Soft Snow Gymkhana - The Heritage Lab FR110

[forumskier]

Ordered some 186 FR110’s today. Taking the HL plunge!

Oh yeahhhh! They are so good

[pfluffenmeister]

That hurts my feelings, kc... with my Rens on the wall, and R110's on the way. (I kind of know that the R120ST is my Ren replacement. Please don't tell my Ren.)

But it begs the question-- What is the actual mount point for my 186 R110's? MO recommends 86.75 from the tail. My 186 Rens (a completely unrelated ski) are mounted at 87cm from the tail.

Perhaps another question is-- what is the exact center of sidecut of your FR110's from tail?

You're one of the dorkiest mount-point posters on this board. I'm gonna lean in to you for your input on where you personally think recommended is for the FR110 based on center-of-sidecut. Or-- your personal experience.

In further news... my OG plan is to listen to Marshall, and then grab some calipers to find the true center-of-sidecut, and then choose my line based on previous experiences. All said-- I doubt I'll be questioning MO in his recommendations. I trust his work. I usually trust the work of the designers. Almost always. Perhaps always.

But we all know kc dances around with mount point more than most. So what are your instincts for the R110, kc? I'm curious if they fluctuate at all with MO, et al.

I like to drive a ski, and mounted my 186 R110s at -7.7.
Progressive (for me) chargey fun!

@MO I note that the R rocker profile was made a bit more splayed than the beta skis.
Could you elaborate on the differences, and did those changes go across all skis with the R rocker profile?

PS R110 & R120STs are cold dead hands skis.

[K1mJ0ngTr1ll]

I like to drive a ski, and mounted my 186 R110s at -7.7.
Progressive (for me) chargey fun!

@MO I note that the R rocker profile was made a bit more splayed than the beta skis.
Could you elaborate on the differences, and did those changes go across all skis with the R rocker profile?

PS R110 & R120STs are cold dead hands skis.

I’ve got my R110s at -8 and can confirm the cold dead hands sentiment.

New profile seems like it will be a touch more forgiving but plenty ski to get rowdy also the recommended mount bumped forward a touch I believe. Seems to me like it went from corvus-y to a lower more substantial Hoji. Or I could be talking out of my ass which tends to happen.

Ready for my HL Christmas in Sept!

[kc_7777]

Ordered some 186 FR110’s today. Taking the HL plunge!

Nice! You’ll be happy you did.


Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

[Core Shot]

-6 is pretty progressive, Hoji’s skis are mounted close to that. -5.5 for his boot and a little farther back for bigger boots. I ski my Renegades and Ravens at -8 and that’s for a bsl 327. That’s probably where I will put my bindings on my 194 r110s.


Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

Might be progressive. But this ski is one where I really didn’t push the shin like I would with my lotus 120 or a hardpack ski. Had to learn to ski more progressive and upright to get the ski and me happy. Super fun style.
Even at -6 I could push the shins without tip dive but found myself not wanting to.
Ymmv
PS. Amazing reverse ski. Can actually carve on groomers and isn’t ever squirrelly on cat tracks. Marshall understands ski design. This is mini golf powder fun
PPS. 326bsl 6’4 210#

[MagnificentUnicorn]

You just described a progressive mount/ski. I’m an inch taller and 30# heavier than you. I’m really looking forward to the 194s.


Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

[forumskier]

Nice Bandit.



I get this same endorphin rush when others purchase sick skis


Asked MO for sizing advice on R110s, he said I couldn't handle the 187s due to my lack of athleticism and balance, so bumped me up to the 194s. Looking forward to my water wings. Line looks to be -8 +/- on that length, which is where my pivots will be. Three months.

Maybe I knew this, but just wasn't putting it together in my head...I wasn't realizing Bandit Man wasn't onboard the HL train already. I just hopped aboard this summer as well, also with some FR110s (used 193s that Blister tested). I want more HL already, and suspect Bandit Man will too in the near future.

My FRs were drilled for older Griffon demos, so I found some 2016 Jester demos new in box for cheap to test out mount point while not having to re-drill. I tried -8 last January and immediately wanted them, but thinking I'll prefer -7 or -6 actually. We'll see.

[NuclearNachos21]

does anybody have experience with the r110 and fr110 (105 for bonus points) and how real world difference between? looking for a more playful carger but not sure on which


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Marshal Olson]

does anybody have experience with the r110 and fr110 (105 for bonus points) and how real world difference between? looking for a more playful carger but not sure on which


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Hey man, with respect to the 105, I don't think anyone would call them playful!

On the 110 permutations, the FR110 and R110 are the same ski footprint, construction, and flex patterns. The difference is the rocker profile. The R110 and FR110 have the same tip and tail heights at the very ends of the ski, but the R has less than 1/2 the splay at the ski's widepoint in the tips and tails and is correspondingly flatter under foot.

