Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 34
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Seattle
    Posts
    1,253

    Enforcer 110 Feedback Needed

    Picked up some 191 Enforcer 110s out of the Asogear Black Friday screw up with the intent of replacing my 190 QLabs as my daily driver with them as a little more playful chargerish. I'm getting tempted by some other skis ( Moment Wildcat 108, K2 Mindbender 108, Blizzard Rustler 11). I've searched and didn't see any mag reviews of the Enforcer 110. Anyone skiing them?

    Me - 6'2", 190. Like 190ish skis with backbone. Ski in PNW with heavier snow. On paper it seems like a good fit for me by keeping some chargeability but a little lighter/more maneuverable than my QLab. I have a 192 LP105 for when I want a no speed limit crud destroyer.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Jan 2018
    Posts
    449
    Quote Originally Posted by phatty View Post
    Picked up some 191 Enforcer 110s out of the Asogear Black Friday screw up with the intent of replacing my 190 QLabs as my daily driver with them as a little more playful chargerish. I'm getting tempted by some other skis ( Moment Wildcat 108, K2 Mindbender 108, Blizzard Rustler 11). I've searched and didn't see any mag reviews of the Enforcer 110. Anyone skiing them?

    Me - 6'2", 190. Like 190ish skis with backbone. Ski in PNW with heavier snow. On paper it seems like a good fit for me by keeping some chargeability but a little lighter/more maneuverable than my QLab. I have a 192 LP105 for when I want a no speed limit crud destroyer.

    I've skied them a couple days. Rustler 11's are my main ski. I love them. Something about them for me is just the right balance of weight and charger that they're super fun for the way I ski (which tends to be fast and over the top of stuff). They feel lighter than my Rustler 11's and more directional. I would absolutely add them to my quiver as a replacement for my R11's. They aren't super crudbusters but they aren't foldy. I'd say overall they're on the charger side of balanced, but on the light side for a hard charger.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Making the Bowl Great Again
    Posts
    12,089
    I love them. They are perfect old man skis that seem to make any size turn with minimal effort but are perfectly happy going fast. The only place they have lacked is charging in heavy, set-up crud but I am too old for that and you have better skis for that. I am also astounded by their firm snow performance.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    SF & the Ho
    Posts
    5,978
    Now Really annoyed I missed that assogear deal alert.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Jan 2019
    Location
    Bozone
    Posts
    1,077
    they look super sexy with red attack 13's

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Dec 2018
    Location
    DownEast
    Posts
    498
    I really like my 185 enforcer 110s. They do everything well... floaty and maneuverable in soft snow, but can rip arcs with the short radius on groomers. They do have a speed limit on the upper, upper end when soft snow gets choppy which presents itself as the tips starting to flap around and they start to get hooky in soft/inconsistent snow at Mach-schnell speeds with the short radius. That is their only real weak point which is easily countered by eating a mellow gummi on the lift and toning it down or going and changing out for a real charger ski. Enforcers are easier to ski relaxed on than full on chargers which is nice. I use my Enforcer 110 as a one ski travel quiver because they are very accessible and "easy" to ski just about anything. Enforcers are like a good yellow lab or charger lite.

    Yours are worth mounting up and skiing for a season... even as a "reference" ski for a good all-rounder to compare to other skis. I doubt they will disappoint you and you can ski them for a year and still get your money back on them at the price we paid. Mount 'em up.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Vermont
    Posts
    92
    I thought the enforcer was an incredibly mediocre ski. The turn radius is too small for fast skiing, and it is too light to be stable but not light enough to be a good touring ski. Itís basically nordicas answer to the light in bounds ski fad that Rossi started with the soul 7.

    It carves groomers well and makes dad pow turns fine, other than that pretty mediocre across the board. For reference I skied a whole season at jackson on them. 185 until it delammed and then 191s after that, the longer length didnít change my opinion much. Iím not some burly charger and have a distaste for flat tailed skis, so the enforcer 110 seemed like a good ski to me when I got it.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Posts
    803
    Quote Originally Posted by madriverfreeride View Post
    I thought the enforcer was an incredibly mediocre ski. The turn radius is too small for fast skiing, and it is too light to be stable but not light enough to be a good touring ski. Itís basically nordicas answer to the light in bounds ski fad that Rossi started with the soul 7.
    I don't love the 110 as much as the 100 but I've never heard anyone describe it as lightweight (blister says its ~2200g in 185) or compare it to a soul 7 before. Yeah, you can take issue with the radius if that's your thing but the rest is kind of ridiculous imho.
    Curious what skis you do like so do we can put your comments in context.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Vermont
    Posts
    92
    It certainly doesnít ski like it weighs 2200 grams. I will admit to never weighing my pair but I guestimated it at around 1900 grams. Its very easy to ski, my saying it was mediocre isnít a super diss at it, just that it doesnít excel at doing a whole lot but is average everywhere on the hill.

    Skis ive enjoyed in the past: blizz gunsmoke, rossi sickle, moment deathwish and meridian. Line vision for touring, old 112 waist candide 3.0

    Skis I thought were meh: volkl one, volkl shiro, bent chetler (18/19 first year of lightweight)

    Skis I didnít like: bliz zero g, cochise, soul 7, volkl 100eight, nordica soul rider 97.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    795
    If coming from a Qlab (I love my 190s) then just remember how stiff that tail is....not
    sure if this is the attribute you like or not but itís part of why that ski hauls like it does.

    Enforce 110 IMO is a great way to achieve a kinder gentler Qlab. Like the Q it has a narrow side cut which I liked on the Q and on the Enforcer.....easy to ski. Enforcer will play much nicer in tighter trees and bumps as well.

    I blew it on that sale too...uggh

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Seattle
    Posts
    1,253
    Quote Originally Posted by jmars View Post
    If coming from a Qlab (I love my 190s) then just remember how stiff that tail is....not
    sure if this is the attribute you like or not but itís part of why that ski hauls like it does.

    Enforce 110 IMO is a great way to achieve a kinder gentler Qlab. Like the Q it has a narrow side cut which I liked on the Q and on the Enforcer.....easy to ski. Enforcer will play much nicer in tighter trees and bumps as well.

    I blew it on that sale too...uggh
    Yeah, I like the stiff tail on the QLab. It's almost like a gas pedal when you really want to go. I know I'll lose some of that with the Enforcer which I'm OK trading off if I get a little more playfulness.

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Lapping the pow with the GSA in the PNW
    Posts
    3,174

    Enforcer 110 Feedback Needed

    Skied my 191ís this morning. Since conditions were limited, I didnít take it off trail, so I only have soft groomer performance to report. I found it intuitive, fun, and capable. Very much like a 10-mm wider Enforcer 100.

    I think the flex profile that Blister shared in their review is spot on. A soft tip that stiffens gradually as you get to the middle of the ski, which is stiff and solid, then fairly stiff behind the heel piece and a tad softer in the tail. Not a noodle, but not a beast either. The front of the ski and the sidecut did remind me of the QLab. The tail is different (much more rockered) but not as soft as I was expecting. The QLab is a race room ski with thicker sheets of metal and the Enforcer 110 is a much more accessible ski, but in the same ilk. I really didnít expect to like it as much as I did. I have an Enforcer Pro, but think I like the 110 better. Just easier to ski and so versatile. I could see this being the perfect travel ski or West Coast one-ski quiver. I get all the fuss behind this ski, as it will work for a wide range of abilities. Also, the 191 was perfect for me at 5í8Ē-195-lbs. I think the 185 would feel too short.
    Last edited by Bandit Man; 12-27-2019 at 05:46 PM.
    In constant pursuit of the perfect slarve...

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Seattle
    Posts
    1,253
    Quote Originally Posted by Bandit Man View Post
    Skied my 191ís this morning. Since conditions were limited, I didnít take it off trail, so I only have soft groomer performance to report. I found it intuitive, fun, and capable. Very much like a 10-mm wider Enforcer 110.

    I think the flex profile that Blister shared in their review is spot on. A soft tip that stiffens gradually as you get to the middle of the ski, which is stiff and solid, then fairly stiff behind the heel piece and a tad softer in the tail. Not a noodle, but not a beast either. The front of the ski and the sidecut did remind me of the QLab. The tail is different (much more rockered) but not as soft as I was expecting. The QLab is a race room ski with thicker sheets of metal and the Enforcer 110 is a much more accessible ski, but in the same ilk. I really didnít expect to like it as much as I did. I have an Enforcer Pro, but think I like the 110 better. Just easier to ski and so versatile. I could see this being the perfect travel ski or West Coast one-ski quiver. I get all the fuss behind this ski, as it will work for a wide range of abilities. Also, the 191 was perfect for me at 5í8Ē-195-lbs. I think the 185 would feel too short.
    Well, since we're ski twins, I guess I need to get these mounted up and out on the slopes ASAP.

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Mar 2015
    Posts
    231
    Quote Originally Posted by Bandit Man View Post
    Skied my 191ís this morning. Since conditions were limited, I didnít take it off trail, so I only have soft groomer performance to report. I found it intuitive, fun, and capable. Very much like a 10-mm wider Enforcer 100.

    I think the flex profile that Blister shared in their review is spot on. A soft tip that stiffens gradually as you get to the middle of the ski, which is stiff and solid, then fairly stiff behind the heel piece and a tad softer in the tail. Not a noodle, but not a beast either. The front of the ski and the sidecut did remind me of the QLab. The tail is different (much more rockered) but not as soft as I was expecting. The QLab is a race room ski with thicker sheets of metal and the Enforcer 110 is a much more accessible ski, but in the same ilk. I really didnít expect to like it as much as I did. I have an Enforcer Pro, but think I like the 110 better. Just easier to ski and so versatile. I could see this being the perfect travel ski or West Coast one-ski quiver. I get all the fuss behind this ski, as it will work for a wide range of abilities. Also, the 191 was perfect for me at 5í8Ē-195-lbs. I think the 185 would feel too short.
    Interesting. I know you are a fan of the r11, as am I. How do you think they compare? I always thought I wanted the pro vs the 110 but you mention liking the 110 better. Figured a little more metal would be better. I have like 20 lbs on you though.

    On another note, have you tried the 104 free by any chance?

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Lapping the pow with the GSA in the PNW
    Posts
    3,174
    Quote Originally Posted by Fred Pabst View Post
    Interesting. I know you are a fan of the r11, as am I. How do you think they compare? I always thought I wanted the pro vs the 110 but you mention liking the 110 better. Figured a little more metal would be better. I have like 20 lbs on you though.

    On another note, have you tried the 104 free by any chance?
    I really like the 188 Rustler 11. That was probably the most skied and most versatile ski in my quiver from last season. They are really similar. The Enforcer 110 is more damp and the Rustler 11 is more playful (at least to me). Both have a very stiff mid-section (right under the foot) and rail groomers better than most skis that are 110+ in the waist. I would give the edge on groomers to the Enforcer, though. The construction of the skis lines up with which is more damp (Enforcer 2 thinner but full sheets of metal) and which is more playful (Rustler 11 being a single taper layer of metal with carbon in this tips and tails). I think the Enforcer is just an easier and more accessible ski and that the Rustler is a more energetic ski. It is hard to pick a favorite and I probably don't need to own both, but so far, I'm not sure I could pick one to let go of. Both great skis for resorts or travel where you need groomer performance and will get some real off piste opportunities.

    I mounted up the 191 Enforcer 110's as I got them at closeout price at the end of the year and wanted to try them out to see if I would like them or not. I did not expect to be as pumped about them as I am. I thought the Rustler 11 was the end all be all travel ski for me, but I have a bad knee and I think the dampness of the Enforcer 110 might end up being a better option for my go to travel ski, as it sucks up more of the feedback that gets my knee angry. Maybe some other aging mags will relate.

    I should probably qualify my comments about the Enforcer Pro/115. I bought those last year and only got a few days on them. They are stiffer than the 115 and a more serious ski. If I could ski a bigger mountain more often (say Whistler), I could see the 115 being a daily driver. They are probably one of the most versatile 115-mm skis I have ever been on. Capable of charging, ripping groomers, more than sufficient float in powder, and very capable in crud. I "like" the 110 better since it works better here at my local hill. The 115 feels a bit like overkill for my little mountain (Stevens Pass, WA). However, If I weighed more, I would probably favor the 115 as I might feel like I could over ski the 110. Both dang good options, though. I'm surprised the 115/Pro doesn't get more love as it is really the next generation of the beloved Helldorado, but better in every way (and thankfully not as heavy).

    I own a pair of 186 104 Frees I have yet to mount and ski. I hope to get out on those soon and will report back.
    In constant pursuit of the perfect slarve...

  16. #16
    Join Date
    Mar 2015
    Posts
    231
    Quote Originally Posted by Bandit Man View Post
    I really like the 188 Rustler 11. That was probably the most skied and most versatile ski in my quiver from last season. They are really similar. The Enforcer 110 is more damp and the Rustler 11 is more playful (at least to me). Both have a very stiff mid-section (right under the foot) and rail groomers better than most skis that are 110+ in the waist. I would give the edge on groomers to the Enforcer, though. The construction of the skis lines up with which is more damp (Enforcer 2 thinner but full sheets of metal) and which is more playful (Rustler 11 being a single taper layer of metal with carbon in this tips and tails). I think the Enforcer is just an easier and more accessible ski and that the Rustler is a more energetic ski. It is hard to pick a favorite and I probably don't need to own both, but so far, I'm not sure I could pick one to let go of. Both great skis for resorts or travel where you need groomer performance and will get some real off piste opportunities.

    I mounted up the 191 Enforcer 110's as I got them at closeout price at the end of the year and wanted to try them out to see if I would like them or not. I did not expect to be as pumped about them as I am. I thought the Rustler 11 was the end all be all travel ski for me, but I have a bad knee and I think the dampness of the Enforcer 110 might end up being a better option for my go to travel ski, as it sucks up more of the feedback that gets my knee angry. Maybe some other aging mags will relate.

    I should probably qualify my comments about the Enforcer Pro/115. I bought those last year and only got a few days on them. They are stiffer than the 115 and a more serious ski. If I could ski a bigger mountain more often (say Whistler), I could see the 115 being a daily driver. They are probably one of the most versatile 115-mm skis I have ever been on. Capable of charging, ripping groomers, more than sufficient float in powder, and very capable in crud. I "like" the 110 better since it works better here at my local hill. The 115 feels a bit like overkill for my little mountain (Stevens Pass, WA). However, If I weighed more, I would probably favor the 115 as I might feel like I could over ski the 110. Both dang good options, though. I'm surprised the 115/Pro doesn't get more love as it is really the next generation of the beloved Helldorado, but better in every way (and thankfully not as heavy).

    I own a pair of 186 104 Frees I have yet to mount and ski. I hope to get out on those soon and will report back.
    Thanks for the feed back. Good stuff there! Looks like I will have plenty of time to decide between the 110 and the Pro. At the rate I am getting to ski my r11's, they could be around awhile, with the east coast skiing like ass. I don't think I saw a Blistergear review for the 110. I did see that they put the Pro in the charger category and not the r11. Years ago I had and loved a pair of the Nordica Girish. Of course a totally different ski to the 110 but dimension wise they are pretty similar with a 140-110 tip/waist. Not sure If I love the profile of the Nordica Free line. Tip and tail rise look like a hinge point as opposed to the smooth curves of the r11.

    Looking forward to your comments on the 104 frees. Wondering if there is enough to them for someone that typically chooses from the charger category. Still love my cochise 193, q-lab 190.

  17. #17
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Lapping the pow with the GSA in the PNW
    Posts
    3,174
    Just spent the past two hours on mediocre hard packed conditions on my newly mounted Enforcer 104 Frees.


    Wow...they are going to sell a ton of these.
    In constant pursuit of the perfect slarve...

  18. #18
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Seattle
    Posts
    1,253
    Quote Originally Posted by Bandit Man View Post
    Just spent the past two hours on mediocre hard packed conditions on my newly mounted Enforcer 104 Frees.


    Wow...they are going to sell a ton of these.
    Don't say that! Those were what I wanted, but ended up with the 110 when they sold out of the 104.

  19. #19
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Eastern WA
    Posts
    370
    Quote Originally Posted by Bandit Man View Post
    Just spent the past two hours on mediocre hard packed conditions on my newly mounted Enforcer 104 Frees.


    Wow...they are going to sell a ton of these.
    You mount them on the line? Curious as Iím getting ready to mount my 104s soon

  20. #20
    Join Date
    Sep 2018
    Posts
    100
    Loving my 186cm Enforcer 104 too! Iím 6í2Ē/175 and like playful chargers and the 104 with the mount up 2cm is just that-fun and easy to pivot at lower speeds but great carving through afternoon crud at speed.
    Went +2cm based off the Blister review and others online who have said the 104/110 are great on the line but are a bit more playful, lighter on their feet and balanced in the air up a cm or 2. Very fun ski that can still rip a groomer.

  21. #21
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Lapping the pow with the GSA in the PNW
    Posts
    3,174
    Quote Originally Posted by bourbonisgood View Post
    You mount them on the line? Curious as Iím getting ready to mount my 104s soon
    Yeah...on the line. Iím 195-lbs, so I donít need less shovel. If you read the Blister Review, the lighter tester who prefers more playful skis went +2. The heavier tester who prefers more stability was fine on the line. Iíd be curious about trying the 191 length and might consider going in front of the line. Unless you are a lightweight, the line feels perfect for me. Mind you, I have only a few hours on mine. I do like stiff, more substantial skis, so I do have that bias.


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

  22. #22
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Lapping the pow with the GSA in the PNW
    Posts
    3,174

    Enforcer 110 Feedback Needed

    Quote Originally Posted by phatty View Post
    Don't say that! Those were what I wanted, but ended up with the 110 when they sold out of the 104.
    The 104 is an amazing ski. It feels like they took a Blizzard Bonafide, made it a tad wider and gave it tail rocker. Another way of saying it is these are what I think a lot of us hoped the Rustler 10 would be...they remind me of a narrower Rustler 11 that is a little more damp. Definitely the best Enforcer of the line for me. Feels the most stable but still so easy to ski. I get why they are updating the 94 and 100 with the new construction. Itís going to make those skis better, too.

    The only Enforcer I donít own is the 88. Have spent lots of time on the 93, 100, and Pro before getting on the 110 and 104 this past week.


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

  23. #23
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Sun Valley, ID
    Posts
    1,726

    Enforcer 110 Feedback Needed

    Quote Originally Posted by Bandit Man View Post
    The 104 is an amazing ski. It feels like they took a Blizzard Bonafide, made it a tad wider and gave it tail rocker. Another way of saying it is these are what I think a lot of us hoped the Rustler 10 would be...they remind me of a narrower Rustler 11 that is a little more damp. Definitely the best Enforcer of the line for me. Feels the most stable but still so easy to ski. I get why they are updating the 94 and 100 with the new construction. Itís going to make those skis better, too.

    The only Enforcer I donít own is the 88. Have spent lots of time on the 93, 100, and Pro before getting on the 110 and 104 this past week.


    Sent from my iPad using TGR Forums
    I have the 110 in a 191. Iíll add my thoughts in the next post.

    But given your extensive enforcer experience you can probably answer my question.

    With the 104 191 length would I essentially get the rocker profile of the 110 in a slightly narrower and tighter turn radius geometry, with similar construction, and also with stiffer tips and tails than the 110? As I understand the tips and tails of the 104 are actually stiffer than the 100, does that seem right from your experience?
    Last edited by CaliBrit; 01-01-2020 at 08:05 PM.

  24. #24
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Lapping the pow with the GSA in the PNW
    Posts
    3,174
    Quote Originally Posted by CaliBrit View Post
    I have the 110 in a 191. Iíll add my thoughts in the next post.

    But given your extensive enforcer experience you can probably answer my question.

    With the 104 191 length would I essentially get the rocker profile of the 110 in a slightly narrower and tighter turn radius geometry, with similar construction, and also with stiffer tips and tails than the 110? As I understand the tips and tails of the 104 are actually stiffer than the 100, does that seem right from your experience?
    Yes, 104 is same rocker profile, just narrower and more damp and a bit stiffer. Not a huge difference, but the 104 does mean like a little more serious ski. Nothing like a Head Monster 98 or 108 but a notch up from the normal Enforcer flex. The Nordica website says the 186 and 191 104 both have the same radius but not sure if that is accurate or not. If you like the 191 Enforcer 110 and want something with just a bit more backbone and better all Mtn, thatís the 104. Again, not a hugely different ski just a little more damp and slightly stiffer.

    I would say that the tips and tail of the 104 are just a bit stiffer than the 100, as least as far as I remember. I havenít skied my 100ís since last year. Been spending my time on the 93, 104, and 110 this season. I want to demo the new 100 with the 104 construction. I bet it makes them that much better.

    Finally, I wish the 110 came with the 104 build and flex. That just might be the dream ski all-Mtn ski for someone who doesnít the stiffest ski around, but wants a balance or high performance and versatility.
    In constant pursuit of the perfect slarve...

  25. #25
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Sun Valley, ID
    Posts
    1,726
    Quote Originally Posted by Bandit Man View Post
    Yes, 104 is same rocker profile, just narrower and more damp and a bit stiffer. Not a huge difference, but the 104 does mean like a little more serious ski. Nothing like a Head Monster 98 or 108 but a notch up from the normal Enforcer flex. The Nordica website says the 186 and 191 104 both have the same radius but not sure if that is accurate or not. If you like the 191 Enforcer 110 and want something with just a bit more backbone and better all Mtn, thatís the 104. Again, not a hugely different ski just a little more damp and slightly stiffer.

    I would say that the tips and tail of the 104 are just a bit stiffer than the 100, as least as far as I remember. I havenít skied my 100ís since last year. Been spending my time on the 93, 104, and 110 this season. I want to demo the new 100 with the 104 construction. I bet it makes them that much better.

    Finally, I wish the 110 came with the 104 build and flex. That just might be the dream ski all-Mtn ski for someone who doesnít the stiffest ski around, but wants a balance or high performance and versatility.
    Brilliant info thanks. On your last point donít the 110 and 104 share the same build?

Posting Permissions

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