Chasing My Dream Daily Driver - The Heritage Lab FL105

[2FUNKY]

I'd say the main competitors are Cochise, M102, Peak 104 / 110, also the odd black ops or mpros/frees. Most of those or not all have titanal right? It is so choice, I love to drive it in my movement gos (awesome but undergunned). Why are we not doing the titanal, again? I'm not nostalgic, I want the smoothest dampest ride in the chop but mostly the runout. Though there are increasing numbers of ZX108s which are all wood and no glass right? Believe SuperGaper is rocking those, not that I can turn like him.

Lastish question, are the FL105s more composed in the runout than say the Goliaths used to be? I wasn't a strong skier then but those wood skis were always too punishing without enough reward imo

Thanks

Sent from my Pixel 7 using Tapatalk

If wanting metal, do not overlook the R99 Comp. That build just makes all things underfoot disappear.


Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

[phatty]

If wanting metal, do not overlook the R99 Comp. That build just makes all things underfoot disappear.


Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

But according to Marshall in the main thread, sounds like the R99 comp is not getting made again.

[Marshal Olson]

Only a few days on the FL105 so far but I can compare what I've seen so far to my experience on the Cochise and M102. I think the FL105 is pretty different from both. I think that the FL105 does a better job of muting out really rough snow than either of those. Last night I was on the FL105 and conditions were a pretty heinous mix of hot pow on top of melting ice. I wasn't charging too hard and figured my top speed would be around 35 - 40 mph. I looked at my watch and got up to 52mph. I was shocked because of how smooth it felt. It's like driving a really good car when you don't realize you're speeding because it's so smooth.

I think the FL105 is closer to the Cochise than M102 (but better than the Cochise in every way). You won't be laying super tight turns, but I'd say it's similar to the Cochise. The biggest difference I found with the Cochise is off piste where the Cochise is easy to break the tails free and likes to skid around versus the FL105 that I think pivots better. So I find that I ski the Cochise more like a trophy truck and just try and smash the mountain where I have a lot more options with the FL105. For how heavy the FL105 is, it doesn't feel like that when skiing and you can skid and pivot or ski it fairly dynamically. For me, the FL105 beats the Cochise everywhere and I would take it all day long.

The M102 is a different tool and I want both in the quiver. (Yes, I have an n+1 problem.) The M102 is significantly more precise and a better carver. While the M102 is pretty damp, the FL105 is another level, the construction just mutes everything out. I haven't had enough time in all kinds of different snow conditions but so far the FL105 feels about a easy to release the tail but I can charge funky snow harder on it. So if it's lower tide I'd opt for the M102, the more snow or more rough conditions will go to the FL105.

Really great writeup and insights.

I'd say the FL105 was designed to bring the hard snow super smooth ride and responsiveness of the Monster 108's with the soft snow surfiness of the BMX105hp. I'd say that it really stuck the landing with that.

However, neither of those skis particularly remind me of the mantra 102 or cochise, since the skis above are all more traditionally cambered, BUT I actually really think the R105 version is much more aligned with them - as I expect the r105 to roll up and bite alot like the Mantra and have the bad snow catch-free destruction of the cochise.

Hope this helps, but yeah, I haven't skied the R105 myself, but arilds feedback is exactly what I expected and feel comfortable projecting this much!

[Marshal Olson]

But according to Marshall in the main thread, sounds like the R99 comp is not getting made again.

I really want to, but the feasibility of another run is challenged for many reasons right now

[banzai]

Took them out today. Perfect conditions for the purpose - proper boilerplate to windbuff. They claim to be a Dream Daily Driver and did not disappoint. https://www.instagram.com/p/C2xcee4odTD/

[2FUNKY]

Took them out today. Perfect conditions for the purpose - proper boilerplate to windbuff. They claim to be a Dream Daily Driver and did not disappoint. https://www.instagram.com/p/C2xcee4odTD/

Awesome! Man that upper section was firm, Eek!


Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

[Marshal Olson]

FL skiers on 105 snow, checks out! Nice

[shroom]

haven’t hit enough conditions or speed limit to give conscious thoughts, but I have gone quite fast and made some killer turns on the 192 FL105.

