Printable View
I skied my enforcer 110s today and reminded that I do really quite like them, perhaps even more than my m-free 108’s.
I get that Dan and ISBD hate them as noted up thread, so it’s great that various manufacturers make different types of skis.
I’m just not super interested in aggressively driving tips on firm snow at mach looney on a 110 waisted ski.
Sure Nordica could have made the tips and shovels stiffer but then people would complain they don’t float well for their width or are too planky.
Good info. Just trying to understand, are you saying that the 180 118s feel a bit unbalanced, like the tip overpowers the tail?Quote:
Originally Posted by Eluder
Would you say that the 180 118s and 182 108s feel like similar length of ski, or does the 180 118 ski shorter?
186 Woodsman 108 or last year’s 187 Woodsman 110?
Too bad the Mfree 108 doesn’t charge in pow!!
~30” 72 hours
10” dropped during the day
This ski is so good
Attachment 482632
Poppy and sendy
Attachment 482633
Deep trees? Check!
Attachment 482634
Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums
Sorry, I was a bit all over the place there. No, the tails are stronger than the tip on the 118. I find the tip longitudinally and torsionally soft and feel the tip goes away when pushed too hard.Quote:
Originally Posted by D(C)
The mount point bit has more to do with how I pressure a ski and may be too preferential to matter to most; if a ski is mounted farther forward, I can pressure the edge more evenly with a neutral stance. If it's farther back, I drive the tips more. The 180 is too short for me to want to go forward, but if it was longer, I would try moving the mount 1-2 cm forward and see if that helped... The farthest forward mount I own is still like -5; most are around -7 or farther back; I generally stick to the line for what it's worth.
I think they have close to the same amount of tip, but I really want the 118s longer and don't really get that with the 108, not that I would be upset if they were 2cm longer...
I think they are both good but different skis that work for the same type of skier, if that makes sense.
SkiLyft with the Stoke!
I’ll chime in, the 118 is a different ski. I skied them 1cm forward for a few runs and really didn’t enjoy them. For their width, felt it was easy to stuff a tip. When that happened naturally you’d lean back to compensate then I’d find myself wheeling out. Just didn’t seem to have a happy balance point.
Maybe that was due to where we mounted them but just my take on them.
Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums
This is where a Corvus fits the bill. It does everything that the 108 does better and has better size options.
After a couple of night of sleeping on it, I ended up going with another pair of 182 M-Free 108s. There were some good suggestions here, but it took trying quite a few skis before getting to the M-Frees, and I didn't want to open that can of worms again. I still think they need to make a 187.
Praxis GPO comes in 187.
I really wish the Woodsman had more taper in the tail like the MFree 108. I'm skiing the 192 108 this season after the last couple on the 192 Woods110. Overall I prefer the feel of the Woods but they do feel pretty close. What I don't like about the MFree is that it isn't as solid of a landing platform as the Woods, I stuff the tips on the Dynastar where the ON3P can handle a rough runout without issue. I do prefer the MFree when carving, just has more precise grip (not that these two skis are going to excel).Quote:
Originally Posted by auvgeek
Would love either a 195cm MFree 108 or a Woods with more taper in the tail (gets hung up more).
If you want more stompage then the Mpro108 is the ski. That ski is a stomp machine. Not that a ton of dudes who huck pretty big have issues with the Mfree 108. You must be a bigger guy.Quote:
Originally Posted by robnow
Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums
I hear you on the MPro but still want a more 'fun' ski, ~-8 to -9 mount point. 6'2" 190lbs. That's what I've always liked about my ON3Ps (Woods, BG) is I can just land in bumpy conditions and ride the skis out, I don't have the same trust in the MFree in the same conditions, I believe its the nature of having consistent material to the tip/tail in the ON3P vs less in the MFree.Quote:
Originally Posted by 2FUNKY
According to Blister the 182 is a 182 while the 192 ia a 189. 3cm longer on the tip and tail works out to about a 1 inch. Everyone on here raves about how much better the '192' is but is there really that much difference? Or is it just a TGR big dick thing? Love my 182's, got them on gear swap after reading how everyone here loved them. I ain't no dentist so I buy what's available on gear swap, would have bought the '192' if that had been the ski for sale but the 182 was the one for sale. Need to demo a '192' sometime to see if there really is a big difference. That being said the 182 is a great ski. Thanks to all on here that raved about it.Quote:
Originally Posted by D(C)
Yeah, there's 8 cm of difference in straight tip-to-tail length, not 10 cm like the stated size would suggest, but the 192 feels quite a bit more substantial and less loose than the 182. The 185 M-Free 99, while measuring the same as the 182 M-Free 108, feels longer to me, though shorter and less substantial than the 192 108. If you compare the shapes, it has a bit of a longer sidecut length, so that makes sense. The 185 99 feels 'about right' for length to me, if I wanted a single length in the 108. The 192 108 is still heavily rockered and easy enough to slide around in tighter spots - it's not a full-on charger. But it's just a touch cumbersome at lower speeds and in tighter terrain.Quote:
Originally Posted by MCskid
The smaller sizes of the Mfree were designed with smaller skiers in mind so the flex was softened accordingly. The 182 and 192 are name the same animal. 192 is significantly stiffer. Not saying the 182 is super soft either. Smaller guys who rip, some here on the trg are on the 182 with zero complaints. I could almost see myself on the 182 at a small tight resort, esp like Red, days after a storm when the terrain is super bumped out and in their techy tight trees as the 192 was manageable here but more work.Quote:
Originally Posted by MCskid
Any other scenario I absolutely want the 192 on my feet. Not waving my dick either.
Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums
It has already been answered by the peeps above, but yeah - the 192 is significantly more of everything than the 182. Both are fine skis I might add - the 192 just has an extra helping of charginess compared to the 182. At least for my 175/70kg self. I prefer the longer length, but just found them too long in the end.Quote:
Originally Posted by MCskid
I run 184 Rossi SF110s in this quiver slot now. It is a fantastic ski. Less taper and more front/tail "balance" (the cambered section is more symmetrical) so not quite as loose on edge as the MF108, but still plenty loose and fun.
I strongly believe that most skiers would be happy on either it or the MF108 - the Rossi group has this segment dialed, they just need a bit more lengths (something between the 192 and 182 mf) and more exciting graphics and they should be selling these like hot cakes. So damned good skis.
Skis nothing like the mFree 108 though.Quote:
Originally Posted by skis_the_trees
Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums
Great skis but notably less maneuverable in soft snow.Quote:
Originally Posted by SoVT Joey
Late to this party, but this is the answer. The 108 MVP is easily my favorite in the ~108 width rocker/camber/rocker genre. It just does everything well with minimal fuss. And construction is bomber. Although in fairness, I haven't skied the mfree 108. I owned the mfree 118, but as discussed above, that's a different ski (an OK, but not great one).Quote:
Originally Posted by grinch
The E110 is a really dialed ski. It's a bummer that they're killing it off.Quote:
Originally Posted by dcpnz
Honestly, I have the 183 Hotshot in this space. Previously it was the 185 E110. What I'd really like is a 186 Hotshot. I think the HL 110FR could be a great DD. Enough backbone to charge, but shaped to slither trees.
I rode my 190 Praxis Mind Sticks yesterday and they're just a lot of ski in tight trees with soft snow. Open things up and they rip. The day before I rode 191 Renegades and they dont feel big at all. Even in deep snow, tight trees. Crazy that the bigger ski is that much more nimble.
I'm always in search of that DD that can handle soft reblown, chalk, trees and the occasional hard pack. The do it all ski. E110 was darned close if not a bit dead. I'm pretty happy on the Hotshot.
I'm still working on a fatter ski to complement my M-Free 108s - I’m now on the new “185” (in quotations because they measure the same as the old 182). I ended up getting the Blackops 118, mounted at -2.5 from recommended, but I am not clicking with them. They have too much tail and not enough tip, and turn initiation is unintuitive.
Short list is:
184 Volkl Revolt 114
186 Salomon QST Blank
186 Line Optic 114
If I love my M-Free 108s, which of those is my ski?
If you love your Mfree108, why not get the 112s?
FWIW: The 112 factory mount is pretty far forward, I’m at -5 on the 190s but as long as you go in with the mindset that you need to mount them back, I think they’ll meet what you’re looking for which is a fatter 108.
The 112s seem more similar to my Blackops 118s, in terms of shape and mount point, and I’m not loving those. I find the tails want to hold on, and they're weird if I initiate by driving the tips, particularly in tighter terrain. I feel like I'm fighting the back half of the ski. But maybe I need to be mounted even further back.
The 112 is more tapered than the bo118. It’s also more directional. I think moving the mount further back on the BO118 would be a mistake unlike the 112. YMMV.