The Bluehouse MR review

**300hp** · 11-26-2007, 08:48 PM

What can I say....when I see a sweet deal, the impulsive side of me says "dude, you have to get these, its a great deal" regardless of my actual need. So, like many of us, I became the proud owner of bluehouse MR's.

Me: 22yrs. 6'1. 165lbs. I come from a racing background and like bigger turns and a wider stance. I have skied most of the twins out there. If I could only have one set of skis they would be 180 tankers.
Size: 179

Binding: s912Ti

Tuning specs: base grind, 1deg base/2 deg side.

Mount: 83cm from tail, roughly the "powder" line

Boots: Krypton Pros, intuition liners, stiff tongue.

Current Quiver: 185 iggy MFGS/180 Tanker/Kingswood stiff midfats/sumos.

Conditions: Manmade. ranging from 25 deg and ice to 42 deg and sunny.

Impressions: The MR is, without a doubt, the lightest ski I have owned. I'm not saying its the lightest out there (I don't know) but no ski has felt so light underfoot. The best thing about the MR is you can make it do whatever you want, no questions asked. They are very easy to manipulate. When I'm on my kingswoods, I point the skis and let them do their thing. They take me for a ride. On the MR, the pilot is in total control of the ski. Rock up on the tails and slide sideways in a tail butter, for as long as you want? Done. Spin a 180 off anything, anywhere? No problem. the skis have virtually no swing weight. On soft snow, they carve nice short arcs. Once on edge, the ski is more stable than one would think given the soft flex. I was able to arc medium radius turns to my hearts content with very little effort by rolling edge to edge in a wide stance.
Dislikes: The ski has a low speed limit. Arcing turns down a firm pitch is not so fun. The tips deflect easily on crud and refrozen snow. Underfoot holds pretty firm, but the tips floppy floppy on you.
The ski is not confidence inspiring to go straight on. This is to be expected for such a short turning radius on a soft ski. Not really a gripe, but a buyer beware situation.
Who would benefit from this ski: The super light weight combined with good carving and flotation should make this a killer dynafit/lightweight AT ski. The soft flex keeps the tips up and they would be a pleasure to skin on or put on your pack. Hop turns would be easy-peasy as well given the minimal swing weight. A skier looking for a quiver specific "easy ski" would dig this incarnation of the MR as well. If you wanted to play on every feature on the mountain, spin off logs and rollers and just goof around, they are great. The springy tails makes jumping easy. I would consider these more suited for your kicker/soft spring park conditions. I've yet to see how they ride pipe, but i suspect some more stiffness in the tail is needed.
What I would change for the next generation:
Length: I only weigh 165 and don't suffer from TGR "make it 200cm" syndrome. These were too short for me on groomers. Make a 165, 175, 185. A 185 would allow a wider range of users and give more effective edge, helping them track better without adding too much mass.
Stiffness: I would say roughly 30% stiffer would make the ski appeal to a wider range of users. I would accomplish this through a carbon stringer to keep weight low. the soft flex makes this ski fun for what it is. Its just too soft to be an everyday all conditions ski right now. This would allow a wider weight range to enjoy the ski and still keep it soft enough to butter, jib and spin, while gaining some stability at speed.
Mount: at 82cm from the tail, I felt it far forward enough for easy switch skiing. I could make switch turns easily, and I'm not huge on going backwards. I would move the mount scale back another 2mm. This is a progressive ski, so no need to change its forward stance, but having some more tip to drive will aid in stability at speed.
Overall: I am very happy with Bluehouse for a killer first year product. There are some tweaks to be made. I would consider the MR a lighter, better pocket rocket with tons more snap and a lighter swing weight. Great for messing around on the hill, skiing features and hike to soft snow conditions. With a few improvements it could really shine.
Hunter

**bisnibble** · 11-26-2007, 08:59 PM

this review only counts if you straight lined Scarface (in my honor of course)

300hp tells no lies ..... nice work

**orlowskij** · 11-27-2007, 10:43 PM

Sounds good, I've been waiting to hear something about these, I haven't even mounted mine up yet. That's right about where I was thinking, if not maybe a little further back. Glad to hear they're working out for you.

**Rideski** · 11-27-2007, 10:50 PM

First class write up, thanks.
Looking forward to dropping my Naxos on these asap.
Sounds like they will play into most every reason I bought them for.

**Jack** · 12-16-2007, 08:27 PM

Has anyone tried different tuning specs. like a .5 base and 1 degree side ?? It seems to me that a soft snow ski wouldn't need as much edge differences to be usable getting around where it is not so soft.
Any opinions on this choice ?

**plugboots** · 12-16-2007, 10:43 PM

After reading this, I bet the 171 MR's would be perfect for my 115 pound wife as a dynafit BC ski. Either this or the new 164 BRO in soft.

**300hp** · 12-16-2007, 11:56 PM

they would rip as a dynafit ski. If I keep them that is what they will become. that, or mount forward and learn to spin.

**Shane@Bluehouse** · 12-18-2007, 02:06 AM

300hp, we appreciate the detailed review. It's very informative for us to use in building next year's line. If there's anything more BH can do for you this season, let us know.

**couloir** · 07-24-2008, 01:46 PM

anyone else have any experience with the MRs? im thinking of picking up a pair since they're still for sale for cheap on BH's website. i mean $250? sweet deal... but im wondering what size i should be getting. its going to be used as kind of an everyday <10cm day kind of ski with forays into the park and random sidehits etc. i'm 5'7" 140lbs currently riding 176 gots with naxos which feel a bit long sometimes but that might be just cuz of stiffness and 175 priors when theres no fresh stuff. also looking at getting 175 vcts in addition for an alpine mounted >10cm day ski. should i be looking at the 171MR or the 179. im leaning towards the 179 just cuz the extra length is nice when u are in the snow and their swing weight is got to be pretty light because of the bamboo core... thoughts?

**Ottime** · 07-24-2008, 06:11 PM

300hp - How much camber do these skis have? I am thinking the 171 for my wife. She has a pair of 162 Nordica Conquerers, which are great for her in hard pack. She is generally looking for something longer, wider and softer for powder.

**300hp** · 07-25-2008, 02:06 AM

camber- something average? they didn't stand out as being really flat like my beat down skis or golden gate style like early bros. about what a scratch BC would have. I can't stress how easy they are to ski with a forward mount and a plastic based binding on them. a super fast turning light weight setup that has more life than pocket rockets. 171 for the wife should be fine, there is nothing intimidating about skiing them. Cou- if a 176 got felt ok most of the time, the 179 would feel fine mounted freeride, imho. If you spin to win, size short and get ready to do the sammy carlson leaaaaan back in pow. I kid. they are more nimble than gots by a shot, and sizing up would not feel like a conquest. I think that for the price they are a solid ski. Coming from my background, I prefer a platform that rewards going fast and is in its element in a gs turn. the mr is playful, light and fun. it does not mach, so for lighter/jumping/women riders, it should be a hoot.
H.

**couloir** · 07-27-2008, 12:25 PM

sounds good... pulled the trigger on the 179s this morning... for the price i couldnt resist even if it is july. ill probably mount em somewhere inbetween freeride/freestyle, gonna se a bit of park on em and i like messing around on the groomed when theres no new stuff.

**Beder** · 07-27-2008, 02:41 PM

I mounted mine half way between the lines. It's an okay little ski as long as conditions are softish.
I would go back and search last summer's threads about where the lines should be. Many of the topsheets were way off. I don't have mine here to measure. Maybe somebody else can chime in.

**300hp** · 08-06-2008, 12:43 AM

the mounts (and yes, search and measure) are pretty forward. err towards back if your not skiing switch to the road.

**RTR** · 12-31-2008, 01:14 PM

I thought I'd poach this thread in case anyone was actually wanting to jump on a pair of MR's in 171 cm. Mine are for sale at a less-than-preseason-sale price...

Gearswap thread, HERE

Edit: I just realized that this review is for the previous year's model...