markojp

mtn rep for the gear on my feet
Industry Insider
Instructor
Joined
Nov 12, 2015
Posts
3,577
Location
PNW aka SEA
Like pretty much every French ski around, the mount is forward, but there's a 'there' there in shovel land. That said, I'd love to ooch the binding back a couple cm's from recommended to see what happens in the 182(?). The black OPs 98 is a strong, playful, unicorn that farts rainbows.
 

pliny the elder

Industry Insider
Skier
Joined
May 28, 2019
Posts
77
Location
Somewhere good
So I got a 182 black ops 98. My sources at the Big R suggested a mounting point 2cm back as I am a "directional" skier.

The new ski prep consisted of some sharpening between the contact points, dps phantom and some CH7 on top.
The skis absolutely rule. On groomers they tip and arc with surprising competence. Brilliant in powder and crud and absolutely destroy
moguls. And the weirder the snow, the more they turn pro.

Immediately these became the go to, non race skis. All the other free skis in my Rossignol centric quiver went dormant. The E84 and E94 collected dust. Even on big powder days the Super 7 sat because the Black Ops is more powerful, more confident and almost as easy. I don't recall being more enthralled with a non race ski.

They are however, at 182, a little short as a big mountain slayer. No problem, there's a 192cm and it's got the bitchin leopard graphic for 19-20. Same ski prep, Pivot 18 2cm back and off we go.

Even skating to the lift it was apparent something was seriously wrong. A couple of runs confirmed it. The skis were quite reluctant to initiate and really wanted to just go straight. Somewhat reminiscent of the old 189cm B Squad, but not in a good way.
I tweaked the tune a bit and went back out, not much difference. So I put out some inquiries and the consensus was that the 192cm is a different beast and gets mounted at the standard location for mortals and needs to get pounded into submission through some moguls before it comes into its own.

I remounted them at the indicated location and went out and skied a bunch of bumps and the skis are great now. The difference between the 182cm and 192cm though is quite remarkable.

When I suggested that maybe they could build me a 187cm it was of course met with the sound of crickets. Mrs. Pliny has a 162 Black Ops W that she is quite keen on as well. It has also become her go to ski from a considerable quiver.

An incredibly versatile ski that lends itself to different conditions and responds very well to different types of inputs with an amazing confidence and a playful attitude. The stealth marketing campaign has kept this one under the radar perhaps more than intended.

Your results may of course vary,

Pliny the Elder
 

Philpug

Notorious P.U.G.
Admin
Pugski Ski Tester
Joined
Nov 1, 2015
Posts
23,331
Location
Reno, eNVy
Fortunately the 182 works for me...but 10cm increments are just too much.
 

Uncle-A

In the words of Paul Simon "You can call me Al"
Skier
Joined
Dec 22, 2015
Posts
3,129
Location
NJ
Fortunately the 182 works for me...but 10cm increments are just too much.
I was wondering when the industry would drop the 5 CM increments and just make 10 CM increments. When you think of it 10 CM is about 4 inches and that would be split 2 inches in front and 2 inches behind the boot, is that too much more to control? If you already know how to make a turn, is the muscle movement that much different? The only issues might be tight bumps made by short skis or in the woods.
 

James

Skiing the powder
Instructor
Joined
Dec 2, 2015
Posts
9,310
Translating to inches sounds like it's not much, but 10cm is a lot. Very few make 5cm increments. There really should be two skis in the 170's and two in the 180's for men. Doesn't have to be 5. Also, it's how you scale things up that matters. I'd love to see the sane size of popular sizes, like low 170's for east carvers, made in different flexes for different weight skiers.

Kastle was ridiculous with their sizing for years. They made you switch models in the MX line to get the size you wanted. Then they went and made tons of different models like freestyle and touring.

Too many models of skis in general. More sizes would be better and cheaper to produce.
 

