definitely in the market for a spring ski. I would prefer to go used here. Goal is 1200-1300 gr range in 175-180 ish length with light binders, and trying to maintain some dampness vs dropping down to sub 1200 gr. On the list... K2 wayback 88/89, Solly MTN 86, Armada Locator 88 (length options less than ideal), Atomic Backland 85UL (on the lighter end), Dyna M-Vert 88 (very hard to find). Ones I have nixed... Dynafit blacklights sound top stiff and pingy, and I had the Zero G 85 in the past and found it too hooky. I should dig in on the Objectives and see if a possible fit.
I've been thinking about this a bit lately. The Trab Neve has the best skin attachment system in the game from what I can see, and makes that ski (and the 94) pretty tempting. I am currently skiing the Atomic Backland 95 for spring time and it's a great light weight ski but.....I would like to try something a little more rockered and mounted a little more progressively. Maybe -8ish cm back from center as opposed to the -12cm(?) of the backland (mine is an older version, new one is closer to -10cm I think). The Atomic is great at edge hold on hard snow and corn, but I struggle a bit in unconsolidated slop, wind skins, etc. And yeah, I'm sure it's the pilot and not the plane.
I think part of my struggle on the Atomic is that I ski a Deathwish Tour all winter and then the Atomic feels totally foreign for the first few spring tours. The HL BC100 looks promising on paper, I'd love some real world reviews or a demo day.
I've been thinking about this a bit lately. The Trab Neve has the best skin attachment system in the game from what I can see, and makes that ski (and the 94) pretty tempting. I am currently skiing the Atomic Backland 95 for spring time and it's a great light weight ski but.....I would like to try something a little more rockered and mounted a little more progressively. Maybe -8ish cm back from center as opposed to the -12cm(?) of the backland (mine is an older version, new one is closer to -10cm I think). The Atomic is great at edge hold on hard snow and corn, but I struggle a bit in unconsolidated slop, wind skins, etc. And yeah, I'm sure it's the pilot and not the plane.
I think part of my struggle on the Atomic is that I ski a Deathwish Tour all winter and then the Atomic feels totally foreign for the first few spring tours. The HL BC100 looks promising on paper, I'd love some real world reviews or a demo day.
I was thinking a lot about the Voile Hyper Manti for the lightweight winter conditions ski. My V6 BCs are quite slarvy and I have them in 178cm (99mm 2680g), which is short for me but still work surprising well, especially in tight spaces. I could do a Hyper Manti in 176cm or 181cm for 103/104 underfoot and 2670/2760g per pair while ditching the scales and gain just a little more float that makes them more versatile.
My problem with some of the skinnier stuff is I'm just not sure how useful those are... I don't tour for bulletproof and a lot of the corn can become slop in the valleys, so is a 82mm underfoot (Objective) a ski I should even buy? I keep thinking 88+ even for a long distance spring/summer/haute route ski that are tortionally stiff and can handle frozen bits of couloir.
As someone who likes to ski spring conditions from firm to corn all the way to mush, I’ve gravitate toward fatter skis in this category. I’ve been quite happy with the blizzard 0G 105s in this category. I’ve also spent a decent amount of time on the HL bc105s which fit nicely into the same spot in the quiver but skew a bit more towards rewarding “skiing with rage and authority” while the blizzard 105s are a bit more forgiving of different ski styles. Then elan ripstick tour 104 is another worthy option. Very similar to the blizzard 105 but a touch more forgiving and damp.
This probably isn't that helpful since idk when Marshal is going to do another run of them but damn those BC90s are a fun ski for spring objectives, I forgot how much I like them. I also use a 0g peak with them and it's a good pairing. BC100 has a different camber profile so idk how similar that would ski.
I had a hard time on the OG zero g 95s in anything but perfect corn but I keep hearing the new ones are much better.
If you stick with Voile I would go with the new Vector Ace mid 90 waist and spendy or Endeaver mid 80 waist and cheaper. That said the hypers are on sale and the Manti is also a nice ski softer than the above.
The HL BC100 is legit, I have 8 or so days in a wide variety of conditions this spring so far. Mounted with franken Plum 150s and Rad toes. It's ticks most of the boxes you are looking for. I will not be buying another ski around that size anytime soon after skiing it.
I'm looking for a now ski... maybe I should base grind these V6s until the scale drag goes away ;)
<p>
</p>Quote:
Originally Posted by summit
<p>
</p>
<p>
I'm curious about the HL BC90 as well as the BC100. Like others here, spring tours for me often include everything from rock hard that isn't going to get sun and soften, to way overripe slush several thousand feet lower. And the aprons of lines usually have a bunch of semi set up wet debris that hasn't smoothed over yet. So as long as the BC100 could handle hop turns on steep ice it seems like the extra width and rocker would help with the slush and debris? I would most likely be skiing these with ZGTP but would like a ski that could use a lighter boot in the future.</p>
If anyone is looking for a nice used set of 187 BC100, I am getting ready to list a pair. Email me! I definately think it’s a bc quiver killer ski. Super well rounded imo.
It's a bit heavy, but I am really digging my Dynafit Free 97 as a "mission" ski. Slice and dice, damper than a lighter construction, taper and rocker lets me smear and slash as needed. I went with the 184 which is nice and stable but probably could have done the 177.
Marshall and ASF,
Any chance we can get some reviews on the BC100? What do they ski like, any comparisons to other skis?
My honest 0.02 + general consensus feedback that I have received via email
(1) if you are looking for absolute pinnacle performance in heinous breakable crust, true reverse (BMT94, BC90/105) still have the edge, but the AM100 is very good overall. Like any ski, fully rounding the tips and tails beyond the widepoints makes a big difference.
(2) the AM100 surfs way better than it has any right to in untracked snow. Better than just about any other ski <110mm wide
(3) it is very intuitive and smooth and clean on hardpack
(4) they are damper than anything close to its weight or a bit over, and WAY WAY WAY damper than skis 100g+ lighter
Hope that helps!
BCNinety does mush incredibly well. In the past two weeks I’ve skied them in boot top powder, stiffish cold wind affected new snow, corn, refrozen corn, pow with a sun crust and it was all fun. My favorite HL ski. So damp and composed for the width and weight. So very loose but put them on edge and you can rail turns, even through slushy skied out groomers.
Marshall, make another run and add a one ninety one length, I’ll buy another pair.
I have had those for two season now. I don't know that I would call them "quite rockered", but for that width, they have deep tail rocker lines. I have a few deep days in them, and they do quite well.Quote:
Originally Posted by stuntmanbo
still, the OP was looking for a wider and narrower size, not quiver of one.
The Wayback 106 would be worth a look in that ~105 waist option.
God damn this forum is so shit right now. I have typed up like two longer reviews on the BC100 and every time lose them to some issue.
Having owned both the BC90 before and BC100 now I feel like I can write up a good quick review here. Other skis I have owned or skied in the same category: 184 Camox Freebird, 189 ON3P Steeple 102 (this one is a bit heavier, but was my favorite touring ski of all time), 184 Dynafit Free 97 (couple of tours and inbounds laps on rental rotations), and few short inbounds laps on a friends Wayback 98s, and a single tour on the new TX94.
Originally, I had the 184cm BC90 intending on using it for lowtide early season, mid-winter drought and full spring time. That ski was incredible with a consolidated base (one of the best corn skis ever) and in weird crusty strangeness as Marshal mentioned. I think as a dedicated spring ski I would have kept it. Considering I needed something a little more versatile for the mid-winter-facet-fuckery that happens in the san juans I moved it on and bought the 100.
The BC100 is surfy in anything soft, nearly as damp in variable as my 2000g+ Steeples were, floats far better than any other ~100mm ski I have been on in deeper pow, and is dead easy on smooth but firm conditions. In the horrible unconsolidated mank we have seen down low this spring, it floats well and turns quick enough to keep me from catching under trees and hitting buried stumps with is all I really can want out of a spring time ski in these conditions. I have yet to get it into uber firm jump turn terrain, but have skied my AM100s in that terrain and felt good about edge hold and stability. The tails on my BC100s get a little hung up in the variable wind skin and weird crusts that the 90 felt easy in, but that is expected and still way better than either of the Camox or Free 97 felt in the same conditions.
The BC100 just does everything so well for a ~1600g ski. With my binding setup they came out to ~1875g each, which is more than light enough for long tours but I can still drive it hard at 25 mph+ in corn and not worry I will die if I hit a variable section or catch a hidden rock. I would not hesitate to take it out in anything other than a deep mid-winter storm cycle, which is why I have a 120mm ski too. Going lighter means you are giving up variable snow performance for the up, going narrower (<95mm) is getting to specialist territory, and wider (>105mm) is not generalist enough for a this catagory imo.
I will say this does not really anwser OPs question, I just wanted to get this posted while the forum worked.
Well now I want a BC90 and a BC100 and a BC105.... Marshall always deals the best ski crack.
If the BC One hundred had the same tip and tail shape of the Ninety it would solve the problem of hanging up in certain crusty/funky snow. My Nineties are easier in funk than my One tens but not quite the float.
The bc105 is essentially the same shape was the bc90 just +15mm (they even use the same rocker mold).
If you get a one eighty five BC one zero five return let me know.
For anyone interested in the BC Ninety or One zero five, I like my Nineties at minus eight point five. They are way looser than at recommended. The ski is relatively stiff throughout the length and the longer tail is nice with a pack and the tip is stiff enough that it still slices through funky snow. The long low splay lets them plane up in powder very well.
Am I hearing an argument that reverse camber is better for jump turns/hard snow in a couloir or did I misunderstand? I always thought low sidecut cambered was better?
Yesterday I found great corn in an ENE facing bowl and returning to the trail head had to ski a north facing bowl and I was a little early. It was pretty firm and scratchy and about forty five degrees at the top. No problem doing quick pivoting turns in the fall line with the BC Ninety. This ski continues to impress me. They slay corn, even deeper over ripe corn.
Yesterday I found great corn in an ENE facing bowl and returning to the trail head had to ski a north facing bowl and I was a little early. It was pretty firm and scratchy and about forty five degrees at the top. No problem doing quick pivoting turns in the fall line with the BC Ninety. This ski continues to impress me. They slay corn, even deeper over ripe corn.
@summit - I am absolutely not the late spring / all summer huge coulie guy, but I would really suggest considering a stiff fully cambered ski in the 80-85cm for big classic CO lines.. even something the Dynafit blacklight 80 is decent at making biggish turns on aprons and is responsive enough to ski low bushy exits as long as you back off the excessive and coarse sharpness they come with stock. The Backland 85Ul is a bit more foregiving for sure, but is more fragile and less precise too (so better in really weird wind/funk/variable). Zero G 80/85 great option here too.
Going far less progressive of a shape, sized down, and full but fairly low camber, in a narrower waist, IMO, will really be an asset in the use case I think you are shooting for here... then have skis in the 90-110+ as the winter daily driver depending on what you are after. Just my 0.02