Printable View
I’ll add that the updated M102 feels more like a fat M6 (a bit more groomer focused and tighter radius under foot) and the old M102 feels more like a narrow K108, IMO.
Also, while I’m only on the 183 B97, it feels like less ski than the Volkls. Definitely less damp. I could also see how someone who wants a more energetic ski would choose the B97 over an M102.
Thanks for the responses. I'm leaning towards the B97 for my needs since 1 I have demoed it and it felt great on my home mountain, and 2 I already have the K108 and the M102 seems like more overlap. However, sounds like the M102 might the best 1 ski quiver of the bunch.
I have/had all three, K108/M102/B97. Sold K108 because it was to much overlap with M102 and I much prefer M-free 108 for this spot of a soft snow oriented but still playful charger. The OG B97 in 189 has a very locked tail and doesn’t like fast direction changes in 3D snow. This is somehow compromising if you’re used to looser skis like MF108. However, it’s extremely stable and damp, more so than M102. I have the M102 in 184 cm, so 191 might be a better match. But I think the main character of M102 remains, it’s more nimble and has a looser tail allowing for any turn shape whereas B97 is more locked in GS style ski in a more traditional way. I use B97 almost exclusively for piste skiing and it’s the ski with the highest speed limit (or lack of it) in my quiver.Quote:
Originally Posted by Nevada29er
Damn...
A B97, M102, MF108 sounds like a rad pre-pow quiver.
Very similar to my dream of a Heritage line up--
R99, FL 105, FL113.
Just add an R87 for firmer stuff (shrug) and a dedicated forest ski (Renegade.)
But whatever, those two quivers are entirely dependent on terrain and skiing style. Seems like roQer is killing it for his needs. I could easily, very easily, make that quiver last ten years.
The other weird variable to this question is "what year B97 did you try?" They nerfed the 22-23 version. I own the throwback topsheet model, which is from an earlier production run, before the ski was made more manageable. It still feels like less ski than the M102, especially the original version of that ski. Furthermore, the 189 B97 seems like more ski than the M102 according to some bigger, hard-chargers, yet the OG M102 is one of the more "challenging" skis I've been on in recent memory and was "more ski" than the 191 K108...well, at least it was for me. I do agree that the M102 skis a bit looser in the tail, especially in deep or funky snow.
I'm so bummed I sold my OG M102. That thing was magical. I replaced it with the K108 and while not unhappy with it the OG M102 just seemed to be more ... magical.
Has been my experience when testing out both of these skis, but 102 was a weird middle child in terms of width.Quote:
Originally Posted by Nevada29er
I demoed the 22-23 B97 189 last year (6'6" 215). When I asked the rep what the difference was between last years model, he said a 'slightly rounder flex profile". Blizzard hasn't really been advertising any change between the 21=22 and 22=23 models, which makes me think the differences are subtle, but responses on this thread imply they dumbed it down.
I'm fine with a turnier version for skiing in bounds Sierra terrain. Out of all the skis I demoed that year, including M Pro 108, it had by far the most bite and backbone, but was still manageable in the trees. The OG 187 Bones are my all time favorite Squaw ski, so not looking to go too far from the tree on this.
I think the original M102 skis more like the original Bonafide (I owned the 187 once upon a time), but with a more deep snow friendly tail.
If anyone's interested in a pair of last year's 184s, hit me up. I picked them up over the summer and mounted them but now thinking I might have too much overlap. So one mount but never skied - the ol' expensive mind change...
Where are you located?Quote:
Originally Posted by optics
sorry, just saw this. SF bay area but no big deal to ship.Quote:
Originally Posted by ASP
Picked up a pair of cheap (CAN$200) 191 M102s. They’re actually in great shape, but I’m going beat the shit of them in these low tide conditions. They appear to have been mounted with Pivots, but I’m going to throw STH2s on them. It seems I can reuse the front toe piece holes (I wasn’t aware this worked, but they seem to screw in cleanly) with just enough clearance for the rear holes @ 1.25cm forward of the standard line. Attachment 481096
Good deal. I need to find a pair on the cheap like that
So, after reading all 22 pages after this thread, I found the advice on where to mount my Volkl M102s inconclusive, so I headed to my local hill to experiment a bit and decide..
Background info: I'm 5'10.5'' (179cm) tall & weigh 195lbs. I bought my M102s in 177cm with Marker demo bindings on them, and have generally run them at the rear line for the past two seasons. Since I'm using demo bindings, I wasnt able to hit +0 exactly, I am off by +0.3cm on everything. Last season at Alyeska, I did experiment with moving my boots up and ultimately settled back at 0.3cm. Since I didn't take notes at Alyeska, I headed to Snow Summit (Big Bear, CA) on February 16th to repeat my experiments before mounting new non-demo Look Pivot 12s.
Impressions of +2.3cm: Really livened up the ski a bit, made them ski much shorter & a bit more playful. Short turns and skiing switch suddenly enabled, but less stable at speed. Through moguls, I felt better than ever, until I suddenly landed backseat and wished for the first time ever that I had more ski in front of me.
Impressions of +1.3cm: This is an obvious compromise between +0 and +2. I only did a two runs here before deciding that I would either do +0 or +2. My main gripe with +1.3cm was that skiing switch wasn't really any easier than at +0.3cm.
Impressions at +0.3cm: This is where I've been skiing for the past 2 seasons, and as soon as I went back to +0.3cm, I remember exactly what I like about this ski: the stability at speeds and having plenty of ski in front of me to plow through the crud. Yes, it's harder to turn quickly on this ski, but the stability you get more than makes up for it.
Impressions at -0.2cm: This is technically the closest to +0 of any of my experiments, and just the fact that I found myself testing -0.2cm on a day when I was trying to decide between +0, +1cm & +2cm ended the experiment for me.
Overall:
I have a 4 ski quiver where the M102s are my hard charging all-mountain directional ski, and at +0, that's exactly what this ski excels at. I ended up mounting my new Look Pivot bindings at +0, and after 9 days of skiing with them, I am very happy with the increased flex and elasticity.
If I was using this ski in a one ski quiver, I'd probably go +2, as it's a bit more versatile. As always, your best bet is to just demo these skis & experiment with the boot placement yourself before buying!
Bot?