Individual Review Mad Russian MR87

[Tricia]

Mad Russian MR87
Dimensions: 110-119-87-107
Radius: 18m@175cm

As Phil said in this thread, we first learned of Mad Russian Skis from Brian a few years ago. We hear about guys who build skis by hand quite frequently, which is always intriguing, but we don't always get a chance to try them firsthand.

The MR87 is a somewhat heavy ski with a unique flex that took me a few runs to figure out. Initiating a turn was done not from the tip, but underfoot, reminiscent of my days of operating machinery, which could have been the flex of the ski or the mount point. As the day went on, I found myself having fun on these skis, and the guys I was skiing with commented that I must have figured them out because I was skiing really well.

• Who is it for? Someone looking for a charging ski with some beef.
• Who is it not for? Someone looking for a nimble or carving ski.
• Insider tip: Mount it a little forward.

 

[Philpug]

Compared to other skis of near similar lengths and that was moving the binding as far forward as we could trick if for Tricia's 280mm BSL

 

[mishka]

I been thinking to reinstall bindings more forward.for example last 110 I build binding went forward approximately 40-50 mm from previous builds. At the time I wos using BOF at center of the running length method when later boot center at the same center of the running length

 

[Ken_R]

Compared to other skis of near similar lengths and that was moving the binding as far forward as we could trick if for Tricia's 280mm BSL
View attachment 17156

OMG, any reason why the binding is so far to the rear? Never seen a ski mounted like that. Probably makes the ski feel longer than it is no?

 

[mishka]

OMG, any reason why the binding is so far to the rear? Never seen a ski mounted like that. Probably makes the ski feel longer than it is no?

this skis have true 300mm tip rocker combined with about explained BOF at CRL method put the binding further back. when skis come back I will be installing the binding forward

 

[cantunamunch]

OMG, any reason why the binding is so far to the rear? Never seen a ski mounted like that. Probably makes the ski feel longer than it is no?

NO. Shorter.

What an absolutely lovely little ski. Heavy? Not for me - my 165cm SL skis weigh more than this, much more.

This ski was immediately responsive to everything I threw at it. Flamingo turns down a narrow blue? easy.
Old school up and down unweight - no problem it can be skied by someone who hasn't updated their technique since 1988.

Then I skied it with pure cross under turns, with my weight far, far forward (I also ski the old 1st generation Chams this way) and it just loved it, I could feel the edge engagement at the very tips, around the hump of the 5 point taper. Wow. The ski was like a snake just wiggling through the 4"of corn at the run edges.

When I skied them centered the rocker really made itself felt, in an RTM 86 sort of way, I could just do high angle slices across the fall line. @mishka was on his MR100 s and his tails couldn't hold that shape at all without sliding out. The 87 tails had absolutely no problem. And I easily weigh 50 lbs more than he does.

Oddly enough, I really wouldn't call this a charging ski. Not even close to being a charger like a Monster 88 or even a Volkl RTM in the same length.

Feel wise, the ski felt compliant in a wriggly snake sort of way. And that's good, except when one is charging and there are lots of ruts in the fall line. You can feel the wriggle as the ruts go under your edges and, frankly, that will tire you out.

Don't get me wrong - the ski was easily as damp as I could want it. There was no ringing or buzzing or that kkkkk feel of a carbon loaded ski crossing an icy patch of corduroy (and I did get that on one of @mishka 's skis but definitely not these.) It' s just not a charger in a rut - buster way.

Who is it for?

Someone who isn't sold on the stiffness of a Volkl RTM but wants to upgrade from, say, an Atomic Nomad to a 5 point shape.

Who is it not for?

Heavy chargers. Backseaters.

Of course the ski could be built with an incredible number of changes to its behaviour. If there is one thing I learned about @mishka 's skis today it's that no two builds are the same. Even if two pairs share dimensions and materials you might love one pair and hate the other.*shrug * he doesn't want to do the same thing over and over again and I can't blame him.

Two other observations : peeps with flexible non race boot soles should definitely get a strapless binding on this ski. There is a really cool sensation of flexing the ski under the boot and you can sort of modulate tail hold by exploiting the different flex points. My boots have two carbon rods extending between toe and heel lugs and the sensation was very... Giggly, yes giggly. Like the ski was trying to tickle my arches.

Second, of all @mishka 's sidecut designs this one was by far the most skate able. Yes even with the nonexistent base structure and horrible wax job it was easy to skate through deep slush at the base to the ski check.

 

[cantunamunch]

MR87 double carbon build

 

[Wendy]

MR87 double carbon build

View attachment 36189

That is a very beautiful ski! The mount point looks pretty centered compared to Tricia’s pair. Is it the same ski with different construction? Is there something I missed/ didn’t understand from @mishka ’s post regarding mount point?

The different impressions by @Tricia and @cantunamunch do seem to emphasize that the same ski can ski differently for different people.

@Tricia , can you elaborate on your “heavy equipment” operation comment? I’m intrigued.

 

[cantunamunch]

That is a very beautiful ski! The mount point looks pretty centered compared to Tricia’s pair. Is it the same ski with different construction? Is there something I missed/ didn’t understand from @mishka ’s post regarding mount point?
.

The mount point in my picture is 6 cm behind (tailwards from) Center of Running Surface. On a ski like a Stockli AX that would be perfectly acceptable. On these it is waaay too far forward.

And no, you didn't misunderstand @mishka 's mounting point recommendation - this mounting point is 9 cm in front of (tipwards) of @mishka's mounting point. This mounting point is wrong, and the bindings will get shifted tailwards, by at least 5 cm.

The ski construction of this pair is different from the pair in the OP - there are two layers of diagonal carbon stringers extending from the rear contact point to the front contact point. If one hand flexes this pair they are very stiff - you would swear they had metal in them but they don't. One doesn't feel the stiffness when they are skied, though. One does feel that they are (much) damper than the pair demoed in OP.

That's an elm and katazome topsheet - and I think the elm contributes to the damp feel. Which, given the crunchiness of current PA conditions, is a very good thing.

 

[Wendy]

The mount point in my picture is 6 cm behind (tailwards from) Center of Running Surface. On a ski like a Stockli AX that would be perfectly acceptable. On these it is waaay too far forward.

And no, you didn't misunderstand @mishka 's mounting point recommendation - this mounting point is 9 cm in front of (tipwards) of @mishka's mounting point. This mounting point is wrong, and the bindings will get shifted tailwards, by at least 5 cm.

The ski construction of this pair is different from the pair in the OP - there are two layers of diagonal carbon stringers extending from the rear contact point to the front contact point. If one hand flexes this pair they are very stiff - you would swear they had metal in them but they don't. One doesn't feel the stiffness when they are skied, though. One does feel that they are (much) damper than the pair demoed in OP.

That's an elm and katazome topsheet - and I think the elm contributes to the damp feel. Which, given the crunchiness of current PA conditions, is a very good thing.

Thanks for the detailed response! Elm? Where is it sourced? Here, elms are nearly wiped out by Dutch elm disease, so that makes your topsheets all the more intriguing.

 

[cantunamunch]

Thanks for the detailed response! Elm? Where is it sourced? Here, elms are nearly wiped out by Dutch elm disease, so that makes your topsheets all the more intriguing.

The processor is based in upstate NY; I do not know where they got the logs, sorry.

 

[mishka]

binding position in OP, picture based on BOF at center of the running length. Maybe even slightly behind it. What is not clear in those pictures is size of a rocker. MR87 have about 30 cm tip rocker. Combined with five point design make binding location looks way back compared to traditional approach/methods/ski designs.

In attached picture you can see comparison of the rocker in MR87 (left) and more "traditional" design MR80 (right)

veneer ski owner choice. Other skis have more exotic wood veneers