Printable View
Sounds like the 177’s measure a tad long and the 184’s measure short. That would mean that the only other difference between the two would be the turn radius. Measuring really close to 180 (per KC’s observations), the 177 seems like a great choice for lots of folks.Quote:
Originally Posted by ripvw
5'11
180
Skiing 177, about 7mm forward with a bsl 315.
Incredibly versatile, but have not skied powder yet.|
Great on groomers, and at least good on anything I have done.
Short to accommodate tight trees and poking around dense woods.
Hands down, best ski I have owned.
And thus the point of my comment.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bandit Man
I trust ski companies to make their "expert" skis sized to the skier, rather than based on ability. Otherwise, per TGR sizing recs, every 6'+ skier over 200lb would be fukt.
Bandit. I don't need the 184's. I know what I'm doing and I'm completely in touch with the size of my dick.
That gal is was an idiot. I'm sure she was super nice but she was an idiot none the less. Because if she could rip (I'm talking about when you are riding up the chair and look down at some shit spaced bumps in shredded terrain) and see said gal and think, "shit, that chick can ski", then she would have been better off on a Secret 102 or M102 at 170. At her weight and height the 184 is doing her absolutely no favors anywhere (straightlining deep doesn't count unless marginally more autopilot in such conditions is worth it)
I'd also bet that if you blindfolded B Jr at his size he'd not be able to tell the difference between the 177 and 184 unless in bumps/tight stuff. That is If he truly rips, as you say.
Quote:
Originally Posted by HHTELE
I've had mine in a good amount of deep of late last week off the top in whistler and blackcomb thanks to a lot of little refreshes all week, cold temps and a ton of wind. They are great. To me. Again, if you want to ski them unthinkingly in such conditions (ie some wide floppy rocker) these are not that ski. You still need to ski them.
The are better than great on groomers.
I guess my joke landed flat. I didn’t get to see her ski and was really surprised that she was on such a big ski for her size. Not sure that makes her an idiot.Quote:
Originally Posted by FlimFlamvanHam
I really don’t care what size ski anyone is on in the forums. I’ll never ski with 99.99% of the folks here. I guess you think that I’m suggesting ski size equates to how well hung you are? Well, I don’t care about that either.
Ski your skis. Have fun. Isn’t that what it is supposed to be about anyhow.
And yes, my kid would probably be fine on 177’s. But he’s just fine on the 184’s.
But why the heck does it matter?
Some skis are just intuitive to ski. My 5'6 135lb girlfriend skied my 188 Husume's(a 2400gram ski with a strong flat tail) for two full days at baker a few weeks ago. She loved them so much she bought a pair of 181s... Does she have shorter skis, yes, do I have shorter skis, yes, but we all buy lots of skis for distinct feelings in distinct conditions. We both like the feeling of a long Husume for certain conditions but also enjoy short skinny SL skis....
Nothing matters except for whether or not you are enjoying the feeling you are having on snow.
I agree with this wholeheartedly above.Quote:
Originally Posted by FlimFlamvanHam
First off....Whistler has been great recently. Sorry banditman!
The M102s are better than great on groomers.
And great everywhere else....if you ski them.
I’m coming off years of standing straight up on 122mm waisted, rockered Faction Candide 5.0s. You could ski those unthinkingly.
This year most of my 30+ days have been on Enforcer 104s, R11s and the M102s. Of those three skis the M102 requires the most thinking and most input and the least lazy approach. I like that I have to ski them....but also it’s nice to go back to the E104 and R11s some days too. I find the E104s and R11s damp and stable enough, but really easy to ski.
Btw if my wife were to buy M102s we would get her a Secret/M102 in a 170cm. I skied bigger skis (185cm) for years and recently realized I’m a 180cm based on my height/weight.
Bandit man got it. This year I have 50+ days. Last year about 10. This year I could ski the m102 in any length in any condition better than I could ski any ski last year, much less the m102. Not everyone skis all day every day. Maybe I’m just not 19 anymore - but I’ve been humbled too many times skiing on better skis with better gear, and the key to me is get healthy, stay in shape, and have fun. As Kai jones says - he likes skiing because it makes him feel like he can fly. Doesn’t matter to me if I’m flying on 177s or 191s, or my 15 year old 1080s, as long as I’m having fun.
On the other hand, fuck it give me my 191102s lol. Man I fuckin love skiing.
Gone
https://r.tapatalk.com/shareLink/top...ink_source=app
Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk
Found M102’s for $449 USD. They even have the long ones in stock.
https://shop.sportsbasement.com/prod...35440211755080
They gave me a 20% off anything coupon after they ran out of 184cm Katanas and cancelled my order, so I'm giving these a try. I was tempted by some Enforcer 104's as a more playful alternative, but I couldn't turn down the price on the Mantra.
I've been skiing 183cm Salomon Stance 102's all season and once I got the tune dialed, I've grown to really like the ski. I'm looking forward to comparing these two, as I think the Stance series is pretty darn under-rated, particularly the 102. I was waffling between the 177 and the 184, but I think the 184 will be closer in length to my Stance 102's, so I went that way.
I'm 5'7" 150-155 pounds, FWIW.
Now for the really important question: Gold or Forza Pivot 15's?
Well, the 184cm Mantra 102's just landed on my porch a few minutes ago.
Initial impressions:
I wasn't aware this is a jib ski: it has a true twin-tip tail, which I wasn't expecting.
I'm glad I went with the 184, even though I'm 5'7" and weigh around 155 pounds. The 184 is less than a centimeter different in length from my 183cm Salomon Stance 102's, and the only times those have felt long were when I had the edges sharp tip-to-tail and was in early season ski shape.
They are stiffer than my Stance 102's, and the rocker profile is shallower, but longer than the Stance 102.
Weights: 2273g and 2274g. Sexy quality control. For the record, my 183cm Stance 102's come in at 2195g and 2220g.
The edges in the tapered sections of the ski (granted, they're short on a ski with this shape) have clearly been factory rounded/dulled to a great extent. I'm not sure I've encountered such dramatic dulling of an edge out of the wrapper since I last bought new On3p's.
My Stance 102's are softer (but they also have 60 ski days on them) but the flexes of the two skis are similarly round. Hand-flexing, the Mantra seems to have more snap in returning to it's cambered shape. The Stances and Mantras have similar rocker lengths in the shovel, but the Mantra has lower rise and a more pronounced tips, whereas the Stance has a higher rise rocker, with less distinct tip upturn. The Stance is also a true flat tailed ski with some tail rocker, whereas the Mantra is a twin tip. Tail rocker is shorter on the Stance, but the rise is slightly higher than the Mantra.
I'm still torn between Forza and Gold Pivot 15's, given the color scheme of the skis, but I'm also tempted to mount them up and put a few days on them before the lifts shut down for the season here, so I can A/B them with the Stance 102's when I have good ski legs and lots of familiarity with the Stance.
I think they're going to be a blast as a do-it-all ski for where I ski. I dislike quivers, and prefer to find a solid all-around ski that I can learn to be comfortable/confident on in all snow conditions. I'm still thinking I'll buy a second pair of Salomon Stance 102's, but the Mantras seem like they will be full capable of giving them a run for their money as my "set it and forget it" resort ski.
PSA skimonster has some of these for $399, just pulled the trigger after ogling them for the last two years. Now I have the same problem as glademaster re: pivots
Sent from my Pixel XL using TGR Forums mobile app
Don't worry, the decision will get even harder when you see what color the "orange" on the forebody of the Mantra actually is.Quote:
Originally Posted by fleaches
But they are sexy skis.
The Mantra M102’s haul ass but are pretty easy to ski. They also pivot like a reverse camber ski. Ski them like you mean it.
I agree with Bandit they do haul ass and you do need to push them, but well worth it. I too am happy with the 184 at 5’8” 160lbs. The heft helps to mow over anything and it’s a perfect daily driver. 25 day and counting this year on them.
Skied my 184’s for my closer at Stevens today. They destroyed the piles of spring schmoo and let me ski faster than I should. I love how easy they are to throw sideways and shutdown. Thanks magic 3D sidecut!
I'm going to mount mine at +1cm/the middle line. The recommended line seems really far back even for a directional ski.
Good choice...no regrets...I’ve always been +1 or +2 on all my Volkls....and it’s always money. (for me)Quote:
Originally Posted by glademaster
My Stance 102's are mounted on the recommended line, which is around -10 or -10.5cm from center, and I've never thought to myself, "I really need more ski out in front of me." Recommended on the Mantra is like -11.5cm, so I figure +1 should be a good spot for me.
Spent my last day of the season on mine as wel. M102s are next level. Keep coming back to it - they’re the best skis that have been introduced in the past several years imho.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bandit Man
FWIW, I’ve always been a closer to center mount guy and was planning to go at least +1 on my 191s, However after reading this thread and talking to a few friends who had them on the back line, I decided to go on the back line as well. I have to say I’m really happy with the way they ski. As others have mentioned the ski halls ass allowing you to go comfortably faster then you probably should be going. To me, they feel more stable going fast then my Qlabs that have a mount that’s closer to center. I’m sure there a lot of other factors, but I can’t help but think the fact that there is a bit more ski in the front helps with stability, especially when smashing through crud. Also, having a bit less tail in the back I think helps them brake loose easier as well. I have a pair of Bentchetlers 100s that I mounted +1.5 from the line, and occasionally there are times when skiing steeper off piste runs that I feel have too much tail in the back and feel locked into a turn I can’t break out off. I would occasionally get the same sensation with my Qlabs then skiing steeper off piste runs as well.
I’m glad somebody gets it...Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr.Evil
It’s a metal directional charger...but in a more updated user friendly format. It’s a Volkl for goodness sake.
If that doesn’t appeal to you, don’t buy it. If it does, feast upon the goodness in ample helpings...at speed. [emoji6]
Yeah, it's not a twin tip. The tail is turned up, as was introduced 20 years ago via OG Vertigo G4 / Explosive / Gotama... etcetera. But this isn't a jib ski that park guys will buy to ski fakie. The tail is just turned up for ease-of-use... ie-- sideslipping into a couloir.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bandit Man
/sorry... was slightly annoyed with this ski being called a twin tip, and a jib ski.
And here I thought that statement was so obviously sarcastic that nobody would take it seriously.
I have a mint pair of 184 with bindings for sale - local sale preferred. PM me if interested. skied 3 days.
I’m daydreaming about a pair of 191 M102’s after spending a bunch of time on 184 M102’s and K108’s.
Anyone skied both the 184 and 191?
seconded.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bandit Man
I skied the 184 during a demo day on a small icy hill, which is incredibly difficult to compare to my 191 on a big hill. So not really worth the comparison, although if I had to say something I'd say it's impossible to miss the sweet spot on the 184 at moderate speeds.
I was a very early adopter of the M102, managing to snag a 184 in Feb 2019. Just ski'd so damned well in any condition or terrain I threw it at, that I got a second when I blew up the edges of the first. Was very tempted to try the K108 after the first bit the rock dust, but that's just a bit too wide for a Banff daily. I had no reason to size up either because it had all the stability needed for 165lbs.
It feels like the consensus is that the 184 M102 was the "baseline" size for development, which is why that length specifically is praised so much. Just absolutely no way a ski that dialed should have a sweet spot that big. That being said it's been 3 model years, and historically that's how long a mantra gen lasts before its reduxed (the rockered Gen 4 the exception at 4), so I would personally wait for the '23 skis to be announced before grabbing another. If they "M6" the 102 and do it correctly that just might be the unicorn.
Do these have any pop at the end of a loaded carve, or did you have to decide to end the turn "whenever" yourself (with no pop at all) like a Bonafide?
On the 191 @230lbs and I definitely get a strong rebound and push into the next turn when loaded up. Could see someone much lighter not getting that same feedback. Never been on a bonafide but if it’s like an og Cochise then no
Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums
^ Cool, awesome.
Other than the icy part, you kind of outlined my dilemma. At my small local hill, the 184 is perfect. Not a lot of room to let it run, but rather lots of techie mini golf lines and frequent soft crud and variable conditions. However, when I get to a bigger mountain, the 184 feels too small.Quote:
Originally Posted by YoEddy
I did buy a 191 K108 at the end of the season but have yet to ski it. Maybe I’ll just stick with the 184 M102 and take the longer K108 when I travel.
Sent from my iPad using TGR Forums
bandit how tall/weight are you?Quote:
Originally Posted by Bandit Man
5’ 8” and currently 200-lbs. Been told that I’m built like a fire hydrant. My wife wishes that fire hydrant weighed 10-15 lbs less than it does. [emoji23]Quote:
Originally Posted by volklpowdermaniac
My first world problem is that my kid absconded the 184 M102’s. I put Warden 13 demos on most of my “fleet” since I’m a 25.5 and he’s a 27.5. Now we can share skis. I bought him a 186 Enforcer 104 Free, which he used to love, but after one run on the M102, he exclaimed “you are never getting these back!” So, I found another pair of 184 M102’s for me. Those have yet to be mounted. Hence the “maybe I should be on a 191 M102?” Inquiry.
I’m fairly certain I could handle them just fine. They might make Stevens Pass feel even smaller than it already does, though. In all honesty, the M102 is probably a more practical daily driver than the K108. However the 600” season in 20-21 created an exception to that thinking.
Run your K108's before you mount for sure. The lengths should feel quite similar, so if one ends up feeling 'for big lines' it's likely the other will as well.
lol so pretty much my exact stats, although sometimes i tell people im 5/9". but they know. they know.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bandit Man
In a somewhat surprising turn of events I decided to mount mine back from 1.3 to closer to center, moving from Pivots (going on other skis) to STH2s. I am unsure if I make it all the way back to the line, or have to go +5mm. The balance of these things in the air will never be anything close to balanced, so figured I might as well try to move a bit back from the soft zone in the shovels. I'm on 177s though, not the manly man sizes you guys are discussing ;)
Attachment 389150
A similar softer shovel zone is also what made me prefer BMT90s over Mantra V Werks. The former has a more uniform flex, whereas that softer spot in MVWs makes that ski too soft snow specific for me - that is, if you press on the shovels you end up with more rocker, not more support. Still, they are killer soft snow skis, but that is not why I bought them. I do love BMT90s though - the BMT line is just so damned good, even if they got a significant price hike this year ( or shops at least, unsure for consumers).
Attachment 389151Attachment 389152