Printable View
Bandit Man - If I like the M102 and don’t need more heft/weight, any other material benefits to the K108? Thing I’m more interested in is additional float in powder (both fresh and tracked out). I ski a lot of trees out west along with moguled up open bowls, and would rather have the m102 if its more maneuverable and I’m not sacrificing too much in terms of float. Thank you - appreciate your knowledge and thoughts.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bandit Man
[QUOTE=kc_7777;6254506]I have some new STH 16s that are looking for a home. Have both 100mm brakes and 115mm brakes.
K108 or Rustler 9?
Gotta stop reading this thread.
...[\QUOTE]
Those two don’t seem like much of a comparison. Have 25 days on an R9 180 and still skiing my OG ‘11 Katana 183. Both like to be smeared a bit, otherwise not much similarity between them.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Obviously I love the Katana. But if I have to be more objective, they are very, very close. The M102 is probably a better fit for what you are after. The M102 is just a little easier and quicker edge to edge.Quote:
Originally Posted by MD12
You called out the width and the heft of the Katana, but the other thing I really like (and prefer) is the extreme difference in the tip and tail radius compared to the underfoot radius. Despite being wider and heavier, I prefer the Katana in trees and bumps. That may seem counter-intuitive, but the Katana just feels a bit looser and easier to slide around in tight spaces, especially if the snow is deeper. I’ll admit there may be some bias here. I skied the M102 as my go to for the first half of the season and haven’t skied them since getting the Katana. In just over 2-months of use the Katana has achieved “from my cold-dead hands” status, but I’m sure that comes across in the previous posts.
Wasn't saying they were comparable....was just wondering out loud where to put some extra bindings I have.
R9s would be a spring ski for gently ripping around with the family.
K108s would be all mountain crushers at Whistler to scare the sh*t out of myself.
Different ends of the spectrum for sure.
Very helpful thanks. I have the m102 in 177 for east coast skiing, but will get either the m102 or katana in 184 for west coast. Easier to slide around us a big plus - so if katana is easier to slide around and better float - sounds perfect. I would get the 185 Cochise but really like the underfoot flex of the volkls. I don’t mind the weight - I like heavy skis - and this will be a compliment to my enforcer 104s in 186. Can’t stand getting knocked around in tracked heavy powder. Using Lange Rx 130s so no issue driving them.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bandit Man
Thanks again - appreciate you’re insight.
Exactly what I use both for. Rarely ski the Katana's w/ family, but do so all the time with the R9. I find they're great for groomers, old man park skiing, little side hits w/ my kids, skiing backwards pretty well, bumps, and groomers. Tip is pretty soft which I think helps in bumps and playfulness, but at speed have to stay balanced and be careful about driving the tip.Quote:
Originally Posted by kc_7777
Katanas do exactly what you describe.... if given the choice I'd do more of the latter if that were available, though do really enjoy the family skiing part.
Just saw your quiver in the Blizzard thread and given you have 104s and R11s, would think R9s would be less overlap than the other two. My $0.02
Didn’t pick up before that you already had a 177 M102. Yeah...get the 184 Katana. You’ll already know how to ski it, but it will be a bit better for western conditions, especially deeper snow.Quote:
Originally Posted by MD12
The only thing the Katana gives up is a little bit of edge to edge quickness and ease of getting up on edge on firmer groomers. That being said, it has 90-95% of the M102 capabilities on firm snow.
More thoughts on the Katana:
At no point does it feel particularly demanding or surprising. Had a weird spill on flats, but can’t really blame the ski for that.
Snow yesterday and last night was softened crust, hardened crud, and refrozen hardpack and these skis could rail the shit out of that no problem. I’m talking bushwhacka level hip dragging on 75 degree (28 degree) slopes. For the first time in a while my recent laziness when it comes to weightlifting became really apparent. My quads gave out way before the skis. Now, part of it could also be my boot epiphany...
In any event, still wish I went 191. If somebody went long and regretted it I’d trade in a heartbeat. If I find a good deal on 191s these may hit Gear Swap. I have some Ranger 107s to mount up that could set them in play, too.