Philpug

Notorious P.U.G.
Admin
Pugski Ski Tester
Joined
Nov 1, 2015
Posts
23,331
Location
Reno, eNVy
IMHO, 5cm is too much although we are seeing some skis go that way, Volkl for one is offering the Deacons in 5cm increments. IMHO, 7-8cm seems to be the sweet spot.
 

KingGrump

Most Interesting Man In The World
Team Gathermeister
Joined
Nov 12, 2015
Posts
4,422
Location
NYC
I was wondering when the industry would drop the 5 CM increments and just make 10 CM increments. When you think of it 10 CM is about 4 inches and that would be split 2 inches in front and 2 inches behind the boot, is that too much more to control? If you already know how to make a turn, is the muscle movement that much different? The only issues might be tight bumps made by short skis or in the woods.
For me, it's not the minor increase in length but the dramatic increase in flex as the skis get to the next size or even two sizes up.

Back in the days of the long straight skis, Volkl used to put out 200, 203, 205 & 207 in the same ski model. They differ more in flex rather than length.
 

Ken_R

Living the Dream
Skier
Joined
Feb 10, 2016
Posts
3,732
Location
Denver, CO
For me, it's not the minor increase in length but the dramatic increase in flex as the skis get to the next size or even two sizes up.

Back in the days of the long straight skis, Volkl used to put out 200, 203, 205 & 207 in the same ski model. They differ more in flex rather than length.

^^^ THIS
 

markojp

mtn rep for the gear on my feet
Industry Insider
Instructor
Joined
Nov 12, 2015
Posts
3,577
Location
PNW aka SEA
I was wondering when the industry would drop the 5 CM increments and just make 10 CM increments. When you think of it 10 CM is about 4 inches and that would be split 2 inches in front and 2 inches behind the boot, is that too much more to control? If you already know how to make a turn, is the muscle movement that much different? The only issues might be tight bumps made by short skis or in the woods.
Aside from the simple physical dimension changes, getting a model of a particular ski to have a similar 'feel' and user experience through the size run is very difficult. Skis, particularly new models, often don't scale well or consistently. The first generation Soul 7 was a classic example. The shortest size was a plank. The 180 and 188 had the same distance from the tip marked as the recommended mounting point, so the flex mentioned in the posts above, is VERY different in each length. This isn't uncommon in ski manufacturing, and the Rossi soul 7 gen.1 example mentioned is by no means an exception.
 

James

Skiing the powder
Instructor
Joined
Dec 2, 2015
Posts
9,310
Yeah sometimes the shorter one is a stiff plank and sometimes they're noodles. The 1st/2nd Head SS Magnum was a noodle in 170.
 

Josh Matta

Skiing the powder
Pass Pulled
Joined
Dec 21, 2015
Posts
4,126
My only question to those who have skied it. Are the bases actually fast? or ar they same shit they used on the sickles and schimitars?
 

firebanex

Getting off the lift
Skier
Joined
Apr 16, 2018
Posts
373
Location
Fairbanks, Alaska
I skied the 182 at snowbird the first week of April this year. they were fast bases even on spring slush on the lower mountain. Just as fast as my Fisher Ranger 102fr's I had brought with me to ski that week.
 

pliny the elder

Industry Insider
Skier
Joined
May 28, 2019
Posts
77
Location
Somewhere good
Yes, the difference in the skis is not the length, but in the flex and where it occurs. As to the speed of the bases, with proper prep, in this case Phantom with a steady diet of CH7 on top they are both fast enough. Glide speed isn't a big concern for me with a 98mm ski as it is supposed to be steep most of the time. But fast skis ski better, no question!
One observation about the base and edges is they are sturdy. Even in a big snow year, these skis go in harms way as a regular part of their job description. They took some hits and came away with little to show for it.
We spend several weeks in South America each year and the Black Ops will be half of the two pair quiver along with a Hero Master GS.
 

