Page 59 of 61 FirstFirst ... 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 LastLast
Results 1,451 to 1,475 of 1514
  1. #1451
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Lapping the pow with the GSA in the PNW
    Posts
    3,599
    Just for some added perspective, the best skis I have tried this year are the MF108 and K108. I skied my Rustler 11ís at Snowbasin last week on a pow day and I wished I had brought the MF108 instead. They would have been perfect for the conditions and terrain. Also, when I talk about stability, the K108 is my new benchmark. And with a bad knee, I want something that provides suspension and dampness. The MF108 isnít quite that ski.

    That being said, I could honestly get by with the MF108, K108, and a pair of Billy Goats as my three ski quiver. Iím sure my wife would love that if I went through with it.


    Sent from my iPad using TGR Forums
    In constant pursuit of the perfect slarve...

  2. #1452
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    idaho panhandle!
    Posts
    8,299
    Quote Originally Posted by The Artist Formerly Known as Leavenworth Skier View Post
    The amount of energy that they give back in a turn in unreal, I didn't know a 108 underfoot ski could launch you out of a turn so quickly. It almost feels like 2 skis... flatter bases, more neutral stance = surftown. Push in to shins, steeper edge angles, more aggressive transitions = snapcity.
    Kopi and discussed this while looking at our turns under the chair. Soft groomer run or the run that was getting wind buffed and reset each time, there was a good 8í of air time distance coming out of a turn before touching down to start the next one. Speeds were very high.
    Quote Originally Posted by Judo Chop! View Post
    thinking about some MFree 108 192cm to replace some 4frnt Devastator 194's (that are loosing their liveliness) as my resort dailies for W/B next season.

    I wouldn't mind a little more camber for rebound carving groomers and playful pop for lower speed fun, but keep some of the damp charger mode and non-hooky pivoty fun, while dropping just a few grams. I'm worried the short turn radius would be kinda unfamiliar.

    Am I on the right track?

    faaaack. I wish they just still made the 194 Dev's.
    Ignore the turn radius. I lean more toward skis with a large turn radius and donít even notice the shorter radius on these even at high speeds or inconsistent snow.

  3. #1453
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Eastside
    Posts
    170
    This thread is just frothy with hype, keep having to double check I'm not in the on3p thread, love it.

    Can one of you throw a straight tape on the 192? Then I can decide how hyped I personally should consider getting

  4. #1454
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    OR
    Posts
    1,723
    why did you wish you had the MF108 vs. R11

    any clydesdales on the MF108? I always get excited about a ski then realize everyone is like 40 lbs lighter than me. big boned and all

  5. #1455
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    idaho panhandle!
    Posts
    8,299
    Quote Originally Posted by WhetherMan View Post
    This thread is just frothy with hype, keep having to double check I'm not in the on3p thread, love it.

    Can one of you throw a straight tape on the 192? Then I can decide how hyped I personally should consider getting
    With bindings on the number I kept coming up with was 190cm

  6. #1456
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Eastside
    Posts
    170
    Quote Originally Posted by 2FUNKY View Post
    With bindings on the number I kept coming up with was 190cm
    Thx. About 1.5cm less hyped now. The 182 is more true to length I guess. Probably still have to either demo or else stop reading this thread

  7. #1457
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    panhandle locdog
    Posts
    7,086
    Quote Originally Posted by klauss View Post
    why did you wish you had the MF108 vs. R11

    any clydesdales on the MF108? I always get excited about a ski then realize everyone is like 40 lbs lighter than me. big boned and all
    How big we talking? I'm 190, a lot of the other boys on here are a little over two hundo.

  8. #1458
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    idaho panhandle!
    Posts
    8,299
    200 nekkid, prolly pushing 220 standing on my skis. Zero issues with the 192.

  9. #1459
    Join Date
    Dec 2020
    Location
    Idaho
    Posts
    113
    I choose the MF108 192 since I'm in the 220lb class and will use the ski on powder days only. It seems like a LOT of ski on non-powder days, but I don't have much ability and virtually no experience w wide skis so I can't contribute much to what's already been written here. But they are fun when it snows. I wouldn't be afraid to buy 182's if you're lighter and looking to use the MF108 as a DD, in trees/soft bumps, etc, especially if you already have a 110mm+ ski for deep days. I know that goes against the TGR longer, stiffer mantra but I'm just a low post count Jong at this point.
    Last edited by Hopeless Sinner; 02-23-2021 at 05:02 PM.

