or Connect
EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › Ski Gear Discussion › which version of nordica enforcers should i get?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

which version of nordica enforcers should i get?

post #1 of 22
Thread Starter 

The regular pair or the 93. I used the regular pair in park city and loved them. Just i am unsure if i should get the regular pair or the 93 underfoot version. My home mountains are jay peak and plattikill. Help me decide guys. I would be buying the 169 cm version.

post #2 of 22
Quote:
Originally Posted by zrander View Post
 

The regular pair or the 93. I used the regular pair in park city and loved them. Just i am unsure if i should get the regular pair or the 93 underfoot version. My home mountains are jay peak and plattikill. Help me decide guys. I would be buying the 169 cm version.

 

Hm. Preliminary tests (see: http://forum.pugski.com/threads/long-term-test-2017-nordica-enforcer-93.785/) suggest that the 93 skis very, very short. People who usually like the 177 are finding they prefer the 185.  Try before you buy.

 

Did you ski the 100 in 169?  The 100 also skis extremely differently than the longer versions  — it's very planky in comparison to the 177.

 

The standard thinking is East = narrower.  If it's your one-ski-quiver, the 93 may make sense.  But try first, then buy.  There should be demo days in March (if there's any snow in March).

 

Good luck!

post #3 of 22
Thread Starter 


I used the 100 underfoot at park city. 

post #4 of 22

In what length?

post #5 of 22
Thread Starter 


169 cm im 5-7 135 pounds

post #6 of 22

That's pretty short for the Enforcer — with all that tip and tail rocker, the effective surface is much shorter than 169cm, and as I said, the ski is harder to flex in that length for some reason.

 

You're light, too, for the Enforcer, speaking generally (I'm 5'6", but 35 lbs. heavier — I ski the 177).  If you do go to a demo day, you might try a few other skis before you commit. If you like the Enforcer, you might try the Santa Ana. Lighter male skiers seem to like it.

post #7 of 22
Quote:
Originally Posted by zrander View Post
 


169 cm im 5-7 135 pounds


I'm the same size, 5lbs heavier. I tried both the 169 and 177 Enforcer. I found the 169cm fun and easy to lock in hold a edge and carve on the groom. Did feel planky (stiff), in the bumps but were also easy to handle due to the short length and how easily it turned. It's because of which why I would lean toward a 169cm, despite everyone warning otherwise, and that has me looking elsewhere. If I find a pair ridiculously cheep end of or off season I'd be very tempted to try them.

 

Definitely worth your time doing a demo. I would be very Interested in hearing how you make out.

post #8 of 22
Quote:
Originally Posted by neonorchid View Post
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by zrander View Post
 


169 cm im 5-7 135 pounds


I'm the same size, 5lbs heavier. I tried both the 169 and 177 Enforcer. I found the 169cm fun and easy to lock in hold a edge and carve on the groom. Did feel planky (stiff), in the bumps but were also easy to handle due to the short length and how easily it turned. It's because of which why I would lean toward a 169cm, despite everyone warning otherwise, and that has me looking elsewhere. If I find a pair ridiculously cheep end of or off season I'd be very tempted to try them.

 

Definitely worth your time doing a demo. I would be very Interested in hearing how you make out.

 

Interesting — so you are looking elsewhere, or people's warnings made you look elsewhere?

 

Because the Enforcer was such a strong seller this year, I wonder if they'll ever be ridiculously cheap.  

post #9 of 22

both. Plus there are other good skis out there.

 

Thinking with next season's "NGT" plus the 169cm's bad press in addition to the East coast terrible snow year so far, it could happen. Already a New unmounted 15/16 Enforcer 169cm on fleabay for $600 or "Make Offer", so you never know.

post #10 of 22
Quote:
Originally Posted by neonorchid View Post
 

both. Plus there are other good skis out there.

 

Thinking with next season's "NGT" plus the 169cm's bad press in addition to the East coast terrible snow year so far, it could happen. Already a New unmounted 15/16 Enforcer 169cm on fleabay for $600 or "Make Offer", so you never know.


