Thanks! Looking forward to hearing your thoughts. I'm hoping to get out on them Tues mounted on the lineQuote:
Originally Posted by lowsparkco
Printable View
Thanks! Looking forward to hearing your thoughts. I'm hoping to get out on them Tues mounted on the lineQuote:
Originally Posted by lowsparkco
Last year my most used ski was the m102 184. This year I’ve largely switched to the mb187 (99/current version). Nice to have both. Just saying. They’re different enough.
That's a good point, I have the 187, 96mm version.Quote:
Originally Posted by MD12
Might just have to hit up the Corbetts sale and snag another set of pivots.
Just need to verify holes won't be overlapping
My guess at this point is I would have been better off on the 177. Moving up +2 definitely helped me manage the length better, but it feels like it’s in front of the radius of the ski a smidge. Just a little slow to engage. I’m going to run them over a good stone a few times and give them another shot in some better snow, better visibility. I want to love these skis just can’t get them to hook up the way I want.Quote:
Originally Posted by rightcoast
After adjusting the Griffons to my bsl I am at about +1 on the 184. I was pleasantly surprised how quickly I adjusted to this ski, not as planky and more versatile than I expected. Comfortable popping off rollers and I feel like I can get much higher edge angles in long turns than I can on my Masterblaster. I'm sold
Nice! Glad it worked out.Quote:
Originally Posted by rightcoast
I just rented some mantra m6 to bring to lake louise to see if they crush the low tide like I hope they will.
Sent from my SM-A536W using Tapatalk
So those M6 really want to go!
They definitely hold an edge like crazy and can be released without too much effort, but I found them to prefer 1 turn shape more than other mantra series skis I have tried. I felt like the triple radius sidecut was the least apparent in this ski vs the K108, Blaze 106, Blaze 86, and Secret / Mantra 102 that I have also tried.
The speed limit of these skis is way above my speed limit, but couple that with what I perceived as a smaller set of turn shapes means that while I had fun, I don't think I will be buying a pair for myself.
Sent from my SM-A536W using Tapatalk
What length were you on?Quote:
Originally Posted by Shorty_J
I think you summed up the M6 pretty well, especially in relation to its wider siblings.
I’m on the 184 and find them much more eager to be on edge versus the M102 or K108. The M6 is also much more dynamic and quick, which makes sense due to the narrower waist and overall lighter weight. I haven’t even skied my M6’s this year since the new M102 has a similar demeanor but is just a bit more ski and bit more stable.
177.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bandit Man
Which is plenty for me ... can't see wanting more on this ski. They already scared me with the speed they want so I would not want more length on these. I could be convinced to try the k108 in a longer length but I don't think so on the M6.
I had demo bindings on my pair and when I went from +1cm back to +0.5cm they became more dynamic and allowed slightly more range of turn shapes. I should probably have tried them on the line as well but I was sharing this ski with a buddy and he had them in the afternoon.
Sent from my SM-A536W using Tapatalk
I was just thinking about it and I feel like today is somewhat confirming of something I said in one of the heritage labs threads... I think if this ski had the same camber profile (I.e almost none) of the k108 I would have adored them.
I've been feeling for a while like regardless of the conditions I don't want a ski to tell me what turn shape I want.
I think I'm over camber and I can't wait for my R110s to arrive next year. And maybe a skinny version too!
That probably is an indictment on my skiing skills but I'm ok with that.
Sent from my SM-A536W using Tapatalk
How do your M102s do in tighter spots such as moguls or drainages? Sure not first choice but curious how much better than the gen 1 M102.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bandit Man
Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums
Anyone riding on the Revolt 121 in 191 that's not super heavy. Looking for a bigger pow ski, that still has a fun flex (medium +). 5' 8" 170lb.
I have the gen 2 in 191 and have had no problems with them in tight spots - I find provided you stay pretty active in your skiing (i.e in the front of the boots) they release without a hitch. One thing I love about them is they’re so consistent in how they behave regardless of the situation. Skiied them yesterday in a foot of fresh on top of hard moguls in trees and never a concern around being able to break them sideways and shut it down.Quote:
Originally Posted by PNW-skier78
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I have had the Gen 1 M102 and just got the Gen 2 M102 both in 191. They handle the moguls fine, drainages and trees very well. I can zipper moguls with them but if it hasn't snowed in a while and I know it will be 100% hard pack and mogul day I take my Dictator 1.0.Quote:
Originally Posted by PNW-skier78
Luke seems to enjoy R114s.