  10. #1460
    Join Date
    Apr 2016
    Posts
    24
    May have missed it, but any lighter guys on the 192cm? I'm 165lbs, maybe 180ish(?) with gear on. Fairly strong skier though. Free skiing a 130 plug, used to race a 150 plug cut down to ~140. Currently skiing a 189cm Kore 99 as a daily driver and thinking about switching onto the MF108. The Kore never feels too long except for in really tight trees. Never really feels too short either.

    Edit: Should mention the 140 was only ever the right boot in tech races. Definitely not a boot I could ski all day given normal weather.
    Last edited by FreeskiTrenchCarver; 02-23-2021 at 03:58 PM.

  11. #1461
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Location
    Imaginationland
    Posts
    3,923
    Quote Originally Posted by FreeskiTrenchCarver View Post
    May have missed it, but any lighter guys on the 192cm? I'm 165lbs, maybe 180ish(?) with gear on. Pretty strong skier though. Free skiing a 130 plug, used to race a 150 plug cut down to ~140. Currently skiing a 189cm Kore 99 as a daily driver and thinking about switching onto the MF108. The Kore never feels too long except for in really tight trees. Never really feels too short either.
    I'm 160 pounds and have ridden the 192. I wouldn't say I'm a strong skier, but I'm not a beater either most days. I found the 192 to be skiable at my weight, just not what I would grab everyday without having late season legs of steel. It is certainly manageable, but it requires more input from guys/gals our size due to that length. After skiing the 182 back to back, I'm glad I went 182 because they are fun all day, even if I relax a little. I didn't get that impression from the 192. They felt like they needed more aggressive input from me at all times, not just when I'm feeling feisty. YMMV

    Edit to add: If your current daily is a 189, you'll be fine on the 192. They ski shorter than their stated length.

  12. #1462
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Southside of heaven
    Posts
    3,081
    Are you beaters running 95 or 115 brakes on the MF108s?

  13. #1463
    Join Date
    Apr 2016
    Posts
    24
    Quote Originally Posted by NW_SKIER View Post
    I'm 160 pounds and have ridden the 192. I wouldn't say I'm a strong skier, but I'm not a beater either most days. I found the 192 to be skiable at my weight, just not what I would grab everyday without having late season legs of steel. It is certainly manageable, but it requires more input from guys/gals our size due to that length. After skiing the 182 back to back, I'm glad I went 182 because they are fun all day, even if I relax a little. I didn't get that impression from the 192. They felt like they needed more aggressive input from me at all times, not just when I'm feeling feisty. YMMV

    Edit to add: If your current daily is a 189, you'll be fine on the 192. They ski shorter than their stated length.
    Do you ever find the 182's to be not enough? I originally wanted the 180 Kore's but could only get a deal on them in the 189. Now that I'm on them I feel like a shorter ski for most of the skiing I do would be lacking just a bit strength/stability.

  14. #1464
    Join Date
    Sep 2018
    Posts
    167
    The 189cm Kore 99 tape measures almost exactly the same as the 192cm MFree 108 and the MFree has deeper rocker lines with more splay, a more forward mounting point and itís not quite as stiff in the tips/tails as the Kore 99 is.
    Youíd be perfect on the 192cm I bet.

  15. #1465
    Join Date
    Apr 2016
    Posts
    24
    Quote Originally Posted by noslow View Post
    The 189cm Kore 99 tape measures almost exactly the same as the 192cm MFree 108 and the MFree has deeper rocker lines with more splay, a more forward mounting point and itís not quite as stiff in the tips/tails as the Kore 99 is.
    Youíd be perfect on the 192cm I bet.
    Nice. Now just need to find someone willing to sell their pair.

  16. #1466
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    1,804
    Quote Originally Posted by GBB View Post
    Are you beaters running 95 or 115 brakes on the MF108s?
    Either will work. I put 115s on mine because that's what I had on hand.

