It looks like you are using an ad blocker. That's okay. Who doesn't? But without advertising revenue, we can't keep making this site awesome. Click the link below for instructions on disabling adblock.
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!
During my recent trip out West I noticed that, well, I wasn't going switch ever unless I was just practicing it on a catwalk or green run. Mind you, I'm pretty bad at skiing switch, but this made me want my next big mountain/"all-mountain" ski to be directional. What actually are the unique capabilities of twintips on big mountain aside from going switch in pow and switch carving down steep groomers?
+steeze points
but actually, rockered tails make skis easier to throw sideways in pow and stuff, more of a “surfy” feel. Most pow skis do have tail rocker now, even if they’re directional, for that reason. Also boils down to personal preference. My pow skis have been twins because I’m used to a more centered mount, and just prefer it that way. People who grew up racing may like a really directional pow ski because it feels more familiar to them.
Doesn't directly answer your question but I prefer more progressive mount points on skis so I end up riding more playful skis even if I rarely spin or ski switch. I've heard that flat tails increase stability and help to make skis feel more locked in? Not sure if that is totally correct though as I've ridden few skis like this...
I ride primarily big mountain stuff and rode directional skis for years. I've switched to riding Nordica enforcers and they really feel like a directional ski with a barely twin tip. You definitely dont need a twin but it is fun to have for the occasional lap through park or riding morr playfully.
FruitBootProDuring my recent trip out West I noticed that, well, I wasn't going switch ever unless I was just practicing it on a catwalk or green run. Mind you, I'm pretty bad at skiing switch, but this made me want my next big mountain/"all-mountain" ski to be directional. What actually are the unique capabilities of twintips on big mountain aside from going switch in pow and switch carving down steep groomers?
It’s all preference, and most people will have a different preference for terrain variance and how they’re skiing that day.
If I’m charging/free riding something gnarly with mixed conditions I like a directional ski with a flat/rounded tail, gives a longer edge for carving still releases easily and can float, my commander 98 is what I’m picturing, or an mx98 on real hard days, if conditions get deeper I’ll settle for the previous years 108 commander with a shorter edge, and more rocker, if I’m ripping shallow pow the flat Corvus is nice, and something with a lot of rocker like the yle is real nice for the softest days and surfs everything deep or shallow it carves but not while rippin a groomer or packed pow.
The flatter the tail the longer your edge so the ski will carve better, and a square tail is gonna hold the edge more than a rounded tail
I think, in general, if you never want to land switch it’s better to have a partial twin than a full twin for hard skiing on steep lines with potentially weird conditions. Basically a ski that locks in and holds BUT when you want to release the tail to slow down or make a quick move you can. It’s all personal preference and taper / flex / mount / weight are gonna matter too but broadly speaking I generally prefer a partial twin. Like the line vision has a perfect shape (for me). But like a longer ski with a full twin and a more forward mount could sort of accomplish the same thing. Basically it’s complicated and non of us mere mortals with ski enough different skis to really know what they like best.
More balances in the air for 3’s and shiftys even if you don’t land switch much. Also the extra tail adds some support on backseat landings. Partial twins still work well at all that too.
even on big mtn skis i don't plan to do the switch on, i still don't want to give the twin tips up. i've had lots of shitty landings/crash recoveries that had me going switch for a second and i'd hate to worry about digging in in those situations
lots of good reasons for flat tails too though, just not my cup of tea at this point
DolansLebensraumIve always been happy skiing powder in park skis. And they are fine on moguls too.
park skis are pretty versatile. Alot of them have a good sidecut for carving a bitch on groomers
Wait till you drop a cliff into some soft snow and tomahawk. I've done it on my Chronics more than a few times and those are even 92 underfoot. You also go faster with fatter skis and speed is cool plus more laps
AndrewGravesSVWait till you drop a cliff into some soft snow and tomahawk. I've done it on my Chronics more than a few times and those are even 92 underfoot. You also go faster with fatter skis and speed is cool plus more laps
Yeah watching old movies blows my mind. How tf were anthony boronowski and thall able to land (sometimes switch) in deep pow on 95 underfoot full camber skis? I'm scared to land switch in pow on pettitors.
What park ski holds an edge and doesn’t nose dive in pow?
