Roofbox Reviews are back for 2019

Hell yeah! I think it was great. Honestly when you're shopping for a new ski, you can never get enough information so the length is fine. I really like how you made several comparisons to other skis in the same/similar category; that can really assist folks and be a deciding factor in what they're looking for if they can't decide between two skis.

Well done! I'm stoked to see more people putting in the effort to write detailed, honest, and useful reviews. Particularly cool to get that perspective from someone with a park background.

Also, that nose-butter pic is fkn awesome.

IsitWinterYet17Hell yeah! I think it was great. Honestly when you're shopping for a new ski, you can never get enough information so the length is fine. I really like how you made several comparisons to other skis in the same/similar category; that can really assist folks and be a deciding factor in what they're looking for if they can't decide between two skis.

I agree with the comparisons. There should be some sort of comparison of the strengths and weaknesses of each ski in that category, so we can see how they stack up against each other. Maybe not in the review, it could be its own thing. Twig you seem knowledgable on some of the other skis in that category. Idk just an idea

Yesssssa!!

Way too many reviewers (or manufacturers for that manner) don’t understand the design and riding style that a center(ish) mount lends itself to. So refreshing to see someone review skis designed to be ridden close to center while actually riding them close to or at center. Blister Gear Review has a few commentaries on park skis, but you’re gonna give them a run for their money no doubt! Excited to hear about the Magnus 102 (hopefully?). Keep it up!

I think you are an excellent reviewer and the park scene needs more reviewers like you who really get into it for a thorough, thoughtful review. All I can suggest is

1) keep doing what you're doing
2) I'd put the conclusion section at the top as a TL;DR right near the specs for those who are just there for a summary
3) have someone copy edit your articles. Just a couple mistakes here and there but your articles are really good content; you might as well have them polished. I have some experience with proofreading, let me know if you ever want something read over really quick

Thanks everyone for the responses so far!

CLQI agree with the comparisons. There should be some sort of comparison of the strengths and weaknesses of each ski in that category, so we can see how they stack up against each other. Maybe not in the review, it could be its own thing. Twig you seem knowledgable on some of the other skis in that category. Idk just an idea

That is actually something I'm planning to do in later in the fall. We will have editors' picks where we highlight our personal favourite skis and also some editorial comparisons of some of the most popular choices in depth.

dubageYesssssa!!
Way too many reviewers (or manufacturers for that manner) don’t understand the design and riding style that a center(ish) mount lends itself to. So refreshing to see someone review skis designed to be ridden close to center while actually riding them close to or at center. Blister Gear Review has a few commentaries on park skis, but you’re gonna give them a run for their money no doubt! Excited to hear about the Magnus 102 (hopefully?). Keep it up!

Magnus 102 is one I really wanted to review, I hit up ON3P a bunch of times to try and sort the skis to review but unfortunately didn't manage to get them to send any. I've tried them (a friend's pair) for a few laps, so I should be able to give some surface level feedback and comparison but that's looking pretty much the limit on those. Hopefully they'll send some of next year's to either me or one of the other reviewers

SofaKingSickI think you are an excellent reviewer and the park scene needs more reviewers like you who really get into it for a thorough, thoughtful review. All I can suggest is

1) keep doing what you're doing
2) I'd put the conclusion section at the top as a TL;DR right near the specs for those who are just there for a summary
3) have someone copy edit your articles. Just a couple mistakes here and there but your articles are really good content; you might as well have them polished. I have some experience with proofreading, let me know if you ever want something read over really quick

Thanks for the feedback and glad you're basically stoked. I do have someone proofread these and hopefully the mistakes weren't too bad, we also have a pretty buggy news editor that we're working to fix that I caught some mistakes from after I saw this. If you wanted to take a pass and point some errors that'd be really useful to see what we're missing.

if you ever need an east coast rider lmk, i would love ot publish a few reviews this season!

TwigThanks everyone for the responses so far!


That is actually something I'm planning to do in later in the fall. We will have editors' picks where we highlight our personal favourite skis and also some editorial comparisons of some of the most popular choices in depth.



Magnus 102 is one I really wanted to review, I hit up ON3P a bunch of times to try and sort the skis to review but unfortunately didn't manage to get them to send any. I've tried them (a friend's pair) for a few laps, so I should be able to give some surface level feedback and comparison but that's looking pretty much the limit on those. Hopefully they'll send some of next year's to either me or one of the other reviewers



Thanks for the feedback and glad you're basically stoked. I do have someone proofread these and hopefully the mistakes weren't too bad, we also have a pretty buggy news editor that we're working to fix that I caught some mistakes from after I saw this. If you wanted to take a pass and point some errors that'd be really useful to see what we're missing.

i'm not "basically stoked" on it i'm 100% stoked on it! seriously good reviews. ive skied shit tons of park skis for about 18 years and i couldn't come close to analyzing it all like you can...

nothing egregious in the grammar department, just a couple little things here and there that could be fixed... like i said, it's such good content, you might as well polish that stuff because i would hope that these reviews get read a lot. i'll read through this most recent one when i get a break from work today; no pressure to use my input :) and either way, keep up the great work man

Doing a good job twig!

The reviews seem to be getting closer to the older blister reviews which I thought were significantly better than now that you have to pay to access the good blister reviews. I would say maybe adjust the format a but to include more information right at the top, like bindings used, boots, mount point, recommended mount point.

Im glad someone is finally publishing more reviews that vary from the factory mount point. While I don’t mount as clpse to center as you, I do typically mount +3 to +5cm on big mountain skis that have a recommended of close to -10cm.

Having it broken down and easily browsable was key for me. I didn't want to read about certain aspects about the ski and was easy to skip over/come back to. Well organized, solid write up

Number 2: https://www.newschoolers.com/news/read/The-Roofbox-Reviews-2019-VA-lkl-Revolt-95

Sorry about the lack of imagery, corrupted SD card issues.

And another: ARV 96

Images are back. Those are going to be a bit hit or miss this season though, something I definitely need to work on for the coming season's review.

TwigAnd another: ARV 96

Images are back. Those are going to be a bit hit or miss this season though, something I definitely need to work on for the coming season's review.

Pretty surprised the 96 was stiffer than the 106, but I have a question. Was the flex of the 106 as round as the 96, or was the 106 proportionally stiffer in the tail than the 96? I guess, more specifically, which ski did you think was easier to tail butter?

Thanks!

THANK YOU!!!!

Finally, an independent ski reviewer that tells it as it is. I read the Volkl revolt 95 (because I am looking for a new park ski) and it told me exactly what I wanted to hear. I hope you get to write up a bunch more!

dubagePretty surprised the 96 was stiffer than the 106, but I have a question. Was the flex of the 106 as round as the 96, or was the 106 proportionally stiffer in the tail than the 96? I guess, more specifically, which ski did you think was easier to tail butter?

Thanks!

This isn't actually the easiest question to answer, but I'll try...

I would say the flex of the 96 is fairly consistent throughout the ski, it's a smooth flex profile which slightly softens towards the tip and tail. I said in the review it's about 8 flex underfoot reaching a 6 by the tip. That is not a big differential and there isn't a really defined 'hinge point' on these in terms of the flex, though the rocker acts as one somewhat when you are skiing them.

The ARV 106 has a bigger flex differential. It's possibly even a touch stiffer underfoot and immediately in front of/behind the bindings than the 96. I'd probably call it more like an 8.5 underfoot. But the tip and (to a lesser extent) the tail are softer than the 96. I'd rate the tip more like a 5. The softer section also starts earlier on the ski making nosebutters far easier on the 106 at lower speeds. The same is true in the tail but it's less soft, probably a 6 or 6.5. I'd still say the ARV 106 is a touch softer though particularly in the rockered section and it gets softer closer to the binding...in on snow terms it's certainly easier to just lean back and manual on the 106.

So to your butter question... it depends a bit. As mentioned, for nosebutters, I would say the 106 is definitely easier. For tailbutters it depends a bit how you do them. At lower speeds (or for stalling out manuals by just leaning back) I'd say the 106 is still easier because the tail feels softer and gets softer earlier.

However with tailbutters in particular, I find a narrower ski allows you to whip the ski round faster and that allows you to use your momentum to more effectively to flex/transfer your weight to the extremes of the ski and get more height. The 96 also feels far poppier, which gives you more spring out of the butter once you get up there. So for switch buttering up on to a rail from the side (no lip) or bigger switch butter spins off a knuckle I'd actually say the 96 might be the easier ski. (This last bit was hard to try and put in words, sorry if it's hard to understand).

For reference here are the two profiles:

**This post was edited on Sep 25th 2018 at 7:03:12am

TwigThis isn't actually the easiest question to answer, but I'll try...

**This post was edited on Sep 25th 2018 at 7:03:12am

Thanks so much for this!! Your'e take on my question was super insightful. Great job answering the question man, it's definitely a deep cut kind of review topic to compare tail butterabiltiy haha. Much appreciated.

I'm caught between the ARV 106 and the Magnus 102, trying to gather as much info as I can before I make the decision. Thanks again for the help!

Here's another one, first one from Lencon who joined the team last year:

https://www.newschoolers.com/news/read/The-Roofbox-Review-2019-Faction-Prodigy-4-0

**This post was edited on Oct 4th 2018 at 5:36:36am

If you guys are looking for more reviewers in the future, let me know. I see you guys have the park skis and mid fats pretty down pat so if you want someone to delve into the fatter sticks out there I'm your guy haha. Hoping to be skiing 4-5 days a week for the next few years up at Bridger Bowl and Big Sky.