Mantra M102 191 cm

[Tony911]

Anyone skiing the M102 in 191?
Im 6'1' 200 lbs and most of my skis including my M7 are in the 185-186 range but I can get a great deal on new M102 but only in a 191.
Had a 189 Bonafide a few years ago and had no trouble with them and my Enforcer 110 are 191.
Probably wrong time of year for this question but thats why the skis are $400 CAD new.
How much different is the M 102 from the M7? I find I use the M7 more than any of my other skis.

[obi wan kenobi]

Hi,
I ski the OG Mantra 102 in 191cm. For reference: I’m 6.2 ft with 225lb. Almost expert level ;- )
In my experience the Mantra 102 is a directional, but surprisingly nimble ski in that category of skis. It can be your daily driver, if you have above average technical skills and somewhat sufficient strength & condition. The Ski is accessible, even so its equivalent in the car world is a Porsche 911 GT3. It is a 911 GT3 with traction control. I like my 102 a lot for bad snow conditions and anything in between. Of course, it is not that good in powder.
I can not compare it to a M7, but to a M4 in 191. That might not be very helpful since the M4 was a full rocker (which I did not like).

[bry]

If you like the 189 bonafide you'll find the 191 m102 more nimble and fun, can pivot from the ankle vs having to drive the bones more from the knee/front of boot

Sent from my Pixel 8 Pro using Tapatalk

[Muggydude]

But if a rant below but I’d say it depends what you want to do with it. Bumps and trees and more off piste stuff, seems a bit long IMO. Just smashing groomers and variable on piste, would definitely be a fun ski in the longer length. Maybe would better compliment/less overlap with the M7 as well.

I’d consider myself an expert skier and drive skis pretty hard. Weigh 20 lbs more than you, little shorter. I loved the 184 M102’s I Demo’d, and definitely would NOT size up. I even briefly contemplated the 177s. Ended up ordering some 180cm Heritage Lab RC95’s which I’m stoked about.

IMO most people on this forum err too far on the long side. For powder I still like my skies a little longer because I detest tip dive and lack of support, but that’s for true powder days. Under 8” I’ve shifted back to shorter skis now

Not so much a question of “can you ski this length competently” but more so - are you actually truly hitting the speed and stability limit of the shorter size? If not, I’d take the ease of throwing them around in tight spaces, pivoting, and lower strain of the shorter sizes all day. Longer skis tire you out more, and just physics wise are sloppier and harder to control (even if you can still ski em just fine).

Spent a spring day last season blasting around the whole mountain on blades, and made me start to question the long skis truck mantra (pun intended) to some degree lol.

Again, as a quiver tool, long stiff powerful skis are a blast on piste, and so are long pow skis on deep days and in chop and variable.

[Sylvan]

What they all said, or go with Muggy’s advice, and get a 180/7 HL 95.. the 95 Comp isn’t as stupid damp rubber as my 2500 gram 189 B97s (those still get the call for refrozen at speed), but more so than the 102 in 191, only 2200 grams, and waaay more fun than both.. I will not define fun, it is in the eye of the fun doer.
Here’s a pic of 95 Comps in the wild. The new Anomaly 102 is a good ski too, though 185 Cochise 106 works better for me sizing wise. To answer your question OP, you won’t have an issue with the length, except in the ways Muggy described, or HL 95 and be happy.

-Clyde

[Sylvan]

Here’s a pic

Or not…or yah, Tapatalk for the photo win.

[byates1]

Pretty sure dj loves the 191 m102

[Djongo Unchained]

I think theres another thread with way more info on the M102, good luck finding that tho.
Where and how you ski should make the difference for which length you get.

Im a heavy-ish harder skier on a big mountain. The 191 is well suited for that.
If turning fast and tight, then 184. That said, I find the volkl variable turn radius makes quick turns on the 191 available.

It does indeed suffer in deeper pow unless straight charging. Shorter may help there.
The M6 is def a different feel for me. Fast and easier to manage. M102 more chargy and a higher speed limit fosho.

[Fred Pabst]

I had the M102 191 cm pre-spider man tip version. Im 6 foot and 220 lbs. I did not choose wisely on the length and should have down sized but Im not in a place where I can demo. Obviously a great ski, and perhaps THE most stabile ski ever made. I felt like I could only ski them mid-week. If I skied Jackson like Djongo, absolutely 191 would be the call. As an aging out lover of planky charger skis, down sizing is the way to go for me. I had a Bode 196 cm and sold, bought the 186 cm and love. Also had the Cochise 106 in the 185 cm sold but wished I kept. My next ski purchase is going to be the Enforcer 104 in the 185 cm or what ever it is. Not going 191 in that even though its a totally different ski.

[Mustonen]

I’m smaller than OP, but usually ski 188-192, and the 191 is too long. I vote size up every time but here… size down.

[Tony911]

Thanks for the replies
I missed out on the deal anyway but got a Enforcer 104, 185 cm for $500 CAD instead

[Mustonen]

Having skied both, those skis are a lot more similar on paper than they are on snow.