One interesting note: that variable sidecut is weird. It can be abrupt and almost edgy, and you can definitely feel it as you shift from forwards to backwards along the ski. Not a complaint, but not sure I love it either. I suspect the gains in versatility outweigh that rough edge, though.
Only 191 I can find online is in Europe from Snowcountry.eu. I'm sure there has to be some shops with one or two that haven't sold.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mustonen
Ho boy, this black Katana must really conceal it’s weight. Mustonen, if Corvus 188 was long feeling and the K 108 184 with 280g per more heft has you yearning for the 191 - I’m scratching my head with a K108 184 en route. Oh well
Where do you ski?
Hah. I ski in Michigan, primarily. I just prefer the feel of longer skis. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
I had the Corvus in 193, not 188. And it never felt too heavy, just felt longer than it needed to be.
Mmmm....
Attachment 366066
That's a potent pair right there. Ranger 107's are pretty sweet in their own right
After two days on my new K108 in 184 here some thoughts, especially regarding the comparison to M102 in the same size. Conditions ranged from 20 cm powder to crust, so truly alpine mix. I’m 184 cm and 85 kg for reference.
1) The differences between K108 and M102 are quite subtle. As expected, M102 is better on hardpack, K108 performs better in 3D snow. I`d agree with Bandit with the quantification of this difference being in the range ±5%, maximally ±10%. M102 might be better in heavily tracked out powder where I felt the tips of K108 getting more deflected.
2) 184 doesn’t ski very long. I was not really confident skiing more consequential lines on it. If I hadn’t already a longer ski which I feel completely confident on in more consequential big mountain terrain (R11 in 192), I’d definitively prefer 191 at my height and weight.
3) K108 is less cambered than M102 (1-2 mm vs. 3-4 mm). It feels more like a flat camber or reverse camber ski running the bases flat on hardpack.
4) The shorter radius underfoot made me in some situations off piste not really happy. I noticed it engaging the edge with more pressure in manky snow and trying then to change direction. This took more effort and was less intuitive than in a ski with a longer radius, like you have to work more to force the ski out of its turn radius. It’s not generally a deal breaker but skis like the OG Blizzard Bodacious or Cochise and OG Katanas behave better in this respect.
All in all I’ll probably stick with M102 as my DD for non-powder days. I’m not so sure about the future of the K108 in my quiver. It’s a very capable and versatile ski and would certainly work very well in an one ski for every condition scenario. For big days in the Alps, though, I have the impression that the shorter length and to a certain degree the tighter radius of the K108 will be not so suitable for me. Upsizing to a 191 cm could be an option but I’m not sure if I’ll be willing to deal with the extra heft of an already quite heavy ski. K108 in 184 weights as much as my OG Katana in 191, BTW.
I'm going on memory of how my M102 felt last year (sold it) versus how the K108 feels this year, but they are strikingly the same to me with the same 'pivotability'. Maybe the "shorter radius" feel you sense under foot may be more due to the larger difference in the tip/mid/tail radii than purely the 1m difference in the under foot radius between the two skis?Quote:
Originally Posted by roQer
M102 @ 191 (R1) 28, (R2) 22, (R3) 30
K108 @ 191 (R1) 36, (R2) 21, (R3) 43
The M102 has +6/+8 meter deltas between tip/tail radius and the middle radius whereas the K108 has +15/+22. It seems that would have more of an effect than the 1m difference in R2 between the two models, no?
As far as the comparison of the K108 to the OG Katana I'd say the opposite in that the K108 will release out of the turn wayyyy easier than the OG (comparing a 191cm K108 to a 198cm OG).
If any, K108 is a little bit more pivoty than M102. I‘m not so sure about OG Katana. Never skied the 184 so can’t really compare.Quote:
Originally Posted by YoEddy
The „shorter radius“ feel occurred to me just in certain situation if I put lot of pressure on the edge and reached a high angle of the turn at higher speed. High angle turns are not exactly my style of skiing but sometimes not to avoid if you try to scrub speed without much space for a run out. It was like the ski wanted to continue the carve in its turn radius and it took me some effort to change the direction. So to speak the behavior of a race carver which I‘m completely lost to as I didn’t ski something with < 20 m radius like since 10 years.
I had the impression that this was more pronounced with K108 than with M102 and you’re right that it’s probable more related to the radius delta than to the actual difference in UF radius. I‘m asking myself if Völkl didn’t exaggerate the fat carving ski geometry on the K108 and a little less sidecut and a narrower shovel couldn’t be possibly better.
Fischers are the winner, after moving them back 1cm from recommended. Does everything the Katana does, but smoother and more powerful. The Katana has a looser feel and gets slapped around a little by chop (compared to the Ranger). Katana is much more nimble and easier to toss around, and I’m tempted to keep them for tight spaces and long days.... but not sure that actually makes sense.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mustonen
I’m still curious about the 191, and may try it at some point, but going to get a FS thread up for these Katana pretty quick, probably.
Watching for it.....Quote:
Originally Posted by Mustonen
Thanks for the comparison notes. Skiing at a smaller hill in the PNW, I dig the K108 for all the attributes you listed.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mustonen
Haven’t skied a Fischer in quite some time. Getting on a Ranger 107 sounds interesting.
I’m at a small, though fairly steep hill with lots of ungroomed and decent snowfall... bigger skis keep it interesting. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ Also, I inadvertently went forward 1cm (middle hash) on my katana mount, which might make it a less than fair comparison, though the sweet spot was in a good place while skiing and it’s still a fairly rearward mount compared to the rest of my quiver.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bandit Man
I really like the Ranger. Pretty close to a 190 Q Lab replacement, for me. Similar dimensions with a nice powerful tail. Stiffer tip is the biggest difference, I think, and does about what you’d expect.... makes it a bit less compliant at low speed in variable but avoids the plowing feeling you get with the big soft shovel. Probably won’t be quite as good in deep soft snow, but haven’t had a chance to ski the Ranger there yet.
Fantastic hard snow and groomer performance and happy to lay big trenches in anything it can bite into, better than the Q Lab in that the Q Lab’s soft shovels could be overpowered on truly soft groomers. Really, the differences might make it a bit less versatile but also cleans up the quiver slot as a firm/crud ski. Mounting back 1cm+ is really key, though. I was surprised at how big a difference that made.
I think I’ll be looking for a 18x ski in the 110–115 range for trees and tight spots to slot in between the Ranger and the Renegades (Salomon Blank?). Putting a fresh grind on the Q Lab to keep as an early season and variable, no-idea-what-to-expect ski, and that’s the quiver for a bit....
Price police on 184 Katanas with a mount 1cm forward (middle hash) for FKS at 295?
Tempting...Quote:
Originally Posted by Mustonen
Sent from my Pixel XL using TGR Forums mobile app
You now have my attention with this statement. Favorite part of the QLab. https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/202...f34b553045.jpgQuote:
Originally Posted by Mustonen
Are rider mount preferences of the OGs for the most part carrying over? Mine arrived- soo stoked for a rip! Scale had the skis 4gs apart 2,337 & 2,341 🤙🏼
Little bit off topic - I love the M102 and M6 and between those skis take them out most days. In the NE we get a lot of 40-60 degree sunny days where everything melts and gets chopped up, followed by totally refrozen 0-20 degree days. So lots of refrozen chopped up crud and bumps. The volkl suspension is generally excellent, but can be a little jarring in these re-frozen cruddy conditions. Still rails hard and is excellent, but the new Bonafide 97 has a noticeably better suspension/damping effect in those conditions. The B97s just destroy everything and are incredible skis. There are reasons I like the volkls more most days (the tail on the B97 is significantly harsher), but if folks here like hard charging damp skis on super firm cut up/cruddy conditions and haven’t tried the B97, strongly recommend you give them a shot.
What length B97 do you have?Quote:
Originally Posted by MD12
Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums