The Raven - Hoji's New Masterpiece

[MagnificentUnicorn]

Yeah, Ravens aren’t super light but that’s what makes them ski so well. For me they have a really nice snow feel, damp and quite stable for their weight. The carbon Heritage Lab skis have a very similar feel to me.


Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

[PeachesNCream]

As someone who’s teached a significant other to ski.

How’d that go? Any tips?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Skip Dooley]

As someone who’s teached a significant other to ski. Generally the beefier skis are better for teaching since you can’t actually ski fast enough to enjoy sidecut anyway. Long radius skis with short slarves is also great technical practice.

My 184cm 2022 ravens weigh 1794 and 1788. Old blue and white ones were similar. I’ve never heard 1600g being toted anywhere.

Thanks, that’s kind of the sweet spot IMO. But since manufacturers regularly under all their weights I don’t want to be surprised with a 1950g ski..

Wild Snow from a few years ago says 1600, and I’ve heard it repeated multiple times.


Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

[rfconroy]

I should have been more clear. They’d be for me, tagging along with a beginner


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

They're pretty boring when you're making smaller/shorter turns.

They're happiest when making big arching turns and shutting it down with a slarve. Id personally opt for a more noodly option if youre going that route, like a vision 98/108, still a great ski, but much more playful and happier at slower speeds

[singlesline]

How’s the raven at slow speeds? Would it work as a girlfriend learning to ski ski or is it happier at speed?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I was about to chime in and say absolutely not...but then I saw your note that they'd be for YOU.

I think they could work there. They seem very fun to slide around at low speeds in the right snow. Lots of room to just pivot around and *not* carve and keep the speed in check, good for catching little stashes on the side or dipping in and out of the mellow trees while the GF skis the middle of the blue groomer. They aren't great in every condition, but presumably you could pull another ski from the quiver if you knew it was gonna be boilerplate or some other unfavorable condition for the Raven.

Depending on the GF's level, if you're actually *teaching* and not just skiing with a GF who is learning, they might not be the ideal ski for demonstrating technique. You ski them pretty differently from most "normal" skis, so between the stance and the tendency to slarve, it would not be a great "teaching ski" for doing things like exaggerated parallel linked turns at a relatively slow pace.

Not that you can't do teaching turns...I put these down on sunday with my Ravens in some thick mashed potatoes that didn't allow for anything besides railroad tracks:

But there's a reason most instructors of non-advanced skiers are grabbing something relatively narrow with a decently short radius.

[PeachesNCream]

They're pretty boring when you're making smaller/shorter turns.

They're happiest when making big arching turns and shutting it down with a slarve. Id personally opt for a more noodly option if youre going that route, like a vision 98/108, still a great ski, but much more playful and happier at slower speeds

Funny you bring up the vision. I’m considering having this as a 2 in 1 touring ski and slow speed ski. I usually dont go fast while touring so I think it could work. Was looking at raven (cause I’ve loved the HL fr110 and this seems like a lighter version of that but wasn’t sure how it was going slow) or go something more flexy and was looking at the vision or bacon


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[PeachesNCream]

I was about to chime in and say absolutely not...but then I saw your note that they'd be for YOU.

I think they could work there. They seem very fun to slide around at low speeds in the right snow. Lots of room to just pivot around and *not* carve and keep the speed in check, good for catching little stashes on the side or dipping in and out of the mellow trees while the GF skis the middle of the blue groomer. They aren't great in every condition, but presumably you could pull another ski from the quiver if you knew it was gonna be boilerplate or some other unfavorable condition for the Raven.

Depending on the GF's level, if you're actually *teaching* and not just skiing with a GF who is learning, they might not be the ideal ski for demonstrating technique. You ski them pretty differently from most "normal" skis, so between the stance and the tendency to slarve, it would not be a great "teaching ski" for doing things like exaggerated parallel linked turns at a relatively slow pace.

Not that you can't do teaching turns...I put these down on sunday with my Ravens in some thick mashed potatoes that didn't allow for anything besides railroad tracks:

But there's a reason most instructors of non-advanced skiers are grabbing something relatively narrow with a decently short radius.

Good point, didn’t think of that. My technique sucks but being on a reverse camber ski probably doesn’t help for an example


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[NWFlow]

This thread just reminded me maybe I need a pair for all purpose touring. 6' 170# skiing skorpius boots. Currently on 186 vision 98s. Can I get away with the 184 for all purpose touring?

[MagnificentUnicorn]

I would think the 184 would be fine. The Ravens are relatively stiff but not overly so. I think people’s experience on them depends on their size and skiing style. I’m on 190s and I think they’re fine billygoating and noodling around or making long radius fall line turns. I I’m larger though so the 190 isn’t a lot of ski.


Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

[PinyonJuniper5]

This thread just reminded me maybe I need a pair for all purpose touring. 6' 170# skiing skorpius boots. Currently on 186 vision 98s. Can I get away with the 184 for all purpose touring?

I’m about the same size as you and enjoy the 184’s. They will have similar foot to your 186 Visions, but be much easier to pivot and maneuver in the trees. That said, if you’re already skiing a 186 with some camber, the 190 wouldn’t feel like a lot more ski.

Being on high ROM boots, I think you’d be pretty happy on the 184. Also, definitely get tour-lock. Best skin system ever.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[NWFlow]

That's what I wanted to hear, thanks for the feedback. I'm only really getting rad in my mind, so the 184 is probably more than enough ski realistically.

[singlesline]

I'm 6'2 195 or so on 184s and I'd say I'm at the point where I kinda wish I had the 190s, mostly for the bit of extra float.

They pivot around so easily that I'm sure I wouldn't have trouble maneuvering the 190 in the trees and the bit of extra weight would be worth the tradeoff (especially if the skin system cuts out some uphill grams). A pair of 190s with 4lock may be in my future if the price is right.

[kc_7777]

I’m 5’7”, and the 184 Raven feels just right (mounted on rec). It’s skis shorter than its length for sure.

Plus at my 170 lbs, the 104 Raven in the 184, with its rocker shape still has decent float in low aspect backcountry pow.

So I think it’s more of a weight thing. I’d say if you’re 170-185 lbs then go 184.

If you’re heavier than 185 then you’ll likely wish for more float.


Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

[mr_pretzel]

I’ve skied both the 184 and 190 raven quite extensively, I have the 184 now. If you’re not really tall(6,2+) I dont think the 190 gives you much. The speed limit is about the same, the float is about the same and you’re just giving up on increased weight and maneuverability. If you want more ski going to the hoji is definitely worth it.
I don’t think resort ski sizing converts to a wild snow ski like the raven in the usual way.

[meter-man]

I’ve skied both the 184 and 190 raven quite extensively, I have the 184 now. If you’re not really tall(6,2+) I dont think the 190 gives you much. The speed limit is about the same, the float is about the same and you’re just giving up on increased weight and maneuverability. If you want more ski going to the hoji is definitely worth it.
I don’t think resort ski sizing converts to a wild snow ski like the raven in the usual way.

Useful comments - what do you weigh?

I had the 184 Raven and it felt short at 6’, 200#. Not sure I really gave it enough test time.

Conversely, I love my reverse camber 185 Intention 110s. They don’t feel short. I like them better than 191 Hojis (22/23) and 184 Ravens, for touring. (Pretty sure I’d prefer the 191 Hoji for resort use.) I’m in Tahoe for reference, so maritime snowpack.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[mr_pretzel]

Useful comments - what do you weigh?

I had the 184 Raven and it felt short at 6’, 200#. Not sure I really gave it enough test time.

Conversely, I love my reverse camber 185 Intention 110s. They don’t feel short. I like them better than 191 Hojis (22/23) and 184 Ravens, for touring. (Pretty sure I’d prefer the 191 Hoji for resort use.) I’m in Tahoe for reference, so maritime snowpack.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

6,1, 180lbs.

I agree they dont feel long, but I don’t think the 190s really change the feel that much, they suffer from the “long and skinny feeling” in the 190.

The WNDR 110 has a way stouter tail than either of the 4frnts and likes more traditional technique so I can see how you could enjoy it more than both the raven ans hoji depending on how you ski.

[MagnificentUnicorn]

I think some of the reason that people have wildly different opinions about the Raven is the mount point. I like my 190s at -8. That’s pretty far back from recommended. I don’t think that the recommended mount point takes into consideration that taller and heavier skiers will mostly likely be happier with a more aft mount.


Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

[singlesline]

I'm currently a believer in the "hoji formula" here: larger boots should move back by (BSL-284)/2 millimeters.

Which is naturally going to put bigger skiers (who tend to have bigger feet) further back on the ski.

I do not think I would like these skis if I had mounted them 2cm forward of the current spot which is where the line is. Maybe it would be ok on the 190s, but with my 28.5 boot and 184 ski, I think I'd be struggling to make them float and ski well at the same time.

Honestly, I think the hoji formula should probably be standard everywhere--or something similar targeting ball-of-foot rather than boot center--but I don't think you can blindly apply it to other skis. Presumably with non-hoji skis, the sidecut and camber profiles are not designed around a 25.5 boot...they probably assume larger boots, especially in longer sizes.

