What's Blizzard up to?

[MD12]

The weight increases slightly each year with lots of skis. Check out the volkl mantras. That way manufacturers can drop weight and market as lighter (or flat out lie about it being lighter like the new enforcers - great skis but the weight stuff was just bs early on).

[noslow]

The weight increases slightly each year with lots of skis. Check out the volkl mantras. That way manufacturers can drop weight and market as lighter (or flat out lie about it being lighter like the new enforcers - great skis but the weight stuff was just bs early on).

The new Enforcers claimed “lighter swing weight” with their new True Tips and lots of reviews assumed they weighed lighter before actually measuring them. They are more playful and lively than before so I could see why some were surprised with the weight gain. Much better skis now.

Mantra M5 184cm have been around the 2130gr range since they came out with some weight variations between pairs of course.

[MD12]

Not gonna fall on my sword here. Should have qualified my statement as a somewhat informed suspicion. My recollection looking through evo and powder guides is that I noticed weight seems to increase (on average) for a lot of skis after a new model is released and before the next model comes out.

I’ve skied the enforcer 93 and 94, older 100 vs new 100, and I think the newer version has a significantly higher swingweight in both cases. Fwiw I like the newer versions more - but the “we made a lighter swingweight” that was pumped out by ski essentials and ski talk and other sites imho was just bs. I don’t notice the swingweight on easier stuff because it doesn’t matter - but I’m very technical and very steep terrain the newer versions seems much more fatiguing and less maneuverable overall. Perhaps they have a lighter swingweight compared to what it otherwise would have been if they used a different construction, but to me that’s meaningless (like saying it’s a lighter swingweight than if we put lead in the tips and tails). And I assume all these outlets took the marketing notes from nordica for early access and ability to publish early reviews.

In some situations the new models may seem more pivotable or lighter - but after skiing 7 hours on the 94 vs 93 and new 100 vs old 100 - it seems clear to me that the new versions are more fatiguing heavier skis and feel that way over the course of the day.

Again, I like the new enforcers. I think the 104 free is very very good and ski it often (side note - anyone find the new m pro 99 to be a lighter more flickable e104?). And could ski the e94 or new 100 in a wide range of conditions and be very happy.

Then again, my favorite ski currently is the bonafide 97 - I like heavy precise skis with excellent suspension. Blows the e94 and new 100 out of the water imho, unless I’m skiing with my wife who’s a beginner.

Again, some of this is assumptions and suspicions only - should have made that clear.

[kc_7777]

For what it’s worth I skied my new 2021 Rustler 11s today....and they were so awesome.

I can’t explain the difference from the 2019 green ones....but the 2021s just felt more solid, yet more slarvy too. Made me love em all over again.

[noslow]

For what it’s worth I skied my new 2021 Rustler 11s today....and they were so awesome.

I can’t explain the difference from the 2019 green ones....but the 2021s just felt more solid, yet more slarvy too. Made me love em all over again.

You were one of the many that made me wonder “what changes they made” and “do they ski any different” when I saw your new orange pair! I’m sure the heavier bindings will also affect their feel too. Glad you feel a bit of a difference which was one of my questions answered.

Btw-You have to get on the 2021 Candide 2.0 as it’s a great mix of the Menace 98, Enforcer 104, Fisher 102 FR and maybe even the Bonafide 97. Damp, stable. quiet, powerful yet still forgiving and very good edge grip for a twin. It won’t have the float of some of the others above but okay in a bit of new snow.

Bought them on a deal from the rep this Fall and was hoping I’d like them but was blown away last week after finally trying them out on a fresh tune. All Factions now made at the Fisher plant so build quality not so hit and miss on them. Mounted mine 1.5cm back from the Candide line(-5cm from center) which is their “progressive” mount and it’s perfect. Nice daily driver for the West Coast. Think you’d like them!

Not gonna fall on my sword here. Should have qualified my statement as a somewhat informed suspicion. My recollection looking through evo and powder guides is that I noticed weight seems to increase (on average) for a lot of skis after a new model is released and before the next model comes out.

