Charger vs playful

[GregK]

Praxis, ON3P and Shaggy’s also do custom graphics(or sometimes even your own) and allow you to choose wood types, fibreglass weights, adding rubber etc. on their existing designs. Most don’t allow you to adjust the shape or dimensions of the ski though.

The layups and materials used in ski building is shockingly similar between manufacturers and I’ve definitely noticed consistencies in skis I’ve liked and their builds.

The problems is that when I build a “dream ski” from these manufacturers using similar wood cores and materials used in skis like the 21 CT or a Blackops 118, they cost $1100-$1500 US a pair Vs $400 US I got the originals on sale for. Just bought a pair of 178cm 21 CT 2.0 yesterday as it’s the last new pair I’ve seen online and paid $480 CAN/$360 US plus tax for it.

 

[cantunamunch]

You guys that have tons of skis and lots of strong opinions: Why don't you start your own ski company? Build your own.

Meh. Too hard.

It's so much easier if I just tell @mishka "This is what I want" and he tells me "No. Is stupid"

 

[Tony Storaro]

Folsom does this. Maybe Wagner as well?

Awesome!

Just look at this:

Black ski again but unlike the Manas these look fabulous.

 

[cantunamunch]

Just, please, do a ninja black binding, not a matching attempt

 

[Tony Storaro]

Just, please, do a ninja black binding, not a matching attempt

Pivot Forza Rasta

 

[altabrig]

Pivot Forza Rasta

Awesome!

Just look at this:

View attachment 201256

Black ski again but unlike the Manas these look fabulous.

Be a sick combo.

Been on super heavy line motherships 195 maybe 200-220 days. I don't know.

Looking to replace with camber and some rocker front and back on a new charger. Been thinking Optic 114, Sender Squad, and would love to find a 21-22 Faction 3 CT or maybe a 5 (that Greg K has ennumerated the strengths) for a replacement (probably not possible).

I am sure there are other good options out there.

Blank 194 would probably not be the ski for crud cause I have a 186 blank for easy fun and it is not straight line chargey IMO. Being 6 foot and an inch and usually around 190-200lbs I want something damp and pretty heavy with a bit of tip in the tail (not flat) but not necessarilly full twin.

My current charger is full twin, early rise, and used to have camber - not much left. All that titanal and maple kept the camber a long time and they still work well to slam crud out of the way and can hold an edge. Thick bases and edges survived a couple grinds over their life and multiple tunes every season.

 

[GregK]

Be a sick combo.

Been on super heavy line motherships 195 maybe 200-220 days. I don't know.

Looking to replace with camber and some rocker front and back on a new charger. Been thinking Optic 114, Sender Squad, and would love to find a 21-22 Faction 3 CT or maybe a 5 (that Greg K has ennumerated the strengths) for a replacement (probably not possible).

I am sure there are other good options out there.

Blank 194 would probably not be the ski for crud cause I have a 186 blank for easy fun and it is not straight line chargey IMO. Being 6 foot and an inch and usually around 190-200lbs I want something damp and pretty heavy with a bit of tip in the tail (not flat) but not necessarilly full twin.

My current charger is full twin, early rise, and used to have camber - not much left. All that titanal and maple kept the camber a long time and they still work well to slam crud out of the way and can hold an edge. Thick bases and edges survived a couple grinds over their life and multiple tunes every season.

The first ones that come to mind would be the Sender Squad or MPro 108 in the longest length that are both like traditional chargers like the old Legend Pro Riders but with more forgiving. They both have more tail splay than a LPR and a bit tighter radius so more fun below highway speeds.

The 190cm 21 CT 3.0 would be a precise stable charger but doesn’t have the weight or damping of the reference standards in this class. If it had the same core and rubber damping of the narrower 21 CT 2.0 and CT 1.0 it definitely would be in this conversation. The new Sender Free 110 would be similar to the 21 CT 3.0 too.
The CT 5.0(even the 21 version) has a good shape but uses a much lighter wood core, very little damping and has 0 camber. That’s why I purchased the Blackops 118 instead as it’s like a heavy build, narrow version of it but with camber.

The Blade 114 in 186cm would be like a narrower, softer, more tapered and rockered Blackops 118. So looser, less damp and less precise. The 192cm 114 might be a closer comparison though as it’s similar weight, flex, effective edge as the 186cm BO 118. If you wanted a long twin still, this might be a suitable option for sure. Can get it for cheap now too-$510 CAN/$380 US at Corbetts.

 

[cantunamunch]

When the call is Charge, you charge straight at the enemy. Think of a cavalry charge. There is no turning.

That's for the undertrained.

The good cuirassier squadrons charge in echelon - so they can turn toward incipient breaks in the line, or turn away and disengage for a second try.

 

[Tony Storaro]

That's for the undertrained.

The good cuirassier squadrons charge in echelon - so they can turn toward incipient breaks in the line, or turn away and disengage for a second try.

Where were you when Tolkien wrote the charge of the Rohirrim? The great man could surely use some of that wisdom.

 

[James]

Custer vs Stuart at Gettysburg, I think the turning happened in retreat?

 

[cantunamunch]

Where were you when Tolkien wrote the charge of the Rohirrim? The great man could surely use some of that wisdom.

Heh. He knew all about it - that's exactly what Eomer is doing when he disengages for the second charge at the men of Harad.

 

[Tony Storaro]

Heh. He knew all about it - that's exactly what Eomer is doing when he disengages for the second charge at the men of Harad.

You mean in the movie? I need to read the book again as what I remember from it was more like “Let’s go get ‘em boys, straight at them CHARGE!”
With all the magic and beauty of the books, Tolkien was not very good at detailed description of battle tactics. I am not blaming him for that of course, just a note.

 

[cantunamunch]

You mean in the movie?

The movie...in which they carry shields but never use them, that movie?

 

[François Pugh]

That's for the undertrained.

The good cuirassier squadrons charge in echelon - so they can turn toward incipient breaks in the line, or turn away and disengage for a second try.

True. Also why my charger is an antique SG ski and not an antique DH.

Yeah, I know, I know. A more modern charger is on the to-get list, but it's not a priority these days, so it's not at the top of the list.

 

[cantunamunch]

True. Also why my charger is an old SG ski and not a DH ski back in the day.

Yeah, I now a more modern charger is on the to-get list, but it's not a priority these days, so it's not at the top of the list.

But, since it is a list of chargers, nothing says it can't wheel to its flank and engage the budget at a different point

 

[François Pugh]

Yes, one of these days I will get a new pair of chargers.

 

[cantunamunch]

Maybe send out some casual dinner skirmishers as a screen so the budget control officer doesn't notice?

 

[François Pugh]

Top of the list is a quick turner, but that's a bit too much thread drift.

 

[Tony S]

With all the magic and beauty of the books, Tolkien was not very good at detailed description of battle tactics.

Thank God for small favors.

 

[François Pugh]

Thank God for small favors.

I thank God for Tolkien. Although I admit it was hard getting through the very thorough detailed description of the Shire, the rest of the book(s) would not have been what it was without the investment in the first couple of chapters; it made it mean something. Nobody cares if there's nothing to lose.
(edit: talk about thread drift!)