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!
Rob.com
Little peak at the bases of the new blade optics
Is that the new optic? shape looks closer to a blend or chronic. The tails are definitely more upturned than the blade. Also mounted close to center which would point toward a twin
.nastyYou all need to stop calling it a BBR tip haha. yeah it's got kind of a pointy tip shape but this ski is absolutely nothing like the BBR was.
Fischer has 3 nightstick widths for next year. 90, 97, and 104. They all come with "AI generated art" so every single ski is different, not that amazing but kinda cool.
Trying to keep out of this thread for the most part, because it's fun to watch the detective work go down. However, I've been semi-'in the loop' in the development of the new Salomon ski, I've played with/borrowed most of the iterations for a lap here and there, and I've chatted to some of the guys behind it a fair bit. So just to put it out there, the pointed tip shape is 100% rider-driven. I know for a fact that Salomon pushed back pretty hard against it, because of the BBR connotations. I'm pretty sure HQ still has nightmares about the BBR, so the higher-ups very much did not want to include it. The riders working on the ski eventually pushed it through despite those objections, because of how it performs.
**This post was edited on Jan 18th 2024 at 12:47:27pm
TwigTrying to keep out of this thread for the most part, because it's fun to watch the detective work go down. However, I've been semi-'in the loop' in the development of the new Salomon ski, I've played with/borrowed most of the iterations for a lap here and there, and I've chatted to some of the guys behind it a fair bit. So just to put it out there, the pointed tip shape is 100% rider-driven. I know for a fact that Salomon pushed back pretty hard against it, because of the BBR connotations. I'm pretty sure HQ has nightmares about the BBR, so the higher ups very much did not want to include it. The riders working on the ski eventually pushed it through despite objections because of how it performs.
Not familiar with the "BBR tip," why is it that Salomon was against a better preforming shape for their athletes needs???
WittyCongIs that the new optic? shape looks closer to a blend or chronic. The tails are definitely more upturned than the blade. Also mounted close to center which would point toward a twin
The new optic 114 by the looks of it. Someone posted the full line earlier in the thread
onenerdykidBecause the BBR ski was an absolute disaster and it was a market flop. No brand wants to have any new ski be similar to that ski.
I worked at the Okemo base shop for a couple winters and the “demo rental” fleet was full to the brim with BBR’s. Sad thing is the feedback was pretty good from your average joe. The top sheet was terrible which didn’t do it any favors.
HoleshotrAny info on a shorter Whitewalker 116 coming? My short ass would love to ski it.
how tall are you?
I am 175 cm / 70 kg and would never consider getting on a shorter WW116 than the 185, preferably mounted forward of the recommended line.
I mounted mine on the rec line, and found that the tails had a tendency to kinda punch through wind affected snow. I think they would have stayed atop better mounted further forward while still floating more than well enough (the tips are more chargy than floaty imho).
A 175 WW116 sounds like the ticket for light skiers under 170cm though.
I am 175 cm / 70 kg and would never consider getting on a shorter WW116 than the 185, preferably mounted forward of the recommended line.
I mounted mine on the rec line, and found that the tails had a tendency to kinda punch through wind affected snow. I think they would have stayed atop better mounted further forward while still floating more than well enough (the tips are more chargy than floaty imho).
A 175 WW116 sounds like the ticket for light skiers under 170cm though.
I am 175 cm tall as well, but a bit lighter ~63 kg. I did some more thinking and researching last night and actually sent it on buying a pair of the '24 185 WW! I figure I can ski them the rest of this season, and if I do actually think they feel too long I can buy the 175s next year, but I think I am actually going to like the length. I have a pair of 175 JJ ULs right now, and there have been a few times where I have wished they were a bit longer.
Interesting point about the mount point though, I pretty much always do factory recommended, but will look at maybe bringing it up a bit for this ski
HoleshotrI am 175 cm tall as well, but a bit lighter ~63 kg. I did some more thinking and researching last night and actually sent it on buying a pair of the '24 185 WW! I figure I can ski them the rest of this season, and if I do actually think they feel too long I can buy the 175s next year, but I think I am actually going to like the length. I have a pair of 175 JJ ULs right now, and there have been a few times where I have wished they were a bit longer.
Interesting point about the mount point though, I pretty much always do factory recommended, but will look at maybe bringing it up a bit for this ski
Congrats - 185 is 100% the way to go for you too. 175 would have felt like snowlerblades.
I would def consider going forward a bit. I am a very directional skier, yet the WW116 wants to charge bases level to the hill schmearing and slarving down the hill. The do not have a ton of nose initiated float, more of it comes from the stiffer, underfoot cambered section. I found that one could easily get too far back on the tails in difficult snow where it kinda felt like the tails would punch through and pivot you back. I skied DPS Lotus 117s in the same snow and where the WW116s had me struggling the L117s skied like it was blower. I think the culprit was the mount point, not the ski (and obviously my shit technique). So my clear recommendation - go forward a bit from rec.
And again - congrats on a solid decision - WW116s are awesome :)
Mana is now named studio. Mana 2 and 3 return unchanged but under studio. Mana 4 (now studio 4) has the stomp pad added to it. Studio 0 is a pipe ski studio 1 a park ski.
jpjpjpjpWhich is better for freestyle, prodigy or studio?
I think mana is like a freeride these days.
Prodigy is softer so better for a jibby style of skiing. The mana/studio is more centered but much stiffer. I prefer the mana/studio for extra support on landings but you can push the mount point to newschool (or even more forwards) on the prodigy line for a softer park ski.
jpjpjpjpWhich is better for freestyle, prodigy or studio?
I think mana is like a freeride these days.
Prodigy is more fun in every respect, I've always thought the Mana felt like a dead plank. Even the new Candide skis feel way more alive than the mana (which used to be the candide) does.
.nastyProdigy is more fun in every respect, I've always thought the Mana felt like a dead plank. Even the new Candide skis feel way more alive than the mana (which used to be the candide) does.
Agreed. I asked the product manager at Faction and he said it’s the same, but something changed from the final CT3.0 to the Mana 3.0 because I owned each back to back and the Mana was not as much fun.
really want to get my hands on a pair of Resort 101s and the Freeride 111s
