2018 Nordica Enforcer 100 2018 Nordica Enforcer 100

2018 Nordica Enforcer 100 Skis

Now comprising four models, from 93 to 115 mm, the Enforcer series has been a smash success for Nordica, and this is the model that got it all going. When it debuted two years ago, the original 100-mm Enforcer’s reputation, bolstered by unanimously ravey mag-test reviews and message-board chatter, quickly spread. By October, Nordica was sold out, and stores were soon picked clean of all sizes. Last year Nordica added a 93-mm version; this year an Enforcer 110 and even a 115-mm Enforcer Pro (191 cm only). It’s nice to have width options to suit any all-mountain preference, but the 100 remains a ski that other ski brands should be benchmarking against. The Enforcer is a flawless blend of all the vertical-sidewall, metal-reinforced power and edginess you’d expect from a Mantra or a Bonafide, but with way more forgiveness and exuberance than a ski this sturdy should have. Attack or lay back, expert or intermediate, skid or smear…the Enforcer always seems happy. Flex, sidecut, tapering, and sidewall construction all work together to deliver a ride quality that instills confidence and makes you a better skier. Testers routinely rave about how “intuitive” the Enforcer is to ski. And while they agree that it’s an expert-level, hard-charging style of attack that really brings it to life, they’re certain it will also reveal its charms to all but the most cautious intermediates. Hopefully this time Nordica made enough to go around.

Testers said:

Danielle Nichols:  “This is my fave always and forever. So versatile. Perfect blend of friendly and beefy. Just moves so well on any kind of snow or terrain.”

Jamie Bisbee:  “I’m a big fan of this ski in the 185-cm length, so I gave the 177 a test. Same great ski, just a little quicker edge to edge. An all-mountain short-turn crud slayer.”

Benny Wax:  “A great all-mountain ski. Stable in all snow types. Best for a strong skier, not a timid one.”

Caroline Kessler:  “Holds an edge at any speed, yet still playful. Handles anything on the mountain. Great for an aggressive all-mountain skier.”

Brooks Curran:  “A very good carver, stable over inconsistent snow, grips well throughout the turn. Stiff, poppy tails send you to the front of the ski consistently. I moved the mount back a centimeter and loved it.”

Jake Inger:  “Wide enough for a powder day, but also charges groomers. Great in spring slush.”

Testers

Danielle Nichols Ski Tester Headshot Image

Danielle Nichols

Age: 40Height: 5'3"Weight: 150 lbs.

Ski Style: Fast fall line ripper

Jamie Bisbee Ski Tester Headshot Image

Jamie Bisbee

Age: 43Height: 5'10"Weight: 190 lbs.

Ski Style: Fast and Furious, like the movie

Benny Wax Ski Tester Headshot Image

Benny Wax

Age: 67Height: 5'6"Weight: 190 lbs.

Ski Style: Smooth and creamy, lots of turns

Caroline Kessler Ski Tester Headshot Image

Caroline Kessler

Age: 22Height: 5'9"Weight: 160 lbs.

Ski Style: Fast and aggressive, yet playful

Brooks Curran Ski Tester Headshot Image

Brooks Curran

Age: 23Height: 6'2"Weight: 165 lbs.

Ski Style: Ex-racer, now backcountry freerider

Jake Inger Ski Tester Headshot Image

Jake Inger

Age: 20Height: 5'11"Weight: 170 lbs.

Ski Style: Fast and Energetic

236 Comments on the “2018 Nordica Enforcer 100 Skis”

  1. Hi,

    I’m 6′, 210lbs, and an advanced skier (ex Highschool racer, 26 now). I grew up skiing on the east coast, and am looking at the enforcer 100’s as my new all mountain ski but cant decide if i want the 177 or 185cm length. Given my background, I love skiing very aggressively down groomers and for that reason i’m somewhat leaning towards the 185.

    However, my family has moved out to Steamboat, CO which has made me fall in love with tree skiing (though i’d say i’m still more aggressive on groomers). My concern is that the 185 might be a tad too sluggish making quick turns in the trees when needed.

    Do you think the 177’s quicker performance in the trees would outweigh the loss in stability on groomers when compared to the 185’s in my case?

    Lastly, love you’re reviews. Best ones out there.

    Thanks,
    Harrison

    1. Thanks, Harrison!
      I’m 6/2 220 and I’m on the newer 2021 version in the 191. I think for that year’s ski in the 185, you’re going to get all you need. Still amazingly quick for what it is, and yes the 177’s will be quicker. but I don’t think you’ll have an issue with it, especially given the benefit for going fast on groomers. They’re absolute Cadillacs out there. Have fun!
      SE

  2. Heya! I’m looking for a new ski to add to my wall. I’m 5’9″, 180 pounds, an expert skiier, I’d put myself about 9-9.5/10. I live in Jersey, I’d be using this ski for any times I go to ny/vt, or out west. Im a retired racer, currently skiing the volkl Code S, which up till this point are my favorite skis I’ve ever touched, love the responsiveness and reaction time. However, they’re not good in crud, only on the ice/groomers. I want something a bit more out there for either fresh snow, bumps, or powder. I’ve tried the Enforcer 93s and really enjoyed them in Tahoe, but they felt a bit weak in the heavier crud. I’m looking for a new pair for a trip out west, and people seem to love the 100. Would it be a good for for me? My codes are 165cm, the longest ski I enjoy skiing is a 170, but I usually try to stick around 165. If I get the 100s would I be better off with the 93s or the 100s, and if I get either. Should I go for the 169cm or the 177? Thanks a bunch!

    1. HI Brian!
      I think the 169 Enforcer 100 is the way to go. You won’t get caught up in the crud with those, and even though your Codes are still going to be superior on the groomers and ice, I’m pretty impressed with the Enforcer’s edge hold and carving ability. I’d say 177 would be on the long side, especially given the 165 length of the Code. The 100 gives you a bigger gap between your skis as the 93 may offer too much of an overlap. Have fun!
      SE

  3. I did my research, read lots of these posts and in September 2019 got the 177cm Enforcer 100’s from Ski Essentials. So excited! So I’m not trying to figure out which skis obviously but I have a question regarding the learning curve going from my old Atomic Nomad 164’s, 76 mm neck to the longer, wider Enforcers. I’m 5′ 11″, 180 lbs, and very athletic although not so young anymore (64) and spend most of my time on single blacks, soft moguls, bowls, and going at a cautious pace through trees. So after skiing for 10 years on the shorter Atomics how difficult do you estimate that my transition will be? In a week I’ll be at Taos and will be doing the ski week (6 days of group lessons). There has been very little snow lately and except for an inch today there is no more snow in the forecast for the next 10 days, although that could change. May be a lot of hard pack I presume. I could bring both pairs of skis. I figured it is a perfect opportunity to get the week of lessons on the new skis but I’m a little concerned about needing 3 or more days just to adapt to the Enforcers. Any opinion on what I should do?….Do the week of lessons on my old familiar skis on no/very little powder or just go for it on the new Enforcers? Will it feel terribly awkward?

      1. Thanks for the comment…of course I’m bringing the new Enforcers!! The question is how tough will the transition be from short, narrow skis to longer fatter skis? After one warm up run in the morning I’ll be in a ski off with 50 people in a ski lesson that puts everyone in appropriate groups for the entire week. Will I be so awkward on the new skis that I should do the lessons on the old skis in the mornings and switch to the Enforcers in the afternoon to get used to them on my own and maybe bring them to the lessons after a few days…what do you think?

        Thanks

      2. Jerry,
        I’d leave the old skis and commit to the new. Perhaps awkward at first, but there’s nothing like learning on the job!
        SE

  4. My son (16yo, 5’10”. 140 pounds) and I (55yo, 5’11”, 170 pounds) have both been skiing exclusively east coast, hard packed groomers for the last 10 years, me on a pair of Nordica Fire Arrow Pro 80 in 172cm and him on a pair of Fischer Race SC Pro RC4 slalom skis in 155cm (he was shorter when we bought them). Both great skis for high-speed carving on groomers and ice, which is mostly what we’ve done on our home turf at Mt. Sunapee

    We’re planning on transitioning to skiing out west, and now that he’s older and closer to my size thinking of sharing an all mountain ski that we could take turns using, and want to buy a pair of skis that are good for off piste/trees/crud/medium powder and maybe the occasional mogul. The Nordica enforcer 100s seem like they’d be a good fit, not least because they’re said to ski ‘short’ so should be manageable by him while he’s still growing if we buy a length for me. I’m assuming the 177 makes sense (my skis prior to the Fire Arrow were a pair of Screams in 185, which I always felt were too long), but would value your input

    1. HI Simon!
      I think the 177 is the way to go. Probably right on the money. We’ve re-evaluated our “skis short” claim over the past few years and are now feeling that their stability puts them more true to size. Have fun!
      SE

  5. Hi!
    Highly interested in buying a pair of Enforcer 100 or 110s.

    39yrs, 15 years of skiing after a good while of snowboarding. Highly AT focused the last 10yrs (30-40days/season). Now back to more resort/sidecountry with daughter, family, friends…

    I am JUST 6‘2, 160lbs, bicyle road racer, so pretty lean but strong legs. Long torso, short-ish legs. Advanced skier, confident but not always perfect style. Have skied some pretty steep bc stuff, challenged in crud, crust sometimes. I like short/med turns and generally finesse skiing in good AT boots.

    Have had many K2s 174-181 rocker/non rocker (baker, backlash, sideshow) . 181 felt ok but a tad planky. Currently Wailer 112 hybrid 184s and K2 Coomba 104 177, both very easy to ski.

    I ski in Europe, Alps and Norway.

    Would like to have quiver of one with a slightly more stable feel. Leaning towards Enforcer 100 in 177 or 185.

    Not a too much more demanding ski though 🙂 Hated Nordica Steadfasts, ie.

    Thanks in advance for your input!

    1. Hi Dan!
      Just to throw a wrench in your system, have you checked out the 2020 Enforcer 104? If you’re truly torn between the 100 and the 110, I’d recommend a second look for the 104. Based on your description, however, between the 100 and the 110, I’d recommend the 100 in the 185. Have fun!
      SE

  6. Hi – I am about to buy the Enforcer 100 ski and need some advice on the length of the ski. I am 5’ 11’’ and 180 pounds. Most of my skiing is either Australia (hard packed and occasional sort day) or Japan (mixed between groomers and off-piste powder in the trees). I am also planning a trip to Utah and Idaho in Feb. I am an advanced skier and looking at either a 177cm or 185cm length. From the reviews I have read they ski a bit short so am considering the 185cm length but these may also be too long. What length do you recommend? Thanks.

