Mantra 102 - where to mount it?

[YoEddy]

Who has the 102 and what line did you use to mount it? As I understand it the first line (bottom) is the factory recommended line, and then +1cm and +2cm.

I Moved my VWerks Katanas forward +2cm and loved it, but this looks to be a very different beast.

Giggedy.

[BC.]

Split the difference and do +1. (I’ve done +2 on Shiros, and Katanas...+1 on Gotamas...and on da line with Kendos)....all did/do what I need them to do.

*If had Mantra 102’s....I’d do +1.

[gaijin]

Neither of you are talking about anything specific.

Why are there 3 lines?
Why is the recommended "the first line"? Why aren't all 3 "recommended" lines since they're all actually ON the ski?
Why did you like the Katana at +2?
What kind of skier are you?

BC-- your reply provides zero context. Who are you? Why the advice?

What does the OP's question, and BC's reply, have to do with Volkl's 3D sidecut for the 102? And how does that sidecut design impact one's decision for mounting?

[YoEddy]

Do you have a Mantra 102? If so where did you mount it and why - that was the basic premise of my question. "Split the difference" isn't exactly what I was looking for, but hey if that's your methodology have at it and enjoy.

Why are there three lines? Kind of the reason for my question. In the "old days" there was one line, not two, not three. I did some research to find out the bottom line is the factory recommend line, which is like the "one line" from yesteryear. Not sure why the need to put +1 and +2 lines as anyone mounting skis should know how to use a tape measure, but the fact that they put the lines on there seems to indicate that they expect people to customize their mounting point.

I like my 191cm Vwerks Katana at +2cm because the factory line on all variants of the Katana was 'notoriously' far back, and it's a well known improvement to make them more playful, and less pure directional GS-like ski. I haven't moved my 198cm heavy metal Katana yet, but I definitely will as it makes a night & day difference. For the Katana it makes an awesome ski more awesome, but I understand it's not a panacea, and am not looking to mount these +2 just because it worked on those. I only referenced the Katana because I wasn't sure if these suffered from the same general far back mounting point, which doesn't seem to be the case (jibbers may argue ... ).

What Kind of skier am I? Awesome of course. Isn't everyone here?

Anyway, thanks for the follow-up. I understand that I'm looking for specific beta on a very new model, but thought if anyone had their hands on these already it would be some maggot.

[BC.]

Neither of you are talking about anything specific.

Why are there 3 lines?
Why is the recommended "the first line"? Why aren't all 3 "recommended" lines since they're all actually ON the ski?
Why did you like the Katana at +2?
What kind of skier are you?

BC-- your reply provides zero context. Who are you? Why the advice?

What does the OP's question, and BC's reply, have to do with Volkl's 3D sidecut for the 102? And how does that sidecut design impact one's decision for mounting?

Ok, you’re right..I didn’t think I needed give the guy my friggin resume for suggesting a mount point. I’m not writing a novel explaining the differences of +\- 5 cm...

Didn’t know we started judging posts by context now?...Really?...

OP...listen to gaijin....he sounds like the guy that will know what to do.

[YoEddy]

Ha, yeah ...

Forward mounting the Katana is a fairly well known practice with similarly well-known good results, and you don't need to know how much I weigh, what binding, how hard I do or do not charge, what length ski I'm on, or if I crank my DIN to 20 because it makes me look cool to providfe that beta. None of that matters - mount 'em forward +2cm.

I was hoping for the same for the Mantra 102, but then realized that it's likely way too new for folks to have such an established position. So, I apologize for being so vague.

[gaijin]

Didn't mean to cunt up your thread. Apologies.

[yeahman]

FWIW the Blister review gushes about these skis and they had them mounted on the line (the back line).

[gaijin]

Handling them side-by-side just enhances my belief that Volkl should have named the Mantra 102 the Gotama 2.

I’m quite confident this ski will out-live its binding just like my Gotama did.

The photo blows me away in that the Gotama waist is 105 and wider than the 102 in real life, but looks tiny here. The 183 vs 184 is pretty spot on. I didn't pull a tape because I don't really care.

This is a Gotama 2... slightly more sidecut (wider shovel, narrower waist, which it needed), same camber + tip/tail rocker, and then a titanal frame. It's everything the Gotama was meant to be... which is a fairly substantial statement considering how long that Gotama has survived as something pleasurably ridable.

Let's be frank... they just replaced a cult-following ski with the next cult-following. And then they mis-named it, by accident. And that was a fairly big accident, imo. Because now everyone is confused as to why there are two Mantras and why the 102 is the "second" Mantra off of the M5 build when we all know that 16 years ago the Gotama was the game changer, and the Mantra was the front-side option.



I mounted on the line. Will give details and feedback after I ski it. I don't know why. I know exactly how it will ski. That's why I bought it. Every Gotama owner on the planet who has kept skiing various shapes from then and into 2019 knows exactly what the Gotama 2 is.

[gaijin]

Another perspective.

[YoEddy]

Gaijin - totally agreed on all points. I went through the same exact comparison (and even mounted a Duke as well) except I have the old Gold Buddha Gotamas. The new 191 Mantra 102 is at least 4-5cm longer than the old 190 Gotama, and side by side they look bigger everywhere even though we know the waist is slightly narrower.

I'll be on mine today at Solitude if anyone is out!

[gaijin]

If you stare from tip to tail along the profile of the sidewall, you'll notice the M102 has a very pronounced high point right near the center of the ski. For me, it's ball-of-foot. BOF, we used to call it. We used to use BOF as our foundation to discovering our boot's center' line. We used to stand bare foot on our ski, place a pipe underneath it, and find the point at which our ball of foot balanced on the centerline... and then draw our boot's center line and then mount.

If you're under the age of thirty you likely have no idea of what I'm talking about.

[tenB]

A lot of factors go into a recommended mount point which is why most skis have a scale on them to mount more forward or back. Historically Volkls have a recommended mount point too far back for modern skiing styles. OG Katana, Gotama and Mantra all benefited imo from mounting 1-2cm forward.

In comparing gaijin’s pics to the old gotama, the M102 looks like a more forward mount, although M102 is significantly longer at a similar stated size. Also that gotama is now a 14 year old design, and the general skiing style has progressed quite a bit from then.

I think you have to project what your skiing style is and where you plan on using the ski to determine your best mount point. Ideally you can demo at different mount points, but that’s difficult to pull off. Look at the rocker points, stand on the ski and visualize what you want the ski to do. I look at that m102 and know I’d mount it +2cm without another thought. Rear mount points with tail rocker suck in all conditions.

[YoEddy]

In retrospect I guess there were really two parts to my question. One was to confirm that the bottom line was in fact the factory recommend line as it's not entirely clear. The second was to ask for input on whether they would benefit from mounting forward (they put extra lines on the damn thing so it's not about of the question).

Just reporting back that I ended-up mounting on 'the' line, and ... they are phenomenal skis. These things do it all with aplomb - from short to long high speed carved turns, and they also smear incredibly well. That's a difficult combination of capabilities to achieve. I noticed they don't have the top-end speed limit of the OG Katana, but then again what does?!

FWIW these are the closest thing I have been on to the holy grail of a one ski quiver.

[stuntmanbo]

Let us know how they’ll behave in powder once you’ll have skied some with them

[YoEddy]

heh heh , Yeah the skiing at Solitude these past several days has been great with ~30" over 3-4 days, but there was definitely a bottom. That said i hit just about every rock on the mountain and they have nary a scratch. Seriously - i weigh 220 and hit rock so friggin hard i thought i cratered the sidewall, and nothing. Just edge burrs and one or two base gouges that may not even hold p-tex they're so shallow. This is a great ski.

i also completely agree with Gaijin - they totally fucked up the name of this thing. It should be a Gotama,

[abraham]

Interesting.
Got any rocker pictures?

[gaijin]

Apologies for the binding. But the ski shreds. The most versatile of my life... which is to be expected, I guess. What was not expected (but definitely anticipated) was the performance on firm snow. Damn.

I'm down to a two-ski resort/side-country quiver. This and a Renegade. My groomer zoomer is now obsolete.

[YoEddy]

I've obviously been thinking about this too much, but back to the misnaming - they should have resurrected the Explosiv moniker for this thing. It is that good.

[gaijin]

Yeah, I think we’re thinking about it too much, but it is fun.

I’ve never skied an Explosiv but am aware of the cult.

The Mantra 102 feels like a new cult ski now that it seems the shape revolution is stabilizing into understood designs.

I have yet to ski it in bottomless. I don’t think it’ll be stellar but so long as it’s fun I’m sure this thing is damn close to a one-ski quiver. But I’m guessing the 4FRNT MSP 107 and/or the K2 108ti beat the Mantra 102 in deep snow.

This ski is so damn quiet on ice for its size.

[Atlas Q. Powmonger]

Any more opinions/ experience on this? I’m thinking +2 because I like a little more buttery but not sure how big the sweet spot is...

[gaijin]

It's not really a buttery ski for its genre, though.

I'm on the back line and find it more turny than anticipated. I have zero reason to go forward. I mean, I'm not taking off hits buttering into fakie take-offs, either. And if I was, I sure as shit would not be on this ski.

By "buttery" do you mean "slarvy"? As in an ability to release the tail? The tail doesn't lock for me. It's totally releasable. Less than a K2 108ti, though.

That just answered your question. K2 vs Volkl for this ski's focus... hard or soft snow.

If your focus is carvability, go Mantra 102. If your focus is a looser tail, go K2. But I wouldn't buy a Mantra 102 and then mount forward to try to make it a K2 108ti. That's not going to happen any more than mounting a K2 108ti behind the line to make it more stable.

[stylee]

Helpful. I’d assume these are going to be really directional but like being able to break the tails free.

[::: :::]

Why did they make both the 102 & the (96 underfoot) M5?

I’ve got the 2020 M5, chose it over the 102 mostly because my quiver tends to be wide and was looking for a narrower ski in this realm. But they’re millimeters apart...6mm diff underfoot?

[Atlas Q. Powmonger]

Based on the Blister review they sound similar in terms of construction and rocker. One other difference from the M5 besides the width is the 102 has variable sidecut so it’s shorter radius underfoot than toward the tip/tail. Still... seem pretty similar.

Gaijin - yes, I meant slarvy. Thx.