The FR is more of a soft snow biased design, especially good in deeper snow, hot pow, mank, wind skin, etc. Overall a more surfy ride.

The R is a little more engaged on firm snow and supportive if you get off balance, and will typically get mounted about 1cm or so further back than the FR.

They are for sure more similar than different, and I don't really think there is a wrong answer. Both of them are very damp and stable and give that effortless video game sensation.

My view is that the answer to your question comes down to where you ski and what skis you might be coming off of. But I am more than happy to explore all relevant nuance in more detail here, via PM, or over email any time!

It is also probably worth noting that there is only 1x 186 FR110 and 3x 187 R110 remaining in the fall delivery window.

[arild]

I mean, the R105s are plenty playful compared to the FL113s, but not in the vicinity of either 110. I think of it like this; the FR110s are playful skis that are super stable. The R105s are extremely stable skis that aren't very playful. The R110s should be about the middle ground. Stabler than the very stable FRs, more playful than the R105s, mainly due to the sidecut and mounting point.

Sent fra min LE2123 via Tapatalk

[forumskier]

Not as playful, but are R105s as good in bumps as FR110s being a bit thinner?

I really liked the FR110s in soft bumps. Was thinking R105 for firmer bumps. My current hard bump skis are M4 Mantra and Blackops 98.

[NuclearNachos21]

guess i haven't looked at the 105 that much haha. glad to heard they're quite similar. if you could just have one for general big mountain/freeride ski it would be the r110?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Marshal Olson]

Right on, so in general. I’d say folks that love the FR110 the most probably also own and use a 95-100mm ski too, where folks that go for the R110 will probably question if they need that skinny ski as well

the 105 is substantially more directional, really wants to ski down the mountain, and definitely needs a pilot who can generate some good input and puts energy into the ski.

[Joey Joe Joe Junior Shabadoo]

The R105 and the FL105 are intriguing to me. I'm looking for a new daily driver after years on Kastle mx98's. I loved those skis and would still be on them if they still made them. But my one complaint was that they were boat anchors in anything more than a few inches of fresh so I'd be willing to give up some dampness/stability/speed for something a little fatter/softer/lighter. Am I on the right track with the with these or will they feel like flappy noodles after the Kastle's? Should I be looking at the RC95? It sounds closer to my old MX98's but the shorter length and skinnier waist seem like id be going in the opposite direction of what I want. I'm 6'4, 230 and I like getting caught in the rain if that helps.

[Marshal Olson]

Not as playful, but are R105s as good in bumps as FR110s being a bit thinner?

I really liked the FR110s in soft bumps. Was thinking R105 for firmer bumps. My current hard bump skis are M4 Mantra and Blackops 98.

id say the 110 makes moguls feel like a skate park, boosting/popping/slashing/drifting all over. In contrast, the 105 makes moguls feel like a race course where you are just carrying speed and ripping.

I don’t think the 105 is any more demanding than a similarly long 100mm wide mantra, but the construction is going to feel quieter when the snow is hard and rough.

[Marshal Olson]

The R105 and the FL105 are intriguing to me. I'm looking for a new daily driver after years on Kastle mx98's. I loved those skis and would still be on them if they still made them. But my one complaint was that they were boat anchors in anything more than a few inches of fresh so I'd be willing to give up some dampness/stability/speed for something a little fatter/softer/lighter. Am I on the right track with the with these or will they feel like flappy noodles after the Kastle's? Should I be looking at the RC95? It sounds closer to my old MX98's but the shorter length and skinnier waist seem like id be going in the opposite direction of what I want. I'm 6'4, 230 and I like getting caught in the rain if that helps.

these are the droids, man. These are the droids.

I have a good number of mx98 lovers on the 105. The consensus i’ve heard is: wildly better in soft snow, wildly better in variable snow, wildly better off piste, and very little to no downside on boilerplate

the rc95 is rad, but it does kinda sound like it is going in the wrong direction from what it sounds like you are after. I would say the RC95 (specifically the comp flex) is a straight up competitor to the MX98, just with a cleaner off edge feel. It does have a longer effective edge than the 105, and a slightly more neutral mount position vs the 105/mx98 too

[arild]

The R105 and the FL105 are intriguing to me. I'm looking for a new daily driver after years on Kastle mx98's. I loved those skis and would still be on them if they still made them. But my one complaint was that they were boat anchors in anything more than a few inches of fresh so I'd be willing to give up some dampness/stability/speed for something a little fatter/softer/lighter. Am I on the right track with the with these or will they feel like flappy noodles after the Kastle's? Should I be looking at the RC95? It sounds closer to my old MX98's but the shorter length and skinnier waist seem like id be going in the opposite direction of what I want. I'm 6'4, 230 and I like getting caught in the rain if that helps.

