Individual Review Heritage Labs FL 105

[tomahawkins]

Has anybody skied or at least hand flexed an rc85? I didn't know these were available. Any metal?

 

[salvatore]

Has anybody skied or at least hand flexed an rc85? I didn't know these were available. Any metal?

AFAIK, they don't exist yet. Best bet would be to contact Marshal directly to see if he might have a demo.

No metal, same layup as the FL105, what Marshal describes as "the most metal non-metal ski."

 

[salvatore]

There is a thread dedicated to the RC85 & RC95 over at TGR. This might help answer your query...

The question was posed: "How do flex compare with fl105 in both rc models?"
To which Marshal responded: "I am targeting the same flex profile and stiffness."

 

[Rc231]

AFAIK, they don't exist yet. Best bet would be to contact Marshal directly to see if he might have a demo.

No metal, same layup as the FL105, what Marshal describes as "the most metal non-metal ski."

Fwiw I just got my 185 fl105s and they hand flex a little bit stiffer than my 2022 189 bonafide 97s especially in the front half of the ski. These are not soft noodles. Waiting on bindings before I can ski them but I have high expectations.
Marshal is super helpful answering questions.

 

[salvatore]

Fwiw I just got my 185 fl105s and they hand flex a little bit stiffer than my 2022 189 bonafide 97s especially in the front half of the ski. These are not soft noodles. Waiting on bindings before I can ski them but I have high expectations.
Marshal is super helpful answering questions.

What I love about the FL105 layup is the stiff tip with a slightly softer tail. That tip is why they just blow through variable snow/chop/3D like it's not there, but with the softer tail you can get them to release when you need them to. That tip rocker, as well, means they have no problem in soft snow. I stand by my statement that they are the most versatile ski I've been on. By far.

And the dampest, without a doubt.

I would also say the most confidence-inspiring. I skied them all day today, and just kept the pedal down all day. Groomers, steep soft snow, chalk, bumps, everything. I am already wondering if I even need a 110ish under-foot ski. I could go right from the FL105 straight to something like the R120 (or a Wildcat, a Billy Goat, a Praxis GPO). Something for days when it snows and Day +1, maybe +2. But if it hasn't snowed in 3 or 4 days, my goodness the FL105 is tremendous.

 

[ted]

MMMM, low camber stiffer tip, softer tail, sounds like a modern Volkl freeride flex without the tinny part. pretty sure an Rc85 is headed for my quiver.
@Brian Finch I know at one point. Your were grooving on a Kendo, is the FL 105 a similar flex profile?

 

[Brian Finch]

MMMM, low camber stiffer tip, softer tail, sounds like a modern Volkl freeride flex without the tinny part. pretty sure an Rc85 is headed for my quiver.
@Brian Finch I know at one point. Your were grooving on a Kendo, is the FL 105 a similar flex profile?

This ski is less demanding, softer than the Kendo. It’s got a bigger sweet spot.

 

[Full Trucker]

I am already wondering if I even need a 110ish under-foot ski

Unpopular opinion: a 105 class of ski is all you ever need* until you don't, and then you'll want the 120.




*for soft snow conditions

 

[AngryAnalyst]

Can anyone compare the HL105 feel to the R99 or a Dynastar Pro-Rider/M-Pro 105? I’m glad HL105 feels better than the Volkl Mantra line, but I’ve never really gotten along with a ski without metal on harder snow.

Asking mostly out of curiosity unless I perform a radical quiver cull given I need another ~100 underfoot ski like a hole in the head.

 

[Rc231]

I have a 185 FL105 and a 189 bonafide 97 (2022). I'm still dialing in the tune on the FL105s but they are damper than the bonafides and prefer higher speeds. On the firm I the different stiffness profiles are apparent (FL105s are noticeably stiffer up front) and the longer radius. I have also skied an r99 188 am for a day and the FL105 is a noticeably stronger ski and plows through chop much better, on firm the differences are mostly due to shape and stiffness, the r99am was a bit soft for me but fun to load up and pop out of turns, the FL105 is stiffer and damper so doesn't return as much energy.

 

[salvatore]

I have a 185 FL105 and a 189 bonafide 97 (2022). I'm still dialing in the tune on the FL105s but they are damper than the bonafides and prefer higher speeds. On the firm I the different stiffness profiles are apparent (FL105s are noticeably stiffer up front) and the longer radius. I have also skied an r99 188 am for a day and the FL105 is a noticeably stronger ski and plows through chop much better, on firm the differences are mostly due to shape and stiffness, the r99am was a bit soft for me but fun to load up and pop out of turns, the FL105 is stiffer and damper so doesn't return as much energy.

I'd be curious what you settle on with regards to the tune. I have been thinking about dropping mine from 1.5/2 to 1/2.

I just put another day on mine. So many different conditions, handled everything well.

 

[AngryAnalyst]

. I have also skied an r99 188 am for a day and the FL105 is a noticeably stronger ski and plows through chop much better, on firm the differences are mostly due to shape and stiffness, the r99am was a bit soft for me but fun to load up and pop out of turns, the FL105 is stiffer and damper so doesn't return as much energy.

Thanks for the beta!

My R99 is the comp core, which feels really nice to me on hard snow. It can be a bit of a handful in bumps though I think some of that is the tip shape. Not sure how I’d feel about something dramatically stiffer (the Legend Pro also isn’t a very stiff ski). Hopefully I can try a FL105 one of these days. I’m definitely intrigued, I love damp and long radius designs.

 

[Rc231]

Thanks for the beta!

My R99 is the comp core, which feels really nice to me on hard snow. It can be a bit of a handful in bumps though I think some of that is the tip shape. Not sure how I’d feel about something dramatically stiffer (the Legend Pro also isn’t a very stiff ski). Hopefully I can try a FL105 one of these days. I’m definitely intrigued, I love damp and long radius designs.

per Marshal the fl105 flex should be like a comp tip with an am tail so not stiffer than the comp overall. I felt like the am tip was too soft in crud the fl feels great there. I think the r99 is a better hard snow shape and the fl105 is a better soft mixed snow shape.
Mine are tuned to 1.5/2 and are now feeling good everywhere except grippy hard pack where I’m getting a little bit of inconsistent tip engagement. I did some more gummi work on the tip to dull a bit further in which I think will fix it but not sure the next day they go out. They are great on 1-8” of soft and blow through chop very nicely.
I didn’t have any issues in soft bumps, the skis pivot nicely as long as you don’t get in the backseat. Have hit any hard bumps yet.

 

[James]

Ok, here’s my initial thoughts after 4 days of ripping about on the new FL 105 in the 178cm: BOOM!!

How about the length for heavier skiers? 178 is pretty good East it seems, but maybe not west.

 

[Brian Finch]

How about the length for heavier skiers? 178 is pretty good East it seems, but maybe not west.

The paradoxical thing I found with last storm was that in 20" of the snow, the length was perfect. I was wanting to try the 185 on firm stuff.

That said, I'm only 5'9" / 150 pounds.

This is myself @ your stomping grounds:

5 Great VECTOR Exercises for Skiers

Ski season is coming up quickly, and it’s time to get ready to hit the slopes.

kayezen.com

*I'm not the D1 / Europa Cupper

 

[Rc231]

How about the length for heavier skiers? 178 is pretty good East it seems, but maybe not west.

I'm 6'3" 205lbs and on the 185. I'm getting them dialed in but they are not too short, I don't think I can find a speed limit without a closed course. Marshal is my size and suggested the 185 for my terrain. The 192s sound awesome for open terrain but at that point I might err on the fl113 if I could find a set for my dream every ski I want quiver.

 

[James]

I'm 6'3" 205lbs and on the 185. I'm getting them dialed in but they are not too short,

Not worried about too short, mainly too long for the east.
What of the enormous sidecut? 27.5m at 185?

 

[salvatore]

Not worried about too short, mainly too long for the east.
What of the enormous sidecut? 27.5m at 185?

Here's my take:
I'm 5'6" 158 on the 178cm. At my size, I think it is a East Coast charger for sure, but one I wouldn't hesitate to ski every day, regardless of conditions. If I was full time out West, especially in a place with more open terrain, I'd probably move up to the 185cm.

 

[Rc231]

Not worried about too short, mainly too long for the east.
What of the enormous sidecut? 27.5m at 185?

27m is not an enormous sidecut, I have 2 other skis in my quiver that are longer. These are a mixed snow ski that can carve long turns and slarve shorter ones, while mowing through chop. A shorter radius would make them hookier in funky snow. I haven't skied these back to back with my bonafide 97s (189/r20) but I would say they are easier at making shorter turns in soft snow due to more tail rocker but prefer longer turns on the hardpack and have better suspension through crud with a higher speed preference and limit.

If you want something that is biased towards going slower and shorter turns there are a lot of other options on the market.

 

[James]

27m is not an enormous sidecut, I have 2 other skis in my quiver that are longer.

Certainly not common for these days anyway. Though we’ve been putting too much sidecut in skis recently. It’s shapely for 2000, and non existent shapely for pre 93. What are the other skis?

But how the flex integrates with the shape is way more important than numbers.

So how do you find the non metal construction? I’m interested to know the pluses of that.