Best snow day I made 3 turns on a fresh face where I’d normally milk 5-8 with some slashing. much fun for me and as close to described as I could have hoped (fall line yo). energy out of the turn is killer, turn shape flexible as long as you’re a working man. some mental confusion between enjoying that sweet pull outta the turn and pointing fall line on edge straight to 11, a good problem to have. I’m not sure I’ll find the speed limit in good faith. I

Tail is business but I was happy with the few airs encountered. I did slash a few times at 3/4 speed limit and enjoyed what I felt. I usually throw skis sideways in the air and swing weight felt great. I mounted -12. I could probably go -11 and be happy based my ski style (I mostly ski 192 mfree, 189 brahma88 at rec and cheat turns), but -12 feels right when committed.

I did detune/clean with diamond/gummy first few runs but day1 was ice. so much torsional power. so much fast.

nailed it per description, killer work dudes!

[Doremite]

Really great writeup and insights.

I'd say the FL105 was designed to bring the hard snow super smooth ride and responsiveness of the Monster 108's with the soft snow surfiness of the BMX105hp. I'd say that it really stuck the landing with that.

Is lusting over the FL105 practical when you already have the 105hps in the stable? Asking for a friend.

[NW_SKIER]

Is lusting over the FL105 practical when you already have the 105hps in the stable? Asking for a friend.

Seems perfectly logical to me.

[Marshal Olson]

Is lusting over the FL105 practical when you already have the 105hps in the stable? Asking for a friend.

the only illogical part is not ordering them

[Kya]

Nooooooo. Once you've convinced yourself that tapping is fun, tapping is fun. Fwiw, I tap only 2-3 mm in, seems to help. Tapping-good, pullouts-bad.

Sent fra min LE2123 via Tapatalk

That’s what she said

Marshal, congrats on the success of making some kickass skis! I’ve been away for a long while and getting caught up on Heritage Lab has been very enjoyable! Keep it up.

Out of curiosity, any plans to make a ski like the FL105 in a more forgiving, softer flex for people who are 5’5” only weigh 135lbs and are damn near 50 yo? Would that even work for the ski, since it seems counterintuitive to its entire design structure?

Just wondering because the shape and rocker profile looks great and checks most of the boxes. I’ve been searching for the Dream Daily Driver too but haven’t found anything that fits us smaller framed aggressive skiers who don’t need a ski to “charge” but do need “forgivingly aggressive.”

Again, congrats dude!


Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

[2FUNKY]

That’s what she said

Marshal, congrats on the success of making some kickass skis! I’ve been away for a long while and getting caught up on Heritage Lab has been very enjoyable! Keep it up.

Out of curiosity, any plans to make a ski like the FL105 in a more forgiving, softer flex for people who are 5’5” only weigh 135lbs and are damn near 50 yo? Would that even work for the ski, since it seems counterintuitive to its entire design structure?

Just wondering because the shape and rocker profile looks great and checks most of the boxes. I’ve been searching for the Dream Daily Driver too but haven’t found anything that fits us smaller framed aggressive skiers who don’t need a ski to “charge” but do need “forgivingly aggressive.”

Again, congrats dude!


Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

The 185 length is what you are looking for. It has about 15% less burl in the tips and tails. Still fairly stiff underfoot like the good lord intended. You could go forward a little to make the ski pivot and slide easier as well.


Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

[The Iron Horse]

That’s what she said

Marshal, congrats on the success of making some kickass skis! I’ve been away for a long while and getting caught up on Heritage Lab has been very enjoyable! Keep it up.

Out of curiosity, any plans to make a ski like the FL105 in a more forgiving, softer flex for people who are 5’5” only weigh 135lbs and are damn near 50 yo? Would that even work for the ski, since it seems counterintuitive to its entire design structure?

Just wondering because the shape and rocker profile looks great and checks most of the boxes. I’ve been searching for the Dream Daily Driver too but haven’t found anything that fits us smaller framed aggressive skiers who don’t need a ski to “charge” but do need “forgivingly aggressive.”

Again, congrats dude!


Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

5'6", 158lbs, 52 yo.

I'm on the 178 mounted -10.75 and it is so good I'm sitting here debating ordering a second pair in case these disappear after the next order cycle.