Not saying that park skis can’t carve, they can if they couldn’t they wouldn’t make a good park ski, but they aren’t good in pow, and the few that are, arv 106, Magnus 102, sfb lose edge control on steeps at least if your cooking, and are only good in shallow conditions, the narrower more cambered park skis aren’t fun in pow, they can do it but your not surfin nothing and your gonna nose dive, but they are better at carving, and a tail with less or no rise will carve better still, one with some rise will still release easily, especially at speed if your technique isn’t dog shit square or round, all this only matters for the one ski quiver, if ya got more than one set of planks ya got options to vary your style, what and how your gonna ski as you please. I can carve on 120+, I can ski pow on 88 waisted skis but that don’t mean I wanna, there’s a ski for every condition, no need to rip park skis all over the mountain unless your stuck with a 1 ski quiver.
animatorHonestly I don’t disagree, I have a few park skis that carve really nice
SavageBiffWhat park ski holds an edge and doesn’t nose dive in pow?
Not saying that park skis can’t carve, they can if they couldn’t they wouldn’t make a good park ski, but they aren’t good in pow, and the few that are, arv 106, Magnus 102, sfb lose edge control on steeps at least if your cooking, and are only good in shallow conditions, the narrower more cambered park skis aren’t fun in pow, they can do it but your not surfin nothing and your gonna nose dive, but they are better at carving, and a tail with less or no rise will carve better still, one with some rise will still release easily, especially at speed if your technique isn’t dog shit square or round, all this only matters for the one ski quiver, if ya got more than one set of planks ya got options to vary your style, what and how your gonna ski as you please. I can carve on 120+, I can ski pow on 88 waisted skis but that don’t mean I wanna, there’s a ski for every condition, no need to rip park skis all over the mountain unless your stuck with a 1 ski quiver.
Didn’t clarify that very well, I was agreeing more with the statement about park skis carving ability rather than skiing pow on them. I love fat skis and can’t stand skiing pow on skinny skis.
Roger that same here nothing like surfing on a 118+, especially something like an outline, yle or any full reverse cambered
probably sound like a broken record myself talking about the 2018 chronic, but it’s a park ski that carves real well, I’d ski a 40* slope with it but I wouldn’t be rippin like I would on a commander or mx98, newer chrons heyell no too soft and washy yet still suck in powder, def wouldn’t charge on those.
animatorDidn’t clarify that very well, I was agreeing more with the statement about park skis carving ability rather than skiing pow on them. I love fat skis and can’t stand skiing pow on skinny skis.
AndrewGravesSVWait till you drop a cliff into some soft snow and tomahawk. I've done it on my Chronics more than a few times and those are even 92 underfoot. You also go faster with fatter skis and speed is cool plus more laps
im pretty sure any effect on glide speed of having a higher surface area contacting the snow with your xX//SINTERED FUCKING BASE\\Xx
...is almost negligible compared to the type/quality/state of the base material and wax.
also why do narrow skis make you tomahawk?
SavageBiffWhat park ski holds an edge and doesn’t nose dive in pow?
Not saying that park skis can’t carve, they can if they couldn’t they wouldn’t make a good park ski, but they aren’t good in pow, and the few that are, arv 106, Magnus 102, sfb lose edge control on steeps at least if your cooking, and are only good in shallow conditions, the narrower more cambered park skis aren’t fun in pow, they can do it but your not surfin nothing and your gonna nose dive, but they are better at carving, and a tail with less or no rise will carve better still, one with some rise will still release easily, especially at speed if your technique isn’t dog shit square or round, all this only matters for the one ski quiver, if ya got more than one set of planks ya got options to vary your style, what and how your gonna ski as you please. I can carve on 120+, I can ski pow on 88 waisted skis but that don’t mean I wanna, there’s a ski for every condition, no need to rip park skis all over the mountain unless your stuck with a 1 ski quiver.
maybe some of the narrow park twins are better than others. In the early 2000s people used to ski powder with pocket rockets which were only 90mm underfoot and pistols were 95mm underfoot.
i think a 90mm or 95mm UF park ski can be alot of fun in powder. You arent going to float or surf but on my old volkl kinks which were 90mm i could ski powder runs very well and very easily. Again i wouldnt float but i would more like slice through the powder like a sintered fucking sushi knife. Also powdery moguls are in some ways easier with narrow park skis because moguls favor narrower skis in my exp. The fat skis ive ridden werent much fun on moguls. Maybe they were just bad mogul skis but from my exp fat skis dont do moguls well.
