New All Mountain Ski (less than 100mm)

Y

yhprum1720

Member
I'm thinking about a new ski to complete the narrow end of a 2 ski quiver (less than 100mm). My other ski is a 186 Jeffrey 108.

Skier Info:

Height - 6' 2"

Weight - 180

Location - New England (this ski will mostly be seeing firm snow and ice). 40% groomers, 40% trees, 20% park

Skier type: Advanced, generally ski fast unless I'm hunting sidehits, find myself spending less and less time in the park and more and more time in the trees and searching for natural features. I don't spend much time skiing switch but I do appreciate being able to land switch

I'm looking for an all mountain ski with a freestyle feel. I want a ski that can arc turns on ice, provide plenty of pop for boosting off natural features / side hits, pivot easily in trees, remain stable at high speed, and land switch / take the occasional park lap. In short, a chargey twin with solid edge hold and carving capability.

Skis I've used in the past include:

Armada AR6: Really enjoyed this ski. For those who don't remember, the AR6 is a full camber, fairly stiff, slopestyle-type park ski. Stiff enough to be a decent carver, really fun for popping off stuff all over the mountain. Felt at home in the park, or in firm all mountain conditions. This was my daily driver for many years.

Faction Candide 2.0: I found this ski to be fun, but not confidence-inspiring. It felt snappy coming out of turns, and was easy to flex for butters / ollies. At lower speeds, I really enjoyed this ski, but it felt easy to find the speed limit and to overpower it.

Fischer Ranger 108TI: A confident charger / carver on both soft and hard snow (I actually liked it better on hard snow). It was my favorite ski I've had for laying over and ripping GS turns. I ended up selling it because I wanted a looser feeling ski for soft snow, and it lacked playfulness for jumping and jibbing around the mountain.

ON3P Jeffrey 108: This ski replaced my Ranger 108TI. I only got a couple days on it before the shutdown last year. 3 things stick out: pop was amazing - it wants to launch off everything, super stompy feel on landings, and it plows through chop. Performance in firmer conditions is still a bit of a question mark for me. I didn't get much of a chance to test that.

Skis I'm interested in:

ON3P Jeffrey 96

Armada ARV96 TI

K2 Poacher

Fischer Ranger 94 FR

ON3P Woodsman 96

JSkis Masterblaster

Looking forward to getting some opinions on the above skis, or any others that sound like they'd be a good fit. I'm also willing to go below 90mm waist width. Closer to 90mm would be better than closer to 100mm. I realize the bottom 3 are only partial twins and are much more directional than the top 3, so I'm interested how they do in terms of playfulness, especially small spins and switch landings.

**This thread was edited on Sep 28th 2020 at 8:42:51am
 
you need to trade the fisher 94 FR for 102 FR in the list imho. and just ignore that its over 100

maybe justis 100?

black ops 98? menace 98?

I think the 96 ti is gone for 2021?

I also love chargy twintips, and... owning a LOT of skis and with a frequent rollover the 102 FR is no doubt the best I've found. I've done 60mph+ on them, not quite 70 yet, but feel there is hope. both 184 and 191 are faaaaaast.
 
14178150:anders_a said:
you need to trade the fisher 94 FR for 102 FR in the list imho. and just ignore that its over 100

maybe justis 100?

black ops 98? menace 98?

I think the 96 ti is gone for 2021?

I also love chargy twintips, and... owning a LOT of skis and with a frequent rollover the 102 FR is no doubt the best I've found. I've done 60mph+ on them, not quite 70 yet, but feel there is hope. both 184 and 191 are faaaaaast.
Click to expand...

Is there any difference in construction between the 94fr and 102fr? 102 is going to start overlapping with my Jeffrey 108

Black ops and Menace seem like they could be good options. Both would be more chargey than a standard ARV96, right? How about the K2 poacher?
 
+1 for Ranger 102/94, Menace 98, and Masterblaster.

Ranger 102 feels significantly stronger, more damp, and more stable than the 94. The two are very similar overall, but I wish the 94 matched the stability of the 102, and since the 102 carves so well (in an entirely different league vs. Jeff 108 in terms of carving), I think I'd only prefer the 94 if I wanted a much lower swing weight for trees and bumps. Both Rangers feel pretty similar to the Ranger 108 in terms of how easy they are to get on edge, but the FR versions feel notably less directional (especially if you mount around -6 cm from true center) and the 102 FR is actually more stable and stiffer. It's an exceptional ski.

Menace is a lot softer than the Ranger but a bit more damp. I'm not sure which I'd trust more on ice; I still don't really get why the Ranger 102 carves as well as it does, whereas the Menace's low-slung rocker lines, minimal taper, and accessible flex in the shovel make it really easy to bend and get on edge. Menace definitely feels more playful in the park in that it's far easier to bend than the Ranger, but if you're just spinning and skiing switch, both would likely work on the playfulness front.

Masterblaster is a very damp and stable ski but with a pretty moderate, almost symmetrical flex pattern and more rocker than most similarly stable skis. I'd say it's similar to the Menace on ice, but you'd probably want to give the Masterblaster a slightly more aggressive tune if you actually want to carve ice (it comes 1/1, which is fine for non-ice, but not great for actually carving ice). But the Masterblaster is a bit more damp and stable overall vs. the Menace, while still being really easy to pivot off piste and its tail works for taking off / landing switch.

Overall, if you loved how the Ranger 108 carved but wanted something better in the air and easier to pivot in tight spots, the Ranger 102 seems like a safe bet. Ranger 94 could work if you were pretty content with the stability of the Ranger 108, and might be a touch better on ice than the 102, but I don't think the edge hold difference is massive between the two.
 
14178178:patagonialuke said:
+1 for Ranger 102/94, Menace 98, and Masterblaster.

Ranger 102 feels significantly stronger, more damp, and more stable than the 94. The two are very similar overall, but I wish the 94 matched the stability of the 102, and since the 102 carves so well (in an entirely different league vs. Jeff 108 in terms of carving), I think I'd only prefer the 94 if I wanted a much lower swing weight for trees and bumps. Both Rangers feel pretty similar to the Ranger 108 in terms of how easy they are to get on edge, but the FR versions feel notably less directional (especially if you mount around -6 cm from true center) and the 102 FR is actually more stable and stiffer. It's an exceptional ski.

Menace is a lot softer than the Ranger but a bit more damp. I'm not sure which I'd trust more on ice; I still don't really get why the Ranger 102 carves as well as it does, whereas the Menace's low-slung rocker lines, minimal taper, and accessible flex in the shovel make it really easy to bend and get on edge. Menace definitely feels more playful in the park in that it's far easier to bend than the Ranger, but if you're just spinning and skiing switch, both would likely work on the playfulness front.

Masterblaster is a very damp and stable ski but with a pretty moderate, almost symmetrical flex pattern and more rocker than most similarly stable skis. I'd say it's similar to the Menace on ice, but you'd probably want to give the Masterblaster a slightly more aggressive tune if you actually want to carve ice (it comes 1/1, which is fine for non-ice, but not great for actually carving ice). But the Masterblaster is a bit more damp and stable overall vs. the Menace, while still being really easy to pivot off piste and its tail works for taking off / landing switch.

Overall, if you loved how the Ranger 108 carved but wanted something better in the air and easier to pivot in tight spots, the Ranger 102 seems like a safe bet. Ranger 94 could work if you were pretty content with the stability of the Ranger 108, and might be a touch better on ice than the 102, but I don't think the edge hold difference is massive between the two.
Click to expand...

Was hoping to get a response from you. This is helpful. Thanks! Shame about the 94FR...
 
14178181:yhprum1720 said:
Was hoping to get a response from you. This is helpful. Thanks! Shame about the 94FR...
Click to expand...

yeah, I still really like the 94, especially for skiing steeps, but I don't love it as much as the 102.

I've basically been searching for the same ski as you, but the options are scarce. If J made an ~88mm-wide Masterblaster with slightly shallower rocker lines and shipped it with a somewhat sharper tune, I think he'd sell a ton of them. There are so few narrower skis that are legitimately damp, stable, and solid on edge while also being (even remotely) playful or easy off piste.
 
Since I do like my chargy twintips I have both 184 and 191 length 102 FR's, also camox, but seeing as camox is a late entry It will still be a few months before I can say how it compares.

the 102 feels narrower, better on ice, better on shorter/longer turns etc than any other 102 I ever tried.

the "it doesnt feel as wide" is tossed around a lot but.. yeah it doesnt feel wide

I have 184 at +2, and 191 at +3 mounts.

One thing camox does not have going for it, is the lenghts it maxes out at 187. but I have high hopes for it! hopefully put bindings on camox next week, but wont really get to test anything high speed until snow comes again.

pic shows 191cm 102 FR and 187 camox.. and seems some prodigy and atris snuck in.

**This post was edited on Sep 28th 2020 at 12:27:36pm
 
14178361:anders_a said:
Since I do like my chargy twintips I have both 184 and 191 length 102 FR's, also camox, but seeing as camox is a late entry It will still be a few months before I can say how it compares.

the 102 feels narrower, better on ice, better on shorter/longer turns etc than any other 102 I ever tried.

the "it doesnt feel as wide" is tossed around a lot but.. yeah it doesnt feel wide

I have 184 at +2, and 191 at +3 mounts.

One thing camox does not have going for it, is the lenghts it maxes out at 187. but I have high hopes for it! hopefully put bindings on camox next week, but wont really get to test anything high speed until snow comes again.

pic shows 191cm 102 FR and 187 camox.. and seems some prodigy and atris snuck in.

**This post was edited on Sep 28th 2020 at 12:27:36pm
Click to expand...

Does the Camox or the Ranger have more upturn in the tail? Camox was not on my radar before this thread, but it looks like it could be a good option

Also curious for anyone's input on this: are any of these semi-twins even remotely enjoyable for sliding the occasional rail?

**This post was edited on Sep 28th 2020 at 4:44:36pm
 
I’d opt for the poachers, they r a very versatile ski that caters to taller folks like yourself. You’ll be able to find them for much cheaper than the other options as well
 
I do have the poachers as well, I will see if I have time to grap a few pics showing the tail splay/rocker/camber on them.

The camox is a fairly short 187, while poacher, a fairly long 184, but for us bigger boys lengths matter and the camox is, your much lighter than me and a few cm shorter, so for you, the camox/poacher could indeed also be very good options, but you will be taller than both of them.

I'd say yes on rails for all thoose skis. the rangers has carbon tips & tails which feels super nice when swinging, for me and my weight I can butter them fairly easy.

Think it comes down to what you priorotize, for charging/frontside I would rate them 102 FR > camox > poacher

Probably the same for woods, of course a 191 cm FR will be felt int he wooods if supertight, but then the tails help you.

Maybe luke has more to say, he actually does this review stuff for a living :p I just like chargy twins!
 
14178186:patagonialuke said:
yeah, I still really like the 94, especially for skiing steeps, but I don't love it as much as the 102.

I've basically been searching for the same ski as you, but the options are scarce. If J made an ~88mm-wide Masterblaster with slightly shallower rocker lines and shipped it with a somewhat sharper tune, I think he'd sell a ton of them. There are so few narrower skis that are legitimately damp, stable, and solid on edge while also being (even remotely) playful or easy off piste.
Click to expand...

[tag=17763]@JLev[/tag] [tag=209275]@J_skis[/tag]
 
14178186:patagonialuke said:
I've basically been searching for the same ski as you, but the options are scarce. If J made an ~88mm-wide Masterblaster with slightly shallower rocker lines and shipped it with a somewhat sharper tune, I think he'd sell a ton of them. There are so few narrower skis that are legitimately damp, stable, and solid on edge while also being (even remotely) playful or easy off piste.
Click to expand...