If I did it over again -- when I do it over again -- I might mount a bit farther back, but that's up in the air. After I spend more time on these I'll decide for sure.

[Kya]

The 185 length is what you are looking for. It has about 15% less burl in the tips and tails. Still fairly stiff underfoot like the good lord intended. You could go forward a little to make the ski pivot and slide easier as well.


Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

Id definitely be on the 178. Home ski area is Crested Butte, so lots of tight techy Billy goat terrain with high consequence rather than big wide open vert. Fairly stiff underfoot is exactly what I don’t want. I know, it’s the opposite of what everyone wants. It’s just what I’ve learned I like and don’t like after 40+ years on skis.

5'6", 158lbs, 52 yo.

I'm on the 178 mounted -10.75 and it is so good I'm sitting here debating ordering a second pair in case these disappear after the next order cycle.

If I did it over again -- when I do it over again -- I might mount a bit farther back, but that's up in the air. After I spend more time on these I'll decide for sure.

Good feedback. But I’m 20-30 lbs lighter than you. It makes a big difference on how a ski flexes and reacts IMO.



Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

[The Iron Horse]

Good feedback. But I’m 20-30 lbs lighter than you. It makes a big difference on how a ski flexes and reacts IMO.

No doubt. Just trying to offer some data points, since I'm always amazed at how big everyone else in the world is!

For my money (and style/size) this ski is perfect for CB, and the mount is dialed where I have it. I also will say that this ski never gives me the impression that it is working against me, that it to say, it has been incredibly intuitive from the first turn.

I've also been 140 lbs (back when I was racing bikes), and think I would have gotten along really good with it then, too. But of course, that is conjecture. You know you.

[waxoff]

Fairly stiff underfoot is exactly what I don’t want. I know, it’s the opposite of what everyone wants. It’s just what I’ve learned I like and don’t like after 40+ years on skis.

Sorry for a bit of OT here, but for me, that statement points towards Völkl, since they have just that underfoot softer flex. Have you tried the M102? No need to respond on this here, in order not to mess up the HL thread. Scoot over to the Völkl thread and ask there instead...

[IJK2009]

…Out of curiosity, any plans to make a ski like the FL105 in a more forgiving, softer flex for people who are 5’5” only weigh 135lbs and are damn near 50 yo? Would that even work for the ski, since it seems counterintuitive to its entire design structure?

Just wondering because the shape and rocker profile looks great and checks most of the boxes. I’ve been searching for the Dream Daily Driver too but haven’t found anything that fits us smaller framed aggressive skiers who don’t need a ski to “charge” but do need “forgivingly aggressive.”…

…Fairly stiff underfoot is exactly what I don’t want. I know, it’s the opposite of what everyone wants. It’s just what I’ve learned I like and don’t like after 40+ years on skis…

I’m FL105/R105 curious and own the softer flexing 179 R99 AMs. I’m also 5’8”/160lbs (ie, 25lbs heavier than you), but I wouldn't want the R99 AMs any softer—btw, I’ve no experience w Kastle or Stockli, so I can't make any direct comparisons, but the R99 AMs are pretty supple terrain huggers that feel incredibly silky smooth on the snow.

R99 doesn’t have the progressive taper or more pronounced tip rocker as the FL105, but despite its traditional shape it performs really well offpiste (w tips and tails detuned).

The downside is that Marshal may not be able to get Blossom to make another round of R87 or R99 skis in the near future.

I also have Mantra 102s, and they’re definitely stiffer than R99 AMs. Marshal emailed that the M102s flex was comparable to the FL105s, so if you’re looking for a softer flex, then the M102s may not be the droids you’re looking for either (but maybe the ~2014-18 flat-camber full-rocker version is???).

[chewski]

I've been off tgr for a minute since the end of last season (which was in august for me!), but really wanted to chime in on this thread after riding 185cm fl105's (mounted on the recommended 80.75cm from tail with p15's) for the first time today. It was a clear day at mammoth right after a foot or two of snow fell through the previous week. There was no fresh pow, but a solid mix of boot top soft chop, very lightly tracked wind packed pow, crusty/refrozen moguls either covered by 4-8" of soft chop or completely wind scoured in places, and perfectly packed powder groomers. A great mix of conditions for testing new skis.

