Big Sky rips skis apart. Next time you're there, ask to see a local's bases.
Awesome to hear your 102 handled the abuse!
Printable View
Big Sky rips skis apart. Next time you're there, ask to see a local's bases.
Awesome to hear your 102 handled the abuse!
the Wren vs Volkl 102.... The Wren while a stout ski has a ton of tip rocker, so has a lot less effective edge than the 102.
It's hard to understand why this comparison is coming up. Wren 96 or 108? Ti? I kind of feel like these are two different genres of skis in comparison to the Mantra 102.
As an athlete, I'll keep it simple: I don't like a lot of rocker. At all. I don't want to rely on rocker to keep me afloat. I want camber to do my dirty work. I want a reverse camber ski in 3D snow. I want that ski to be stiff and in its sweet spot. Ala-- the 4FRNT Renegade. I don't have to think, at all.
On 2D snow I want my edge to engage, and I want my tail to release. I do not need float. I do not need heaps of rocker. This is where ON3P loses me.
The 2020 M102 nailed it. It's very subtle camber keeping my edge engaged while simultaneously making it easy to pivot in softer snow.
I'll try an ON3P build. But get rid of that god-awful huge-ass tip rocker that is going to bounce over every piece of chop it encounters as it was designed to be a "floater."
Look at this picture and tell me if it's accurate. Do all these skis have the exact same rocker/camber profile?
Attachment 313159
Thank you! That was the point I was trying to make just too lazy to write it all out. The skis are apples and airplanes.
The discussion on these 2 skis came from the previous page(s) talking about length and the point I was trying to make was the Volkl will ski closer to true length and the Wren will ski shorter due to all the rocker.
I understand the point you’re making - the reason I asked about the Wren is that if you want a stiff metal laminate ski with a long turn radius for hard snow, there aren’t really a ton of options in current production (Kastle MX99, Mantra, Wren, possibly the new Rossi and Solly next year?). I’ve been looking for a Monster 98 but can’t find a 184 Or 191 that isn’t beat to hell or the same price as a new ski.Quote:
Originally Posted by gaijin
So, while the Mantra and Wren are obviously different skis, they were both finalists for me personally. Does that make any more sense?
Anyone have a comparison between V Werks Katana or Mantra and this M102?
Next week I'll start to have answersQuote:
Originally Posted by CaliBrit
Actually I do. I have the green dragon full metal 198cm Katana, a 191cm V-Werks Katana, and as stated a slew of previous Mantras and now the 102.Quote:
Originally Posted by CaliBrit
As a benchmark nothing touches the full metal Katana. Nothing. So far may all-time fav ski. The V-Werks Katana skis like ~90% of the full metal version even though it's uber-lightweight and 7 cm shorter, but realize that it also has Kingpins on it so the bindings (Jester Pro versus KP13) and boots (Atomix Hawx 130 UTD versus RS 140) add a huge variable there. That variable will also play into my V-Werks and M102 comparison as I have new Dukes on the M102.
That said, the V-werks Katana is more similar to older Mantras and/or the M5 than the M102. It's very much directional like the metal version, and as a matter of fact this thread was started asking about mounting points based on my Katana experience. I ended-up mounting the V-Werks +2cm because it was such a traditional feel. It locks into the turn and doesn't like to let go until it's done. Don't get me wrong - you can pivot it, but not with the mindless ease of the M102. Mounting it forward made it a little more playful, but it's still a Katana.
To summarize the Katanas (either) are more like the M5 and older Mantras. I consider the M102 to be in a class by itself because it can do everything the Katanas and other mantras do, with aplomb, but they don't do what the M102 can do.
Thanks for this, I'll get on a pair. Just checked at the ski shop at the bottom of the hill and they have some to demo so I'll get on them. Only 184's but I think that is what I would go for vs my 191 Enforcer 110's. Have some V Werks Katana 184 in plastic so I was trying to see if I was being stupid considering this M102, but I might but pin bindings on the V Werks.Quote:
Originally Posted by YoEddy
Makes me wonder which camp the V Werks Mantra is in. Old school mantra or new M102...
Brilliant, please report back.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lord Thomas
First day on a Mantra 102 in 184. All kinds of snow from blank ice to powder. Those are my impressions:
1) It’s an excellent ski but it has in this length for me definitely a lower top end than OG Cochise in 193, OG Bodacious in 186, OG metal Katana in 191, Kästle BMX 105 HP in 189 and Faction Dictator 4.0 in 192, all of them I still own or recently owned.
2) Thus it‘s not some ballistic missile as Blister and some other reports suggest. In fact it’s very pivoty and quite easy to ski. Reminds me pretty much of my Rustler 11 in terms of accessibility. As with OG metal Katana and OG Cochise any turn shape is possible but with the Mantra you get more energy from the turn than from those both.
