Josh C

Josh C

The Wasatch Mountains, Utah

    MESSAGE_KEY: label.community.profile.new NOT FOUND IN REPOSITORY

    MESSAGE_KEY: label.community.profile.browse.followers NOT FOUND IN REPOSITORY

  • #178of 20625

Josh's Passions

Alpine Touring
Camping
Mountain Biking
Hiking
Alpine Skiing
Sport Climbing
Surfing

Josh's Bio

I grew up skiing in Utah, and I have stayed for a reason: LITTLE COTTONWOOD CANYON!

There is no better place in the world for outdoor recreation. I can go skiing in the morning, mountain biking in the afternoon, climbing at night. What else could anyone possibly want?

Josh C

Josh C posted a video about on December 27, 2013

I want to get some more quality time in on these babies before I write an in-depth review, but so far I LOVE THEM.

Extremely stable at speed, stomp landings hard, but extremely versatile. I used to ride the JJ and wanted something stiffer and longer and fatter - I found those specs in the Magic J - but now I find myself riding this ski a TON because it surfs almost as well as the Magic J (which is over 20mm fatter) but it is much more versatile. A lot stiffer than the JJ (on par with the magic J), and the longer length is a welcome addition.

Lastly - the honeycomb tip in these skis makes them feel extremely lightweight. Very fun to spin with.

Watch the video below and I'll post a full review with more video soon!

Just a note on the video: We had just gotten to the top of this run (on Christmas Eve) when Ski Patrol dropped the rope. The patroller let me go first and said "Merry Christmas". One of the best Christmas Presents I have ever received.

(4)

 

0 Comments

Josh C

Josh C wrote a review of on December 19, 2013

5 5

Familiarity: I've put it through the wringer

These are awesome gloves - probably my favorite pair that I own. The leash is awesome, helps a lot (especially on the chairlift) - very dexterous - however, not as warm as some other gloves I have (not as warm as the BC.com Cottonwoods Glove for example, and that glove is nearly as dexterous). Still my go-to glove for days warmer than 25F.. any colder than that and I like to take a warmer glove

(1)

 

0 Comments

0 Comments

Josh C

Josh C wrote an answer about on December 10, 2013

The size has nothing to do with your boot (or shoe size) - and much less to do with your height/weight. The mm measurements you are seeing have to do with the width of the brake of the ski. a 90mm brake will fit a ski up to 90mm wide underfoot. a 110mm brake will fit a ski up to 110mm wide underfoot. Etc.

(1)

 

Josh C

Josh C wrote an answer about on December 9, 2013

Oakley calls their "mirror" lenses "iridium" lenses - although some colors are more reflective than others. I'd recommend Emerald Iridium, Fire Iridium, or Grey Iridium if you don't want people seeing your eyes. Blue Iridium, Pink Iridium, and Black Iridium are not as reflective as the Emerald, Fire, or Grey.

(1)

 

Josh C

Josh C wrote an answer about on December 9, 2013

Because this jacket does not have an insulating layer, it is considered a shell. This jacket does not come in two versions - every model you find will be a 'shell jacket'.

Most people prefer shells over insulated jackets because they are more versatile - due to the fact that you can layer differently underneath the jacket depending on the weather ... without ever being too warm or too cold

(0)

 

Josh C

Josh C wrote an answer about on December 4, 2013

turning radius has little to do with the width of the ski underfoot ... turning radius has to do with the overall sidecut of the ski. You will notice that the tip and tail of the ski are wider than the underfoot part. The shape of the ski gets wider from the middle towards both tips in an arcing shape. If you were to lay your ski flat on the ground and trace that shape.. and continued in that shape past the tip and tail of the ski, it would make a large circle. The radius of that circle would be the turn radius of the ski. So, it is a combination of the waist width, tip and tail width, and length of the ski that end up making the turn radius of the ski.

This is why a ski like the Faction Thirteen in a 194 that is only 112mm underfoot has a 46m turn radius ... while something like the 192 Rocker 122 (which is 122mm underfoot) only has a 26m turn radius.

(1)

 

Josh C

Josh C wrote an answer about on November 13, 2013

I believe they are close to the same stiffness in the tail, but the rocker definitely makes them FEEL softer when you are skiing on them.. not as punchy at all

(0)

 

Josh C

Josh C wrote an answer about on November 13, 2013

They are adjustable within 1-2 boot sizes.. .. make sure you know how to adjust the forward pressure as well as the DIN before playing with it... you are also right about the moving AFD

(0)

 

Josh C

Josh C wrote a review of on September 3, 2013

5 5

Familiarity: I've put it through the wringer

I used to use the Marker Duke, but I like these much better.

Of course, these are FAR from a lightweight touring binding. But why would you ever want them (JK.. I know why you want that, it just isn't for me).

These FEEL lower on the ski than the Duke, and seem to feel lighter. They also don't get sloppy after 3 months of using them.

I truly forget I am on an AT binding when I am skiing these inbounds.

Out of bounds, they are awesome. Easier to use than the Duke. Don't get jammed up as easily. Can switch in a breeze.

I was originally scared of the mechanism that flips these into AT mode. I was scared it would flip by itself and put me in accidental tele mode. That never has happened, seems like it isn't possible for that to happen. I'm not afraid anymore.


If you want a binding that you can use everyday at the resort, but also use backcountry quite often.. this is the binding for you!

(2)

 

0 Comments

Josh C

Josh C wrote a review of on September 3, 2013

5 5

Familiarity: I've put it through the wringer

I used to use the Marker Duke, but I like these much better.

Of course, these are FAR from a lightweight touring binding. But why would you ever want them (JK.. I know why you want that, it just isn't for me).

These FEEL lower on the ski than the Duke, and seem to feel lighter. They also don't get sloppy after 3 months of using them.

I truly forget I am on an AT binding when I am skiing these inbounds.

Out of bounds, they are awesome. Easier to use than the Duke. Don't get jammed up as easily. Can switch in a breeze.

I was originally scared of the mechanism that flips these into AT mode. I was scared it would flip by itself and put me in accidental tele mode. That never has happened, seems like it isn't possible for that to happen. I'm not afraid anymore.


If you want a binding that you can use everyday at the resort, but also use backcountry quite often.. this is the binding for you!

(1)

 

0 Comments

Josh C

Josh C wrote a review of on September 3, 2013

3 5

Familiarity: I've put it through the wringer

I am using these as my touring ski right now. They would have been cool 5 years ago, but they are just kind of... lame.

Don't get me wrong.. they are very easy to ski. If this is going to be your first powder ski, you will probably love them. If you weigh under 150lbs you will probably love them. If you don't ski very fast, you will probably love them. If you will only be using them to jump on, you might like them. If you are only ever going to use them in deep powder..I guess they'd be fun, but you should get a fatter ski if that is the case.

They aren't very stiff (they are quite soft) and they have a very short sidecut. They are fun to jump on. They actually kind of feel like a fat park ski. Hitting backcountry jumps on them is actually very fun. Also, they turn well on groomers.

The powder rocker really ads a lot of float in powder, but they get deflected easily and want to flop around. The tip is especially floppy and soft.

Atomic should make these 25% stiffer, and add a bit of taper to the tip. Then they would get 5 stars! Right now, they could use some big improvements.

(1)

 

load more