Damn Luke you're always one step ahead!

Without giving too much away, there's some revisions to the Masterblaster we're going to be prototyping this year that involve making a more frontside focused 92mm version and then beefing up the current MB to a ~100mm waist. That will allow us to finally have a purebred hardpack ski as well as a smoother progression into The Hotshot.

Not feeling a ton of rush on these so it could be something we perfect over the course of 2 seasons, but definitely something we're going to start working on ASAP nonetheless.
 
14178855:BigPurpleSkiSuit said:
[tag=17763]@JLev[/tag] [tag=209275]@J_skis[/tag]
Click to expand...

Thanks Leo!

OP - [tag=181253]@yhprum1720[/tag] remember we also offer a 100% Money Back Guarantee. This allows you to buy a pair of Masterblasters, mount them, then ski them on your own mountain on your own time and if you're not completely sold they're the perfect ski for you after 5 days of shredding send them back for a different size, model or full refund!

Hit up info@jskis.com if you've got any more technical questions they'll get ya sorted out right quick. Thanks for considering!
 
Thanks [tag=209275]@J_skis[/tag]! Awesome to hear about the new ski that's in the works. Hope it keeps some of the playful feel of your other skis, but with some ice-oriented backbone
 
As someone who owns Kartel 108s, Jeffrey 96s, and the AR6s, the 96 felt pretty close in a lot of ways to the AR6 but with a contemporary design.

Light and snappy, but stiff enough to survive out of the park. They have that same pop you know on the 108. I got mine factory detuned and went a size too short so I think in a proper size and with edges they'd have been magic around the mountain. Even short and detuned they were solid, but this season I reconfigured the quiver and picked up some J102s to replace them, to gain a bit more length and platform.

The world of directional skis is foreign to me though. Maybe one day I'll dabble.
 
Hey man, Im stoked i've found this thread because i too am looking for the same ski as you. I have the ON3P kartel 108's, the Jeffrey 108's predecessor and I am wanting a narrower, stiffer ski for hard snow days. Can I ask what ski did you end up with?

I love the idea of the Fischer ranger 94's however having read above maybe Im best to just go the 102's yet that would be taking away from the Kartel 108's place in my quiver.

Decisions ...
 
14325063:odogmay said:
Hey man, Im stoked i've found this thread because i too am looking for the same ski as you. I have the ON3P kartel 108's, the Jeffrey 108's predecessor and I am wanting a narrower, stiffer ski for hard snow days. Can I ask what ski did you end up with?

I love the idea of the Fischer ranger 94's however having read above maybe Im best to just go the 102's yet that would be taking away from the Kartel 108's place in my quiver.

Decisions ...
Click to expand...

I never did end up buying that ski. It came down to the Ranger 94 and the 2021 Faction CT 1.0 (the year is important for this ski. Other years are significantly softer and lighter). I was leaning towards the Faction, but had some stuff come up and didn't end up buying it
 
The 2021 CT 1.0 would be perfect and it’s available on deals right now as the MUCH LIGHTER 2022 CT line is coming out. The 2021 CT 1.0 and 2.0 have the same builds and are very damp, stable and carve amazingly well. Not the widest tip/tails so float is going to be average for their width but definitely one of the best playful chargers for harder snow. Super quiet on the snow with all their rubber dampening and great suspension with their stiff flex and decent weight-around 2200gr for the 183cm CT 1.0.

Got a backup pair of 183cm CT 1.0 at SkiOutlet.ca for $399 CAN last week and know Skis.com has a lot of pairs left and selling them at $429 US but I think they have discounts if you are added on their mailing lists.

The JSkis Fastforward also came out since this post started at 92mm underfoot with a slightly shorter turning radius, lighter weight, a max length of 181cm and a $666 US price point.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top