Narrow skis will tomahawk easier bc a narrower waist width is more likely to , plunge, some of us say “auger” themselves into a hole, turning the skis into bananas that pop you forward and tomahawk the shit out of you, now if the snow is shallow or hard as shit that’s less likely.
Wax or no wax, once you’ve skied enough skis you will see first hand some skis do glide faster on their own.
Some park skis can ski pow better than others, an arv, Magnus, especially a bacon if you consider bacons a park ski , I consider them 50/50 all mountain/park, can do ok in pow, so can some narrower models but IMO, they are less fun, require considerable technique but skiing is fun as fuck so, it’s hard to say they are not fun, def not as fun as a powder ski, the ones that IMO are no fun are the full cambered skis, but some narrow skis, my sr88 ski pow quite well and at full speed60+ they don’t sink, but they are far from surfy and require technique whereas I can mindlessly putz around on the yle.
Far as moguls go, guess I’d agree narrower is better but at the same time, I ski them better on my 108 commanders and 118yle than my 88 storm riders, or chronics, my mogul skis are captis, prefer a shorter tail in moguls whether it’s flat round or square, prefer no taper and a turned up tail, park skis are decent in moguls especially if they’re not at true center.
DolansLebensraumim pretty sure any effect on glide speed of having a higher surface area contacting the snow with your xX//SINTERED FUCKING BASE\\Xx
...is almost negligible compared to the type/quality/state of the base material and wax.
also why do narrow skis make you tomahawk?
maybe some of the narrow park twins are better than others. In the early 2000s people used to ski powder with pocket rockets which were only 90mm underfoot and pistols were 95mm underfoot.
i think a 90mm or 95mm UF park ski can be alot of fun in powder. You arent going to float or surf but on my old volkl kinks which were 90mm i could ski powder runs very well and very easily. Again i wouldnt float but i would more like slice through the powder like a sintered fucking sushi knife. Also powdery moguls are in some ways easier with narrow park skis because moguls favor narrower skis in my exp. The fat skis ive ridden werent much fun on moguls. Maybe they were just bad mogul skis but from my exp fat skis dont do moguls well.
SavageBiffWhat park ski holds an edge and doesn’t nose dive in pow?
Not saying that park skis can’t carve, they can if they couldn’t they wouldn’t make a good park ski, but they aren’t good in pow, and the few that are, arv 106, Magnus 102, sfb lose edge control on steeps at least if your cooking, and are only good in shallow conditions, the narrower more cambered park skis aren’t fun in pow, they can do it but your not surfin nothing and your gonna nose dive, but they are better at carving, and a tail with less or no rise will carve better still, one with some rise will still release easily, especially at speed if your technique isn’t dog shit square or round, all this only matters for the one ski quiver, if ya got more than one set of planks ya got options to vary your style, what and how your gonna ski as you please. I can carve on 120+, I can ski pow on 88 waisted skis but that don’t mean I wanna, there’s a ski for every condition, no need to rip park skis all over the mountain unless your stuck with a 1 ski quiver.
That’s not a park ski , IMO, by any means, I know it’s tail is similar to its tip but it’s mount is like -8 or something, and it is not completely symmetrical , and is more directional than not, it’s also heavy, haven’t heard of anyone mounting it as far forward as a menace but I could be wrong, good pow and free ride ski , could be used in the park but it certainly wouldn’t excel and if you mount It forward it’s gonna lose some of its pow worthiness, the wildcat, arv, bacon are closer to park skis and better in pow and parktho not as damp.
SavageBiffThat’s not a park ski , IMO, by any means, I know it’s tail is similar to its tip but it’s mount is like -8 or something, and it is not completely symmetrical , and is more directional than not, it’s also heavy, haven’t heard of anyone mounting it as far forward as a menace but I could be wrong, good pow and free ride ski , could be used in the park but it certainly wouldn’t excel and if you mount It forward it’s gonna lose some of its pow worthiness, the wildcat, arv, bacon are closer to park skis and better in pow and parktho not as damp.
