Chasing My Dream Daily Driver - The Heritage Lab FL105

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by shroom

pretty pretty. could i ski the 192 in 2k treed vert, would i just take it to switzerland, or should i wait for next years 188/9 run?

---

yo dude! So a few things. The 188 R99 is going to ski a bit on 'on rails' than the 192 FL105. The R99 Comp will be a fat GS ski that can charge the whole mountain. The 192 FL105 has a 10m bigger radius and a deeper / more pronounced rocker line both tip and tails, so the FL105 will have more "feather" to its turns to open and close, and will punch above its width in 8"+ a bit better. Realistically, I don't think one will be "more" ski than another, just the R99 skews more towards high performance at edge angle, and the FL105 will skew more towards variable snow.

Does this help?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Marshal Olson

As you wish....!

---

Gasp! Furious study of every specification will ensue….


Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

:)

I will update the spec sheet tomorrow!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Marshal Olson

Does this help?

---

yeah dude! that’s great. appreciate the comparison.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by riff

Gasp! Furious study of every specification will ensue….


Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

---

I have the numbers, just waiting for the go-ahead to share.

support the raddest project going: http://heritagelabskis.com

The numbers are
13/10/11, 2x.x mR.

Sorry. Had to. [emoji16]

support the raddest project going: http://heritagelabskis.com

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Marshal Olson

The 192 FL105 is more a big brother to the 185 than just a longer ski...With about 8 days on them now, I can say I love these things.

---

Hey MO,

After more time on them, would you say the first sentence ^ is still accurate? Most of my lineup are straight up chargers, which fits my style and preferences, but after selling 188 CMD 108s, I do miss having a slightly lighter, shorter, more flickable ski, for days I'm tired and only have 80%, or alternatively, for skiing steep awkward near my limit where precision and in turn confidence, matters. I see the 192s getting a ton of days next year, just trying to figure out if 185s could be what I just described, a bit shorter, a bit lighter, but strong enough in the flex/layup department to punch above their length. Thanks dude, out the door for last turns of the season on FL113s.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by arild

The numbers are
13/10/11, 2x.x mR.

Sorry. Had to. [emoji16]

support the raddest project going: http://heritagelabskis.com

---

Numbers are up!https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/202...6a8efbb79a.jpg

support the raddest project going: http://heritagelabskis.com

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by arild

Numbers are up!https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/202...6a8efbb79a.jpg

support the raddest project going: http://heritagelabskis.com

---

Is that right? Tip and tail height greater on the 178 than the 185?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by waveshello

Is that right? Tip and tail height greater on the 178 than the 185?

---

This is gonna sound dumb, but i think they are reflectech'ing their rocker so it matches the sidecut? So if the sidecut is tighter then it is also more rockered? That's what i assumed aboit the super mellow rocker on the 40m'ish fl113, the greater tip rocker on the 27m'ish fl105, and the super rocker on the 25m fl110

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by chewski

This is gonna sound dumb, but i think they are reflectech'ing their rocker so it matches the sidecut? So if the sidecut is tighter then it is also more rockered? That's what i assumed aboit the super mellow rocker on the 40m'ish fl113, the greater tip rocker on the 27m'ish fl105, and the super rocker on the 25m fl110

---

Splay and rocker aren’t the same thing


Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MagnificentUnicorn

Splay and rocker aren’t the same thing


Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

---

Fair enough, but are they not adding MOAR of "it" the tighter the sidecut? Is it attempting to actually match the radius of the sidecut (legit question) a la reflectech? Asking for a friend

Hi All!

Thanks for the catch. based on testing of the spring samples, I did end up slightly changing the tip/tail height on the 187 C113, 185 C105, 184/177 BC90 and applied this to the C105 as well. Details attached to this post.

The FL105 178 is the same profile/shape as the 185/192 FL105, just with a scaled radius to better match the length and EE.

You can see the updated profiles for the 187 C113 (left), 185 C105/184B90 (middle), and 177 BC90 (right) in this image as well.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sylvan

Hey MO,

After more time on them, would you say the first sentence ^ is still accurate? Most of my lineup are straight up chargers, which fits my style and preferences, but after selling 188 CMD 108s, I do miss having a slightly lighter, shorter, more flickable ski, for days I'm tired and only have 80%, or alternatively, for skiing steep awkward near my limit where precision and in turn confidence, matters. I see the 192s getting a ton of days next year, just trying to figure out if 185s could be what I just described, a bit shorter, a bit lighter, but strong enough in the flex/layup department to punch above their length. Thanks dude, out the door for last turns of the season on FL113s.

---

Hey man! You bet and a few thoughts here.

Generally, the FL105 has less offset (pintail) than the FL113, so while it is still a directional ski overall, it comes across the fall line more naturally than the FL113, which is for going down the fall line, even on edge. So, this means the FL105 will naturally allow the pilot to "re-group" a little bit across the fall line a bit more vs. the "on it" feeling of the FL113.

With respect to the 192 vs 185 length decision, I would say the radius bump is what you're going to notice more than the length itself (or along with it anyway). I think we might have emailed about this, but I personally will run the 194 FL113 for soft days and buff bluebird million mile an hour days. And then bring out the 185 FL105 for tighter lines, more bumped up or rough conditions, early season, etc. In my own use-case, I actually want them to be clearly different skis for different conditions (just enough overlap so that if I "miss", it's a good time nonetheless).

From my own benchmark skis, I would put the 192 FL105 in league with 192LPR105, 19x Monsters, etc and the 185 FL105 with 184 Monster 108, 189 BMX105HP, etc.

Hopefully that helps! LMK if not :D

Sick, thanks MO; we're on the same page.
I wasn’t thinking of replacing the 192, more so adding the 185 for days I wanna spend off piste when conditions/entrances/lines are less than ideal (read: old man scary), but still wanna tick boxes. A few other potentially good options here with trad mounts, 184 M102, Wren 110, another CMD 108, to name a few; however, I'm a fan of being comfortable on, and used to the tradeoffs of, whatever ski I’m on, which makes me like the idea of two lengths of the same ski, as long as the short version isn't trending too noodle, and with those ^ comparables (two lengths of Monsters for ex), combined with the freeride layup I know, sounds like a theory worth taking to the...lab. I'll see myself out.
Thanks for your service bud.

Marshal was generous enough to let me borrow the 185 FL105s this past weekend at Snowbird and I can confirm that these skis are an ideal daily driver for a resort with a bigger fall line terrain and a pilot strong enough to drive the skis properly and not try to run them from the backseat. We chased corn all over the mountain and after the first run I found them to be predictable, stable, and an absolute blast at speed through variable conditions. They were fun everywhere but they really shined skiing fast fall line laps down silver fox and north chute, I would 100% say that I was limited by my skiing ability and fitness on those laps, not at all by the skis I was on.

I'm 5'11" and 160lbs, so the 185cm length worked well for me and my skiing style. They were easy to carve across the fall line and on the right slope I found myself almost dragging a hip carving with a huge grin on my face, but also unflappable at speed and solid platform to straight line sections of shitty snow that we just wanted to get through as quickly as possible. They were noticeably easier to ski than my 187 FL112s, but didn't feel like they gave much up in terms of stability or composure.

Overall I think Marshal nailed it for a 10x daily driver. At resorts like snowbird, palisades, jackson, or really anywhere that has the terrain to justify skis like these I believe strong skiers will be very happy with the FL105s.

/\/\/\ :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by soul_skier

I would 100% say that I was limited by my skiing ability and fitness on those laps, not at all by the skis I was on.

---

Holy shite. I remember the lines you posted on the other heritage lab threads, so just... ooof

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by chewski

Holy shite. I remember the lines you posted on the other heritage lab threads, so just... ooof

---

I should clarify that while I wasn't limited by the 185 FL105s, I wasn't getting beat up by them either. In my mind these are a great versatile daily driver as they are manageable all over the mountain at all speeds but when you do want to open them up you're not going to be held back by their capabilities.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by soul_skier

I should clarify that while I wasn't limited by the 185 FL105s, I wasn't getting beat up by them either. In my mind these are a great versatile daily driver as they are manageable all over the mountain at all speeds but when you do want to open them up you're not going to be held back by their capabilities.

---

For sure. You confirmed what marshal has been saying that they are a bit easier than fl113. But good to know they will also rage as harder than any mortal can go

Stoke! https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/202...c591e787e2.jpg

Yessir!!!
it’s a good day today :)

WOO-HOO!!!

:D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pfluffenmeister

WOO-HOO!!!

:D

---

Agreed. I already have my "developer's pair" of 185s, cannot wait to get the 192s in hand, along with the 110s.

Quiver is getting big, but n+1 and all that.

My 185s are mounted on the line (-12) for a 315BSL boot with Head Mojos, so there's a large adjustment range. With my 305BSL boots, I'm effectively at -11.5. If anyone in Norway wants to borrow them this winter for a couple of days or a week, hit me up. Be more than happy to share the love.

Marshal, will you be posting ski porn picks of rocker profiles? Pretty please? :)


Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

113, 105 and 90 in carbooonz, updated profiles.https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/202...3d9b07f3c6.jpg

support the raddest project going: http://heritagelabskis.com

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by arild

113, 105 and 90 in carbooonz, updated profiles.https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/202...3d9b07f3c6.jpg

support the raddest project going: http://heritagelabskis.com

---

Crazy tail splay. Me likely.

Sexy. Got any photos from the front? Excited to see how the topsheets came out.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Well shoot, those are all closer to full low rocker than i thought….[emoji848]


Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by arild

113, 105 and 90 in carbooonz, updated profiles.https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/202...3d9b07f3c6.jpg

support the raddest project going: http://heritagelabskis.com

---

Sexy!

Any rocker pics of the FR110?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by shank

Sexy. Got any photos from the front? Excited to see how the topsheets came out.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

---

I don't, since the skis are at Marshal's, and I'm in Norway, and I'm sure Marshal is prioritizing QC and tuning where necessary before putting them all in boxes and getting them out there to us all. The C113 is unchanged for graphics, and I think I posted pics of the BC90 in the quiver thread.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pfluffenmeister

Sexy!

Any rocker pics of the FR110?

---

Didn't get any new ones, but should be the same as Marshal posted a while back in the master Heritage thread.

Marshal will have to correct me, but the updated profile for the carbon skis is based on the (C and)FL113s', with a cm extra of tail splay. Objective was to make the tails release a little bit easier in seriously funky snow, after skiing proto bc90s and c105s in the spring.

The profile should only be a tiny bit less stable than the C113s' which is probably the most speed stable platform I've ever been on.

Hope that helps.

support the raddest project going: http://heritagelabskis.com

A couple detail pics!

A few notes:

• The Carbon skis receive a subtle full reverse profile across the line. It is essentially the same for all skis in this construction.
• The FL113 reverse is unchanged. The FL105 has 3mm per ski camber new, that will ski into about 1.5mm per ski with a few days. The FR110 is full reverse.
• Production weights for the 187 C113 is 1750g, the 185 C105 is 1650g, the 184 C90 is 1525, and the 177 C90 is 1420g.
• Production weights for the 194 FL113 is 2500g, the 192 FL105 is 2425, and the 185 FR110 is 2350.

As always, holler with Q's! Lots of QC and shipping to do in the coming weeks :D
My target is to have all preorders shipped by the end of August

JFC. I thought these sticks looked hot in CAD, but even hotter irl.

support the raddest project going: http://heritagelabskis.com

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Marshal Olson

A few notes:

• The Carbon skis receive a subtle full reverse profile across the line. It is essentially the same for all skis in this construction.
• The FL113 reverse is unchanged. The FL105 has 3mm per ski camber new, that will ski into about 1.5mm per ski with a few days. The FR110 is full reverse.
• Production weights for the 187 C113 is 1750g, the 185 C105 is 1650g, the 184 C90 is 1525, and the 177 C90 is 1420g.
• Production weights for the 194 FL113 is 2500g, the 192 FL105 is 2425, and the 185 FR110 is 2350.

As always, holler with Q's! Lots of QC and shipping to do in the coming weeks :D
My target is to have all preorders shipped by the end of August

---

I replied to the update email you sent out. Perhaps it ended up in your junk folder. If you'd prefer, I can Pm you on here

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NW_SKIER

I replied to the update email you sent out. Perhaps it ended up in your junk folder. If you'd prefer, I can Pm you on here

---

sorry! Just got a little behind on email. I’ll email you back, of course, and cross post the mount stuff here anyhow, as lots of folks with q’s that are similar!

No worries. Just wanted to make sure it didn't go full USPS and disappear!

The pics are crazy. Man those skis look good!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NW_SKIER

No worries. Just wanted to make sure it didn't go full USPS and disappear!

The pics are crazy. Man those skis look good!

---

:yourock:

Punchline is that I think an 80.5cm mount position from tail (-12) will be $$$ for you (and many folks) as a directional ski enthusiast (Monsters, LP, Goliath). I am a good bit taller and heavier than you, and really enjoy 80cm from tail (-12.5). but I think that in this region is the ideal zone for folks.

A shipping label has been created for my 185 FL105s!

(And my 186 FR110s!)


:D