Than's Nano One Diary

[Than_Bogan]

Note/disclaimer: This thread is just my raw, unfiltered impressions as they come. This is NOT a review, and I expect that I will change my mind about many things as this goes.

 

DIARY ENTRY

 

The ski arrived this morning just as I was about to leave for work. Obviously, opening it took precedence!

 

The unboxing was fairly disappointing. The ski looks really weird, as if it wasn't manufactured correctly. The surface in some places has a distinctive pattern, and in other place is almost flat black. And the arrangement of these two regions seems random -- well not really random, almost more like "artistically random" as if Jackson Pollack had been in charge of the mixing. This is true on top and bottom.

 

On the top, near the edges, the material looks like it is all bunched up forming a ridge, but running my finger over it feels to be flat.

 

I have never seen a Nano One before, so I have no clue if this is normal.

 

On the bottom, about 2/3 of the way up on the left bevel, there is what looks like a seam, and I can feel it with my finger. I'm fairly sure this spot will be touching the water at some points, so I am concerned.

 

I plan to contact Goode and see if they have any comments about any of this. I could imagine that this is fine OR that I got one that was mismanufactured. Only way to find out is to ask!

 

Unless they tell me this ski is not right, my first set will be tomorrow morning.

[ForrestGump]

My ski partners looks exactly the same. He called Goode and they said that was the way the last few went out before they got the new top sheets designed and in production and that it was fine. He's been running it for 2 weeks now without issue. Ski is better than the elite he came off of, for sure.

[Than_Bogan]

Dave Goode called me back directly. We discussed the issues that I reported above, and he assures me all of that is normal.

 

All of the skis will have the "weird" random-looking swirls of patterns and the apparent bunching at the edges.

 

And the tiny rail blemish I found is in the mould, and all the skis have it. Obviously it hasn't been affecting performance! It is opposite the left edge of the D on the right (if looking at the bottom of the ski) rail.

 

So everything is as it should be. Keep this in mind when you open yours!!

[Horton]

Who cares what it looks like! How does it ski?

[Horton]

Wait. Never mind. I will ride one tomorrow.

[Than_Bogan]

While I had Dave on the phone, I also got some setup suggestions. He said stock fin has been working for most folks and would only touch it as a last resort. (Hm, not exactly his words, but I *think* I'm capturing the right sentiment there.)

 

He did note that some people like to use a little more wing angle than they have on other skis, and suggested that as one of the first things to play with. After that, 1/8" forward or back on boots to find the sweet spot.

 

Personally, I doubt I'll mess with boot position unless something feels pretty weird. I've never had luck moving the boots from factory position on a Goode.

 

I've pretty much been dead stock except my 7 degree wing on every model, except on the 9600 I liked it better with a touch of tip taken out of the fin. (I still wonder if I gave stock enough of a chance, though. On my 9900 I tried a bunch of stuff and then by the time I got used to the ski I found myself right back exactly at stock!)

 

@Horton I was just trying to make sure it wasn't broken. Didn't look like it was made right. If it was structurally unsound I didn't want to even ski one set on it.

 

I'm sure you can imagine that I am VERY eager to begin skiing on it. It's gonna be hard not to sneak out there tonight and fight the Yahoos!

[Klundell]

Picked mine up yesterday too and it looks almost exactly as you described. I think the clear look into the carbon is making the ski look a little raw. But I'm ok with that! Got the boat fixed and skiing it tomorrow so I will let you know.

[webbdawg99]

Pics!

[Than_Bogan]

DIARY ENTRY

 

Tonight's minor crisis: The D3 T-factor rear boot doesn't fit the insert pattern. Technically I might be able to mount it dead straight, but there is no wiggle room for any pivoting, which I require (else fall in on every onside turn).

 

So I'll be Dual-Lockin' it. Long-term, this may be a blessing. I have really liked the Dual-Lock mounting system on my 9900, and Dave reminded me that it flexes better.

 

But it turned what I thought would be 10 minutes of setup into more like a couple of hours of much more complicated work. And now I have to finish up in the morning because if you mount a plate to Dual-Lock before the adhesive sets, it will peel some of it up.

 

Thank goodness I actually had a stash of Dual-Lock!

 

I measured the fin and I think it's within reasonable caliper-measurement differences of factory, so I'll start here. I'm going to start at 7 degrees b/c I've used that on every Goode, but I will also try 8 at some point per Dave's advice above.

 

Now I just gotta find some way to chill and get some sleep! :) Got some serious Kid on Christmas Eve Syndrome goin' here.

[Than_Bogan]

Oh also: Dave told me most folks have been setting it up at 28 3/4 -- just Regina at 28 13/16. However, I doubt my setup procedure is even accurate to a 1/16 for boot placement, so I'm not too worried about that detail. I'll aim for 28 3/4 just b/c it's sort of a round number.

[Boody]

Its is a modified graphic from the last year's smoke ski. Except where my nano was white, this is black. And the smoke is so dark you can hardly see it.

 

The top sheet on my ski is wrinkled on the edges like others described. I am sure they will clean up the graphics on this ski in the future.

 

As far as boots, I went 28 and 13/16, then went back to 3/4. Not much of a difference.

 

The ski turns hard and does not overturn which is sweet. But I am convinced its more work across the wake and slower. The ski shuts down quick as in the preturn.

[tfriess]

than complains too much

[Horton]

I am shocked he has ever rounded a number

[Stevie Boy]

Hey Guy,s surely if you use inserts, you are going to have to place the boots, closest to factory settings as you can, cannot see that you are going to get a choice, when it comes to moving them 1/16" one way or another ?

[Stevie Boy]

 

@Boody you state that the ski shuts down quickly ?

 

@MS you state the ski stays with you with enough speed and width ?

 

You guy,s on the same ski ?

[Stevie Boy]

@MS sorry it was not you that stated the ski stays with you with enough speed and width.

 

@MAD11 stated "The ski carries plenty of width and speed. It is not asking to pull longer or harder"

 

Which seems to be different from what Boody is feeling.

[MAD11]

@stevie My boots are at 28 11/16 on powershells. The 13/16 published number seems to be for lighter skiers. None of the short line guys I know are running that far forward. Also, factory numbers are long for me once I get to 38. This has been consistent with every set of factory Goode numbers for me since the 9100. Go shorter and deeper.

[ForrestGump]

Stevie Boy, If you take 5 skiers and put em on the same exact ski they're going to describe different things.

[Chef23]

@Than Bogan should be off the water by now. Where is his update?

[The_MS]

@scot I went from 8 to 9 and it feels much better. All that I have spoken to have been at 9 0r 10 on the wing. Mad11 is a 34MPH big dawg.

[Than_Bogan]

DIARY ENTRY

 

First impression: Smoooth. This might be the easiest ski I've ever transitioned onto because it just doesn't do anything surprising. Straight into the course at -28 and it felt like the easiest thing ever.

 

This morning I was tired, sore, and stiff (complain complain!!) so I feel that running straight up to my typical practice score of 3 @ -38, and repeating it several times, is a very good debut. I'm pretty impressed.

 

While it wasn't a Day One Miracle, I would say it does almost everything slightly better than my 9900 traditional, and that's saying a lot because I love that 9900.

 

Specific positives:

 

Stability. Maybe this is just another way to say smoooth, but I've skied 5 different Goodes (including this one), and this one is by far the most stable in the water. I've actually found stability is the weakest point of past Goode models, but everything else was so good that I lived with it. The Nano One just doesn't seem to do anything squirrely, and appears to have a huge sweet spot.

 

Instant Shutdown. When I come off the handle, the ski slows right down and pretty much turns itself. It doesn't stall, though -- it just slows to the right speed for a tight line.

 

Almost automatic turning radius. Hard to describe this well, but it's really rare for me on a brand new ski to feel like I'm turning with the right radius consistently. This ski appears to just choose the right radius for me, although I did once manage to defeat it by stepping way on the tail and preventing it from turning at all.

 

All the usual Goodeness: Fast, turns hard, holds angle easily. In these respects it was almost identical to my 9900 traditional.

 

 

Specific negatives:

 

Lack of carry-out to the buoy at -38. I honestly think this is going to turn into a positive once I am more accustomed to the ski, but on Day One the ski was actually shutting down too fast at times. I had to make a point to stay on the handle, or else the ski would "auto-carve" inside the buoy, especially after my off-side pull (into on-side turn). I didn't notice this effect until -38; it was easy to get sufficient width at -28, -32, and -35. I might consider running even less wing angle or simply removing the wing, because the ski shuts down so well that I think I'd be willing to give a little bit of that up for more carry-out??

 

Lulling me to sleep. At times, -38 felt so under control that I got a false sense of security and forgot to actually work for it! One time I was crazy early into 3 and then forgot to do anything. Standing there like a dufus does not work on this ski. Yeah, yeah, this is the kind of "weakness" answer one gives in a job interview, because it's really a positive. But on Day One it was a slight problem.

[ForrestGump]

I've been wanting my ski partner to try his without a wing since the ski rides so deep coming at the buoy. He is not one to try new things, though. :) I have noticed that if he lets his core drop behind the handle, then the ski falls inside the arc of the handle and he gets zinged at the end of the turn.

[Than_Bogan]

@scotchipman I'm at about 28 3/4" to inside the horseshoe of my D3 T-factors. I would guess that isn't quite comparable to a hard-shell setting that measures the same #, but I don't know. I also don't concern myself with 1/16"s on binding placement. Measurement error and slop are too big.

 

It doesn't sound crazy to go back more. Is that likely to improve carry out?

[Than_Bogan]

@Chef23 If you are RFF (and even if you aren't -- see Kim's experience), it's probably easy to mount your boots onto the plate, and you could give it a go after you return from Nationals.

 

Warning: This may cost you $2000....

[bb85025]

For @Chef23's weight he would need 2 of @Than's size skis :)

 

[Chef23]

@bb85025 let's be nice now.

[Than_Bogan]

DIARY ENTRY

 

Spoke with Dave Goode briefly about my perceived lack of carry-out at -38. He agreed that doing nothing and just getting used it might work. But he also suggested I try more wing -- he has found that many adjustments are opposite of normal effect on this ski, and felt that going to 6 would essentially be negative wing and not likely to perform well. After that, he suggested bindings forward 1/8" and back 1/8". He said I should quickly be able to tell if either of those moves gives me more of what I want.

 

I got the impression I should try those two binding positions even if nothing is wrong at all, just in case one of them feels amazing. He seemed to feel that binding position was an important personalization on this ski.

[Horton]

@Than

Great write up

[Than_Bogan]

@Horton Thanks! That's quite a compliment from the Sensei of Ski Writeups. (But where's my Awesome? :) )

 

I REALLY shouldn't admit this in public, but I'm already thinking about how I want to tune this ski for -39. Holy Cart Before the Horse Batman!!

[Than_Bogan]

@Chef23 Why start now? :)

 

But I am serious about trying it. One advantage of "one size" is that if any RFF skier ordered one of these, they'd be getting exactly what I have. And with the G10 plate, it should be pretty straightfoward to mount any bindings that don't require a release mechanism. (Well, probably.)

[rayn]

Now you are going to make me regret my recent A2 purchase. I will not try your ski, I will not try your ski. I figure if I say it enough I won't be tempted, but who am I kidding, let me try it monday :)

[MAD11]

@scotchipman. I ski 34, but ski a lot of 35 in practice to make it easier on my body. Been running 9 degrees. If I'm going to run 35 for several weeks I would go from 2.503 to 2.508. Nothing else would change. Haven't been riding mine the last week. Gave it to my friend for nationals since I'm not competing and theirs wouldn't be in until next week. Glad I did it, but have been pretty grumpy all week riding other stuff. Since my duaghter is also now riding a Nano One and has since run a tournament 4@38 on it I think we're staying with this one.

 

[Boody]

@mad11, your daughter got 4 at 38? That is some skiing! Nice work.

[bhs]

Will someone please post a bad review!

[thager]

P.T Barnum said there's one born every minute!

[Boody]

http://i8.photobucket.com/albums/a44/Bohdi/NanoOne.jpg

 

People have been asking about the graphics. You know they are doing something right if they can sell something that looks like this for 2k, and sell a ton of them

[Stevie Boy]

@boody does your ski have the new top sheet looks pretty ugly i like my skis to look nice does the guy in california still sell ski skinz

[Stevie Boy]

@boody does your ski have the new top sheet looks pretty ugly i like my skis to look nice does the guy in california still sell ski skinz

[ForrestGump]

Yes, that is the new top sheet.

 

Only Dave Goode would sell a ski like that as a first run. Any other manufacturer would sell that as a blem. LOL

[Chef23]

@ShaneH I was just talking about that this morning. I realize it doesn't impact the way it skis but for 2K you would think the finish would be better.

[Boody]

Yea I agree with @ShaneH and @Chef23. I have had "blems" before but for the life of me could not find the blem, and they were much cheaper. This is rediculous. One of my powershell boots cracked pretty good, wasn't that old and asked Goode to help me out a little. Nope. $190 for one boot...Jeez.

 

Like someone else said, sometimes I don't want to like these skis!

[Than_Bogan]

According to Dave, we have Nick Parsons to blame for the look. This is now a 3rd hand quote, but he supposedly insisted: "I wanna see carbon."

 

In the end, Dave agreed mainly because the ski ends up fractionally lighter without a pretty covering.

 

I am also wondering if the lack of overcoat will make the bottom less vulnerable to platform rash.

[Chad_Scott]

The graphics that your guys are looking at (bitching about) are not defects or blemishes. You are looking at pure NANO Carbon Fiber. It is how Goode intentionally designed the NANO ONE to look. It was Nick Parsons who suggested to Dave Goode to remove the two opaque acrylic layer from the top and bottom of the NANO ONE that in past models would hide the carbon from being seen. Nick thought it would be really cool to see the raw carbon after shopping for a high end road racing bike ($9,000.00+) which looks just like the NANO ONE, carbon waves and all. The carbon waves, wrinkles and bunches help make for an interesting look and do not take away from performance. There is actually performance benefit from the removal of the acrylic layers too as the ski is now 1/4 pound lighter. As Confucius says..... Better a diamond with a perceived flaw than a pebble without.

[Than_Bogan]

To be clear: I don't give a damn what it looks like. Don't think any lifelong buoy chaser does. I simply wanted to be sure it was as intended.

 

Really looking forward to some more sets. This ski might be something very special.

[dthate]

brent as always beauty is in the eyes of the beholder, and I see it as quite lovely, and have blown 2k on things far less enjoyable

[tjm]

Looks like "raw energy" to me.

[Than_Bogan]

DIARY ENTRY

 

Second practice day on the ski today. Decided to focus on very short lines, going right down the rope in both sets and starting second set at -32.

 

Per Dave's suggestions, I tried increasing my wing to 8 degrees. This worked fine, so in the second set I tried increasing it to 9 degrees. 9 has always been the factory settings on Goodes and has never worked for me, but I'd have to say the Nano One is not extremely sensitive to wing angle, because 7, 8, and 9, all felt pretty good.

 

Unintuitively, I think I was getting a little better carry out at 8 than I was at 7. 9 seemed awfully similar to 8, and since I couldn't tell much differenec I'll probably stay at 9 just because that's the factory setting.

 

I didn't manage to complete a -38 this morning, but I did get a full 5 and had it absolutely in the bag at 4 another time before executing my patented Massive On Side Choke. These would be excellent scores for me in almost any scenario, but stand out as pretty exciting given that we had a bit of backwash today from high water (and near zero wind). Typically (on previous skis), I require perfect conditions to have any kind of chance at -38.

 

It's also worth noting that -35 is almost silly-easy on this ski. It just felt like another warm-up pass to get ready to tackle -38. Although I have run -35 a fairly high percentage in recent years, it has never seemed quite this easy and automatic.

 

I gave -39 one shot for fun, and got a clear 1.5, which ties the best score I've ever gotten on that line length. Combined with many deep -38s already on the N1, this suggests my recent personal best (1.25 @ -39) on my 9900 is not going to stand for long. That said, I need to back off a bit next time out and double up on -28, -32, -35. Otherwise my form (and my body) are going to suffer.

 

My only problem now is at the finish of my on side (2/4/6 RFF). (As before, this is only an issue at -38.) I have never had a very consistent on-side, so this is nothing too surprising. But the ski is often finishing so hard that I can't possibly hang on. And this happened several times when I was early into 2 and once when I was early into 4. I'm about 99% sure I should fix this with technique and balance adjustments (especially head position), but I probably will also experiment with boot position to see if I can make the ski a little more forgiving to my most common mistake.

 

The weirdest thing about this ski is that the feel of it has immediately raised the bar: Running -35 suddenly means nothing to me*, and I'm getting a little frustrated that I keep doing Stupid Stuff at -38. So I'm actually a little more annoyed with myself than I was on the previous ski! :) But as soon as I calm down and get the feel of this thing, I'm gonna be shocked if -38 doesn't fall pretty regularly for me.

 

*In fact, there's another problem-that-really-is-a-good-thing, which is that I can't really evaluate the ski setup at -35, because it seems easy with any setup. I can't see if I'm getting what I want until -38. That's part of why I was banging hard on -38 today.

 

Updated August practice goal: 2 @ -39. Updated stretch goal for the season: Scare the 4 ball.

[Than_Bogan]

Just got some more tuning advice from Dave. He suggests that on-side over-turn can be addressed by moving the rear boot forward. As it happens, I have quite a bit of room to do that -- for some reason on my 9900 I liked a fairly spread stance. But that may not apply to the Nano One; perhaps I'll end up closer to or at the "standard" stance where the rear toes touches the front boot.

 

Kinda bummed that I probably won't be skiing again until Wed and may not be really banging on short lines until Fri. IF I were to quickly resolve that over-turn, this ski might be Ridiculous.

[6balls]

Go @than. If you start raining 38's I'm going to have to think twice, though have a good # of 38's on the Razor this year, my percentage complete is still low.

[estrom]

Wow - I know it's the bottom of the ski (performance) that matters, but I'm surprised they would put something on the market that looks like that.