I’ve skied the enforcer 93 and 94, older 100 vs new 100, and I think the newer version has a significantly higher swingweight in both cases. Fwiw I like the newer versions more - but the “we made a lighter swingweight” that was pumped out by ski essentials and ski talk and other sites imho was just bs. I don’t notice the swingweight on easier stuff because it doesn’t matter - but I’m very technical and very steep terrain the newer versions seems much more fatiguing and less maneuverable overall. Perhaps they have a lighter swingweight compared to what it otherwise would have been if they used a different construction, but to me that’s meaningless (like saying it’s a lighter swingweight than if we put lead in the tips and tails). And I assume all these outlets took the marketing notes from nordica for early access and ability to publish early reviews.

In some situations the new models may seem more pivotable or lighter - but after skiing 7 hours on the 94 vs 93 and new 100 vs old 100 - it seems clear to me that the new versions are more fatiguing heavier skis and feel that way over the course of the day.

Again, I like the new enforcers. I think the 104 free is very very good and ski it often (side note - anyone find the new m pro 99 to be a lighter more flickable e104?). And could ski the e94 or new 100 in a wide range of conditions and be very happy.

Then again, my favorite ski currently is the bonafide 97 - I like heavy precise skis with excellent suspension. Blows the e94 and new 100 out of the water imho, unless I’m skiing with my wife who’s a beginner.

Again, some of this is assumptions and suspicions only - should have made that clear.

Agree that early reviews(SkiEssentials especially) of the new Enforcers made them sound lighter and super easy to ski but as soon as I saw the weight and flex patterns on Blisters preview I thought “that’s going to be more demanding and less forgiving” than the current ones. On smooth groomers, the new versions will feel lighter to whip around but in the terrain you mentioned the new 94 and 100 with be less forgiving and more work. The Enforcer 104 would be the more fun ski in that terrain as long as the snow isn’t too firm.

Owned the Enforcer 93 and still own the Enforcer 104s and definitely prefer the feel of the 104. Like the Enforcers but really wished they had a bit longer turn radius for more top end. Think I’ll be switching my 186cm Enforcer 104 out for the 192cm MFree 108 as they are so much more stable at higher speeds but still super easy to pivot in tight spots.

I also love the Bonafide 97 and Brahma 88 but again wished they had a longer turn radius. I find the new 183cm Candide 2.0 which has a very similar flex profile and exact same weight as the 183cm Bonafide 97 is like if the Boni was a twin with a bit more taper, a more forward mount and slightly longer turning radius. Like a Boni 97/Enforcer 104 mix. The Candide 2.0 has rubber damping so it super damp and quiet on the snow, carves very well with lots of pop and wants to go fast through variable terrain yet it’s not super demanding. Slept on ski that has a wide skier profile that could like it.

[Ottime]

Was there a big difference between the newer ones and yours? Curious as I have been debating about buying a pair to store for when my current bodacious dies. I love the ski that much.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The green ones do not have metal. Red and black ones do.

[kc_7777]

You were one of the many that made me wonder “what changes they made” and “do they ski any different” when I saw your new orange pair! I’m sure the heavier bindings will also affect their feel too. Glad you feel a bit of a difference which was one of my questions answered.

Btw-You have to get on the 2021 Candide 2.0 as it’s a great mix of the Menace 98, Enforcer 104, Fisher 102 FR and maybe even the Bonafide 97. Damp, stable. quiet, powerful yet still forgiving and very good edge grip for a twin. It won’t have the float of some of the others above but okay in a bit of new snow.

Bought them on a deal from the rep this Fall and was hoping I’d like them but was blown away last week after finally trying them out on a fresh tune. All Factions now made at the Fisher plant so build quality not so hit and miss on them. Mounted mine 1.5cm back from the Candide line(-5cm from center) which is their “progressive” mount and it’s perfect. Nice daily driver for the West Coast. Think you’d like them!

Really good point re the binding weight difference. Going from Shifts on my 2019 Rustler 11s to metal Pivot 15s on the 2021 maybe is why they felt more solid.

btw....I put the Shifts on some 2021 Elan Ripstick 106s...pretty impressed with that ski yesterday too.

Re. the Faction Candide 2.0...this is the first year I haven't had a Candide in the quiver. Previously had the 2020 Candide 5.0 and 2019 4.0. Both those skis ripped. Still deciding whether I would need/use a <100mm ski in my quiver? The Candide 2.0 and the Menace 98 could be contenders...but maybe a bit close in specs to my Enforcer 104. Maybe a Fischer Rangers FR 94?

[noslow]

Re. the Faction Candide 2.0...this is the first year I haven't had a Candide in the quiver. Previously had the 2020 Candide 5.0 and 2019 4.0. Both those skis ripped. Still deciding whether I would need/use a <100mm ski in my quiver? The Candide 2.0 and the Menace 98 could be contenders...but maybe a bit close in specs to my Enforcer 104. Maybe a Fischer Rangers FR 94?

Remember you having Candide skis before. I’m going to use my Candide 2.0 in afternoon crud in the East and will bring them out with the Moment Wildcats for trips out West. Candide grips better than the Enforcer 104, more stable at speed and better suspension. Menace 98s are damp but not as fun off piste or in crud as the Candide 2.0 are. Fisher 94 are great carving skis with good grip but they are pretty light and prefer the Fisher 102. Candides are a pretty good mix of all of these skis.

[meter-man]

Anyone have a pair of 188 Rustler 11s they are looking to unload?

I love my pair, but want to put Pivots on there, and I fear they are too swiss-cheesed (on their third mount).

Anybuddy??

[adrenalated]

I'm sure this has been discussed but it's really hard to find shit in a 58 page thread.

I'm once again on the hunt for a spring touring ski and the Zero G 95 is always a popular recommendation. It looks like it went through some changes last year. Longer radius (good!) and skimo.com at least seems to say it's a little softer than the original. I recall hand flexing the originals and being concerned they would be too stiff - I'm 145lbs (without gear) and would want to ski these with soft-ish boots like the Dynafit TLT6P. I generally like long and stiff skis for someone my size, but found my Down Lowdown 90s too stiff with the lighter boots and the slower, more controlled skiing I'm typically doing with this category of ski (spring ski mountaineering in Colorado). Any other lightweights skiing these, or comments about the flex? I'd get the 178cm.

I've generally seen rave reviews of these for hard snow, but I'm skeptical as I've just never found super light skis to ski well and the light weight has me nervous. The only two really light skis I've tried were an older pair of G3 Zenoxide C93s and the aforementioned Downs, and both felt chattery and unstable on steep firm snow. Does the Zero G really have a more damp feeling like a heavier ski?

FWIW I currently use a Praxis Freeride 184cm #4 flex for this purpose and they ski well, but are definitely heavier, wider, and longer than I need for skiing couloirs.

[klauss]

Careful out there. Rustler 11 tails will wash out on you if you land way back seat. Enjoying these sticks

[Bandit Man]

Careful out there. Rustler 11 tails will wash out on you if you land way back seat. Enjoying these sticks

Still looks like you stuck it! Nice shot and nice air!!

[skibrd]

Had my 188cm Rustler 9s and 188cm 10s out the past two days in Breckinridge.

Im always impressed with the 9s. They are so easy to ski, just do everything I want, high speed carving groomers is a bit of an adventure, you need to have very active legs, but they go sideways to burn speed so easily, it’s not fair. Breck was pretty skied off by 3pm, and I definitely need a tune. Edges would of been nice. They aren’t going to carve like my MX 98s or Brahmas, but they are SO good as goofing off skiing, slashing and drifting around. Plus, skiing with my cousins 3 year old daughter, they have been absolutely perfect. They have been my go to ski for when I’m not sure what I’m doing for the day. Need to ski slow forwards or backwards or walk up to pick up a 3 year old, perfect, get free for some adult time of ripping high speed groomers and steep bumps/trees, there are better skis, but when you are skiing back to the base for 3 year old time, the R9s are perfect.

The 10s on the other hand I can’t seem to figure out. I detuned the tips and tails, tried them at on the line and -1 (current mount). Times they are like the 9s where everything is easy, other times they are twitchy, don’t hold an edge, get bounced around, and are straight up frustrating. I want to like these inbounds, but can’t get through bumps or trees confidently. I think I’m just too big for them or want to ski them with a more charging style and they want me to be upright. I also can’t get them to work in anything over 4in of pow. I sink right to the bottom with the tips folding up on on me at the end of the metal sheet. They are damp enough up to the end of the metal sheet, and have enough energy/pop, maybe it’s the side cut or the tip and tail are just a bit too soft? I keep thinking I would like the metal sheet to go all the way to the tip and a second sheet to mirror what is currently there. Wasatchwayback, I’m not suggesting changing them, I’m weird and no one should ever take my suggestions on a ski. Maybe I should of gotten Cochise 106s instead, maybe next year I’ll grab a pair. I really like the twin tip idea in the 105ish width, I can see the Blizzard ski I want them to be, just too many wtf moments.


Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

[Bandit Man]

I thought the unofficial consensus was if you like the Rustler 9 and 11, you typically dislike the 10.

[stuckathuntermtn]

Anyone play with the mounting point on the R11? Will probably be my next ski and I like things very traditional, but not dealt with a lot of tail rocker in my life. Would -1 fuck it up? Is it needed? Would be for the 188.
Maybe I can't ski, but every new ski seems to have its mount too far forward and every boot seems too upright. Can't get the tail to release like I want and it also sometimes seems like there isn't enough ski in front of me. Upright boots made my back hurt. I put a heal lift and both leany shims in my Lupo SP's and that got the boot about where my Agent 120's were.
It can't only be me, since Völkl does -11 on some of their stuff. I'm at about -10 on my 190 Q Labs (real length 187). -9 or -9.5 would probably be perfect. Line is around -8. Tail is fairly flat. I found that on the line, I not only had too much tail, but was over the rockered section too much when I leaned forward. Awkward balance point. I also had to relearn how to ski coming from 188 Moment Rubies, lol.
188 R11 is also around -8, but different rocker/taper profole. I do like some ski in front of me though. What say y'all?
ETA other skis I've tried recently: Woodsman 108 187(?). Too turny. Even at -2, too much tail. Hard to vary turn shape. Wren 108 Ti 184. Much better. Easy to slarve, but could tell the ski could crush if let run. Much more traditional ski than the Woodsman. Could just as easily been happy/happier at -1 or maybe just gotten used to it.

[mr_pretzel]

You can go back 1-2 no problem. Blizzard athlete Johan Jonsonn skis them -1

[Bandit Man]

Anyone play with the mounting point on the R11? Will probably be my next ski and I like things very traditional, but not dealt with a lot of tail rocker in my life. Would -1 fuck it up? Is it needed? Would be for the 188.
Maybe I can't ski, but every new ski seems to have its mount too far forward and every boot seems too upright. Can't get the tail to release like I want and it also sometimes seems like there isn't enough ski in front of me. Upright boots made my back hurt. I put a heal lift and both leany shims in my Lupo SP's and that got the boot about where my Agent 120's were.
It can't only be me, since Völkl does -11 on some of their stuff. I'm at about -10 on my 190 Q Labs (real length 187). -9 or -9.5 would probably be perfect. Line is around -8. Tail is fairly flat. I found that on the line, I not only had too much tail, but was over the rockered section too much when I leaned forward. Awkward balance point. I also had to relearn how to ski coming from 188 Moment Rubies, lol.
188 R11 is also around -8, but different rocker/taper profole. I do like some ski in front of me though. What say y'all?
ETA other skis I've tried recently: Woodsman 108 187(?). Too turny. Even at -2, too much tail. Hard to vary turn shape. Wren 108 Ti 184. Much better. Easy to slarve, but could tell the ski could crush if let run. Much more traditional ski than the Woodsman. Could just as easily been happy/happier at -1 or maybe just gotten used to it.

Let us know how it turns out. I’m sure it will be fine.

Keep in mind that the Rustler 11 is intended to be a little bit friendlier and progressive than something like a Cochise. I suspect that you can play with the mount point but the ski will still have carbon layup in the tips and tails, will still not have a full sheet of metal, and will still not be as damp and stable as some people want it to be.

I feel like the tail can hang up a bit in really deep heavy snow and in tight quarters. I wish it had a tad more rocker in the tail. It’s a great ski, but two weeks ago at Snowbasin, where the Pow was really deep (18”+) but heavy, I felt like I was fighting the tail a bit.

YMMV

[sf]

Anyone play with the mounting point on the R11? Will probably be my next ski and I like things very traditional, but not dealt with a lot of tail rocker in my life. Would -1 fuck it up? Is it needed? Would be for the 188.
Maybe I can't ski, but every new ski seems to have its mount too far forward and every boot seems too upright. Can't get the tail to release like I want and it also sometimes seems like there isn't enough ski in front of me. Upright boots made my back hurt. I put a heal lift and both leany shims in my Lupo SP's and that got the boot about where my Agent 120's were.
It can't only be me, since Völkl does -11 on some of their stuff. I'm at about -10 on my 190 Q Labs (real length 187). -9 or -9.5 would probably be perfect. Line is around -8. Tail is fairly flat. I found that on the line, I not only had too much tail, but was over the rockered section too much when I leaned forward. Awkward balance point. I also had to relearn how to ski coming from 188 Moment Rubies, lol.
188 R11 is also around -8, but different rocker/taper profole. I do like some ski in front of me though. What say y'all?
ETA other skis I've tried recently: Woodsman 108 187(?). Too turny. Even at -2, too much tail. Hard to vary turn shape. Wren 108 Ti 184. Much better. Easy to slarve, but could tell the ski could crush if let run. Much more traditional ski than the Woodsman. Could just as easily been happy/happier at -1 or maybe just gotten used to it.

I'm at - 1 on the 188. Still a really quick ski, - 2 is probably fine as well, but it's not the most solid tail. A bit long, but not stiff. If you huck I'd be careful going too far back

[I've seen black diamonds!]

I'm sure this has been discussed but it's really hard to find shit in a 58 page thread.

I'm once again on the hunt for a spring touring ski and the Zero G 95 is always a popular recommendation. It looks like it went through some changes last year. Longer radius (good!) and skimo.com at least seems to say it's a little softer than the original. I recall hand flexing the originals and being concerned they would be too stiff - I'm 145lbs (without gear) and would want to ski these with soft-ish boots like the Dynafit TLT6P. I generally like long and stiff skis for someone my size, but found my Down Lowdown 90s too stiff with the lighter boots and the slower, more controlled skiing I'm typically doing with this category of ski (spring ski mountaineering in Colorado). Any other lightweights skiing these, or comments about the flex? I'd get the 178cm.

I've generally seen rave reviews of these for hard snow, but I'm skeptical as I've just never found super light skis to ski well and the light weight has me nervous. The only two really light skis I've tried were an older pair of G3 Zenoxide C93s and the aforementioned Downs, and both felt chattery and unstable on steep firm snow. Does the Zero G really have a more damp feeling like a heavier ski?

FWIW I currently use a Praxis Freeride 184cm #4 flex for this purpose and they ski well, but are definitely heavier, wider, and longer than I need for skiing couloirs.

I've owned the older Zero G 85's and I've skied the old 95's. I also owned a pair of the Down 102L's (similar layup to the Lowdown 90's, I think). I don't think you'll find the Blizzards and more damp or stable than the Downs. Both brands have a great feel compared to similarly light skis. But they aren't magical or anything.

The ski I would recommend is the Zero G 105 (unless you're determined to go skinnier). They're a bit over 1500g in a 180, and they ski like a real ski. They work well with my F1's when the snow is good, and paired with Hawx XTDs handle shit snow rather well. Plus in CO corn can turn to slop in a real hurry (or on longer lines you might have great turns up high and mush down low). I just like a wider spring ski here.

The Salomon MTN 95's seem to strike a similar balance. If I lived in a place where where I was doing a lot more kick turns, or where there is typically a longer daily window for skiing corn, I'd get a pair of these. Actually, I'd probably jump on a pair if a good deal came up.

If we ever cross paths, and your BSL is close to 300, you're welcome to try out the 105's

[adrenalated]

I've owned the older Zero G 85's and I've skied the old 95's. I also owned a pair of the Down 102L's (similar layup to the Lowdown 90's, I think). I don't think you'll find the Blizzards and more damp or stable than the Downs. Both brands have a great feel compared to similarly light skis. But they aren't magical or anything.

The ski I would recommend is the Zero G 105 (unless you're determined to go skinnier). They're a bit over 1500g in a 180, and they ski like a real ski. They work well with my F1's when the snow is good, and paired with Hawx XTDs handle shit snow rather well. Plus in CO corn can turn to slop in a real hurry (or on longer lines you might have great turns up high and mush down low). I just like a wider spring ski here.

The Salomon MTN 95's seem to strike a similar balance. If I lived in a place where where I was doing a lot more kick turns, or where there is typically a longer daily window for skiing corn, I'd get a pair of these. Actually, I'd probably jump on a pair if a good deal came up.

If we ever cross paths, and your BSL is close to 300, you're welcome to try out the 105's

Thanks, helpful!

Yeah, I hear ya on the wanting a wider ski for CO springtime and I'm certainly open to it. There's for sure a lot of days where I ski bulletproof at the top, corn in the middle, and mush at the bottom. I think part of going narrower would be to differentiate more from my Freerides, but considerably lighter and shorter would also do that.

I'd love to give your 105s a spin if it works out - my Hawx are 293mm so probably would fit, depending on binding? My TLT6Ps are 287mm so that might be tougher.

The Salomon MTN 95 has more sidecut than I want. I've hated every ski I've ever tried that had a turn radius under about 22m, especially on steep/firm. What I really want is a ski that's 100 underfoot, 25m radius, 180cm true length, a moderate/stiff flex, traditional mount point, and weighs somewhere around 1700g and feels like a real ski. But that doesn't seem to exist.

[I've seen black diamonds!]

^^^^^ My 105's have SSL 2.0's with adjustment plates to work with 297 and 302. I'm almost certain there is room for 293.

The Scott Superguide skis have fairly long radii, iirc. The previous generous were stupid stiff and the construction was pretty sloppy looking. Hopefully the new ones are much better.

[mr_pretzel]

Thanks, helpful!

Yeah, I hear ya on the wanting a wider ski for CO springtime and I'm certainly open to it. There's for sure a lot of days where I ski bulletproof at the top, corn in the middle, and mush at the bottom. I think part of going narrower would be to differentiate more from my Freerides, but considerably lighter and shorter would also do that.

I'd love to give your 105s a spin if it works out - my Hawx are 293mm so probably would fit, depending on binding? My TLT6Ps are 287mm so that might be tougher.

The Salomon MTN 95 has more sidecut than I want. I've hated every ski I've ever tried that had a turn radius under about 22m, especially on steep/firm. What I really want is a ski that's 100 underfoot, 25m radius, 180cm true length, a moderate/stiff flex, traditional mount point, and weighs somewhere around 1700g and feels like a real ski. But that doesn't seem to exist.

Down lowdowns?

[DarthMarkus]

Thanks, helpful!

Yeah, I hear ya on the wanting a wider ski for CO springtime and I'm certainly open to it. There's for sure a lot of days where I ski bulletproof at the top, corn in the middle, and mush at the bottom. I think part of going narrower would be to differentiate more from my Freerides, but considerably lighter and shorter would also do that.

I'd love to give your 105s a spin if it works out - my Hawx are 293mm so probably would fit, depending on binding? My TLT6Ps are 287mm so that might be tougher.

The Salomon MTN 95 has more sidecut than I want. I've hated every ski I've ever tried that had a turn radius under about 22m, especially on steep/firm. What I really want is a ski that's 100 underfoot, 25m radius, 180cm true length, a moderate/stiff flex, traditional mount point, and weighs somewhere around 1700g and feels like a real ski. But that doesn't seem to exist.

Sounds kind of like the Head Kore maybe? Otherwise zero g 105 sounds like what you want.

[waxoff]

Thanks, helpful!

Yeah, I hear ya on the wanting a wider ski for CO springtime and I'm certainly open to it. There's for sure a lot of days where I ski bulletproof at the top, corn in the middle, and mush at the bottom. I think part of going narrower would be to differentiate more from my Freerides, but considerably lighter and shorter would also do that.

I'd love to give your 105s a spin if it works out - my Hawx are 293mm so probably would fit, depending on binding? My TLT6Ps are 287mm so that might be tougher.

The Salomon MTN 95 has more sidecut than I want. I've hated every ski I've ever tried that had a turn radius under about 22m, especially on steep/firm. What I really want is a ski that's 100 underfoot, 25m radius, 180cm true length, a moderate/stiff flex, traditional mount point, and weighs somewhere around 1700g and feels like a real ski. But that doesn't seem to exist.

A few grams over target, but how about Black Crows Solis? Checks all other boxes.

[SoVT Joey]

A few grams over target, but how about Black Crows Solis? Checks all other boxes.

I agree. I like my Solis a lot. It skis awesome. Not like a freebird. It’s a little bit heavier but it handles variable conditions like a champ and loves hard snow. It’s a true 180 and is stiff. I’m very happy with it.