Nordica Enforcers - TGR-Enough for Their Own Thread

Planning to shop for off season sales on the 104s, but would like some reassurance this is the right ski for me. If you were a lame dad who doesn't ski nearly as hard or as often as you used to, mainly ski east coast inbounds and trees (with the occasional weekend trip to Utah) would the Enforcer 104s be a good one-ski quiver choice?

My current setup are ancient Solomon teneighty guns, center mounted (recovered park skier) in DIRE need of replacement. I'd like to go with something a bit wider than these @98 underfoot and not center mounted but not totally traditional. I've been reading and comparing ski reviews, and I feel like the enforcer 104s in 179 would be a good fit. I'm 5'7", 170ish and demoed the QST106 in 181 last year for 3 days on a trip to Utah. I liked the skis quite a bit, but felt like I was over driving the tips after I'd gained some confidence on them and was charging harder. Could just be bad technique, but they were a ton of fun overall and I wanted to find something that was similarly playful, but more of a double tip as I still ride switch to the road once in awhile... I was attracted to the Enforcers for the positive reviews on cutting through crud, carving well on groomers, and still being a relatively forgiving ski in bumps and such.

I've also considered:
Line Sick Day 104
Fischer Ranger 102

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crock

Planning to shop for off season sales on the 104s, but would like some reassurance this is the right ski for me. If you were a lame dad who doesn't ski nearly as hard or as often as you used to, mainly ski east coast inbounds and trees (with the occasional weekend trip to Utah) would the Enforcer 104s be a good one-ski quiver choice?

My current setup are ancient Solomon teneighty guns, center mounted (recovered park skier) in DIRE need of replacement. I'd like to go with something a bit wider than these @98 underfoot and not center mounted but not totally traditional. I've been reading and comparing ski reviews, and I feel like the enforcer 104s in 179 would be a good fit. I'm 5'7", 170ish and demoed the QST106 in 181 last year for 3 days on a trip to Utah. I liked the skis quite a bit, but felt like I was over driving the tips after I'd gained some confidence on them and was charging harder. Could just be bad technique, but they were a ton of fun overall and I wanted to find something that was similarly playful, but more of a double tip as I still ride switch to the road once in awhile... I was attracted to the Enforcers for the positive reviews on cutting through crud, carving well on groomers, and still being a relatively forgiving ski in bumps and such.

I've also considered:
Line Sick Day 104
Fischer Ranger 102

---

I think you’ll love them. Don’t be afraid to look at the 100 too if you’re deal hunting.

Location: low elevation often manky Western Oregon low angle ski resorts

Already have: OG E98’s (the 2 layer titanium flat tail ugly lightning bolt topsheet ones) for junk snow or who knows conditions, Armada Tracer 118s for deep and storm days

Style: Directional but semi-neutral stance, not crushing the shins too much, breaking the tails loose drifting as much as possible, popping off small features as much as possible in soft snow, windshield wiper drifting through crust crap. I don’t think long effective edge / lack of tip&tail taper are my thing.

Want: Everyday ski for skiing as much off piste as possible, ranging from packed wet mank to chop to dry moguls to 6” fluff on crust/mank/old snow. Notice the theme about warm mank???

E110 or E104?
Or something else? I’m really thinking Praxis MVP 109 might fit the bill ...

My Mantra 102's have stolen my hard-snow heart, so I think I might be moving my 191 E104s on. I demoed the enforcers back to back with the M5 and liked the E104 better at the time. I've since moved to wider opener-er terrain, and got back in ski shape (I demoed like the first week of the season, a mistake in retrospect). In my mind the charm of the E104 is that you can ski it reasonably hard considering you can also ski it with basically zero effort when you want to. It's hard to imagine a better, more versatile compromise for a one ski quiver for someone who skis 10-20 days a year. As long as you value dampness over pop/energy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SchralphMacchio

Location: low elevation often manky Western Oregon low angle ski resorts

Already have: OG E98’s (the 2 layer titanium flat tail ugly lightning bolt topsheet ones) for junk snow or who knows conditions, Armada Tracer 118s for deep and storm days

Style: Directional but semi-neutral stance, not crushing the shins too much, breaking the tails loose drifting as much as possible, popping off small features as much as possible in soft snow, windshield wiper drifting through crust crap. I don’t think long effective edge / lack of tip&tail taper are my thing.

Want: Everyday ski for skiing as much off piste as possible, ranging from packed wet mank to chop to dry moguls to 6” fluff on crust/mank/old snow. Notice the theme about warm mank???

E110 or E104?
Or something else? I’m really thinking Praxis MVP 109 might fit the bill ...

---

Both the Enforcer 104 and 110 will do exactly that. When I read your requirements list, I immediately thought of the 110. Those are the conditions I really enjoy it in.

The 104 skis similarly but is a bit more precise. It is a better carver and seems to have a little more energy versus the 110. The 110 is more damp but so loose and so fun in soft snow and in PNW trees and mini-golf techy lines.

Neither are true chargers, though.

Selling a new pair of 19/20 110s in 185. $480. Amazing ski. Bought as a backup. I've never encountered a situation where they've felt terribly out of place.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bandit Man

Both the Enforcer 104 and 110 will do exactly that. When I read your requirements list, I immediately thought of the 110. Those are the conditions I really enjoy it in.

The 104 skis similarly but is a bit more precise. It is a better carver and seems to have a little more energy versus the 110. The 110 is more damp but so loose and so fun in soft snow and in PNW trees and mini-golf techy lines.

Neither are true chargers, though.

---

Cool, thanks! At 135 lbs I don’t need a true charger. Will probably be driving with a K2 Mindbender 120 boot as well.

Seems like if you first thought of the E110, and since I have the E98, the 110 is the way to go if I can find a good deal on the 177s.

Also looking at Woodsman 108 177s ...

Pegleg, 185 is just too long for me, unless the straight tape pull is actually like 181. 135 lbs is the key here ...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SchralphMacchio

Cool, thanks! At 135 lbs I don’t need a true charger. Will probably be driving with a K2 Mindbender 120 boot as well.

Seems like if you first thought of the E110, and since I have the E98, the 110 is the way to go if I can find a good deal on the 177s.

Also looking at Woodsman 108 177s ...

Pegleg, 185 is just too long for me, unless the straight tape pull is actually like 181. 135 lbs is the key here ...

---

FWIW, my son was 135-140-lbs last year and skied the 177-cm 110. It worked really well for him in soft snow, especially the trees and tight quarters. He loved it there. His only complaint was the 16.5-m sidecut, which felt want to turn too tight on really firm groomers.

He wanted the benefits of the short length but with a bigger radius. He had to learn you don’t always get what you want. He has since grown to 165-170-lbs and is now on the 185 110’s.

I could see a shorter Woodsman 108 working out well, too.


Sent from my iPad using TGR Forums

Thanks for that comment. Radius on the 177 Woods 108 is 21.6m so maybe that’s where I keep looking for now, but if a solid deal turns up on an Enforcer I might still bite.

I think my 178 E98 is 19.5m, so is my Armada Tracer 118.

Despite being 41, I’m still not getting any bigger (been the same weight for 20 years), and certainly aren’t getting any stronger ... probably should stay away from upsizing hah.

I've owned 104s and current own 93s.

I feel like the 93s stand out in their category more than the 104s stand out in their category. The 104s are really, REALLY good skis, but I have others in the 10xmm slot which I prefer. The 93s are just killers on low-tide days, and have become one of my favorite skis.

I'd love to ski the 110s, just for kicks.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SchralphMacchio

Cool, thanks! At 135 lbs I don’t need a true charger. Will probably be driving with a K2 Mindbender 120 boot as well.

Seems like if you first thought of the E110, and since I have the E98, the 110 is the way to go if I can find a good deal on the 177s.

Also looking at Woodsman 108 177s ...

Pegleg, 185 is just too long for me, unless the straight tape pull is actually like 181. 135 lbs is the key here ...

---

Straight tape pull is 183.5 cm. I also ski them +2cm of the line and love them there. Much easier to throw sideways/slarve without loosing much stability. Or groomer performance if any. I’m 5’9” 150lb for reference.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by N1CK.

I've owned 104s and current own 93s.

I feel like the 93s stand out in their category more than the 104s stand out in their category. The 104s are really, REALLY good skis, but I have others in the 10xmm slot which I prefer. The 93s are just killers on low-tide days, and have become one of my favorite skis.

I'd love to ski the 110s, just for kicks.

---

Curious what other skis you have in the 10x slot? I have 110s and 94s, but am looking at others to add in the 102-105 range for some more variability in the quiver instead of another pair of Enforcers.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ABinThe603

Curious what other skis you have in the 10x slot? I have 110s and 94s, but am looking at others to add in the 102-105 range for some more variability in the quiver instead of another pair of Enforcers.

---

Got to look at the Mantra 102.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ABinThe603

Curious what other skis you have in the 10x slot? I have 110s and 94s, but am looking at others to add in the 102-105 range for some more variability in the quiver instead of another pair of Enforcers.

---

Mini road trip last week to Tetons with M102 and E110. Covered. Also own the E93 which I'm on a bunch at home.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ABinThe603

Curious what other skis you have in the 10x slot? I have 110s and 94s, but am looking at others to add in the 102-105 range for some more variability in the quiver instead of another pair of Enforcers.

---

I have the 179cm Enforcer Free 104 and the 180cm Rustler 11 (112mm). I’m really really happy with both the E104 and the R11. Both the Enforcer 104 and R11 are dampish, stable enough while still being very playful and easy to ski with a centered upright stance. Both are perfect for where and how I ski at Whistler. I ski them a ton. But honestly I could own just one of those two? They are that similar in feel/use. I would probably own just an Enforcer 110 if the sizing was more in line (eg 181?) with what I like.

So I think an E104 and E110 will be too similar to each other.


I’m also not a fan of super flat tails. Or far back mounts. That being said I recently I got an M102....which has both of those. Mostly due to reading the threads on here. And wanting a challenge/change in the quiver. So I took a chance. And I liked it.

The M102 is a lot more ski than the Enforcer and R11. Therefore, I think the M102 “complements” the E104/110, as you need to ski it, which is good for you. I’ve hit speeds I haven’t hit in years.

The M102 makes you want to ski fast. Whereas, the Enforcer let’s you ski fast?

So build your quiver, get an M102, and try not to kill yourself. You will appreciate the Enforcers even more.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kc_7777

I have the 179cm Enforcer Free 104 and the 180cm Rustler 11 (112mm). I’m really really happy with both the E104 and the R11. Both the Enforcer 104 and R11 are dampish, stable enough while still being very playful and easy to ski with a centered upright stance. Both are perfect for where and how I ski at Whistler. I ski them a ton. But honestly I could own just one of those two? They are that similar in feel/use. I would probably own just an Enforcer 110 if the sizing was more in line (eg 181?) with what I like.

So I think an E104 and E110 will be too similar to each other.

---

FWIW I (5'9", 165 lbs) happen to have an R11 (188) and an Enforcer 110 (185) in the quiver. The Enforcer is a decent, accessible all around tool which does not let you down anywhere. It skies shorter than it's length would suggest. A good one ski quiver in a place where hardpack is not prevailing.

But for what I mainly got it (side/backcountry) I prefer to be on the R11 - stiffer, more stable, has a considerably higher top speed (especially in crud) without being that much less maneuverable. So probably going to unload the 110s or at least exchange them for a 191 length.

I would like to try an E110. Wish they were a 180? 177 or 185 messes me up (5’7”, 165lb). And I love my R11s and would not likely own both an E110 and R11 at the same time. R11 at 180cm is my length.

My point was the E104/E110/R11 will all ski pretty similarly.

By adding an M102 it would add something “different” in the quiver.

I used to have a quiver of 5 pretty similar skis (eg similar mount point, rocker profile, skiing style) just in different waist widths (95mm-122mm).

I am moving towards having different skis, with a much closer waist widths, that each ski a bit differently?

eg....I own an M102, Elan Ripstick 106, and Enforcer 104....pretty similar widths from 102mm-106mm....but three different skis, with different mount points (-9, -7.7, -6.5) , that I take out depending on what I feel like...raging, lighter feel, good all around etc?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kc_7777

I would like to try an E110. Wish they were a 180? 177 or 185 messes me up (5’7”, 165lb). And I love my R11s and would not likely own both an E110 and R11 at the same time. R11 at 180cm is my length.

My point was the E104/E110/R11 will all ski pretty similarly.

---

The E110 and R11 do not ski similar - see my comment above - unless your style is linking shorter turns at moderate speed. The 110 185 is a 183 straight pull length fwiw - and they still ski really short, no need for a 180 length at all.

If you got an R11 in 180 no need to add a 110 Enforcer at all unless you are really unhappy with the first.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hicks

The E110 and R11 do not ski similar - see my comment above - unless your style is linking shorter turns at moderate speed. The 110 185 is a 183 straight pull length fwiw - and they still ski really short, no need for a 180 length at all.

If you got an R11 in 180 no need to add a 110 Enforcer at all unless you are really unhappy with the first.

---

Let’s agree to disagree. We’re not on the same page?

I don’t want an E110. As I love my R11s and E104s.

I was trying to point out to that the guy a few posts back that he should branch out, get something different than another Enforcer?

And I think the Enforcer 104 (and likely E110s) ski pretty similar to R11s (both have lots of tail rise, therefore are easy to slarve yet they can both also carve, are still dampish, but still easy to ski) my point was that Enforcer Frees and R11s ski different than M102s (which require more skier input)...so get something like a M102 to push yourself.

I have 180cm R11s and 179cm E104s....love them both.... which means I have zero need for an E110. Just said I would like to try an E110.

Re E110 sizing...I know I like skis that are 179-180cm (straight pull ~177-178cm ) so why would I want a 185cm (straight pull 183)...eg +5cm? Doesn’t make sense to me to have one ski in your quiver that is 5cm longer than all your other skis?

For the skinny ski ins a 2 ski quiver , 94 or 100? This is to be paired with a fairly capable on harder snow 118 underfoot Praxis Q, On the surface the 94 seems to make the most sense here, but ive typically been on something 100 underfoot here. Does the 94 gain enough in low tide bumps and groomers to switch to here?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Duffman

For the skinny ski ins a 2 ski quiver , 94 or 100? This is to be paired with a fairly capable on harder snow 118 underfoot Praxis Q, On the surface the 94 seems to make the most sense here, but ive typically been on something 100 underfoot here. Does the 94 gain enough in low tide bumps and groomers to switch to here?

---

Skiing the 94 tomorrow for the 1st time. I’ll provide feedback. Have skied original 100 and owned the 110.

Where are most folks mounting the Enforcer 104? I got it mainly as a firmer snow ski so not too concerned about float. Line is -8.8 i believe. I see a fair number of +2 as well, read the blister input on this. Pondering the in-between of +1. I know it's got a loosy goosey tail.

Anyone run it at +1? So -7.8....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ender9099

Where are most folks mounting the Enforcer 104? I got it mainly as a firmer snow ski so not too concerned about float. Line is -8.8 i believe. I see a fair number of +2 as well, read the blister input on this. Pondering the in-between of +1. I know it's got a loosy goosey tail.

Anyone run it at +1? So -7.8....

---

My 104s have ended up at +1 because of shorter BSL on new boots. Bought for the same purpose you describe. Liking them more every day. Pretty versatile ski IMO

Okay, here is my take on the Enforcer 104 Free:

I ski the 104 in 191cm with a Look Pivot 18 mounted on recommended. I am 6.2 and my weight is 225lb. So I am more on the tall and heavy side. I skied the 104 on firm groomers, slush, pow and refrozen slush.

What good can be said about the ski?
It is easy to ski. It does not need much input. It can (and somewhat must) be driven from a more centered stance. It is fun to ski in pow, soft snow and slush. Here the ski shines and delivers a lot of fun and good times. When my others skis (mostly chargers) have worn me out, which happens on day 3 or 4 of a ski trip, this ski is my "fun saver".

What is this ski not really good at?
Crud, firm conditions, refrozen slush and high speed. I guess for my size the ski is not made for those conditions or for high speed skiing. It takes some effort and a lot of concentration to control the ski in those conditions.

For that I consider going -1 or maybe even -2.

Other than that it is a nice ski. I just got myself an Enforcer 193 (from 2019) and I am curious how it will compare to the 104.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by obi wan kenobi

Okay, here is my take on the Enforcer 104 Free:

I ski the 104 in 191cm with a Look Pivot 18 mounted on recommended. I am 6.2 and my weight is 225lb. So I am more on the tall and heavy side. I skied the 104 on firm groomers, slush, pow and refrozen slush.

What good can be said about the ski?
It is easy to ski. It does not need much input. It can (and somewhat must) be driven from a more centered stance. It is fun to ski in pow, soft snow and slush. Here the ski shines and delivers a lot of fun and good times. When my others skis (mostly chargers) have worn me out, which happens on day 3 or 4 of a ski trip, this ski is my "fun saver".

What is this ski not really good at?
Crud, firm conditions, refrozen slush and high speed. I guess for my size the ski is not made for those conditions or for high speed skiing. It takes some effort and a lot of concentration to control the ski in those conditions.

For that I consider going -1 or maybe even -2.

Other than that it is a nice ski. I just got myself an Enforcer 193 (from 2019) and I am curious how it will compare to the 104.

---

I think you offer a fair assessment of the Enforcer 104 Free. It and just about every other Enforcer (other than the 115 Free/Pro) are really not designed for big, heavier skiers who push a ski hard.

For instance, last year, when my kid weighed 135-140-lbs, he loved the 186 104 Free. He could ski it fast in any condition. Fast forward to this year when he is 170-lbs (most of it muscle) and he found the speed limit on the 104 Free and now skis the Mantra M102.

I really like the Enforcer 104 Free as the one ski to do it all, especially when doing it all also means not having to push hard all the time.