Printable View
To add to that, I own the 191 Sender 110 Free. I find it great in really soft snow but not as good as I would like in heavier crud/variable conditions. The idea of a similarly shaped ski but with the Dynastar hybrid core layup (what the MF112 appears to be) is interesting. Hoping for looser than the SF110 but perhaps a little more backbone as well.Quote:
Originally Posted by noslow
you been on the mfree 108? waiting for more on the new mf112 vs the sf110, but im guessing they're more similar than not and I personally might go 185 mf108 to get the looseness.. but if I went sf110 or mf112 id get the 184/183 lengthsQuote:
Originally Posted by Bandit Man
Yeah, been on the 192 MF108 since its first year. Took me a bit to warm up to them, but they are a favorite for me.Quote:
Originally Posted by bearcub69
Sent from my iPad using TGR Forums
yeah, it kinda sounds like Dynastar is about to release a BlackOps110 if the descriptions wrt construction choices are accurate. That awakens the dreaded "for science!" spirit in me...
It sounds kinda counter intuitive that they will charge more than MF108s though with its far more progressive mount point. The 192 hauls for being as loose and playful of a ski as it is.
I probably made a mistake mounting them at +1 based on some advice from friends, but I recall feeling a little too forward on them such that I had a hard time finding the balance point in 3d snow and variable chop, sorta like the Menace/Mfree 118 that I never really clicked with. The BMX 150hp are my preferred daily driver and go-to travel ski. I think they're a better match for my skiing style and much better pow skis. I still really love the leaf spring like suspension in the OG LP when conditions are truly shitty and the Mpro 108 kinda compromises on all of those points IMO.Quote:
Originally Posted by forumskier
Once I wear out the HPs in my shed, I will likely look to HL FL 105 or whatever Marshal is slinging at that point to replace them. I may try to grab the longer FL 105 at some point as a bigger gun, but the HP is still plenty capable for most of my days out with F&F.
Interesting. I'm definitely mounting on the line then.Quote:
Originally Posted by jackattack
In hand they are definitely softer, less dense feeling and with a different swing weight than Pro Riders. This all actually made me a little nervous a few weeks ago, and I contemplated selling them. However they weigh a lot, so I gotta at least try them since I'm this far. I haven't tried any of the new PU cores, so I need to try them for that reason as well.
I gotta ski them with the initial mindset that they aren't Pro Riders, but that leads me to think about when I'd use this type of ski. I don't think they'll ski firm off piste as well as Pro Riders or Monster 108s. I don't think they'll carve like Katana 108s. I also have FR110s and Sender Squads that seem more fun for soft, non-deep days... I am going to give the MFree 108s a chance though. 187 Menace 98s were much softer, even though it was much more expected.
I am one who prefers the MPro at +1. Granted I am only 5’10 but have some mass. I also ski boots with a some what upright stance, 13deg lean. It allowed me to ski more relaxed in a neutral posture allowing me to be more dynamic and not hard on the tips all the time. They also felt more balanced in the air.
Like I stated before, the FL105 is the direct replacement for a modern LP105.
Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums
Average american caucasian male height is 5'10".Quote:
Originally Posted by 2FUNKY
What are you making a fuss about? You are full on *average*. Sorry.
Lol. My height is the only place I’m average… [emoji6]…Quote:
Originally Posted by TurxSki
Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums
It's true. He's overweight and underdickedQuote:
Originally Posted by 2FUNKY
I wondered if somebody was going to jump on that. [emoji28]
I feel like it's highly important that the distinguishment between the 192 and 182 be stated, along with your height/weight.Quote:
Originally Posted by jackattack
I've spent a little time on the 192 and can say I like them at +1.5. I'm 190 and 6'1. I also detune the last 3 inches of the tail a bit.
The 192 also changes in width vs. 182. Which I'm less happy about. I'd prefer the 192 at 106-108mm.
There's a significant amount of dynamic to the two different sizes, and it's worth being specific. Chances are, the people in this thread have already given that information, but for people inquiring on the subject, you'd do well to take that information alongside a person's "like" or "dislike" of the ski. I have no doubt I would not like the 182 mounted +1 forward. Similarly, I don't think anyone in the 6'4 range would like the 192 at +1.
It gets more complicated when you factor in binding delta, forward lean, and tibia/femur ratios.
All to say, I think the mpro is a bit more specific in how it fits a skier than the mfree. The margin of error when it comes to mounting location is less. The best answer? Go try it out with a demo binding that can modify your midsole alignment to the ski.
The dick?Quote:
Originally Posted by yeahman
Quote:
Originally Posted by yeahman
Served up a soft ball and tgr crushes it out of the park. [emoji38]Quote:
Originally Posted by sf
Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums
This is tgr. They’re the long ones unless otherwise noted.Quote:
Originally Posted by DarthMarkus
Soft ball or soft dick....is there a distinction?Quote:
Originally Posted by 2FUNKY
https://youtu.be/GyofCRmcz2A?si=xf5XYyjL410ysAPv
little more on the 112
Skied 192 and 182 Mfree 108
192 wants to run and felt more big mountain on the line
182 was playful and easy but still could hold the line
Skied both in a foot of fresh with semi tight trees and low angle pow
Also on steeper lines where 192 was more of a handful
I’m 6-1 190 and really like the 182
Also have 192 protest so it’s not the length just the playfulness
Want playful 6-12” pow tree ski and it just works and is easy but stable enough
Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums
Thanks for sharing. I still really love the idea of the 190 112.Quote:
Originally Posted by bearcub69
Sent from my iPad using TGR Forums
I haven't skied the mfree 108 nor the sender free 110. on paper I think the mf108 makes the most sense for me.. I like taper in certain applications... but the sf110 and mf112 don't seem overly locked in despite the lack of taper.
guessing the biggest differences between the sf110 and mf112 will be the layup? sf110 may be a bit lighter? and they're already heavier skis..
Just watched that SkiEssentials video on the M-Free 112 and went "whoa" when he listed the 2363gr weight on the 183cm. Thats about 120gr or so heavier than the 184 Sender Free 110 so i bet the 190cm will be 2450gr plus which would be interesting. Looks to have similar sidewall height tip to tail but more splay especially on the tail. Should be a bit looser than the Sender Free 110 but more locked in than the M-Free 108. Nice to see the metal underfoot confirmed as I figured that Powder Mag review was incorrect.
Intrigued to try them out now!
is there any metal underfoot on the mf108? saw a close up of the mf112 today and it calls for a 4.1 x 9.5 bit..
I only have a 3.6 x 9 but can always get a 4.1
but if the mf108 calls for 3.6x9 maybe that's how ill decide between the two haha
YesQuote:
Originally Posted by bearcub69
Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums
Per dynastar's website. Attachment 500490Quote:
Originally Posted by noslow
Sent from my Redmi Note 8 Pro using Tapatalk
I need another midfat pow ski like I needs poke in the eye, but I plan on getting a pair of the 112 and mounting with demo bindings, for science.