Moment Chipotle Banana
- Thread starter Burrito
- Start date
ericforman
Member
I also desperately want them but there’a just really no reason for me to own them....or is there?
BradFiAusNzCoCa
Active member
I can’t justify the chipotle banana but I fully intend to buy the meridian one day. It’s based off the CB from what I read. Just in a skinnier, more versatile package.
quagsire
Member
Daily driving the Banana up here in Fernie. I bought them after also considering the Black Ops Gamer and the Icelantic Saba, but decided I wanted something just a bit longer than either of those skis. I'll probably make the effort to write up a proper review at some point, but in the mean time feel free to PM me if you have any questions about them!
FruitBootPro
Active member
Do you ski a solid amount of deep days every season?
If so, send it
If so, send it
SmokedGouda
Active member
Damn those look sick, but I’ve had my bro have issues with their skis in the past or he waxed em at too high of a temperature because he got air bubbles on the bases. It was probably that lol. They look sick though. I’m already covered in the 120+ range though.
muffMan.
Active member
FruitBootPro
Active member
14362473:Coleg55 said:
Hellbents type beat
FruitBootPro
Active member
14362448:shin-bang said:
Can you elaborate on how they "rip"? Have you become one of those ppl who insists on skiing fat skis on hardpack now lmao
shin-bang
Active member
14362973:FruitBootPro said:
some synonyms for rip include: slay, shred, slarve, destroy, surf, stomp, charge, spin, bulldoze.
targhee hasnt really had hardpack yet, so the bananas havent seen much firm stuff other than some crust. But im confident they would kill it.
To answer your question, yes. yes i am the person who likes riding fatties in all conditions. ive been that way since day one. anything from the ghost trains to the sfb, theyre all my dailies. They all kill it. Wide skis these days are insanely capable.
FruitBootPro
Active member
14363126:shin-bang said:
Would you consider the bananas a modern day version of the Hellbents, and would it be appropriate to mount them near center?
animator
Active member
14363157:FruitBootPro said:
Hellbent was the opposite of this ski. It was super soft and even wider (in its final years), it was a wet spaghetti noodle. Carston Oliver wanted a ski that was fat as shit but that was also stable as fuck. There’s not a ton of 120+ skis that are as stiff as the Banana. The Faction CT 5.0 is one but it’s also lighter, so not as stable in adverse conditions.
Mr_pretzel
Active member
The banana does not surf like a hellbent, it does more centered slarves.
Honestly kind of an odd ski, but it’s still good.
Honestly kind of an odd ski, but it’s still good.
N41v131355
Member
I've used CB for ~20 days already and honestly - they are the skis that you buy only for their topsheet. I don't really like how they ski. I don't really understand why people say they are stiff, because they are not. They are probably just a touch stiffer than Wildcats, which are also, not very stiff IMO. I think these skis have a very small sweet spot and despite their width, you can only ski them centered, because front stance will make tips dive and back stance will make them slip from you like if you step on a banana. I also can't agree that they rip on hardpack. Their rocker profile will quickly display you why. They are unstable on the edge if things are hard. They are cool only on powderdays and days when you still have tracked pow and soft bumps (so maybe a day after a powderday). I'd change a lot in this ski.
Before Chipotle Bananas, I had CT 5.0 as a 120+ quiver option. 5.0 are by FAR, more versatile, more chargy and stable ski. Also stiffer than CB. I was super impressed on how good it was everywhere for a 122 waist-ski. However, Faction quality sucked so my pair delamed in 2 weeks of riding...
Before Chipotle Bananas, I had CT 5.0 as a 120+ quiver option. 5.0 are by FAR, more versatile, more chargy and stable ski. Also stiffer than CB. I was super impressed on how good it was everywhere for a 122 waist-ski. However, Faction quality sucked so my pair delamed in 2 weeks of riding...
shin-bang
Active member
14363332:N41v131355 said:
interesting! Im assuming you mounted them at recommended? did you go 193 or 186?
Quite frankly i love the centered and slarvy riding style. been trying to find a full rocker ski like this for a long time. I think the biggest thing i noticed coming off of on3ps is how easy it is to actually ski the bananas fast while still having stability (wrenegades and billy goats kicked my ass). like i said, maybe just a style/technique difference. believe it or not i mounted my bananas at +2 from rec.
Sad to hear about the factions. it seems like their trademark is fun skis that blow up.
Burrito
Active member
14363552:shin-bang said:
I'm right with you. A pair of rocker-flat-rocker fatties from Surface back in the day introduced me to slarvy, centered riding, and I've never looked back. It does take a little while to figure out the sweet spot on the CBs, but when you do...
The guys at Blister did recommended mounting the CBs at -1 or -2 from recommended to help with the tip dive issue. I have mine at -0.5 and in hindsight probably should have just gone with -1.
N41v131355
Member
14363552:shin-bang said:
I went with 186 as I'm 5'10 and ski lot of tree areas, mounted +1 from rec as I prefer more freestyle-ish mounts. Yeah, I definitely think that you can get used to these skis and have fun on them. I'm having fun on them! But they are probably one of the least versatile skis I had. Referring to sweet spot - I meant that it's not difficult to find this spot, it's just hard to stay in it. That's 100% driver issue, no doubts here, but for me it's hard to get back to centered if I'm thrown backseat on them and there are skis out there that are definitely more supportive. I believe some small changes can make them a lot more versatile without sacrificing too much slarve and fun.
shin-bang
Active member
finally got the chance to get them on some deeper stuff as well as hardpack/corduroy. somebody mentioned tip dive? at low speeds this is definitely apparent, especially with me being at +2. but when you go fast the problem seems to be mitigated. so if im exclusively riding mellow low angle terrain, i would probably switch over to the ghost trains. but the for the majority of the time an extra dose of speed will keep them afloat.
grooms: as i suspected, these things do fine. ive ridden a lot of fat skis on hardpack and these are pretty similar. Only caveat, is the speed factor. if you wanna lay down some trenches you gotta be going mach 9 to swing you through that 35m turn radius. casual low speed carves are not really an option here lol.
more chop/soft crud: they absolutely eat and are my go to ski for crud.
all in all, the ski performs well but at high speeds, which is what it was designed to do.
grooms: as i suspected, these things do fine. ive ridden a lot of fat skis on hardpack and these are pretty similar. Only caveat, is the speed factor. if you wanna lay down some trenches you gotta be going mach 9 to swing you through that 35m turn radius. casual low speed carves are not really an option here lol.
more chop/soft crud: they absolutely eat and are my go to ski for crud.
all in all, the ski performs well but at high speeds, which is what it was designed to do.
Burrito
Active member
14366143:shin-bang said:
This seems to be the consensus over on the TGR forums, too. Let 'em run a bit to get going, and don't bother with any of that slowing down nonsense. Even though it's ostensibly a flaw in the design, the need to go fast to keep the skis floaty and alive was one of their major selling points for me. I wanted to be forced in to riding harder and faster than I might otherwise with a more forgiving ski.
I’ve been looking at these for a while now, as a fatter addition to my current 1 ski quiver of faction prodigy 3. I live in the sierras, with heavier pow and lots of crud. Would you guys recommend this ski, and where would I mount it? My skiing style is pretty balanced, I like to hit small jumps and cliffs but can charge when I want to.
Burrito
Active member
14404399:Jack_f said:
I’ve been really happy with mine so far this season. They have a weird sweet spot that likes an upright, balanced stance, but that’s how I like to ride anyway. They love Sierra crud and love to go fast, you just can’t drive the tips like most “chargy” skis. I mounted mine at -0.5cm from recommended on account of issues I’d seen with people getting tip dive in soft snow. I could see people being happy anywhere from on the line to -1cm.
Burrito
Active member
14404447:Jack_f said:
I would just get what you can find and bend the brakes if you have to, unless they’re Pivots. In my experience Pivots are really the only bindings where you run into issues bending brakes out slightly. FWIW I have Pivot 15s on my Bananas, but I’ve have Jester Pros on 120+mm skis, too, and been perfectly happy with them. Can’t speak to Sollys or Attacks.
quagsire
Member
Just to offer another perspective, I ski the 193 Banana mounted +1 from rec. I'd agree that going a bit further back would improve pow performance, but I don't think I lose any charginess or stability at the +1 mount point, and my use case for the ski is as more of a fat, trickable charger/big mountain ski than as something for pow days only. Also, 115mm brake Pivots fit perfect, no bending required.