Get Down with Down (skis)

[WhetherMan]

CD104 187 3990 gr / pair
CD104 L 187 3990 gr / pair

Are these really the same weight? Isn't the L lighter?

[tauplitzalm]

Are these really the same weight? Isn't the L lighter?

correct and sorry for the type here.
CD104 L - 187 is 3740 gr/pair
CD104 - 187 is 3990 gr/pair

[mr_pretzel]

Any plans of running a batch of SD115 189 ?

This is what we need

[carlh]

I will say I’m happy with my cd114L but I think they would be better in soft snow with less camber. I probably just need to ski them more.

[Boissal]

correct and sorry for the type here.
CD104 L - 187 is 3740 gr/pair
CD104 - 187 is 3990 gr/pair

Can't remember the exact weight of the previous generation of CD104L but I want to say mine came in at 3300/pair in the 187, almost a pound lighter ? Seems like significant weight gain if I'm correct, I'll have to check tonight.
That would be a bit of a bummer, I felt that they were the perfect daily driver for the Wasatch, enough heft to drive them with a real boot and really charge regardless of snow conditions but light enough for really big days. The topsheet was great as well, really muted, the fir green is a bit harsh on eye to me.

Not to say I won't jump on a pair if we manage to get a group buy up and running, which I'd be happy to help coordinate btw, I handled part of the last one.

[dschane]

Nice to see them back!

It looks like they're now shipping directly to individuals throughout the U.S. with orders from the website, so I'm not sure what that means for the group buy option, other than it's probably no longer necessary. And I assume their prices now reflect the true costs. Before, I can only imagine that they were operating at break-even numbers, at best.

[galibier_numero_un]

Can't remember the exact weight of the previous generation of CD104L but I want to say mine came in at 3300/pair in the 187, almost a pound lighter ? Seems like significant weight gain if I'm correct, I'll have to check tonight.
That would be a bit of a bummer, I felt that they were the perfect daily driver for the Wasatch, enough heft to drive them with a real boot and really charge regardless of snow conditions but light enough for really big days. The topsheet was great as well, really muted, the fir green is a bit harsh on eye to me.

Not to say I won't jump on a pair if we manage to get a group buy up and running, which I'd be happy to help coordinate btw, I handled part of the last one.

That sounds right. The tan top sheet 181, 104Ls I got from @dschane (thanks!) come in at 3115 - at least that's what my spreadsheet says ;-)

... Thom

[Charlie Don't Surf]

My 104ls are ~3300g

I did rip my toes on a pair so happy to hear there will now be a binding sheet in the layup. Our mag at down hq hooked replacement boards when that happened however.

Also new topsheets sound right, most pairs (besides the SDs) seem to start peeling the transparent top coat at sometime or another.


Sent from my M2101K6G using Tapatalk

[::: :::]

Apropos of nothing…saw this old yt vid today [3yo ATK vid] & noticed Downs perched prominently in the background

https://youtu.be/-v1ymCe5v68?si=zQSD92qxLbG_Apsh

[::: :::]

And am I a terrible person for giggling at a prospective “I’ve got Downs” logo t-shirt?

[iriponsnow]

Nice to see them back!

It looks like they're now shipping directly to individuals throughout the U.S…..

Testing the shipping currently

[Boissal]

That sounds right. The tan top sheet 181, 104Ls I got from @dschane (thanks!) come in at 3115 - at least that's what my spreadsheet says ;-)
... Thom

My 104ls are ~3300g

I did rip my toes on a pair so happy to hear there will now be a binding sheet in the layup. Our mag at down hq hooked replacement boards when that happened however.

Also new topsheets sound right, most pairs (besides the SDs) seem to start peeling the transparent top coat at sometime or another.

3350 g for my pair of 187s (the Plums are 440 g a pair).



Ripping a binding sounds horrifying. Glad I've never had the issue but it's always in the back of my head with the tight screw pattern on toe pieces and the amount of torque that goes into that zone.
Re: topsheet, mine have been holding up really well, although I have lost a couple spots on the CD114. That's coming from DPS though so the bar is really low. I took an old pair of Wailer105 out of storage earlier this year to go ski super low tide terrain, they're missing huge sections of topsheet all over the place. By the time I had pulled them down from the attic I had dozens of carbon shards stuck in my fingers.

[tauplitzalm]

My 104ls are ~3300g

I did rip my toes on a pair so happy to hear there will now be a binding sheet in the layup. Our mag at down hq hooked replacement boards when that happened however.

Also new topsheets sound right, most pairs (besides the SDs) seem to start peeling the transparent top coat at sometime or another.


Sent from my M2101K6G using Tapatalk

So the top sheet topic is actually fairly simple to explain.

Without going into all nuances, there is basically two sorts of top sheets. "NYLON" (or polyamide, short PA) and the ABS/TPU type. Within the nylon group, all manufacturers work with either PA11 or PA12. All topsheets are co-extruded, with the bottom side (glued to the ski) being specified for maximum bonding, and the outfacing side for maximum durability. PA has significantly stronger mechanical properties in almost any aspect, especially the ones you want for skis (hardness, yellowing/aging, scratch resistance, impact strenght). The ABS/TPU has wins on two factors: price (significantly cheaper than PA) and to a certain extent transparency. So the story is quite simple that ABS TPU makes for more beautiful and cheaper top sheets, and PA for more lasting and stronger ones. An additional optical bonus of ABS/TPU is that top coat lacquering bonds well, allowing for addtional optical and haptical effects (like matte/glossy effects). At DOWN, for all of the new range, we tested and opted for PA top sheets; our understanding is that ABS/TPU is legitimate for cheap skis (where manufactures simply can't afford to build in expensive PA) and for snowboards (which do not have the second ski as their worst enemy). With full nylon/PA topsheets, you get excellent durabilty; and longevity is value, and value is our mantra. Past DOWN skis in certain series used ABS/TPU, and these skis looked amazing, but were not as scratch and impact resistant as they should have been.

[beowulf122]

I've been riding a pair of 181 cd104ls the past few years and they've proven to be a true unicorn ski for me. When down came back from the dead I was quick to pounce on a pair of the 187s to replace my beloved 181s.

The new 104ls weigh in at 1801 and 1794 grams. I bought the proto versions where the only difference should be in top sheet material.

The new versions offer a softer/more progressive flex when hand flexed compared to the older ones. I found this surprising as my old ones have well over 100 days on them and would be considered clapped out by most.

The rocker lines/height and amount of camber also appear to be different from the old models. The new versions do not have as deep nor as high of a tip rocker. The tail rocker appears to be around the same height but again does not go as deep. My older versions have minimal camber and ski similar to a true reverse camber ski. The new ones look to have a good bit more. Hard to say if the difference in camber is just because the old ones have been ridden hard or not.

All in all I'm excited to get these mounted up and see how they ski but at first glance they look to be a different ski than my previous models and I'm worried the magic from my original pair might be lost in this newest iteration.

[Benneke10]

All in all I'm excited to get these mounted up and see how they ski but at first glance they look to be a different ski than my previous models and I'm worried the magic from my original pair might be lost in this newest iteration.

Based on the rocker profiles I would imagine the new pair will ski very differently. Luckily, a ski like the old CD104L is not as much of a unicorn now as it was. The Elan Ripstick Tour 104, Heritage Labs BC105, and Faction La Machine Mega have pretty similar rocker profiles.

[tang]

^^^ The new CD104L may be totally great, in fact it probably is. But for me its now in a different weight category. What makes my old version magic (to me) is that it just punches so above its weight (1550 gr) for a 104 waisted/181 cm length ski (I'm usually on 185-190+). Low camber, but still some. Long low rocker. I had back-to-back 2+ foot days on rogers last year where they just excelled - a pleasure on the ups, and fun-fun on the Down!

[iriponsnow]

First hand beta- received skis from the Down/O+ factory today; time in transit was under 1 week from Austria to USA; flew thru customs no issues- dialed.

[tauplitzalm]

^^^ The new CD104L may be totally great, in fact it probably is. But for me its now in a different weight category. What makes my old version magic (to me) is that it just punches so above its weight (1550 gr) for a 104 waisted/181 cm length ski (I'm usually on 185-190+). Low camber, but still some. Long low rocker. I had back-to-back 2+ foot days on rogers last year where they just excelled - a pleasure on the ups, and fun-fun on the Down!

Definitely appreciating thoughts and feedback.

Breaking down the facts first, by detailling the weight increase from old to new version. It is pretty much 4 equal parts...
1) New edges are 2,5 high, old ones were 1,9
2) New bases are 1,8 thick, old ones were 1,2
3) New model has poplar wood core, old L had paulownia
4) New Model has 600grammature carbon, old one had 300

With regards to what that impact, it is two fields.
1-4 will give the ski a significantly longer life span, mostly in impact resistance, overall strength and Maintaing Pop.
3&4 impact ski characteristic, in a way our test crew preferred, in that the construction skis slightly more stable yet being quicker.

I'll take the input in consederation again, we basically have the construction ready. Sharing some future insigth though is that we have a new Lowdown 102 in the Pipeline which will directly approach this type of ski we had in the old 104L.

Ski characteristics can be discussed. What is a non-negotiable for future Down Models are the strong edges and thick bases. Durability = longevity = value. We believe a lot of ski industry took a few erong exits by thinning Down edges and bases, the reality is that this is approximately 1/3 of the "magic" weight savings of the past years in AT skis and its a Marketing BS we do not believe in

[beowulf122]

Based on the rocker profiles I would imagine the new pair will ski very differently. Luckily, a ski like the old CD104L is not as much of a unicorn now as it was. The Elan Ripstick Tour 104, Heritage Labs BC105, and Faction La Machine Mega have pretty similar rocker profiles.

Thanks for the call out. The rip sticks were on my radar as a ski that looked almost the exact same on paper but I was not aware of the others.

Stopped by skimoco last night and looked at both the rispstick and la machine. Interestingly enough the rip sticks rocker/camber profile more closely matches my new cd104s. The la machines are a very close match to the old versions

[tang]

^^^ thx Taup, good info and insight! Curious on the new lowdown 102. I know the old had pretty flat stiff tails (or at least I think). Still the plan? Or would the new 102 be a bit looser?

[Boissal]

^^^ The new CD104L may be totally great, in fact it probably is. But for me its now in a different weight category. What makes my old version magic (to me) is that it just punches so above its weight (1550 gr) for a 104 waisted/181 cm length ski (I'm usually on 185-190+). Low camber, but still some. Long low rocker. I had back-to-back 2+ foot days on rogers last year where they just excelled - a pleasure on the ups, and fun-fun on the Down!

Agreed, the weight gain is tough to swallow. I just mounted a pair of C113s that ended up only 180 grams heavier than my CD104L in the same length. The new version would end up heavier than a ski a full centimeter wider underfoot (and what's likely an equally stout construction), hard to to live with that. Durability is nice but I've abused the shit out of my pair and it's not anymore beat up that any touring ski I've had. In fact, they're still very lively despite having been skied hard and often. I don't need burlier edges for the Wasatch (could probably live without edges most seasons), and I fill core shots with epoxy and move on so the whole durability concept is lost on me. As long as the core doesn't noodle and the ski doesn't delam it's good to go.

The camber is also a big departure from the old model, I'm not going back to anything that isn't nearly flat for touring and it looks like I can stick my thumb through the skis in the pic above (vs maybe a couple mm of camber in the past). Losing the long progressive shovel is the death knell, can't imagine charging into variable snow with that tiny tip. The old model worked in any conditions, from deep snow to frozen steeps, probably the best all around ski I have ever been on. A more stable and quicker version isn't something I'd be after, got plenty of stability out the current build at speeds that are clearly unreasonable on pin bindings in the BC, and they were quick enough that I always felt like I was a on a perfect groomer with the amount of poppy feedback they could provide at the end of turns.

Twas a good run with Down and I'll try to keep my CD104/114L pairs alive for as long as possible. Once they die, we shall see. I understand the need to innovate as a brand and having a certain design philosophy. But I think on this one I'll have to be the guy looking longingly back at the good old days.

[tauplitzalm]

I've been riding a pair of 181 cd104ls the past few years and they've proven to be a true unicorn ski for me. When down came back from the dead I was quick to pounce on a pair of the 187s to replace my beloved 181s.

The new 104ls weigh in at 1801 and 1794 grams. I bought the proto versions where the only difference should be in top sheet material.

The new versions offer a softer/more progressive flex when hand flexed compared to the older ones. I found this surprising as my old ones have well over 100 days on them and would be considered clapped out by most.

The rocker lines/height and amount of camber also appear to be different from the old models. The new versions do not have as deep nor as high of a tip rocker. The tail rocker appears to be around the same height but again does not go as deep. My older versions have minimal camber and ski similar to a true reverse camber ski. The new ones look to have a good bit more. Hard to say if the difference in camber is just because the old ones have been ridden hard or not.

All in all I'm excited to get these mounted up and see how they ski but at first glance they look to be a different ski than my previous models and I'm worried the magic from my original pair might be lost in this newest iteration.

Hey beowulf, I have been looking at these photos again and again, and they look odd. I am quite certain that is the wrong Proto that was shipped, I will reach out via mail to understand the topic.

[tauplitzalm]

Agreed, the weight gain is tough to swallow. I just mounted a pair of C113s that ended up only 180 grams heavier than my CD104L in the same length. The new version would end up heavier than a ski a full centimeter wider underfoot (and what's likely an equally stout construction), hard to to live with that. Durability is nice but I've abused the shit out of my pair and it's not anymore beat up that any touring ski I've had. In fact, they're still very lively despite having been skied hard and often. I don't need burlier edges for the Wasatch (could probably live without edges most seasons), and I fill core shots with epoxy and move on so the whole durability concept is lost on me. As long as the core doesn't noodle and the ski doesn't delam it's good to go.

The camber is also a big departure from the old model, I'm not going back to anything that isn't nearly flat for touring and it looks like I can stick my thumb through the skis in the pic above (vs maybe a couple mm of camber in the past). Losing the long progressive shovel is the death knell, can't imagine charging into variable snow with that tiny tip. The old model worked in any conditions, from deep snow to frozen steeps, probably the best all around ski I have ever been on. A more stable and quicker version isn't something I'd be after, got plenty of stability out the current build at speeds that are clearly unreasonable on pin bindings in the BC, and they were quick enough that I always felt like I was a on a perfect groomer with the amount of poppy feedback they could provide at the end of turns.

Twas a good run with Down and I'll try to keep my CD104/114L pairs alive for as long as possible. Once they die, we shall see. I understand the need to innovate as a brand and having a certain design philosophy. But I think on this one I'll have to be the guy looking longingly back at the good old days.

Good copy on that.

OR, third option i can lay out, we rebuild the original construction, with reduced carbon content and mostly Paulownia core. I see the point that these were developed in the Alps, and them are not the Wasatch. As I put out earlier, durability is a topic that we will not change, but the 200 grms lighter ski can be made. Our factory is specialized in batch1 manufacturing, so a 104 UL can be done quite simply. If there is demand for it.

[tauplitzalm]

^^^ thx Taup, good info and insight! Curious on the new lowdown 102. I know the old had pretty flat stiff tails (or at least I think). Still the plan? Or would the new 102 be a bit looser?

We currently have a new ski in test and the old ones parallel to it in test, so this is work in progress. These skis need to work for professionals so expect a tail flat enough for building snow anchors. Stiff not necessarily as much.

[waxoff]

Hey @tauplitzalm I saw your pics of the LD120 development protos on your Facebook. What's the target/projected weight on those?