 Poster: A snowHead
|
|
Buddy1664, they wouldn't be prototypes if they had the dots. I dropped off three pairs of samples for next year with Fred last month so it will have been a pair of those.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
Just about decided to buy some ranger carbonlites but would like to consult the hive mind on length. Jon has given me loads of good advice but would like to canvass a few more opinions.
I'll be using the ski as an all round soft snow ski - everything from lift-served through quick skins to open up off-piste, day tours and some hut to hut. Most days will be lift-served/side country though. I'll be using them with AT boots and Beast 14s. I MIGHT also get them quiver killered for alpine boots/bindings.
I have a ski locker in the alps so I don't really care about on-piste performance - have other skis for that.
I'm about 176cm and 78kg (normal clothes). I'm a pretty solid technical skier on and off-piste - risk appetite tends to be more of a limit than competence on what I ski. I like a little jump as much as the next person but I don't go launching myself off anything big and as I'm 44 I wont be starting that nonsense now  Reasonably fit - cycle 80 miles a week, swim and run a bit.
Oh and they would be replacing 5 year old Line Prophet 100 - that model is conventional side cut, twin-tip, nominal 179cm length (preshaping) and 18m radius.
Jon's advice is to go for 186 for use as a general soft snow ski. 177 if it was going to biased towards longer tours / ski mountaineering. His point is that they have a big tip rocker which means that the effective edge length of the 186 will still be a bit shorter than the Prophet 100s. The tip rocker will provide some nice extra float and forward stability without being an encumbrance given light weight construction etc
It makes perfect sense but I'm still feeling a little nervous about how much ski it is given what I've been skiing on recently. Worth also saying that I haven't skied on anything with a tip rocker so I don't have a good feel for how much that changes everything. Rob seemed happy with the 177 but he is a bit lighter than me and I'm not sure if he got to try them off-piste? OPS is a little heavier than me and quite a lot taller and is on 186... but I guess his use may be more hut to hut and ski mountaineering biased than mine. Meh is on the full fat variety but he is also a bit heavier and seems to spend his time charging treeless bowls in the arctic. Oh and to be clear, while I'd feel confident skiing with those guys, I'm sure I'm not as good a skier.
As it stands I'm probably going to go for the 186 but does anyone think I'll regret that? I know the best answer would be to test but that is not logistically simple and they are a reasonable investment so I'd like to try to avoid a mistake.
Thanks for any thoughts.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
|
|
think youll be fine. i ski a 191 lhasa based on jons recommendation, im 178cm and 78kg
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
|
@jedster, you'll be fine on 186, I ski these 178cm 82-83kg same type of skiing. Great skis .
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
I am on the 186 non-carbon. I'm 183 cm and 80kg. It is the right size. The only thing I would say is that the mounting point is quite a long way back on the ski. They definitely need to be driven by the user.
I think they are pretty much ideal as a do it all ski. They are very similar to the 186 Lhasa Pow, albeit with a little more width in the tail so you can actually feel the tail behind the binding. That means it gives up a little of the Lhasa's powder performance but dramatically improves performance on firm snow. Obviously there are better powder skis (fatter, more rocker), better hardpack skis and better skis for crud but the Ranger is a great balance of usability for pretty much anything.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
|
+1 to all the above. I'm 1.7m, 72kg and ski a 177. It's a brilliant ski - far more forgiving (flattering?!) than you might expect. Perhaps a bit wide for hut-to-hut? Apart from that, it seems to be able to do pretty much everything; and do it brilliantly. You won't regret it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Quote: |
Perhaps a bit wide for hut-to-hut?
|
Apparently there is a narrower version coming next year. But I tend to think 100-110 underfoot with tip rocker, a long radius and a flat tail is optimal for the kind of European skiing I like.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| gorilla wrote: |
| Quote: |
Perhaps a bit wide for hut-to-hut?
|
Apparently there is a narrower version coming next year. But I tend to think 100-110 underfoot with tip rocker, a long radius and a flat tail is optimal for the kind of European skiing I like. |
http://issuu.com/whitedotskis/docs/whitedotskis_book_2015-16
Nothing "apparently" about it 
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
|
@the_doc, Cool brochure, even cooler skis, liking the look of that Ranger CL 98..... just as soon as I thought my 108 Ranger CL/ 118 Ragrarok CL quiver was complete 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
@the_doc, when would you take a Ranger 98 vs a Ranger?? I'd be guessing the 98 is going to be suitable for most Euro off piste trips???
Ranger 98 carbonlite would be interesting to test for sure!!
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
Just a thought, kick turns, on steep ground get harder exponentially as skis get longer.
I'm interested in the rangers and a 98 more so, my only reservation is the long radius.
|
|
|
|
|
|
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
|
| Quote: |
Just a thought, kick turns, on steep ground get harder exponentially as skis get longer.
I'm interested in the rangers and a 98 more so, my only reservation is the long radius.
|
Both points on my mind too:
Jon made the point that under most conditions (probably not putting in fresh skin tracks in deep snow) tip rocker helps with uphill kick turns - i.e., you can go longer than you would on a conventional side cut ski as it is easier to stop the tip from catching. Also the mountain point is a way back so tails are quite short which keeps them out of the way. Sounds reasonable. I did four days hut to hut on 184 conventional side cut with fritschi freerides which was manageable but hard work at times so I am sensitive to the issue!
Long radius - my feeling is that this is more of an issue on piste. Off piste you are smearing and pivoting more so not really skiing the designed radius. Extreme example of this is skiing old school powder 8s on 2m skinny skis with massive radius! As I'm not buying the rangers as a piste ski I don't THINK the radius matters. If there is not much fresh snow and/or I'm going to be mainly on piste I'd probably be on my stormriders or perhaps the prophets. It absolutely would put me off if I wanted a 1 ski quiver - I like carving pistes too
. The main benefit of the longer radius is the smaller sidecut / longer edge contact on steep hard snow. I see the value of that - can feel a bit suspended between tip and tail in couloirs on my prophets.
The 98s sound good, perhaps even ideal if I didn't have other skis.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
BTW - thanks to everyone for their input
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
186 for sure. It's a pretty nimble ski.
Interesting comments about the mounting point because I've found them pretty centred in comparison to the skis I've had in the past. BD Verdict at 180 and BC Corvus at 185 felt about as long up front as the 195 Ranger. Probably the rocker versus non-rocker though.
Also my annoyances with long skis and kick turns is way more to do with overlap at the back rather than the length in front which is manageable with a reasonable technique. On harder snow in particular you either have a long way to move or need to adopt a ski ballet approach davidof posted a while ago. Basically a plié. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
|
They are pretty nimble on firm snow as the running length is quite short in comparison to the length of the ski. I wouldn't be too worried about the radius. It isn't that hard to get an ok short radius turn out of them. You really feel the radius in soft snow. It enables a hack like me to make larger radius turns at speed in powder quite easily - indeed the default powder turn is quite kind of sweeping, if that makes any sense. I am not an aggressive skier and my technique is pretty weak but while the skis need to be driven they are not hard to ski. I don't think that's as much of a contradiction as it first seems.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
|
@gorilla, agreed, very responsive nimble ski, radius is not an issue. I ski them as an all round ski on and off-piste, they edge to edge and carve really well. I also don't think 108 vs 98 is an issue, more a nice to have rather than a must have.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
|
Both the 98 and 108s will be at the EoSB to try.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
|
@jedster, don't forget the Beast 16's!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
| Quote: |
@the_doc, when would you take a Ranger 98 vs a Ranger??
|
Personally, if I was planning hut to hut tours, where the emphasis is on the uphill over the downhill. Either that or a more hard snow focused all mountain driver for Euro conditions as the 185cm R.98's rip on piste.
As for the radius, there's a couple of factors to take into account here; firstly that the effective edge is relatively short, and therefore the turn radius is longer to avoid the ski feeling unstable at speed. Secondly, in difficult snow and tight situations, IMHO the last thing you want it a tight radius ski as the longer radius is easier to smear sideways to maintain control.
But, for most of my touring days I'm out looking for lines, for example today where I had a 3 hour tour to get to my chute & I took the 190cm Ragnarok CL3, and that baby is just about perfect in difficult snow conditions!
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
| Dot. wrote: |
| Both the 98 and 108s will be at the EoSB to try. |
Is there an EoSB Canada for me to try some out at? 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Quote: |
@jedster, don't forget the Beast 16's!
|
As I don't huck off stuff I reckon the 14s will do everything I want with less weight and cash. No?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| jbob wrote: |
Just a thought, kick turns, on steep ground get harder exponentially as skis get longer.
I'm interested in the rangers and a 98 more so, my only reservation is the long radius. |
If your not heading out to the EOSB but will be around Chx second half of March and/or first half of April I have some 186-R.108CLs with tech demo bindings on you can try, i also have 185-R.98s but only in trad with alpine demo.
PM me if you want to take them for a spin.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
|
| Dot. wrote: |
| Both the 98 and 108s will be at the EoSB to try. |
Excellent 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Just a quick note to say thanks for everyone's thoughts. Just taken delivery of a pair of 186s with Beast 14s, skins and crampons courtesy of Jon
http://www.jonsskituning.co.uk/
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
|
|
|
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
lovely Jon, thanks. Pride of place in my living room for now
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
Nice!!
Don't worry about the long radius, all that affects is abiity to CARVE short turns on firm snow. When making short pivots etc on steep terrain the long radius actually makes skis easier to smear around.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
| the_doc wrote: |
But, for most of my touring days I'm out looking for lines, for example today where I had a 3 hour tour to get to my chute & I took the 190cm Ragnarok CL3, and that baby is just about perfect in difficult snow conditions! |
Nice! Is there anywhere to test them around IBK or west (Mayrhofen is a bit of a drive!)?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
| clarky999 wrote: |
Nice!!
Don't worry about the long radius, all that affects is abiity to CARVE short turns on firm snow. When making short pivots etc on steep terrain the long radius actually makes skis easier to smear around. |
Second that.
Considering they are an almost regularly cambered ski with not much rocker and quite wide, they are very nimble and lively.
They are not quite the super-easy pivoty ski like a fully rockered one, so since I have mostly spent the last few years mostly on rockered skis they did require a slight re-focusing on proper technique and not being so lazy  But the flip side is they are more stable at speed, better on harder snow, yet still no issue with tighter spots, drops, etc.
I would still go for the Redeemers (CL of course!) on out an out powder days, major hooning around, or tricky mixed snow and spring powder (had my old Non CL Redeemers rock-powder skis out this weekend for that, and they are great).
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
| clarky999 wrote: |
| the_doc wrote: |
But, for most of my touring days I'm out looking for lines, for example today where I had a 3 hour tour to get to my chute & I took the 190cm Ragnarok CL3, and that baby is just about perfect in difficult snow conditions! |
Nice! Is there anywhere to test them around IBK or west (Mayrhofen is a bit of a drive!)? |
I'd be quite intrigued to try them too. How do they compare to the Ranger?
I had the old version and they were a bit too hard work for me, good but require constant focus, effort,and attention otherwise they bite your head off! - that said I just gave them to someone who could really work them and he's happier than a pig in **** on them
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
|
@stuarth, they're awesome, I have both 186 Ranger CL and the new 190 Rag CL, they compliment each other brilliantly, the new Rag is an awesome ski, you should try it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
|
I've just had a fondle of the ranger CL in vieux campeur and they are f light and a bit browner than I was expecting. Quite excited about having a go on them.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
@stuarth, the Rag CL3 is a twin rockered ski so the effective length is shorter and it turns very easily and cuts through powder very easily, stable at speed but also floats really well in deep powder. Holds an edge well on pistes, very stable at speed. A much better and lighter ski than the Redeemer, which I skied on for 2 seasons, the Rag is a much more versatile, go anywhere ski. The Ranger is single rockered and skis more like a fat GS ski than the Rag. The Ranger is great in powder too but I would say isn't such a fun ski, and doesn't float as much. I couldn't stop laughing on the Rag. That said it was in deep powder, if the conditions are marginal the Ranger CL would likely revert to my go to ski, but I'd be straight onto the Rags as soon as the powder was deeper. Hope that helps.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
@jbob, mine are last seasons red, have to say I really like the red, not seen the brown. Rock solid with Beast 16's on quiver killers.
Last edited by After all it is free  on Wed 18-03-15 20:02; edited 1 time in total
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
|
| Markymark29 wrote: |
| @stuarth, the Rag CL3 is a twin rockered ski so the effective length is shorter and it turns very easily and cuts through powder very easily, stable at speed but also floats really well in deep powder. Holds an edge well on pistes, very stable at speed. A much better and lighter ski than the Redeemer, which I skied on for 2 seasons, the Rag is a much more versatile, go anywhere ski. The Ranger is single rockered and skis more like a fat GS ski than the Rag. The Ranger is great in powder too but I would say isn't such a fun ski, and doesn't float as much. I couldn't stop laughing on the Rag. That said it was in deep powder, if the conditions are marginal the Ranger CL would likely revert to my go to ski, but I'd be straight onto the Rags as soon as the powder was deeper. Hope that helps. |
Sold
(BTW are you comparing that to a Redeemer CL? - that is a different beast than the traditional Redeemer)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
Might have to wait until December 