  17. #1467
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Sun Valley, ID
    Posts
    2,084
    Have a pair of 189 menace protos arriving today. Nice deals out there on the ski that is the same under the top sheet as the Mfree 118.

    Before I stick holes in them, consensus on mount point? On the line is just sooooo fine?

  18. #1468
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    683
    I'm sure it's in here somewhere - but refresh my mind:

    Anybody with a Wren 108 vs M-Free 108 comparison? 189 vs 192 that is.

  19. #1469
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    NCW
    Posts
    3,150

    The Dynastar Thread

    I skied my wren 108ís two days in good snow last week and promptly sold them.

    The mfree 108 is the ski I was hoping the woodsman would be: a more playful, nimble, loose charger than the wren. The Dynastar will actually carve a turn on the way back to the chair, the wren is a little meh on 2d snow. For me, the wren is better in deep pow and rough chop than the mfree but that is what goats are for.

  20. #1470
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    WA
    Posts
    917
    ~$460 shipped from T-P for 108s, fwiw. With some gold pivot 15s...sex machine

  21. #1471
    Join Date
    Feb 2021
    Posts
    3
    Quote Originally Posted by CaliBrit View Post
    Have a pair of 189 menace protos arriving today. Nice deals out there on the ski that is the same under the top sheet as the Mfree 118.

    Before I stick holes in them, consensus on mount point? On the line is just sooooo fine?
    Great minds think alike, I picked up a pair a couple of weeks ago. Poking around TGR, Blister, etc the consensus seemed to be that the ski's got a big sweet spot so if you like to ski more centered you'll be happy +1 or +2 of the line, if you want more float you can mount them -1 or so, couldn't find anybody willing to admit that they'd mounted the ski far enough to one side or the other to make them unskiable. I put em right at the line and have been real happy ripping turns on 350 feet of icy midwestern vert but I suspect those are not the conditions the skis are built for so ymmv.

  22. #1472
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Sun Valley, ID
    Posts
    2,084
    Quote Originally Posted by jackattack View Post
    I skied my wren 108ís two days in good snow last week and promptly sold them.

    The mfree 108 is the ski I was hoping the woodsman would be: a more playful, nimble, loose charger than the wren. The Dynastar will actually carve a turn on the way back to the chair, the wren is a little meh on 2d snow. For me, the wren is better in deep pow and rough chop than the mfree but that is what goats are for.
    Can anyone with the 192 do a true tip to tail length for me?

  23. #1473
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Sun Valley, ID
    Posts
    2,084
    Quote Originally Posted by lemon_head View Post
    Great minds think alike, I picked up a pair a couple of weeks ago. Poking around TGR, Blister, etc the consensus seemed to be that the ski's got a big sweet spot so if you like to ski more centered you'll be happy +1 or +2 of the line, if you want more float you can mount them -1 or so, couldn't find anybody willing to admit that they'd mounted the ski far enough to one side or the other to make them unskiable. I put em right at the line and have been real happy ripping turns on 350 feet of icy midwestern vert but I suspect those are not the conditions the skis are built for so ymmv.
    Thanks for the input.

  24. #1474
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    NCW
    Posts
    3,150
    Quote Originally Posted by CaliBrit View Post
    Can anyone with the 192 do a true tip to tail length for me?
    about 189cm -- 192 mfree 108 is the same length as 189 wren

  25. #1475
    Join Date
    Sep 2018
    Posts
    167
    Some measurements from earlier in the thread. 182cm version measured on Blister.

    Quote Originally Posted by DarthMarkus View Post
    Some quick measurements and pictures because I'm bored and avoiding homework:

    Straight pull tip-to-tail: 189.25cm
    True center: 94.5ish cm from tail.
    Recommended : 86.25ish cm from tail.
    Cambered portion of ski: 117cm

    Halfway point after dividing the cambered portion of the ski puts it at the +2 mark, or barely in front of it.

    Halfway point after dividing the widest points of the ski puts it at about 1cm behind true center.

    Attached you can see the marks on recommended, camber contacts, and widest parabolic shape. Certainly does highlight a little different ski than the m-free 118. Attachment 348844Attachment 348845Attachment 348846Attachment 348847

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •