Push the Envelope: Heritage Labs RC85 and RC95

[MagnificentUnicorn]

I don’t want anything between 90 and 110. I don’t find 10mm in width is that noticeable


Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

[theetruscan]

monster 88s getting a bit rekt. hoping the 85s fill that slot well. can’t think of what i want the monsters to really do better


Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

[gaijin]

You guys are either talking about an M102, an FL105, or just whetting your whistle at this point.

Keep it niche, people, keep it niche.

PS… anyone want my OG M102? I’ll trade you a ski and a demo Baron for an empty FL105. We both pay our own shipping to/from JP.

[Marshal Olson]

monster 88s getting a bit rekt. hoping the 85s fill that slot well. can’t think of what i want the monsters to really do better


Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

yes. This!

[chewski]

How do flex compare with fl105 in both rc models?

[Marshal Olson]

How do flex compare with fl105 in both rc models?

I am targeting the same flex profile and stiffness

[turnfarmer]

“ Keep it niche, people, keep it niche. ”

22m radius 85mm waist seems pretty niche.
Want

[theetruscan]

yes. This!

after emailing you and declaring i wouldn’t buy more skis, i’ve got monster replacements on the way. and since i was there already, swallowtails. damn, you’re good at this.


Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

[Shorty_J]

Am I the only person who thinks the 95 with a R reverse profile is the ticket?

Sent from my SM-A536W using Tapatalk

[MagnificentUnicorn]

Am I the only person who thinks the 95 with a R reverse profile is the ticket?

Sent from my SM-A536W using Tapatalk

No, we want a flat/reverse R90 in 191


Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

[waveshello]

For an inbounds ski in these waist widths, I want some camber underfoot. I love my reverse camber skis, but if it's firm enough to be on an <95mm ski, reverse camber is not that fun IMO.

[Shorty_J]

No, we want a flat/reverse R90 in 191


Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

Ok you lost me at 191 but I'm glad I'm not the only insane person.

Sent from my SM-A536W using Tapatalk

[Shorty_J]

For an inbounds ski in these waist widths, I want some camber underfoot. I love my reverse camber skis, but if it's firm enough to be on an <95mm ski, reverse camber is not that fun IMO.

I think it's an indictment on my physical shape, but I sometimes think I might be done with camber.

My katana 108 have pretty much none but still have a good suspension and are one of the best carving skis I have ever tried.

I understand the reason people want it but I'm not sure I'm one of those people anymore.



Sent from my SM-A536W using Tapatalk

[Lord Thomas]

I understand the reason people want it but I'm not sure I'm one of those people anymore.
Sent from my SM-A536W using Tapatalk

When the ski is well executed I'm kinda with you on this statement. Having camber can be more limiting than not having camber.

[Shorty_J]

When the ski is well executed I'm kinda with you on this statement. Having camber can be more limiting than not having camber.

#sickle

Sent from my SM-A536W using Tapatalk

[MagnificentUnicorn]

I’m glad I’m not the only weirdo here


Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

[Shorty_J]

My Sickles got stolen and I bought a replacement pair but it turned out it was one of the mis-pressed pairs... so instead of subtle reverse camber they had subtle positive camber.

NOT the same ski. I got rid of them.

Sent from my SM-A536W using Tapatalk

[waveshello]

Those are 108mm and 106mm skis. Like I said, I like reverse camber--in my 108mm dev, 104mm raven. Just trying to imagine what the use case for a 90mm reverse camber inbounds ski is. I get why the BMT 94 exists, but why would anyone want to ski a ski like that inbounds, even if it was 800g heavier?

[waveshello]

I feel like the scimitar was the narrowest reverse camber inbounds ski that really makes sense. Already wondered if that might end up being a HL shape at some point

[MagnificentUnicorn]

Those are 108mm and 106mm skis. Like I said, I like reverse camber--in my 108mm dev, 104mm raven. Just trying to imagine what the use case for a 90mm reverse camber inbounds ski is. I get why the BMT 94 exists, but why would anyone want to ski a ski like that inbounds, even if it was 800g heavier?

Flat camber with rocker, like your Ravens. Use your imagination. Rails firm, pivots like crazy and is a blast in soft snow. What’s the downside? Please elaborate


Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

[Marshal Olson]

So I’ve skied the BC90 w/ reverse camber on hardpack early season quite a bit this year. it works pretty well, drifty and loose. Crazy playful. If anyone is actually serious about a limited run of these at some point, the best thing to do is dm me your email address.

the RC85 and 95 are obviously intended to be technical all mountain skis that hook up and carve while also having HL DNA in cut up snow, windbuff, corn, etc. high edge angles, pulling g’s, that kind of thing. Essentially the opposite of what an R90 would be.

[MagnificentUnicorn]

Another ski that is narrow by today’s standards but was an absolute charger and great powder ski was the 192 G3 Reverend at 92 under foot with a 26 meter radius. No metal but heavier and damp. A similar ski with the BC90 shape and flat camber would be a really fun all mountain ski.


Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

[Marshal Olson]

Yup, shoot me your email, happy to explore it in more detail in a working doc.

[Shorty_J]

I feel like the scimitar was the narrowest reverse camber inbounds ski that really makes sense. Already wondered if that might end up being a HL shape at some point

I was thinking about this exact ski when I posted above.

I don't think narrow and reverse camber are mismatched.

Sent from my SM-A536W using Tapatalk

[Shorty_J]

Paging @mntlion to the white courtesy phone to tell us about his black crows daemons.

Sent from my SM-A536W using Tapatalk