M Free 108

[Woodserson]

I mean seriously, someone try to convince me why the Bishop Chedi is a decent telemark minded ski for 90% of the skiers out there. Maybe 95%.

It's a 5% ski. They are catering to the core huckster crowd (debatable with the tip and no rise) and/or the cubicle dreamers who need a piece of hardcore kit to redeem themselves on a psychological level, not a reality level, but they are too unskilled to notice the difference when they get to the hill on their vacation.

I mean, GOOD FOR THE 5% who can get a gnarly burly ski made for them by a sweet company, no joke. But it makes me feel like Bishop looks at Average Me and snears.

ooh, second page. make sure to see my Manti reply, MSU

[fisheater]

Woods, it was 204 K2 Extremes, I mean they were good enough for Scott Schmidt !

I had a license to thrill !

[Montana St Alum]

Funny... listening to Taylor about the Bishop...

I do not like flat tails
I do not like lots of camber
I want lots of early rise

I'm inclined to agree. Several times Taylor has mentioned he likes a flat tail. Obviously, I don't either.
I really only referenced it for the Manti.

This is where the M Free gives me some pause for skiing powder. It's relatively stiff with a bit of camber and I wouldn't normally associate that with making powder easy and fun. I'm happy with how it skis groomers and small bumps, but I did get it as a powder ski.

The real test - deep powder, or even cut up day old dumps - is yet to come!

[Montana St Alum]

Woods, it was 204 K2 Extremes, I mean they were good enough for Scott Schmidt !

I had a license to thrill !

Tell me about it. In 1970, I weighed in at 135 pounds, skiing Bridger Bowl powder on 207cm Dynamic VR17's!
You didn't float, you plowed! There were guys who wore snorkels.

[Woodserson]

I'm inclined to agree. Several times Taylor has mentioned he likes a flat tail. Obviously, I don't either.
I really only referenced it for the Manti.

This is where the M Free gives me some pause for skiing powder. It's relatively stiff with a bit of camber and I wouldn't normally associate that with making powder easy and fun. I'm happy with how it skis groomers and small bumps, but I did get it as a powder ski.

The real test - deep powder, or even cut up day old dumps - is yet to come!

I think you're going to be OK here. Lots of rocker, and, in my experience, you don't want the rocker portion to be soft. As lilcliffy often mentions, rocker is basically flex, baked into the ski. If you make the flex (rocker) flexy, it becomes flex on top of flex. I had some Line Sick Day 94's that were soft in the rockered shovel and they would fold up on me if I jumped off the cattrack into powder. Come up and kiss my knee kind of stuff.

That being said I had some Atomic Bent Chetler's 100 for one hot second and I kept getting back-ski tip dive because I wasn't strong or heavy enough to drive the ski, it was maybe too stiff with a lower profile tip. Soooo... there's a balance. I sold them to my buddy who is 220lbs and he swears by them. His favorite ski.

But you seem to drive the skis relatively hard, compact, with powerful bindings and boots. And they are wide skis. Do the powder dance and report back, and good luck. If they dive on you, you can resell them probably with a loss and chalk it up to gathered intel, and go get a Manti.

[Montana St Alum]

Finally got in a ski day in powder on these.

Prior to this, I'd been skiing groomers on a pair of 160cm Rossignol EXP 84 AI's at 82mm underfoot and also skiing set up low angle bump runs. So a definite mindset as to "feel" set in compared to these stiffer 182's at 108 underfoot.

I've already commented on the skis on groomers. Saturday, by 6 AM we'd gotten about 15" and by opening time that was up to about 18" from a storm that approached from the south at about 28 degrees, so it was pretty high moisture content. Not Sierra Cement, but not classic Utah light powder either.

The last dedicated powder ski I had was the 180cm Armada JJ at about 116mm underfoot which is a pretty soft ski. Initially, I thought these Dynastars were a bit of work, but I was skiing a lift with about 2000 feet of vertical and after 3 runs I realized I was tired, but no pain! That's fairly remarkable and leads me to believe the skis were carrying their share of the load. Plus, I was ALMOST keeping up with my 30 year old son on 190cm, or so Hoji's, so that's also pretty interesting.

Anyway, I had to get back into the mindset of skiing a big ski in deeper heavier powder. Putting the skis on edge, they put out a pretty nice variable turn. Comparable to the JJ's and because they are significantly stiffer, the floatation was just as good with a solid platform and that stiffness helped prevent tip dive, I think. I'd say the JJ's were just a tad easier to ski until the snow got chopped up and at that point these were easier to ski. The stiffness allowed them to power through the chop and crud considerably more powerfully than the JJ's, and that's saying a lot. Once pillows - pre-moguls - started forming and it firmed up between them, these still tracked predictably and didn't get deflected. On a powder day, it'll generally start getting pretty cut up and these are perfect for that. After all, you may get 3 runs of first tracks, but it'll probably be more like 2 days of tracked up snow. You do have to let them fly and have faith that they'll pull a turn when needed, they don't respond well if you're not willing to commit or carry speed in these types of conditions. In that regard, they are a bit less forgiving than the JJ's.

If I were Cat skiing, I'd probably go for the JJ's, but for resort skiing on a powder day in the Wasatch, these get the nod. Very versatile for that. Had I gone out on my 172 R10's I'd have been "rode hard and put away wet" by the third run. If I were to get these as a more general ski for places that don't normally get much powder or get skied up really fast, I think I'd be happy with these in a 172.

[BCgee]

What mounting point did folks use for the M Free 108? I typically do 1-2cm off recommended line using boot BAL given I’m mondo 30, T Race, and 200lbs+

Measured on my MFree 108/182 -2cm looks about right with tip/tail rise and camber. Feedback appreciated.

[Montana St Alum]

What mounting point did folks use for the M Free 108? I typically do 1-2cm off recommended line using boot BAL given I’m mondo 30, T Race, and 200lbs+

Measured on my MFree 108/182 -2cm looks about right with tip/tail rise and camber. Feedback appreciated.

"In the olden days" this was a typical, and successful strategy. On these and every other modern resort-oriented ski I've been on in the last 10 years or so, boot center over the recommended mounting point has been a better choice - for me. There were a couple of skis I tried a rear mount on, but it made the skis feel sluggish without improving powder performance - or in any other application.

On a 192cm M-Free 108, the factory Recommended Mount Point is already -8.25 cm back / 86.6 cm from tail, so going further back might be counterproductive and would just shift you back from the narrowest (turning point) of the side cut. Also, the running length is shorter, (114cm in my 182 M-Free 108s on hard pack!) so 2cm may have a magnified effect on this kind of design.

This recommendation wouldn't apply to many of the narrow touring setups used by people here, but for a modern 108 underfoot ski, I think it's your best bet. I don't think tip dive would be an issue here, unless you go too short.




This is footage from 11-12 years ago on Armada JJ's at 116mm underfoot mounted as described (for the JJ it was further forward at -2.5cm) and they shredded! I tried a buddies mounted 2cm aft of that and the performance was greatly degraded!

[neckturtle47]

Nice

[BCgee]

Quick update here for those who might also mount up a pair of M-Free 108 tele.

I mounted a pair of large Axls at recommended line, boot center. Skied two days at that location, one powder day and one groomer/old snow day, and felt that (a) I was too far “over” the shovels in powder and (b) the (stiff) long tails were handicapping my preferred turns, both short and long radi.

I’ve since remounted simply one set of holes farther rearward, approximately 1.25”. Ie, used same holes, just drilled new holes for most rearward 2x holes. Skied in this new position (approximately -2.75-3 cm recommended line for boot center) today in 6” powder. HUGE improvement. The ski now performs as expected and I don’t feel any loss in terms of carving, stance, agility, etc. if anything this mounting location feels best for me.

Fwiw I’m mondo 30, T-Race, Axls in stiff position 3, 210 lbs, 6’2, decidedly aggressive and fall line oriented.

Cheers