I sadly never skied the mx98s, but I've felt them up a number of times. Did like the 2004/5 Legend Pros a lot, if that helps at all.

Assuming you're going for a big boy length?

Just from your old DDs, I'm pretty certain you'd be more comfortable from the get go on the cambered FLs, especially going bases flat on hard snow, but given some time, the Rs would feel natural. Still chargers, but different flavors.

The near flat reverse R105s do like being more on edge on harder snow as a counter to the FLs. For variable, I'd get Rs if I had to choose one of them.

The tails aren't extremely stiff on either(pretty much identical constructions), but for me at 95kg(206 or so lbs?), more than enough, mounted at -11 (both R and FL105s). Neither of them give too much feedback about the surface, and with nice, sharp edges, I've rarely slipped if I didn't want to.

Both are highly capable skis, and I haven't really found their speed limit. For tight spots, the FR110s are better by a long shot. The FL105s are quicker to enter turns, while the R105s release a lot easier. More pivot!

Hope that helps.

Sent fra min LE2123 via Tapatalk

[JackSkier]

So close to cracking after reading that... A wider, more soft snow capable MX 98 is the ski I've always dreamt of.

What's the situ on shipping to Europe, Marshall? Any idea of the total additional cost?

[Joey Joe Joe Junior Shabadoo]

Thanks for the info fellas, I had a feeling these were the droids I've been looking for...

[arild]

So close to cracking after reading that... A wider, more soft snow capable MX 98 is the ski I've always dreamt of.

What's the situ on shipping to Europe, Marshall? Any idea of the total additional cost?

You'll have to expect paying VAT (whatever percentage that is in your country - Norway and Sweden is 25%, for example) and a customs fee to the shipping company in addition to the shipping cost itself.

Sent fra min LE2123 via Tapatalk

[gaijin]

Put demo bindings on mine. Ended up liking -6.

My honest rec is to keep it simple. If you are coming from a Hoji designed ski and happy with the location, and moving onto the HL 110 or 120 of relatively similar length, just mount them at the same position.

Gaijin….thank you for the compliment! More people in the world should think about mount points.
Here are my measurements: ...

My 180 FR110’s straight pull at 179.6. I’m 84cm from tail (-5.8cm) which gives me 95.6 cm “in front”. They are perfect. Rec is -6cm and may even be more perfect. Trust Marshall.

I like to drive a ski, and mounted my 186 R110s at -7.7.
Progressive (for me) chargey fun!
PS R110 & R120STs are cold dead hands skis.

I’ve got my R110s at -8 and can confirm the cold dead hands sentiment.

New profile seems like it will be a touch more forgiving but plenty ski to get rowdy also the recommended mount bumped forward a touch I believe. Seems to me like it went from corvus-y to a lower more substantial Hoji.

Thanks for all the above info, folks! You guys are awesome in your detailed responses. We'll see where I end up. Small feet, too.

Ordered some 186 FR110’s today. Taking the HL plunge!

Awesome!

guess i haven't looked at the 105 that much haha. glad to heard they're quite similar. if you could just have one for general big mountain/freeride ski it would be the r110?

It's purely speculative at this point, but yes. I originally planned on the R110 to slot between my M102 and my Renegade. But now I'm selling my M102s because I predict I'll never ski them again. And, if I miss a groomer-zoomer in my quiver, I'll order an RC85 or 95. But my intuition tells me that the R110 will handle groomers just as well as my M102 did. And being as my intuition is usually pretty spot-on regarding skis, I decided to order the R110 the moment Marshall announced it. It's my ideal shape, profile, and build.

[Shorty_J]

...I decided to order the R110 the moment Marshall announced it. It's my ideal shape, profile, and build.

Yeah I did pretty much the same.

It's the ski I was waiting for.

Sent from my SM-A536W using Tapatalk

[pfluffenmeister]

Yeah I did pretty much the same.

It's the ski I was waiting for.

Sent from my SM-A536W using Tapatalk

They are sublime.

[PeachesNCream]

What great skis these are. I skied them and I said wow what great skis these are.

Believe me.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[kc_7777]

Concur with all of the above.

One real-life issue with the FR110 HL skis is the lack of use other skis in your quiver. Eg the FR110 is so good that any other ski you own from 100-110mm is now useless to you. Sell them. Cause you’ll ski the FR110 any day you can. My Optic 104’s are freaking out.

Pretty sure my incoming R120ST will f any of my skis >110mm

Good thing I have touring bindings on my 4FRNT Hoji-Trinity

KC

Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums