Push the Envelope: Heritage Labs RC85 and RC95

[hoarhey]

I’m leaning towards the shorter 95 for a little more versatility in softer snow


Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

[a-star]

I ~might~ be interested in a shorter RC95.

Marshal, have you gotten your test pairs of the 85 or 95 yet? Can you compare either of these, but my specific interest is in the 95, skis to similar skis currently on the market? (i.e. Nordica Enforcer 94, Volkl mantra M6, etc.)

[Marshal Olson]

They come in early/mid April. I’ll post a more lengthy write up then!

I will say, however, comparing 18-19m radius skis to 27m radius skis is apples to oranges, and nuance on ride feel or flex pattern is far less relevant than needing to ski with very different angles/input/etc for the respective radius to track and round properly.

If you are already seriously considering those skis, and their sidecuts aren’t already a turn off, I’d go as far as to say that the RC95 isn’t the ski. I don’t mean that in some elitest way, a 40% bigger turn radius is just that different.

[The Iron Horse]

I’m leaning towards the shorter 95 for a little more versatility in softer snow

I have the FL105, so I like the greater differentiation the 85 offers. But yeah, the 95 I'd grab in a heartbeat.

Tell your friends! Let's make this happen!

[ASP]

I would be interested too!

[MagnificentUnicorn]

The 95 sounds like a Wizard Explosiv with no metal


Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

[Marshal Olson]

The 95 sounds like a Wizard Explosiv with no metal
Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

exactly

[MagnificentUnicorn]

[emoji848]

Damn, all my favorite skis are 25-30m radius.


Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

[a-star]

They come in early/mid April. I’ll post a more lengthy write up then!

I will say, however, comparing 18-19m radius skis to 27m radius skis is apples to oranges, and nuance on ride feel or flex pattern is far less relevant than needing to ski with very different angles/input/etc for the respective radius to track and round properly.

If you are already seriously considering those skis, and their sidecuts aren’t already a turn off, I’d go as far as to say that the RC95 isn’t the ski. I don’t mean that in some elitest way, a 40% bigger turn radius is just that different.

Thanks Marshal, you're right 18-19m radius is difficult to compare to a 27m radius ski. Looking forward to the full write-up!

[Marshal Olson]

@a-star Here is a bit from Nastar’s website on sidecut radius and length. Thought it was interesting in this conversation.

Tight, 18-meter sidecut GS skis may be the rage, but perhaps not the fastest choice for everyone. The higher the edge angle you create while turning, the bigger the sidecut you can handle. If you get a lot of angulation, you can actually have too much sidecut, which makes the skis feel hooky. While most masters racers prefer a GS radius under 25 meters, an 18-meter radius may be too tight for you, depending on your line and the amount of edge angle you can create.

Terrain matters, too. If most of your races are on flat terrain, skis with a tighter sidecut tend to turn easier.

There’s one more consideration among masters racers: age. The older the racer, the shorter the length and tighter the radius their skis tend to be.

With the exception of the very oldest age groups, the length of ski for top-level masters men correlates more to their size and ability rather than their age. The longest skis are about 190 cm. The shortest are about 175 cm. The average is 185 cm long with a 25-meter radius.

Of course turn radius in the gates isn’t perfectly analogous vs free skiing, since there isn’t constraint on turn placement generally, and releasing a turn (skid/drift/slash/stivot) is more efficient in technical terrain (moguls, trees, chutes), and better accomplished with larger radius too.

I am not trying to make any implications or suggestions by sharing this, but rather sharing context to the design choices going into the initial RC85 and RC95 offering. Hope it is helpful!

[turnfarmer]

With an all mountain ski I’d much rather pull a tighter radius carve on groomers by bending the ski and getting a higher edge angle than having a shorter side cut. Less sidecut is less hooky in variable terrain and conditions.

[Lord Thomas]

Word. Big turn radius - big jimmy

[a-star]

Marshal, Thanks for the reply regarding ski radii and the Nastar website post. I actually never knew that you could have too much sidecut, but it makes sense when I think of trying turn 12.5m FIS slalom skis with a high edge angle. Mt. Rose has an awesome spring time demo day with reps from Volkl, Nordica, Head, Blizzard, Atomic, Rossi, K2, Stoeckli, etc. and I was able to ski a lot of models in the 85-98mm underfoot range and definitely found a lot of them fairly 'hooky' at higher edge angles. Now this all makes more sense with the context of this thread. As someone in their mid-20s, I'm finally at a time in my life where I have the income to start expanding my ski quiver and diving into the minutiae of ski design an construction. Also, given recent trends of ski construction and design, I have never really had the opportunity to ride skis with a sidecut greater, roughly, than 22 m. (Aside from burly >188 GS skis.) I feel like I was in high school in the mid 2010s when skis were being constructed with 22-30m sidecuts, though this is just my feeling, so someone call me out if I'm wrong. Given my happiness with my R120 Comps (the pink ones!), I'm inclined to agree with @turnfarmer's point that I would rather pull a tighter radius carve on groomers by bending the ski than having a shorter sidecut. I will say, after demoing next year's Mantra M7 and other skis in 85-98mm range, I learned I really hate how 'airy' so many brands are making their ski tips these days. When skiing soft chop or moguls, you go to bash the tip into a snow pile and it gets totally knocked around. I would imagine the 'airy' tips make them more accessible to the masses, but jeeze do they suck if you want to really blast through stuff.

[Marshal Olson]

Rad! Assuming you are digging the Comp 120?s at 30mR, which are amazing skis to be certain, I don?t blame you for feeling underwhelmed by many of today?s mid fat offerings. The RC skis are literally built to be for skiers just like you! Haha.The HL stuff will be more solid, planted and smooth. I?m not interested in chasing ridiculous marketing buzz words, just using more mass, put in the right way, edge geometry from race skis, and flex patterns designed to be fun and rewarding, but not punishing in rough snow.Anyhow, not sure where I am going with all of this, but more that happy to explore more either here, dm, email etc! The production samples are shipping soon, so more to come, as they say

[EdwardsSki]

If we can get 8-10 confirmed “let’s do it” ~180 RC95’s I’ll be more than happy to run them!

Seems like we are at 4, maybe 5, shorter RC 95s. Any other folks interested?

[a-star]

I'm out on the shorter RC95's, Marshal convinced me I need the 85s

[IJK2009]

Seems like we are at 4, maybe 5, shorter RC 95s. Any other folks interested?

I’m leaning toward the 178 FL105s for the Sierras, but if I can no longer get those then I’m definitely interested in a shorter RC 95


TAFKALVS original description sounds great:

…The design brief was simple:

Build the highest performance all-mountain skis that challenge what is possible on a “narrow” ski from a surf & float perspective, but still allow for angulated, athletic skiing.

Skis that can be set on edge and leave clean arcs…

…And yet also drift turns, pivot in moguls, glide in powder, and surf slush…

…A daily driver for western mountains on the lee side of the ridge, where a big storm is 6” not 16”. A surfy shape that allows blended high edge angle carves along side drifted slarves as needed…

…FL105 style construction & snow feel.

Clean sheet profile and shape.

Hat tip to R99 Comp, but with further refinement…

So is it oversimplifying things to expect the RC 95 to feel more precise or the FL105 to feel more drifty?

Or to expect the RC 95 to be better optimized for groomers and the FL105 to be better optimized for ungroomed snow?

Marshal or LVS, can you clarify when you’d grab one over the other?

[Power_Sauce]

My love for the Explosiv has me wanting this ski badly, resistance is probably futile, but holding off for now!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[The Iron Horse]

Where do we stand on numbers for a shorter RC95?

Rally the troops! Let's get this done, boys!

[2FUNKY]

I’m leaning toward the 178 FL105s for the Sierras, but if I can no longer get those then I’m definitely interested in a shorter RC 95


TAFKALVS original description sounds great:




So is it oversimplifying things to expect the RC 95 to feel more precise or the FL105 to feel more drifty?

Or to expect the RC 95 to be better optimized for groomers and the FL105 to be better optimized for ungroomed snow?

Marshal or LVS, can you clarify when you’d grab one over the other?

Have not skied the RC95 so pure conjecture but have a shit ton of days on 192 FL105 and a handful on 185 FL105 plus own the 188 R99 COMP. The 95 should be more precise than either FL’s though they are damn precise. They handle firm snow way better than they should and I have utmost confidence in them hauling ass in techy terrain.
The FL is better optimized for ungroomed snow, esp pow based on width, sidecut, shape. The 95’s will more than likely kill ungroomed as well, just not ski pow better.
Personally if I owned both the FL105 would come out if new snow over 6” and the 95 if it hadn’t snow’d in a while, like a week or so.
Dryer climate, 95, more moisture for more refreshing, 105. My .02

Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

[MagnificentUnicorn]

Conjecture? Oh my. [emoji6]


Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

[Marshal Olson]

Ahoy folks! Just got the test skis in late yesterday, will get them mounted and on snow through the coming week. More to come!

[Muffcabbage]

A core
and sidecut profile would be awesome for that first post link.

[K1mJ0ngTr1ll]

A core
and sidecut profile would be awesome for that first post link.

The core profile on the 85 is something to behold. I will not be getting time on either of these skis but they are gonna be rowdy.

[Marshal Olson]

Shape and rocker of the 85/95s turned out AMAZING. The flex of the test skis turned out w/ Comp stiffness (9-9.5 of 10) which we be corrected (8-8.5 of 10) for production. I will send the tech email tomorrow with images and details on all of this and images of the the R profile IRL as well. Cheers!