Mantra 102 - where to mount it?

[YoEddy]

Yes.....

... As in, pick the waist width that makes the most sense for you.

Exactly. The M6 skis narrower than it's 96mm waist would belie - almost to the point of a "carver" with way more versatility in every condition. The K108 is surprisingly nimble for 108mm and does everything with aplomb, but of course isn't going to handle the hardpack as well as the M6.

However, if you're only going to have one ski (egads the horror) then I'd say the M102 is the ticket.

[singlecross]

Anyone looking to sell a pair of 184s? Not picky about condition as long as they aren't thrashed

pm sent

[rod9301]

Someone told me that the 102 feels dead. Anyone else has this impression?

Sent from my moto g 5G using Tapatalk

[sf]

Someone told me that the 102 feels dead. Anyone else has this impression?

Sent from my moto g 5G using Tapatalk

Yes and no. It sort of feels like skiing on metal, and that might make it a bit dead feeling perhaps?

But I feel that it's a pretty poppy ski. There's something about those stiffer tips and tails, combined with a less stiff middle ski (according to FriFlyts numbers), that makes it possible to bend it and load it. Especially in uneven snow.

But it's a ski that most should size down on maybe? I'm usually on skis in the upper 180/ lower 190-sizes. 184 Mantra feels perfect for me.

[ripvw]

Someone told me that the 102 feels dead. Anyone else has this impression?

Sent from my moto g 5G using Tapatalk

Not at all. Don’t get me wrong, it’s heavier ski with a bunch of metal in it, so don’t expect it to ski like a bamboo core pogo stick. Just need to load it up a bit and rebounds quite nicely.

[1000-oaks]

Someone told me that the 102 feels dead. Anyone else has this impression?

177 M102 is a lot more lively than a 2017 180 Bonafide while still being stout, but not as lively as something with a flatter tail like an FX95HP. M102 isn't a tank, but it's toward that end of the spectrum. Feels bigger and heavier than a 2012-2014 177 Mantra, but looser due to the rocker.

Imagine if a 2012-2014 Katana knocked up a 2012-2014 Mantra and made a baby.

[KJA64]

177 M102 is a lot more lively than a 2017 180 Bonafide while still being stout, but not as lively as something with a flatter tail like an FX95HP. M102 isn't a tank, but it's toward that end of the spectrum. Feels bigger and heavier than a 2012-2014 177 Mantra, but looser due to the rocker.

Imagine if a 2012-2014 Katana knocked up a 2012-2014 Mantra and made a baby.

That’s a good description I have both katana 183 and old mantra 177. You have to drive the ski M102 hard to get it to do what you want. 184 is fine for me as my dd in Tahoe. I found the 2014 mantra 177 too short and twitchy, I’m 165lbs and 5’8” but like longer charging skis as a preference.

[skier2265]

Hey I could use some sizing advice. I recently picked up a pair of 184s for a good deal, but questioning whether I need to be on the 177s.
I ski at Palisades currently on Blizzard Rustler 10 in the 180 length. I like them OK; really maneuverable and light in tight terrain, but get deflected very easily in choppy snow. I know the 177s are basically the equivalent similar length for the 102s.

I'm 5'11, 160 and a decent advanced skier. I want a ski that can handle groomers at speed and plow through choppy snow, but unsure about moving to a longer and much heavier/stiffer ski. I know the 177s would be a huge improvement over the Rustlers in terms of stability already. Think I can handle these?

[YoEddy]

Perhaps a slightly different perspective to think about ...

The Blizzard Rustler 10 in a 180cm is the second to largest size offered where the 188cm is the largest. The 184cm M2 is the same in that it's not the biggest (191cm) but the next size down from the biggest. My advice (not worth a damn thing) would be to stay in the "relative size" you're in, which would be the 184cm. The 177cm M2 would be more akin to the 172cm Rustler ...

Besides, ski at speed + Palisades + decent advanced skier = 184cm by my math

[bry]

I concur with YoEddie

Sent from my Pixel 6 using Tapatalk

[stevied]

Besides, ski at speed + Palisades + decent advanced skier = 184cm by my math

I agree but stability does not come for free. I need to ski aggressively if I want to be smooth in tight terrain on my 184 Mantra 102s.

