2013 Head Rev 105 ski - Page 2

  Im not sure how this happened, but Im changing my last review.  Ive never been on a ski I liked one day than hated the next.  I was skiing last friday at Bigsky, conditions were skiing hard and fast so I started the day on the Atomic D2 vf 82.  I absolutely loved this ski, even when things got soft and corned up, I loved the ski.  Skied it in bumps, on challenger and really liked it.  I thought the rev 105 would be better suited for the conditions we were skiing and where we were skiing.  I switched skis and my skiing went from I think pretty good to I know pretty bad.  The top got deflected every turn, I went from charging to gaping.  Had no confidence at all in this ski. way to soft , no rebound, hated everything about.  Pawned the skis off on my friends and they instantly gave it back.  In my last post I said it was a keeper this post its for sale.  Guess Ive joined the masses in my dislike of the rev 105
 

 

 

Believe me, if you don't ski an E98 forward, you'll be spanked. Skiing forward isn't the issue. Getting skis on edge isn't a problem either. These things you put on edge and nothing happens. The E98 or Bodacious on edge, they turn with authority.  It's just flat out the worst ski I've been on since the old BD Rubicon. Glad it works for you though. I'm guessing you're not skiing snow with the same density typical of the PNW. 

Ptex, what length and how much are you selling it for?

 

 

I'll through my 2 cents in here, even though I have not skied this ski.

 

But I own a Head Mojo 94, and we have 3 pair of Mnster 88's and goood buddies have the John 94.

 

Head's factory tune is awful on thier wider skis. The worst of any ski I have seen.

 

The base bevel is not only inconsistent in has ranged from 1.5 to 2.5 on brand new skis. Combime this with a 1 degree side edge bevel and sking them is nothing short of miserable.

 

Ya gotta get them stomnne ground to 0 base edge bevel, out a ture consistent accurate 1 degree or a bit less (maybe a .7) and a 3 degree side edge on them.

 

this trnasformed my Mojo 94's inot one of my favorite skis. Both my Monster 88 and the Mojo's were very disappointing until I retuned them.

 

Uh, masses = 50% of the reviewers in this thread? Beginning to sound like this is a moderate flex ski that's a happy place for lighter skiers and an unhappy place for heavier. Probably also better for some styles than other. 

 

 

Careful there, the Cham was a huge flop for a bunch of us who skied it this year. Super clunky feel.  REV 105 was skiing circles around it, and in our group of 10, at least 7 liked the REV alot more. Of course, just because I like it (or don't), doesn't mean much. I am a pretty big guy, 6 foot 1, maybe ~200lbs about now.

^^  this.  I didn't particularly like the Cham, while it really excelled at big turns, it took me a lot of effort on smaller turns and moguls.   I loved the Rev 105, even did pretty good on tight moguls, and more than any ski I have ever tried, didn't wear me out and allowed me to ski longer.     

 

Just catching up on this, as skiing is coming back into play soon...

 

back to march, and quick re-cap, these 2 skis (Cham and Rev 105), may be two of the most polarizing skis I've seen people talk about in some time.

 

the OP loves the Cham and hates the Rev,

the rev one maybe my favorite over 100mm ski I"ve skied and

the Cham was one of the worst designed skies I've ever snapped into.

I talked w/ the old director of ski and snow country ski tests re: my feelings on the Cham, and he echoed them exactly. as a guy that ski companies pay to design skis, he said there were so many basic misses w/ that ski that he couldn't believe they decided to produce it.

 

I can see why people don't like the Rev though. if you don't pilot the skis from the tip, it will be too much of a director in the action. ski the middle or aft of the ski, and the tip will be pushed around. ski the shovel, and follow it around, and it will love you. over 200lbs, pilot the tips and it may be overcooked.

 

snowin' now, some mixed w/ rain, but I'm only 2min from the lake, so should be getting some good sierra cement up higher...

 

cheers,

holiday

OLD THREAD REVIAL ALERT!  

 

I had the opportunity to ski the 105 yesterday but this time after the insistence of my friend, I moved the bindings (Schizo's) forward 3cm's! The 1st time I skied this was at SIA on hardpack and mounted at suggested (not sure where that really is) and I really did not like this ski. My friend who is a finesse and technically precise skier insisted I retest and since I am in the search for a 100-105 ski I figured why not.  BTW, I'm 6' 168

 

Heading up Steamboat at about 10:30, things were still pretty firm but southern facing runs were starting to loosen up. We headed off the Sundown lift and skied under the lift line which was bumped with about 3-4" of refreeze fresh that had fallen the day before on top.  I expected to get my butt kicked on the 105's but what I got instead was a ski that you could drift, set and re-center with such ease and precision. The ski has a ton of snap and energy with a very easy, light feel but at the same time, very damp. It made the crud surprisingly smooth and easy. You can really control the entire ski through the turn changing shape as needed. Continuing along we cut over to a blue cruiser since it was south/west facing. It was still a little firm but not icy and just getting edge-able. At +3 the ski comes alive and the soft tips start to maintain contact and working the edges along with the 16m Radii allows you to carve some serious turns.  What I noticed immediately was how responsive the ski is. A simple tilt of the ankle and pressure to the little toe/big toe produced quick but predictable arc's. I also loved the way you could feel the tips and tails engage together throughout the turn. One thing that I missed with the Nordi Soul Rider is the lack of camber and a fair amount of tail rocker; not so with the traditional tail (turned up) of the 105. It stayed in the turn as long as you wanted it to but was easily broken when changing  turn shape. The camber was very noticeable when releasing the edges while retracting the feet (crossing under), the ski just popped under you. I had a blast riding it along it's Turn radius and feeling the ski through the turn. It ski's much shorter than it's 181 length.

 

As things softened up, we headed for some bumped out areas that were still holding a few inches of untracked and some broken snow. dropping in to the bumps and crud, the ski tips flexed at the very top but the main shovel remained much stiffer than I thought it would and on big soft bumps was just easy. Skiing over off of Storm peak south at the top of Side burn, we had some fun big bumps with several inches of soft broken tracked snow. This was where the ski really did a great job despite how manky and grabby the snow was, you could really control your turn shape and speed.

 

I did not have it any kind of hardpack or hard bumps and do have a concern with the large 144 tips. Time will tell.. But then again don't buy this ski for hard days....  BTW- I called Phil and ordered a pair....  

 

Bottom line: move the mount point at least 2-3cm's forward and experience one of the most fun ski's you will find out there today in this class.  

 

 

Edited by Finndog - 4/9/13 at 2:27pm

Can anyone who's heavier (185+ lbs) comment on the stiffness of the Rev 105?  I heard it's a bit of a noodle for heavier/chargers, but fine for lighter/finesse guys.  Any input would be appreciated.

Nice review Finn. I just paid for a pair of the 180's myself. my local shop had them 50% off ($400), a little more than Starthaus but they also own the ski school where I teach.
With your advice about moving them forward, do you recommend a binding like the schizo or a railflex?

I'm on the lighter side (5-10, 145) so no help Gunnerbob. But I will report when I get them mounted and have a few days on them.

I would go Schizo all the way and start off at +3 and then play around with them.  My friend actually has them +4 and he's about your size but ski's easy; not a charger at all. 

 

Gunner- they are a softer flex Yes, and I would call this much more of a finesse ski. If u can demo 1st I would recommend it. Its not a hard charging balls to the walls ski. Its a tool for sure and allows for a lot of skier input. not a noodle though.  I still plan on buying a 95mm ski for firmer days, steeps and bumps. 

 

I'm 5'10", 190#, had them on a spring day at Heavenly.  They are softer, and not a charging/comp-ish ski for you n' me.  I am not looking for that in a 105+ ski anyway, I don't need a wider soft snow ski to be as burly as my MX88s; I'm not sure who does, but that's a topic for another thread...

 

In the end, the combo of the whippy 16ish meter TR and the flex made them not quite what I was looking for; I ski'd them last spring, and the ski I really wanted didn't exist yet:  The Nordica Vagabond.  107mm, stronger than the Rex but not madly so (no metal, the metal 'comp' 107mm brother is the El Capo), generous 25m TR (which means nothing other than less turny; it is super nimble for its size), slightly less fun-shaped... it has what I want in a soft snow ski, and some more ass than the Rev for my chunky ass, without being a beast.

 

*slight tangent*:  I got to hand-flex the Rev 105 and the Stockli SR 107 side-by-side, and the Rev actually felt stiffer, although the SR 107 felt more 'even', or consistent.  This was length, not torsional flexing... Can't begin to explain where I am going with this, but I would love to get a comparison between the two from someone who has had them both on-snow...

I like your comments FTM.  The El Capo is a great ski and not as burly as many think,  FWIW- the 105 is a different ski in that I don't think Head intended this to be a powder ski or even double as one. its construction and design definitely lends itself to more of a pure soft snow, leftover, 3-6" fresh (of course you can ski it in much more) but with the flat tail and 16mtr (although its not hooky at all) it becomes so much fun carving soft snow. Its not a big stretch to call it a fat SL ski 

Edited by Finndog - 4/10/13 at 5:57am

Fat SL ski.  LOL.  Good way to look at it.  I think the Vagabond, El Capo, Cochise sound more up my alley for a fatter ski than the Rev 105. Thanks for the input!

I've got to admit, after the 105 and skiing next year's something or other 95 ( black, white tips and tails)' I have no idea what Head is doing with their all mountain skis. I'm 205. They were both just lousy mushy noodles that I couldn't get off my feet fast enough. There's this thing... Torsional stiffness. I like it. These two skis don't have it. For me, it just felt like time wasted to have bothered giving them a try. Seems if you're 190+, you're too big for any product they make. Could I have skied them too short? I think so, but that's what they gave me at the tent. Honestly, until they make something that there's a modicum of buzz about, no more time will be wasted. Piste skis though are nice.

mount point....  the suggested point is so far back that it makes the ski feel vague and disconnected. It could certainly be your size but that's how I felt the first time I tested the ski. I remember saying to Phil 'can someone bring me a different pair of skis now" half way down the test run.  once forward the ski is completely different.  Hopefully you tested the 191?  the 181 would be too short for you

I agree, the 181 is too short. Part of my issue is the problem with what they hand you at the tent. If the rep isn't aware of the problem with the mounting point, or just throwing a ski at you to ride, then they aren't trying. This just shouldn't be an issue. The correct answer is, " I'm really sorry...we don't have the 191 mounted yet", or, " the 191 is out. Can you come back in a few minutes?" 

i never got to demo the REV105, but I was not enamored with its Rev98 brother. In fact, I kept going back to the Rossignol Soul 7 @ my demo day last month.

I put a pair of NTN Freedom free-heel bindings on some Rev105s, center on center, and found them a little hooky for T-turns but surprisingly fun if I just paralleled them.  I might actually try moving them back a little, but I think this is a special situation involving the turn choice and my old, less flexible hips and knees.

I find the REV105 to ski very, very well if you stay forward on it.  It does not respond well to static or heel-driven balance.  And I fully agree with you that shifting the BOF on the ski makes a big difference in how this ski handles for most people.  

 

Bottom Line:  Demo the ski before buying it!

 

 

No ski responds optimally to back seat driving.

Are you saying you'd move your bindings forward on a hooky ski? 

Not being a telemark guy, I have a dumb question: Does a telemark turn, with the serious difference between tips, promote hooking? I ask because seems to me that there's a moment when one ski's heavily weighted and way back, while the lightly weighted outside ski is leading strongly. Seems like it would be sensitive to tip shape and breadth just because of the dynamics of the turn. May just reflect my ignorance.

 

Absolutely not dumb.  Skiing as you described would probably result in exactly what you surmised, but that style falls into the dreaded category of poodling and going way overboard on weight distribution.  There was a time when skiing in this fashion was pretty much the norm (hence the phrase: Telemark - License to Suck), but as gear has beefed up and advanced/caught up with Alpine, there's been a similar shift towards a much tighter and evenly distributed stance.  I've never experienced a similar hookiness on other wide skis (110+ waisted), but admittedly none of those skis have nearly the exaggerated difference between tip/waist/tail the the Rev105s do.  In short, the oversized tips shouldn't normally cause any hookiness/over-steering, but might if your technique promotes it.  

This not a hooky ski at all. Just very easy to turn, at whatever turn radius you want, when you want, but doesn't catch an edge unexpectedly. Very predictable, very nimble, very fun ski.

I tried my 105's out the last two weekends. I've got them in the 180 length. I had them mounted with Mojo 12 bindings rather than a railflex or Schizo because my shop guy felt plates or binding systems could impair the flex of the ski underfoot (or something like that). They did mount them 3cm forward.

For a 105mm ski they are very quick and responsive, more so than my 92mm K2 Outlaws. Carves well. Really good in bumps, handles crud nicely. Though with my still-healing ankle I did not really try to rip it up. Haven't had them in deep snow yet, though when I demoed a year ago in 6+" they were great.

In short, I'm very pleased with them as my wider all mountain, which might work as my powder ski as well.

FWIW- I ended up at +2.5 but that will vary on your BSL of course and personal preferences.  DesiredUsername. I had them in 8" of moderately stiff snow in trees and they were almost as fun and easy as my 112's. I am not so sure they will be all that nimble in harder bumps so I am still looking for that ski.  

Yeah, I am looking to add a 80-something carving/bump ski next. Might look at the Rev 85, the DPS Cassiar 85 is intriguing as well, among others.

That said, my Rev 105 takes a huge amount of my quiver bandwidth.