No clink anymore, but the M102 awesomeness more than makes up for it. Not perfect for anything, but damn good for a really wide range of conditions.
My 2013's are now relegated to Spring low tide.
Printable View
No clink anymore, but the M102 awesomeness more than makes up for it. Not perfect for anything, but damn good for a really wide range of conditions.
My 2013's are now relegated to Spring low tide.
Looks like Völkl dumbed down the new 22/23 M102 making it more „accessible“. Has anybody been on them already and can compare to the current version?
I wouldn’t like being the 184 less ski so maybe upsizing to 191 will be the way to go with the next M102 iteration?
I think Bry skied the new 184 and mentioned he preferred the feel of the current 191. I’m kicking around picking up another pair of 184’s since those a perfect for me.
Yes that's right, the stability was still there it was more of a preference for the more stout 191. Didn't feel turny or turnier than I expected, so easy to set whatever tone you want in terms of turn shape.
Couldn't sense a materially softer flex due to the tailored titanal in the new models, but sounds like it's like a trueblend kind of approach to build differentiation length to length.
Sent from my Pixel 6 using Tapatalk
Thought I'd share some notes/data points here as I came across this thread:
38, Mammoth is my usual mountain, 6'/180#, ski the whole mountain (avoid silly mogul runs and jumps - I like my knees).
Found some 177 M102's at REI's garage sale with some beat looking topsheets. As I recall they came <$200. Had them mount some extra bindings I had and +2cm was the only spot they could comfortably re-mount them. Cheap experiment, but they skied fantastic. Always thought I should be on a 184 though and kept an eye out for a while.
Found some demo 184's that turned out to be almost completely unused, which was a score. These things were serious rocketships. The demo bindings allowed me to play with the mount points, and I ended up with them 2 notches forward of center (whatever that ends up being, not sure if it's 1cm increments). Turns out these skis do favor a bit more forward mount point, especially if you're going to be pivoting through trees or down steep faces. Shocker. They're still not as nimble when poking down through tight trees or gullys as the 177's. Another shocker.
Once I got on the 184's, my gf who's been learning to ski and getting up to speed fairly quick (and is also 6' tall) got on my 177's and has been right at home on those. Felt way more comfortable on those than my 180 Bonafides. We both noticed way less tip shaking on the M102's, so I ended up selling the Bonafides.
Interestingly, the 177's are just a hair longer than the 180 Bonafides. If anyone says they ski a bit long, well...it's because they ARE long for their nominal sizes. Not a problem, but tape measures don't lie.
Also interestingly, the 177 with the +2cm mounting has the same amount of ski in front of the binding as my 189cm V1 Blizzard Spurs mounted on the line.
So it would appear from those observations and the rest of the comments in this thread that these skis are 1) slightly longer than advertised (or what's expected for nominal ski lengths) and 2) the mount points do have a bit of rearward bias.
These aren't bad things. I bought another set of 184's just to have as backups since they made the newest version more tame, meaning I now have 3 of them, so obviously these things don't suck.
Welcome to the cult of Volkl 3D sidecut and titanal frame lovers.
Sent from my iPad using TGR Forums
Anyone on 191 M102 and wants to sell it? I'm obsessed with K108 but would love to try M102. M6 in 184 was fun but not enough to keep in the quiver. I guess we are spoiled with regular refills here in Wasatch this season and that's why K108 is my mostly used pair at the resort. Have MPro 105 and VW Katana 191 to offer as a trade
Sent from my Pixel 7 Pro using Tapatalk
Not my saleQuote:
Originally Posted by Robik
https://sidelineswap.com/gear/skiing...gs-mantra-skis
Sent from my Pixel 3 XL using Tapatalk
Thank you for the heads up, but I'd prefer newer top sheets.Quote:
Originally Posted by fleaches
Sent from my Pixel 7 Pro using Tapatalk
Finally mounted my 22-23 m102's yesterday. Mounted on the line.
Traditional skier, 57 years old, 45 years skiing, 33 in JH.
Skied today, 20k vert in a few hours, almost all groomers.
I was thinking that the function of the tailored titanal might be affected by mounting off line. Who knows, cares?
The feeling in a larger radius shovel turn vs a tighter arch turn was noticeable and pleasing.
I'm digging them.
I’ve skied the og in 177 and 184 and the new version in 184. I much prefer the new version. Blends the best attributes of the old 177 and 184 for me. I’m 190 and 6’2” and only skid them on the east coast.
Got mine out last weekend in Mammoth with some new Technica Mach 1 130 boots. I do not know why the hell I ever let people talk me into 120 boots before. No reason I should have been using something like that.
Played with mount points on the demo bindings on my 184's. Back at the factory mount point with them. Could be a result of the recent edge tune or the stiffer boots, but that's where they felt balanced.
Hit a bluebird groomer zoomer day, then a good storm day on Sunday. I got my Spurs out in the morning just to try them out, but I hit the same untracked tree runs at serious speed with the M102's mid-day. It frankly made my Spurs a bit disappointing because the M102's did so well, but this wasn't the super deep powder that those things need.
These things are rocketships, plain and simple. Regularly able to touch the ground at 50+ on the groomers and they'll do whatever I want in the blink of an eye in the low angle powder through the trees.
Another interesting note - these do REALLY well with some de-tune to the edges.
I've got my Spurs solely for an Alyeska trip coming up. Thinking of what else could be a good ski between the M102 and the Spur. Mammoth is mostly where I ski. Commander 108?
Sounds like the FR110.
Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums
FR110?Quote:
Originally Posted by gaijin
https://heritagelabskis.com/products/fr110Quote:
Originally Posted by GHILL28
Sent from my Pixel 3 XL using Tapatalk
A little confused here. Unavailable for another year? Pricing looks good. Made in China though? Anyone actually used these things?Quote:
Originally Posted by fleaches
If you want some answers, this thread is a good place to start:Quote:
Originally Posted by GHILL28
https://www.tetongravity.com/forums/...ted-Love-Songs
Thanks for the link. Was reading up on the other thread on the front page too. Their mission sounds like a neat concept. I don't know if I have enough tribal knowledge of some of these older skis they're using as inspiration to understand where they're coming from with them. Relatively new to higher-end (read: nicer) skis and actually paying attention to performance details, but not new to skiing.Quote:
Originally Posted by J. Barron DeJong
It's interesting looking at the trajectory of the gear development in this sport versus some other like mtb, where there's virtually NO positive nostalgia of gear performance. Lots of negative nostalgia, and "glad that trend is gone" sentiment.
I still end up having a wandering eye for the K108's in a 184. Are these going to be a bear to make last-second pivots with in the trees? I end up loving the M102's there so I don't want to lose much of their quickness. I end up disagreeing with some of the reviews saying that they need to be moved around with a lot of force in those situations, so not sure how to interpret the same reviews of the K108's.
Not apples to apples, but I find my K108 in 191 to be a bit easier to release than M102 in the same length. Katana feels damper and a touch softer than M102 which is a bit crispier. But I haven't tried them in the same conditions though.Quote:
Originally Posted by GHILL28
Sent from my Pixel 7 Pro using Tapatalk
That's interesting. I would have expected a stronger and more planted-on-edge character from the K108.Quote:
Originally Posted by Robik
I have both of them, 184s. I find my M102s more nimble overall. They handle moguls better and are less work in tight terrain. My preferred ski for soft snow and varied, steep terrain is the Katana V-Werks 112. Easy to make any type of turn and it’s a great combination of nimble and stable.Quote:
Originally Posted by GHILL28
Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums
I've looked at those too for more storm days, but I don't really do any touring. Everything else about it sounded great (except the price and some durability concerns).Quote:
Originally Posted by swissbro
100% in agreement with this statement. The K108 has a softer tail and more generous rocker profile. Despite being wider and heavier, it is easier to release the tail, toss it sideways, shut down speed, etc. Also, the Katana has the larger radius at the extremities, but the M102 has a larger radius directly under foot. There is a "plushness" to the K108 that is so hard to beat for PNW, coastal conditions.Quote:
Originally Posted by Robik
I've skied both in the 184 and 191 lengths and the 191 M102 is the most serious of the bunch, IMO.
What's your height/weight?Quote:
Originally Posted by Bandit Man
I'm 6ft/180lb and on the aggressive side of things but I don't think I would want to be managing tips that far away with the 191's. That leading edge of the 184 feels pretty "connected" as it is right now.
You and Robik just described my experience as well. All of it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bandit Man
5’ 8” and 200-lbs. If the 184 works, no need to go longer.Quote:
Originally Posted by GHILL28
Got it, thanks.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bandit Man
I'm also seeing the Confessions popping up inexpensively, which I'm almost thinking might make a better ski for Alyeska next month than the gen1 Spurs I have. Might just have to get both since skis take up relatively little room compared to my dirt bike habit...
After reading all the posts I get that the M102 is an amazing ski but.....can anyone comment on the 184 M102 for serious mogul bashing. I want to pick up the 23 version on sale right now but I also love ripping moguls super hard as part of my daily resort routine. For reference I have had no issues in moguls with the Old 184 Ranger 102 FR (amazing mogul ski), the 186 Enforcer 104 (fun but a bit of tank), for the most part the 190 Moment wildact (the wide ski is tougher but length/flex wasn't an issue.
Also, would mounting +1CM or +2CM make it better for moguls, or just fuck up the ski in all other areas?
I’ve spent a lot of time on the e104 and the m102, most recently the newest version of the m102. The next paragraph talks about the e104 va the newest version of the m102Quote:
Originally Posted by RadSkier_
If you can mash moguls in the enforcer 104, then I think you might like the m102 more. M102 is a tiny bit stiffer in the tips and imho a little less stiff in the tail - it definitely has a less punishing tail than the e104. But m103 is also slightly softer throughout the middle of the ski so I find it easier to manage and less punishing than the e104 - when backseat or hitting the front of the mogul more of the m102 flexes rather than just the tip or tail on the e104, so the energy is dispersed over a wider area and it’s not as jarring. Still energetic though but in a more even, supporting way.
Also have the wildcat 108. Love the ski in the right conditions but one of the worst runs of my life was on rock hard tight huge moguls on one of the steepest runs on the east coast. Beat the shit out of me.
Looking at deal on a used pair of earlier model 191s as a replacement for my QST106s that have taken their final core shot this year. I'm 6'2 210, directional skier in western canada. Loved the 106s in 188 (green ones) - used for double duty and picked up a pair of Blanks this year in 194 that I have been enjoying despite the low snow year.
Getting to the point, I am looking at these as a replacement to the 106s for lower snow days/blasting groomers at norquay etc. Will be picking up a touring oriented ski to handle the other 50% of the 106s duties, but really want something that will go fast and feel quicker edge to edge than the blanks.
These sound like a perfect match but am always reluctant to buy without having some kind of feel for a ski. Wondering if anyone can give some input into differences in feel of the M102 vis a vis the QSTs (106s or blanks), also demoed the Ranger 102 FR a few years back, really enjoyed them but went the QST route instead so any similarities there would be interesting.
Just got the K108's in-hand from another member here. These are nowhere near as stiff as the reviews would have one believe. Stiff, yes. Unwieldly stiff, no. I think these are going to be quite fun.
Once you ski them, drop some thoughts in the Katana thread.
Since there are apparently a lot of folks that have tried the K108 and M102 I'm curious as to what your thoughts on them are. I have the M6, had the M102 but sold it and bought the K108. I like all three of them and they are obviously very similar, but ... I kind of regret selling the M102 - there's just something 'magical' about that ski that the wider and narrower versions come close to but just don't have.
Anyone else feel that way? Yeah, that's right ... I'm looking for an excuse to own all three.
I have all three. Agree there is definitely overlap, but if you get to travel to ski or get enough diversity or terrain and conditions, there is space for all of them. My son "stole" my M102's from me so I elected to buy the K108. We had a 600" season that year, so I didn't miss the M102. The next year we had longer stints of high pressure and I found I was grabbing the M102's more often, so much so that I bought another dedicated pair for me. Getting the M6 was a bit of an impulse buy when they went on sale in the spring. Great on groomers and in spring conditions and definitely the easiest to ski of the bunch.Quote:
Originally Posted by YoEddy
The thing I find about the M102 is that it is so versatile and so capable in such a wide range of conditions. It rails groomers, man-handles crud, and actually floats and smears in less than a foot of fresh. It's also the most serious ski of all three and has a top end I have yet to find. I think it is more comfortable at high-speed on firm snow than the K108, but the K108 has a little more mass and a slightly softer tail, which give it a little more forgiving feeling, IMO.
So yeah, I like the M102 so much I bought another pair (as a backup). But to make things worse, I added a Kendo 88 and now have the whole lineup. :)
I've had all three: 184 M6, 191 M102 and 191 K108. I sold M6 since I didn't click with it. K108 would be a perfect mid winter one ski quiver for resort, but here comes M102 with the perfect blend of stiffness, carvability, floating etc and K108 goes to GS.Quote:
Originally Posted by YoEddy
Sent from my Pixel 7 Pro using Tapatalk
I don't find myself wanting more of a carver enough to want the M6 over the M102 even for harder conditions. If I were to get something for that it would be a Kendo. Hoping there's a big enough gap between the M108 and K108 to justify having both of those (TBD).
Skied my M102’s today (been on my K108’s more this year) and was reminded how versatile they are. Ripped groomers, skied Pow and dense crud, and pivoted so easy in the tight spots. So good!
Stance 102's were demo'd yesterday..
No contest. Those things have one turn shape, are dead until you straightline, and the tail is far too locked in for how little benefit you get from edge hold on top of skiing short due to the exaggerated rocker back there. Volkl nailed the design of shaped titanal on their first try and everyone else is still trying to catch up.
Spent my first day on the new (2023) 184 Mantra M102.
Here are my initial impressions:
Conditions: just about everything…hard-packed groomers, chalky edge-able steeps, bumps, dense spring pow, refrozen crap, soft chop, and firm variable.
Skis: 184 2023 Volkl M102 mounted on the rear line with STH2 13’s.
From the first run, these felt familiar, but a bit easier in every way. Still stable at speed, but easier to bend into a turn and quicker edge to edge. Still easy to thrown sideways and scrub speed or come to a quick stop. Tails are not “locked in” and are easy to release. The only exception here was in some heavy, dense pow, where some additional detuning would take care of things.
The original M102 feels like more ski in just about every way. It’s more stable, stiffer, and requires more input to turn. The new M102 feels like it has some M6 DNA (which it does) and reminds me quite a bit of a wider, more damp and stable M6. The 19-m sidecut under foot is noticeable and it makes the ski more agile and quicker edge to edge versus the previous version.
So, as some have said, if you nothing wrong with the first version, you might find this ski to be a bit lacking. If you didn’t click with the original and wished for something a bit more accessible, the new one is definitely worth a look. I love the original and really enjoyed these as well. I need to spend more time on them, but I have sneaking suspicion that these could replace my M6’s.
Attachment 452374
Sent from my iPad using TGR Forums