I have the 192cm, mounted forward, its 100% parkable. but you aint gonna spin to win, also
Agreed, there’s always a trade off
what are yours mounted at exactly? And how do you like them for all mountain rippin? I looked at those , the mpro and ended up with a kastle mx98 🤷, saw the m free on the fwt I may try it out in the future, have you skied the m pro 99 or 105 and have anything to say about the mfrees similarities?
anders_aI have the 192cm, mounted forward, its 100% parkable. but you aint gonna spin to win, also
I skied thed 108's today in crud, 0 issues, except slow bases! so need to figure out wtf is wrong, I couldnt get over 45mph. I hit almost 60 on 172cm slalom skis on same hill just minutes before. its just back from a stone grind. plan is brass roto + rewax to test.
I skied thed 108's today in crud, 0 issues, except slow bases! so need to figure out wtf is wrong, I couldnt get over 45mph. I hit almost 60 on 172cm slalom skis on same hill just minutes before. its just back from a stone grind. plan is brass roto + rewax to test.
I skied thed 108's today in crud, 0 issues, except slow bases! so need to figure out wtf is wrong, I couldnt get over 45mph. I hit almost 60 on 172cm slalom skis on same hill just minutes before. its just back from a stone grind. plan is brass roto + rewax to test.
Do you like the 108? I got to ski it for a few days and couldn’t fucking stand it. Felt super cheap to me. Wasn’t very damp for a metal-laminate ski, and was chattery at speed, wasn’t super poppy. Idk maybe I just suck at skiing but my Norse Freeride is a way better metal-laminate ski...
MFree 108 are like 2 different skis in their 182cm and 192cm lengths. The 182cm is super surfy/playful but not as stable through variable conditions and the 192cm version is much more serious, damp, stable and less loose in the tail.
If you’re 180lbs plus, go with the 192cm length as it skis short. You could move the mounts forward or back a cm or two without issue on them but the line is good for most. A 186-188cm version like a shorter 192cm length would sell like crazy.
@anders_a pair was just stone ground so it just needs some brass brushing and scotch brite pad work to get rid of the “fuzzy” bases and get them fast again.
Kastle MX99 or the less demanding MX98 are very directional skis with traditional mounts so they are pretty similar to skis MPro 99. The Kastle skis have less taper so more hard snow edge grip vs the MPro 99. The 192cm only MPro 105 adds 300-500 grams more weight and a 27m radius that’s really more like 30m plus so it does 60mph in it’s sleep. Insanely stable ski that I’d definitely own if I skied at resorts more often that you could let these really run.
Why so much difference in stability between the 182 and 192?
Your description on the mpro is how I feel about the mx98, tho I found no difference between the 99 and 98 other than the specs on paper, kinda wanting the m pro now damnit, at least it’s not $1300
Greg_KMFree 108 are like 2 different skis in their 182cm and 192cm lengths. The 182cm is super surfy/playful but not as stable through variable conditions and the 192cm version is much more serious, damp, stable and less loose in the tail.
If you’re 180lbs plus, go with the 192cm length as it skis short. You could move the mounts forward or back a cm or two without issue on them but the line is good for most. A 186-188cm version like a shorter 192cm length would sell like crazy.
@anders_a pair was just stone ground so it just needs some brass brushing and scotch brite pad work to get rid of the “fuzzy” bases and get them fast again.
Kastle MX99 or the less demanding MX98 are very directional skis with traditional mounts so they are pretty similar to skis MPro 99. The Kastle skis have less taper so more hard snow edge grip vs the MPro 99. The 192cm only MPro 105 adds 300-500 grams more weight and a 27m radius that’s really more like 30m plus so it does 60mph in it’s sleep. Insanely stable ski that I’d definitely own if I skied at resorts more often that you could let these really run.
SavageBiffWhy so much difference in stability between the 182 and 192?
Your description on the mpro is how I feel about the mx98, tho I found no difference between the 99 and 98 other than the specs on paper, kinda wanting the m pro now damnit, at least it’s not $1300
Usually there is a stiffness, longer turning radius etc difference going to a longer length of any ski but sometimes it’s a large difference when it’s up to the longest length in a skis range. The menace 98 187cm is a big jump from the 181cm and the 192cm Rustler 11 is noticeably beefier than the 188cm version so not uncommon.