[skier2265]

Well this is the convincing I needed.. thanks! Going to try these 184s. I’m expecting to have to work a lot harder coming from Rustlers, ha


Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

[kid-kapow]

The Blizzard Rustler 10 in a 180cm is the second to largest size offered where the 188cm is the largest. The 184cm M2 is the same in that it's not the biggest (191cm) but the next size down from the biggest. My advice (not worth a damn thing) would be to stay in the "relative size" you're in, which would be the 184cm. The 177cm M2 would be more akin to the 172cm Rustler ...

I see the logic you are setting up here, but it is kinda making a pattern to fit a point - not a reflection of how they will ski. 192 m102s is the outlier here, probably made because Völkl sell enough of other skis to sink the cost of a model/length that will shift very few units, or due to some more traditional folks wanting a narrower ski (relatively speaking) that can still be plenty chargy off piste. I can totally understand how Blizzard would not want to make a "super" long version of what is really a more easy going and playful ski - even if it could be a decent daily driver for some.

The comparable size to 180 R10s is as stated above 177 M102s. They should be like within a cm of each other straight pull, where the effective edge of M102s is probably longer, splay is significantly less and the construction is a fair bit more beefy. I've had both in those lengths, both are nice if completely different. R10s prefer shorter turns on piste and is a ton of fun in soft snow, whereas M102s likes to go fast and feels a bit more unbalanced in the air. Neither ski is hard to ski, though m102s get better the faster you go.

So there should be no ambiguity here - 184 M102s should be a lot more ski -> heavier, more stable, highr speed limit, but still no untamable beast. The rocker lines and construction should still make them fairly accessible. If the idea is to get a significantly higher top speed in variable then 184s should blow 180 R10s out of the water.

So I would give them a go.

[Shorty_J]

Not a mantra really, but my 177 katana seemed to have a longer sidecut than a 192 M-Free 108 I compared to.

I'm curious to see what a 184 skis like, but I'm super happy with the 177 and don't really feel like I want to go it's top speed much anyway so I think I'm in the right size.

[Bandit Man]

Hey I could use some sizing advice. I recently picked up a pair of 184s for a good deal, but questioning whether I need to be on the 177s.
I ski at Palisades currently on Blizzard Rustler 10 in the 180 length. I like them OK; really maneuverable and light in tight terrain, but get deflected very easily in choppy snow. I know the 177s are basically the equivalent similar length for the 102s.

I'm 5'11, 160 and a decent advanced skier. I want a ski that can handle groomers at speed and plow through choppy snow, but unsure about moving to a longer and much heavier/stiffer ski. I know the 177s would be a huge improvement over the Rustlers in terms of stability already. Think I can handle these?

So, in my opinion, the length question comes down to skiing style.

The Rustler 10 is quick and manageable in tight terrain BUT it completely falls apart when pushed hard in variable conditions or when skied fast.

The M102 is a much more damp and composed ski than the Rustler 10. It makes the Rustler 10 seem like a twitchy noodle in comparison. It doesn’t have a speed limit and will definitely fit the role you are after.

Which brings us back to skiing style. Is the Rustler 10 holding you back? Do you want a ski that allows you to charge in any condition? If so, get the 177. Now, do you want a ski that allows you to ski that way and you want to ski hard MOST of the time? Then the 184 might be a better fit.

The Rustler 10 is a terrible ski for an advanced or expert skier. Blizzard makes the claim that a super lightweight ski with a tight turn radius can handle variable snow and high speeds. It can’t. Sell it to some Jerry and enjoy your M102’s.


Sent from my iPad using TGR Forums

[YoEddy]

I see the logic you are setting up here, but it is kinda making a pattern to fit a point - not a reflection of how they will ski. ...

Exactly - An M102 is not an R10 at any length and never will be so I don't understand the logic of sizing an M102 to be more like something it's not. I'm simply trying to compare two different apples (M102) relative to two different oranges (R10) based on the fact that ski manufacturers optimize their product performance for skier weight & power in any given category.

192 m102s is the outlier here, probably made because Völkl sell enough of other skis to sink the cost of a model/length that will shift very few units, or due to some more traditional folks wanting a narrower ski (relatively speaking) that can still be plenty chargy off piste. I can totally understand how Blizzard would not want to make a "super" long version of what is really a more easy going and playful ski - even if it could be a decent daily driver for some.

