Mantra 102 - where to mount it?

I'll add to the lovefest for the 102's. Only on them once at last years dealer demo at Mission. A miracle happened and we had really good access to bottomless pow. (Think pushing your pole in pretty much up to the grip) Anyhow, used the opportunity to try various daily driver types in those conditions....with varied results. On the bad side, Bentcheler 100's (188cm) taco'd and sent me over the handlebars. But the real surprise was the Mantra 102 (191cm)! Was able to get it up to modes speed and pull out into the deep stuff with a neutral stance and bounce. They would go just under the surface and plane back up right now, enough so that I was able to pressure the tips some and not have worry about them diving. They're obviously not pow boards but more of a daily driver that's not going to shit the bed when you do find that stash. Foresee some 84's or 91's in the near future.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mr_pretzel

Bry -
Fucking awesome. Sounds like a quiver that needs to be shares in the quiver thread. Always love the thoughts you share, thanks!

---

My wife leaves town for 11 days tomorrow I'll line them up one night!!

Sent from my Pixel 4 XL using TGR Forums mobile app

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DumbIdeasOnly

Yeah, these sound like skis I need to try. Gonna see if I can get a demo lined up.

Edit: Hey - one question. It sounds like the Mantra 102 is a bit stronger on edge than the Wrens (or at least easier to get on edge). Am I reading you right on that?

Also fuck the demo, think I’m jumping in.

---

Yes more of a carver from the front of the shovel. Skis longer v shorter. Tail breaks free pretty easy. Never punishing really.

Sent from my Pixel 4 XL using TGR Forums mobile app

TLDR:
The LP105 will go straight at mach-looney with more confidence than an M102 and is therefore still the best all time comp ski.
The M102 likes to turn any turn shape and does not fuss.
The anticipated Katana 108 is predicted to challenge the LP105 in comp-ski status.

Current ranking:
LP105 = world's best comp ski.
M102 = world's best resort ski.
K108 = world's most anticipated ski.

Zao has received more rain than I should be writing about but our season has had the worst start in 15 years that I've witnessed. Then that rain base froze and we got a few centimeters of slush on top. Grooming machines won't even touch it in fear of making snowball/death cookies as the temperature drops.

Just some of the ugliest snow on record.

The M102s are insane. This is their environment. I mean if it's not... then does that mean they're better in real snow? My lord. Damp. Carvy short radius... or long. It depends on what I want. And then drifting turns with no chatter like I'm riding wet wood over sand.

I can barely hear them. I'm pretty sure this is the worst snow in the world and I somehow manage to forget that I have skis on my feet. In nearly dead silence they just carve through, or mow over, whatever they are on.

Blister called this a comp ski? Doesn't that mean it would be demanding? It's stable enough. But the concept of this ski being demanding is lost on this rider. That said... the sidecut does engage like a hair trigger and does require some attention. So I do still think the LP105 is the all time best comp ski. The M102 is far more versatile, though, for when your balls aren't pulling you down the mountain faster than you can respond. The LP105's longer sidecut will ignore engagement when you're not ready to turn and you're straight-lining to save your life until the speed slows.

The M102 is kind of like a more lively LP105. It feels more awake and more willing to engage in play while requiring zero more effort. But it still has all those quiet attributes that the LP105 cult follows.

If that 2021 Katana 108 has this construction, is stiff, and is flat or reverse camber, with a longer sidecut, that thing is going to be a ghost off piste. That thing will be completely mindless. It'll pull away from the M102's performance with groomer-zoomer resort arcs, but will excel at everything else. I predict the Katana 108 will be the final nail in the LP105's coffin. And I bow in witnessing the progression of innovation.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mr_pretzel

102 has a different sidecut profile than the m5 no?

The m5 feels so stuck in one turn radius, is the 102 better?

---

Looks the same to me. I laid an M5 on top of a 102 yesterday and the shape is identical, just SLIGHTLY wider. Flex seemed identical to me as well. If you zoom in you can see the edge of the 102 under the M5 in this pic. Hard for me to believe there could be a huge difference in how they ski but I will know more after I demo the 102.

https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/202...75187bc501.jpg

K108 specs on the rumors 20/21 thread. This all looks like Volkl is following in Nordica's steps....A model every 5mm but maybe with a little more spread in personality from model to model than Nordica. That said, this new, base rocker profile that volkl is using pretty much kicks ass, easily toggles between stun and KILL.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by yeahman

Looks the same to me. ... Hard for me to believe there could be a huge difference in how they ski ...

---

Who are you gonna believe? Me or your lying eyes? :)

The differences are certainly subtle, but consider the M5 has one sidecut and the 102 has three. I'm not saying that in and of itself is enough to distinguish it from the M5, but the 102 is also green, which is a way cooler color ...

But green is obviously slower than red. This is well established, however, I do think green provides a little better float

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DumbIdeasOnly

Could also easily be the case wider is more inherently stable because same construction plus wider made it stiffer? I don't know though.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ::: :::

No, wider with same construction would not be stiffer in a plane that matters to skiing (that stiffness would be resisting bending the ski sideways...like left/right

Nevertheless, subtle differences could be very real skiability issues...

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DumbIdeasOnly

Maybe this is a subtle difference but I’d think they would be longitudinally stiffer just because you’re bending more material. Maybe not though?

---

The stiffness of a beam in bending does depend on the width.

While the formulas for stress and deflection depend on the loading situation, the flexural rigidity term remains: E*I.

E is the modulus of elasticity, I is the area moment of inertia of the cross section.

For a rectangular beam of width b and height h, I=(b*h^3)/12.

So stiffness scales linearly to width and to the cube of thickness.

/nerd

Digging the stoke on this new batch of volkls. Might have to try a couple.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Norseman

While the formulas for stress and deflection depend on the loading situation

---

isn't this really the determinant, despite the mathematical statement re: stiffness?

moment of inertia doesn't care about proportion or direction

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ::: :::

No, wider with same construction would not be stiffer in a plane that matters to skiing (that stiffness would be resisting bending the ski sideways...like left/right

Nevertheless, subtle differences could be very real skiability issues...

---

Over on the Moment thread, melee (aka, Moment's Ski EO) said the opposite - wider with the same construction IS stiffer. Meridian 107 and Chipotle Banana (123 wide) share construction and the CB is way stiffer.

If the applied action is in the same direction (bending the beam about a consistent axis), the area moment of inertia scales with beam width.

The E*I term shows up in every beam formula... E is a material property, and I depends on both height and width, and is dependent on direction.

If the direction of the applied action (force, moment, distributed load) changes, then the area moment changes since width (b) and height (h) change places in the formula for I.

Attachment 309896

I'm glad the people who actually know wtf they are talking about agree with me. It seemed intuitively implausible that bending a ski in half so the tip and tail are closer together would be as easy with a really wide ski as a very narrow one.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DumbIdeasOnly

I'm glad the people who actually know wtf they are talking about agree with me. It seemed intuitively implausible that bending a ski in half so the tip and tail are closer together would be as easy with a really wide ski as a very narrow one.

---

Mr. Colon knows his shit... he's an accomplished architect. But I think he's brainfartin on this one. No disrespect [emoji8]

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Norseman

Mr. Colon knows his shit...

---

This should be his sig

i know i'm shit on this...i'm conceding - it does make sense that the added material width adds to stiffness

norse, your patience is virtuous

Can this thread get back to talking about skis?

stiff skis preferably

yes please.

I’ve owned Mantra’s in the past and my main grip with this current crop is the sizing break down.

I am 6’3” 165lbs and I don’t know if I want to press the 191’s. I have 189 Wren’s and love them... but for a firmer conditions ski 191 seems like a lot but I would be nervous going to 184cm.

I know it isn’t much... but it is enough to give me pause.

4" shorter but 55lb heavier. I've ripped around on the 84's and I think they'd be fine. M5 is a stable stick.

I havent tried the 102's yet, but have a ton of time on last years model, think they are 96mm. I have the 191's
I played with the mount fairly extensively with rental tracks, and ended up drilling mine at plus 1 cm.
Love those skis!!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tailwind

... my main grip with this current crop is the sizing break down. I am 6’3” 165lbs and I don’t know if I want to press the 191’s. I have 189 Wren’s and love them... but for a firmer conditions ski 191 seems like a lot but I would be nervous going to 184cm.

I know it isn’t much... but it is enough to give me pause.

---

Yeah, difficult decision to make there if you can't ski them before you buy. There are a lot of factors to consider, but to oversimplify - if you're comfortable pushing the longest size made of the Wren in conditions that it's suited for why would it be different driving the longest size of the Mantra in conditions it's more suited towards?

I‘m trying to decide btw 184 Mantra 102 and the new Bonafide in 189 as my low tide ski. I could get pretty good deal on both. Mantra sounds really intriguing but I’m getting nervous since I haven’t been on a ski under 185 since like 15 years. My shortest ski is an OG Blizzard Bodacious in 186. Mantra in 191 will be most likely to much. The mount point of -11 is also far back for my taste.
Two questions:
Did anybody mount them Mantras at +2 and can report back?
Can anybody tell me 184 is enough length for a 185 cm guy who still likes to make questionable line choices?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by roQer

The mount point of -11 is also far back for my taste.

---

It's why I started this thread, and definitely ski specific, but I can tell you that -11 on this thing is not like on other Volkl's that were similarly far back.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by roQer

Can anybody tell me 184 is enough length for a 185 cm guy who still likes to make questionable line choices?

---

Yes (haha). Consider my last post - if you're comfortable pushing the longest size made of 'X ski' then why would it be different for 'Y ski'? I believe the same holds true for the next size down. If the 189 isn't the longest version then the comparable would be the 184 regardless of what the number is.