JWMN

Booting up
Skier
Joined
Mar 19, 2017
Posts
35
Thanks for the review. I also own the E94 and love the way it does anything I ask. I do however, remember fondly the S3, which I thought was a very playful and fun ski - in it's element. It sounds like this ski is as playful and fun as the S3, but also can rule the mountain like the E94. What difference did you find between the E94 and the Black Ops? I look forward to a demo of them this season.



So I got a 182 black ops 98. My sources at the Big R suggested a mounting point 2cm back as I am a "directional" skier.

The new ski prep consisted of some sharpening between the contact points, dps phantom and some CH7 on top.
The skis absolutely rule. On groomers they tip and arc with surprising competence. Brilliant in powder and crud and absolutely destroy
moguls. And the weirder the snow, the more they turn pro.

Immediately these became the go to, non race skis. All the other free skis in my Rossignol centric quiver went dormant. The E84 and E94 collected dust. Even on big powder days the Super 7 sat because the Black Ops is more powerful, more confident and almost as easy. I don't recall being more enthralled with a non race ski.

They are however, at 182, a little short as a big mountain slayer. No problem, there's a 192cm and it's got the bitchin leopard graphic for 19-20. Same ski prep, Pivot 18 2cm back and off we go.

Even skating to the lift it was apparent something was seriously wrong. A couple of runs confirmed it. The skis were quite reluctant to initiate and really wanted to just go straight. Somewhat reminiscent of the old 189cm B Squad, but not in a good way.
I tweaked the tune a bit and went back out, not much difference. So I put out some inquiries and the consensus was that the 192cm is a different beast and gets mounted at the standard location for mortals and needs to get pounded into submission through some moguls before it comes into its own.

I remounted them at the indicated location and went out and skied a bunch of bumps and the skis are great now. The difference between the 182cm and 192cm though is quite remarkable.

When I suggested that maybe they could build me a 187cm it was of course met with the sound of crickets. Mrs. Pliny has a 162 Black Ops W that she is quite keen on as well. It has also become her go to ski from a considerable quiver.

An incredibly versatile ski that lends itself to different conditions and responds very well to different types of inputs with an amazing confidence and a playful attitude. The stealth marketing campaign has kept this one under the radar perhaps more than intended.

Your results may of course vary,

Pliny the Elder
 

markojp

mtn rep for the gear on my feet
Industry Insider
Instructor
Joined
Nov 12, 2015
Posts
3,577
Location
PNW aka SEA
It's nothing like an S3. It's much more and better ski in every way. If you want an S3, pick up a Sky 7. If you own and like your E-94, owning a B.O. 98 doesn't make a lot of sense, but that's only one person's opinion.
 

John O

Getting off the lift
Skier
Joined
Nov 21, 2015
Posts
293
Location
Seattle, WA
My own $.02 having skied the Black Ops this past spring is that it's more along the lines of a playful ski with a backbone, as opposed to a strong ski that is trying to be playful.

What I mean by that is I feel like many skis that are considered "strong" require a lot of input to ski well, even the ones that people call somewhat playful. The Black Ops, on the other hand, is one of the easiest skis I've been on in a while, yet at the same time they felt very stable and capable. It's also just a really fun ski.

I'd happily own a pair if I hadn't just purchased a pair of Tracer 98s last year to be my new daily driver.
 

Jtlange

Getting on the lift
Skier
Joined
Sep 8, 2016
Posts
164
Location
Denver, CO
Just got on this today at a demo and the words at the end of the first run on the 192 was "Holy $#*@". These things seriously haul. Took another run on some sketcher snow and they just destroyed everything in their path. I then got on the 182 after a few more runs and found them to be much more accessible and less of a heat seeking missle than the 192s. I'm 6'2", 225lbs, agressive skier and like long skis and I think the 192s would be a lot of ski for any sort of trees or bumps. I went with the 182s. Really amazing ski. A multitude of others today felt the same including some smaller more finesse skiers. Many skiers will get along with this
 

Staff online

Top