Page 26 of 27 FirstFirst ... 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 LastLast
Results 626 to 650 of 656
  1. #626
    Join Date
    Oct 2022
    Posts
    76
    A little disappointed that they’re screwing with the 104 Frees. They have their faults, but they’re pretty damn good skis overall. On the other hand, it’s a total crime they did away with the 115 Frees altogether. If anyone has a pair of 115 Frees (or Pros) that are unmounted or in excellent condition, hit me up if you’re thinking about getting rid of them


    Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

  2. #627
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Switzerland
    Posts
    867
    I ski the E110 in Europe, a friend of mine has 2 pairs...among the best skis in my quiver. So sad they're going away...

  3. #628
    Join Date
    Mar 2018
    Posts
    308
    Anyone been on the new enforcer 99?


    Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

  4. #629
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Eugenio Oregón
    Posts
    8,407
    Anyone have cliff notes on E94 vs Rustler 9 (current or previous gen) for off piste junk snow?
    I have tried the E94 before but not the R9. My only complaint about the E94 was how eager it was to carve across the fall line when rolling an ankle over, I’m hoping that detuning will mute this some!

    I was initially thinking about the Kendo or Brahma but when comparing the rocker profiles in the shop I think the Enforcer was more what I’m looking for. And I skied some not so great high density variable dust (from trace depth to 2+ inches) on boilerplate crust yesterday that had me thinking the E94 would do better for those variable pockets of skied up new than the E88.
    _______________________________________________
    "Strapping myself to a sitski built with 30lb of metal and fibreglass then trying to water ski in it sounds like a stupid idea to me.

    I'll be there."
    ... Andy Campbell

  5. #630
    Join Date
    Jan 2021
    Posts
    247
    Quote Originally Posted by Bandit Man View Post
    I still haven't skied the E88, but own a 187 Brahma 88 and 184 Kendo 88. The Kendo skis amazingly loose (especially in the tail) for an 88, and perhaps at the expense of sheer edge grip, where the Brahma is better. Based on skiing the Enforcer 94, I'm guessing the Enforcer 88 slots between those other two in terms of edge grip and looseness/maneuverability. With all that metal in it, I find it hard to believe the Brahma doesn't end up the winner for sheer edge grip. My two cents.
    i skid a 186 enforcer 88 for a few days and hated it. I think the 94 is the only very good ski in that line of regular (not free) enforcers. Hits the sweet spot where the shape and heft was of the build came together to work for that ski. I’ve heard people like the 179 e88 but that’s too small for me.

    I haven’t skid kendo’s but the m6 and m102 are the tits and I have no doubt the kendo is awesome. It’s on the list to add each year for frontside and bumps but I end up never giving it a shot.

    brahma is def the beefiest of these and would have the best edge hold. I think it’s a bit too much frontside focused unless your technique is perfect.

  6. #631
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Sun Valley, ID
    Posts
    2,546
    Quote Originally Posted by MD12 View Post
    i skid a 186 enforcer 88 for a few days and hated it. I think the 94 is the only very good ski in that line of regular (not free) enforcers. Hits the sweet spot where the shape and heft was of the build came together to work for that ski. I’ve heard people like the 179 e88 but that’s too small for me.

    I haven’t skid kendo’s but the m6 and m102 are the tits and I have no doubt the kendo is awesome. It’s on the list to add each year for frontside and bumps but I end up never giving it a shot.

    brahma is def the beefiest of these and would have the best edge hold. I think it’s a bit too much frontside focused unless your technique is perfect.
    186 enforcer 94 is just a fantastic ski.

  7. #632
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Eugenio Oregón
    Posts
    8,407
    I decided to quit waffling and picked up a new set of 179 E94s (current gen). Gonna put some Pivot 15s on them … but need some 95mm brake arms first!
    _______________________________________________
    "Strapping myself to a sitski built with 30lb of metal and fibreglass then trying to water ski in it sounds like a stupid idea to me.

    I'll be there."
    ... Andy Campbell

  8. #633
    Join Date
    Mar 2015
    Posts
    555
    Had a chance to check out the new E99 at a local ski shop. What a nice looking ski! Was thinking about the Mindbinder 99Ti, but these may win out. Shovel shape looks a smoother curve than the E100, and the tail rocker seems just the right amount. Very stiff flex and a heavy build. Looking forward to hearing some on snow reviews soon. Yes that's you Bandit!

  9. #634
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Vacationland
    Posts
    5,944
    Thought I was sold on picking up a new Kendo after trying a pair last week, then our shop got some ‘25 enforcers in. Grabbed a pair of 89’s today, hope my impulsive behavior pays off.


    Sent from my iPad using TGR Forums

  10. #635
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Vacationland
    Posts
    5,944
    Mounted the 2025 89's and got them out for a half dozen EC groomers yesterday, I went with the mini 173's. I know not very TGR of me, but I am a hobbit and wanted something more all mountain shaped than the 167/172 Stockli's I see all over the hill these days. Which apparently can skid a turn with the best of them!

    Used to have the E93 for a couple months, wasn't a huge fan and sent it down the road.

    Initial impressions:

    -on first blush I may prefer the Kendo, would need to A/B for full determination
    -wicked sharp tune out of the wrapper, almost too sharp on the real hard snow. Detune tapered sections? full gummy swipe? Open to suggestions
    -sharpness didn't show up in anything softer
    -wicked fucking stable for a little ski

  11. #636
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Eugenio Oregón
    Posts
    8,407

    Nordica Enforcers - TGR-Enough for Their Own Thread

    Interesting feedback TC. I usually end up completely destroying (rounding off) the tapered edges on all my skis, and then gently softening the tails from the widest point to about 2 cm forward … but I also live out west and am never looking for ultimate hold on ice,
    I’m looking for a balance of control when tipped up and looseness when flattening out on variable garbage snow.

    I just skied my new 179 E94s (2024) for the first time last night, tune out of the wrapper, on refrozen snow that had been warm and soft during the day. Piste conditions were very firm with some pockets of dry skied up duff and other patches of bare refrozen tracks, off piste was nearly solid chicken heads on a semi firm base. My tune was also impressively sharp, but I was even more impressed that I had little desire to detune them, save for maybe a tiny little bit of light gummi and coarse stone work at the tail’s widest point and taper segments. Weighing 140 lbs, and after skiing them outrageously fast for an hour in conditions that make other skis chatter and tremble, I don’t think I will ever find a speed limit on these … and am wondering if I could have gone with the 172s to be more nimble on garbage snow and having a little more tolerance for relaxed or tired skiing for my size. The 179s were totally manageable for me but kept goading me into going way faster than my mood or fitness were initially suiting! These also skied differently than the pair I demoed in 2022, they seemed better at making the turn shape I wanted them to make and less likely to auto-carve a locked medium size turn when pressuring the ankles - but I don’t think there have been any construction changes since then? Maybe the tune was the difference…
    _______________________________________________
    "Strapping myself to a sitski built with 30lb of metal and fibreglass then trying to water ski in it sounds like a stupid idea to me.

    I'll be there."
    ... Andy Campbell

  12. #637
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Vacationland
    Posts
    5,944
    Quote Originally Posted by SchralphMacchio View Post
    but I also live out west and am never looking for ultimate hold on ice,
    I’m looking for a balance of control when tipped up and looseness when flattening out on variable garbage snow.
    Being an EC'r ultimate hold on ice is a desired feature here, so balancing that with looseness. All my skis are 177 - 182 these days so getting the mini's was a bit of a leap of faith, I think the size is what I was looking for with this spot in the quiver.

    Not going to forget the gummy next time I take them out, at least the one for polishing steel edges

  13. #638
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Eugenio Oregón
    Posts
    8,407

    Nordica Enforcers - TGR-Enough for Their Own Thread

    Quote Originally Posted by ticketchecker View Post
    All my skis are 177 - 182 these days so getting the mini's was a bit of a leap of faith, I think the size is what I was looking for with this spot in the quiver.
    That’s great feedback, me too on ski sizes, including my daily driver which is a true tip to tail 182. Maybe 1-2 more injuries and I will consider picking up some 173 E89s so that I have an option that’s both less aggro (for my size) and also has more bite than these E94s. I went 179 because my 12 year old OG Enforcers are 178, that’s back when they had flat tails and only a very small amount of early rise - that OG E98 is more damp than my E94 but also not as stiff underfoot.
    _______________________________________________
    "Strapping myself to a sitski built with 30lb of metal and fibreglass then trying to water ski in it sounds like a stupid idea to me.

    I'll be there."
    ... Andy Campbell

  14. #639
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Lapping the pow with the GSA in the PNW
    Posts
    5,191
    Kicking around the idea of getting an Enforcer 104 for my 5' 6", 120-lb. teenager. Thinking 172-cm. He's currently on the 168 Blade Optic 96 and has mentioned wanting "more ski".

    Thoughts on smaller/lighter skiers on the Enforcer 104?
    In constant pursuit of the perfect slarve...

  15. #640
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    North Vancouver, BC
    Posts
    1,891

    Nordica Enforcers - TGR-Enough for Their Own Thread

    Quote Originally Posted by Bandit Man View Post
    Kicking around the idea of getting an Enforcer 104 for my 5' 6", 120-lb. teenager. Thinking 172-cm. He's currently on the 168 Blade Optic 96 and has mentioned wanting "more ski".

    Thoughts on smaller/lighter skiers on the Enforcer 104?
    Hey bandit,

    My 5’6”, 125 lb wife is on this years Enforcer Free 104 in a 172cm. She’s a good skier, makes lots of turns, likes to go fast.

    She’s also got the Santa Ana 104 with backcountry bindings. She has no problem skiing the heavier Enforcer.
    KC

    Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums
    Last edited by kc_7777; 03-18-2024 at 11:26 PM.
    _________________________________________________
    I love big dumps.

  16. #641
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Eugenio Oregón
    Posts
    8,407
    Quote Originally Posted by Bandit Man View Post
    Kicking around the idea of getting an Enforcer 104 for my 5' 6", 120-lb. teenager. Thinking 172-cm. He's currently on the 168 Blade Optic 96 and has mentioned wanting "more ski".

    Thoughts on smaller/lighter skiers on the Enforcer 104?
    How old is he? How much of a ripper is he? For this season or next season? Not much left in this season … you guys don’t have as much snow in WA as OR, right?

    He is already practically one growth spurt away from being my size, 5’ 8” 140 lbs. I’m not a great skier but I do ski aggressively for my size and skill level, and the 179 E104 I demoed felt dialed for me, the 179 E94s that I own also feel like a pretty good length but also something I will never see the top end of when conditions are firm. I have not skied the 172 of either but I’m sure they would be fine most days for me, except for soft and/or wind affected snow deeper than 6” when I’m guessing I’d be missing the 179s at either width.

    Given all that, I personally would go for 172 if he’s a decent but currently more cruisy skier, but 179 if he shows signs of hitting the gas pedal more often than not, or if you don’t want to get him new sticks late next season again. Sure the 179s might be a lot to handle in stiffness right now, but they could also be eye opening in terms of what he is looking forward to and thinking more about dialing in his shin pressure and posture, can always ski the 168 Optics when the 179 Enforcers start kicking his ass after a few hours, where the 172 just won’t really be that much of a jump … The 179s could be money for him all next season start to finish, maybe even through part of the one after that too?
    _______________________________________________
    "Strapping myself to a sitski built with 30lb of metal and fibreglass then trying to water ski in it sounds like a stupid idea to me.

    I'll be there."
    ... Andy Campbell

  17. #642
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Eugenio Oregón
    Posts
    8,407
    Quote Originally Posted by Bandit Man View Post
    Kicking around the idea of getting an Enforcer 104 for my 5' 6", 120-lb. teenager.
    You should also consider those 177 WD108 Gen 1s I have on Gear Swap right now
    _______________________________________________
    "Strapping myself to a sitski built with 30lb of metal and fibreglass then trying to water ski in it sounds like a stupid idea to me.

    I'll be there."
    ... Andy Campbell

  18. #643
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Movin' On
    Posts
    3,737
    After much deliberation and almost a year after PMing back and forth with Banditman I ordered a pair of Enforcer 104 Frees as a metal ski to compliment my all wood all Moment quiver of Deathwish, Wildcat, Deathwish 104 and Deathwish tour.

    I was looking for something with a tail rocker that can easily release turns but also has a lot of metal for smoothing out the ride for lower tide conditions at Targhee. I figured it is now or never now that the E104 Free is changing.

    I’m planning to mount with metal pivots for an even more heavy/ damp feel.

    All of my Moment skis are 190 cm and I picked up the E104s in 191 cm on the recommendation of Banditman.

    I’m planning to mount and +2 or +3 from recommended (so -6.8 or -5.8 from true center) to more closely align the with -5 and -6 from true center mounts that I am used to on my Moment skis. I like to ski pretty centered.

    Anyone ski the E104 at +3? I’m open to advice.

    Also, huge thanks to Banditman for the help and advice.

  19. #644
    Join Date
    May 2022
    Location
    Truckee
    Posts
    862
    Quote Originally Posted by SchralphMacchio View Post
    How old is he? How much of a ripper is he? For this season or next season? Not much left in this season … you guys don’t have as much snow in WA as OR, right?

    He is already practically one growth spurt away from being my size, 5’ 8” 140 lbs. I’m not a great skier but I do ski aggressively for my size and skill level, and the 179 E104 I demoed felt dialed for me, the 179 E94s that I own also feel like a pretty good length but also something I will never see the top end of when conditions are firm. I have not skied the 172 of either but I’m sure they would be fine most days for me, except for soft and/or wind affected snow deeper than 6” when I’m guessing I’d be missing the 179s at either width.

    Given all that, I personally would go for 172 if he’s a decent but currently more cruisy skier, but 179 if he shows signs of hitting the gas pedal more often than not, or if you don’t want to get him new sticks late next season again. Sure the 179s might be a lot to handle in stiffness right now, but they could also be eye opening in terms of what he is looking forward to and thinking more about dialing in his shin pressure and posture, can always ski the 168 Optics when the 179 Enforcers start kicking his ass after a few hours, where the 172 just won’t really be that much of a jump … The 179s could be money for him all next season start to finish, maybe even through part of the one after that too?
    179 feels like a lot of big, heavy, ski for a 120lb kid. I like the 185 E110 a lot, but I'm 6' 160lbs.

  20. #645
    Join Date
    Dec 2023
    Posts
    160
    Quote Originally Posted by SchralphMacchio View Post
    I decided to quit waffling and picked up a new set of 179 E94s (current gen). Gonna put some Pivot 15s on them … but need some 95mm brake arms first!
    Did you ever find 95mm arms? I have some if you’re still looking.

  21. #646
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Lapping the pow with the GSA in the PNW
    Posts
    5,191
    Quote Originally Posted by kc_7777 View Post
    Hey bandit,

    My 5’6”, 125 lb wife is on this years Enforcer Free 104 in a 172cm. She’s a good skier, makes lots of turns, likes to go fast.

    She’s also got the Santa Ana 104 with backcountry bindings. She has no problem skiing the heavier Enforcer.
    KC

    Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums
    Thanks for the response and reference point! I'm certain your wife has more experience and probably better form, but their styles seem similar. He has no problem making turns on his BO96's, but seems to be skiing faster these days, which brought me to the E014 idea.
    In constant pursuit of the perfect slarve...

  22. #647
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Eugenio Oregón
    Posts
    8,407
    Quote Originally Posted by SnowMachine View Post
    179 feels like a lot of big, heavy, ski for a 120lb kid.
    It absolutely is a lot of big heavy ski for 120 lbs. I guess my point was, how heavy is he likely to be come December 1, and then March 1? Seems like possibly only 4 weeks of resort skiing left now until late Fall?

    Quote Originally Posted by DoubleBogey View Post
    Did you ever find 95mm arms?
    Yes I did, danke, have been happy how the E94 complements my Woodsman 110.
    _______________________________________________
    "Strapping myself to a sitski built with 30lb of metal and fibreglass then trying to water ski in it sounds like a stupid idea to me.

    I'll be there."
    ... Andy Campbell

  23. #648
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Boulder
    Posts
    1,356
    I’m sure it’s somewhere in this thread but I can’t find it. I’m remounting my Enforcer 100s (2021) and have hole conflicts that are putting me at either +0.75 or -1.5. Thinking about the forward mount (my last mount was on the line, which I liked) but would appreciate feedback. Thoughts?

  24. #649
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Lapping the pow with the GSA in the PNW
    Posts
    5,191
    Quote Originally Posted by ski-wpk View Post
    I’m sure it’s somewhere in this thread but I can’t find it. I’m remounting my Enforcer 100s (2021) and have hole conflicts that are putting me at either +0.75 or -1.5. Thinking about the forward mount (my last mount was on the line, which I liked) but would appreciate feedback. Thoughts?
    I’d recommend going a smidge forward versus behind the line. They seem to be happy that way.
    In constant pursuit of the perfect slarve...

  25. #650
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    North Vancouver, BC
    Posts
    1,891
    I skied mine at +2cm…and if I were to do again would be +1cm. So what bandit said.


    Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums
    _________________________________________________
    I love big dumps.

Posting Permissions

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