MX 99 vs MX 98 is just a hair softer and lighter so it’s not night and day at all. Both very nice and well built skis.
Corbetts which is close to me has the MPro 105 on for $539.99 CAN/$430 US and has 2 pairs left.....
Blisters comment in a review on the MPro 105/Pro Rider where their review pair weighed 2600 grams per ski-
“While most of today’s skis will at some point experience some chatter or tip flap when the speeds get high enough, that’s not true of the Pro Rider. This ski is confident at any speed – at well over 60 MPH, the skis never lost their composure, and they almost begs you to get in a tuck and let them run.”
SavageBiffNarrow skis will tomahawk easier bc a narrower waist width is more likely to , plunge, some of us say “auger” themselves into a hole, turning the skis into bananas that pop you forward and tomahawk the shit out of you, now if the snow is shallow or hard as shit that’s less likely.
Wax or no wax, once you’ve skied enough skis you will see first hand some skis do glide faster on their own.
Some park skis can ski pow better than others, an arv, Magnus, especially a bacon if you consider bacons a park ski , I consider them 50/50 all mountain/park, can do ok in pow, so can some narrower models but IMO, they are less fun, require considerable technique but skiing is fun as fuck so, it’s hard to say they are not fun, def not as fun as a powder ski, the ones that IMO are no fun are the full cambered skis, but some narrow skis, my sr88 ski pow quite well and at full speed60+ they don’t sink, but they are far from surfy and require technique whereas I can mindlessly putz around on the yle.
Far as moguls go, guess I’d agree narrower is better but at the same time, I ski them better on my 108 commanders and 118yle than my 88 storm riders, or chronics, my mogul skis are captis, prefer a shorter tail in moguls whether it’s flat round or square, prefer no taper and a turned up tail, park skis are decent in moguls especially if they’re not at true center.
I want to wage a war of fisticuffs on you and attack your crotch with machiavellian precision.
but yeah you make good points. Do you think a rockered ski will always outperform a full camber ski in pow?
what do you think is the perfect ski width underfoot for a park ski that can still float in powder?
animatorDo you like the 108? I got to ski it for a few days and couldn’t fucking stand it. Felt super cheap to me. Wasn’t very damp for a metal-laminate ski, and was chattery at speed, wasn’t super poppy. Idk maybe I just suck at skiing but my Norse Freeride is a way better metal-laminate ski...
get the adult size version :D (sorry bro just had to) Im hopeing to demo the norse skis once covid goes pooof! try the CT 3.0 2021 btw
SavageBiffWhy so much difference in stability between the 182 and 192?
Your description on the mpro is how I feel about the mx98, tho I found no difference between the 99 and 98 other than the specs on paper, kinda wanting the m pro now damnit, at least it’s not $1300
sevral skis do this though in their longer lengths, mantra 102 comes to mind, and a fischer 102 FR in 191 vs 184, is actually a 108, not a 102 suddenly. Other skis do it the other way, where longest = worst, like nordica enforcers.
Also, we need to mention the 2021 CT 3.0 in this thread, easy 55-60mph ski, probably more. and very aggressive mount point.
revolt 121 also seems to be "up there" I have a pair, with Duke PT 16, but ross tester just has bigger balls than me, afterall he did get the name ross testicles. I've only done 50-55 on them in crud, they are mounted what -2.5? -3? something and I just dont feel like going faster than that on anything mounted that forward, yeah Im old :p I need at least -5 to go vroom, but for fast stuff I ideally want something like -7
DolansLebensraumI want to wage a war of fisticuffs on you and attack your crotch with machiavellian precision.
but yeah you make good points. Do you think a rockered ski will always outperform a full camber ski in pow?
what do you think is the perfect ski width underfoot for a park ski that can still float in powder?
Well I don’t feel that way not interested in fisticuffs, you present yourself next time I’m in summit, next jan1-mar31, I’ll buy ya a beer and give ya a blunt. Ya know, you may think I dislike ya, but I def don’t, dislike some of the shit you’ve said is all, and Ive dmd you apologies as well as taken your side on here before, when your right I’ll stand by u.
Far as “all” rockered skis outperforming cambered skis in pow, I say NO. For instance my yle will outsurf a flat rockered daemon or Corvus with ease, same for the old mantra, same for the katana I skied several years ago. There also are gonna be snow conditions in which a camber is gonna be warranted unless we’re talking bottomless champagne pow from top to bottom with no mixed conditions in which case I can’t see a full cambered , or rocker,camber, rocker ski being more preferable than a full reverse ski. Also there are narrow waisted full rocker skis, the new Saba 107 , winder has a 100 underfoot rockered ski and a few I can’t think of rn, I haven’t skied those but I can’t imagine them out surfing my yle or even my narrower bacons, 4frnt raven is another rockered ski I don’t find surfy, it releases easy, pivots well, good edge and damp and skis pow well, great ski actually, but can’t out surf my yle or even come close.
Idk if there is a perfect width, that’s gonna boil down to preference and an individuals skill, style, technique and physical ability, and I pretty much don’t touch rails so I’m not a good judge there, and the biggest problem I see are park skis tend to be mounted so far forward which hurts their pow worthiness, however, there are skis not necessarily meant for park that do both well, you got arv with the gold man right, the ltd ? Those should do both well, the non Titanal version should be even better at both, the arv 96 or 106, Jeffrey 98, rmu Rippah , sfb (if ya wanna call it park ski, a lil wide but it’s -3 mount, soft can carve forward/switch, light, low and balanced swing weight so it checks the boxes and is what I spin the most on, even over my 2018 chronics, the Magnus 102 is another. For me, I’d say 98 would be the Goldilocks waist width for a park/pow sk 1 ski quiver. My yle, mounted on the team line (-5.5) actually is an aight park ski at 118, it’s well balanced, has a decently progressive mount and is not very heavy, doesn’t carve forward or switch on groomed super well tho.
Greg_KUsually there is a stiffness, longer turning radius etc difference going to a longer length of any ski but sometimes it’s a large difference when it’s up to the longest length in a skis range. The menace 98 187cm is a big jump from the 181cm and the 192cm Rustler 11 is noticeably beefier than the 188cm version so not uncommon.
MX 99 vs MX 98 is just a hair softer and lighter so it’s not night and day at all. Both very nice and well built skis.
Corbetts which is close to me has the MPro 105 on for $539.99 CAN/$430 US and has 2 pairs left.....
Blisters comment in a review on the MPro 105/Pro Rider where their review pair weighed 2600 grams per ski-
“While most of today’s skis will at some point experience some chatter or tip flap when the speeds get high enough, that’s not true of the Pro Rider. This ski is confident at any speed – at well over 60 MPH, the skis never lost their composure, and they almost begs you to get in a tuck and let them run.”
Yoooooooooo thx for this, there’s 1 less in stock now ! Unbelievable ! $430!!! Holy shit thx, dude if we meet up I got you a beer or dinner or a day pass whatever you’ll accept as a thank you.
now I just need sum 1 to buy my stockli and chrons
anders_aget the adult size version :D (sorry bro just had to) Im hopeing to demo the norse skis once covid goes pooof! try the CT 3.0 2021 btw
sevral skis do this though in their longer lengths, mantra 102 comes to mind, and a fischer 102 FR in 191 vs 184, is actually a 108, not a 102 suddenly. Other skis do it the other way, where longest = worst, like nordica enforcers.
Also, we need to mention the 2021 CT 3.0 in this thread, easy 55-60mph ski, probably more. and very aggressive mount point.
revolt 121 also seems to be "up there" I have a pair, with Duke PT 16, but ross tester just has bigger balls than me, afterall he did get the name ross testicles. I've only done 50-55 on them in crud, they are mounted what -2.5? -3? something and I just dont feel like going faster than that on anything mounted that forward, yeah Im old :p I need at least -5 to go vroom, but for fast stuff I ideally want something like -7
I was aware of certain skis being damper or stiffer etc in their longer lengths, mainly from blister reviews ngl I haven’t for instance skied the same ski in different lengths back to back, I was mainly curious how it was achieved on the m free, what’s different in the construction vs the shorter length, or is it just the mass...
I keep forgetting to mention the revolt, it’s just sooo wide it’s east to forget when your thinking “park” ski , even when the topic is park ski capable in pow, the brains thinking narrow... good call on that tho.
Far as the ct goes, I actually wanna try it as a charge park ski after my reading of your posts in the other thread, now that it’s apparently stiffened up, I’d like to try it again. How is it in pow tho??? I know you got a pair or two...
should I get pts for the pro riders? Idc about weight, I’d like a moist ass touring option... just wondering what y’all think.
SavageBiffI was aware of certain skis being damper or stiffer etc in their longer lengths, mainly from blister reviews ngl I haven’t for instance skied the same ski in different lengths back to back, I was mainly curious how it was achieved on the m free, what’s different in the construction vs the shorter length, or is it just the mass...
I keep forgetting to mention the revolt, it’s just sooo wide it’s east to forget when your thinking “park” ski , even when the topic is park ski capable in pow, the brains thinking narrow... good call on that tho.
Far as the ct goes, I actually wanna try it as a charge park ski after my reading of your posts in the other thread, now that it’s apparently stiffened up, I’d like to try it again. How is it in pow tho??? I know you got a pair or two...
should I get pts for the pro riders? Idc about weight, I’d like a moist ass touring option... just wondering what y’all think.
if I could only have 1 ski, I'd grab the CT 3.0 190cm over the m-free 108 192cm
for some weird reason the CT 3.0 RIPS carves like you wouldnt belive, if I didnt know, Id say it was a 100mm underfoot when skiiing hardpacked. also feels light and I can swing it (its really not)
CT 2.0 also rips, and I know @Greg_K just got the 1.0's
but the entire 2021 lineup of CT's seems to be made for the actual chargy guys, not the swervy. its made to go 50 down the moguls just straight lining the shit out of them, and jumping them.
SavageBiffI was aware of certain skis being damper or stiffer etc in their longer lengths, mainly from blister reviews ngl I haven’t for instance skied the same ski in different lengths back to back, I was mainly curious how it was achieved on the m free, what’s different in the construction vs the shorter length, or is it just the mass...
I keep forgetting to mention the revolt, it’s just sooo wide it’s east to forget when your thinking “park” ski , even when the topic is park ski capable in pow, the brains thinking narrow... good call on that tho.
Far as the ct goes, I actually wanna try it as a charge park ski after my reading of your posts in the other thread, now that it’s apparently stiffened up, I’d like to try it again. How is it in pow tho??? I know you got a pair or two...
should I get pts for the pro riders? Idc about weight, I’d like a moist ass touring option... just wondering what y’all think.
Touring on one of the heaviest skis ever made? No. Lol
Think I’d maybe use something like the MPro 99 as it’s a similar shape but much lighter. Moment make great touring skis that are light or just go the regular versions if weight isn’t a concern.
Longer lengths in skis from most manufacturers use a thicker wood core as they get longer to make them stiffer and flex properly for the heavier skier that will be skiing them.
New 2021 Candide 3.0 will float well if you mount in the progressive-traditional mount point range(1.5-3cm back) of the Candide line. At the Candide line it will pivot and ski switch well but float and carving ability will be sacrificed vs moving it back. The new 3.0 does kick ass though-incredible carver for it’s width and very stable at high speeds.
I know it’s laughable to most touring on a heavy ski, but I won’t be touring long distance and it’s all about the downhill, I also don’t really tire and I recover really quickly, am going with cast free tour probably tho, like my pivots, just don’t know on what skis, really didn’t wanna buy another pair and def don’t want a light touring ski.
Greg_KTouring on one of the heaviest skis ever made? No. Lol
Think I’d maybe use something like the MPro 99 as it’s a similar shape but much lighter. Moment make great touring skis that are light or just go the regular versions if weight isn’t a concern.
Longer lengths in skis from most manufacturers use a thicker wood core as they get longer to make them stiffer and flex properly for the heavier skier that will be skiing them.
New 2021 Candide 3.0 will float well if you mount in the progressive-traditional mount point range(1.5-3cm back) of the Candide line. At the Candide line it will pivot and ski switch well but float and carving ability will be sacrificed vs moving it back. The new 3.0 does kick ass though-incredible carver for it’s width and very stable at high speeds.