Some background on this review is that i was very early to get on fl113 and wrote about my experiences on that ski all last season. I'm 37 years old, 6' and 180lbs and i was on the 187cm fl113. at first I struggled to adjust to that ski, but by spring time it became my favorite ski of all time for spring skiing in early morning refrozen junk and the varying degrees of sticky, manky, slushy junk that followed throughout the day (and deeper into the season). It's predictable edgehold, buttery smooth ride, and ability to point and smash OR pivot and pop was addicting. But my initial struggles involved not being able to predictably initiate turns and steer these beasts. Marshal reached out and said i had to try the fl105. Now i did end up adjusting quite well to the fl113 when i finally just committed to keeping them always raging in the fall line (i had the best day skipping the tops of powder bumps on them a month ago), but now I know why marshall was adamant i try the fl105.

On my first run with the fl105 today I turned down a face of powder moguls and tried to skip the tops of the bumps like I do on the fl113. I immediately got hung up and almost fell hard. Note to self: these are significantly turnier and less of a straightline machine than the fl113! That was absolutely my bad for trying to do that right out of the gate without any experience on this ski. But even halfway down the run it clicked: these are cambered, narrower, tighter radius fl113's. They are smooooooooth like all heritage lab freeride skis (best in the business), but with the camber and more sidecut they just pop and carve sooo much better than the fl113 (which pops pretty well in its own right). They can point it flat footed ok, but need more active steering and dynamic popping than their big brother.

The fl105 is maybe a hair softer but it still smashes really well. But unlike the fl113 it EASILY locks into a turn and is totally happy to fully carve across the fall line and even return some energy out of a carve. These do not NEED to rage straight down like the fl113, and honestly it is a much better all around ski for it. I honestly feel a (very high) limit to its straightline stability compared to the fl113, not because of the construction or flex, but because it is a turnier ski all around. Also, when things get sketchy they do not pivot or slash like the flatter/deeper rockered fl113, which limits my comfortability pointing them. The fl105 is still surprisingly pivotable compared to other chargers with significant camber that i have been on, but the difference between this ski and its big brother is everything you would expect from rocker/camber profile and sidecut radii.

These skis rule groomers and are super manageable in soft, manky, and scraped off frozen bumps. That's where the camber and 27.5m radius (vs 39.5m for fl113) come in. The skis i currently use in the role of firm snow daily driver with a mix of variable 3d snow are the 184 mantra m102 and 184cm kastle mx104. The fl105 carve almost as well as the metal laminate chargers, but float better when there is variable 3d snow mixed in (and the tip even floats better than the fl113, which i don't actually like in powder, but rather leftover chop). I didn't get to test absolute edgehold, but the fl113 are really good so I'm sure the much more cambered and narrower fl105 is going to be just fine.

Honestly these remind me of a slightly more pivoty and floaty kastle mx104 that is also poppier and slightly damper. The og mx104 was my top choice for a ski I would ski anywhere, any time in high consequence terrain that wasn't deep pow. That ski just does everything you want so reliably and without drama, which makes sense since chris davenport made it for his mountaineering missions. But the fl105 is just like that with the ability to hold an edge in scraped off steeps, pivot in tight spots, navigate techy bumps and chutes, and point it through rough runouts, while just floating and popping a bit better. I actually said in my early fl113 reviews that i do NOT trust myself on that ski in high consequence terrain (which definitely improved using it throughout the season), but the fl105 is just trustworthy right out of the gate (as long as you don't try to straightline set up moguls on first run).

Compared to the m102 it is definitely floatier in the tip and smashier in the straight. I honestly find the m102 limit pretty quickly, but the fl105 is much closer to the unflappable fl113 than the m102. I imagine the m102 is probably the better carver in firmer conditions, but i loved the edge hold, medium large turn shape, and pop the fl105 provided that the fl113 don't in most 2d snow situations. With the fl105's superior ability in 3d snow to either the the m102 or mx104 it likely will get the nod on most days.

