Member of the Month

PartyBullshiit
March, 2024

Online

Welcome to the Newschoolers forums! You may read the forums as a guest, however you must be a registered member to post. Register to become a member today!

TMs turn to noodles?

profile picture
Nooblet
Posts: 135 - Karma: 10
This is my first pair of twin tips and they are mounted +1, whenever I try to bomb a run or start going fast they start to get really sloppy. Is it me or the skis? What are some good twins that would not do this so much?
Dec 6 2005 4:58PM
0 0
profile picture
Nooblet
Posts: 135 - Karma: 10
TM=Troublemaker...
Dec 6 2005 4:58PM
0 0
profile picture
e.will
Posts: 1981 - Karma: 967
well we all know that TM stads for Trouble Maker, but maybe get a ski that isnt mounted on the tail. also try actually skiing, and push into the front of the boot.
Dec 6 2005 5:25PM
0 0
profile picture
R.Fahey
Posts: 8602 - Karma: 539
the only people at my hill that bomb runs wear carhart one pieces, and real tree camo. Maybe mil some turns out of a run. and yeah, it happens. learn to control your skis and that won't happen.
Dec 6 2005 5:43PM
0 0
profile picture
Flynn
Posts: 1174 - Karma: 10
Tm's even though they are a bit soft are one of the better groomer twins made.

So if youre having problems with them youve either completely decambered them or just arent very good.
Dec 6 2005 5:58PM
0 0
profile picture
=nick=
Posts: 10471 - Karma: 2,184
softer than invaders and T-halls? i strongly doubt. they have suited me well for park, groomers, and moguls, only not so good thing is pow
Dec 6 2005 8:04PM
0 0
profile picture
eastAR5
Posts: 15084 - Karma: 730
... no theyre definatly not softer than T halls. I have them both and my t halls are 10x stiffer
Dec 6 2005 8:05PM
0 0
profile picture
Burrito
Posts: 1864 - Karma: 930
I don't know what you're doing, but I've never had stability problems on my TMs, and they're on their third season. Mine have never chattered on ice or hardpack. You might be leaning pack too far, which would take pressure off your tips and allow them to get squirrely.
Dec 6 2005 8:05PM
0 0
profile picture
=nick=
Posts: 10471 - Karma: 2,184
dont u mean 10x softer?
Dec 6 2005 8:06PM
0 0
profile picture
eastAR5
Posts: 15084 - Karma: 730
yea i mean the t halls are a lot softer. I don't know which version of the tms you guys have but mine are mad stiff and heavy. they are the soft-top edition. I would only use them for pipe since i use my t halls for everything else
Dec 6 2005 8:53PM
0 0
profile picture
Ryanvdonk
Posts: 12808 - Karma: 1,945
um, yeah, TM's are good skis, the only problems with them are the weak edges, so it's deffinitely you.
Dec 6 2005 8:59PM
0 0
profile picture
Burrito
Posts: 1864 - Karma: 930
When I was flexing skis in my shop, I was surprised at how soft the TMs were. I have the originals, and they seem stiffer than those in the shop, but I never flexed them before mounting, so I can't really compare. They do have a sort of "hinge" right behind the heelpiece, but that makes them great for butters. I've never had the problem of them being too soft when I'm just riding (they hold an edge really well), and the only time the tails bug me is when I land really backseat and can't recover.

With all that said, I am a huge supporter of the TM; I highly recommend them.
Dec 6 2005 9:06PM
0 0
profile picture
-_-
Posts: 574 - Karma: 10
i think it all depends on how heavy you are, like if you are a lighter guy i'm sure "softer" skis are amazing. i haven't tried my DC yet, i will be this saturday and i will post a review on here. an indepth one, not like one of those that say, "it rock my world like your mom did last night".
Dec 6 2005 9:21PM
0 0
profile picture
Flynn
Posts: 1174 - Karma: 10
Tm's are definately soft skis, but not as soft as invaders/thalls/fujatives/stls.



Think about it like this if youre getting ready to have sex with a girl and you got this boner, but its got this softspot right in the middle so it just kinda flaps around wildly and you can't really do anything with it other than flap it around. (That is the invader/thall/fujative/stl example)

Or you could have a boner, but not a total crazy hard one, just like a regular one that you can get by with. Its not quite a flapper, just firm.(That is the troublemaker).
Dec 6 2005 10:18PM
0 0
profile picture
gregor
Posts: 1069 - Karma: 83
That is so well put! Love TM's, on second pair this season! So much spring in the pipe and so nice on piste! Plenty of torsional stiffness but loads of springy flex.
Dec 6 2005 10:26PM
0 0
profile picture
Flynn
Posts: 1174 - Karma: 10
The tm's this year, and last year are the same ski.

And they are not softer than the flex points in those skis.

Are you sure you didnt ride the black ones that are the nothing but troubles?
Dec 6 2005 10:30PM
0 0
profile picture
Flynn
Posts: 1174 - Karma: 10
Well i dunno man, the jib type skis do flex a bit different in shops but i can't see how you think they ski stiffer than the tm's after actualy skiing them.

Ive skiied the 169/179fujas,177invaders,177stls,176thalls,182tms,and 175tms (stls and thalls were just demos...rest i have riden a ton)

I found even the 175 tms to be noticeable stiffer than any of the jib skis. Soft ski yes, but they hold an edge alot better and have a lively flex rather than the dead flex all the jib specific skis have.
Dec 6 2005 10:39PM
0 0
profile picture
troublemakerCO
Posts: 458 - Karma: 10
finally, you just said it yourself!

lemme explain...when you flex a ski, you cant flex the whole ski at the same time. it seems like it would give you a good idea of the flex pattern, but in reality, it is entirely worthless. when examining flex patterns, you need to examine the front part of the ski and the tail separately.
when you do this, you find that the tm is actually quite stiff up top, but when you try the tail, it feels like you could break it. this helps in landing kickers and performance in the park.
when you try flexing skis like the invaders using this method, the entire package is very soft, which is why they made the ski in the first place.
in my experience, the tm is by far the best all-mtn performance ski out there that can still handle bumps, and seeing as how i am pretty light, it is perfect for my experiences.

yea, so i hope everyone understands what im trying to say and try flexing a ski differently the next time ur in the shop. its pretty enlightening....
Dec 7 2005 12:07AM
0 0
profile picture
CHARLES.BRONSON
Posts: 3123 - Karma: 229
^no you're just straight up wrong, they're definetly not the softest park ski out there. maybe you tried a pair of 165s that are two years old?
Dec 7 2005 10:00PM
0 0
profile picture
Flynn
Posts: 1174 - Karma: 10
From what ive skiied. And how i felt them when i rode them.(one mentioning ones that i found atleast partly softer or compareable). Comparing lengths that are closest (ie 175 tm to 177invader). Not basing them on flexing them in a shop, because that is useless unless you have a spring scale, but basing it on riding them.

AR5s have softer noses.
Invaders are softer all the way around
fujatives have softer noses
stls are softer all the way around
thalls are softer all the way around
moships flites comparable
scratch sprayers comparable (both fs and bc)
Dec 7 2005 10:09PM
0 0
profile picture
Flynn
Posts: 1174 - Karma: 10
You really can't tell just by flexing it in the shop there are way too many variables involved. Unless your using a clamp at boot center and have a spring scale clamped to the tip youre going to get innaccurate results and you wont be able to tell small differences in flex, and the flex pattern throughout the ski. This is especialy true with the tm's. Look at the core profile of the ski and youll see why this would be the case.

The only thing that is easy to tell in a shop from skis is weight, and phsycial demensions. Everything else is more implied unless you actualy demo the stuff.

And the only way you can be coming to the conclusions your coming to based on demos is if your a)biased, or b)skiing tm's that are atleast 10cm shorter than the other skis you demoed. Weight doesn't matter and ability doesn't matter with telling differences in flex.
Dec 7 2005 10:54PM
0 0
profile picture
troublemakerCO
Posts: 458 - Karma: 10
this is exactly true, good call.

also, nomen, i know u know whats up, but i just hit up my shop to compare the tm's to a bunch of other twins. what i found: yea, they are a soft ski(of course), especially in the tail, but in terms of how stiff they are compared to others like it, they were pretty stiff up top, like i said b4.

also, i have a hard time believing you felt they were so soft when demoing them. usually ppl comment on how surprised they were with the skis stiffness after tryin them out.....i guess u have ur own opinion tho.
Dec 7 2005 11:39PM
0 0
profile picture
Flynn
Posts: 1174 - Karma: 10
Agreed, and since nomen mentioned the mojos you might want to consider the mojo 80's.
Dec 8 2005 11:58AM
0 0
profile picture
sowstochd
Posts: 1518 - Karma: 59
so the tms suck all mountain?
Jun 29 2006 8:52AM
0 0
profile picture
milkdud951
Posts: 960 - Karma: 21
i think the problem lies in the bindings being mounted only +1. I'd recomend much further forward for a park ski.
Jun 29 2006 1:07PM
0 0
profile picture
cegli
Posts: 53 - Karma: 10
No way, the trouble maker is very soft in the back, but it's great for everything except powder (but who buys a TM for powder?) Now I'm really light, but I have never ever had any problems with chatter no matter how fast I go. It's really stiff underfoot and so it shouldn't chatter at all. Then again I have it mounted true center maybe that's the difference.

If you're looking for a park/all mountain, not powder ski, it's my favorite of everything I demoed at camp. Sweet sweet ski.
Jun 29 2006 4:00PM
0 0
profile picture
CHARLES.BRONSON
Posts: 3123 - Karma: 229
the noses are too stiff on them unless you're true center, they ride perfect mounted like this.

as for whoever said that they're softer than thalls and invaders, well, thats rediculous. Ive ridden both 175 and 182 tms, both of which much stiffer than invaders or thalls regardless of "butterzones"
Jun 30 2006 4:10AM
0 0
profile picture
freeskibum82
Posts: 6355 - Karma: 5,055
i went from a candide pro(dyna) to the 2005 TM and it was considerably softer.. but they handled just as good as the candides except in bumps.. if anything they were better for turns and pop.
Jun 30 2006 8:28AM
0 0
profile picture
DUBIE
Posts: 576 - Karma: 135
yah i want some anthems or thalls or invaders which is the softest
May 24 2007 11:42AM
0 0
profile picture
DUBIE
Posts: 576 - Karma: 135
yah i want some anthems or thalls or invaders which is the softest
May 24 2007 11:42AM
0 0
profile picture
gregor
Posts: 1069 - Karma: 83
I'm sorry Trouble makers are not softer than invaders or fujatives. Mine held up very well for two seasons before losing their life. They are also one of the best for skiing around on groomers and have suprisingly good tortional stiffness.
May 24 2007 2:21PM
0 0
profile picture
Ryanvdonk
Posts: 12808 - Karma: 1,945
no, they're good. they ski much stiffer than they feel by hand flexing. and they basically have butter points with the soft tips and stiffer middle (look at the tierd shape of the core and you'll see why). and fujis are softer by hand flexing in my opinion and no comparison in how they ski especially when you consider fujis loose any firmness within 10 days of riding, though i haven't ridden this years, but they seemed the same when i flexed them.
May 24 2007 3:55PM
0 0
All times are Eastern (-4)