Chasing My Dream Daily Driver - The Heritage Lab FL105

Just popping in to reiterate how awesome the FL105 is. Every time I get on it I'm blown away by how damp and fast it is. Incredibly confidence inspiring.

As for tune, I've had no problem with the way Marshal shipped them out, and haven't touched a thing. I find them to rail on anything firm, but I can still get the tail out of the way when needed. Could be my favorite ski of all time.

Conversely, I haven't got along well with the FR110 and will probably try to move them along. I added a heel mount for my wife, and she gave them a go for three days in what should have been pretty perfect conditions for that ski, but she just didn't jibe with them either. Perhaps we are both a bit too traditional in style.

That being said, I can't wait for the R110 & R120. I have a good feeling about those!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shorty_J

Mark the edge with a sharpie. Where the sharpie gets removed is where you cut. Start conservative and work towards where you want to stop.

Freehanding is not too difficult.

Sent from my SM-A536W using Tapatalk

---

@Carlh - Yes, this! Mark with sharpie, generally at the contact points. I "cheat the bevel" to increase the bevel tip and tail. You can just use the guide you have, turned so the file is perpendicular to the edge (instead of ~30* to the edge as is designed). This adds approximately 1* of bevel (based on my bevel gauge). I only do this on the cambered skis from the wrapper, but based on feedback, folks really like this tune. Cheers!

I’ll give this a shot one night this week. I use the sharpie method for any bevel change and it is helpful but wasn’t sure how to up the angle, turning the guide will be easier than printing a spacer.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Marshal Olson

@Carlh - Yes, this! Mark with sharpie, generally at the contact points. I "cheat the bevel" to increase the bevel tip and tail. You can just use the guide you have, turned so the file is perpendicular to the edge (instead of ~30* to the edge as is designed). This adds approximately 1* of bevel (based on my bevel gauge). I only do this on the cambered skis from the wrapper, but based on feedback, folks really like this tune. Cheers!

---

Awesome! LMK how it goes!

And I know you know this, but for folks reading... a little goes a long way, and its easier to add more bevel vs. take it away!

For HL customers, I am always down to hop on a quick Facetime if you have questions on finer details like this. Just text/email me to set up a good time.

Attachment 491080 I bought a demo pair from Marshal on the outlet page and he hooked me up right away so I could ski powder on the Grand Envers and the Periades Glacier. Avy conditions prevented us from doing much else. First time I ever tried out a ski shape like this. It’s not that intuitive but I felt more confident at the end of the day.


Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by abcdethan

First time I ever tried out a ski shape like this. It’s not that intuitive but I felt more confident at the end of the day.

---

Say more about this, por favor.

Quote:

---

Hey Marshall,

Here are some notes I had on two days of testing Jeff's c105s compared to my bmt 109s.

Setup notes
Boots: Tecnica zero g pro tour 26.5

My bmt 109 186s are mounted on the line with alpinists that have a +2 mm delta. They are the 2016 model with a fair amount of use and a very old 1:1 degree tune.

The c105 185s straight tape measured 1.7 cm less than the bmts. Mounted with atk freeraider evo 15s with the free ride spacer that have a +7mm delta. The distance from the pins to the tip of the ski was the same for both the bmts and c105s. Mounted at the more rearward mount point.

Day 1 - 2,000 vert 20-30 degree tree skiing
Conditions were firm windscour to 4 inches of new snow down to 1 inch of new snow on an edge-able firm base. Generally speed pow conditions with some windfunk up top to some lumpy firm conditions with 1 inch of new down low.

The c105s have a lot of the same “bmt magic” that sucks you towards skiing the fall line. The full rocker shape made hitting any snow funkiness even at speed comparable to the bmt 109s but was a little less loose in the tails. They were comparably easy to pivot and shut down speed when needed in new snow.

The c105s were a touch better at carving a turn when on a firm base at the bottom of the run. Meaning that it was easier to hold a carve than slarve/drift. Overall super fun.

Day 2 - 8,000 vert laps on frozen corn -> a mix of wind board/windbuff -> protocorn/sun cooked wind board -> proper corn -> a steep sustained 45 degree pencil hard skied off narrow chute (the cross on mount tallac).

