Soft Snow Gymkhana - The Heritage Lab FR110

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dantheman

I hate to be a Debbie Downer in this thread of overflowing stoke, but I wasn't super psyched on the R110 (FWIW, Marshal and I have already discussed all of this via text already). The tails wanted to stay locked in a lot more than I'd like for a full rocker ski. I had ski them really forward to overcome this and make them pivot easily, and getting even a little backseat was punished hard. That made fast bumpy runouts really sporty and not in a good way. For me at least, since a rockered ski inherently gives up some stability I want to be able to throw them sideways at will, especially if I find my self a little out of position. They did have moments of brilliance, particularly linking doubles across traverses and steep lippy jumps.

I'd like to give them another shot with a +1 to +2 mount which may allow a more neutral stance. Besides experimenting with mount point it's also possible this was at least partially a tune issue, not enough detune and/or slightly edge-high. The Apruary conditions (40*-25* F temps base to peak, full spectrum of pow, hot pow, packed pow/crud, corn, and hardpack) may have been a bit past optimal, but I wouldn't have hesitated to ski Sickles in the same conditions. It's also possible that some of my gripes may not apply to people who make more turns than I do. Definitely want to try to FR110 to compare, though it's also possible that I should really just be on the FL113.

I took the Squads out the following day in identical conditions. Despite being wider and longer and having underfoot camber I found the Squads to be noticeably less demanding to ski. They were easier to slide the tails out when desired but also more composed and less work to hold a line through high-speed chunder. As always, YMMV.

---

Really appreciate your posting this! Thanks mang. Good thoughts. I'll swing by back this week, and we can re-convene on the lift this weekend!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Benneke10

DTM, you are welcome to try my 180 FR110 any time, I think you might dig them (I'm in Millcreek, mounted with STH at 310BSL). They pivot effortlessly. I haven't tried the Sickle but I've skied several Volkl full rocker skis and these are on another level in terms of drift/slarve/sideways skiing.

---

I actually think DTM needs to try 193 FR110s, as he is airing and straightling the rowdiest features in the cirque lap after lap, but the looser tail and more neutral mount of the FR could be a better match for his stance.

The R110 is definately setup to be more engaged and for a set back vs the FRs (and sender squads, sickles, etc)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by roQer

I always thought the OG Devastator was a great ski design but in 194 cm it was plain to long to be enjoyable (and the 184 cm was too short). MO seems to get it right on the FR110. Maybe I should try one.
Are they shipped to EU?

---

I was a 4frnt disciple until they replaced the Turbo with the Devastator, and didn't get the devastator for the same reasons you describe above.

Devastator sizing was annoying and I thought the 194s were underwhelming in deeper snow for a 111 under foot reverse camber ski.

Quote:

---

Your tip on opening up the stance a bit really helped. I just had one of the funnest days on skis on the FR110. It was pissing rain all day (3” of liquid in about 5 hours) and had an absolute blast. I felt like I was the only person able to ski the super sticky and grabby trees. Then once the snow softened up I was able to lay the ski over. I was dragging knuckles on a rockered ski. This thing is wild!!

---

Just sharing some more feedback on FR110s!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dantheman

I hate to be a Debbie Downer in this thread of overflowing stoke, but I wasn't super psyched on the R110 (FWIW, Marshal and I have already discussed all of this via text already). The tails wanted to stay locked in a lot more than I'd like for a full rocker ski. I had ski them really forward to overcome this and make them pivot easily, and getting even a little backseat was punished hard. That made fast bumpy runouts really sporty and not in a good way. For me at least, since a rockered ski inherently gives up some stability I want to be able to throw them sideways at will, especially if I find my self a little out of position. They did have moments of brilliance, particularly linking doubles across traverses and steep lippy jumps.

I'd like to give them another shot with a +1 to +2 mount which may allow a more neutral stance. Besides experimenting with mount point it's also possible this was at least partially a tune issue, not enough detune and/or slightly edge-high. The Apruary conditions (40*-25* F temps base to peak, full spectrum of pow, hot pow, packed pow/crud, corn, and hardpack) may have been a bit past optimal, but I wouldn't have hesitated to ski Sickles in the same conditions. It's also possible that some of my gripes may not apply to people who make more turns than I do. Definitely want to try to FR110 to compare, though it's also possible that I should really just be on the FL113.

I took the Squads out the following day in identical conditions. Despite being wider and longer and having underfoot camber I found the Squads to be noticeably less demanding to ski. They were easier to slide the tails out when desired but also more composed and less work to hold a line through high-speed chunder. As always, YMMV.

---

I've seen your description of what you loved about the sickle so, while I can tell from your video that you're a better skier than me, we know why we like that ski.

Have you tried any of the current nearly full reverse options for comparison. I.e. the katana 108 for instance?

That has less rocker than the R110 has, to my eye, but I have no problems releasing the tail. Then again I'm not skiing as fast as you are, based on your video of you skiing on the sickle.

