Enforcer 104 in deeper snow

[DB Cooper]

What are ya'lls thoughts? I live in Utah so its mostly Utah density snow I am talking about. I mostly ski the PC side of the Wasatch so I rarely get into Snowbird depths, and, as we all know, true "powder" doesn't last that long at the Canyons.

My current quiver is an Atomic Vantage x83, Enforcer 93, Backland 109. My 93s are my daily driver and love skiing them anywhere any everywhere. I am thinking about rejiggering my quiver and simplifying things by going to an Enforcer 88 & 104. That seems like it'll have me covered for most anything. Use the 88s for groomers and up to 6", 104s for everything above. What does the community have to say about the 104 in 12"+?

Thanks!

 

[DocGKR]

I currently have an Enforcer 88, 104, and 115 as my recreational skis; spend 60% of time on the 88's all over the mountain--including fresh snow under a foot; 30% on the 104's which work fine for knee deep powder and cut-up crud; and save the 115's for really deep days, as well as major spring slush.

 

[DB Cooper]

I currently have an Enforcer 88, 104, and 115 as my recreational skis; spend 60% of time on the 88's all over the mountain--including fresh snow under a foot; 30% on the 104's which work fine for knee deep powder and cut-up crud; and save the 115's for really deep days, as well as major spring slush.

What sizes do you run? I'm 6'3", 215 and my 93s are the 185.

 

[ski otter 2]

I'd like the 88s over the 93s (demoed both).

I liked the 104s off piste, afternoon skied off terrain, crud (to me better than the 115s up to 1 ft. crud maybe), and some pow. To me, there are much better tools for pow over 6" even though these would be fun there, often.

Outside the Enforcer box, the K2 Mindbender 108 (mount point variable) is a top "do it all" soft snow ski that would go well with the 88 (or 93, for that matter).

 

[Doug Briggs]

Why re-jigger? Why not just add?

Is there anything problematic with the Backland 109s?

 

[DB Cooper]

I just don’t think they (the backlands) are the right tool for the job in terms of what I ski, where I ski, and how I ski.

I need to actually test out more skis in the 104-108 range to see what, if any, I might like better. But because I am attached at the hip to my current enforcers, I thought the 104 would be the next logical place to start.

 

[DocGKR]

88=186, 104=186, 115=191

 

[DB Cooper]

Why re-jigger? Why not just add?

Is there anything problematic with the Backland 109s?

I guess what I am saying is that I don’t love my lower end (atomic 83) and my upper end (Backland 109) but I do love my middle, the 93, so I am looking for a more efficient way to handle my quiver.

 

[Decreed_It]

So . . . I'm now on the Enforcer 88 and 104 quiver - haven't yet skied the 104's - just got to replace my 100's. I love the 88s and mirror the previous comments on it - great up to 6" of fresh. First chance to ski the 104's will be in Steamboat weekend of Feb 22 - will report back, but I expect more Enforcer awesomeness to ensue. Hoping for fresh there.

 

[DB Cooper]

So . . . I'm now on the Enforcer 88 and 104 quiver - haven't yet skied the 104's - just got to replace my 100's. I love the 88s and mirror the previous comments on it - great up to 6" of fresh. First chance to ski the 104's will be in Steamboat weekend of Feb 22 - will report back, but I expect more Enforcer awesomeness to ensue. Hoping for fresh there.

I’ll be in steamboat the first weekend in March. First time there and very excited to go!

 

[Decreed_It]

I’ll be in steamboat the first weekend in March. First time there and very excited to go!

Same! 1st time for me as well, stoked!

 

[ski otter 2]

88=186, 104=186, 115=191

According to Blister, actual pull length of the 115 is less, around 187.

 

[GregK]

All skis by most companies(except K2, ON3P etc) measure ski pre-pressing, so they will always measure shorter than their stated lengths especially if it’s a twin tip ski. Enforcer Free skis are about 1.5-1.8cm shorter on the tape measure than their stated lengths and the rest of their line is about 1cm shorter than listed.

I’ve had my 104s in lots of 6” and below days but I have 116mm Bibby’s and being stuck in the East, I try and use the Bibby’s every chance I get! Lol
All Enforcers have a very friendly tip shape and taper for some new snow so the 104s are a great ski for untracked/tracked powder with their sweight. “Real” powder skis are 115mm plus but the shapes of Enforcer punch above their width.

