New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

2013 Head Rev 105 ski - Page 3

post #61 of 77
Originally Posted by DesiredUsername View Post

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.


yeah! Totally agree, far more than I imagined it would. I would call it  a day on them and just use them for hardpack as well but I have to think they aren't going to be nearly as good on harder bumped out stuff.  did you have them in any of this kind of terrain?  


I dont think the DSP 85 is out till 2015 and it sounds a bit on the stout side. I skied the rev 85 and thought it was a great ski but didn't ski it in bumps. maybe time to review. 

post #62 of 77

I'll retract the "hooky" designation (wink.gif), but still am curious to know why moving your bindings forward doesn't make a turny ski even more (too?)  turny .......



Originally Posted by DesiredUsername View Post

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.

post #63 of 77

it allows you to control the shovel better. This pretty much boils down to being in more control of the edges from underfoot through the upper contact points. It actually allows you to modulate the edges better; giving you better control over whether to apply more or less edge pressure as you are skiing. it also gives you better abiity to press the tips down in bumps/irregular terrain; again giving you better control over the ski. I pretty much follow BOF mounting but that can depend on ski build/profile. 

post #64 of 77

Thanks Finndog!  So it sounds like it increases control/feedback without actually increasing the turniness, correct?

post #65 of 77

yes, to a point; the binding can be too far forward and you lose control of the tails and then input on the tips becomes overly sensitive and just not good; this can cause just about any ski to feel hooky or unbalanced. The goal is to get a good balance where you can effectively use the entire ski.  


I would recommend you do some searches on "Ball of Foot" (BOF) mounting of bindings. Its what I use for the most part.  I hyper linked a great thread from here on BOF mounting. 

post #66 of 77

I'll chime in here as a BOF aficionado: IMO where you mount also depends on the ski's mission and your style of skiing. If you apply a lot of tip pressure, ride the fronts of your boots, then you may prefer a mount point a few cm further back. If you have a more neutral stance, and tend to use a more lateral pressure style, then I've found BOF works well for traditional skis. On the other hand, not so sure about rockered skis. Seems like BOF puts me in very odd places sometimes, probably because the running surface can be more asymmetrical relative to the total length. Also feel like the rocker can be more or less sensitive to mount position depending on where and how the sidecut meets it. Long short, I've found that rockered skis often do best on the line, and that playing with the mount line can be counter-intuitive. My .02.

post #67 of 77

the problem is that the mount line is not a standard point and on many ski's there are multiple suggested locations. Again, skiing big open bowls is different than skiing trees and tighter locations and each does in fact require different traits of the ski's performance. For instance, for Steamboat trees, I don't need a uber stable ski, I want ease of turn initiation and quickness. 

post #68 of 77

Agree; the manufacturer's mount point mark is not meant for every individual and/or application, but it's an essential starting point for any discussion/comparison or manipulation. It does become interesting when a significant majority, however, concludes that their preferred mount point is consistently different than the mark, under a variety of conditions.  Is that happening with the 105s, or is it still too early to tell? 

post #69 of 77

on the 105, its definitely off. I ended up at +2.5, I think Holiday ended up at +2 and my friend who is about 5' 8" ended up at just about +3. I think +2 is probably a good starting point.  It is as said above, about personal preferences and styles since I ski almost every ski a bit more forward than the "recommended" points. Kasltes +.5, DP +1.5 blizzards +1...  

post #70 of 77

At least the Head PRD bindings on the Rev series makes it really easy to experiment with the mount position.  The only challenge is when the bindings are pre-mounted at the factory line and you run out of adjustment range to get where you really need to be.

post #71 of 77

I just wanted to bump up (pun intended) the REV 105, I skied this today in left over broken and groomed, lots of piled stuff and plenty of bumps.Skied trees with 6-8" (and more) I am still at +2.5 on these and continue to love this ski.  

post #72 of 77

Nice to hear, Finn.  I haven't had my Rev 105's in more than a few inches since I first bought them last last spring.  They did great in cut up spring conditions and groomed and were actually a lot turnier than my K2 Outlaw (92) which is now my rock ski.  Skied once this year with the 105's in early season heavy cut up unconsolidated snow and they did fine, though maybe something beefier would have handled those conditions better.   The PNW is supposed to start getting some new snow starting today, so hopefully I'll get a chance to play with them in fresh snow.


I did acquire a pair of Rev 85's over the summer, and they absolutely rock. I love these skis. I had instructor clinics last week and again this weekend and I think they are a perfect teaching ski and a great fronstside all-mountain ski.  Easy to engage the tip to initiate carving, very quick and nimble, but also easy to make big arcing turns, stable when you need.  Haven't been any bumps formed yet at Stevens but looking forward to seeing what I can do with these.  

Edited by DesiredUsername - 12/12/13 at 11:29am
post #73 of 77

I cannot say enough good things about the Head Rev 105.  Those skis make this 46 year old a much better skier than he really is :)  It is my one ski quiver, and I ski in New England.  I am amazed how it carves on groomers. Feels like a slalom ski.  The few times we get real snow is when it really shines though.  I also had a ball in the woods with it.  And trust me, it gets pretty tight where we ski.  I have it mounted per manufacturer recommendation.  I find it very easy to engage the tip.  Great ski, the perfect "big mountain" ski for the east because the turn radius helps a lot on our narrower trails.  I don't have to release the edges nearly as often as comparable skis with larger radius cuts. Pete

post #74 of 77

They are pretty damn solid in broken piled stuff,



post #75 of 77

Wow, interesting thread. This ski runs the gamut from "piece of crap" to "fantastic".

@Finndog is that your buddy in the red jacket and Poc helmet? What does he weigh?


I'm wondering whether any of the heavier skiers have retried the ski with a different mounting point?

Also, I wonder if there's not the Head flex vs length issue going on. For instance, I used to own the old SS Magnum in a 170. Very soft ski, about the softest I've ever skied.  That ski in 177cm was different, not nearly as soft. (Bob Peters used it as a daily in Jackson)

Sounds like the 180cm may be too soft for heavier skiers, 180+, maybe that's why @markojp didn't like it. Esp. combined with mount point being too far back.


Also, demo days and reps I guess are all over the place, but in general, at least in the east, none i've ever had know much about mount points, tunes, etc. Usually they act like only a moron would question such things. Part of the reason I'm not a demo day fan.  @qcanoe  gets that attitude all the time.


Any of the heavier skiers retry this ski?

post #76 of 77
I will again as soon as we get some snow.
post #77 of 77

yeah, thats me. My buck necked weight is about 168, i'm on 180's there moving at a reasonable speed.  I also skied the 105's the day of our surprise storm where were got over a foot (yeah, Steamboat reported 5") and I was totally amazed at how well they did in that much powder.  Granted it was super blower but they floated damn nearly as well as my Unleashed hells (113mm) I will have post a picture but I added just a touch of rocker to the tail; about 6" inches of run with about 2-3 mm's of rise.  The ski is so incredibly damp and as you can see it does bend (I think that picture captured me compressing/flexing in a short turn) but I think  part of what makes it so good is how it seems to stay stuck to the snow. It also has a lot of camber so it has a weird combination of dampness with energy. (note last picture where I popped out of the turn and my ski's are both off the snow)   The other thing we noticed (I was skiing with a friend who was on a pair of 170's) is the shape of the shovel. Its not a fast taper tip to waist but rather has an elongated wider area on the shovel that allows a lot of versatility; you can drift it easily and it planes up well for excellent float.  


note: my friend on the 170's is at +1.5 so far using schizos

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Member Gear Reviews