If you do remount I am very curious to hear your impressions at different mounts. I personally can feel 0.5 to 1cm differences in mount point so more data points are always good.

I am 5'7" 1705 pounds and ordered the 181cm.

Sent from my SM-A536W using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shorty_J

I've seen your description of what you loved about the sickle so, while I can tell from your video that you're a better skier than me, we know why we like that ski.

Have you tried any of the current nearly full reverse options for comparison. I.e. the katana 108 for instance?

That has less rocker than the R110 has, to my eye, but I have no problems releasing the tail. Then again I'm not skiing as fast as you are, based on your video of you skiing on the sickle.

If you do remount I am very curious to hear your impressions at different mounts. I personally can feel 0.5 to 1cm differences in mount point so more data points are always good.

I am 5'7" 1705 pounds and ordered the 181cm.

---

Haven't skied the Katana 108 or similar. I'm definitely not one of those people who has tried a hundred different skis. Limped by with just a couple pairs and limited days for a decade plus starting in 2010 when my kid was born.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sylvan

Thanks for this man; different strokes and all that, but this confirms my R110 purchase. Look forward to hearing your thoughts when you get on the FR110s. Cheers.

---

Sweet, if that's what you're looking for in a ski I think you'll be happy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dantheman

Haven't skied the Katana 108 or similar. I'm definitely not one of those people who has tried a hundred different skis. Limped by with just a couple pairs and limited days for a decade plus starting in 2010 when my kid was born.



Sweet, if that's what you're looking for in a ski I think you'll be happy.

---

Ok well please do report back if you play with the mount point.

Sent from my SM-A536W using Tapatalk

^ bro you are over 1700 lbs? Good thing Marshalls builds are stout.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by byates1

^ bro you are over 1700 lbs? Good thing Marshalls builds are stout.

---

Yeah I saw that typo.

I can really bend a ski, yo!

Sent from my SM-A536W using Tapatalk

Props to Marshall for encouraging the negative feedback. These kinds of reviews help us all dial in on what might work or not for us. Also hope you can keep feeding DTM skis - I’m not quite as good of a skier as him but my style (less turns) and preferences (damp, easy to shut down) seem to align.

Dan - Please keep trying more of Marshall’s skis and posting your thoughts! Really appreciate you being the guinea pig for some of us. Especially interested in your feedback on the 192 FR110 and the FL113. And maybe some swallowtails if you get lucky on conditions soon.

Attachment 484906
Straight out of the box stoke
Attachment 484907
BD clip fits even with the strap flipped forward

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Self Jupiter

Devastator sizing was annoying and I thought the 194s were underwhelming in deeper snow for a 111 under foot reverse camber ski.

---

I really wanted some current Dev's but they were sold out by the time I was ready to buy, so I bought Switch's instead. Totally different beast, but it's a really dialed, fun, park/jib ski.

I was ready to buy Dev's again, but their light weight had me a but miffed for a all-mountain ski. I bought the J Hotshot instead (and love that ski).

Now, the FR110 comes along and I feel like it's the ski the Dev was meant to be. Alas, I was too slow pulling the trigger. As soon as this ski is available again, I'm in.

I haven't been around long enough to ski the OG inspiration for Marshall's skis. I think his concept is very cool. I'm also a huge fan of quality product produced in small lots. I hope this project has a ton of continued success. Now, make moar skis!! :smile:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dantheman

I hate to be a Debbie Downer in this thread of overflowing stoke, but I wasn't super psyched on the R110 (FWIW, Marshal and I have already discussed all of this via text already). The tails wanted to stay locked in a lot more than I'd like for a full rocker ski. I had ski them really forward to overcome this and make them pivot easily, and getting even a little backseat was punished hard. That made fast bumpy runouts really sporty and not in a good way. For me at least, since a rockered ski inherently gives up some stability I want to be able to throw them sideways at will, especially if I find my self a little out of position. They did have moments of brilliance, particularly linking doubles across traverses and steep lippy jumps.

I'd like to give them another shot with a +1 to +2 mount which may allow a more neutral stance. Besides experimenting with mount point it's also possible this was at least partially a tune issue, not enough detune and/or slightly edge-high. The Apruary conditions (40*-25* F temps base to peak, full spectrum of pow, hot pow, packed pow/crud, corn, and hardpack) may have been a bit past optimal, but I wouldn't have hesitated to ski Sickles in the same conditions. It's also possible that some of my gripes may not apply to people who make more turns than I do. Definitely want to try to FR110 to compare, though it's also possible that I should really just be on the FL113.

I took the Squads out the following day in identical conditions. Despite being wider and longer and having underfoot camber I found the Squads to be noticeably less demanding to ski. They were easier to slide the tails out when desired but also more composed and less work to hold a line through high-speed chunder. As always, YMMV.

---

I too had some trouble on the R110 this weekend. The weight after three days must have got to me and the tail started to kick my ass. I tend to get backseat a bit when tired. I do really think this is a situation though where its more on my ability/fitness. If I'm fresh with fresh snow its a blast but I think for me personally I would really jive with the C rocker profile on my DD at Alta once I got my fitness up.