3) If you’re used to more centered mounts go at least 1 or 2 cm forward. The tail is softer than expected and provides not much support, much less than OG Bodacious (with a very similar mount point) or OG metal Katana. The ski responds very well to a more centered stance and I assume going +2 would make it better balanced.
4) If you’re a strong skier don’t listen to Blister and downsize if between the sizes. I really wish I had gone 191 instead of 184. Maybe it gets better if I remount the binding at +1.5 or +2.
In summary: nice but not a variable conditions charger revelation which for I hoped. Gonna keep my OG metal Katanas as there is still no replacement in sight.
What’s your height/weight?Quote:
Originally Posted by roQer
Also thanks for the insight!
Has anyone skied both the Mantra 102 and the Head Monster 98? The M98 is my firm snow ski and is awesome, but would be more awesome if it were looser off piste, a bit more energetic, and more pliable with respect to making different turn shapes. I'd be willing to trade some top-end stability for these characteristics.
I'll probably try to demo the Mantra 102 at some point over the next couple of weeks and can provide a comparison afterwards.
I‘m 185 cm and 85 kg naked.Quote:
Originally Posted by CaliBrit
Well I guess that's good news as the only ones I can get my hands on at a reasonable price is the long one. If I didn't already have a ton of 108 cm skis I'd just wait for next years katana. basically the same ski eh?
I'm 188 cm and 80kg... on the 191s.Quote:
Originally Posted by roQer
Sent from my Pixel 4 XL using Tapatalk
That is a good question: does the katana have less tail rocker than the M102? Tip shape looked a bit different too from hazy pics?Quote:
Originally Posted by klauss
Given the differentiation between the 2 mantras I’m guessing the katana will also be a little different vs just a wider M102.Quote:
Originally Posted by smooth operator
I was able to demo the Mantra 102 at Whistler recently and A/B it against the Monster 98 in conditions ranging from icy groomers to windbuff to 8-10" of pow (skied both in a 177 length; I am 5'7, 165ish). A few thoughts below for anyone interested in this comparison.
TLDR: these skis do not feel that similar, and I think the Mantra 102 is a better ski by every measure except top-end stability, where the M98 is significantly stronger.
The M98 hand flexes stiffer than the M102, especially in the tips and tails. It also feels like a much stiffer, more one-dimensional ski on snow. The M98 wants to lock into one turn shape, and it takes a fair bit of skier input to break free from a turn or bend it into a tighter radius. The M102 is more eager to initiate turns, while also being WAY easier to pivot and slarve around. The M102 also generates a nice amount of energy when unloaded, whereas the M98 is deadly calm regardless of how hard you ski it.
For how precise of a carver it is, the M102 is surprisingly easy and intuitive in 3D snow. I skied a lot of variable conditions, including some steep pitches that transitioned from wind-scoured at the top to powder or cut-up crud farther down, and felt pretty comfortable opening the throttle on the M102. Even though the M98 is a much more stable ski, its stiff/flat tips and tails are more prone to getting hung up or kicking you off balance if you shift too far fore/aft.
Neither ski is playful, but the M102 is more fun. It would make a great half of a 2-ski quiver for days that aren't super deep/soft.
Sadly I hear that it's a bigger version of the M5. I hope this is bad beta, but I fear not.Quote:
Originally Posted by CaliBrit
Finally got a chance to ski these today at Blackcomb. I was on the 184. Very much agree with what has been stated here. Stable and strong, but easy to break loose, especially in soft, variable snow off piste. Not as demanding As I thought it might be. Impressed with the multi-radius sidecut. I think I need a pair.
My buddy (6’2”, 200-lbs) who normally skis a 187 Bonafide skied the 191. He was amazed how manageable they were. He thought they felt shorter than his Bonafides...except for very tight trees. He agrees with my assessment...very stable but not punishing. Rewards solid technique and is tremendously versatile in all kinds of conditions. He wants the 191’s.
Let's chat this out. This is my first ski with a variable sidecut. (I don't even know what that means in real life.) It's hard to understand the physics behind a short radius underfoot and a longer radius in the tips & tails. I can't see that shape in my head.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bandit Man
But when I ski it's just so easy. At low/medium speeds I can just throw my ankle to the side and get a short radius arc. Like a little mini GS ski. But when I decide to rip the face apart, that short radius isn't there anymore. Usually on a ski that is easy to zipper at lower speeds I feel the ski is being out-skied at high speeds. That isn't the case with this sidecut.
I don't know what that means. And I can't understand how a ski can do both medium speeds with quick arcs and high speeds with long arcs.
In reality, I guess the underfoot just kind of "misses out" on the long radius/high speed turns... and maybe that's where the speed limit is... all while hidden by tip/tail engagement.
In my mind, it makes them not hooky whatsoever and allows a varied radius turn. Skiing is believing. If you love that locked in feeling, these aren’t the ski. Good edge hold, but not locked into a given radius. Similar to the OG Cochise (or at least that is the closest comparison I can see), but a different feeling for how the ski behaves. Skis like a substantial ski but without any punishing attributes. The Blister Review is pretty accurate on these, IMO.
Have you skied the mindbender 108? Looking for a good comparison of the two.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bandit Man
Unfortunately I have not. I was hoping to back to back those two skis yesterday but the MB 108 was out all day.Quote:
Originally Posted by CaliBrit
Ahhh shame. I mean I’ve disliked K2 for so long but all opinions seem to be good.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bandit Man
I skied the Mindbender 108ti (18x?) last spring on slush and refrozen slush. I was surprised at how well it skied those conditions and said at the time that it would be my next ski. And if it were cheaper than my M102, I might have purchased it.
That said, the M102 has a quieter tip, smoother arcs and has a damper metal feel. The 108ti released easier and had a softer tip and is therefore probably better than the M102 in the deep, but that's just speculation for me.
Both are good skis. The Völkl feels more durable but who knows.
Thanks for that. I may just buy the mindbenders and be the tgr guinea pig. Not many reviews in real conditions except blister.Quote:
Originally Posted by gaijin
My take is that if you're getting a deal on it, you probably won't regret the purchase. If you're building a quiver and want the cusp of 2020 design to last you 10+ years, you might want to look at the M102. But I have absolutely no history to articulate why the K2 won't also last 10 years.Quote:
Originally Posted by CaliBrit
I don't think the K2 is easier or more forgiving, per se, but I do think the Volkl is more ski.
Yeah I found a killer deal. Can’t get them shipped though so might be over it.Quote:
Originally Posted by gaijin
Honestly based on the other skis you normally use, it's not surprising that a smaller ski was less stable than you expected. It seems like you are solidly in the pick-the-bigger-ski camp and not between sizes at all. I also don't think going forward will get you what you want at all. If anything that will make it ski even shorter and less stable.Quote:
Originally Posted by roQer
I think I’m down to the m102 or next years bodacious. Less out there on the blizzard but what there is is very encouraging.Quote:
Originally Posted by gaijin
Any feedback from people mounting +1 or +2 on these or is the accepted wisdom still that's stupid?
Looking at the 191 and was thinking a -9 or -10-ish mount might help keep me from blowing up when I land on my tails because I'm bad at drops. Don't think I need the ski to feel quicker particularly.
I wouldn’t say that mounting at +1 or +2 is stupid. My M102 in 184 is mounted at recommended and I don’t like it there very much. No problems on groomers and in consistent snow but in variable shit fuck where I’m getting occasionally out of balance I wish I had more tail. 184 could be to short for me, though, so I might overpower the ski. On a 191 I would definitely go at least +1.Quote:
Originally Posted by DumbIdeasOnly
In the past I went +2 on all my Völkls (2x metal Katana & 1x V-Werks Katana, all in 191) and never regretted doing so.
After a quick 2-hour jaunt on the 184 this past weekend, I saw no need to deviate from the suggested mount point, however, that is a very limited sample size. Also, other than when I was in tight trees, I thought I could size up.
Weird how the ski hand flexes quite stiff, but doesn’t ski as stiff as one would think, at least IMO.
Again, I started this thread with that very question given my similar experience with both versions of Katanas and multiple Mantras. If I had to do it all over again I would mount it right where I did - on the line. If there is consensus on anything in this thread it's that the M102 is nothing like the Katanas and previous Mantras.Quote:
Originally Posted by roQer
Just bought a M102 in a 184cm and am headed to Revelstoke next week. Been a while since I've been on a Volkl and never been to Revy... Excited to let fly on some vert! Enablers in this thread I say!
I hand flexed, fondled a pair of M102s in a whitefish shop last week. I was smitten. Cool to read everyone's thoughts in this thread. So, would the M102 be a proper way to retire my beloved OG black buddah 183 gotamas? Carry forward some of the DNA?
Dude, read the first page of this thread. “The Mantra 102 should have been called the Gotama 2.”
It’s sad, in a way, but yes— this is the ski that replaces our OG Buddha Gotama.
Agree with that. Marketing wise M102 is flying completely under radar here. All the shop dudes don’t even know M102 exists what I learned when I tried to get a demo ski.Quote:
Originally Posted by gaijin
You see tons of M5 over here but never saw another M102.
Mantra(M5)-Gotama(M102)-Katana(K108) would be much more consistent with the history of Völkls freeride line.