Printable View
The SD105s, which I also know very well and love, has much more taper, especially in the tails, than the FL105s, so more slarve friendly from the get go. Both great skis.Quote:
Originally Posted by bry
I did plug the widths (125/105/112) for the SD105 into the effective edge of the FL105, got something like a 50m radius. Would be a fun ski.
Sent fra min LE2123 via Tapatalk
I think the R105 could replace my full rocker M4 Mantras for an all mountain shredder that also handles moguls well.
I'm trying to get a feel for how much more ski the 193 R105s will be compared to my 191 M4 Mantras. Sometimes I find the M4 Mantras a bit soft and lacking a bit of stability (which I've never said about a 191 Volkl before), and I wish they were a bit beefier. But I absolutely love that softer flex in moguls, from ice/refrozen to soft/mashed potatoes, they just bend around everything and absorb vibez so well.
How beastly are the 193 R105s going to be? I want "more ski", but not too much more.
Good question! The R105s will go straight a good bit more stable, weigh about the same, and be versatile as all getout. Can't remember the m4 specs off the top of my head, but I did ski them as rentals way back, and enjoyed them.Quote:
Originally Posted by forumskier
I'll just say they're very good replacements for very good skis, one thing you'll probably notice is that they take a bit more speed and decisiveness to carve. For moguls, I actually believe they'll be more fun than m4s. I'm biased, but the R105s really are awesome daily drivers in soft snow locales.
Sent fra min LE2123 via Tapatalk
I'm betting on this, I have a pair on order. When I skied the FL105 at Snowbird, I felt it was a whisker more demanding then I'd like and wants for the fall line a bit more than I'd like for my local hill. Looking for something fun and slashy to daily drive around my smallish local hill but can still step it up when I travel to CB, Jackson, Snowbird, etc. MO seemed pretty confident that the R105 could very well be the droids I'm looking for. Local hill has no snowmaking and a parking lot elevation over 10k, so the snow stays plenty soft most of the year. Do I understand correctly that there is maybe only one (1) pair of R105 prototypes in existence? Or are there a few and have they been skied by a few folks?Quote:
Originally Posted by arild
Edit to add: I own a pair of BC105s and have a few days in bounds and out on them and freaking LOVE them so far.
Afaik, my pair are the only ones, and my feedback is to just make them match the FL113s for core thickness. I think that's where they're headed for the production run. The FL105s are more fall line oriented, where the Rs are more slashy(still fall line friendlier than most skis out there by a mile).Quote:
Originally Posted by Full Trucker
Both serve their purposes, I have no issues keeping both in my rotation. The 113s definitely got lower mileage this season than last, but for chonky pow, there's really no replacement for displacement.
Sent fra min LE2123 via Tapatalk
I don't wanna downtalk your current order, but from HL, did you ever consider the FR110?Quote:
Originally Posted by Full Trucker
Honestly, those, or Praxis MVP108 or Dyna MFree108 sounds a bit more up your alley if you ask me... Or did I totally misenterprit your preferences?
Yeah, going HB122 for the chonky pow... skied those in Snowbird and they're giggle inducing.Quote:
Originally Posted by arild
MO has also suggested that the FR110 would probably be a good DD for me, if I don't get along with the R105. I've also heard really good things about the MVP108. So I don't take your comment as downtalking my order, certainly worth considering. Though I am optimistic the R105 is going to work pretty well for me, based on how I felt about the FL version and how much I love the BC version. From all descriptions of the R, in terms of required input to performance output it seems like it'll ski somewhere in between the two, favoring being closer to the FL. Which would be totally good by me.Quote:
Originally Posted by waxoff
Just received an outlet pair of FL105s. Holy cow they are beefy. Can't wait to put them on snow. :yourock:
They rule! Esp the 192’s. Better up your squat game!Quote:
Originally Posted by east or bust
Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums
Yahtzee! Thanks Marshall!
Attachment 500113
Yeah Buddy!
Outlet FL105 delivery day. Woot woot!
To use existing mount, I am ~1cm back from the recommended range (76.3cm from tail, 178cm). Probably better suited for a ~182cm so guessing I won’t die.
Attachment 500135
I really liked mine at -1cm FWIW. Not mad about you skiing them there!
Enjoy mang
Good intel. Thanks. I will definitely ski them a bit before I consider putting any more holes in these beauties. Good on ya for killer outlet deals!Quote:
Originally Posted by Marshal Olson
Thanks you guys for saving me from the outlet FL105’s….it was close. I’m so happy with my C105’s I’m crossing my fingers for a pair of R105’s to pop up somewhere. It was also really hard to resist the heavy 132’s that went by a while ago. Fine skis.
Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums
Website shows 1 pair left in both sizes... just saying!Quote:
Originally Posted by riff
Attachment 500262
I sacked up and bought the last pair of 193 R105s. Stoked!! Gonna go -12cm with Pivots most likely.
Looks like the last pair of 186s are gone too.
Out of curiosity, which boots, and what BSL?Quote:
Originally Posted by forumskier
Sent fra min LE2123 via Tapatalk
What is your BSL again?Quote:
Originally Posted by Doremite
306 and recall they were mounted @296? I can just about eek out that 1cm but obv brings me back a bit.Quote:
Originally Posted by iriponsnow
Raptor 140, 325mmQuote:
Originally Posted by arild
An awesome ski IMO. I have the previous version MVP109 mounted for 315bsl if you want to take them for a spin this winter.Quote:
Originally Posted by Full Trucker
Word! Get your ass down here this winter, being all your skis, and we’ll post up our own demo day in the parking lot. I’ll have R105, BC105, Whitehorse 110, and HB122 all mounted for 315 BSL for you to check out if you want. I suppose I should also come up to Loveland at some point this winter as well…Quote:
Originally Posted by N1CK.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Doremite
Yes, I was at the rec mount @ 296, so you should be 5mm back. FWIW, I thought they could go back!
Definitely right call to go -12.Quote:
Originally Posted by forumskier
Sent fra min LE2123 via Tapatalk
100%Quote:
Originally Posted by arild
Not to split hairs - or maybe to and this is TGR after all - but i am reading standard mount is 78.4cm from tail +/- 1cm so rearward suggested mount point 77.4cm from tail. I am measuring my boot center line @76.3cm after shifting the heel piece back to accommodate 306mm. Hence my “1cm back” comment.Quote:
Originally Posted by iriponsnow
yup, so reusing the holes would put you at about -12.5Quote:
Originally Posted by Doremite
classic chargy feel. May be a good match, depending on your style.
I’d say after you get them on snow for a day or two, if needed; it would be easy enough to pop an extra set of toe holes, keep re-using the heels, and go +1 to +1.5 from where you are now.
Give 'em a try but I'd be quick to re-mount those bad dogs. The way I'm reading this is; the recommended line is at 78.4 and your BSL midsole is at 76.3? If so, that's closer to 1" rather than 1cm. Marshal's plan for 1.5 sets of holes is a good idea.Quote:
Originally Posted by Doremite
Agreed. I am not hand wringing over this. I was more so just reacting to the notion I may only be .5cm back whereas I am reading it that I am more like 1cm from your rearward -1 rec.Quote:
Originally Posted by Marshal Olson
I typically prefer a more directional feel. Planning ~82cm from the tail on my 180 AM 100s ;)
No qualms about dropping new toe holes 1.5-2cm forward bringing me to ~78. I definitely plan to try them first - hopefully without over thinking it.Quote:
Originally Posted by One (+) Sentence
So confused, I mounted em as instructed bump.Quote:
Originally Posted by Doremite
If you mounted at 77.4 from tail which would be within the recommended range and I had to move the heel back a full cm to go from a 296 to 306bsl, this all makes sense. Or I suck at measuring stuff but I tend to be particular about such things.Quote:
Originally Posted by iriponsnow
We are all cool as far as I’m concerned. The most important thing here is that I have 178cm HL FL105s, a ski I was just slightly too cheap to buy at “retail” given the 181cm Kastle BMX 105 HP already in the stable. Outlet pricing = resistance proved futile.
We should try to ski together irip, but I think you may be too far south. Mainly Smugglers (bash badge+) and Burke (family passes) for me, occasionally Jay (4 packs). Too cheap to buy day passes elsewhere and my fam obligations leave me small windows but I typically have mid week flex.
^ absolutely! Lets making happen!
I think we need to do a HL family VT/NE summit. All 5 of us maybe.
I might even go -12.5
You could, but I strongly recommend -12.Quote:
Originally Posted by forumskier
Sent fra min LE2123 via Tapatalk
Same as Arild. Given the flex pattern, I’d go -12 as the set back traditional mount with a head raptor boot.
Just for reference, I'm 203lbs, 177cm, ski 304mm bsl WCR 140s in their most upright position, and ski those at -11. I did ski them at -12 for a while, when my boots were set up more aggressively, but I had more luck adjusting to my other skis when the boots were a touch more relaxed (no spoilers, minimum forward lean, etc).
Sent fra min LE2123 via Tapatalk
Quote:
Originally Posted by iriponsnow
Let’s keep in touch, especially reach out if you’ve ever heading up to Jay or Smuggs (I realize no one goes out to their way to ski Burke, terrain in underrated but their snow totals are f’kn lame. True king of ec spring though if you dig bombing big steep EMPTY groomers :))Quote:
Originally Posted by L8APX
Hi Marshal how many people would you need down to run a special long run of a 105 wide ski? 198-200cm? Has to be enough of us that would buy them.
I like the R99 Comp and they are still basically new after being skied 80% of the time last year but wouldn't want to go slightly wider but lose the metal.
Went for a dedicated short radius race ski this offseason but I think that is what my wish list for next offseason would be.