I can't say that the review made me regret selling my pair before skiing them - BGs slay in this segment too.
curious about anyone’s take revolt 121 vs. Nocta v3 if they have skied both. Really liked the Revolt in 184 but felt like just a touch longer might be better. May have been my mount point. I don’t mind progressive mounts and was on the Team Line. I’m 6’ 173 lbs. plus gear. Been leaning towards Nocta in the 190 cuz of their weight in that length. It’s not heavy while not being uber light. Mainly a resort pow ski. Please opine.
Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums
I’ve skied the gen1 m102 in 177 and 184, the m6 in 184 and the gen2 m102 in 184.
I don’t think I found the top end of the gen1 m102 in 177. My issue with that ski was that it seemed a bit hooky and really wanted to be on edge even when running more bases flat. Almost took a couple spills just cruising around at moderate speeds when it would just catch an edge unexpectedly and want to commit to a turn or would otherwise sort of skid out to one side. Usually would happen on one of the first few runs of the day and then would go away. I’ve never experienced that with the longer lengths of the 102 or m6.
based on that experience I’ve always thought these skis are pretty sensitive to length. Sometimes longer is easier even if you don’t need more top end. On the other hand, I didn’t pay much attention to the bases on the 177 at the time so maybe it just needed a stone grind.
Any chance the bases weren't flat? All of the recent volkls I have owned had concave bases, although not to the extent that it bothered me a ton.Quote:
Originally Posted by MD12
Sent from my Pixel 8 Pro using Tapatalk
Def possible. I never checked. Ended up parting with the skis as I liked the 184 better anyway for most purposes.
Reposting from tbe J Skis thread
Got on my 187 (newer version) J Skis Masterblasters for a couple more days at Squaw this weekend. Spring conditions, bit crunchy in the morning, soft in the afternoon.
Current mount is +.3cm ahead of the line with 295mm BSL. If I could do it over I’d mount right on the line, maybe up to -.5cm but no further (my first mount was -1.2cm and I didn’t like them there).
MB is Super predictable, can make fast turns, carves, and pivots from a more centered stance or pressuring the shovels hard. The harder you push them, the more they can dig in and carve.
They do a really good job of smoothing out crud and chop, especially if it’s a bit softer. Very good suspension.
Comparing to 184 Mantra 102 and M6 - the Masterblaster beats them out in soft snow, mashed potatoes, deep variable crud, and moguls. Easier to pivot and slide through moguls, and considerably bigger sweet spot.
Both Mantras definitely hold an edge on icy hardpack noticeably better. The MB isn’t bad, but you really have to lean into it to carve hard and you can feel the limits of your edge grip levels. The MB is very predictable at least, I never was surprised by washing out the tails a lot or anything like that. I skied these faster than I probably should have, and they stayed composed. If you’re backseat going Mach 1 the tips can start to bounce and chatter a tad.
Once the groomers get soft, the Masterblaster gets a lot better/easier to carve and closer to the Mantras carving.
I’d still say the M102 is a better crud buster than the MB. M6 closer to MB, but still probably better. In variable snow though the extra rocker on the MB makes it a little more predictable and easy. The slightly softer flex and heft of the skis makes smoothing and smearing out variable enjoyable.
I felt both the M6 and M102 required you to be on your game technique wise and driving the shovels, but rewarded you for it. MB more laid back, and allows you to ski more neutral and won’t kick your ass if you’re tired or get more backseat.
I’d love to compare the MB to the new Volkl M7, and I’d also like to add a more aggressive tune to the MB to see if that helps the hardpack grip a bit without hurting the maneuverability too much. I may have detuned the tips and tails too much.
TLDR - Get Masterblaster if you value maneuverability and mogul performance more, have a more neutral stance, or just want an easier ski that lets you starve and smear with ease. Buy the mantras if you value hardpack performance and icy groomer carving more, or really like pushing things fast and driving the shovels hard all the time - because they do reward it handsomely.
Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums
Found a cheap pair of 184 Revolt 114's and need to get them out in some spring corn or hot pow for science. ;)
You need some Dukes on em. [emoji6]Quote:
Originally Posted by Bandit Man
Sent from my SM-S928U using Tapatalk
naedward81, you get on the M7s yet?
I demoed the M6s a while back, and they were so, so damn good. Wondering how much of a change the M7 will be.
Yep. Brought them to Bridger and skied them two days.Quote:
Originally Posted by NotSoBright
I moved the demo bindings up to the middle line.
I thought they engaged really well, found zero speed limit on them. Turns release easy and spring you to the next turn. It felt like the tips were softer than the M6, which might have made turn iniation easier. Ended up ripping soft groomers one day and they were a blast. I liked them a lot better than the M6.
2nd day on them was hard pack groomers and some ungroomed bumps. Easy to pivot in tight spots, predictable. The hard groomers they gripped. Only sketchy spots were iced over wind blown non groomed snow that made me question decisions on how fast I was going.
My buddy skied the 184 one day and was in love. He's a shop manager and was ready to order a pair for next year. He said they carved better than his Rustler 10.
I will say, I skied them on absolute Midwest boiler plate ice and I wasn't comfortable with the edge hold, tails seemed to release mid turn. I switched to my Kendo, and same thing. I was watching slalom skis not leave a mark in the snow either, so bad day to judge.
Sent from my SM-S928U using Tapatalk
Thanks!Quote:
Originally Posted by naedward81
Surprising that they're so much of an improvement over the M6, as the M6 was freakin' ace.
Suggestions on a mount point for a Blaze 94?
I continue to be very happy with my short (170) m102’s on the line with tele ntn clamps and tx comps. Tahoe resort conditions. I still use my groomer zoomers to mix things up for myself and my bibby’s because their a ton of fun in deeper snow.
I mounted my 186 B94’s at plus 1 and am happy there. Mine are tele. Plus 1 looked really good in relation to sidecut/camber/standing on them.Quote:
Originally Posted by funkendrenchman
What bindings are you putting on?
I was thinking at least a little forward. I skied next year's with the carbon in them.Quote:
Originally Posted by chicken feathers
I didn't mess with mount point, but would have liked them on the middle line better.
Sent from my SM-S928U using Tapatalk
how'd they compare to current layup? other than weight carbon isn't always a plus IMEQuote:
Originally Posted by naedward81
Felt a little more stiff , while being lighter. I only skied the 106 in previous years, which is now the 102(?) with carbon like the new 94.Quote:
Originally Posted by ticketchecker
Sent from my SM-S928U using Tapatalk
thx mang, I've got the OG 106 and it's so smoove for what it isQuote:
Originally Posted by naedward81
I’m quiver killing my oldest’s 100Eights for FT12’s and sali z12’s. With the existing z12 holes mounted on the line, I need to put the ft12’s either + or - about 1cm from the line due to hole conflict. Anybody have an opinion about which location would be better?
STH13sQuote:
Originally Posted by chicken feathers
I’d go +1. I’ve got 189 100Eights with Attacks at +1 to avoid a prior mount. I think they have a big sweet spot as I didn’t notice a difference from the previous mount I had.Quote:
Originally Posted by bodywhomper
Also a good discussion on mounting pin bindings at +1 in one of the HL threads. Point being that touring gear is less powerful than resort gear, so the forward mount can help out.
Thanks! Currently, he will be touring in his alpine boots (kids!!- sheesh). He’s on the 189’s, too.
Dear sweet Jesus, the BMT 122 is a freaking fantastic ski!
Turned dust on crust into great conditions.
Sent from my SM-A536W using Tapatalk
Yep. Every BMT is a special ski. The 122 probably gets the least attention because the 109 is so good in soft snow. Took me a long time to ski the 122 because - why bother? I was so happy with the 109.Quote:
Originally Posted by Shorty_J
Sent from my Pixel 8 Pro using Tapatalk
Today I started out on 112 under foot and I was finding the crust.Quote:
Originally Posted by tgapp
So I thought... why not get the fattest ski in the box and see if you can stay on top of the crust.
It was a good choice.
Sent from my SM-A536W using Tapatalk