Sender Free 110

I was able to A/B the ‘25 M Free 99 (prior hybrid core) and the SF100. Both in 184 and 185 length, which are actually 181.5 straight pull. Both weigh in at 2000g a ski. The tails are identical. Earlier front rocker rise on the M Free. There is metal under the M Free as will for the binding. I also noticed the M Free at its narrowest was 97mm. -5.5cm on SF100, -6.5cm on M Free.

The SF100 is slower to release and is better on edge imo. It’s still loose, but not as loose as the M Free. That’s not to say you can’t rail groomers on the M Free, you just have to be more aware. I found the tip and tail to be slightly stiffer on the SF100. For me that hindered its performance in tight bumpy terrain when in steeps. This ski is loud in icy conditions and not the most stable through chop I found.

The M Free is different to me in that it is more stable underfoot but softer in the tips and tails. It was better in chop and bumps due to those two things. I also found it more lively to hit every bump on the mountain. Confidence inspiring for cliff drops as well and just a more fun ski all around for me.

I was looking for a lower tide ski to compliment the SF110, which is stable underfoot with softer tips. I tend to like that style of sky, so for me this decision was easy and I’ll be selling the SF100. I’m not a fan of stiff from tip to tail lightweight skis, and I know 2000g isn’t light for most, but I kept getting that feeling with the SF100.

Blister Gear:30 podcast has a discussion on SF110 vs M Free 112. My takeaway is the SF has a bit more backbone, is stiffer and carves better where the MF112 is a bit easier to ski and skis more loose.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Stopper

Blister Gear:30 podcast has a discussion on SF110 vs M Free 112. My takeaway is the SF has a bit more backbone, is stiffer and carves better where the MF112 is a bit easier to ski and skis more loose.

---

Just listened to this. After finally getting on my one-ninety MFree one-twelves, I wholeheartedly agree with the Blister take on the Sender Free and MFree from a comparison perspective.

I posted my initial thoughts over in the Dynastar thread. I agree that the SF one-ten is more precise and that the MFree one-twelve is more damp, forgiving, and loose.

I’m now seriously contemplating selling my Sender Free…


Sent from my iPad using TGR Forums

Skied my SF 100 out west after just a few inches of fresh snow and again, very fun and playful off trail and noisier and less damp than I prefer on trail. Near the end of the day I went down a scraped off groomer with lots of crud mounds at speeds that any of my other skis would have no issue with. The tips flapped so violently and were so loud slapping the firm snow after the mounds I actually laughed out loud and then put on the brakes to slow things down. Final nail in their coffin I think and was waiting to try out the Enforcer 104 back home again to confirm my feelings.

Just skied the 185cm Enforcer 104 and 184cm SF 110 on a firm morning then heavy crud filled afternoon and the Enforcer 104 were definitely head and shoulders above the SF 100 for damping and unfazed by the heavy crud. The SF 110 were more poppy off the mounds and were not as composed as the E104. I'm sure the 191cm SF 110 or my 190cm 21 CT 3.0 would have handled it better.

Could definitely see how the MF 112 would be more damp feeling with their PU core and non AirTip builds(especially on those heavy 183cm MF 112 out there) but kinda surprised they feel that much looser with their profiles and specs being almost identical.

The number of 108-112 skis out there is making it hard to choose. I think, having finally spent some time on the SF110 and owning the SF100, are best suited to the more freestyle-oriented crowd who dabble in the park, ski switch frequently, etc. I personally get along amazingly with both, but do understand what is lost with a more center mount on skis like that. There are just better skis out there for the larger base of skiers who arent doing freestyle things all over the mountain.
With that being said, anyone looking to move on from their SF100 or SF110 let me know.

anybody had a chance to compare SF110 with Faction Mana/Studio 3? big fan of Mana 3s and looking at blister review, it seems these skis are very similar to each other.
Brief comparison: SF110 vs Mana 3 in 184cm
140-110-133mm vs 140-112-134 mm
2196 & 2211 grams vs 2052 & 2081 grams
Sidecut 20 meters vs 21 meters
Camber 6mm vs 5mm
Tip & Tail Splay (ski decambered): 69 mm / 50 mm vs 66 mm / 59 mm
Mount point: -3.4cm vs -2.55 or -4cm
Stiffness: Tips: 7.5-8 Shovels: 8 In Front of Toe Piece: 8.5-10 Underfoot: 10 Behind the Heel Piece: 10-9 Tails: 8.5-7 vs Tips: 7 Shovels: 7.5-8 In Front of Toe Piece: 8-10 Underfoot: 10 Behind the Heel Piece: 10-8.5 Tails: 8
Rocker lines also look almost similar

The reason I was one of the first ones to get the SF 110 when it came out 2 years ago was that I saw the dimensions were almost identical to my 21 Faction CT 3.0 which I loved. The 21 builds were all unicorns being overbuilt and MUCH heavier than the lines now built in the Atomic plant from 22 onwards. The 21 CT 1.0(92mm) and CT 2.0(102mm) had poplar/beech wood cores with rubber damping and 2 sheets of metal underfoot, 20m average turn radius with multi radius sidecuts and 2200gr and 2300gr weights in their 183cm lengths. The 112mm 21 CT 3.0 had one binding retention metal sheet underfoot, a poplar wood cores but no rubber damping and about a 2200gr weight in the 184cm(182cm tape measure). All the 21 CT skis had the same flex pattern as the current ones with stiffer flex patterns than most skis tip/tail but only gradually rising underfoot. So the suspension worked better in the narrower models with their extra weight and rubber, so I wished the 21 CT 3.0 was a bit softer tip/tail and stiffer underfoot along with some rubber to quiet things.

The SF 110 is exactly what I wished the 21 CT 3.0 was and skis very similar I think. The SF 110 is even easier at lower speeds to carve with its more flexible tip/tail yet absorbs the terrain better than the CT 3.0 did. Also knew where I'd like the SF 110 mounted as the almost identical CT 3.0 had their freestyle/CT line at -5cm total, their Progressive rec at -6.5cm and their Traditional rec at -8cm total. Like the Blackops 118 which has a min sidecut width at -8cm, the SF 110 is about -8.5cm so these skis are still playfull mounted back but still are stable mounted forward with their multi radius sidecuts.

So the SF 110 is an upgrade I think over the 21 CT 3.0 and and very large upgrade over older or newer versions of the Mana 3/Studio 3 as they lack the mass with their lighter cores and lack of metal.

I‘v got per coincidence the SF110 in 191 as Marcus Gougen special edition. Such a great looking ski mounted with purple 2.0 CAST. Almost to pretty to get wrecked on the rocks with the low snow level in the Alps this season. Skied MF108 for many years but like SF110 better. I‘m tempted to try MF112 just for science but purely visual the combo SE SF110/CAST will be very very hard to beat.