[MagnificentUnicorn]

I’ve taken to mounting all my progressive skis with a modified Hoji formula. It really works for taller skiers with largish feet


Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

[BlazersTimbers503]

I just splurged and used a 40% off BD code on some Tecton 13s and I’m trying to decide which sticks I should mount them to. A couple years ago I scored a sweet deal on some Backland 117s so I have my fat touring skis covered, so im thinking something in the neighborhood of 100-105 underfoot. I’m big… 6’4” 230ish lbs, and I have my eyes on the 190 Ravens and the 190 WNDR Vital 100s. I’ll be mostly using these in the PNW on Hood and Bachelor.

Anyone A-B test both skis in the 190 lengths? Is there an obvious choice for a big dude in the PNW? Anything else I should look at instead?


Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

[meter-man]

Well....a pair of 190 Ravens with Kuluar 12s fell into my lap. Guess I'll given them a whirl, and A/B them against my Intentions, and maybe some 184 Ravens from a friend.

Weight is 2160g for the 190s with Kuluar 12s. My Intentions with Freeraider 12s weight 2389g for reference. Based on binding weights, seem like the 190 Ravens would have weighed 1920g, right about spec of 1890g.

Useful comments - what do you weigh?

I had the 184 Raven and it felt short at 6’, 200#. Not sure I really gave it enough test time.

Conversely, I love my reverse camber 185 Intention 110s. They don’t feel short. I like them better than 191 Hojis (22/23) and 184 Ravens, for touring. (Pretty sure I’d prefer the 191 Hoji for resort use.) I’m in Tahoe for reference, so maritime snowpack.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

6,1, 180lbs.

I agree they dont feel long, but I don’t think the 190s really change the feel that much, they suffer from the “long and skinny feeling” in the 190.

The WNDR 110 has a way stouter tail than either of the 4frnts and likes more traditional technique so I can see how you could enjoy it more than both the raven ans hoji depending on how you ski.

Yeah, Ravens aren’t super light but that’s what makes them ski so well. For me they have a really nice snow feel, damp and quite stable for their weight. The carbon Heritage Lab skis have a very similar feel to me.


Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

[natebob]

I'm currently a believer in the "hoji formula" here: larger boots should move back by (BSL-284)/2 millimeters.

Which is naturally going to put bigger skiers (who tend to have bigger feet) further back on the ski.

"I do not think I would like these skis if I had mounted them 2cm forward of the current spot which is where the line is. Maybe it would be ok on the 190s, but with my 28.5 boot and 184 ski, I think I'd be struggling to make them float and ski well at the same time.

Honestly, I think the hoji formula should probably be standard everywhere--or something similar targeting ball-of-foot rather than boot center--but I don't think you can blindly apply it to other skis. Presumably with non-hoji skis, the sidecut and camber profiles are not designed around a 25.5 boot...they probably assume larger boots, especially in longer sizes."

Curious if you think the Hoji formula could apply to the new Nevar ski. I'm 6'1", 170, 28.5/317 boot. Have not always clicked with progressive mounts. Got a 184 Nevar, not sure if I should go on the line or move back the 16.5 mm that the Hoji formula would suggest. Different skis, same designer, wondering if the formula applies here.

[meter-man]

Curious if you think the Hoji formula could apply to the new Nevar ski. I'm 6'1", 170, 28.5/317 boot. Have not always clicked with progressive mounts. Got a 184 Nevar, not sure if I should go on the line or move back the 16.5 mm that the Hoji formula would suggest. Different skis, same designer, wondering if the formula applies here.

Dunno, but the Hoji formula is really for reverse camber skis, which are more sensitive to mount point than cambered skis. Not sure I know on the Nevar....I usually mount at recommended, and then just remount based on feel, if needed.

[MagnificentUnicorn]

I mount farther back on all skis based on bsl and I’m tall and heavy. I started thinking about it more after I read hoji’s formula. It works for traditional skis too. I have gone forward on some skis, most notably a HL BC Ninety. I didn’t care for them at all at the recommended minus ten but love them at minus eight five


Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

[meter-man]

I mount farther back on all skis based on bsl and I’m tall and heavy. I started thinking about it more after I read hoji’s formula. It works for traditional skis too. I have gone forward on some skis, most notably a HL BC Ninety. I didn’t care for them at all at the recommended minus ten but love them at minus eight five


Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

Mount is so specific to skier preference, boot cuff ankle, boot ramp, and binding ramp - all before you get to the actual ski design.

For me, it totally depends on the ski, but I’m usually forward (+1 to 1.5) or on the rec line. And almost never behind the line. 324 BSL, 200#. Recently I’ve preferred forward on my Rustler 11s and Commander 98s..

Point is: it’s really hard to make categorical calls on new to you skis.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk