Christophe V.

Christophe V.

PNW

christophe's Passions

Hiking & Camping
Biking
Running
Skiing

christophe's Bio

Backcountry.com is always to blame for my low bank balance.

Christophe V.

Christophe V. wrote an answer about on November 27, 2013

I mounted my 185s at -2 and they skied great in all conditions with a forward-driven stance. I would not go any further back as the tails will feel short.

I found that these are surprisingly stable given their very light weight and they are also very poppy and easy to throw around in tight terrain, moreso than the heavier Patrons. Their ability to carve soft groomers is impressive. Their only downside is that I have stuffed a tip a couple times in thick powder due to the low tip height.

(1)

 

Christophe V.

Christophe V. wrote a review of on September 18, 2013

Fast action, responsive and powerful rod
4 5

Familiarity: I've used it several times

Purchased the 9' 8wt and it is a great rod for the current sale price. I don't feel it is worth the full retail price ($379), but it is certainly an upgrade from my older Redington RS4, as it has a slightly faster action with more zing given the same energy input. Finish is very nice and the reinforced ferrules and section above the cork are confidence-inspiring when fighting big coho salmon. This is my new go-to rod for salmon.

(1)

 

0 Comments

Christophe V.

Christophe V. wrote an answer about on December 13, 2012

Sideseth is less poppy, more damp, and feels heavier underfoot, (but weight is very close to 183 Bents). I found them to be stable and predictable, but rather boring (or "mature," depends on your perspective) compared to the first generation Bents I used to have. I was surprised by how heavy the Sideseth is, definitely not what I would consider for extended tours, so it seems like it would be better suited for big mountain charging. Bents are much more playful and fun if you like to slarve, pop, ollie, and shred tight trees.

(1)

 

Christophe V.

Christophe V. wrote an answer about on November 28, 2012

I disagree completely. Helldorado is a beefy, heavy, stiff, and really burly ski because it has a metal-laminate sandwich construction. I demoed the Helldorado and Patron last spring and the Helldorado absolutely crushed the re-frozen chunks and choppy spring conditions. Patron did very well for a non-metal ski but I digress. The main difference between the Helldorado and Bodacious is that the Helldo has a very short turn radius and tail rocker, making it much more playful and easy to turn, but at the expense of some high-speed straightlining stability. Helldo has long tip and tail rocker but the tips to not rise much so there isn't much flop at speed.

(0)

 

Christophe V.

Christophe V. wrote an answer about on January 5, 2010

I replaced my 180cm Verdicts with 186cm S3's. The verdicts are a much stiffer ski overall and take a lot more effort to ski, especially in manky snow, where they easily hook up and make things difficult. However, the Verdicts are more stable at high speed and can lay down some awesome super-g turns on groomers. The S3 is a little heavier and longer, but has a much shorter running length and softer tip and tail flex and shorter turn radius, which makes turn initiation easier than on the Verdicts. The tip and tail rocker and taper make these ridiculously easy to ski in tight quarters and cascade concrete. I've yet to tour on my S3's but I expect them to break trail more easily because of the rocker, but be a little more difficult on the uphills because of the extra weight and length over the Verdicts. I have no regrets switching to the S3s, they are more fun in almost all conditions.

(0)

 

Christophe V.

Christophe V. wrote an answer about on January 5, 2010

Actually, these are some of the lightest 12-din bindings on the market. Rossi SAS/XL 120/140 are over 2400g/pair and are not specifically designed for Rossi skis. I prefer Rossi/look bindings because the heelpiece has more elastic travel than that of Marker jester/griffon/duke/baron bindings.

(0)

 

Christophe V.

Christophe V. wrote an answer about on December 9, 2009

4460g per pair, per my digital scale. That's definitely on the heavy side, but for some reason, they ski as if they were really light. The weight is comparable to other fat skis such as 182cm Liberty Double Helix (4320g), or 181cm Scott P4 (4440g).

(0)

 

Christophe V.

Christophe V. wrote an answer about on December 7, 2009

my digi scale shows 4200g for the 186cm, which is fairly typical most 100mm waist skis in the 180-183cm range. Because of the light weight and rocker, I suggest you ski the 177 or 186cm S3s. The 186cm run short for their size and are comparable in length to most 183cm skis. Because of the light weight and rocker, you can ski these a little longer than a traditional fat ski. Go too short and you'll sacrifice high speed stability and edge grip on hard snow.

I'm the same size as you and found the 178cm scratch brigades (98mm waist) too short in choppy snow and deep powder, so I'm picking up a set of the S3's in 186cm.

(0)

 

Christophe V.

Christophe V. wrote an answer about on December 1, 2009

I tried bending 90mm marker brakes more than 10mm and ended up breaking the plastic piece that the metal brake arms fit in to. I would not recommend bending these because the brake arms are two separate pieces of thick, stiff metal and are not as easy to bend as the single piece of wire that is used for both brake arms in Look/Rossignol or Salomon brakes.

(0)

 

Christophe V.

Christophe V. wrote an answer about on November 11, 2008

I'm 5'9" and 145, do a bit of park but mostly all mountain and a little racing, and I ski 169's on both pairs of skis I own. The more competent and aggressive a skiier you are, the more length you can handle, and the extra length does give you more carving, more speed, and better float in powder, but a shorter ski is easier to control and turn fast for steep trees, moguls and such. Honestly, I like sacrificing a little float in the powder for the extra maneuverability, and with a ski this fat the float isn't really going to be an issue anyway. I don't know what exactly these skis come in, but I'd go with something in the high 160's to low 170's.Christophe V.- go 177cm, that way you will get good float in pow and still have maneuverability in the trees. 169cm is really on the short side for your height (I'm the same height).PS. These are no longer twin tips and I found them to be fairly stiff, unlike what Will stated.

(0)

 

Christophe V.

Christophe V. wrote an answer about on November 11, 2008

there are woman's specific skis, and the gotama ski isn't one of them, so it could be considered a mens ski, but there's no reason a woman couldn't rip on emedit- the Kiku is the women's version of the Gotama. Slightly softer and lighter.

(0)

 

Christophe V.

Christophe V. wrote an answer about on October 27, 2008

Sure, any alpine ski without integrated bindings will take telemark bindings. However, these may have a lot of tail if you mount them using the boot center line on your boot center. I have a feeling that these are meant to be mounted close to center and the long tail would reduce stability and increase hooky-ness if mounted telemark.

(0)

 

Christophe V.

Christophe V. wrote a review of on October 26, 2008

3 5

I have a pair mounted for AT skiing because they are some of the lightest 98mm waisted skis I could find in 178cm length at 3720g/pair per my postage scale. They are a great ski for Colorado where snow is typically on the softer side and do well for an occasional lap through the terrain park or tight carves on fresh corduroy. I agree with Willie that the mounting point (even on "traditional") is very centered. I mounted mine 2cm back from "traditional" for better float and stability at speed. They ski very short because of their light weight and I recommend going for a larger size if you are in doubt. I would not recommend these for crud-busting and high-speed straightlining as they are not a beefy ski.

(0)

 

0 Comments

Christophe V.

Christophe V. wrote a review of on October 17, 2008

4 5

I wear these to school, work, and the gym all summer long and they help keep my feet cool and comfortable. Toss in a decent, supportive insole and they are good for most athletic activities if you don't require ankle support. I'm on my 3rd pair and each has lasted at least 200+ days of wearing with lots of gym time.

The only drawback is that the heel adjustment never holds in place and the stock insoles have no arch support or cushioning.

(1)

 

0 Comments

Christophe V.

Christophe V. wrote a review of on October 10, 2008

4 5

08/09 Legend Pros are softer in the tip and tail than previous versions but still have much beefyness under the boot. The turn radius is also smaller than that of their predecessors and the swing weight is reduced because the core is milled at the tip and tail. This is makes the Legends more accessible to the average advanced or expert skier but takes away from both their beefyness and stability at mach 10. Having skied 176's and flexed them and 184's in a shop, I can say that the 184's are marginally stiffer, but still nothing like the previous versions. In my opinion, the new Legend pros are a great all-mountain ski that turns and floats better than it's predecessor at the expense of high-speed stability and hardcore awesomeness.

(0)

 

0 Comments

Christophe V.

Christophe V. wrote a review of on September 18, 2008

4 5

Spent two days on these skis in conditions ranging from freshly groomed corduroy to deep spring slush in tight trees. I would definitely recommend these skis to a strong intermediate or advanced skier, potentially with a race background, who likes to carve all over the mountain. Because of their significant sidecut, these things love to rail big, fast turns. They hold an edge even the most incredible lean angles and speeds. I found them to be extremely damp which made for a smooth ride on re-frozen spring snow, but took away from their liveliness when skiing bumps and tight trees. I attribute this to the generous use of metal and wood in their construction.

I would not recommend these skis to those who ski a lot of bumps, trees, or like straight-lining. Their deep sidecut makes the tails hooky when quick turns are needed and reduces stability when bombing straight down runs. Their relatively heavy weight and dampness make jump turns a chore. Because of this, I would recommend them for 80% on, 20% off piste.

Overall, 4 stars for a hard-carving all-mountain ski that is very enjoyable in most conditions and would serve well for most strong intermediate to advanced skiers.

(2)

 

0 Comments