Soft Snow Gymkhana - The Heritage Lab FR110

[Mustonen]

Got my R110s yesterday, gonna mount them up and get the AB going of the FR110.

The tail isn’t super stiff nor is the rocker super low, so I’m sure with more detuning the tails wont be an issue.

Look forward to your feedback. My trigger finger is itchy….

[Dantheman]

“Tails locked in” + “want to try them mounted further forward” doesn’t make sense to me. Going back almost always makes me feel like I have more authority over the tails.

Help me to understand?

It wasn't just that I had to drive the tips hard, but that I had to put my whole center of mass way forward to find a balance point where they would pivot. That made me think that moving the mount forward, while it would increase the tail length, would provide that COM shift while allowing a more neutral stance. I also seem to recall reading someone's account of skiing the Squads at Rec and -2 and finding that they pivoted easier at the Rec line. I could also just be totally wrong They're mounted with demo bindings so it's easy to experiment.

[mr_pretzel]

As someone who has moved mounts forward a lot this is my experience:
It makes the skis easier to pivot and turn, but if the tail is strong they will be even more unruly in variable terrain and will kick your ass when you get back seat. This is why all the freeride skids have no problem going forward on rockered banana skis but if you go forward to far on a cochise it will kill you.

[54-46]

Maybe I can see that, though his daily is the Sender Squad which is a big beefy 194cm ski that, while compliant, requires some input. It’s probably the last thing from an engage-the-tip and then ride-the-tail sort of ski. Could also just be an adjustment period wherein the Squad has a pretty soft tail and likes to disappear from below you (in a good way). I doubt it was really the length that he was fighting, though.

Has anybody been able to compare these to a Corvus, yet? Wondering if that stronger tail might be a more apt comparison?

Have some opinions re Corvus, FR110, and Sickle, FWIW. Sorry if you were looking for R110 comparo.

Had a flat camber 183 Corvus a few years, former 186 Sickle owner as well. 60 y/o, 6’, 1”, 170 lbs. Been in variations of Lange RX 130s a long time. Can turn left/right. Ski fast. Don’t care about air. Not really “aggressive” compared to many.

Have 2 days on FR110s. IMO, FR110 not really same mission as Corvus.

187 FR110s are a semi-fresh, cut up pow, tree weapon, better soft snow ski. Hold a good but short edge for being full rocker with splay. Quick to turn and in bumps for width. Pretty damn fast on groomed. Believe structure and tune had something to do with it. Could use daily but better for me as wider end of quiver.

183 Corvus was great in crud, refrozen, and held a longer/better edge for going fast. Nice balance between damp, lively, and overall feel. Didn’t float as well as FR110s. Better low snow ski. I used as OSQ a while and also as 1/2 of quiver in combo with Noctas.

186 Sickle was used years ago as OSQ. It floated better than Corvus but wasn’t as good in softer stuff as FR110. Held a decent and longer feeling edge than the FR110 but Sickle also had a little hot tub effect in freshies. Not much taper tip to tail and not a big tail rocker. Symmetrical feeling. Not as nimble as FR110. Sickle also had a glassy feel that smoothed stuff out but gave it a little detached snow feel.

^^^ Merely data points. As always, YMMV…


Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

[mr_pretzel]

Tomorrow we shall ski in the rain

[kc_7777]

But talk me through the length thing! Your 4frnts measure different than they claim and my skis measure very close to claimed... And I should change??? haha. Just teasing.

Hey Marshal,

Just ignore me….I’m a CPA who teaches Tax at a university.

Or here’s my “thinking” on length.

It’s all relative. And stated length is dumb.

Most manufacturers seem to list a stated ski length (eg like a 184cm Hoji) I think measured along the base material? Cause a 184 (stated) Hoji straight pulls at 182.5cm.

Here is a sample of Stated Length (SL) to Straight Pull ….as a % ratio (SL/SP):

Stated Straight Ratio (SL/SP)

184 Hoji 182.5cm 99.19%
184 BentChetler 182.6cm 99.23%
184 Revolt 121 182.2cm 99.02%
186 E104 184.5cm 99.20%

Average = 99.16% ratio

The 180 FR110 straight pulls at 179.6cm and its ratio of straight pull length to its stated length of 180 is higher than that the 99.16% average above at 99.78% (179.6 / 180 = 99.78%)

K2, ON3P measures long I know.

In my mind, when I’m comparing skis on a “relative” basis it’s not worth it to do it on stated length. As the 180 FR110 is a 181cm in my mind, when I’m comparing it to a 184 4FRNT…

eg using the average ratio above:

179.6 / .9916 = 181.1 cm relative stated

Or another way, if you’re right ….cause the FR is really a true 180…. then my 184 Hoji is really a true 182.9cm.

(182.5 / .9978 = 182.90)

I don’t care. It’s just when comparing the two skis (184 Hoji and 180 FR110) they are “truly” 3cm apart, based on straight pull 182.5 - 179.6 = 2.9cm, and not 4cm apart based on the stated length (184 - 180).

I know it doesn’t matter. Personally I’d love all manufacturers to list their skis at straight pull, to one decimal.

Plus I think anyone buying Heritage Lab skis gets it….that stated length is dumb and not a good comparison.

Appreciate you providing straight pull info on the HL website.

Carry on!


Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

[Marshal Olson]

That is the kind of ski nerdery that HL was founded upon!
love it.

Maybe one day every ski brand will list both the straight tape and material length, so it isn’t confusing!

[adrenalated]

Most manufacturers seem to list a ski (eg like a 184cm Hoji) I think measured among the base material?

Some brands do that (material length before pressing) but many brands determine the stated length by what they want the "ski length" to be for marketing reasons. This may or may not have any relation to the actual length of the ski or material.

K2, ON3P measures long I know.

I'd argue ON3P measures true.
K2 historically in the Hellbent days didn't include the length of the twin tip at all. Again, marketing.

In my mind, when I’m comparing skis on a “relative” basis it’s not worth it to do it on stated length. As the 180 FR110 is a 181cm in my mind, when I’m comparing it to a 184 4FRNT…

eg using the average ratio above:

179.6 / .9916 = 181.1 cm relative stated

Or another way, if you’re right ….cause the FR is really a true 180…. then my 184 Hoji is really a true 182.9cm

(182.5 / .9978 = 182.90)

I don’t care. It’s just when comparing the two skis (184 Hoji and 180 FR110) they are “truly” 3cm apart, based on straight pull 182.5 - 179.6 = 2.9cm) and not 4cm based on the stated length (184 - 180).

You CPAs must enjoy doing math. As an engineer, I try to avoid it as much as possible.

Personally I’d love all manufacturers to list their skis at straight pull, to one decimal.

100% this although I don't even need it to a decimal point as less than 1cm has zero impact on how the ski is going to feel underfoot. Just round it to the nearest cm, and tell me the actual length of the ski I'm buying. Easy peasy.

[kc_7777]

100% this although I don't even need it to a decimal point as less than 1cm has zero impact on how the ski is going to feel underfoot. Just round it to the nearest cm, and tell me the actual length of the ski I'm buying. Easy peasy.

I can live with this…. and ya you’re right 1cm makes no diff. I’d much prefer engineers and CPA’s were in charge instead of the dang marketers!

Can’t wait for it to stop raining at Whistler and to get back out on my 180 FR110’s!


Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

[cocoapuff]

Dang. Shit gets weird when it hasnt snowed in awhile.

[eSock]

Do you think the hoji method for mounting point would apply to a ski like this (ie, bigger bsl mount further back)? Wondering if it can/should be applied to other rockered skis. Maybe that was just hoji accounting for his sizing/design style whereas MO is already a bigger guy so maybe no need to account for that? [emoji848][emoji28]

[waxloaf]

Marshal's mount point specs on the HL site--see the ski pics; there is a chart with mount points--addresses how to handle big and small BSL. In short:

- 295 or less, go an additional +.5
- 325 or more, go an additional -.5

[johnnyg82]

BOOYA! Awesome man. It sounds like GoSlowGoFar did a similar thing too, by cutting a slit into his pomoca tail and popping the BD clip in.

Quick Skin Updated Summary

• G3 - best off with a twin twip adaptor if the skin is on the long side or pushing a BD tail clip through as imaged above if skin is on the shorter side
• BD - Standard tail clip
• Pomoca - lightly modified Pomoca or G3 twin tip clip if on the long side. Jones QT (quick tension) tail clip or retrofit BD tailclip if on the short side

Hmm, is the 4Frnt 4-lock Hoji hole a patented thing, could the deepest bit of the work with that somehow?

[Mustonen]

Tomorrow we shall ski in the rain

Well?

[Marshal Olson]

Ok, so I was able to ski the pair Dan had.

they definitely hooked up and carved like a boss, but needed to get forced to release, and this pair had a bit more bite in the tail than the tip. So no challenge in seeing Dan's feedback points.

I then went through the skis at the car and added some freehand base-edge bevel to butter the tail and balance them out (same thing as I do to FL105 in both the tip and tail right at the contact points). Happy to share the process for that to anyone curious.

The result is that I would call the ski balanced both carving and off edge alike, and for it to have a supportive tail when flat tracking that will prop you back to neutral if you get a bit back seat. Excited for more folks to try these skis for sure.

I have not skied it in many years, but based on what I see of the Corvus specs, that does feel like a relevant comparison. Progressive mount, with the R110 being a little more rockered, heavier, and a bit bigger radius. Looking for folks with first hand experience on this!

[2FUNKY]

Hopefully DTM will climb back on and give them a rip then report back.


Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

[snowaddict91]

I'm not really in the market for skis at the moment, but wouldn't mind getting on the R110 and telling you what I think if you're around the Bird next Thurs or Fri.

[Shredeagle]

I then went through the skis at the car and added some freehand base-edge bevel to butter the tail and balance them out (same thing as I do to FL105 in both the tip and tail right at the contact points). Happy to share the process for that to anyone curious.

!

I’d be interested to hear your process for this.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[PNW-skier78]

What is the inspiration for the R105? Is this similar to the OG cochise?


Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

[arild]

What is the inspiration for the R105? Is this similar to the OG cochise?


Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

Well, the R105 is the non-cambered, almost reverse cambered, twin to the FL105. I never skied the OG Cochise, so wouldn't really know, but at times I kinda wanted that ski.

The R(all skis) were born from the fact that the rocker profile of the FL113 works so annoyingly well for lots of different conditions, and together with the overall construction, it just punches through and flies over shit.

None of the skis I've had a hand in designing with Marshal have really had _one_ inspiration.

There's,on one hand, more just an accumulation of concepts from handfuls or armloads of skis we all have loved at one point or another, and on the other hand, some elements we just want to play with, as we know they'll make a difference for the positive.

Back to the R105 - I guess you could say it shares a good number of on paper qualities with the Cochises, highish sidecut radius, flat/reverse camber, and 10x mm waist.

Hope that's somewhat helpful, just wanted to provide some insight.

Cheers,
Arild (GFB)

Sent fra min LE2123 via Tapatalk

[sf]

I know I’ve read 4.1mm drill + tap for the FRs, but my anxiety got hold off me.

Can anybody confirm? py reception and phone, so can’t be bothered to wade through all the HL threads

[pfluffenmeister]

I know I’ve read 4.1mm drill + tap for the FRs, but my anxiety got hold off me.

Can anybody confirm? py reception and phone, so can’t be bothered to wade through all the HL threads

That's whats recommended.
I used 4.1 on R87, FL105, & R110 (although I didnt tap).

They were all robust, but FL105 was on another level.
Not easy to screw.

Will be out on my R110s for the first time today!
Steamboat with probably 6-8" of heavy, warm pow.

[Core Shot]

I know I’ve read 4.1mm drill + tap for the FRs, but my anxiety got hold off me.

Can anybody confirm? py reception and phone, so can’t be bothered to wade through all the HL threads

Huh. Didn’t know tap was suggested
Used a 4.1 to 3.9 stepped drill and they screwed fine.

PS. The step drill is awesome. And makes sense. 4.1 on the topsheet and any titanal but narrower for the wood core.

[sf]

After a lot of back and forth I finally got around to mounting my own fucking HL skis.

Looking forward to putting time on these

[adrenalated]

Finally had a chance to get a day on my FR110s. 13" on the report at Telluride, 8" overnight. Storm started wet and heavy (like your mom) and finished cold and dry (like my ex-girlfriend). I am a lazy fuck, and was skiing with a friend that's a lazier fuck, so did not ski any rope drops or open untracked - lots of trees, lots of cut pow, chop, etc.

"Soft snow gymkhana" really is a great description of these. Pivot, pop, slash. They want to fast, but they want to be sideways while doing it. In old growth trees they are a WEAPON, go fast, look at the spaces, go sideways through all of them. In the open I didn't find their speed limit although I didn't really try that hard to. They are fun, playful, and easy to ski while having plenty of backbone.

My pair measure 187cm straight pull exactly, or my tape measure is wrong, or I'm blind. Who knows. Anyway, I mounted my own fucking bindings 86cm from the tail (-7.5cm from center) per Marshal's recommendation for traditional skier with midget feet. I was a little skeptical because I've never liked any ski that was mounted any further forward than about -8/-9... but these feel pretty good. In soft snow they felt totally natural. On firmer snow I had a little more trouble staying on the balance pont but I think this is more of a me problem than a ski problem. I also have no idea how to ski without my shins jammed pretty firmly into the front of my boots and typically ski on pretty directional skis. I think a skier that has a more modern and upright stance would feel right at home.

It's been a VERY long time since I've been on any other reverse camber skis but these had none of the nervousness at low edge angles/bases flat that I remember from other skis. I doubt they will have the energy out of a carve on hard snow that my cambered charger type skis do, but that's fine. These will just be drifting sideways with two middle fingers out the window.

The most similar other ski I have are my 13/14 ON3P Billygoats. It's tough for me to A/B them as I haven't skied the BGs this year. They are similar in a lot of ways, poppy pivoty and playful. I think I'd rather be on the BGs in a pure untracked wide open pow field (they're wider and do float better) but I think the FR110 pivots faster in trees. Zipper crust, probably edge to BG? Variable hard/soft, edge to FR110? Both are not intended for but completely skiable on hard pack, but I think the FR110 is more predictable overall.

Part of me does wonder how they'd ski with the side cut and recommended mount moved 2cm back. But with the same rocker profile. So, lovechild of the R110 and FR110. I'm an idiot though and it might totally suck.

Really enjoy these. Nice work Marshal, fun fkn ski!