EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › Ski Gear Discussion › Please suggest ski length for Nordica Enforcer 100
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Please suggest ski length for Nordica Enforcer 100 - Page 2

post #31 of 56
Quote:
Originally Posted by KingGrump View Post

OP is 5'-7" & #140 lb, front side skier and like bumps. With the 177 he will just be floating along. The 177 will definitely be more stable than the 169 when he is floating along. 
However I believe skis are meant to be driven.    

I'm 5'-6", #165, decent skier. I would have no issues skiing the 169 Enforcer as my DD.   
IMHO, way too many skiers get longer skis looking for stability. Stability comes from within.
Anyway, stability is not one of the traits I really want from my skis when I'm in the bumps. 

If you really want a stable front side ski, go with a cheater GS. 

I'm just your size and weight (give or take 5 lbs.), and I found the 169 & the 177 to be different skis entirely. I could ski the 169 just fine, but for me it seemed to have one (short) turn shape in it. The 177, which I bought, is more versatile for me.

I'm not in the OP's weight class, though. I urge him to demo and see for himself.
post #32 of 56

Agree on the demo part. 

 

The enforcer is fairly soft and easy to engage in both the tip and tail. That said, still think #140 is a bit light to drive a 177.

post #33 of 56
Quote:
Originally Posted by KingGrump View Post
 

Agree on the demo part. 

 

The enforcer is fairly soft and easy to engage in both the tip and tail. That said, still think #140 is a bit light to drive a 177.


Yeah. That's the crux of the matter.  At his weight, he might not like the Enforcer in any length.

post #34 of 56

I'm 140 lbs, but a little taller than OP at 5'10". No problem driving the 177 Enforcer. I will say that the 177 skies very short and I didn't feel any need to ski the 169. More than anything with the Enforcer, be sure you want a hard charging ski. This ski wants to go fast!

post #35 of 56
Thread Starter 
Appreciate your advise!!
post #36 of 56
You could grow 6 inches and get the 185 as it was meant to be
post #37 of 56
Quote:
Originally Posted by neonorchid View Post
 

Interesting, I haven't looked at it from that perspective. As I had said, I didn't get the chance to ski the Enforcer 177cm in bumps, only the 169cm (different demo days, different mountains). I was basing my experience on how the Volkl Kendo 177 felt long in the tails in bumps (more me needing to pick better lines and being more relaxed, not holding back so much), compared to the Enforcer 100 169cm. 

 

Have you heard what the buzz is on the Enforcer 93 in a 169cm length, is it the same short changed deal as the Enforcer 100 in a 169cm?

 

I'm thinking about picking up the E93 this year.  I have the same question here.  is the 169cm length noticeably different or worse than the other longer lengths?

post #38 of 56
Quote:
Originally Posted by itpski View Post
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by neonorchid View Post
 

Interesting, I haven't looked at it from that perspective. As I had said, I didn't get the chance to ski the Enforcer 177cm in bumps, only the 169cm (different demo days, different mountains). I was basing my experience on how the Volkl Kendo 177 felt long in the tails in bumps (more me needing to pick better lines and being more relaxed, not holding back so much), compared to the Enforcer 100 169cm. 

 

Have you heard what the buzz is on the Enforcer 93 in a 169cm length, is it the same short changed deal as the Enforcer 100 in a 169cm?

 

I'm thinking about picking up the E93 this year.  I have the same question here.  is the 169cm length noticeably different or worse than the other longer lengths?


Yes — but only from what I've heard. Some people have even preferred the E93 185 over the 177 — people who had liked the 177 E100.  

post #39 of 56

I'm resurrecting this older thread because I have a similar question that relates to the Enforcer 100 in 169 vs. 177.  I am 5'9" and 150 lbs.  I've skiied both extensively (because I perhaps foolishly bought both - one a demo and one new).  I prefer the shorter length when in bumps and trees, but, as others have said, it feels a bit dead compared to the 177.  I don't get the same flex and rebound on groomed runs in the 169 that I do in the 177.  I have demo bindings on the 169 and non-demo bindings on the 177.  Could the larger plates of the demo bindings on the 169 be contributing to a deadening of the feel of the 169 to any material degree, or is it just the ski?

post #40 of 56
Quote:
Originally Posted by ATLSkier View Post
 

I'm resurrecting this older thread because I have a similar question that relates to the Enforcer 100 in 169 vs. 177.  I am 5'9" and 150 lbs.  I've skiied both extensively (because I perhaps foolishly bought both - one a demo and one new).  I prefer the shorter length when in bumps and trees, but, as others have said, it feels a bit dead compared to the 177.  I don't get the same flex and rebound on groomed runs in the 169 that I do in the 177.  I have demo bindings on the 169 and non-demo bindings on the 177.  Could the larger plates of the demo bindings on the 169 be contributing to a deadening of the feel of the 169 to any material degree, or is it just the ski?


I'm guessing it's the ski. I demoed the 169 (on Aattack 13 demos, which are, granted, pretty good bindings), and it seemed dead to me.

post #41 of 56
Quote:
Originally Posted by ATLSkier View Post
 

I'm resurrecting this older thread because I have a similar question that relates to the Enforcer 100 in 169 vs. 177.  I am 5'9" and 150 lbs.  I've skied both extensively (because I perhaps foolishly bought both - one a demo and one new).  I prefer the shorter length when in bumps and trees, but, as others have said, it feels a bit dead compared to the 177.  I don't get the same flex and rebound on groomed runs in the 169 that I do in the 177.  I have demo bindings on the 169 and non-demo bindings on the 177.  Could the larger plates of the demo bindings on the 169 be contributing to a deadening of the feel of the 169 to any material degree, or is it just the ski?

 

I had, well still have, the Enforcer 100 in a 169.I'm 5'4" and 145lbs.

 

Before I lost 20lbs, I thought the ski was one of the best I've ever been on. Fast forward a few months, I've lost about 20-25lbs since then, and just feel as if I don't have enough heft to really drive the ski. Granted, I'm skiing even more aggressively now, but I just can't make the ski do what I want it to as easily. I don't think it's you, nor do I think it's in your head.

 

I wish Nordica made a version of the Enforcer without metal...well, maybe in the 169 for us lighter guys. I've skied the Patron in a 177, which is right on the threshold of being too long for me, and found it easier to ski than the 169 Enforcer...I didn't take it in the trees though. Demo'd the 177 Enforcer, and gave it back after one very sketchy run. YMMV.

 

EDIT** I can still ski the hell out of it, but after 3 runs or so, I'm done. Legs jelly.

post #42 of 56
Quote:
Originally Posted by hypergruv View Post
 

 

I had, well still have, the Enforcer 100 in a 169.I'm 5'4" and 145lbs.

 

Before I lost 20lbs, I thought the ski was one of the best I've ever been on. Fast forward a few months, I've lost about 20-25lbs since then, and just feel as if I don't have enough heft to really drive the ski. Granted, I'm skiing even more aggressively now, but I just can't make the ski do what I want it to as easily. I don't think it's you, nor do I think it's in your head.

 

I wish Nordica made a version of the Enforcer without metal...well, maybe in the 169 for us lighter guys. I've skied the Patron in a 177, which is right on the threshold of being too long for me, and found it easier to ski than the 169 Enforcer...I didn't take it in the trees though. Demo'd the 177 Enforcer, and gave it back after one very sketchy run. YMMV.

 

EDIT** I can still ski the hell out of it, but after 3 runs or so, I'm done. Legs jelly.

I actually don't have any trouble driving the 169, and I think I actually ski it better.  It's just not quite as much fun screaming down a groomed run and flexing into the ski as the 177, which I think is a tad long for me.

post #43 of 56
Quote:
Originally Posted by ATLSkier View Post
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by hypergruv View Post
 

 

I had, well still have, the Enforcer 100 in a 169.I'm 5'4" and 145lbs.

 

Before I lost 20lbs, I thought the ski was one of the best I've ever been on. Fast forward a few months, I've lost about 20-25lbs since then, and just feel as if I don't have enough heft to really drive the ski. Granted, I'm skiing even more aggressively now, but I just can't make the ski do what I want it to as easily. I don't think it's you, nor do I think it's in your head.

 

I wish Nordica made a version of the Enforcer without metal...well, maybe in the 169 for us lighter guys. I've skied the Patron in a 177, which is right on the threshold of being too long for me, and found it easier to ski than the 169 Enforcer...I didn't take it in the trees though. Demo'd the 177 Enforcer, and gave it back after one very sketchy run. YMMV.

 

EDIT** I can still ski the hell out of it, but after 3 runs or so, I'm done. Legs jelly.

I actually don't have any trouble driving the 169, and I think I actually ski it better.  It's just not quite as much fun screaming down a groomed run and flexing into the ski as the 177, which I think is a tad long for me.


You're borderline weight on that ski. I outweigh you by thirty-odd pounds; the 177 is fine for me.

post #44 of 56

The Enforcer 100 in 169 and 177 are like two entirely different skis.  The 169 doesn't ski like the 177 and doesn't have the same feel either.  I've skied both and wouldn't take the 169 even if it was free.  I spent an entire day on the 177 and it was great fun; on groomers, in the trees and in the bumps.  I'm 5'7" 150 pounds and will recommend the 177 all day to people, but I will never recommend the 169 to anyone.  If someone tells me they're interested in the 169, I'll try to talk them in demoing something else, like the Atomic Vantage 100 CTi.  At 5'9", 150 pounds, the 177 should be perfect.

post #45 of 56
Quote:
Originally Posted by mtcyclist View Post
 

The Enforcer 100 in 169 and 177 are like two entirely different skis.  The 169 doesn't ski like the 177 and doesn't have the same feel either.  I've skied both and wouldn't take the 169 even if it was free.  I spent an entire day on the 177 and it was great fun; on groomers, in the trees and in the bumps.  I'm 5'7" 150 pounds and will recommend the 177 all day to people, but I will never recommend the 169 to anyone.  If someone tells me they're interested in the 169, I'll try to talk them in demoing something else, like the Atomic Vantage 100 CTi.  At 5'9", 150 pounds, the 177 should be perfect.


Well, strong 150 lb. skiers rock the 177. The rest of us need a little heft.

post #46 of 56
Quote:
Originally Posted by lakespapa View Post
 


Well, strong 150 lb. skiers rock the 177. The rest of us need a little heft.

It ain't strength, it is finesse.  :rotflmao:

post #47 of 56
Quote:
Originally Posted by mtcyclist View Post
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by lakespapa View Post
 


Well, strong 150 lb. skiers rock the 177. The rest of us need a little heft.

It ain't strength, it is finesse.  :rotflmao:


Ok — highly skilled 150 pound skiers rock the 177. The rest of us need heft. :D

post #48 of 56

But, "highly skilled" 150 pound skiers can barely tolerate a run on the 169 length.  That ski does not respond to finesse.

post #49 of 56
Quote:
Originally Posted by mtcyclist View Post
 

But, "highly skilled" 150 pound skiers can barely tolerate a run on the 169 length.  That ski does not respond to finesse.


I was ok on the 169 — maybe heft helps here — but I didn't find it versatile. It was fine, but rigid, for short turns; I couldn't find whatever was needed for medium and long turns. 

post #50 of 56

The 169 is a stiff ski.  I like stiff skis, love my Nordica FA 84EDT, but the 169cm Enforcer is stiff in a way that is just extremely unpleasant.  I think your description is pretty accurate, it's a one trick pony.  The 177 just does it all and does it quite well.  It's a lot more agile in the trees and bumps than I suspected it would be, I prefer my Soul Riders for both, but if the Soul Rider didn't exist, I'd be very happy with the Enforcer 100.  Edge grip with the Enforcer 100 is the standard fabulous Nordica edge grip, nobody does that better, except maybe Head.

post #51 of 56
Quote:
Originally Posted by mtcyclist View Post
 

 Edge grip with the Enforcer 100 is the standard fabulous Nordica edge grip, nobody does that better, except maybe Head.

 

I'm liking Kästle, too. My Blossom's pretty fantastic, but you're talking 66mm underfoot.

post #52 of 56
Quote:
Originally Posted by mtcyclist View Post
 

The 169 is a stiff ski.  I like stiff skis, love my Nordica FA 84EDT, but the 169cm Enforcer is stiff in a way that is just extremely unpleasant.  I think your description is pretty accurate, it's a one trick pony.  The 177 just does it all and does it quite well.  It's a lot more agile in the trees and bumps than I suspected it would be, I prefer my Soul Riders for both, but if the Soul Rider didn't exist, I'd be very happy with the Enforcer 100.  Edge grip with the Enforcer 100 is the standard fabulous Nordica edge grip, nobody does that better, except maybe Head.

 

mtcyclist, what length are your Soul Riders?

post #53 of 56

My Soul Riders are 177.

post #54 of 56

Hi dbis,

 

I'm 5'8", an athletic 200lbs and have been skiing for about 45 years.  My style is fairly aggressive on-piste (fast, steep & tight).  Like you, this season I've been looking for great all-mountain skis and have demo'd the Enforcer 93s (in 177 & 185), Bonifides (173), & Sky7s (180)...  I have not tried the 100s, but here is my experience on the 93s.  Fortunately, I had roughly the same conditions (soft pack, firm, some shallow powder, similar temps, etc.)  so I have a pretty good comparison between all these great skis.  The Enforcer 93s were by far the best skis for my style in all snow conditions although the others had some strong points.  They were probably the most effortless skis I've ever skied: carved & held edge beautifully on steeps, floated the powder very well and glided the flats with stability at high & low speeds.  So, I believe you've made a good decision on the Enforcer's overall construction & quality.  My favorite between the two sizes was definitely the 185s: more float, stability, edge-hold, faster in GS turns and negligible added effort to push them into tight slalom turns vs. the 177s (I skied them for 11 straight hours and my legs felt like I could ski through the night).  I can't say the same about the others that I had to drive much harder.  I wouldn't hesitate to go up to 193 on these skis.   I do agree with the comments that it would be great if you could demo both lengths, but based on my experience you won't regret going longer with these skis.

 

Hope this helps...

post #55 of 56
Quote:
Originally Posted by eshumake View Post
 

Hi dbis,

 

I'm 5'8", an athletic 200lbs and have been skiing for about 45 years.  My style is fairly aggressive on-piste (fast, steep & tight).  Like you, this season I've been looking for great all-mountain skis and have demo'd the Enforcer 93s (in 177 & 185), Bonifides (173), & Sky7s (180)...  I have not tried the 100s, but here is my experience on the 93s.  Fortunately, I had roughly the same conditions (soft pack, firm, some shallow powder, similar temps, etc.)  so I have a pretty good comparison between all these great skis.  The Enforcer 93s were by far the best skis for my style in all snow conditions although the others had some strong points.  They were probably the most effortless skis I've ever skied: carved & held edge beautifully on steeps, floated the powder very well and glided the flats with stability at high & low speeds.  So, I believe you've made a good decision on the Enforcer's overall construction & quality.  My favorite between the two sizes was definitely the 185s: more float, stability, edge-hold, faster in GS turns and negligible added effort to push them into tight slalom turns vs. the 177s (I skied them for 11 straight hours and my legs felt like I could ski through the night).  I can't say the same about the others that I had to drive much harder.  I wouldn't hesitate to go up to 193 on these skis.   I do agree with the comments that it would be great if you could demo both lengths, but based on my experience you won't regret going longer with these skis.

 

Hope this helps...


Just a note, reviewers have reported a difference between the 93 & 100 (other than, of course, waist). Whereas many of them loved the 100 at 177, the 177 wasn't preferred at 177 — 185 or 193 seemed better.

post #56 of 56
I have 65 lbs and eleven inches on you but I couldn't imagine skiing anything less than the 193s that I bought. If stuck in the middle go long. I am fairly aggressive and the additional length really centers you in the sweet spot. Jmho.
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 › Please suggest ski length for Nordica Enforcer 100