I use my 104s for days where there’s any new snow as they are quite good in the crud after. Use my damper and more stable 187cm(184.5cm) Dynastar Menace 98 skis when it’s firmer.

Very anxious to try out the Dynastar MFree 108 as it has a very similar shape to the 104 and getting rave reviews too. Hoping it’s a bit of an Enforcer 104/Menace 98 mix.

 

[Wade]

According to Blister, actual pull length of the 115 is less, around 187.

I just bought the 115s and had read the Blister review. Blister has the measured length at 189.2cm.

 

[EmperorMA]

All skis by most companies(except K2, ON3P etc) measure ski pre-pressing, so they will always measure shorter than their stated lengths especially if it’s a twin tip ski. Enforcer Free skis are about 1.5-1.8cm shorter on the tape measure than their stated lengths and the rest of their line is about 1cm shorter than listed.

I’ve had my 104s in lots of 6” and below days but I have 116mm Bibby’s and being stuck in the East, I try and use the Bibby’s every chance I get! Lol
All Enforcers have a very friendly tip shape and taper for some new snow so the 104s are a great ski for untracked/tracked powder with their sweight. “Real” powder skis are 115mm plus but the shapes of Enforcer punch above their width.

I use my 104s for days where there’s any new snow as they are quite good in the crud after. Use my damper and more stable 187cm(184.5cm) Dynastar Menace 98 skis when it’s firmer.

Very anxious to try out the Dynastar MFree 108 as it has a very similar shape to the 104 and getting rave reviews too. Hoping it’s a bit of an Enforcer 104/Menace 98 mix.

I’m excited to try the new Dynastar MFree 108, as well. Hoping they’ll be good up to 12” of fresh, in crud and firmpack. The mix of those two skis strong points at 108 underfoot would be amazing.

 

[OddTurn]

I'm new to powder but I demoed the 104 in Utah in 9''-12'' powder and they were very nice. I skied them in Colorado again and they were nice too but last Friday at 15'' of denser snow I wished I had something wider (but not sure it would have made a huge difference). I was thinking of buying them to be powder ski like you are but now I'm wondering (skiing California usually so denser snow is more likely). They are great without powder in any case.

 

[ski otter 2]

I'm new to powder but I demoed the 104 in Utah in 9''-12'' powder and they were very nice. I skied them in Colorado again and they were nice too but last Friday at 15'' of denser snow I wished I had something wider (but not sure it would have made a huge difference). I was thinking of buying them to be powder ski like you are but now I'm wondering (skiing California usually so denser snow is more likely). They are great without powder in any case.

This has been my concern (and search) also since last season, when we got a number of deeper, heavier, wetter snow days here in Colorado, and the skis I had left me wanting.

The relatively heavy ON3P skis from the Pacific Northwest are said to be great in Sierra Cement and such wetter snow, but the only current one of these that I've liked in demos (that can hold an edge properly as well as slarve) has been the Billy Goat.

I've been thinking of trying the current Head Kore 117/189 moved forward +2 or +3, but next year's (20/21) has an increased rocker tip and tail (redesigned-for-better float) that I really liked a lot on demoing; so maybe I'll wait for that. The one problem with the 117 Kore I've noticed is that it doesn't track all that well ((of either year, 180 or 189 length). I skied another candidate, the Dynastar Menace Proto 118/190? back to back with the widest Kore, and found that the 118 Menace tracked incredibly, but was nowhere near as good in terms of dampening for chop/crud. I just think that Menace would not be so great in heavier, deeper snow powder/crud for that reason. If only I could combine the best of those two great skis.....

(Note: I also skied the 20/21 108 Dynastar Proto Menace right after the 118 version, on a powder/chop day, and found I liked the 118 a lot better in 6-10" of slightly wetter snow, the resulting chop and crud, and the few soft snow groomers: it was more stable and powerful in those conditions, even though I'd really liked the 108 on a drier 4-6" snow day. )

 

[ski otter 2]

I just bought the 115s and had read the Blister review. Blister has the measured length at 189.2cm.

Thanks, @Wade . I was going by memory and must have mixed up skis from Blister (maybe with the Rossi Super 7 RD, that only comes in one longer length). I'll have to check the last few issues and report back if I mixed that up again. Ha!)

 

[GregK]

I'm new to powder but I demoed the 104 in Utah in 9''-12'' powder and they were very nice. I skied them in Colorado again and they were nice too but last Friday at 15'' of denser snow I wished I had something wider (but not sure it would have made a huge difference). I was thinking of buying them to be powder ski like you are but now I'm wondering (skiing California usually so denser snow is more likely). They are great without powder in any case.

This has been my concern (and search) also since last season, when we got a number of deeper, heavier, wetter snow days here in Colorado, and the skis I had left me wanting.

The relatively heavy ON3P skis from the Pacific Northwest are said to be great in Sierra Cement and such wetter snow, but the only current one of these that I've liked in demos (that can hold an edge properly as well as slarve) has been the Billy Goat.

I've been thinking of trying the current Head Kore 117/189 moved forward +2 or +3, but next year's (20/21) has an increased rocker tip and tail (redesigned-for-better float) that I really liked a lot on demoing; so maybe I'll wait for that. The one problem with the 117 Kore I've noticed is that it doesn't track all that well ((of either year, 180 or 189 length). I skied another candidate, the Dynastar Menace Proto 118/190? back to back with the widest Kore, and found that the 118 Menace tracked incredibly, but was nowhere near as good in terms of dampening for chop/crud. I just think that Menace would not be so great in heavier, deeper snow powder/crud for that reason. If only I could combine the best of those two great skis.....

(Note: I also skied the 20/21 108 Dynastar Proto Menace right after the 118 version, on a powder/chop day, and found I liked the 118 a lot better in 6-10" of slightly wetter snow, the resulting chop and crud, and the few soft snow groomers: it was more stable and powerful in those conditions, even though I'd really liked the 108 on a drier 4-6" snow day. )

The 2 of you need/(everyone needs) the forthcoming 2020/21 Moment Wildcat. Moment is bringing the weight back up closer to the old Bibby range but should have lighter swing weight because of the current construction techniques. Should be as hard charging as the old Bibby but easier to ski like the Wildcat. If it’s as good as I think it will be, playful chargers will have a returning king.

The Bibby/Wildcat do incredibly well in heavy, thick crud or tracked out powder. Even in the East Coast, I’m on them often during Spring skiing as they make it so fun. There have been several Spring afternoons where I have been the only skier on certain runs because the chop was so difficult to ski but the Bibby’s just eat it up.

So Enforcer 104 for a bit of snow and the new Wildcat 190cm when it REALLY snows.

 

[ski otter 2]

Thanks for great comments.

Maybe so. But, for me, the Wildcats were a real drop-off in dampness, stability, and thus in handling crud. Maybe the new version will be better, but....
(Please bear with me for going into more depth below.)

I own and ski both lengths of the old Bibbys often, 184 (playful and versatile), and 190 (bigger, wider, more of a charger: to me the 190 likes some speed to perform optimally, unlike the 184. For me, usually great. But in really deep, wet, heavy snow, the forces involved are too much with just the 190 - that much speed and force in such heavy, potentially dangerous conditions is no longer advisable for me. Also, both skis - please forgive me, but - to me, in a way, are old technology: their material is sort of like the feel of the just ended Super 7 HDs (though with much improved on stiffness, different shape, etc.) And the Bibbys lack float, float which in deeper, heavier snow would make things go easier, more fun with less hard work.

Before a knee problem, my reference ski, the ski I much preferred, was the K2 Pettitor 120/189 (191 pull) @ +3.5 to +4 - but it is quite heavy. It both floats well, playfully, and also kills crud more than any other ski I've been on. (For reference, the current Rossi Black Ops 118 is to me a Pettitor copy, except with less rocker (float), less width (float and play), but the same tank-like charge through crud of any depth or heaviness, almost as good that way as the 189/191 Pettitor 120.

Getting older, I find myself more often on my 191/112 V-Werks Katanas: lighter, just as good in crud if not better than the Bibbys including especially in spring slush; and with an improved turn dynamic. But not for really deep and heavy, at least for me. I'm hoping the longest Kore 117 at its greater width and similar construction might do the trick.

But only the Pettitors, of these skis, in my experience, really dominates heavy deep snow while still floating super well. (For me, a sore knee for a few days is my cost.)