If the 191cm M102 (or M6, or K108 or any other long board) is an outlier it's because there are fewer skiers in the bell curve that fit that weight/power criteria than there are for the 177's and 184's. I don't believe you meant to say the 191 Volkl is "super long" while implying a 188cm Blizzard is not, but my quasi-educated guess would be that Volkl and Blizzard used (very) similar weight/power criteria for their designs of their "big boards" even though they are not even remotely similar skis as BanditMan points out.

Anyway, my reasoning is of course subjective and hardly definitive, but I think it's a good general starting point. Sure there will be variances across manufacturers and even within any given manufacturer's models, but once you find you're happiest with the "second size down" that it'll hold true for others assuming you're not trying to make it something it's not.

[kid-kapow]

... I don't believe you meant to say the 191 Volkl is "super long" while implying a 188cm Blizzard is not...

The point I was trying to make was that just because both are the longest offered size do not make them comparable. Yes, 191 m102 is not super long - hence the "".

That being said - a 191 volkl is pretty long for being a ski that measures true to size straight pull unlike most manufactureres that are 1-2cm shorter than stated if measured straight pull. It is also a 190+ length were most manufacturers top out at 189, or measures in at 190 re the last point.

So, there is going to be a massive difference between a 191 m102 (that should actually measure in at somewhere between 190 and 192) and a 188 R10 (that will measure in at 186 something and have a significantly shorter effective edge) - even if both are the largest size on offer of that model.

[Sylvan]

So, in my opinion, the length question comes down to skiing style.

This is good advice, along with the terrain you normally ski.
OP, as you said, the 177 M102 will likely be plenty stable based on the ski you are coming from (assuming you weren't folding the R10), and either 177 or 184 will be a huge improvement over your R10s. FWIW, I owned both the 191 M102 and 188 R10 (6'2/210), and while I didn't love the M102 for my very picky preferences, it is night and day a better ski for advanced skiers than the R10 (as Bandit Man said). It has one of the best stability/maneuverability ratios on the market due to the deep rocker lines/low splay/longer EE, and has a cult following for a reason.
You're at Palisades? You're 5'11 and advanced? You got a good deal on the 184? Mount those fuckers and go have a blast! Worst case you have another data point, you flip em for close to what you paid, and then find a good deal on a 177 end season, or next (but I don't think you'll need to. Or just mount the 184 plus 1 to shorten em up a touch. My 2 cents. Going to jump on my 192 Cochise 106s that I have no room for in my quiver, but that I got a good deal on Have fun!

[skier2265]

thanks for the input guys! I'm ready to move on from the R10s, just needed that bit of confirmation that the 184s aren't obviously too much. I was running out of a chute last weekend on the R10s into some soft chop and my friend was commenting on how much my skis were deflecting all over the place (I believe it, I felt it...).

Can't wait to get on the Mantras!

[sf]

Hey I could use some sizing advice. I recently picked up a pair of 184s for a good deal, but questioning whether I need to be on the 177s.
I ski at Palisades currently on Blizzard Rustler 10 in the 180 length. I like them OK; really maneuverable and light in tight terrain, but get deflected very easily in choppy snow. I know the 177s are basically the equivalent similar length for the 102s.

I'm 5'11, 160 and a decent advanced skier. I want a ski that can handle groomers at speed and plow through choppy snow, but unsure about moving to a longer and much heavier/stiffer ski. I know the 177s would be a huge improvement over the Rustlers in terms of stability already. Think I can handle these?

Saying that someone should pick ski sizes based on where that ski is placed in the size range of vastly different models is a weird argument.
I'm not saying that the 184s are very demanding skis, but what I am saying is that the 184s are a lot more ski than the 188 Rustler 11s. A lot. And as I understand it the Rustler 10s are less ski than 11s.

If the logic was sound I should put my GF (decent skier, 110 lbs and skis a 172 Rustler 11 on pow days) on 172 Mantra 102s.......

Mount point will probably factor in as well. The Rustlers and Mantras are pretty different. Going from a 180 Rustler to a 184 Mantra is probably going to give you 10cm more ski in front of you boots.

That being said; you want more ski and you're a good skier in open terrain (?), so yes; the 184s should be fine. Especially since you already have them and got them at a decent price. But even though you might be able to ski them you might miss out on a better performing ski for your size. The 102 is a ski I'd recommend sizing down on, not because it's very demanding, but because it's very stable and you can have that stability without sacrificing maneuverability at a shorter length.

I think it comes down to what you want from it. If you want decent pow / 3D-snow performance you should stay with the 184s. But if you're buying these for low tide / chalk / skied out etc the 177 might allow you to ski faster because you can control them more.

[YoEddy]

Saying that someone should pick ski sizes based on where that ski is placed in the size range of vastly different models is a weird argument ... I'm not saying that the 184s are very demanding skis, but what I am saying is that the 184s are a lot more ski than the 188 Rustler 11s. A lot. And as I understand it the Rustler 10s are less ski than 11s.

Well, yeah it may be weird, but I did say it was a different perspective! However, I’m not comparing a 184 M102 to a 188 R11 – they are very different skis. My point is that given the OP’s criteria and the fact that he’s on the 188 R10 that the 184 M102 is the logical starting point (over the 177 or 191).

I’m coming from the premise that ski designs are optimized for power (P=F*v) where weight, strength and speed are all factors. Skill of course plays a role since stronger F and higher V generally go hand in hand with higher skill, but it’s not really a variable as it isn’t going to change for any one individual (unless an intermediate is looking to grow into an expert ski for example).

If the logic was sound I should put my GF (decent skier, 110 lbs and skis a 172 Rustler 11 on pow days) on 172 Mantra 102s.......

This is where there is some subjectivity given the R11’s come in 5 sizes and the M102 comes in only 4 so there is no direct comparison, but I don’t see the problem with the 172 M102? I've got similar weight 15 year old athletes on 175cm free-ski boards and even longer GS skis.
I guess we need to define what a “decent skier” is - does decent mean intermediate, advanced or expert?

I think it comes down to what you want from it. If you want decent pow / 3D-snow performance you should stay with the 184s. But if you're buying these for low tide / chalk / skied out etc the 177 might allow you to ski faster because you can control them more. .......

I just don’t understand the philosophy of downsizing a ski so that it behaves differently than for what it was designed. Perhaps a silly analogy but I wouldn’t downsize a GS ski so that it would be better in SL gates. You’re either looking at the wrong ski for it’s intended purpose or aren’t being honest about skill. In this case the M6 would be a better low tide ski, but in a 184, and not a 177 … haha.

[skier2265]

My main priorities are performance in variable 3D snow and skiing fast in low tide offpiste. Groomer performance isn’t that important to me, and I have wider powder skis. Maneuverability is a factor though and I’m not sure if the 184s will feel too unwieldy and heavy.

It’ll be a lot more ski than I’m used to. Im confident I can manage it, but it’s possible that it’s more than I need and might be too much in more technical terrain. For now I’m going to ski these and find out — I got them used and cheap!

I might entertain a trade for 177s though in the future.


Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

[Shorty_J]

Anyone interested in the big boy 191s for $499CDN?

Can facilitate a reship at your cost.

https://www.sportinglife.ca/en-CA/eq...-25458837.html

[Bandit Man]

So, finally got some time on some 191 M102’s. They are mounted with Warden demos and we set at +1-cm. Conditions were spring groomers with 2” of new snow.

My take…rocket ships. For me, these were skiable but required a lot more attention than my 184’s. They just want to run and I felt like I was having a tough time staying on the shovels. So, for my 5’ 8”, 200-lb frame, they were a little more than I needed. I swapped them later for my 184 M6’s for a few runs and those felt like snowblades in comparison. I then swapped to my 192 MFree 108’s later in the day and those were significantly more manageable, lively, and fun than the 191 M102’s.

[Sylvan]

So, finally got some time on some 191 M102’s.

Any thoughts compared to your 191 K108s? Ski similar in length? Sounds like the K108s might be 'easier'? Admittedly, I didn't love my 191 M102s for how I used em (firm only), but after spending some time on a B97, I realized I just prefer more running length and camber for my high pressure ski. After reading the K108 thread however, I've convinced myself the rocker profile may work very well for me as a variable soft snow DD (a lot of top end/damp but still relatively easy to release/maneuver sort of thing). Looking forward to getting my K108s mounted up! Thanks Bandit Man.