In variable firm conditions I had to work/muscle these skis around a good bit more than the bmts. The bmts are much easier to go from carving to drifting mid turn at speed where as the c105s wanted to finish the turn and took effort to change turn type. This was much more pronounced in firmer snow than in the softer new snow on day 1 and on the run with good corn on day 2. Despite feeling less comfortable in my ability to throw a drifting turn in variable snow, I still skied similar speeds to what I would do on the bmts in that terrain according to my gps watch. My max speed 38 mph it was just scarier and took more muscle.

For the final lap, I would have never skied the more direct steeper line on the cross I did on my bmts but the edgehold on the c105s was quite confidence inspiring during hop turns. I would put the firm snow performance comparable to my main spring ski (the blizzard 0G 105 in a 180). Muscling the c105 185s around on tight hop turns was harder than the 180 0Gs.

The apron and exit after the chute on the cross was pretty manky. I had to tighten my boots down another buckle than normal to keep the ski tracking where I wanted. I think you would have to be a very very good skier to ski these skis in variable snow on a lighter boot. My zero g pro tours were a great fit for this setup.

Differences noticed in order of significance

1. More similar to the bmt109 in new snow. Better edgehold but a good bit less loose in the tail on firm snow
2. The biggest difference was that the c105s had a stronger and more noticeable tail. The c105 tail was harder to break or feather into a drifting turn. It liked to stay more locked into the turn and took more effort/precision to drift. This was much more noticeable in firmer and variable conditions than in soft snow (new snow or ripe corn)
3. the c105 had much better firm steep snow performance than the bmt109s. It seemed like a pretty direct a trade off between the more loose nature of the bmts and the better firm snow performance of the c105s
4. The c105s felt a touch shorter in front of the binding while skiing. Probably due to the difference in binding delta. The tail felt the same length despite measuring a bit shorter. I’m more sure how much of this is due to the stiffness of the tail or the sharpness of the tune.
5. While I would never opt for the bmt109s in a 176 over a 186 I’d be curious in trying the c105 in a 178 as a replacement for my blizzard OG 105s as my firm snow ski to be better suited for hop turns and technical terrain. And/or the 185 but with some detuning.

---

Thought a few folks would appreciate these thoughts and feedback I recieved via email comparing and contrasting the BC105 and BMT109, from a BMT aficionado.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Marshal Olson

Thought a few folks would appreciate these thoughts and feedback I recieved via email comparing and contrasting the BC105 and BMT109, from a BMT aficionado.

---

Marshal - the fact that you made a ski which compares so favorably to the bmt109 is nothing short of spectacular. I can definitely see trading looseness with better firm snow performance being a great tradeoff for many folks. I am solidly in the "BMT fanboi" club, but when mine kick the can, I'll be first in line.

Great work, keep it up!

Sent from my Pixel 8 Pro using Tapatalk

As an aside.

The FL105's ability to produce perfectly controlled 50mph powerdrifts on 45* windbuff that can just roll right onto edge with subtle increase in angle any time you want to accelerate is ridonculous.

The fact that it is also a legitimately fun, surfy, and forgiving mogul/tree/powder/groomer ski all in one is just icing on the cake.

I’m stoked to read all this. I’m really digging my 185 c105’s and have detuned them a fair bit; they are my replacement for the zero g 105’s for DD status and midwinter/mank possible traverses. Taking them to a Chugach traverse next month; i just spent a few hot spring days running around WA resorts with a visiting pal who doesn’t tour much and had a really good time at all speeds, occasionally forgetting they are even light touring skis.
I will be watching the HL outlet for some FL105’s i expect…


Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Marshal Olson

As an aside.

The FL105's ability to produce perfectly controlled 50mph powerdrifts on 45* windbuff that can just roll right onto edge with subtle increase in angle any time you want to accelerate is ridonculous.

The fact that it is also a legitimately fun, surfy, and forgiving mogul/tree/powder/groomer ski all in one is just icing on the cake.

---

I will echo a few defining impressions i have from 185 fl105's:

1.) they get on edge WAY better than fl113's and are happy to carve across the fall line. They generate energy out of turns and do not need to stay in the fall line like the fl113 (but the fl113's will be staying because the fl105 also doesn't point it or flatten pedestrians like fl113's)
2.) they slide/pivot/skid/slarve or whatever you want to do off edge way better than you would think looking at their profile, flex, sidecut, etc
3.) they are completely manageable in moguls (if you can ski moguls). like surprisingly good

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Marshal Olson

Thought a few folks would appreciate these thoughts and feedback I recieved via email comparing and contrasting the BC105 and BMT109, from a BMT aficionado.

---

That was good!
Have you recieved something similar regarding 94s / BC90s?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Marshal Olson

Thought a few folks would appreciate these thoughts and feedback I recieved via email comparing and contrasting the BC105 and BMT109, from a BMT aficionado.

---

Further confirmation that I need to get a local buddy of mine out for a few laps on my BC105s... he's a dedicated BMT109 fanboi and was sad that his delaminated and couldn't get another pair. I think he's said they were his favorite skis of all time.

And looking at pictures the rocker profile of the BMT, it makes sense to me that it might feel looser in the tail just based on the rocker flair/curve at the end of the tail the BMT has that the BC105 doesn't. The BC105 has the same long low rocker but is straight-ish all the way to the tip of the tail, that it would hold a carve better and want to finish a turn more is understandable.

https://blisterreview.com/wp-content...Volkl-BMT3.jpg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Full Trucker

And looking at pictures the rocker profile of the BMT, it makes sense to me that it might feel looser in the tail just based on the rocker flair/curve at the end of the tail the BMT has that the BC105 doesn't. The BC105 has the same long low rocker but is straight-ish all the way to the tip of the tail, that it would hold a carve better and want to finish a turn more is understandable.

---

Yessir! I would also add that the BC105 has less taper (ie the sidecut goes further back into the tail) than the BMT109, which was an intentional design choice, too help them hold a line on firm snow and prevent unwanted tail wash.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sf

That was good!
Have you recieved something similar regarding 94s / BC90s?

---

Yes, I would say the conclusion is generally that the snow feel and variable snow performance is similar.

The BC90 is more rockered to help it feel less hooked up and float/pivot better in all manner of soft snow, where the BMT94 feels much more traditional in comparison. Conversely, the BMT feels a little more engaged on really really hard wind board.

In particular, the 184 BC90 is WAY more maneuverable than the 187 BMT 94, where the 187 can take more input from big boots and has a higher speed limit on hard snow.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Marshal Olson

Yes, I would say the conclusion is generally that the snow feel and variable snow performance is similar.

The BC90 is more rockered to help it feel less hooked up and float/pivot better in all manner of soft snow, where the BMT94 feels much more traditional in comparison. Conversely, the BMT feels a little more engaged on really really hard wind board.

In particular, the 184 BC90 is WAY more maneuverable than the 187 BMT 94, where the 187 can take more input from big boots and has a higher speed limit on hard snow.

---

Thanks!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Killing the gnar after 22” on the 105

Attachment 491645Attachment 491646

Sick shots!

Sent fra min LE2123 via Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by arild

Sick shots!

Sent fra min LE2123 via Tapatalk

---

Hey Arild,

Can you hook me up with some HL skis in Europe, please?
I kind of got my mind on the FL105 and FL 113 but would not object to experience other all mountain chargers of your recommendation of course.
I am a 188 cm, 100 kg, agressive forward stance skier, getting along very well with a 184 katana but looking for something a bit longer.
Looking forward to hear from you 🙂🙏.

Kiril

Hi Kiril!

I ship to Europe all the time, no trouble at all. There is one last pair of FL113 available in the Outlet on the site. I don’t plan to run that model again til 2025, so if you end of placing a preorder for the FL105 as well, I can hold the outlet pair and combine shipping, which may be much easier for you. I’m of course happy to ship the FL113 now too, if that’s your preference.

Please let me know how I can help.
-m

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kiril.gueorguiev@gmail.com

Hey Arild,

Can you hook me up with some HL skis in Europe, please?
I kind of got my mind on the FL105 and FL 113 but would not object to experience other all mountain chargers of your recommendation of course.
I am a 188 cm, 100 kg, agressive forward stance skier, getting along very well with a 184 katana but looking for something a bit longer.
Looking forward to hear from you [emoji846][emoji120].