You may be right.

post #11 of 22

I'm the same height but 15 pounds heavier than the OP and HATED the 169cm Enforcer, way too stiff, felt like a 2x4, no fun at all.  But the 177 was super fun, quick, snaked through the bumps, was quick in the trees, excellent in powder, rock solid doing high speed GS turns on the groomers.  Unfortunately, I've been injured and not skiing for eight weeks so I haven't been able to get on the Enforcer 93.  But there seem to be differing reports on the how the 93 compares to the 100.  I will get on a pair October 1 at Big Sky, but I have a number of skis that I need to demo so I will not get more than a couple runs on it.  We have demos in the shop in 177 and 185, but the conditions at Red Lodge are currently horrible so I'm not inclined to go beat up a pair.

post #12 of 22
Quote:
Originally Posted by mtcyclist View Post
 

I'm the same height but 15 pounds heavier than the OP and HATED the 169cm Enforcer, way too stiff, felt like a 2x4, no fun at all.  But the 177 was super fun, quick, snaked through the bumps, was quick in the trees, excellent in powder, rock solid doing high speed GS turns on the groomers.  Unfortunately, I've been injured and not skiing for eight weeks so I haven't been able to get on the Enforcer 93.  But there seem to be differing reports on the how the 93 compares to the 100.  I will get on a pair October 1 at Big Sky, but I have a number of skis that I need to demo so I will not get more than a couple runs on it.  We have demos in the shop in 177 and 185, but the conditions at Red Lodge are currently horrible so I'm not inclined to go beat up a pair.


I think we've had this conversation, haven't we?  

post #13 of 22

Probably, at a different venue.

post #14 of 22

I only got to do two short runs with the 169cm Enforcer on grabby machine made snow, bumps and groomers. Can't take my impression as a solid recommendation. I spent more time on the 177cm but all groomers in scraped off with some thin tossed up soft patches. I didn't have trouble with it, was surprised that the length felt easy but liked the Vantage 90cti 176cm better that day. Easier carving for me, although 90cti is narrower and lighter, not a apples to apples comparison. And again I'm not sure I should be on a 176/177 ski in bumps and trees. No doubt I'd think otherwise if I were out West with a season pass. Being hours from any 1/4 decent mountains and really only wanting to go around natural snow events...not a good recipe for growth.

post #15 of 22
Quote:
Originally Posted by mtcyclist View Post
 

Probably, at a different venue.


You were right. :)

post #16 of 22
Quote:
Originally Posted by mtcyclist View Post
 

I'm the same height but 15 pounds heavier than the OP and HATED the 169cm Enforcer, way too stiff, felt like a 2x4, no fun at all.  -

Quote:

Originally Posted by lakespapa View Post
 


I think we've had this conversation, haven't we?  

Quote:

Originally Posted by mtcyclist View Post
 

Probably, at a different venue.

Only I don't recall Gerry putting it quite like that before, "HATED"!

post #17 of 22

PSA, 169cm Enforcer New/demo bindings, $99 starting bid, currently at $304.99 ends in a day, one person placed allot of bids against two others.

I'll guess either the bidder doesn't read Epic, or is a short wide man.

http://www.ebay.com/itm/NORDICA-ENFORCER-SKIS-w-bindings-169-CM-NEW-2015-2016-/311549606214?

post #18 of 22
Quote:
Originally Posted by neonorchid View Post
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by mtcyclist View Post
 

I'm the same height but 15 pounds heavier than the OP and HATED the 169cm Enforcer, way too stiff, felt like a 2x4, no fun at all.  -

Quote:

Originally Posted by lakespapa View Post
 


I think we've had this conversation, haven't we?  

Quote:

Originally Posted by mtcyclist View Post
 

Probably, at a different venue.

Only I don't recall Gerry putting it quite like that before, "HATED"!


"Didn't like," I think it was.  

post #19 of 22
Quote:
Originally Posted by lakespapa View Post
 


"Didn't like," I think it was.  


Big difference. Coming from Gerry, I'd say "HATED" is about the same as saying, Warning, whatever you do, do not buy the 169 or a 99.9% probability you will seriously come to regret it!

post #20 of 22
Quote:
Originally Posted by neonorchid View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by lakespapa View Post

 


"Didn't like," I think it was.  


Big difference. Coming from Gerry, I'd say "HATED" is about the same as saying, Warning, whatever you do, do not buy the 169 or a 99.9% probability you will seriously come to regret it!

I'm glad I didn't, so I don't.
post #21 of 22
I used that word because I wanted to get across my severe dislike of this ski. It is literally a different ski than either the 177 or 185. If you like I could edit that post and change "HATED" to "severely disliked" or something else.words.gif
post #22 of 22
Quote:
Originally Posted by mtcyclist View Post

I used that word because I wanted to get across my severe dislike of this ski. It is literally a different ski than either the 177 or 185. If you like I could edit that post and change "HATED" to "severely disliked" or something else.words.gif


Perfectly ok. Personally, I wouldn't have said hate, but it wasn't really love until I demoed the 177.

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Ski Gear Discussion
EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › Ski Gear Discussion › which version of nordica enforcers should i get?