Looks like some fresh snow is coming this weekend hopefully can get more time on the FR120 to compare rocker profiles.

“Tails locked in” + “want to try them mounted further forward” doesn’t make sense to me. Going back almost always makes me feel like I have more authority over the tails.

Help me to understand?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mustonen

“Tails locked in” + “want to try them mounted further forward” doesn’t make sense to me. Going back almost always makes me feel like I have more authority over the tails.

Help me to understand?

---

I'm with you here. I dont think going forward is the play for me. I'm going to try Marshall's demo pair at -9 to see what that yields. I personally think I just may prefer more rocker.

Don't have a pair in front of me, but this sounds like a "detune tails till satisfactory release behavior met" kinda ski

Yes, all of this is right on the money.
Look forward to playing with detune and mounts on these babies, and really grateful to the dialogue!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mustonen

“Tails locked in” + “want to try them mounted further forward” doesn’t make sense to me. Going back almost always makes me feel like I have more authority over the tails.

Help me to understand?

---

I think Dan's feedback points to just not a great match on the 187 R110 and his style. This was exactly the test I was hoping to have with him, so SUPER grateful for him giving them a go and being honest about the feedback.

Mainly, he felt he had to drive the tips harder than he wanted (hence move forward / less tip) but also that the tail was more engaged and substantial that he would prefer (points to having less tail). To ShortyJ's point, the 181 R110 (and 186 FR110) are going to be more apples-to-apples with the old Sickle (which is actually 182cm).

Thanks to all for talking this through, it super helpful

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kc_7777

Attachment 484828

---

Sorry for the marginal snow, but glad the skis made it better for you!

But talk me through the length thing! Your 4frnts measure different than they claim and my skis measure very close to claimed... And I should change??? haha. Just teasing.

The HB is that way just as a nod to the OG's being way longer than marketed originally. Those skis are stupid fun by the way.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CouloirInTheLines

Props to Marshall for encouraging the negative feedback. These kinds of reviews help us all dial in on what might work or not for us. Also hope you can keep feeding DTM skis - I’m not quite as good of a skier as him but my style (less turns) and preferences (damp, easy to shut down) seem to align.

---

Dude, for sure! Obiviously I am glad when people are excited and happy, but critical feedback to help make sure folks are selecting the right ski is really really important, always keen for that so I can do a better job fitting folks with skis.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by L8APX

Straight out of the box stoke
Attachment 484907
BD clip fits even with the strap flipped forward

---

BOOYA! Awesome man. It sounds like GoSlowGoFar did a similar thing too, by cutting a slit into his pomoca tail and popping the BD clip in.

Quick Skin Updated Summary

• G3 - best off with a twin twip adaptor if the skin is on the long side or pushing a BD tail clip through as imaged above if skin is on the shorter side
• BD - Standard tail clip
• Pomoca - lightly modified Pomoca or G3 twin tip clip if on the long side. Jones QT (quick tension) tail clip or retrofit BD tailclip if on the short side

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Marshal Olson

I think Dan's feedback points to just not a great match on the 187 R110 and his style. This was exactly the test I was hoping to have with him, so SUPER grateful for him giving them a go and being honest about the feedback.

Mainly, he felt he had to drive the tips harder than he wanted (hence move forward / less tip) but also that the tail was more engaged and substantial that he would prefer (points to having less tail). To ShortyJ's point, the 181 R110 (and 186 FR110) are going to be more apples-to-apples with the old Sickle (which is actually 182cm).

Thanks to all for talking this through, it super helpful

---

Maybe I can see that, though his daily is the Sender Squad which is a big beefy 194cm ski that, while compliant, requires some input. It’s probably the last thing from an engage-the-tip and then ride-the-tail sort of ski. Could also just be an adjustment period wherein the Squad has a pretty soft tail and likes to disappear from below you (in a good way). I doubt it was really the length that he was fighting, though.

Has anybody been able to compare these to a Corvus, yet? Wondering if that stronger tail might be a more apt comparison?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mustonen

Maybe I can see that, though his daily is the Sender Squad which is a big beefy 194cm ski that, while compliant, requires some input. It’s probably the last thing from an engage-the-tip and then ride-the-tail sort of ski. Could also just be an adjustment period wherein the Squad has a pretty soft tail and likes to disappear from below you (in a good way). I doubt it was really the length that he was fighting, though.

Has anybody been able to compare these to a Corvus, yet? Wondering if that stronger tail might be a more apt comparison?

---

Really helpful context and good points.

I have some folks coming off corvus looking to demo the R110 next week, so looking forward to that, and eager to nab the pair dan has and play with them a little more and circling back with him for laps this weekend.

And there are alot of beta release skis delivering last and this week, so eager for more feedback.

Got my R110s yesterday, gonna mount them up and get the AB going of the FR110.

The tail isn’t super stiff nor is the rocker super low, so I’m sure with more detuning the tails wont be an issue.