This is SUPER premature, but i think the fl105 was everything i wanted the on3p wren 102ti to be. I bought that ski at the end of last season in 189cm length and loved the poppy/damp blend in a more sidecut package (for firm days specifically) than the fl113, but I struggled with the material length a bit and got hung up pretty easily in tight spots and bumps. Also, i could ski that ski very fast, but you HAD to be very active and dynamic and carve and pop to get that top end. The fl113 is happy to flat footed rage straight down hill and slash as needed. The fl105 is in between in terms of straightline stability (or rather "personality" as they all go HARD). It can point more and slashes better than the wren 102ti, but still needs some more popping/carving than the fl113. And the 185cm fl105 beats both of these skis in tight spots and bump maneuverability. I had so little time on the wren 102ti before selling it that this might not be fair, but I figured my best on3p ski was probably the 184cm wren 108ti. I knew the fl105 were coming this season so I just waited on those and they have erased any desire to get the wren 108ti. They are damp AND poppy, sendy AND maneuverable, they float, carve and pivot, and are everything i wanted in a daily driver. The right size/model on3p might do this, but i know the fl105 do.

As for some construction notes: 1.) they are heritage lab bomber and i barely put a detectable groove in my bases after hitting several rocks with our abysmal base coverage this year. 2.) they have the same class leading "suspension" every other freeride construction heritage lab ski does (i've said damp AND poppy like 80 times in my HL reviews, but it's one of those iykyk things...). 3.) the mounting plate is retarded burly. I was the first to say i could barely get my bindings flat onto the deck when I mounted the early fl113 and fr132 i got from marshall last year when he was still recommending a 3.6 bit. Seriously I almost stripped both of my palms doing a hand mount. Well since recommending the 4.1 bit they mount sooo much easier. I didn't tap but use good, firm downward pressure during screw installation and the 4.1 bit still led to super firm bite, but the bindings went down all the way on my first try and i only blistered one knuckle this time. I'm going to claim i said it first: these need a 4.1 bit (tapping optional).

Another sweet ski and proud to be on the HL train. I am not super acquainted with these skis yet, but they were the perfect tool for today and i felt super comfortable on them right away, so i wanted to offer a few comparisons to other HL skis and a few other well known skis for perspective. Will likely add more to this throughout the season, but right now i have some fr110 mounted and ready to go tomorrow!

[arild]

I've been off tgr for a minute since the end of last season (which was in august for me!), but really wanted to chime in on this thread after riding 185cm fl105's (mounted on the recommended 80.75cm from tail with p15's) for the first time today. It was a clear day at mammoth right after a foot or two of snow fell through the previous week. There was no fresh pow, but a solid mix of boot top soft chop, very lightly tracked wind packed pow, crusty/refrozen moguls either covered by 4-8" of soft chop or completely wind scoured in places, and perfectly packed powder groomers. A great mix of conditions for testing new skis.

Some background on this review is that i was very early to get on fl113 and wrote about my experiences on that ski all last season. I'm 37 years old, 6' and 180lbs and i was on the 187cm fl113. at first I struggled to adjust to that ski, but by spring time it became my favorite ski of all time for spring skiing in early morning refrozen junk and the varying degrees of sticky, manky, slushy junk that followed throughout the day (and deeper into the season). It's predictable edgehold, buttery smooth ride, and ability to point and smash OR pivot and pop was addicting. But my initial struggles involved not being able to predictably initiate turns and steer these beasts. Marshal reached out and said i had to try the fl105. Now i did end up adjusting quite well to the fl113 when i finally just committed to keeping them always raging in the fall line (i had the best day skipping the tops of powder bumps on them a month ago), but now I know why marshall was adamant i try the fl105.

On my first run with the fl105 today I turned down a face of powder moguls and tried to skip the tops of the bumps like I do on the fl113. I immediately got hung up and almost fell hard. Note to self: these are significantly turnier and less of a straightline machine than the fl113! That was absolutely my bad for trying to do that right out of the gate without any experience on this ski. But even halfway down the run it clicked: these are cambered, narrower, tighter radius fl113's. They are smooooooooth like all heritage lab freeride skis (best in the business), but with the camber and more sidecut they just pop and carve sooo much better than the fl113 (which pops pretty well in its own right). They can point it flat footed ok, but need more active steering and dynamic popping than their big brother.

