Review: 08/09 Salomon Czar 182 = The TITS

[Jim S]

Originally Posted by Alkasquawlik
FYI: I'm 6'2" and a buck ninety and I skied the 182 for the last two years and was totally impressed that I could ski it and it worked so friggin well. I never thought the 182 would work but it soon became my snowmobiling bc and everyday squaw ski. I mounted 'em forward to give myself some tail and quickness and they worked amazingly.

But just incase you aint' sold on rocking an '82, a 190 is in the works.

Note to peanut gallery: Alkasquawlik could ski the 132 (if there was one) and still kill it on the mountain.

[skiburgher]

I'm 6 foot, 160. Do you recommend the 174s or 182?

[wwwllw]

I woud definitely go 182 I'm 5' 10" 160 and ski the 182.

[Jim S]

I'm 6 foot, 160. Do you recommend the 174s or 182?

I recommend you eat some food.

[Driver]

I'm 6 foot, 160. Do you recommend the 174s or 182?

I recommend Guinness and two cheese burgers per day for the next 12 months.

[ego7man]

That is probably the greatest diet ever^^

[Brizatow]

[QUOTE=H-wood;1755020]why compare apple to oranges?
this ski isn't for nuking AK runs.QUOTE]

http://www.zapiks.com/valdez-ak-freeski-tv-12.html

Hold on is that Abma nuking an AK run on czars?
Dipshit.

[ego7man]

[QUOTE=Brizatow;2395408]

why compare apple to oranges?
this ski isn't for nuking AK runs.QUOTE]

http://www.zapiks.com/valdez-ak-freeski-tv-12.html

Hold on is that Abma nuking an AK run on czars?
Dipshit.

yes, yes it is

[QuikR12]

I haven't skied the Czar's, but after reading reviews and riding the Lords in knee deep fluff in PNW, I knew Salomon had something there. I saw a few people questioning the versatility of the Lords, which i will offer my opinion... The Lords were and GREAT resort ski. I wouldn't call them just a groomer or park ski, actually if you just ski the hardpack, you'll be much better off on a stiffer cambered ski... However, the Lords really do it all. When you are bound by a resort but can only afford a one ski quiver, these are fantastic. They float pow amazingly well, crush crud, and amazed me how nimble and quick they were through trees... down the hardpack back to the lift lines they held up great. You really can't go wrong with this ski, but if you're looking for a true pow, or true groomer ski, you're better off going elsewhere. If you want something that does it all very well, this is it. Plus, the rocker on this ski made pow turns feel like butter, or an orgasm on your feet. I think this was Salomon's intent here; to offer an all-mountain resort version of the Czar.

[Sloafer11']

did somone ask about the lords?

I'm confused.

fuck you.

[Phill]

^^^what he said

[JaytaeMoney]

Can we talk a little more about the mounting point on these skis?

I have the 09/10s and I'm putting a pair of Dukes on them within the next few days since this huge ass storm is about to puke all over the place.

I'm definitely going to mount progressive, but I've been hearing that 1-2cm in front of that line is where it's at... Apparently Abma skis these 5cm in front of the progressive line??

Can anyone speak to how the skis will perform by mounting them that far forward? I consider myself to be a very aggressive skier (ex-racer) but I want these skis to be able to float because as of right now they are the fattest ski in my quiver and my only rockered ski.

Should I just mount progressive and be done w/it or would it be worth it to go a few cms forward?

[wcf3]

Can we talk a little more about the mounting point on these skis?

I have the 09/10s and I'm putting a pair of Dukes on them within the next few days since this huge ass storm is about to puke all over the place.

I'm definitely going to mount progressive, but I've been hearing that 1-2cm in front of that line is where it's at... Apparently Abma skis these 5cm in front of the progressive line??

Can anyone speak to how the skis will perform by mounting them that far forward? I consider myself to be a very aggressive skier (ex-racer) but I want these skis to be able to float because as of right now they are the fattest ski in my quiver and my only rockered ski.

Should I just mount progressive and be done w/it or would it be worth it to go a few cms forward?

If you want them to float, don't go more than 1-2 cm forward. I'm 5'9", 155lbs and I've got 182's mounted on the line. There isn't that much tip area on the ski to start with and in deeper/heavier snow they will plow a bit until one get some speed up. Guess if you are going with 190's it might not be as much of a problem going further forward, but I've never skied those.

[altasnowbirdripper]

^^^ agreed - I skied them mounted at the line and felt I would not want them any more forward (if I had a 182 I'd be moving back a little as I have no intentions of ever landing anything switch) loved the ski all over the mountain btw - maybe could be ok moving in front of the line with the 190, but I'd definitely not go more on the 182 if you plan on getting them in anything deeper than your shins...

[JaytaeMoney]

Thanks for the advice guys. I posted the same question on the Backcountry.com product page for this year's Czars and Jamey Parks responded pretty quickly - he has similar sentiments. Posting his response here in case someone has similar questions in the future:

This is for the 182s. Talked to Cody Townsend, he mounts them on the forward line. He told me Abma finds the exact balance point and mounts them there, ~3cm in front of the forward line. My first pair I mounted standard, second pair mounted between the lines. Didn't notice much difference. I've always liked the standard mount, but others swear by the forward mount... I don't think you'll have a problem with a forward mount, plenty of tip rocker for the pow. Not much info on the 190s as of yet.

I plan on mounting on the forward line, sounds like that's what will work best for me.

[GoldenBC]

never thought I would hear so many people recommending forward mount on TGR. Possibly because its not a bigger ski so you don't get those people skiing it?

I am 5'6 155lbs and replacing 183 05 Gotamas (black ones) with the 182 czar and dukes. this is my main touring ski and shralped hill ski. solely directional, no switch.

It looks as if the mounting points are farther forward on these skis as is. What style of skiing are you guys who are mounting them forward doing?

[dexterq20]

I'm gonna bump this thread, as I too am looking for more opinions on the mounting point. Got a pair of Czars coming in the mail tomorrow and will be using them as an everyday ski at Snowbird (not for deep pow days though; I have another pair of sticks for that). Above anything else, I need them to be able to ski tracked out crud. Will the forward mounting point help or hinder their performance in choppy snow?

[Dr.Evil]

My wife has a pair of 166 Czars with STH 12s mounted on the "traditional" line. She's an aggressive skier who likes to go fast, she does not spin or ski switch. She only has one day on them but said she loved them from her very run. She said they were great on everything (even the groomers), but was most impressed by how fun they were blasting through tracked up powder.

I've never tried the Czar myself, but I can't help but think if you have them mounted on or forward of the progressive line that powder performance is going to suffer. I know it's a different ski, but when I first got my big troubles mounted on the line I thought the ski kicked ass everywhere but the powder. Moving the bindings back 2cm vastly improved the performance in the powder and did not notice a decrease in performance anywhere else.

[sfotex]

I'm gonna bump this thread, as I too am looking for more opinions on the mounting point. Got a pair of Czars coming in the mail tomorrow and will be using them as an everyday ski at Snowbird (not for deep pow days though; I have another pair of sticks for that). Above anything else, I need them to be able to ski tracked out crud. Will the forward mounting point help or hinder their performance in choppy snow?

Anyways, after extensive conversations with others that have tried the back mounting points and who weren't flippy spinny guys, I'd still recommend the forward mounting point. In my opinion it gets the tip to engage in the chop and crud but because there is a bit of rocker you still won't have to worry about tip dive in the pow. Also the forward mounting point gives you more tail which increases the stability and 'chargy-ness' of the ski. Anyways, hope this didn't come too late or if it did I hope the ski is working out for you. All the best and hope you're having a good winter. Ciao,

...................................

[lemonhead]

I guess I'll offer another opinion on the mounting point. I went back and forth on where to mount. I ended up going with the back line. I'm 6 feet 185lbs and like to really drive the tips of my skis, never land switch. Tried them out today with four inches of fresh over and loved them. I didn't feel like i lost any chargeablity with the back mount.

[JaytaeMoney]

I'm gonna bump this thread, as I too am looking for more opinions on the mounting point. Got a pair of Czars coming in the mail tomorrow and will be using them as an everyday ski at Snowbird (not for deep pow days though; I have another pair of sticks for that). Above anything else, I need them to be able to ski tracked out crud. Will the forward mounting point help or hinder their performance in choppy snow?

This might be too late but if I were you I'd mount forward. I have mine mounted on the forward "progressive" line with Dukes and the first day I took them out I was skiing in the chopped up conditions you describe and they absolutely dominated. The only concern you should have with mounting forward is the tips diving in deep snow and it sounds like you won't be using them for those days.

I've been on them 5-6 days and I am loving them in all the conditions I have encountered but I have yet to be on them on a big day where there is over 12" of fresh snow so for me the jury is still out.

[El Chupacabra]

I'm 6'0" and ~195#, and the 182 Czars are too short: rockered tip + twin tail = very short feeling ski, like a 170-175cm traditional cambered flat tail ski. Functional in chop and even in light fluffy powder, but not really very much fun.

Mrs. C. is getting my 182s.

[fk]

In terms of stiffness, how does the czar compare to the EHP? I'm really close to pulling the trigger on 174 czars (5'5, 130# dude, decent skier nothing special) because of a reallly sweet deal but never demoed. Worried about the relatively heavy weight though and huge turn radius. I've read a bunch of threads but am looking for a reference point from skis that I actually have skied and liked/disliked.

177 EHP's were slightly too burl for me unless I was riding a wide open pow field (I know, I'm a big pansy), in which case it was awesome. I just felt like they were too much work to swing around at lower speeds/in tight spaces, not that great for me messing around which I like to do in addition to charging. I actually really liked the maneuverability/ability to charge combo of the Sidestash. So how does the Czar feel in relation to the two?

[Jesse]

I've skied the czar and own the EHP, (longer lengths), and I've found the czar to be extremely easy to ski and quite versitile. The czar works well in variable conditions, everything from light to heavy new snow,groomers, etc. I think because it is smaller/skinnier then the EHP it is generally easier. My friend took out a 174 one day and was killing it (for him) on them. He raved all day.
I think I prefer my EHP's in most conditions, but the Czar was generally easier to use. I'd have been happy with either.

[fk]

Exactly what I was looking for, thanks man

edit: Just pulled the trigger. Evogear outlet selling 2009 174s and 166s for $252 shipped