Soft Snow Gymkhana - The Heritage Lab FR110

Agree that they look amazing and the quality is top notch. Thinking about the mount point:

I have never skied reverse camber skis. I'm a directional skier and I have a bunch of directional skis. I bought these because I was stoked on the slashy, nimble, playful, drifty possibilities with reverse camber and I enjoy changing up my style and learning new stuff. It sounds like everyone is thinking -8.5. I was thinking of going recommended at -6 because I don't want these to be like my directional skis, I want them to be super playful. I thought they sounded awesome for skiing the ridge at bridger bowl where drifting turns through tight spots while carrying speed is what it's all about. What am I missing not going -8.5?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shredeagle

Agree that they look amazing and the quality is top notch. Thinking about the mount point:

I have never skied reverse camber skis. I'm a directional skier and I have a bunch of directional skis. I bought these because I was stoked on the slashy, nimble, playful, drifty possibilities with reverse camber and I enjoy changing up my style and learning new stuff. It sounds like everyone is thinking -8.5. I was thinking of going recommended at -6 because I don't want these to be like my directional skis, I want them to be super playful. I thought they sounded awesome for skiing the ridge at bridger bowl where drifting turns through tight spots while carrying speed is what it's all about. What am I missing not going -8.5?

---

Hey man! Could quick q's... How big/tall are you and what are the other skis are in your stable? I'd say -8.5 is as far back as anyone would want to go, and that is really for large humans used to pushing the biggest skis out there and never get in the backseat. I'd say most directional skier folks will be super stoked on -8, but then again, -0.5cm is a quite small difference!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mr_pretzel

I’m not really in ski mode yet, but pulled these out of the box the other day and along with the FR105 for going mach looney I’m not really sure I’ll be skiing much else this season, they look fantastic.

---

Common Snow! Bring it. Haha.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kc_7777

I've never been known to follow the voice of reason when buying skis. I'm doing this for science.

Re length....180 FR 110 x 188.7 / 186 = 182.6 comparative length for the 180 FR 110. Exactly what I want....like a 182 Hoji or Sickle/Dev baby.

Liking reading “rounder flex, nice finish, heft, stouter, damper, more durable”.....all sounds so good!

---

I love it man! Can't wait to hear what you think.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 54-46

Just a few data points:

(TL;DR: happy I got the FR110s)

Length: I put 186 FR110s next to 188.7 Black Crows Daemons, and they’re the same length.

Flex: Hand flexing the 186 FR110s A/B with 184 Faction CT3.0:

FR110s definitely have a rounder flex. The CT3.0s have a couple of transition/hinge spots around the small bit of camber they have.

FR110 tail is both rounder and stouter. The shovel is similar flex stiffness to CT3.0s in front of tip, but shovel flex is rounder as it goes back toward binding area.

Weight/dampness: Overall, the FR110s are going to be damper than the CT3.0s and the heft and construction should lead to better durability.

Summary: Yeah, it’s just mental triangulation on how they might ski before putting them on snow, but the FR110s definitely feel as advertised in hand.


Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

---

Hey man, not super familiar personally with the CT3 but know its got a good cult following. Helpful comparison! Like the nuance you picked up on, as alot goes into making sure the roundness is in a flex, expecially on reverse skis, as they can feel really boardy and rough when they don't quite line up!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shorty_J

Will there be an hb122 thread soon with pics and first thoughts?

My search skills didn't pull up anything.

Sent from my SM-A536W using Tapatalk

---

Yessir... might as well get a speculation thread going here soon! Great idea.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shredeagle

Agree that they look amazing and the quality is top notch. Thinking about the mount point:

I have never skied reverse camber skis. I'm a directional skier and I have a bunch of directional skis. I bought these because I was stoked on the slashy, nimble, playful, drifty possibilities with reverse camber and I enjoy changing up my style and learning new stuff. It sounds like everyone is thinking -8.5. I was thinking of going recommended at -6 because I don't want these to be like my directional skis, I want them to be super playful. I thought they sounded awesome for skiing the ridge at bridger bowl where drifting turns through tight spots while carrying speed is what it's all about. What am I missing not going -8.5?

---

I love reverse camber skis. Even on ice. I have Ravens, Hojis and Renegades and now the FR 110. Once you get the feel of skiing reverse skis, it's hard to go back.

What's your boot sole length? I'm at rec on my 184 Hojis (-6.6?) and they're perfect there, but I have a small bsl like Hoji. I've been forward +1cm of rec on 4FRNT rockered skis and learned that was not as good. The 4FRNT recs are money. The heritage lab website says the FR 110 is good from +1cm (-5cm) to - 2.5cm (-8.5cm). I'm gonna go at rec (-6 cm) or a 1/2 cm in front on my FR 110. Hoji says you can go back a bit on his skis, if you have a bigger bsl than his 25 mondo...so maybe go back if your boot is a few sizes bigger than 25? Especially if you want slashy/drifty/playful/nimble and non-directional, I wouldn't go all the way back to -8.5? Try in the middle at -1cm ish (eg -7cm) is prolly a good spot for a directional skier?

I’m 5’9’’ 155. 300 BSL. I ski 184 bent chetlers for backcountry, 182 on3p woodsman 108s for hard snow, 191 praxis Jedi for ripping and 188 Praxis FRS for also ripping. Thanks for the feedback!!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Word! Cheers. The Woodsman is the furthest back, at approx -10. The rest are all -5 to -6 IIRC. I'd say go -6 on the FR110. You could bump it to -5.5 with no stress too.

edit to add, I think alot of folks going back behind that are coming from skis that are like -11 to -12.5. For those folks, I generally around -8 is right.

Customer support also top notch!!!

:yourock:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Marshal Olson

The Woodsman is the furthest back, at approx -10.

---

I'd have to measure my two pairs but Woodsmans are more like -6 or -7cm depending on the year IIRC. I think you are thinking of the Wrenegades, which are more in that -10 range.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by adrenalated

I'd have to measure my two pairs but Woodsmans are more like -6 or -7cm depending on the year IIRC. I think you are thinking of the Wrenegades, which are more in that -10 range.

---

I stand corrected! Thanks and sorry I got that wrong. But with this in mind @shredeagle, I'd say to go -5.5 then. Full blown video game skiing.

Shredegle,

You said you have a bunch of directional skis. Yet all are -6 or -7? Directional to me means like a K108 or Cochise at -11cm. Haha. All good.

With my smaller bsl I’ll probably go -5.5 on the FR110 per Marshal’s video game skiing rec above.

Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

Ha. Ok - thanks guys. I'm pretty new to quivers and tech talk! Was thinking directional like I don't ski backwards on them and they aren't reverse camber!

Quote:

---

Full blown video game skiing

---

This is what I'm after!!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by adrenalated

I'd have to measure my two pairs but Woodsmans are more like -6 or -7cm depending on the year IIRC. I think you are thinking of the Wrenegades, which are more in that -10 range.

---

Yeah this.

I very scientifically eyeballed the recommended point and stood on the spot with skis on yoga mat and it felt pretty good in terms of what’s in front and back. Doesn’t get more scientific than that.


Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

Attachment 469841
Attachment 469842
Attachment 469843
Attachment 469844

Finally got a nice day to put the new sticks side by side with the Sickles (included the MFree 108 too cause why not).

The rocker profile is very different but not in a bad way. You can tell just how well these things are going to want to slide and slarve all over the mountain at speed. The sickle is very flat with such a low rocker profile that I hesitate to really call it reverse in comparison. The FR110s shape and rocker make me think it will be a little more soft snow specific than Sickle, which really was a jack of all trades. The 186cm size is perfect for me too, the sickle always felt like it was a tiny bit short when things got deep or fast. I’ll be curious if the FR110 really skis that much “longer.”

They flex so stout but round, quite a bit “stiffer” than my sickles with 100+ days on them. I’m excited to have a little more backbone on those sketchy exits at speed into variable snow.

My main conclusion is that I’m super psyched. While it isn’t a Sickle clone, they seem to build on the best aspects of that ski and take it to the next level for when the snow is soft. And considering the MFree 108 became my go to ski for when “conditions are generally soft to hard” the FR110 is going to be my “generally soft to deep” ski.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bw_wp_hedonism

I very scientifically eyeballed the recommended point and stood on the spot with skis on yoga mat and it felt pretty good in terms of what’s in front and back. Doesn’t get more scientific than that.


Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

---

I did the same thing and compared the suggested mount on my 186 FR110s to my (same length) 188.7 BC Daemons, which are also full reverse, and they’re pretty close. Within .5 cm or so.

Feels to me like between recommended (87.5) to -1 from recommended (86.5) would be good for my directional skiing (recommended is like -6)

Would be nice to have some mo beta from peeps who have skied them


Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 54-46

I did the same thing and compared the suggested mount on my 186 FR110s to my (same length) 188.7 BC Daemons, which are also full reverse, and they’re pretty close. Within .5 cm or so.

Feels to me like between recommended (87.5) to -1 from recommended (86.5) would be good for my directional skiing (recommended is like -6)

Would be nice to have some mo beta from peeps who have skied them


Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

---

Nice! Regarding the mount, the recommended line puts the center of your boot sole at the skinny point of the ski and at the center of the reverse camber. I do think the majority of skiers will like this the most. Folks who ski more neutrally will like a touch forward of that. Skiers with a lot of cuff angle or low / compact stance will like a little back of that.

I also subscribe to the theory for folks with <25 mondo boots can bump forward 0.5 and >28 or very large can go back 0.5 as well.

For you specfically, 54-46, I'd say go with the line if you want a shade more slashy. Or go -1 if you have felt tip dive in untracked snow on similary progressive skis.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Marshal Olson

Nice! Regarding the mount, the recommended line puts the center of your boot sole at the skinny point of the ski and at the center of the reverse camber. I do think the majority of skiers will like this the most. Folks who ski more neutrally will like a touch forward of that. Skiers with a lot of cuff angle or low / compact stance will like a little back of that.

I also subscribe to the theory for folks with <25 mondo boots can bump forward 0.5 and >28 or very large can go back 0.5 as well.

For you specfically, 54-46, I'd say go with the line if you want a shade more slashy. Or go -1 if you have felt tip dive in untracked snow on similary progressive skis.

---

Great! Mahalo!


Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

What’s the BSL of the tester who determined the recommended mount location? … or was that irrelevant? I saw the note that you put it at the center of the reverse camber.


:::::@:::::

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lucknau

What’s the BSL of the tester who determined the recommended mount location? … or was that irrelevant? I saw the note that you put it at the center of the reverse camber.


:::::@:::::

---

hey man, so yes, since the ski is designed as a matched reverse/sidecut, the ski’s waist is designed as the contact point of the reverse profile. Generally, 26-28 boot soles (center of bell curve in size distribution) will default there, though going forward or back of that will suit some styles as discussed.

Not sure if that helps, happy to unpack more as desired!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Marshal Olson

hey man, so yes, since the ski is designed as a matched reverse/sidecut, the ski’s waist is designed as the contact point of the reverse profile. Generally, 26-28 boot soles (center of bell curve in size distribution) will default there, though going forward or back of that will suit some styles as discussed.

Not sure if that helps, happy to unpack more as desired!

---

That’s perfect. Thanks much!


:::::@:::::

Received my pair this weekend. And bought new boots yesterday #theturn

What I took notice of was a very even and nice flex pattern. After cross checking with a few other skis in the garage I’d say it’s pretty similar to the 188 Rustler 11, but the Rustlers have a slight hinge in the rear with a softer tail.

Overall the 110 seem spot in for a nimble ski that also can hold up in soft chop.

Earlier, before the 110 was offered, I wished for a remake of the Volkl One.
It’s been a few years since I’ve been on that one, but I feel this is pretty spot on.
- accessible and even flex pattern, but not a noodle
- lots of rocker (maybe even more)
- medium/long radius
- weight for inbounds conditions
- according to Marshall; possible to move the mount rearwards toward a slightly more traditional stance

So stoked

Just drilled for -7cm from center (Hoji method mount for 335mm BSL). Ready to go! Just add snow.


:::::@:::::