David S

Although I haven't skied the 2.0 and 3.0 versions, I have asked about half a dozen people who have. The short answer is there appears to be very little difference. Answers range from the new version feels slightly softer in tips and tails to no noticeable difference and one person even saying the new version feels slightly stiffer. I heard someone say the new version limits the carbon layer to only cover the mid section of the ski instead of extending all the way to the edges making the ski less torsionally...

Found this answer from Contour: Sorry for that experience. Let me ask you if the newer pair already has a black back? With early versions delamination would always occur if skins are stored glued together without 'cheat sheet' in contrast to the instructions. After changing a few parameters in the lamination process, it is now possible to store them glued together without any problems. If delaminations occur in a newer version it's no longer a principal issue but a defect in the application of the hybrid gl...

Can you comment on how these skins should be stored longterm? The instructions say that a cheat sheet is not needed however one of the comments here says the glue stuck to itself and pulled off the backing when stored over the summer and to use a separator (which is not provided).

Love these hybrid skins. These have good glide and grip, are light, packable and don't absorb water. In this sense they are comparable to other nylon/mohair mix skins. The standout feature is the glue. I no longer feel like the hardest part of my uphill journey is pulling the skins off at the top.

Awesome ski. Performs well in a variety of conditions and can be used as a quiver of one though might want to go narrower for very late season tours. No weight penalty compared to the M tour 90. Unlike its predecessor (Mythic 97) you do not need to size up with the ski. Compared to the Zero g 95 a bit less edge hold but skis better and more fun in most other conditions.