Kiril

---

I just draw and design some stuff, not at all on the business end of Heritage Lab, that's all Marshal, but I can certainly see how you'd like both 105s and 113s very much. I'd jump on that last pair if I were you Combined shipping is my personal preferred route, since freight from the US is pretty damn expensive. I ordered one of the other pairs in the outlet as backups to my backups. Fwiw, shipping anything remotely similar to skis from Norway to anywhere in Europe is ungodly expensive, and/or a pain in the ass.

The 192 FL105s are still pretty awesome.

Sent fra min LE2123 via Tapatalk

Tomorrow’s the day; spring cleaning can wait
https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/202...c640cbab62.jpg

siiiiiiiick. get some!

I got out on the 185cm fl105 for the last two days at mammoth. The previous weeks had been full on spring thaw/freeze cycles, but it dropped about 4-6" on Saturday and another 3-5" on Sunday. I was seriously debating which skis to bring, because it can be so variable when new snow falls on top of refreeze. I debated bringing out the fr120st, but was worried about the icey moguls that might be lurking underneath. I knew the fl113 would be awesome, but I hadn't gotten around to repairing a coreshot on those yet... so i ended up giving the fl105 the nod to see how it handled the super mixed conditions. They ruled.

On Saturday the snow was binding top to mid boot deep in the morning, but it was heavy and consolidated into wind slab and windboard. The icey moguls were definitely still present underneath, but they were pleasantly muted out by just enough fresh snow. We skied fresh tracks and soft chop for the first half of the day, and consolidated crud and moguls in the afternoon. On Sunday there was another 3-5" refresh on top of the heavily tracked out crud from Saturday. The icey moguls still lurked on certain faces, but they were mostly filled in. In a single pitch you could be surfing windbuff, scraping down an icey mogul, and then plowing into boot top deep chop. So basically super variable.

In deeper stashes of grabby snow fl105's definitely weren't greasy smooth and pivoty like a true pow ski. The fr120st definitely would have won for the first hour or two each day, but the fl105 was the right call after the snow got tracked out. Compared to other directional chargers, the float on the fl105 and it's ability to pivot and slash in all but the mankiest snow are actually very good. Compared to xxl's, og cochise, or fx104, these float better. And they are much closer to Cochise in pivot/smearing than the others, but the fl105 can produce energy and rebound while carving much better than a cochise too. Overall this is just a super balanced ski for a directional charger.

Compared to easier, less charging skis in its width range, the mfree 108 and mindbender 108ti both float better. Those two skis amazed me with how they floated almost like true pow skis, but neither of them crush anywhere near the level of the fl105. When plowing into piles that were boot top deep on the fl105, i was always rewarded with a tip that popped right up and out of the snow, which really inspired confidence. Even their big brothers, the fl113, can submarine in these conditions, and once i stuff a tip I tend to ski like a neutered dog for the rest of the day, afraid it will happen again. After three days in moderately deep conditions, the fl105 have earned my trust. They can get bogged down in really manky snow and lock into a turn, but the tips won't unexpectedly dive on you. Even on 5-10' drops into punchy snow the tips would always pop back up.

The defining trait for me was how these handled consolidated crud and moguls. I found myself just pointing it into moguls and thick chop and trusting that their blend of stability and maneuverability would just work it all out. Sometimes I would zipperline a few bumps before airing over another and then i could just point it and skip along the tops in a straight line out the bottom. This worked for almost two days until the bumps got quite big and firm at the end of the second day. At that point i could still slow it down a little and ski them normally. It felt like cheating just letting the ski decide on each bump if it was time to smash through or dance around. I have stated multiple times that these don't crush on the level of the fl113, but with the increased maneuverability of the fl105 i may actually ski faster in some conditions just knowing that i can always make that turn or shut it down if shit gets weird. Once again, these have earned my trust in variable chop and crud.

I love directional chargers, but i am a mediocre skier. So finding the burliest ski that can pivot, bump, and float without killing me has been my obsession for the last 16 years since i first skied an xxl. I honestly think the fl105 is competitive with the best in class for most categories from edgehold to float , from rebound energy to dampness, from maneuverability to straightline stability. But I honestly don't know if any ski has blended them all so evenly for me before

Thank you very much for your replies guys.
I sent an email to Marshal to go over the business details.
BR
Kiril