I agree that they could do with updates/redesigns.dorthman wrote:I just posted in another thread about how (imo) these are due for an update.
I think they should probably scrap these models and replace with one more classic cambered ski with dimensions between the epoch/annum - and a wider, modern shaped/cambered ski
Yes - incorporate what works on the MGV+ perhaps (they kind of look similar, but the size, spacing and edges of the patterns are different)lilcliffy wrote: 1) All: a more aggressive waxless design with better climbing performance.
Epoch and Annum, yes. Eon, no.lilcliffy wrote: 2) All: at least slightly rockered tips.
Yes, but I assume sales are poor, and why they dropped it. Other better options perhaps?lilcliffy wrote: 3) Eon: KEEP the 205cm Eon!!!
4) Eon: KEEP the waxable Eon!!
A little stiffer tip, a little bit larger camber and a little bit stiffer camber flex.lilcliffy wrote: 5) Eon: stiffer flex pattern on the Eon= better K&G performance
This would probably be a very popular ski if it were updated as such. Keep it lighter than the Vector and KOM and it might be a winner.lilcliffy wrote: 6) Annum: rockered tip; less sidecut (more width underfoot); KEEP the flex pattern (i.e. make the Annum a TRUE powder XCD ski- who cares if it doesn't carve on a dense base- sidecut doesn't help if the flex pattern is not torsionally rigid).
To me, this isn't a necessity, but a torsionally stiffer, waxless Epoch would be better for hardpack.lilcliffy wrote: 7) Epoch: a waxable version.
8) Epoch: more torsional strength- to carve!
I don't mean true rocker for a ski like the Eon- I mean something more like Ficher's "Nordic rocker" (which I think is brilliant BTW). The current Eon "feels" like it has open tips when turning, because it has such a soft tip- but this has the trade-off of hurting K&G performance.MikeK wrote:Epoch and Annum, yes. Eon, no.lilcliffy wrote: 2) All: at least slightly rockered tips.
Not sure if these have been dropped yet or not...But I agree, they are likely poor-sellers- I always seem to stand alone a bit..MikeK wrote:Yes, but I assume sales are poor, and why they dropped it. Other better options perhaps?lilcliffy wrote: 3) Eon: KEEP the 205cm Eon!!!
4) Eon: KEEP the waxable Eon!!
I think it would also need to be lighter than the Objective BC...MikeK wrote:This would probably be a very popular ski if it were updated as such. Keep it lighter than the Vector and KOM and it might be a winner.lilcliffy wrote: 6) Annum: rockered tip; less sidecut (more width underfoot); KEEP the flex pattern (i.e. make the Annum a TRUE powder XCD ski- who cares if it doesn't carve on a dense base- sidecut doesn't help if the flex pattern is not torsionally rigid).
Yes- I agree- the Voss is a great ski and it had a great name!athabascae wrote:And the Voss is now re-badged as the BC-50. Boring.
Dang is right- I think you would love the flex pattern of the Guide/Annum for your true powder pursuits!I like the idea of adding an Annum and just missed out on the old Karhu model with NNN-BC mags at my local ski swap the on weekend.
OOOH! Sweet score! Similar dimensions to the Amundesen/E-99/Glitt? If so- I will be very interested in your perspective on the Rago class versus the narrower E-89/Voss/Bonna Conquest class...I did, however, mange to find a mint pair of Asnes Rago (predecessor to the Amundsen) with NNN-BC for a song, so I can't complain too much.
