or Connect
EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › Ski Gear Discussion › 2014 Gear.....105mm and rethinking that quiver thing.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

2014 Gear.....105mm and rethinking that quiver thing. - Page 16

post #451 of 504
Quote:
Originally Posted by msolson View Post

to try and re-state my previous rambling mess about 105mm skis, i feel like they are not supposed to be 3D skis, but to seamlessly transition from 2D to 3D snow within the same turn.  cleanly carve right thru chalk, cleanly carve right thru chopped snow, maintain the line in untracked snow.  you do not want the tip to plane up as soon as you transition into soft snow.  you want that tip to maintain the line and arch cleanly thru it - the ski maintains your line as it transitions for firm to soft to firm.  the rise and sink between snow types creates a feeling of unsettling.  I do think most of the 105 skis i have skied falter in this style.  they are too rockered and soft in the tip, so they rise as soon as you hit soft snow and then you drop back down onto hard snow once thru.  they are trying to make skis that carve well on groomers and ski powder ok-ish on an individual basis, rather than seamlessly blending these skills together within 1 turn.  too much float, too much carve, not enough tracking.  

sheesh.  that is just as rambling as before.  

Nah, that was perfectly explained and exactly what I was wondering based on your comments.
post #452 of 504
Quote:
Originally Posted by msolson View Post

 

interesting stuff here.  curious if you ascribe that solely to the lack of waist width?  

 

the vagabond is straight glass, rather than 3 (4?) sheets of metal like a bonafide, so you have a ~10% less dense ski, that is probably 20% less torsionally rigid, and much softer longitudinally as well - all of which will dramatically decrease the true hard snow fun-factor.  

 

While I'm sure the metal in the Bones didn't hurt, I've skied the Vagabonds in heavy chop and other conditions where they didn't feel particularly lacking.  Granted, this was the 5th straight day of skiing and my legs had already endured a lot of bumps that week so they were sluggish, but it felt like it was the extra waist width just making them a bit harder to get up on edge and hold the turn.  I'm sure it was a combination of factors but it's not always easy to determine cause and effect.

post #453 of 504
Great direction for this thread. I'd add that IMO "plane" means different things to different people. I've never seen a ski - regardless of width - perfectly on the surface of powder and in a horizontal. For one thing it will come in and put of planning as our speed changes or the ski's effective surface area shrinks as we tip it. So it'll always be "in" the snow. Sometimes more sometimes less. Ditto for the tip. In fact massive rocker can lead to a lack of horizontality as the tip fights for the surface and the tail stays down. Which may or may not be one's cuppa tea. So I think one advantage 100+ skis have is that they can come up at a touch lower speeds. It's fun to fly but sometimes things like trees urge us to slow down....
post #454 of 504

As someone who is thinking strongly about getting a 10X ski next season I am really liking this thread, not to mention that I am learning quite a bit in general too.

 

I currently have the BMX 98 in 178.  I really like this ski for soft snow, a few inches of fresh and chopped up snow/crud.  It's even pretty decent in bumps as long as the bumps aren't too steep.  But it is quite sluggish on groomers/hard snow, though it does hold an edge half way decently.  If I could only have one ski this would be it.

 

However, I am finding that in most of the conditions mentioned above, such as soft snow, a couple inches of fresh, bumps and groomers, I have almost as much fun if not more on my mid 80s waisted metal laminated frontside carvers.  Yes, the 98 is better in soft snow, but my 83 is "so" much better on hard snow and bumps.  The one thing the 98 is really better at is skiing chopped up snow and freshies.

 

So this season I demoed what is basically the same ski, the Kastle BMX 108 in 178. As expected, the 108 was not much fun on hard groomers or bumps as was the 98.  However, it was a lot more fun when skiing crud, chopped up snow, powder, and so on.  I found it busted through almost any kind of tracked up snow with ease, and still was smeary enough to make fairly quick turns "in" the snow in tight spots.  Sure, it's not a really fat powder ski, and for skiing fresh tracks at resorts and in the trees - especially those tight Northern Vermont Trees! - I love my DPS Wailer 112.  However, I find I am skiing tracked up powder and crud much more then untracked the past couple of years and I think the 10X somethings seem, at least what I've tried, to be pretty much on target for those conditions and still have some flexibility for other conditions.

 

I guess I am slowly warming up to the idea that I prefer the mid 80's - 10X - 110+ quiver, to a mid 80s - 98 - 110+ quiver.  I hope to demo at least a few 10X somethings next season before I actually but something.

 

Anyway, hope this makes some sense.     

post #455 of 504
Quote:
Originally Posted by easternskr View Post

As someone who is thinking strongly about getting a 10X ski next season I am really liking this thread, not to mention that I am learning quite a bit in general too.

I currently have the BMX 98 in 178.  I really like this ski for soft snow, a few inches of fresh and chopped up snow/crud.  It's even pretty decent in bumps as long as the bumps aren't too steep.  But it is quite sluggish on groomers/hard snow, though it does hold an edge half way decently.  If I could only have one ski this would be it.

However, I am finding that in most of the conditions mentioned above, such as soft snow, a couple inches of fresh, bumps and groomers, I have almost as much fun if not more on my mid 80s waisted metal laminated frontside carvers.  Yes, the 98 is better in soft snow, but my 83 is "so" much better on hard snow and bumps.  The one thing the 98 is really better at is skiing chopped up snow and freshies.

So this season I demoed what is basically the same ski, the Kastle BMX 108 in 178. As expected, the 108 was not much fun on hard groomers or bumps as was the 98.  However, it was a lot more fun when skiing crud, chopped up snow, powder, and so on.  I found it busted through almost any kind of tracked up snow with ease, and still was smeary enough to make fairly quick turns "in" the snow in tight spots.  Sure, it's not a really fat powder ski, and for skiing fresh tracks at resorts and in the trees - especially those tight Northern Vermont Trees! - I love my DPS Wailer 112.  However, I find I am skiing tracked up powder and crud much more then untracked the past couple of years and I think the 10X somethings seem, at least what I've tried, to be pretty much on target for those conditions and still have some flexibility for other conditions.

I guess I am slowly warming up to the idea that I prefer the mid 80's - 10X - 110+ quiver, to a mid 80s - 98 - 110+ quiver.  I hope to demo at least a few 10X somethings next season before I actually but something.

Anyway, hope this makes some sense.     

+1
How much do you weight if you don't mind me asking?
post #456 of 504
Quote:
Originally Posted by easternskr View Post

I currently have the BMX 98 in 178.  I really like this ski for soft snow, a few inches of fresh and chopped up snow/crud.  It's even pretty decent in bumps as long as the bumps aren't too steep.  But it is quite sluggish on groomers/hard snow, though it does hold an edge half way decently.  If I could only have one ski this would be it.

My go-to soft snow and travel ski for the last two years have been these, same length. Mostly agree with your take, although I'd give it slightly higher marks on groomers; it's only negative for me is that in bumpy trees I can feel its weight and lack of a raised tail. I tried the 108,  but in the same slot as the 178, meaning the 187. Great broken snow ski, but felt bit unwieldy on groomers or in bumps. That's the trick for a 100-something ski, IMO; how do you stay nimble enough for tight spaces (and groomers when called upon) but calm enough for hauling through variable snow? Haven't yet found one that does it all, while I've found several 98-ish that do...

post #457 of 504
Quote:
Originally Posted by beyond View Post

In fact massive rocker can lead to a lack of horizontality as the tip fights for the surface and the tail stays down. 

 

this is a great point.  i would rather be in deeper in the snow, but with the ski tracking parallel to the pitch of the snow than the tip up and the tail down.  lots of drag there, much less efficient way to slide on snow.  

 

if a ski combines a soft tip with a good bit of tip rocker, then you are almost assuredly going to be skiing tips up bases down - which is not exactly sweet.  

post #458 of 504
Quote:
Originally Posted by msolson View Post

 

this is a great point.  i would rather be in deeper in the snow, but with the ski tracking parallel to the pitch of the snow than the tip up and the tail down.  lots of drag there, much less efficient way to slide on snow.  

 

if a ski combines a soft tip with a good bit of tip rocker, then you are almost assuredly going to be skiing tips up bases down - which is not exactly sweet.  


But then what about the RP112? Maybe it's just me, but the tips feel pretty soft on that ski. And the splay is pretty massive.

post #459 of 504
Quote:
Originally Posted by ecimmortal View Post


But then what about the RP112? Maybe it's just me, but the tips feel pretty soft on that ski. And the splay is pretty massive.

 

 

ec- the wailer 112 is designed to get up on plane pretty early, and then keep the ski parallel when skied at normal speeds and modest edge angles.  

 

the high tip high gets you up early, and the pretty strange tail shape compared to most is to keep you from over leveraging the tail to keep it from sinking too much.  

 

you will for sure notice the tail drop and drag pickup if you open the ski up down the fall line (say 40+m turns ) at high speed (say 50-60mph+), because you keep bending the tip and the tail cannot overcome your leverage against it.  

 

hopefully that makes sense.  

post #460 of 504
Quote:
Originally Posted by msolson View Post

 

ec- the wailer 112 is designed to get up on plane pretty early, and then keep the ski parallel when skied at normal speeds and modest edge angles.  

 

the high tip high gets you up early, and the pretty strange tail shape compared to most is to keep you from over leveraging the tail to keep it from sinking too much.  

 

you will for sure notice the tail drop and drag pickup if you open the ski up down the fall line (say 40+m turns ) at high speed (say 50-60mph+), because you keep bending the tip and the tail cannot overcome your leverage against it.  

 

hopefully that makes sense.  


Makes sense.

 

With an earlier generation of the the billygoat I definitely noticed the tail drop. I didn't seem to notice it as much this year on the 191 BG. I'm moving down to a 186 next season. It will be interesting to see if there is any difference.

post #461 of 504
Quote:
Originally Posted by NayBreak View Post


Nah, that was perfectly explained and exactly what I was wondering based on your comments.

Sorry for the late response (was away the past few days).  I'm 5'10" and 155. 

post #462 of 504
Quote:
Originally Posted by beyond View Post

My go-to soft snow and travel ski for the last two years have been these, same length. Mostly agree with your take, although I'd give it slightly higher marks on groomers; it's only negative for me is that in bumpy trees I can feel its weight and lack of a raised tail. I tried the 108,  but in the same slot as the 178, meaning the 187. Great broken snow ski, but felt bit unwieldy on groomers or in bumps. That's the trick for a 100-something ski, IMO; how do you stay nimble enough for tight spaces (and groomers when called upon) but calm enough for hauling through variable snow? Haven't yet found one that does it all, while I've found several 98-ish that do...

I guess the thing I like about the 108 versus the 98 is simply that there is much more float, at least, for my relatively light weight, along with great crud busting ability.  And I wouldn't want to be taking the 108 out if there is not a lot of fresh snow, tracked or untracked.  So if I am travelling out west and can take two skis with me, and wasn't sure of conditions, then I would opt for a mid 80s metal laminated ski that skis hard snow, bumps and some crud pretty good, and a 10X something ski, which would provide decent though not awesome float in the event I get to ski some powder, both untracked and tracked.  If I could only have one ski to travel with though the 98 wins hands down.

post #463 of 504
Quote:
Originally Posted by easternskr View Post

I guess the thing I like about the 108 versus the 98 is simply that there is much more float, at least, for my relatively light weight, along with great crud busting ability.  And I wouldn't want to be taking the 108 out if there is not a lot of fresh snow, tracked or untracked.  So if I am travelling out west and can take two skis with me, and wasn't sure of conditions, then I would opt for a mid 80s metal laminated ski that skis hard snow, bumps and some crud pretty good, and a 10X something ski, which would provide decent though not awesome float in the event I get to ski some powder, both untracked and tracked.  If I could only have one ski to travel with though the 98 wins hands down.

 

If at all possible, try to get your hands on a pair of the "old" MX108's. I got a set last season, then wanted another due to their outrageous performance, but got the BMX108, which the shop assured me was the same ski with new graphics. Well, I took it out a couple of times, and it was not the same ski at all. Finally, after speaking with the Kastle rep, the old MX is somewhat legendary amongst the knowing apparently, and is most certainly NOT the same thing. Way to tell is that it only says MX, has "Hugo Harrison Pro Model" on the tail, and come in slightly different (177 vs 178) sizes.

 

Rail tracks on groomers - check. Bumps - OK, not geat, Pow - bring it on. Fairly hard snow - dig the edges in - no problem.

 

Anyway, I sold the BMX, and finally managed to find another set of MX for the other quiver. As long as your travel west will have representative type of snow, it's a fantastic do-all ski. Here they are sitting with their other white friends last season (on left):

 

 

The BMX are long gone, but the MX's had a ball at WB and SLC this season.

post #464 of 504
Quote:
Originally Posted by snofun3 View Post

 

If at all possible, try to get your hands on a pair of the "old" MX108's. I got a set last season, then wanted another due to their outrageous performance, but got the BMX108, which the shop assured me was the same ski with new graphics. Well, I took it out a couple of times, and it was not the same ski at all. Finally, after speaking with the Kastle rep, the old MX is somewhat legendary amongst the knowing apparently, and is most certainly NOT the same thing. Way to tell is that it only says MX, has "Hugo Harrison Pro Model" on the tail, and come in slightly different (177 vs 178) sizes.

 

Rail tracks on groomers - check. Bumps - OK, not geat, Pow - bring it on. Fairly hard snow - dig the edges in - no problem.

 

Anyway, I sold the BMX, and finally managed to find another set of MX for the other quiver. As long as your travel west will have representative type of snow, it's a fantastic do-all ski. Here they are sitting with their other white friends last season (on left):

 

 

The BMX are long gone, but the MX's had a ball at WB and SLC this season.

 

First off I actually like the BMX 108 a lot.  If I could change anything I might want a slightly tighter turn radius as the BMX 108 in 178 has a 28 meter turn radius which is no issue while skiing in snow, and is fine with room to run when skiing groomers, such as when out west, but doesn't make for a fairly quick turn on groomers when there isn't a lot of room, such as most trails here in the east.  Though, I am not sure what tigthening up the turn radius would do to it's crud busting ability.  Anyone care to comment on what changing just that characteristic would do to the ski?

 

As for the "old MX108", what is the actual difference between that and the BMX 108?  Is there metal in the old MX 108?  Different construction?  Different turn radius?  Would be curious to know as I always thought they were the same, though I do understand the old MX 98 did have metal and was quite a beast compared to the BMX 98.

post #465 of 504
Quote:
Originally Posted by JayT View Post

 

While I'm sure the metal in the Bones didn't hurt, I've skied the Vagabonds in heavy chop and other conditions where they didn't feel particularly lacking.  Granted, this was the 5th straight day of skiing and my legs had already endured a lot of bumps that week so they were sluggish, but it felt like it was the extra waist width just making them a bit harder to get up on edge and hold the turn.  I'm sure it was a combination of factors but it's not always easy to determine cause and effect.


Late to this, but Jay, what you are describing is how lack of metal feels. It really does come into play on hard refrozen surface (but that's just about the only time it comes into play).  Vagabond is a great ski, but it does feel a bit nervous on refrozen surface (its far from unmanageable though, you just have to ignore the signals and they track just fine).  The Stockli SR107 on the other hand.... I didn't verify it, but that ski should eat that kind of surface for lunch wink.gif

post #466 of 504
Quote:
Originally Posted by alexzn View Post


Late to this, but Jay, what you are describing is how lack of metal feels. It really does come into play on hard refrozen surface (but that's just about the only time it comes into play).  Vagabond is a great ski, but it does feel a bit nervous on refrozen surface (its far from unmanageable though, you just have to ignore the signals and they track just fine).  The Stockli SR107 on the other hand.... I didn't verify it, but that ski should eat that kind of surface for lunch wink.gif

 

You may be right about the metal.  I've skied the Cochise in similar horrible conditions and was still able to get them up on edge without too much effort - in comparison, that is.

post #467 of 504
Quoted for Context: JayT
 On the last day of the epic gathering at Big Sky, the conditions were pretty crappy (until we found some great stashes later on).  It had warmed up to 60+ degrees the day before and it was slush city, then it all froze overnight.  That next morning, the joke was "who knew this was the east coast gathering?"

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by alexzn View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by JayT View Post

 

While I'm sure the metal in the Bones didn't hurt, I've skied the Vagabonds in heavy chop and other conditions where they didn't feel particularly lacking.  Granted, this was the 5th straight day of skiing and my legs had already endured a lot of bumps that week so they were sluggish, but it felt like it was the extra waist width just making them a bit harder to get up on edge and hold the turn.  I'm sure it was a combination of factors but it's not always easy to determine cause and effect.


Late to this, but Jay, what you are describing is how lack of metal feels. It really does come into play on hard refrozen surface (but that's just about the only time it comes into play).  Vagabond is a great ski, but it does feel a bit nervous on refrozen surface (its far from unmanageable though, you just have to ignore the signals and they track just fine).  The Stockli SR107 on the other hand.... I didn't verify it, but that ski should eat that kind of surface for lunch wink.gif

 

Guessing alexzn is right on here. The previous morning, conditions were similar; they just didn't last very long. That was the day I was trying out the Sambas, courtesy of Philpug. Recall (I think?) that these are essentially Bonafides with no metal. My first run on those skis was on really crispy refrozen corduroy. (They must have groomed before it froze up. Yuck.)  Wow, did I hate those skis on that first run. A lot. It wasn't just the enamel-cracking vibration. It was that I just didn't feel really solid arcing on the edge the way I know I would have on certain other skis I've owned or skied on. I don't think the Sambas are torsionally soft, even without the metal - a couple hours later I was cranking some pretty satisfying groomer turns on reasonably firm snow; it just wasn't corrugated. Seems to me like the quiet feel you get from metal probably translates at a micro-level into the edge staying on the snow a little better and not getting bounced off for tiny instances as the ski vibrates. Sort of like having the right amount of damping on your MTB fork helps keep the tread solidly in the dirt. No engineer here, but it seems reasonable from both a common sense and experiential point of view.

post #468 of 504
Quote:
Originally Posted by easternskr View Post


 

As for the "old MX108", what is the actual difference between that and the BMX 108?  Is there metal in the old MX 108?  Different construction?  Different turn radius?  Would be curious to know as I always thought they were the same, though I do understand the old MX 98 did have metal and was quite a beast compared to the BMX 98.

 

 

I have the MX108 187cm.   They say there's no metal, but they sure feel like they do.   BMX just added early rise, which I don't think it needed.

post #469 of 504

I was told my MX 108s had no metal, but when I drilled them for mounting, definitely saw metal shavings - perhaps they just have a metal mounting plate? 

post #470 of 504

No metal, plate or otherwise. 

post #471 of 504

MX108 = metal. That's what Kastle said, and that's the tradition between the MX and BMX series.

 

Also, slight early rise also on the MX108's, at least the "Hugo Harrison Pro Model". Very slight, but it's there.

post #472 of 504
Quote:
Originally Posted by snofun3 View Post

MX108 = metal. That's what Kastle said, and that's the tradition between the MX and BMX series.

 

Also, slight early rise also on the MX108's, at least the "Hugo Harrison Pro Model". Very slight, but it's there.

Did a little research and this is what I believe the confusion is, though I could be wrong. The first generation MX 98 and 108 had metal.  Then, in 2011, the series kept the MX name but lost the metal and added early rise.  The following year the skis stayed the same but the name was changed to BMX. 

post #473 of 504

MX series all have two sheets of titanal. It's on the website. Each model's layup is there for our viewing pleasure. There is very little if any early rise in the MX skis I've had in my hands (83,88) ..  functionally none that I can see. 

post #474 of 504

Well...  I just sold all of my skis except my Worth Magics, and bought a pair of tahoes for bumps and low snow shenanigans.  This is the smallest my quiver has been since I had one!  

post #475 of 504

In summary: Kastle's definition of the MX series = 2 sheets of 0.5 mm titanal ....... except for the 108, which may or may not have metal, depending on the year.   I'll ignore the early rise issue here.

 

Wasn't there an MX 128?  Never mind, forget I said that. 

post #476 of 504

I still think that there was one year where the wider MX skis dropped the metal and added early rise.  In Dawgcatching's review below, he mentioned that the 2011 MX 108 and 2012 BMX 108 were essentially the same ski except for a 187 versus 188 length change.  The narrower MX skis such as the 88 and 78 have always had metal.

 

http://www.epicski.com/t/101811/kastle-mx108-bmx108-full-length-review-with-pictures-2011-and-2012-models

post #477 of 504

yes, that was the MX98 and its supposed to make a come back with metal for a true MX series ski. 

post #478 of 504
Quote:
Originally Posted by easternskr View Post

I still think that there was one year where the wider MX skis dropped the metal and added early rise.  In Dawgcatching's review below, he mentioned that the 2011 MX 108 and 2012 BMX 108 were essentially the same ski except for a 187 versus 188 length change.  The narrower MX skis such as the 88 and 78 have always had metal.

 

http://www.epicski.com/t/101811/kastle-mx108-bmx108-full-length-review-with-pictures-2011-and-2012-models

This would be correct.

 

The difference between the MX108 and the BMX 108 is NOT subtle.

post #479 of 504

FWIW, the MX 108 never had metal, folks. Ever.  It was introduced for the 08-09 model year, and here's the Epic thread on its coming intro, including a comment from yours truly, who owned a (metal) MX98 at the time. http://www.tetongravity.com/forums/archive/index.php?t-125932.html 

 

That year, I did extensive research on it because I was close to buying a pair, went to the Kastle website, all the mags, eventually decided I didn't want it, partly because it didn't have metal. 

 

I think the confusion lies in trying to assume naming "rules" that Kastle never followed coherently. Such as the MX line all having metal. The 108, which showed up the year after the 98, and I think 2 years maybe after the 88, was seen as a soft snow ski. It not only didn't have metal, it had a different sidecut than the rest of the MX line: The dual radius was shorter in back, not in front. It also always had a rear cutout, which the rest of the MX line did not. Kastle subsequently renamed the ski the BMX108 when it replaced the MX98 with the BMX98, and added some early rise to both BMX's. And a year after that, there were narrower BMX's...

post #480 of 504

^ So the Kastle rep for the PNW lies. rolleyes.gif

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Ski Gear Discussion
EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › Ski Gear Discussion › 2014 Gear.....105mm and rethinking that quiver thing.