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 17

post #481 of 504
I can definitely say the original MX108 never felt like a ski with metal. I never thought it was as stable as everyone else had been preaching. Smooth, like Stockli, but lacking the Stockli stability.
post #482 of 504
My 187's are as stable as my 194 XXL's. Just a little turnier, for the trees.
post #483 of 504
Quote:
Originally Posted by snofun3 View Post

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

He's a nice guy and used to be the Stoeckli rep. Kaestle is new to him, so I can imagine he might have been mistaken about a 2-3 year old model.
post #484 of 504
Quote:
Originally Posted by markojp View Post


He's a nice guy and used to be the Stoeckli rep. Kaestle is new to him, so I can imagine he might have been mistaken about a 2-3 year old model.

 

"He" is a she, and been doing it for >4 years, but thanks for playing.

post #485 of 504
No, he is a he. You might be talking about BC? The WA,OR rep is Matt Cassidy. He might also be the MT, ID, guy as well as AK, but I'm not sure. He's not the BC guy. No need to be snarky, sno.
post #486 of 504

She is in BC, and has been the Kastle rep there for a number of years.

post #487 of 504

...


Edited by JayT - 5/12/13 at 11:01am
post #488 of 504
Quote:
Originally Posted by snofun3 View Post

She is in BC, and has been the Kastle rep there for a number of years.

To the best of my knowledge, Canada has different reps and distribution channels than the US... for pretty much any consumer product for that matter. Your 'she' in BC isn't the Kastle rep in the US PNW, and Matt doesn't rep Kastle across the border. Mystery solved. Now don't you feel silly for all the snark?
Edited by markojp - 5/11/13 at 9:06pm
post #489 of 504
Quote:
Originally Posted by lrn2swim View Post


I'm wondering if anyone here has ridden both the El Capo and Helldorado and how they compare? They seem very similar in construction and dimensions with the HD's just being slightly larger. (sorry for another hijack)

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by markojp View Post

 

Very different skis given the tail shape, length of running surface, and rocker profile not to mention the extra 6mm. I agree with the 'cambered Cochise' analogy for the El Capo.

 

 

looks like my question/statement was pretty valid after all according to blister.  check out the second part of page 2.

 

http://blistergearreview.com/gear-reviews/2013-2014-nordica-el-capo/

post #490 of 504
Wierd. Why make a ski so heavy when it isn't build for speed? Sounds like a screwup.
post #491 of 504
Maybe the tune was different, but I didn't feel like the El Capo was a short turning ski like the Blister guy did... Funny, doesn't even sound like the same ski at all. Hmmmmm.
post #492 of 504

I read about the first 8 pages then skipped to the end.  Not sure anybody cares what I have to say but that has never stopped me.  An east coast perspective: I just had my second highest skier day year ever...41 days. The vast majority of those days were at Magic, followed by double digits at Killington (Spring Pass!), and 2 days at Alta, 1 day at Snowbird.   Although I didn't exactly keep track, my fuzzy recollection says that I spent:

0 days on Dynamic VR17 Slalom carvers (65mm).

1 half day on Armada JJs (115mm)

2 half days on PM Gear Fat Bros (115mm)...just too stiff for me. One of those half days was touring at a NELSAP area.

4 days on Dynastar Sultan 85s (85mm)

34.5 days on Fischer Watea 94s (94mm mostly inbounds but also set up for touring)

 

I just turned 53 and am 6', 180lb.  I broke my leg last year and have toned down the aggressiveness quite a bit...don't ever want to lose another ski season.

 

The half day on the JJs was a 12" powder day at Alta (got 2nd chair from the base, first chair at Supreme).  While they were pretty good in the untracked of the morning, I missed getting down "into" the snow...I think msolson mentioned this.  I switched to the Watea 94s for the afternoon and found lots of untracked in the trees and liked them much better than the JJs.  I really liked the feeling of the snow on my knees.

 

I found the Sultan 85s to be great groomer/hardpack skis, but they weren't nearly as versatile as the Watea 94s.  I didn't miss the work of the Dynamic slalom skis and the edge hold was good enough.

 

What I liked about the Watea 94s was their flex (fairly soft), dampness, and light weight.  These were pre-rocker tip vintage.  They were nice on the up as well as the down.  They were great on the 8-12" powder days we had at Magic this year (maybe 4 days) and I felt very comfortable going from first tracks in the morning (we regularly skinned up early and also got first or second chair on EC "big" days) to tracked out chop in the afternoon and Day 2.  Nice and quick in the trees and plenty of float for the EC.  They were also surprisingly great in the spring bumps on Superstar right to the bittersweet end.

 

So anybody looking for a pair of Swiss-cheesed Fat Bros or a pair of JJs with nothing but a half day of pow runs on them?  I need to finance buying another pair of Watea 94s...I'll keep the Sultan 85s for the few days that are truly bullet proof...I spend most of those days in the Black Line Tavern anyway.

 

In summary, I think I can easily get away with 2 skis and then if I'm lucky enough to hit Utah or Tahoe during a snow cycle, I can rent a wide ride...my advice to anybody that loves powder is to find out when I'm going west and either go the week before or the week after.  So my ski collection will be an 85 and a 94.  That's more than fine for where I ski and how I ski.

post #493 of 504
Quote:
Originally Posted by markojp View Post

Maybe the tune was different, but I didn't feel like the El Capo was a short turning ski like the Blister guy did... Funny, doesn't even sound like the same ski at all. Hmmmmm.

 

mark- did you ski the long one or the 185?  just curious.  i had nothing to do with the blister review, but did ski a day on them for fun.  my impressions were that the tail of the el capo (IMO) falls under "soft", the tip "mid-soft", and under foot "medium to med/stiff"  if you hand flex the skis and disagree with that, then well, discount my analysis (and jonathan's on blister).  the el capo responds best (IMO) to snappy short to medium radius turns, but is too soft to open up its radius down the fall line because the tip does not track at high speed thru variable snow the way a stiffer ski in would, and the balance point is pretty small since the flex profile on the tail falls off so quickly.  i don't think many on epic will care about those things, since the ski is very very good on consistent snow when skied by a more finesse oriented skier that keeps their hands and knees forward of their BOF, and their upper body square to the fall line.  

 

lindahl- i would also not consider the el capo to be heavy - its pretty darn light; i would even guess it might be the lightest metal ski in its waist-width on the market.  if i recall correctly, the el capo is weight competitive with a blizzard scout (no metal), and about 200g lighter than the metal cochise and 250-300g lighter than a volkl katana.    

post #494 of 504
Blister Gear Review says almost 10.5lbs. Sounds pretty heavy to me for a 100s non-charger. A lot of the chargers in that width range are closer to 9.5lbs tops, no? The Scout comes in at 8.8lbs (800g lighter). The Cochise was measured at 9.7lbs (400g lighter).
post #495 of 504

When discussing weights you need to include what size ski.  Cochise and the El Capo seemed to be about the same weight, more or less, having skied them both in 185cm.  I will say I was more impressed with the Vagabond than its sister the El Capo.

post #496 of 504
Quote:
Originally Posted by msolson View Post

mark- did you ski the long one or the 185?  just curious.  i had nothing to do with the blister review, but did ski a day on them for fun.  my impressions were that the tail of the el capo (IMO) falls under "soft", the tip "mid-soft", and under foot "medium to med/stiff"  if you hand flex the skis and disagree with that, then well, discount my analysis (and jonathan's on blister).  the el capo responds best (IMO) to snappy short to medium radius turns, but is too soft to open up its radius down the fall line because the tip does not track at high speed thru variable snow the way a stiffer ski in would, and the balance point is pretty small since the flex profile on the tail falls off so quickly.  i don't think many on epic will care about those things, since the ski is very very good on consistent snow when skied by a more finesse oriented skier that keeps their hands and knees forward of their BOF, and their upper body square to the fall line.  

lindahl- i would also not consider the el capo to be heavy - its pretty darn light; i would even guess it might be the lightest metal ski in its waist-width on the market.  if i recall correctly, the el capo is weight competitive with a blizzard scout (no metal), and about 200g lighter than the metal cochise and 250-300g lighter than a volkl katana.    

Skied the 185. I'm pretty much an on the front square to the fall line sort. The conditions we tested them in weren't really ideal in terms of a range of conditions on the hill. 2" of dust on crust everywhere. They held well and had a great tune on them though. Skied the Vagabond about a month later and thought it was alright, but I'm not much of a 100+mm underfoot guy unless the snow is relatively new. I'd probably feel different about that if I were in a different location. I'm also the who's hoping they bring the Enforcer back.

In the end, neither the Vag or El C had me going, " ooooOOooOoOohh, these work!" For short radius turns and bumps, I thought the Hell and Back was more fun. And I agree, I don't recall the El C's feeling especially heavy. I think the issue is the new tail. I'm not buying a pair, but I thought the Kastle FX 104's a much nicer ski if I were going the mid 100 route. Still perfectly happy with the E-98/Bodacious mini quiver... Unless the Enforcer comes back.
post #497 of 504
Quote:
Originally Posted by JayT View Post

When discussing weights you need to include what size ski.  Cochise and the El Capo seemed to be about the same weight, more or less, having skied them both in 185cm.  I will say I was more impressed with the Vagabond than its sister the El Capo.

I was talking about the weights of skis in the mid-180s (the lengths Blister usually reviews). The El Capo is even on par with some low-190s in the 100s width.

It's possible the 10.5lbs is a misprint, as it does sound very high. Though, my Head 103s are a massive 12lbs a pair before bindings, so you never know. Now THATS a lot of metal.

The marketing description of the El Capo is pretty hilarious for a ski that has reportedly such soft tips and tails.
post #498 of 504
The blister reviews, while generally good, aren't always 'correct'. In general they're looking to break out the gnar of anything that isn't a twin. On the other hand, the Blizzard Bodacious review painted it as a totally gnar ripping ski. It is, but it's also very fun and versatile for a 200 lb skier. Their reviewers are different sizes as well, so make sure you know which is writing a particular review. One review that I never got was for the E-98... Skiing the 188 mounted -2or 3 if I recall. They liked the ski. I like the ski, but their review made me think we ski very differently.
post #499 of 504

just re-checked my ski weight spreadsheet.  my above post is a bit wrong.

 

el capo 185: 2200g

kastle fx104: 2200g

cochise 185: 2250g

katana 184: 2375g

scout 185: 2000g

 

so yeah, the el capo is by no means heavy, but it is not "light".  but it is notably lively and snappy and responsive.  much more so than the cochise, it defiantly takes less "muscle" to maneuver, and IMO prefers a more finesse skier.  that is of course the 185.  not skied the 19x.  that might be more of the full blast freeride ski, i am not sure.

post #500 of 504

I guess my point was... if it's not a charger, you might as well make it light weight, since the finesse-oriented skier will almost always prefer the lighter weight. If I wanted a non-charger, I wouldn't pick the El Capo - I'd pick something lighter.

 

However, if you read the marketing blurb on the El Capo, it sounds like they were actually trying to make a charger (and, according to Blister, failed - I have not tried the ski, myself).

 

Marshal - out of curiousity, what weights do you have for the Salomon Rocker 108 and the Rossignol Soul 7?

post #501 of 504

soul7: ~2000g @ "188" (not measured this model, but rossi are almost always 2-3cm longer claimed than actual)

rocker 2 108: 2190g @ 182cm

 

 

 

vagabond 185 is 2000g as well, which is what i was thinking of when talking about el capo weights, above.

post #502 of 504

Hey all, my first post here. I'd like to provide some alternate perspective to this thread with some PNW slant. I returned to skiing this last February for the first time in 26 years. I was quickly looking to purchase a quiver-killing all-around ripping ski to suit me in my preferred zones being Alpental & Crystal side-countries + Baker. I'm 44, 6' and 185lbs, with a taste for hard-charging PNW pow ripping.

I typically am impervious to the expensive spell that new ski/snowboard gear can put on you and my hackles were up faced with the challenge of buying new skis for the first time since the 80s (my last pair was K2 210cm sticks). Although I would love to have multiple rides, I prefer a quiver-killer. Mervin Manufacturing has provided this in the snowboarding world for the last 20+ years (currently a Skate Banana 159), and in the modern ski world I thought I would find this in the Head Rev 105. I ended up choosing the Sacrifice 105. After five days on Head rentals and Lib Tech NAS's, once I clicked into the Head Sacrifice 105s I didn't look back.

After 20+ days on these Sacrifice 105s between Alpental and Crystal from Mar-May, I can tell you there is nothing else I would rather being riding right now. I know I haven't sampled many different skis since my last pair, but some of my main riding partners are skiers and I've closely watched the revolution in technology so I was fairly informed on modern ski design fundamentals. I felt like I could make the right choice for my style.

These are 144-105-131 and the 16m sidecut radius is perfect for the nimbleness I require as I typically like to be able to get wide on a dime laterally to pick out those remaining chutes and drops in the side-countries, and pillows in-bounds. These things are narrow ass snowboards.The fat nose with minimal rocker (20/80),  Head's "all ride" rocker) allows me to float just enough in the deep, and when it's time to return to base on the groomers I can beat just about most with a solidly held edge. The transition from deep to hard pack, or other polar opposite terrain transitions is stable as all get-out, allowing for maximum rippage and maintained speed. They are very damp with no chatter. The carving ability and initiation on hard pack way surpassed my expectations. My tails don't blow out on ice when I cut hard. One of the biggest surprises to me when I first road them, was the acceleration I could get in flat fresh zones to extend me into least traveled access points. Another was the absolute stability I feel in all conditions. I don't catch edges. Icy nights are fun again.

Since it's dumping most of the time up here in the PNW,  I waited until late spring to give my take on these skis after I had got a chance to ride them through all types of conditions; deep pow to soft corn. I sure hope Head extends this line beyond 2013. The combo of the 105 under foot plus the fat nose and tail with a 16m radius, and a damp capped wood core is sweet delight to this 3rd gen. Snoq. Pass reformed skiing snowboarder.

Regarding the graphics. For those of you that don't know, the model names represent specific Motörhead albums and the graphics reflect that album's cover art. Sacrifice, Boneshaker, Rock 'N' Roll, Inferno, etc. I'm a 30+year fan and never knew they existed until I looked into the Rev so this was a hidden stoke factor. It was interesting to see the response from skiers in the lift lines and typically it was the 70 and older crowd that loudly commented and liked them. They're obviously too much for the middle-aged self-important smart phone guy, so that's just fine with me. Theft factor is -1. There's always a can of black spray paint. I did this to a Lib board in the 90s that was offensive to my visual tastes yet I could not deny the absolute technology contained within.

Rock on 105.

post #503 of 504

Welcome to Epic Supernaut!

 

I bought my Rev 105's this spring, love them for pretty much the same reasons you mentioned, also they totally rocked the late spring slush at Crystal.  I like that they're damp without being heavy and are relative quick and nimble.  The Sacrifice and Rev 105 are the same dimensions; the Sacrifice is a little softer (I think) and more off-piste oriented.  Sounds like you got the ski you wanted. smile.gif

 

  

post #504 of 504

Yep, the Sacrifice is a little softer than Rev 105:    http://www.epicski.com/t/119248/quick-demos-ritual-sacrifice-bbr-8-9

 

And there's probably nothing more damp.  I'm a big fan of both, especially the Rev:   http://www.epicski.com/t/118747/rev-105-the-wide-ski-for-this-hard-charger

 

 

 

_____________________________________________________________________________________

How well you are able to ski is related to how hard you are willing to fall.

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.