Definitely not #3. Possibly #2? Keep in mind my local hill is pretty large and wide open so easy to cruise.
Re:: #3, I love the length. Think its perfect. 90% of the time the ski is perfect. Arcs awesome turns, its that 10% time when I'm really moving and making 35m radius turns that it can feel a bit unnerving.
It is a totally stable, smooth ski. I think its possibly #2 or possibly the fact that it has a bunch more sidecut 135-98-120 w/ its 23m radius versus the 29m radius of the old skool Legend Pro 124-97-116 that is my baseline. That 135mm tip just feels like it will turn a lot more abruptly than the 124mm tip of the LP. When going fast that feeling is a bit disconcerting. Still smooth and not flappy or chattering, just a quicker turner me thinks?
Sooo, was toying with moving from +1.5 to +.5 or so to see what that does. Crazy idea?
I think its a very good idea. Moving them back will give you relatively more graduated and less immediate turning because you will be initiating the sidecut more and the shovel less. So they may very likely feel like they ease into a turn a bit more.
No, only the 88's. However, I am going based on what he says and my own experimentation with Aaatack 13 demo bindings which is somewhat independent of individual skis and general physics.Just curious, have you skied the 98? It's one of the last skis that needs to be mounted behind the line. The OP would be better to leave them where they are or ski a 191. I don't think I've ever had a moment on the M98 mounted +1.5 that has ever felt anything than rock solid... then again maybe I suck. The 191's seem to be a Big Sky thing from what I've heard from the local rep, so venue certainly can play a role in the equation.
I am sure you are right. I don't have an opinion as to whether it needs to move back from +1.5.Bob, The 88's and 98's/108's are sort of different critters. The latter 2 could be cautiously categorized as 11/10th skis. The 88 is more accessible.(yes, I prefer it for most things but have skied both a good deal in a wide range of conditions. Head issued some mount point corrects to their dealerships for both the monster and flight series skis. The Monsters (16-17) for 184 are: 88 +.5'. 98 is +1. I'm a bit forward of that as I like things to engage a bit quicker... Both are very stable skis at speed even forward. Neither should require mounting behind the mark. The Kore's probably will, but not the current Monsters.
This is why I love the Aaatack 13 demo binding. I didn't think to ask what binding you have. I play with this all the time, depending on ski, snow conditions, even just my mood!Thanks for the banter, appreciate the ideas. Thought I clarified, but will try again.
Definitely do NOT need a longer ski. I'm not proposing I'm some WC downhill legend. Length is great. Flex is great, dampness is great.
So tune could absolutely be off. Definitely a possibility and will check it out.
Other possibility is that when hauling ass I prefer old skool, less sidecut skis, since that is my point of reference having ridden the LP for many many years with multiple pairs. Others are demo'ing and skiing new skool skis more than I have. Went to a Stöckli Stormrider 95 for last season (way less stable, softer, but still fun) and the Head Monster 98 (in between the Stöckli and LP in terms of stability, flex, dampness) this season. Both are significantly turnier, ie smaller turn radius than Legend Pro's. I do have a buddy who thinks the same of the Bonefide as I have expressed about the Monster and our theory is its the approx 20m turn radius rather than nearly 30m radius of the old skook skis. Its not that its not stable, but I think the faster I go, the longer the turn I typically make, so a ski with a short turn radius (to me) can feel a bit turny when trying to make 30m turns at mach schnell.
Therefore I don't think Bob or others are crazy. I do wonder if I was a bit farther back that maybe the tip and sidecut would be a bit slower to engage. Don't know, hence my question. For what its worth I typically ski with a bit of an old skool racing, forward stance. Working on using my feet more than pressuring the tips after a clinic by ex-US ski team coach, but I still tend to be forward for what its worth.
Marko, your well written review was one of the reasons I mounted it +1.5. Doesn't mean its the be all end all of mount points. I do think skis have become very sensitive to mount points because of the interaction with rocker, sidecut, and flex makes it a complex equation to solve. I do tend to like more Austrian rearward mount points. For example, I hated my Blizzard Bodacious largely because they were mounted on the line, which per my Austrian source, was put there for the American market. I truly wish I had mounted it way back from the line and my Austrian friends all agreed that is what they would have done. They laughed at where it was mounted. I just wonder if the Head Monster should have been mounted on the line, where the Austrians intended it to be mounted since I typically like a rear, more Austrian mount point. Just speculation...
That said, the tune is way easier to change than a few holes. That is tomorrow nights project so appreciate the idea. It doesn't feel like the tune, like these East Coast race stock GS skis I just bought that have 5 degree side bevel, but you never know. I know I don't like/need a 5 degree side bevel. Wow those railed...
1st year Bodacious. Wish I had gone back a bunch from the line and that they had more tip rocker. Loved the "feel" of the ski, but had tip dive issues with the mount point. Sold them for Atomic Atlas.