The Never-Ending Faction Discussion

[GregK]

@ARL67 Still has to buy a cheap set of Blackops 118 speaking of new ski purchases…….

 

[GB_Ski]

@GregK You think the new E89 is better than Kendo? The feeling I get is that CT sometime is a bit too damp for me as a twin tip because I want to be more playful. Kendo being less power and lighter might offer that.

 

[GregK]

@GregK You think the new E89 is better than Kendo? The feeling I get is that CT sometime is a bit too damp for me as a twin tip because I want to be more playful. Kendo being less power and lighter might offer that.

Haven’t skied it yet but assume the E89 should be quieter and more damp than the Kendo but in the 173cm, should be less damp and more forgiving tips/tails than a 178cm CT 1.0.

Still wouldn’t rule out the 172cm Blackops 98 as when I checked the dimensions vs the new Rustler 9, it’s within a mm of the 174cm and actually narrower than the 180cm dimensions. The BO 98 would be a lighter, more forgiving CT and in the shorter length mounted at the -2cm Directional mount might be perfect for you.

 

[ARL67]

@ARL67 Still has to buy a cheap set of Blackops 118 speaking of new ski purchases…….

... especially when I can get them for $314 $C taxes-in from Sportchek ( sorry USA folk, they only ship to Canada ). However I know I would never ski them as I have no idea when I might venture out west. Now if Sportchek had the Tatum trout graphics, I'd buy them just as wall art as they look so cool ! The swamps don't speak to me like the trouts do .

 

[ARL67]

I had the new flat E88 in 179 once upon a time -> never skied it ( Covid year ) and sold it flat. But looking at its tip rocker line and splay, I wouldn't have considered it in 172 as it would seem way to short for my liking. But I never skied it, so it is only my speculation on length.

Picking what length is the debate we each must face. I could readily ski an MX88 is 180, but feel the shorter 173 would suit my intended goal. @fundad77 is similar H/W to me and he is on the Kendo 170. I'm sure he could readily handle the 177, but the 170 suits his purposes for more nimbleness. / bumps. Length is also a factor on where we intend to ski -> me in Ontario where everything is groomed for my 2 hour early-morning sessions, vs someone in North-East USA that may get bigger dumps, vs a west-coast skier.

If you think Kastle MX might be too groomer oriented, what about the FX 86ti in 177 ( 169 is next shortest -> too short IMO ). I mention it as it too is available for cheap from liquidators or e-Bay. I also bought new flat MX83 168 but they will most likely be a catch & release.

I probably would have bought a Kendo 170 yesterday as local store has all remaining skis at 52% off ( 40% + another 20% ) , but they only had a 163 left. Buy-Try-Sell-Repeat ... lots of fun if you get them cheap enough.

 

[Prosper]

@GB_Ski are you on demo bindings on your CT 1.0s? I found that at there were rock solid GS skis mounted -1.5 to -2.5cm but pretty unforgiving. I kept playing with the mount point and like them most with the boot sole line mounted on the suggested CT triangle. They’re quick, playful, much more forgiving and still plenty stable at speed. I think I’m one of the few that likes to ski the CT 1.0 on the suggested triangle mount point as most like it best somewhere between 1-2cm. If possible try moving your mount point forward.

 

[GB_Ski]

I don't have demo and mounted -2cm from the mount point. I honestly enjoy the skis, ski them in everything from groomer to moguls to glades. They are burly compare to others that I've try, but I don't find them to be unforgiving, but they are heavy and definitely make me more tire compare to my other skis. That's why I'm looking for a lighter skis that offer similar quality without giving up too much. The new Enforcer and Kendo 88 caught my eye because of that.

@ARL67 what's your H/W? I found it surprising you would find E88 on 179 to be short. I know quite a few strong skiers around 180-190lb ski the 172 and don't want to be longer.

I ski in hudson valley (catskils). Let's be honest, I don't really need a 92mm charger skis.

 

[ARL67]

My stats are in my signature.
I was saying E88 in 172 would be short, not 179

 

[SpeedyKevin]

the time has come ->

 

[GB_Ski]

Stupid question. Are there burlier skis than CT 1.0 at that class (low 90s)?

 

[GregK]

Stupid question. Are there burlier skis than CT 1.0 at that class (low 90s)?

21 CT 1.0 are very unique with their weight, rubber damping and especially their “stiffer tip/tail less stiff underfoot” flex pattern. More traditional skis like the Kastle MX 88, Brahma 88, Heritage Labs R87 come to mind that would have similar weight and long turn radius, damping but much different mount points, tail splay and flex patterns. So some of these could be “more ski” for some depending on the length.
The CT 1.0 only went to 183cm so larger skiers could only mount back a bit to compensate for their size.

Most narrower twins around 90mm aren’t aimed at expert skiers, usually at light teens so there’s very few solid twin till you get closer to 100mm in width unfortunately. So the 21 CT 1.0 was definitely up in the “most burly twin made around 90mm” conversation.

 

[GB_Ski]

I only skied the old Braham 88 and the old Bonafide before "true blend?". I tend to ski them at one length smaller than 178, around 170-174 range. I didn't remembering them for being burlier than CT 1.0, but that was a long time ago.

Good to know MX 88 is an option. I guess Kendo and similar skis would be very different than what I'm used to.

 

[ScottB]

I own both the 21 CT1.0 in 183cm and a 2nd gen Brahma 88 in 187cm. Its pretty amazing to me that when skiing hard and fast on firmer snow the two skis feel awful similar to me. Since the CT is shorter and a twin tip it is easier to maneuver and pivot in tight spaces. The Brahma being longer and I think having a wider tip has a little better float and ease of turning in spring slush snow. The narrow tips on the CT are noticeable at times. I submarined the CT tips a couple of times in some off-piste manky snow that would only have been skiable on some fatties that kept me on top of the mank. I do weigh 240 lbs, so that is a factor.

 

[ARL67]

Sadly the last day of the season for me was this morning, but a blue sky, good spring conditions, and not many people. First run of the season and the last run of the season were on my CT 1.0. So versatile and also very burly with their big edges, I think I’ll be hanging onto these a long time and they’ll be my eventual rock ski to start and close the season.

 

[GregK]

Sadly the last day of the season for me was this morning, but a blue sky, good spring conditions, and not many people. First run of the season and the last run of the season were on my CT 1.0. So versatile and also very burly with their big edges, I think I’ll be hanging onto these a long time and they’ll be my eventual rock ski to start and close the season.

View attachment 231845
View attachment 231846

Just cleaned up and filled the holes on my set of CT 1.0 that I took out West and will get them ground again while I’m visiting Corbetts in Oakville tomorrow. Guess they are my rock skis now too! Will use them another year or so and then swap them out for my backup set I have still.

 

[Mendieta]

Just cleaned up and filled the holes on my set of CT 1.0 that I took out West and will get them ground again while I’m visiting Corbetts in Oakville tomorrow. Guess they are my rock skis now too! Will use them another year or so and then swap them out for my backup set I have still.

Mine are so dialed: boots, liners, skis, binding position, they work like a dream.

I wish I skied enough to see an end of like on them, but I don't!

 

[GB_Ski]

I'm actually worry that once my CT is done, I won't find another twin tip all mountain skis like that anymore!

 

[GregK]

I'm actually worry that once my CT is done, I won't find another twin tip all mountain skis like that anymore!

Definitely will be tough to find an exact replacement but think there will be some similar ones out there.

If you went the same length as your CT 1.0 those skis like the 177 Brahma 88 or 177cm Bonifide 97, they would have more similar weights and flex patterns. But their more trad

Got a set of 182cm Blackops 98 yesterday to maybe use them as the daily out West next year with the Blackops 118 or Sender Free 110. More traditional flex pattern but nice damp feel like the 21 CT and similar shape. Took my scale to Corbett’s and grabbed the heaviest pair out of about 20 pairs they had.

This ski in the 182cm length would be similar weight to the 178cm CT 1.0. Mine with the heavier Attack 17 bindings are the exact same weight as my 183cm CT 1.0 with Attack 13 bindings.

 

[James]

Definitely will be tough to find an exact replacement but think there will be some similar ones out there.

If you went the same length as your CT 1.0 those skis like the 177 Brahma 88 or 177cm Bonifide 97, they would have more similar weights and flex patterns. But their more trad

Got a set of 182cm Blackops 98 yesterday to maybe use them as the daily out West next year with the Blackops 118 or Sender Free 110. More traditional flex pattern but nice damp feel like the 21 CT and similar shape. Took my scale to Corbett’s and grabbed the heaviest pair out of about 20 pairs they had.

This ski in the 182cm length would be similar weight to the 178cm CT 1.0. Mine with the heavier Attack 17 bindings are the exact same weight as my 183cm CT 1.0 with Attack 13 bindings.

View attachment 232161

How does the BlackOps 98 compare to the Menace/Slicer?
I got the option of a BlackOps as a warranty for a Slicer, but it never happened and received the Menace.

 

[GregK]

How does the BlackOps 98 compare to the Menace/Slicer?
I got the option of a BlackOps as a warranty for a Slicer, but it never happened and received the Menace.

The Blackops 98 has less rocker(Menace very deep but very flat for a long time then not as smooth splay), a tighter radius so less speed needed to come alive and a much stiffer flex underfoot and towards the tail. Much more torsionally rigid too. Similar long effective edge but a hair more taper in the BO 98 so it’s less catchy in crud.

Thought you sold those Menace 98 skis years ago? They would sell quickly on TGR as the MFree 99 a very different ski and lots love the Menace 98 on there.