The fl105 is maybe a hair softer but it still smashes really well. But unlike the fl113 it EASILY locks into a turn and is totally happy to fully carve across the fall line and even return some energy out of a carve. These do not NEED to rage straight down like the fl113, and honestly it is a much better all around ski for it. I honestly feel a (very high) limit to its straightline stability compared to the fl113, not because of the construction or flex, but because it is a turnier ski all around. Also, when things get sketchy they do not pivot or slash like the flatter/deeper rockered fl113, which limits my comfortability pointing them. The fl105 is still surprisingly pivotable compared to other chargers with significant camber that i have been on, but the difference between this ski and its big brother is everything you would expect from rocker/camber profile and sidecut radii.

These skis rule groomers and are super manageable in soft, manky, and scraped off frozen bumps. That's where the camber and 27.5m radius (vs 39.5m for fl113) come in. The skis i currently use in the role of firm snow daily driver with a mix of variable 3d snow are the 184 mantra m102 and 184cm kastle mx104. The fl105 carve almost as well as the metal laminate chargers, but float better when there is variable 3d snow mixed in (and the tip even floats better than the fl113, which i don't actually like in powder, but rather leftover chop). I didn't get to test absolute edgehold, but the fl113 are really good so I'm sure the much more cambered and narrower fl105 is going to be just fine.

Honestly these remind me of a slightly more pivoty and floaty kastle mx104 that is also poppier and slightly damper. The og mx104 was my top choice for a ski I would ski anywhere, any time in high consequence terrain that wasn't deep pow. That ski just does everything you want so reliably and without drama, which makes sense since chris davenport made it for his mountaineering missions. But the fl105 is just like that with the ability to hold an edge in scraped off steeps, pivot in tight spots, navigate techy bumps and chutes, and point it through rough runouts, while just floating and popping a bit better. I actually said in my early fl113 reviews that i do NOT trust myself on that ski in high consequence terrain (which definitely improved using it throughout the season), but the fl105 is just trustworthy right out of the gate (as long as you don't try to straightline set up moguls on first run).

Compared to the m102 it is definitely floatier in the tip and smashier in the straight. I honestly find the m102 limit pretty quickly, but the fl105 is much closer to the unflappable fl113 than the m102. I imagine the m102 is probably the better carver in firmer conditions, but i loved the edge hold, medium large turn shape, and pop the fl105 provided that the fl113 don't in most 2d snow situations. With the fl105's superior ability in 3d snow to either the the m102 or mx104 it likely will get the nod on most days.

This is SUPER premature, but i think the fl105 was everything i wanted the on3p wren 102ti to be. I bought that ski at the end of last season in 189cm length and loved the poppy/damp blend in a more sidecut package (for firm days specifically) than the fl113, but I struggled with the material length a bit and got hung up pretty easily in tight spots and bumps. Also, i could ski that ski very fast, but you HAD to be very active and dynamic and carve and pop to get that top end. The fl113 is happy to flat footed rage straight down hill and slash as needed. The fl105 is in between in terms of straightline stability (or rather "personality" as they all go HARD). It can point more but still needs some more popping/carving than the fl113 but slashes better than the wren 102ti. And the 185cm fl105 beats both of these skis in tight spots and bump maneuverability. I had so little time on the wren 102ti before selling it that this might not be fair, but I figured my best on3p ski was probably the 184cm wren 108ti. I knew the fl105 were coming this season so I just waited on those and they have erased any desire to get the wren 108ti. They are damp AND poppy, sendy AND maneuverable, they float, carve and pivot, and are everything i wanted in a daily driver. The right size/model on3p might do this, but i know the fl105 do.

As for some construction notes: 1.) they are heritage lab bomber and i barely put a detectable groove in my bases after hitting several rocks with our abysmal base coverage this year. 2.) they have the same class leading "suspension" every other freeride construction heritage lab ski does (i've said damp AND poppy like 80 times in my HL reviews, but it's one of those iykyk things...). 3.) the mounting plate is retarded burly. I was the first to say i could barely get my bindings flat onto the deck when I mounted the early fl113 and fr132 i got from marshall last year when he was still recommending a 3.6 bit. Seriously I almost stripped both of my palms doing a hand mount. Well since recommending the 4.1 bit they mount sooo much easier. I didn't tap but use good, firm downward pressure during screw installation and the 4.1 bit still led to super firm bite, but the bindings went down all the way on my first try and i only blistered one knuckle this time. I'm going to claim i said it first: these need a 4.1 bit (tapping optional).

Another sweet ski and proud to be on the HL train. I am not super acquainted with these skis yet, but they were the perfect tool for today and i felt super comfortable on them right away, so i wanted to offer a few comparisons to other HL skis and a few other well known skis for perspective. Will likely add more to this throughout the season, but right now i have some fr110 mounted and ready to go tomorrow!

Awesome review, Chewski!



Sent fra min LE2123 via Tapatalk

[chewski]

Only a few days on the FL105 so far but I can compare what I've seen so far to my experience on the Cochise and M102. I think the FL105 is pretty different from both. I think that the FL105 does a better job of muting out really rough snow than either of those. Last night I was on the FL105 and conditions were a pretty heinous mix of hot pow on top of melting ice. I wasn't charging too hard and figured my top speed would be around 35 - 40 mph. I looked at my watch and got up to 52mph. I was shocked because of how smooth it felt. It's like driving a really good car when you don't realize you're speeding because it's so smooth.

I think the FL105 is closer to the Cochise than M102 (but better than the Cochise in every way). You won't be laying super tight turns, but I'd say it's similar to the Cochise. The biggest difference I found with the Cochise is off piste where the Cochise is easy to break the tails free and likes to skid around versus the FL105 that I think pivots better. So I find that I ski the Cochise more like a trophy truck and just try and smash the mountain where I have a lot more options with the FL105. For how heavy the FL105 is, it doesn't feel like that when skiing and you can skid and pivot or ski it fairly dynamically. For me, the FL105 beats the Cochise everywhere and I would take it all day long.

The M102 is a different tool and I want both in the quiver. (Yes, I have an n+1 problem.) The M102 is significantly more precise and a better carver. While the M102 is pretty damp, the FL105 is another level, the construction just mutes everything out. I haven't had enough time in all kinds of different snow conditions but so far the FL105 feels about a easy to release the tail but I can charge funky snow harder on it. So if it's lower tide I'd opt for the M102, the more snow or more rough conditions will go to the FL105.

This is spot on. Have only 2-3 days on OG cochise, but own the OG bodacious and agree completely. M102 is easier and more precise and probably better in all firm. Cochise (and bodacious and fl113) are more point/drift/smash. Fl105 is floatier, smashier, and point better than m102 (and are smooother), but carve much better and are much more precise than cochise/bodacious/fl113

[sweatypowderpig]

Is lusting over the FL105 practical when you already have the 105hps in the stable? Asking for a friend.

My FL105s are the replacements for my aging BMX105hp

[pfluffenmeister]

I'm on the lift today at Steamboat, lone wolf rider that joined a pair of dudes on a single.

I note that the guy in the middle is on Mfree108s (pretty recognizable topsheet).
He asks me about the R110s that were on my feet that day and I start to gush about how great all of the Heritage Lab skis that I've been on recently.
Two days on a R87, groomers zoomed on rails.
Three on the R110s, super playful charger.
How damp and lively they are. HL's collection if great shapes and how, they see a shape they like, they should just buy it blind as it will be better than anything else they've likely skied.

The also mention my one day on the FL 105s, 105 waisted daily driver kind of ski,, and how they are THE SKI for me: fucking supercharger that also has finesse.

How one of the skis that inspired it was the Kastle BMX105HP.

Non MFree108 guy gestures down to his skis and says:
"I bet they're pretty much like these."

I glance down at his skis and say:
"Nordica."
"Enforcer."
"104."

He looks at me.
I raise my eyebrows.
He says:
"Yes."

I say:
"I'm not trying to be snooty, but ... I doubt it."

[pfluffenmeister]

Edit: Lone wolf rider that joined a pair of dudes on a triple.

[SnowMachine]

Edit: Lone wolf rider that joined a pair of dudes on a triple.

I sold my Enforcers. Not because they weren't good skis, but because I didn't want to be the kind of guy riding Enforcers.