    1. Hi Pete!
      I think you’ll like the 177 better. You’ll have more control, and they’re pretty darn stable, so even at speed, they’ll hold nicely. Have fun!
      SE

  7. Hello – Looking at buying a pair of 2018 Nordica Enforcers (likely the 100). I currently ski the 2017 Soul 7 in a 172. I am looking for a stiffer ski to ski on non powder days. I ski a lot of bumps and trees but also steep bowls. Thoughts on length? 169?

    1. Hi Sid!
      If you’ve been comfortable on the 172 Soul, I’d say the 169 E100 is a good choice, especially for bumps and steeps. Have fun!
      SE

  8. I’m looking to get back into skiing after many years away. Looking for a versatile ski to seek out powder In The trees but still great on groomers. I’m an intermediate skier and I like railing into corners. Mostly skiing in Colorado and New Mexico.

    I’m 5’7” and 165lbs.

    Was thinking the e100 169 might be right? Or e93?

    1. HI Coleman!
      Sounds like you would prefer the 93 over the 100–it corners better on groomers for sure, but still has some good flotation to it. I think the 169 is the proper size. Have fun!
      SE

  9. I am 70 years old (founder of Bowflex so I do a fair amount of strength training) and in good shape. I am 6′ 195 and I currently ski Stockli Storms and my old boots are Technica (they are several years old). I am a fairly good skiier but would not put me in the expert category at all. I perfer groomed slopes and I like speed. I have two total knees so no more pain while I ski. I think my current skis are 188 but am not in a place to confirm them at this time. I don’t ski moguls and only ski the trees when I go with my friends to Utah. I am wanting to purchase the Enforcer and would like to know your opinion of the ski for me (93 or 100) and if I should look into new boots as I am sure technology has changed alot although I ski just fine with these boots. Love your expertise and comments.

    1. Hi Roland!

      I would go with the 93. The 93 performs better on groomed slopes as it’s quicker edge to edge. It’s also easier on the knees. A wide ski with a lot of torsional stiffness, like the Enforcer 100, can be pretty challenging for those of us with bad knees. Essentially the wider a ski, the more leverage it has over your joints. I would definitely look into new boots too if you think yours are getting worn out. There’s nothing better than starting fresh with a new pair of boots and a great ski like the ENforcer 93. For length, you really don’t need to go that long. I think 177 cm would be more fun for you than the 185 cm Enforcer 93.

      Hope that helps, have a fantastic season!

      SE

      1. What binding on you recommending for the 93? Thanks for all the advice. Do you guys still have the 93 at 177cm in stock?

      2. Hi Roland!
        We pair either the Marker Griffon 13 or the Tyrolia Attack 13 with the Enforcer 93. Quick glance at our website, and it looks like we have 2019 E93 in 177 in stock!
        SE

  10. Great review- regarding the Enforcer 100- like everyone else I am looking for lenth advice. I am going to be in CO for a few days on the Enforcers and trying to get the right length. I am 5’7 and 170lbs. My current ski is the Blizzard Brahma with I have in 173cm and use mostly in the northeast and find to be a perfect length. Out west I will be both on trail and also in the bowls. I am a fairly aggressive skier but not a super hard charger. I see myself being right between the 169cm and 177cm. Last year I was on the Soul 7 for a couple of days in 180cm and found it just a little too long. Any thoughts and suggestions would really be appreciated.
    Thanks so much.

    1. Hi Gary!
      They’re pretty stable and solid skis–I should think you’ll get the performance you need out of the 169. If you found the Soul in the 180 to be long, my guess is that you’ll feel the same way about the E100 in the 177. Hope that helps!
      SE

  11. I need some advice. I’m set on Nordica Enforcer 100, but unsure about what length. I’m 5’10” and 190lbs. I’m an agressive, advanced skier and ski 50/50 on and off-piste (no parks or moguls). I prefer short to medium turns at fairly high speed, and I don’t mind smearing some turns either. 🙂
    I’m not doing much charge-down-the-mountain-big-turn-style. I mainly ski in Europe, so shifting conditions is common. From what I gather, I’m between the 177 and 185. I think the 177 would be a good choice wanting a nimbler ski and not so much the stability in high speeds, but reading that they ski short makes me hesitate – I do want the float too. What do you think?

    1. Hi Mikael!
      It definitely comes down to aggressiveness. If you’re skiing fast and making long turns, size up, but if you like nimble and shorter turns, then go with the 177. They do ski a bit short, but they’re also pretty substantial, so I wouldn’t necessarily worry about the lack of stability with the shorter length. Overall, I’d recommend the 177. Hope that helps!
      SE

      1. I would agree with Mikael. I’m 5’10” (and a bit heavier) and just demoed both 185 followed by the 177. The 185s were great for high-speed carving, but I struggled a bit with tight turns — felt like I had to muscle the ski a bit. The 177 seemed to be great in all situations. I had no problem transitioning from moguls to high-speed medium turns (as you call them) to full speed carves (which you can lean into for days on this ski). I really didn’t find a speed limit and the 177s blasted through crud and bumpy groomers without an issue. Was skiing on packed-powder/crud conditions (not much ice) for both days.

  12. Greetings,

    My husband and I are both looking into purchasing the Enforcer. With his size 6’4” he is obviously getting the 193. I am having a hard time deciding on the 169 or 177. I am 5’8” athletic build. We are both advanced skiers, been skiing over 30 years, and ski pretty fast & aggressively. We are also now skiing with our kids though and are spending more time on the groomed runs with them. I need to be able to ski backwards to film or instruct my children, but when we break free, I want my ski to match my ski style. Does the enforcer sound like a good match and if so can you recommend a size for me? Thanks for your time.

    Janice

    1. Hi Janice!
      I’d say to get the 177 if you are on the fence. For those times with your kids, it may be cumbersome, but as you say, you’d like the ski to match your style, which sounds to me like the 177. Hope that helps!
      SE

  13. I’m a very heavy skier trying to decide between the 177 and 185 enforcer 100. I’m quite an aggressive skier and go fairly high speed although not crazy on piste (max 60mph) but prefer being off piste when I can. I tend to take wider carving turns if I can even in chop and crud off piste, but I’m also lazy and don’t like it too much work when it gets too steep or rocky and I have to tighten up. Technique wise I’m not elegant, more advanced intermediate not an expert off piste but find it easy to throw my skis around and get big angles because of my weight. So I’m 5’10 and weigh 320lbs. I skied a new mantra m5 in 185 last week and found it too hard work in bumps so I’m wondering if I need the 185 in the enforcer 100 or if I’d be better on 177 (not had chance to demo both). My old skis are stiff volkl vertigo g3 in 184 but useless off piste. I’ve been hiring blizzard Brahmas mainly the past couple years but tried an old enforcer 100 (not sure if 177 or 185) and prefer the 100 width now and suspect bonafide doesn’t suit my laziness.

    1. HI Tim!
      I think your size combined with your level of aggressiveness points you to the 185. You’ll appreciate the extra stability of the longer length. The E100 is pretty maneuverable for a dual-metal laminated ski, so I think you’ll be able to handle it! Have fun!
      SE

  14. I’m 5’11, 165 lbs, intermediate skier (blues and blacks when the snow is good), both east and west (live in east parents live in west). I currently have a k2 richtor in 181, which I’ve always felt is a little too long for me. Looking to get a wider ski for softer conditions and something a little shorter so it’s more nimble. Would you recommend the 177 or 169 length for me?

    1. Hi Marcus!
      I think you’re a candidate for the 177. The rocker is fairly long, so you they end up being pretty maneuverable. You’ll also appreciate the extra stability at speed. Hope that helps!
      SE

  15. Hi,

    i am looking for a new allround mountain slayer, i love to ski off piste whenever possible…if there is fresh snow i will allways be
    on the sides of the slopes and in the woods searching for fresh pow. I do like to make some jumps here and there and thend to ski in a playfull way. Offcourse i spend loads of time on the groomers and in the end of the season we allways have a trip where you ski spring slush conditions.
    My next trip is gonna be deep powder but for the years after i am guessing the conditions will be more mixed (hopefully lots of powder aswell)
    In the past i tested the Salomon Shoguns wich quite compare to this one in dimensions, they also did great in powder and tracked powder.
    My question is wether these will be enjoyable enough in the deep snow or do you think i would rather take the 110?
    In size i guess the 185 would suit me as i am 1.82 m and 82 kg (dont now the other metric system 🙂 ).

    Thanks and greets!

    1. Hi Thomas!
      If you’re truly in deep snow then the 110 is certainly the way to go, but things don’t always go as planned! We usually recommend that people buy skis for the conditions that they ACTUALLY ski rather than those that they WANT to ski, so be sure you’re true to yourself in this regard. I found the E100 to be totally competent and a ton of fun in up to about a foot of snow, and then I wanted something wider, but the tip rocker and shape is perfectly designed for deep snow, so even though it’s not super-wide, it still performs quite well. Hope that helps!
      SE

  16. Hello, love the reviews I’ve been reading about this ski. I’m 49, 6’2″ 245 lbs and am an advanced level skier enjoying groomers as well as off piste tree sessions when the pow affords it, albeit skiing in Tahoe mainly, those days are generally brief. Was wondering what length you’d recommend. Been skiing for about 9 years now on my Volkl AC-3s at 177 length smaller than I would have wanted initially but got a great deal so went with them, but my inline binding’s now busted and it’s time for a new ski.

    1. Hey Steve!

      You’ll probably be best on the 185 cm. That might seem long, but the rocker profile of the Enforcer 100 makes them ski a little shorter. I don’t think you’ll have any trouble skiing it, and it should be plenty stable for your size. The 193 cm is quite a lot of ski, we typically don’t recommend it for many skiers unless you’re in the upper-echelon of aggressiveness, skill level, etc.

      Hope that helps!

      SE

  17. Hi there! I’m a 26 y/o advanced intermediate/advanced in certain terrain skiier. I’ve been skiing for over 20 years and have always owned very stiff, long skis with plenty of camber and slight tip rocker. I grew up ripping down groomers out east, but have also spent a lot of time in Utah and out in Lake Tahoe on plenty of steep mixed terrain – particularly bowls with chunder. I have never really been a fan or forced to ski moguls so it is not my strong suit, but my husband and I just moved to Colorado recently and now ski on the many mountains out here every weekend with their varied terrain.

    I currently ski on a pair of 2013 Volkl Kenjas at 170cm length (I am 5’7″ and 145lbs). They have a turning radius of 20.2 and are quite stiff. I love exploring around the mountain and am pushing myself more and more to try very steep, mogully terrain, and I am honestly having an extremely hard time getting my skis to turn in super cruddy/mogully areas – even when returning to basic fundamentals. Don’t get me wrong, I love my Kenjas in many situations and have already hit 60+ MPH this season ripping down groomed blacks and more challenging blues – the type of skiing I am used to – they carve beautifully at high speeds and give the feeling of weightlessness between turns every time. I have even taken them out in 5-7inches of fresh powder out in Utah in the past and although they weren’t ideal they were able to hold their own at speed, and they have done well in plenty of slightly cruddy bowls this season too.

    Although my usual style is “fast as possible,” I am trying to grow as a skiier and work on the type of terrain where I am less comfortable. I’m finding my kenjas to fight me a ton at slower speeds and not give me the poppy turns I’m looking for (except when hard charging down steep, smooth terrain as mentioned – they do that beautifully). I’m looking for a second set of skis with a shorter turning radius, possibly less stiff but doesn’t have to be, definitely a more playful feel so they don’t fight me at slower speeds or when trying to make poppy turns through lots of crud or moguls, but can still hold an edge on groomed steeps, and will let me push them carving at higher speeds on the front side.

    Whatever I get next doesn’t necessarily have to hold a line at high speeds as perfectly as my Kenjas do – but I honestly think I just need a bit more forgiving and fun ski that will allow me to better hone my skills off-piste in fluff/crud and on moguls, but still let me be hard charging on the front-side for about 1/3 of the day. I’ve been giving a lot of consideration to some of the Icelantic maiden models, but I also keep coming back to this ski as the reviews are simply amazing. I’m also nervous about getting a ski that is too flexy/playful when I have been skiing for 5 seasons on these Kenjas and I fear that the Icelantic Maiden 101s are just that.

    Any thoughts on whether or not this model fits the bill? Thanks so much! I’ve been researching for months and am still so conflicted!

    1. Hi Clair!
      I think the Enforcer 100 is a great choice for you based on what you’ve said. They’re a lot easier to handle at slow speeds than the Kenja, even with the wider waist. At speed, they’re very stable still, and for an all-mountain ski, they’re pretty hard to beat. Have a great winter!
      SE

  18. Hello, my name is Tony, I’m 47, started skiing around age 8 and I’m 5’10” and about 180lbs. I’ve skied in a pair of Volkl 724 Pros and recently skied the Nordica Enforcer 100. I loved the ski, it held a great edge and carved exceptionally well at high speeds of 50 plus. It floats well in pow and is a great all mountain ski. My only negative comment would be skiing small moguls and higher speeds. It doesn’t absorb shock well and skiing from top to top I felt a bit of push back along with the front of the ski kicking up a bit more than my old Volkls. I’m hooked on the new stuff, but still convinced that die hard skiers need more than just one ski. You need the powder ski, the carver, and a little whipper-snapper for tight tree runs. Aside from that, the Enforcer 100 was a great ski and I would buy it.

  19. Hi there, what a great website!! 🙂 Im currently on a ski holiday in Chamonix. Im looking for a versitile everyday ski and came across the Enforcer 100 and will buy it tomorrow. My only concern is to go with 193 or the 185.

    Im an advanced but not an expert skiier. 6,4 and 185 lbs. So im tall and pretty light for my length but still athletic and pretty strong. I like to charge and ski fast in all conditions and terrain so first i decided to go with the 193 but then i read you reviews and that got my uncertain. I get the feeling that I will need to go supersonic the whole time in order to make the 193 work?

    I would like to be able to continue developing my technique but i wonder if i will get the “going over the handlebars” feeling due to my length and leverage on the 185? I will also have a pair of Black Crows Nocta for powder days if that makes any difference so the Enforcer are more for chopped up off piste, hard piste and such. To make things even harder to decide, the new Head Core in 189 is also an option….

    I dont know the time difference to were you are but would really appriciate a quick reply IF possible and sorry for my gramma, I’m Swedish.

    Thanks alot // Daniel

    1. Hi Daniel!
      At your height, I’d go with the 193. I’m a few inches shorter than you and I skied the 193 for a few years. I found it to be just the right length. Don’t complicate things with the Kore, the Enforcer is the way to go. Have fun!
      SE

  20. Reading online it looks like quite a few people mount these at -1 (one of your testers above included). What are your recommendations? Advanced skier on 185cm, 5ft 10, 72kg (11.5stone), mainly piste with occasional off-piste. Thanks

    1. Hi JRF!
      We mount them at factory recommended line. You’ll get slightly better float from the -1, but I’m not sure its worth it when the ski works really well as is. Hope that helps!
      SE

  21. Hi,

    Great site! Your feedback is awesome!!

    I’m 5’11”, 180lbs, and am solidly intermediate, but improving, particularly with carving turns which I enjoy working on. I ski primarily in CO about 10-20 days a year, mostly groomed runs, some blacks, some bumps too (generally more challenging stuff every time out it seems). Also, I’ll have the opportunity to get into some back country skiing (skinning) as well in the near future, which I’m really looking forward to. In recent years I’ve been using rentals, but am ready to purchase. I most recently skied the volkl kendo 163 which probably was a bit too short. I generally really liked the stability of the ski, but at times it felt a bit slow (though not always) and it definitely felt heavy trying to make tight turns in the moguls, though the lack of speed was a benefit for me in there. I’m leaning toward the enforcer 100’s at 169 thinking that it’ll provide me with a stable, decently fast ride, comfort across varied terrain, and also comfort as I start doing some back country stuff, plus the ability to generally grow into the ski over the next several years. I’ve also considered, the volkl 90eight (at 163 or 170), and the head kore 99 (at 162 or 171), or even the volkl kendo I already used (up a size at 170). Any thoughts/guidance would be appreciated, Thanks!

    1. Thanks, Nick!
      I like the sounds of that E100 in the 169. They’re a great Colorado ski for sure. You might find the Kendo, even in the longer length, to leave something to be desired in terms of all-mountain performance. The Kore 99 is very light and very stiff, so from a touring perspective, that might be something to consider. The 90Eight is awesome, but no metal, so you’ll lose a bit in the damping department. Overall, it’s hard to beat that Enforcer 100, and it sounds like the sizing is right in your wheelhouse. Have fun!
      SE

  22. Hi, I am 51 yrs old, 6ft4 and 185pounds.
    Am a very good skier in all terrain.
    I have a pairif Atomic Race SL at 170cm that I love in the slopes.
    I ones rented the Enforecer on a great powder day inChamonix in 2016, but do bot remember which length. Would love to buy a pair now. Should I go for the 185cm or 193cm.
    Thanks

    1. Hi Charlie!
      I’d go with the 185. If you were a lot heavier, I’d recommend the longer length. Have fun!
      SE

  23. HI. I’m on Soul 7’s right now at 180cm. I’m 5’9″, 166lbs. Aggressive skier. I love moguls and the steeps, but I also want a ski that floats well. I only ski out west. Would like to move to Enforcer 100, and wondering if 169cm would be too short. So 177 or 169? At 169 I’m assuming I’d do better in the bumps, but in deep stuff or steep chutes, I assume it won’t handle as well? Please help me make a decision.

    1. Hi Marc!

      I would go 177 cm. At your size, 169 cm is pretty short. The Enforcer 100 doesn’t use quite as much rocker as the Soul, but enough that it’s quite manageable in longer lengths. I would worry that 169 cm would feel a little short in deep snow or when you’re skiing faster. I really don’t worry at all about 177 cm being too challenging to maneuver, especially considering you’re an aggressive skier.

      Hope that helps!

      SE

  24. Not to sound like a broken record, but I am considering the Enforcer 100s and I am undecided on the length. I’ve been skiing a pair of atomic sugar daddy’s for the last 9 years in a 183 cm (love this ski but no longer an option ). I ski primarily at Wolf creek and Crested Butte and like to ski trees and steep/deep pow. I’m 5’9″ and 155 lbs and expert skier, however I’ve got two young kids and ski groomers and mellow trees/bowls with them the majority of the time. Would you recommend the 177s or 185s.

    1. Hi Steve!

      I think I’d go 177 cm if I were you. I’m about your size exactly and have skied both lengths quite a bit. Considering the mix of skiing you’re doing and that you spend a fair amount of time with your young kids, I think 177 cm is more appropriate. There would almost definitely be times on the 185 cm that you wished you had a shorter length. The 177 cm will be more manageable at slower speeds, in tighter terrain, etc. On the other hand, at your (our) weight, you’re not losing too much stability between the 185 and 177 cm lengths. The 177 cm still has the power, stability, vibration damping, etc that makes the Enforcer such a popular ski. Feels like the way to go in my opinion.

      Hope that helps!

      SE

  25. Hi, Trying to decide between Enforcer 100 177 and 185s. 21, 5’9, 160lbs. Expert skier, quick feet, raced SL/GS in club thru HS, also did slopestyle and a lot of park skiing but done with that now. New England skiing, skiing at Stowe on front four in bumps, hardpack, pow in the woods…whatever the mountain has to offer that day. Been skiing at Stowe and Sugarbush on 171 Armada center mount last few years and know I will be better off on an all-mountain ski. Not much rocker on the Armada so not sure I can or should consider it when trying to decide between the Enforcer 177 or 185 for the kind of skiing I’ll be doing. Which do you think would be best? Thanks

    1. Hey Aaron!

      We’ve probably crossed paths at Stowe before! I’m pretty much exactly your size, give or take an inch and a few pounds. I essentially describe myself the same way and I’ve skied both lengths of the Enforcer 100 quite a bit. If you spend a significant amount of time in the woods at Stowe, I would go with the 177 cm length. If you don’t spend a ton of the time in the woods, and prefer making big, high speed turns, go 185 cm. I know that’s relatively obvious, but it should help steer you to the length that you’d prefer. I’m sure you could ski both, it’s just a matter of whether you’re willing, or if it’s even worth it, to give up some maneuverability for a touch more stability at speed. The 185, for someone our size, can be a bit of a handful in tight trees at times. I’m leaning towards 177 cm, but I thought I’d present that scenario to you.

      Hope that helps!

      SE

  26. I just annihilated my (relatively new) skis–Scott Punisher 110s size 173–which I liked quite a bit (they replaced my prior Scott P4s? I think, which I had for a while and were alot of fun). I’m 5’6″ 160 lbs, 39 y.o. advanced/expert skier and ski most of my time in Tahoe (Kirkwood) but usually an annual cat trip in BC and some days in Utah. I have a pair of powder skis (Armada JJs 175) so I’m looking for my everyday ski. I ski fairly aggressive, like to rip groomers, but mostly off-piste around 15-25 days/year. I want something with solid stability at high speeds carving but nimble and playful and easy enough to maneuver in trees or moguls. I was originally thinking of the Mantras but am leaning toward the Enforcer 100s because I think the Mantras are going to be more stiff and more ski than I want. Suggestions as between those two skis? Any other skis you think I should consider? Also, if I go with the Enforcers, size 169 or 177? Thanks! And the reviews are super helpful

    1. Hey Adam!
      It’s hard to go wrong with either model. Are you referring to the new Mantra M5? If not, the 2018 Mantra is certainly stiffer than the Enforcer 100. The 2019 M5 Mantra is a bit more forgiving, and with the rocker/camber/rocker profile, it falls more in line with the characteristics of the Nordica. That being said, it’s now a bit narrower than the E100, so you’ll lose a bit of float in the fresh. I skied the Enforcer 100 for two years and absolutely loved it. If you’re on the aggressive side as you say, I’d recommend going with the 177. Happy winter!
      SE

  27. Hi, I am 6ft 9, 230 lbs, mid 50s. I am an advanced skier (not expert). Ski in the Tahoe area and probably spend my time 50/50 terrain. My knees are becoming problematic, so am starting to be a bit more cautious, but not too, especially when I am chasing my 22 year son and his friends down the groomers. Want something stable , but also maybe easier to ski in the trees, moguls and crud. Been looking at Enforcer 100s and almost pulled the trigger on a pair of 185s . I know that with my size the 193s probably seem to be a no brainer, but thought being a little shorter might be easier on the knees and to maneuver. Talked to someone pretty knowledgeable and he said 185s would be too short and unstable for me. Suggested I might want to look at something else if I don’t go with 193s. Wondering if I should look into something lighter, which may be easier on the body, but also not right for my size? ( Head Kore 93, 99 or Rustler 9, 10) Any thoughts would be much appreciated. Thanks, Craig

    1. Hey Craig!
      Skiing in general is not a very knee-friendly sport, right? If you want something like the E100 but a bit lighter, would you consider the Enforcer 93? It also comes in a 193 (which I think is the right length for you). Another option would be the K2 Pinnacle 95 in a 191. It’s a bit lighter and easier to steer, but will give you the stability that you need. I personally like the Rustler series over the Kore series because of their versatility. They come in the 188 length (as do the Kore) and are fantastic all-mountain skis. The 9 is an amazing carver and if it snows, the 10 is an unbeatable ski. Hope that helps and happy winter!
      SE

  28. Hi,
    I’m looking to replace my old 177 102 Coombacks (> 200 days on them!) with Enforcer 100. I’m 5-11, 170 lbs. I ski 40+ days a year at Taos – splitting between a few runs/day on the Ridge, bumps on terrain below (e.g. Al’s Run, Blitz, Reforma) to trees (Castor, Jean’s Glade) to groomers with my wife. I’m looking for advice on proper length for the Enforcer – should I stick with 177, or move up to 185 in order to match the float of the Coomback 102s (I also have an AT set up with newer Coomback 104s that are also 177). Thanks!

    1. Hi Mike!

      How aggressive are you? Do you ski really fast or keep it to more moderate speeds? The 177 cm would probably work best for you, unless you consider yourself an aggressive skier. The only benefit to moving up to the 185 cm is increased stability at speed, so if you don’t need that extra stability, you’re just going to be fighting a longer ski that’s mroe challenging to maneuver. I wouldn’t worry about losing float, the tip shape of the Enforcer 100 works really well and helps keep you on top of the snow nicely. There shouldn’t be a major difference in float between the two.

      Hope that helps!

      SE

      1. While I do like to rip the groomers, I spend way more time on steeps and bumps, so I think you answered my question regarding the length. I was more concerned that I’d lose some float on steep/deep on Ridge than stability at speed. Per your informative reply it appears that’s not an issue. 177 it is! You guys are the best! Many thanks.

  29. Hello
    getting ready to purchase the enforcer 100. I consider myself an advanced /expert skier, I ski the entire mountain and enjoy a steep challenge, however I have slowed down a bit after a calf tear a few years ago. I’m 5’11”, 37 yrs lbs and an athletic 192 lbs, I tend to hang onto my equipment for a long time (my current ski is the bandit from rossignol 2008). Based on this to you think the 177 cm is the correct size for me?
    Thanks for your feedback!

    1. Hi Marin!

      If you’ve slowed down a bit in recent years, yeah, I think you’d probably prefer the 177 cm. There are definitely a fair amount of skiers your size who ski the 185 cm length, but really the only benefit to that is increased stability at speed. If you’re not skiing fast and aggressively, you likely don’t need that extra stability and would benefit more from the more maneuverable nature of the 177 cm length. Does that make sense to you? What length were your Bandits? Just curious, it could slightly change my opinion, but I don’t think it will.

      SE

  30. This is so helpful–thanks for the great reviews. I am considering the Nordica Enforcer 100 or possibly the Blizzard Bonafide. I am a 6’2″, 170 pound relatively advanced skier (more blacks than double blacks, though). I like to ski fast, and live on East Coast so more often ski harder pack or even icy conditions, but I’m also looking for skis that will be fun to take out west and ski powder. I could go down to the Enforcer 93, but understand the 100 are pretty versatile. Any thoughts on which model to go with and what length? I want to make sure I don’t choose something that will skid out easily on ice, but will still be a lot of fun.

    1. Hi Michael!

      I’d stick with the Enforcer 100. You’re going to get a little more float and soft snow performance out of the 100 and you really don’t lose much at all in terms of edge grip and overall performance on firm snow compared to the 93. Also, the Enforcer 100 is a little easier in soft snow compared to the Bonafide. Softer overall flex, longer tip rocker, and more forgiving in general. It’s a really good ski for what you’re looking to do. Good edge grip on firm snow, stability for skiing fast, yet it’s still relatively playful and fun in a big variety of snow conditions and terrain.

      For length, I would go with the 185 cm. The 193 cm gets pretty demanding, and 177 cm would be a little too short for you in my opinion.

      Hope that helps!

      SE

  31. I am a 54 years old , weight is 169 lbs. and have been skiing for 49 years. I have been skiing on the Volki RTM 84 for the last 6 years at 167cm. I am very forward and aggressive in my technique , love to rip and lay them down in the Northeast. Time for an all mountain powder ski for the powder days that wont let me down on the trails and in the woods, and for the occasional deep powder days out west. Looking at the Enforcer 100, just wondering if I should to to the 177cm or 185cm

    1. Hi Anthony!

      How tall are you? A lot of skiers like to focus on skier weight when choosing skis, but height has a factor too. The taller the skier, the more leverage they have. So, it’s really a combination of height and weight.

      That said, 167 to 185 cm feels like a really big jump in length. My instincts are that you’d prefer the 177 cm length, but let me know how tall you are and I’ll let you know if that changes my opinion.

      Hope that helps!

      SE

  32. I am close to pulling the tirgger on the Enforcer 100 but I’m on the fence about sizes. I’m 6’1″ adn 165bs. I ski primarily in Tahoe. I enjoy a wide array of terrain but probably spend the majority of my time on ungrommed black diamonds. I’d consider myself an advanced by non-expert skiing. Somewhat aggressive and I generally make quicker turners.

    In the past I’ve skiied the following:
    -2015 Mantra-184s. too heavy and difficult to manuever.
    -Rossignol Soul 7 HD-180. Felt unstable at times and a bit short (insufficient edge level)
    -K2 Pinnacle 95 & 105- both 177. Found these skis to be okay. Never felt unstable. Looking for a bit more playfullness.

    What do you think? Would the 177 or 185 better suit me?

    Best,

    Kevin

    1. Hi Kevin!

      Hmm… I can understand why you’re on the fence. You could, undoubtedly, ski both lengths. That said, I’m leaning towards the 177 cm length. A lot of that has to do with your preference for quick turns, and also your weight. You likely don’t need the extra stability of the 185 cm length. Heavier skiers often do, but I don’t expect you would. Also, a 185 cm Enforcer 100 isn’t going to be drastically easier than the 184 cm Mantra you found too heavy and tough to maneuver. If you didn’t find the Pinnacle 95 or 105 unstable in the 177 cm length, you almost definitely won’t find the 177 cm Enforcer 93 to be unstable, so I think that’s the way to go.

      Hope that helps!

      SE

  33. Hi,

    I am 5’6″ 140lbs and am an intermediate (I can do black diamonds out west no problem but am not very technically skilled/trained) skiier that likes to go all over the mountain. I like to go fast down groomers but also want to be able to handle powder/bowls etc. I am looking for a ski that will help me get to the intermediate/advanced category. Should I go with the 100 or the 93 in the 169 length? Does the 169 length sound right? Also, what binding would you typically recommend?

    1. Hi Sam!

      The Enforcer 100 will be a little more versatile for softer snow conditions, so if you’re thinking about using them in powder fairly regularly, I would go with the 100. At your ability level I wouldn’t go longer than 169 cm, that length should work really well for your height and weight. The Enforcer 100 (and 93 too) is relatively heavy and somewhat stiff, so you definitely don’t want to go too long.

      For bindings, the Tyrolia Attack 13 or Marker Griffon are both great choices. Good value in both those bindings, and a nice wide platform that works well on wider skis like this.

      Hope that helps!

      SE

  34. Hi,
    Im a 54 yr old male, 5′ 9″ and 84kg and skied most of my life, and consider myself an aggressive advanced skier, skiing 25ish days a year here in NZ and in North America. Love to ski fast, ski moguls sometimes, and unfortunately have to ski hard pack most of the time in NZ. I would also like to try more tree skiing! I am currently on Atomic Vantage 100s in the 180cm length, and am now looking at getting 2 pairs of skis, one for all mountain and a set of powder skis.
    Am looking at the Nordica Enforcer for the all mountain ski, 93mm at 177cm? Would that be a correct assumption?
    Would also love some feedback on powder skis, am thinking 110mm underfoot?
    Thanks – love the site!

    1. Hi Robin!

      First of all, yes, I think 177 cm would be a great choice for length for the Enforcer 93. Works really well for everything you’re looking to do: aggressive skiing on firm snow, moguls, trees, etc.

      So, for powder skis… you could complete the two-ski-Enforcer-quiver with the Enforcer 110! If you like the shape, construction, concept, etc of the Enforcer 93, you’d probably really like the 110 too. It’s softer-flexing, and uses quite a bit more tip and tail rocker, but the overall feel is similar. They have a great mix of stability and maneuverability, and are a blast in soft snow. If you wanted to get something without two sheets of metal, I’m also a big fan of the Rustler 11 and think that ski would round out your quiver really well too. Oh, also, don’t be afraid to go a little longer with your pow skis.

      Hope that helps!

      SE

  35. I’m currently considering the E100 @ 185, Bonifide @ 180 or the Armada Invictus 99 Ti at 179. I an aggressive advanced skier. I tried the Bonifide 180 (which I liked) and the E93 but only the 179 which was not enough ski. But am not sure on the best path forward. I ski in Tahoe primarily (Utah a couple times a year) in the Bowls, Trees, Groomed runs, Powder when we have it and backcountry when we have snow. I’m looking for something that makes quick turns on the steep tight stuff, have a good hold but can handle everything else that comes my way. What would you suggest?

    1. Hi Kyle!
      There’s nothing wrong with any of your choices. I’d peg the Incivtus as the burliest of the three, and also the most trail-oriented because of the lack of rocker. It does have slight tip rocker, but camber underfoot and throughout the tail. The Enforcer is at the other end of the spectrum, and if you remember the 93, the 100 is very much the same, only wider. They’re playful, fun, and can still carve some sweet turns. The freeride-style of rocker makes them the best of the three in soft snow and powder, especially at the 185. The added length will give you more stability than you felt with the 177(?). The Bonafide sits in the middle, but probably a bit more toward the Invictus. It’s got the two sheets of metal like the others, but also carbon in the tips and tails that lower the swing weight and make them a bit quicker edge to edge. Hope that helps!
      SE

  36. I’m 6’0 200lbs, currently skiing Brahma 180’s. Trying to decide between Enforcer 100 in 177 or 185, will use primary out west about 10 days per season. Like to ski entire mountain, not a great powder skier but still enjoy it, groomers, moguls, etc. Concerned the 185 might be too much ski coming of the Brahma 180, but also the 177 might not be enough.

    1. Hi Jeff!
      I think you’re a candidate for the 185. They ski a bit on the short side because of their rocker profile. I’m 6’2 220 and I ski the Enforcer 100 in a 193. For the most part, I find it perfect, but in our eastern trees it can be a handful sometimes. You’ll appreciate the stability of the longer length. I think you’d be going over the handlebars a bit in the 177. Hope that helps!
      SE

  37. I am thinking about getting these skis. I am 43, relatively athletic, 6′ 220. I’ve been skiing my entire life and fall in the advanced category (I don’t believe that many folks fall in the expert category with the exception of…well…actual experts). I have a pair of Rossi E88 that I ski in the east. They are 188 length.

    I am looking at the Enforcer for skiing out west.

    I like to ski gladded terrain, bowls and moguls.

    Questions: how is this ski in moguls; and what length do you recommend for me? I have my opinion on length, but I want to hear your professional opinion.

    Thank you.

    1. Hi Jon!
      While the Enforcer could hardly be mistaken for a “mogul” ski, for its width and weight, it performs quite well in the bumps. The softer and wider apart the moguls, the better the ski will perform. The dual metal laminate in the Enforcer is quite thin, so although you have that metal, it’s not prohibitive from skiing moguls. Also, the skis are very maneuverable thanks to the tip and tail shape and profile, so keeping up with tighter lines isn’t a huge problem. I’m 6’2 220 and I have the 193 length in this ski. I ski in Vermont, and in the tight trees I have found them to be a bit long. I do wish I had gotten the 185, and that’s the length I would recommend for you as well. Hope that helps!
      SE

  38. Thanks for the great detailed review!

    I’m close to pulling the trigger on a Enforcer 100 but I’m on the fence about length. I’m 6’1″, 165lbs. Ski mostly in Tahoe. I’m an advanced but non-expert level skier. I ski somewhat aggressively and I enjoy a wide array of terrain. Spend the majority of my time on non-groomed trails and I like making fairly quick turns.

    In the past I’ve skied:
    -2015 Mantras at 184 that I found too heavy and difficult to maneuver.
    -2017 Soul 7 HD at 177. Found these a bit unstable on firm pack.
    -2017 K2 Pinnacle 95 and 105- both at 177. Found both of these a bit uninspiring but okay. I don’t remember them feeling unstable. Would prefer a more lively ski.

    What are your thoughts 177 vs. 185?

    Thanks!

    1. Hi Evan!
      Sounds to me like you’re a candidate for the 177. The only factor in your comment that would make me recommend the 185 is your height. Your weight, ski style, and previous experience with skis and their lengths all indicate that the 177 will be the right length for you. They’re great skis!
      SE

  39. Hi
    I’m a agressive skier and 42 y o. I have skied all my life. I’m 150 Ibs and 5′ 7,7″. Should I go for the 177cm or 185? I’m used to longer ski’s like 185-189 from the good old Days, so, I hesitate about the 177cm…

    Cheers

    1. Hi Johan!
      They do feel a bit shorter than the size indicates, and if you’re used to longer skis, then I see no reason to talk you down to the 177. You’ll lose a bit of quickness in the short-turns, but the stability and flotation will be better. Go ahead and fire up the 185. Your size indicates that you should be a 177, but everything else tells me that you’re more interested in the 185. Have fun!
      SE

  40. I’m debating which length to get 169 or 177? I’m 5’6″ and weigh anywhere from 150-165 (depending on how I’m lifting) I ski fast and aggressive and would say my skill level is advanced. I would like this to be an all around ski that I can take on groomers, moguls and side country. I’ve tried the Volkl Kendo 170 and didn’t find them to be uncomfortably long. For my height, 169 seems to be the obvious choice, but I know these ski shorter and since my weight fluctuates 177 might be a good choice. Would 177 be way too long for my height? If I went 169 would I be sacrificing stability when going fast or am I light enough for that to not be a factor? Thanks

    1. Hey Matt!
      Lots of good questions here! Everything is a trade-off, right? Given your level of aggressiveness and the fact that the Enforcer series does ski a bit on the short side, go ahead with the 177. At the end of the day, it’s only 8 centimeters, and if you get the shorter size, my bet is that you’ll constantly wonder if the longer size would have been better, rather than the other way around. Hope that helps!
      SE

  41. Hi My name is Frank and im ready to pull the trigger on getting a pair of enforcer 100s. Question about the length , i have been skiing the bonafides in a 180 and feel the length is perfect but they are just a lot of work in the tight trees here in the east . Torn between the 177 or 185 im 6 feet 170lbs 54yo but a very aggressive skier. Would the 177s be too short to still rip fast gs turns on and be solid on the firm snow we get in the east?Thanks

    1. Hi Frank!
      The Enforcer line skis a bit short because of its rocker profile. I think either length would be acceptable, but given your height and level of aggressiveness, you should go with the 185. They may be a handful in the trees depending on conditions, but overall, I think you’ll appreciate the stability of the longer length. Hope that helps!
      SE

      1. Thanks for the quick reply – I have one more question – at the 185 will they be easier to ski in the trees and bumps than the bones are?? – you kinda scared me with the “handful” in the trees thing.Thanks Frank

      2. Don’t be scared, Frank!
        For a ski with two sheets of metal, we’re constantly surprised with how maneuverable the Nordicas are. The Bonafides always seemed like more of an on-trail ski to me whereas the Enforcer 100 has more of a freeride mentality, and therefore “easier” to ski in the trees and bumps. I guess I was trying to say that, at times, depending on conditions and the tightness of the terrain, you may find them long, but the vast majority of the time, you should be all set.
        SE

  42. Hi guys I broke my Volkl Kendos skiing in Japan earlier this year and after 6 years Im a bit lost. My mates have bought enforcer 100’s and love them I was skiiing 177 and it was perfect for me skiing in Oz and Japan as a one quiver ski. My question is moving to 100 under foot do you think I can stay at 177. Im 60 and skied for 40 season fairly advanced for my age and semi aggressive. Any thoughts?

    1. Hi Steve!

      Do you mean you’ve been skiing the Kendo in the 177 cm length? If I’m understanding correctly, then yes, you’ll be just fine on a 177 cm Enforcer 100. While it’s a wider ski, it also uses more rocker, especially in the tip. The metal is also a little thinner than in the Kendo, so a slightly softer flex overall. Still a ski that can hold up to very aggressive skiing, but it’s a bit more user-friendly than the Kendo. You can confidently get the 177 cm length; you won’t have any issues.

      Hope that helps!

      SE

  43. I’m looking to get a pair of the enforcers 93 and am deciding on the size. I’m 5’10”, 130 lbs and an advanced skier based out in Utah. It seems like the 177s would be the ideal size for me but just wanted some extra input. I ski lots of different terrain but I prefer bumps and trees over pure speed. Thanks!

    1. Hi John!

      Based off your size and your description of how you like to ski I would go with the 177 cm length. At your weight I think the 185 cm would be overkill, while for someone of your ability level the 169 cm would feel too short. 177 cm feels ideal in my opinion. Go for it!

      SE

  44. I’m 5’9” and 160 lbs, I’ve been snowboarding my whole life and just made the transition to skiing last year, but I’m very excited about it and interested in buying my own pair. I think this is a good option as I’ll be dividing my time between groomers and backcountry pretty evenly. However, I’m unsure between the 169 and 177 cm. I definitively like the idea of stability at speed, but I wouldn’t want to compromise maneuverability in the trees. Also, I realize I’m still new to it, but I’m gaining confidence quickly and I’d prefer to pick the length that will suit me best in the long run. Any advice is much appreciated!

    1. Hey Nick,

      I replied to your first comment asking this question. Let me know if you don’t see it, it should be just below this comment.

      SE

  45. Hi guys, thanks for the great reviews. I would really appreciate some advice – I have skied now for 2 seasons and thankfully pick things up pretty quick. I have been skiing the volkl rtm84s, 171cm and have progressed to ski them comfortably on all groomer terrain and most off trail (except deep powder). I have definitely now “outgrown” the skis and am looking to upgrade to a bigger, better more all mountain ski that will let me ski the groomers and off trail hard and take on powder.i want something to jump straight on but that will let me continue to progress. I ski fast and aggressively though still need to hold back a little with more turns thrown in on the steeper off trail stuff. I am 5 foot 11 and 90kg and see myself skiing 60/40 off trail/groomer terrain going forward. I ski in New Zealand mainly and Europe.

    So with the upgrade in mind, i trialled some 2019 Nordica enforcer 100s in both 177 & 185 lengths and some blizzard rustler 10s in 180. I really enjoyed the enforcers in 177, liked the ability to charge hard and the stability of them over my own skis. I also felt I could control them well. The 185s I also really enjoyed. Liked the added stability over the 177s, thought it was really noticeable over the chop, but I definitely noticed the extra work to ski them and the extra turn radius.

    I absolutely loved the rustler 10s, I found them really sharp and responsive and super fun to ski. I jumped on them and felt more at home in the 1 run on them than my own skis. However I did notice the softer feel and the higher rocker over the chop and felt they actually felt a little flimsy compared to the enforcers.

    I would love your advice on what you think sounds right for me between the two? Considering I was so at home on the blizzards am I not challenging myself enough and leaving room for me to progress further? I also really enjoyed the enforcers but are they right for me?

    I have found a great deal on 2017/18 enforcer 100s at 185 and am tempted to snap them up and run them with marker griffins but do you think they sound right for me and is the 185 a little too much ski for me?

    Would really appreciate your advice, great reviews so far.

    1. Hi Adam!

      Definitely sounds like you’re picking things up pretty quickly, awesome!!

      Both the Enforcer 100 and Rustler 10 are awesome skis. Thanks for providing so much detail in describing your experience on each ski, it really helps.

      I think the Rustler 10 is the way to go here for you. I like that length for your size and current ability level, and I think that ski has a nice feel and nice level of performance for someone like yourself. I definitely think you’ll be able to continue to progress on them, I certainly wouldn’t worry about that. In fact, because you feel comfortable on them I think you’ll progress more quickly than on the Enforcers. It doesn’t have to feel challenging to mean you’re getting better at skiing. The Rustler 10 will allow you to play around with different skiing techniques and different turn shapes more easily than the Enforcers. Also, keep in mind the Rustler 10 does use metal and is still a very high performing ski. Some of our staff members are aggressive, expert skiers around your size and skied the Rustler 10 quite a bit this past season. It has a great mix of being relatively forgiving and playful, but still plenty stable, holds an edge well, etc.

      The Enforcer 100 is a great ski, but I think there would definitely be a choice to make whether to go with the 177 cm or 185 cm length, while the Rustler 10 at 180 cm feels just right. I also think the extra weight of the Enforcer and the stiffer tips and tails would make it a bit more challenging for you to continue to progress.

      What do you think?

      SE

  46. Hi there,

    I’m 5’9” and 160 lbs, been snowboarding my whole life and just made the transition to skiing last year and now I’m looking to buy. This looks like the ski for me as I’ll be dividing my time between groomers and backcountry evenly, but I’m torn between the 169 and 177cm. I like the prospect of stability at speed, but I don’t want to compromise maneuverability in the trees. Obviously I’m still new to skiing, but I feel comfortable with it and would prefer to pick a length that will suit me best in the long run. Any suggestions would be greatly appreciated!

    1. Hi Nick!

      Psyched you’re switching over to skiing! It’s a whole lot of fun, as I’m sure you already know. 🙂

      The Enforcer 100 is a great ski for what you’re going to be doing. You’re right, it has an excellent combination of feeling stable at speed, but also maneuverable. At your size and considering you’re probably going to progress pretty quickly I think you can feel confident going with the 177 cm length. It’s not exceptionally challenging to ski and in the long run it’s definitely the more appropriate length.

      Hope that helps!

      SE

  47. 6’0 175 lbs intermediate/advanced ability (level 6-7) who is looking to continue to grow on a pair of enforcer 100s. Would appreciate input on length. Demo’d a pair of 93s in the 185 cm and felt a bit long for my current ability in moguls. Have been going back and forth between 177 (seems like a comfortable choice) vs. 185 (benefit of growing into the ski but don’t want to hinder my progress).

    1. Hi Chris!

      Trust your instincts. The Enforcer 100 has plenty of stability, so I don’t think that 177 cm would be too short for you. You’re correct in assuming it will be a little more difficult to progress on the 185 cm. In my opinion if the Enforcer 93 felt a bit long in the 185 cm length you should probably go for the 177 cm. Much more maneuverable in the moguls, and will still hold an edge and stay quiet and stable when you’re skiing faster on groomed slopes.

      Hope that helps!

      SE

  48. Hi Jeff. I am not sure on the 175 vs 185cm dilemma too but very interested in the Enforcer 100s as they sound like what I am looking for.
    6ft, 150 lbs dry, 47 years, light and aggressive lower advanced level, bumps not so good but okay everywhere else and like turns. Kinda always fall between sizes due to my weight vs height etc
    Currently ski Head Monster 88 in 170cm, Atomic 90CTI in 176cms and and have Rossignol Sins (98mm) in 180cm as my soft snow/powder ski.
    I like to ski fast inbounds and can achieve high edge angles etc and want something with width for offpiste that has more guts than the Rossignols which are fun in soft snow but I can overski onpiste if that makes sense?
    Have tried Bonifides also in 180 and they too much ski for me, Salmon QST99s and they felt too non responsive if that makes sense….So definitely keen on the Nordicas. Which length do you think please?

    1. Hi Alan!

      Yup, you’re in a pretty classic situation with the Enforcer 100. I am about your size, a couple inches shorter, but right around the same weight. In my opinion if you find the Bonafide a little too much ski in the 180 cm length you might find the Enforcer 100 too much ski in the 185 cm length. That’s always kind of been my comparison between the two skis. The 180 cm Bonafide is most like the 185 cm Enforcer 100, the 173 cm Bonafide is more like the 177 cm Enforcer 100. The Enforcer is definitely a more forgiving shape, but still uses two sheets of metal, etc. 177 cm should be stable enough for your weight, even when skiing fast, but will give you an easier time in the moguls than the 185 cm.

      What do you think? Does that make sense?

      SE

      1. Cheers Jeff, that gives me more confidence. I am in NZ so just about ready to pull the trigger as Queenstown season starts this Saturday.
        Also meant to say your ski review videos are fantastic too, so detailed and comprehensive, keep it up, industry standard defining!

  49. Hi!

    I’m a 5’5″ 130 pound female in my twenties. I’m advanced to expert skier who’s looking for an all-mountain ski who typically skis out west. I’m an aggressive skier who loves cutting through the trees and working the bumps but also looking for something that can perform on powder days. I’m worried the 169 length might be a little long but was wondering your recommendation on it or possibly a similar ski.

    Thank you!

    1. Hi Mariah!

      The 169 cm length will be slightly taller than you, but that’s certainly not unheard of in the Enforcer 100 for an advanced/expert level skier. I would, however, consider getting the Santa Ana 100. If 169 cm (4 cm taller than you essentially) feels a little intimidating, there is a 161 cm Santa Ana. You could, however, stick with the 169 cm Santa Ana, which has a slightly softer flex profile than the Enforcer 100. The skis are hugely similar (same shape, both have two sheets of metal, etc.), but the Santa Ana 100 integrates balsa into its wood core so it’s a touch lighter with a softer overall flex, while still having the same overall feel.

      Hope that helps!

      SE

  50. Hi there!

    Enjoyed reading through your very knowledgeable and sincere recommendations.

    I am a 40 year old 6’3 198 lbs, athletic advance piste skier who got hooked on off-piste skiing last season. I got my eye on both E93 and E100, I understand the subtle differences and E100 seems like a better option for jumping straight into off-piste/powder skiing however I am not certain which may be the right length for me?

    For piste skiing i use Rossi’s pursuit 700 (ski any length of skinny skis, also in shallow 6-8 inch pow) and am now looking for a second ski for deeper snow that would help me eventually transition to big mountain powder skiing. I mostly ski in the Alps. I am also open to considering other ski brands/models.

    (Btw, it’s almost impossible to get the 2017/18 E-models in Austria and I am sincerely considering ordering from the US…)

    Thank you! Cheers!

    1. Hi Amar!

      I would say since you already have a narrower on-piste ski it makes sense going with the Enforcer 100 over the 93. Even though they’re similar the 100 does perform better in off-piste terrain and conditions. For length I think you can confidently choose the 185 cm. I assume your Rossi’s are probably shorter? At your size the 185 cm Enforcer 100 should be perfectly manageable, so even if it’s longer than what you’ve been skiing in the past that’s what I would go with. The other end of the spectrum, the 193 cm length, is a lot of ski and quite demanding even for larger skiers like yourself, so I would stick with the 185 cm.

      If you’ve read reviews and the Enforcer sounds like it’s what you’re looking for, go for it. There are other models from other manufacturers that are a lot of fun, but the Enforcer is right up there as one of the top skis on the market.

      Hope that helps!

      SE

      1. Thanks!
        Yes, my Rossi’s are shorter, since i like hybrid skis to work short/medium turns. I also skis head skimmy skis at 187cm.
        Finally found some E93’s (in 185 and 193, last year’s model no E100’s :/). The local shop is trying to convince me to size up to 193, mostly due to longer rocker, i also showed them my ski vid.
        However i am not entirely convinced. Your recommendetion of 185cm for E100 felt right (it is a lot of ski). How does your previous recommendation translate to E93? Also, will I lose much in terms of floatability?
        Thanks again,

      2. Hey Amar!
        I’d still recommend the 100 since you already have trail skis. The 93 (7mm narrower throughout) loses flotation due to width and overall surface area. It’s still pretty good in fresh snow, just not AS good. How often are you ACTUALLY skiing in 20-30 cm fresh snow? If the answer is not that much, then you can get away with the narrower ski. If you’re really set on a ~100 mm underfoot ski, there are other options out there as well. The Salomon QST 99, Rossignol Sky 7, Atomic Bent Chetler 100, and non-2019 Volkl Mantras come to mind, but it’s a really competitive category. Lastly, I’m 6’2″ and 220 lbs and I have the 193 Enforcer 100 and I think it’s a bit too long. Let us know if you have any questions about other models!
        SE

  51. Hello there! I’m a 5’8″, 145 lb advanced skier looking to step up my game. I live on the east coast but ski probably 50% of the time out West. Usually mixed conditions, very rarely deep powder. I’ve been on 166cm Vokl RTM 73’s (105/73/120) for several years and I’m desperately craving an upgrade! The Enforcer 100’s get such great reviews, and are leading the pack in terms of my purchase options for a new all-mountain ski. I’m curious about a few things, primarily length. Given I’ve been skiing 166’s, I was thinking the 169 made sense, but after reading how the Enforcer tends to ski “short”, would the 177 be a better option? I ski pretty hard, but I’m not obsessed with speed and much prefer maneuverability and stability. Also, I know the jump from 73 to 100 underfoot is a big one, but a lot has changed in ski tech and my Vokls are probably 7 years old. Even though the Enforcer comes in a 93, I’m for whatever reason still leaning towards the 100s. I would much appreciate your experienced thoughts, thank you!

    1. Hi Eric!

      So, at your size, on paper, the 177 cm is a perfectly reasonable length. If you’re willing to accept that it might take you a few days of skiing, or even possibly more, to adjust to that length and the different performance of the Enforcer compared to what you’re used to I think you can go for it. If you’re at all nervous about jumping up that much in length the 169 cm could work for you. So, I leave it up to you. If you’re ready for that adjustment go for the 177 cm. More stability for sure, although it will take you some time to get used to it.

      SE

  52. This site is great! Would love Your advice. I’m 40 years old, just under 6 feet and about 175 pounds.

    I ski out west (mammoth and Utah mostly).

    I consider myself a solid intermediate skier. Learned to ski in my 30s so still a little hesitant on steep trails. Spend most of my time on blues and blue blacks. Over next couple of years, want to try to move up to some of the easier blacks but don’t expect to be doing lots of off trail skiing.

    This past year I skied K2 Pinnacle when we got powder (not sure what width) and really enjoyed them.

    I’ve been skiing 170 cm length.

    Based on the above, what ski would you recommend and do you think 170 is too short?

    Thanks so much …

    1. Hi Hank!

      I would guess you were either on the 88 or the 95, and I actually think those would be great skis for you. I would say the 88 would be more appropriate since you don’t plan on doing much off-trail skiing. In my opinion the Pinnacle 88 has really nice performance for Mammoth and Utah. Good performance on firm snow so they are fun to ski even if there’s not soft snow, but you get enough snow out that it’s nice having a little extra width underfoot to handle softer snow conditions. I would also take a look at the Salomon XDR 88. Similar performance there, but a little more focus on firm snow performance. You could actually consider the XDR 84 too, not much difference between the 88 and 84 in terms of overall performance and feel.

      170 cm feels about right, maybe a touch on the short side. I think you could ski a 177 cm Pinnacle 88 and would probably actually prefer it over the 10 cm length. Still very maneuverable and manageable, but a little more stable through choppy snow, etc.

      Hope that helps!

      SE

  53. I’m 6’3″ around 235lbs & have been skiing for 45+ years. I’d say I’m advanced but tempered by age. No more hucking cliffs for me! My local mountain is Whistler & I get in at least 10 days a year. I’m on old 2008 Mantra’s 184cm; they’re fully cambered and are 96mm(?) underfoot. They’re fat GS skis, really. I like the Mantra’s because they’ll hold an edge on anything but blue ice but they are a bit of work in tight spaces. Great skis but they are 10 years old and it’s time for something new.

    I’d be interested in your thoughts re: the Enforcer 100 vs. the Bonafide and what length you’d suggest.

    1. Hi Mike!

      The Enforcer 100 is a little bit more forgiving than the Bonafide. To me that’s the biggest difference. The Bonafide feels a little stiffer and a little bit more demanding. It doesn’t have quite as much rocker as the Enforcer 100, which definitely plays into that difference in feel. I think both would be fun, but I personally would probably choose the Enforcer 100 as a Whistler ski because they handle soft snow a little more easily. That said, the Bonafide is probably closer to the performance of your ’08 Mantra (fat GS skis). They are similarly challenging in tight spaces, however, which is where that Enforcer 100 really has the edge. I think a 185 cm Enforcer 100 would be perfectly appropriate; probably no need to go longer. The 187 cm Bonafide feels like a lot of ski, so if you go that route you mind find the 180 cm is plenty.

      SE

  54. I’ve been skiing Volant Chubb Titanium 180s for about 10 years (or is it longer?) and Powercarve Ti 193 before that. 62yo, 6-0, 185 lbs, skiing for almost 60 years, pretty hard and fast. In eastern WA and ID mostly, with a few days in Tahoe, Utah, or Colorado every 2-3 years. I love a good powder day, trees or steep. Am tending to avoid bumps, the hard flexion irritates my lower back. And enjoy blasting down a groomer laying a perfect carve.

    So…recent demo of the Volkl Mantra 177 in spring conditions. The stiffer crud threw me a bit, compared to the Chubb. Otherwise an enjoyable ride. Today I tried the Nordica Enforcer 100 185. Started off soft, new snow, about 32 degrees. I think I liked it better overall…ripped some nice high speed cruisers and a few fall line mashed potatoes powder pitches, but the conditions deteriorated to rain and glue. I really would like to try under more usual conditions, but they seem to sell out very early in the season.

    I guess I’m wondering if you’d recommend any others to try? I just bought new Salomon XPro 120 boots…no one seems to mention their boots, but it seems to me that the right match to a ski could make a significant difference in performance.

    Thanks! I appreciate your thoughts.

    1. Hi Dick!

      Which Mantra did you try? The 2018 or next year’s 2019 M5 Mantra? If you liked the Enforcer 100 in the 185 cm I would think the 184 cm M5 Mantra would be worth trying if you tested the older length. I would also try the Fischer Ranger 98 Ti if you have the chance. In my opinion that ski is relatively similar to the Enforcer 100 in performance. It’s a little bit lighter weight, but overall is similar in my opinion. I think between the Enforcer 100, an M5 Mantra, and the Ranger 98 Ti you’ll have tried a nice selection of skis from that category and it should give you a sense of what direction to go in. Oh! Try the Blizzard Bonafide too if you can, that’s always a fun one to compare to the Enforcer 100 and Mantra (they all use two sheets of titanal metal).

      SE

      1. I double checked with the shop and the Volkl was the 18/19 M5 Mantra in a 177 cm. They rate 19.8 m radius. So the 184 is probably higher? Compared to the 18.5 of the 185 cm Enforcer, which was a 17-18 model. Does that change anything in your suggestions?

        Thanks for your suggestions.

        DD

      2. Hi again Dick!

        The 184 cm M5 Mantra has a 21.2 m turn radius. A bit bigger than the 18.5 m of the Enforcer 100, but I was more thinking that the power and stability of the 184 cm Mantra is closer to that of the 185 cm Enforcer 100. I would still try to ski the longer length M5 Mantra if you can as I wonder if you’d have a different to the ski’s overall stability. Choosing between these two skis and the Ranger that I mentioned it’s pretty hard to go wrong, they are all fantastic skis.

        SE

  55. Hello! Great reviews & great site. I am in early 40s, 5’8″, 150lbs, advanced/expert skier who is not as aggressive as I was in my youth (fast in open slopes, more conservative in trees now). I ski in Tahoe (Kirkwood) and love to go all over the mountain. I’m hoping that this can replace my current 1-ski quiver (2008 Line Prophet 100 179cm –> will become rock ski; I love that ski). Is 177cm the right size for me?

    1. Hi G!

      Yes, I would go with the 177 cm Enforcer 100. I think it will be a fantastic replacement for your Prophet 100. Pretty much takes the performance of that ski to the next level. At your size 177 cm is going to work really well, too. You’ll appreciate the stability when you’re skiing fast in open terrain, but the 177 cm is also going to be nice and maneuverable for you in trees and bumps.

      Hope that helps!

      SE

  56. Wow! Greatest site I’ve seen on up to date, responsive reviews. Bravo!

    So, I’m ready to buy the Enforcer 100’s. 40 years old, expert, crave untouched powder (who doesn’t), love to rip groomers – need one ski. My Fischer Watea’s 192cm, like 10 years old blew an edge. 6’1, 230lbs. 193 or 185?

    I guess you might need more info- love to make long turns but also enjoy making quick turns. usually head to the trees to find some fresh snow. Just bought a season pass for Squaw.

    Thank you so much!

    1. Hi Andy!

      This comes up a lot with skiers your size. We have some people on our staff who are around your size and we’ve talked about it quite a bit. It’s kind of easy to feel like you need the 193 cm, but realistically the 185 cm is plenty of ski for someone your size. Although, on the other hand, you’ve been skiing 192 cm skis for 10 years, so probably could handle the 193 cm. It’s a toss up, admittedly. As soon as I read your mention of quick turns and trees, however, I started leaning towards the 185 cm length.

      What do you think?

      SE

  57. I did extensive demoing on my last set of skis…Soul 7–too wimpy & tossed around in crud at high speeds charging, Cham 97–floppy front- weird pintail—liked the burly but couldn’t predict what that tail was doing—Ended up on the new old stock Legend 94 for snow days, Legend 85 for typical eastern ice. Expert, hard charger, off piste whenever feasible but I am stuck skiing piste here in the East on hard snow days. Like to rip bumps-back seat, old school zipper at times, big fast lines off piste. Having metal in my skis is a MUST I decided after demoing. Will tour with these, into sketchy steep chutes on Mt Washington happy to lug the metal for the edge hold and stability at speed. Nervous this might be to wimpy and too rockered for me. 170 lbs, 6’3”…30 days a year -20 east, 10 in Europe or West. Thinking 185cm 100’s….thoughts?

    1. Hey Brandon!

      I definitely don’t think the Enforcer 100 will be too wimpy for you. I also don’t think it would be too rockered, especially in that 185 cm length. I would be psyched to ski Tucks on an Enforcer 100. I think it has great performance for that. Relatively easy to maneuver, but still super stable when you want to open it up. Confidence-inspiring edge grip for terrain like that too. I think you’ll like it much more than the Cham 97, it’s definitely way more predictable and still pretty darn burly.

      Hope that helps!

      SE

    1. Hi Tony,

      Choosing bindings has a lot of to with personal preference, but we do mount a lot of Tyrolia Attack 13s and Marker Griffons on the Enforcer 100 because of their low stand height and wider toe profile.

      Hope that helps!

      SE

  58. I’m looking at the Enforcer 100 in 177 or 185 length. using it primarily in Tahoe and SLC area, I’m 5’11 and 160lbs and consider myself advanced intermediate progressing to advanced skier, I love doing giant slalom turns and spins on my ski, also just started skiing steep power this year. I’m considering upgrade my 3 year old line prophet 85 179cm skis, recently demo a Rossignol Soul 7 180, absolutely loved the Soul7 in powder but would like to have some ski that hold the edge a little better in carved turns, would you recommend the enforcer in 177 or 185 length?

    1. Hey Will!

      I think at your ability level the 177 cm is probably more appropriate. You’re not exceptionally heavy so I think the 177 cm will be plenty stable for you and will allow you to continue to progress your ability. The 185 cm might be a bit challenging for you and might be detrimental to progression. I would say a 177 cm Enforcer 100 has much better edge grip and stability than the 180 cm Soul 7 HD, so I think you’ll get what you’re looking for without needing to bump up to the 185 cm.

      SE

      1. Thanks a lot for the comment! Do you think 185 will still be too much ski for an average advanced skier considering the <160 lbs weight?

      2. Not necessarily, no. There are a lot of advanced to expert level skiers around that weight that prefer the 185 cm. As soon as you threw in “intermediate,” however, I started to think 177 cm was more appropriate. Are you aggressively driving your ski? Getting a high edge angle? Comfortable throwing a longer ski sideways to dump speed when you need to? If you’re answers are yes, yes, and yes, you should be fine on the 185 cm.

        SE

  59. Looking at the Nordica Enforcer 100 in either the 177 or 185 length. Going to be using this on powder days in Vermont. This would be a part of a quiver so don’t need the carving as much as the diversity depending on the snow. This would also serve as an entry ski for me with moguls. I’ve seen points made for sizing up to 185, while seeing plenty for 177. Problem is I like skiing aggressive on groomers while also playing around in the crud. 5’10, 190 lbs. Skis in quiver range between 174-180 in length, 120 boot flex. Any recommendations would be appreciated!

    1. Hey John!

      So I was thinking 185 cm, but then when I went back and reread what you said I started questioning myself because of the “entry ski for moguls” part. I do think you could ski the 185 cm, and you’d get a little better float and stability out of it, but it will be more challenging to maneuver in moguls. Pretty long, not a light swing weight really, so would be somewhat fatiguing if you’re still developing your technique in moguls. Plenty of people around your size go with the 177 cm and don’t find them too short or unstable. That length should be much more manageable for you in moguls, but will still give you the ability to ski aggressively when you want to, whether on groomers or crud snow.

      Hope that helps!

      SE

  60. Enjoying all the reviews and advice. I am an advanced/expert skiing in Utah, 5’4” @ 168lbs. Thinking about replacing my 2010 Rossi S3’s @ 159cm. Feeling that they don’t go edge to edge fast enough on groomers and that I should probably be on a longer ski. I have a bit of a mental block when it comes to anything over 162cm though. I enjoy skiing everything but bumps. I am fast and aggressive on groomers, but not as aggressive in the trees and bowls. The Enforcer 100 @169cm sounds like it would work, but worry that it might feel too long. Any recommendations on the sizing? Are there any other skis out there you would recommend that carve decently on groomers but can handle the powder too?

    1. Hi Nathan!

      I also wonder if perhaps the 169 cm Enforcer 100 would be a little too long. I think it might be a bit much for you in trees and bowls and other off piste terrain. The Enforcer 100 is known to be relatively forgiving for its level of performance, but it could be a little much for you as it’s not a lightweight ski by any means. What about a 164 cm Rossi Sky 7 HD? Much lighter than the Enforcer 100, a little easier to throw around, but I would guess that at your size it would have the torsional stiffness you’d need to hold an edge on a groomer. I think you should shoot for something under 165 cm.

      Hope that helps!

      SE

      1. Thanks for the response! Seems difficult to find many options sub 167cm. I had just started to look at the new Rossis. How does the Sky 7 HD compare to the Soul 7 HD in terms of performance on and off piste?

        Out of curiosity, a local ski shop recently told me that the Santa Ana 100 was no different in construction/performance than the Enforcer. Any truth to this, or where they just trying to get rid of inventory on a gullible customer before the end of the season?

      2. Hey Nathan!

        So the Soul and the Sky are very, very similar. Basically the only difference is the width of the ski, with the Sky being about 8 mm narrower throughout. That makes the Sky a little quicker edge to edge on firm snow, gives it a little better torsional stiffness so it holds an edge better, etc. It doesn’t have quite the same float as the Soul, which is the biggest difference there. The Soul is almost more of a powder ski, where the Sky is more versatile and definitely feels better on groomers.

        Eh, that local shop is close, but that’s not entirely accurate. The shape is the same and they both use two sheets of the same thickness metal, but the core in the Enforcer is denser wood (poplar and beech), so it’s stiffer and heavier. The Santa Ana uses a balsa wood core, which is quite a bit lighter and softer flexing. So, no, they’re not exactly the same…

        SE

  61. I’m 6’5” 205 lbs and really liked skiing the 185 version of this, but am wondering if I’m more we’ll suited for the 193? I am advanced to expert skier, but tend to ski hard pack and moguls more often than true powder – although I do ski both. Thoughts?

    1. Hi Patrick!

      Somewhat of a toss up I think. On one hand we do have a couple staff members around your size. I asked one of them what they thought and he said the 193 cm feels big in his hand, but not when it’s on his feet. That said, he usually uses them to just ski really fast. He has other shorter, lighter skis for tight terrain. Has the 185 cm ever felt unstable to you? In my opinion that would be the only reason to bump up to the 193 cm. The 193 cm length in this ski is pretty demanding, so if you feel stable on the 185 cm my instincts are to stick with that length.

      Hope that helps!

      SE

  62. I currently ski the armada TST 183. I’m looking hard at the enforcer 100. I’m advanced/expert level 5’10” 180. I’m considering the 177 because I want a little more quick turning ski but if it skis shorter maybe the 185. Do you know how the TST compares to the enforcer?

    Thanks,
    Jeff

    1. Hey Jeff!

      I would say if you’re coming off a 183 cm TST the 177 cm is probably the way to go, especially if you want it to be a little quicker turning. The TST is a lighter overall ski and also uses quite a bit of early taper. A 185 cm Enforcer 100 with its two sheets of metal and wider tips and tails would undoubtedly feel longer than your TST, but I think the 177 cm will probably have the performance you’re looking for.

      Hope that helps!

      SE

  63. Hey there SE, thanks so much for the great info.

    I’m looking hard at the Enforcer 100s, I’m in my late 50s, advanced/expert, ski east 90% of the time, I’m 5’9, 180, and I ski groomers mostly because I have to in Maine, but love to ski trees, and even bumps when they are available (aka not ice!). Torn between going short (169) or the 177s. Currently on 173 Bonafides and I’m leery about going longer. What do you think?

    1. Hey Mark!

      I would say a 177 cm Enforcer 100 is actually easier to handle than the 173 cm Bonafide. If you really want to go short you could go with the 169 cm, but in our testing that’s what we’ve found. Same could be true about the 185 and 180, the 185 cm Enforcer 100 feels easier and actually seems to ski shorter than a 180 cm Bonafide. I think you’d find the 169 cm is a bit unstable at speed, and considering your a New Englander and your an advanced/expert skiers I’m guessing you’ll have no problem what-so-ever on the 177 cm length.

      SE

  64. I began skiing last year after a 10 year hiatus from the sport. I enjoyed myself so much I went and bought skis after my first time out. I purchased Nordica Soul rider 169’s. I am 31, 5’9″, 200lbs. I have become increasingly confident however I want to make sure I can continue to improve and starting to feel when I am really moving on groomers, my current ski has a bit too much chatter. Do you think keeping the same length in the Enforcer 100’s would take care of that chatter while still providing me the ability to maneuver the ski or do you think it is time to step up to 177’s? Or should I be looking at a ski in between the two lengths?

    1. Hi Ryan!

      The Enforcer 100 is definitely a more stable ski than the Soul Rider, so even just switching to that ski will help reduce some chatter. That being said, at your size and if you’re ability and confidence is increasing rapidly I would say the 177 cm may be a more appropriate length. The Enforcer 100 also uses longer tip rocker than the Soul Rider, so I think you’ll find it pretty manageable even though it’s longer.

      Hope that helps!

      SE

  65. Hi All. I am 68 male at 178 lbs and have skied for 55 years. I ski a lot between 30 to 45 mph on groomers. I ski bumps too. I look for off piste conditions as much as I can though and ski slower off piste. My skiis include 178 Nordica Jef Fuel, 178 Nordica older Enforcer, and 177 older Cochise. I ski the Enforcer the most and love it. It carves great and I ski it everywhere. It responds well to correct technique. Not great in the powder but OK. The Cochise is wonderful in the powder and blows through cut up powder like nothing. So I decided to try the 177 new 100mm Enforcer this week at Park City. I live in California and ski Utah and Vail. It was great in broken up snow and in bumps. Skiis well and slow speeds. No powder that day. But it just did not feel very firm when I laid down an edge. It works though. On steep hard pack it did not hold well. It wasn’t bad but not great. Seemed stable enough even at 43 mph. The old Enforcer is far more secure and stable on edge. That ski just rocks. I would love to have the same edge carve control with more early rise in the tip. That would help with off piste and poweder. Would I get this with the 185 length new Enforcer? Other suggestions?

    Thanks,

    Craig

    1. Hi Craig,

      Maybe a Blizzard Bonafide would be better for you. The Enforcer and the Bonafide have similar construction, but the Bonafide doesn’t have that same high rise tip rocker as the Enforcer and does hold an edge better in the terrain you’re talking about. I would say a lot of skiers your size end up going with the 185 cm Enforcer 100, but the shape of the Bonafide is more consistent with your older Enforcers, so I’m thinking you would like that ski more. Definitely worth trying before you make a decision if you have the means.

      Hope that helps!

      SE

  66. Thank you for the reviews, videos and commentary – it’s been extremely helpful! I’ve been skiing the Bonafides in the 166 length and the Soul 7 HD in 172 and I’m looking at making a change to the Enforcer 100. I’m 5’8″ and about 140lbs and found the Bonafides to be a bit stiff and the Soul 7 to be a little too soft on hard snow. It sounds like the Enforcer is a nice middle ground between those two. I ski mostly in Big Sky and spend time pretty evenly throughout the mountain so I’m looking for a ski that I can warm up on a groomer with as well as spend an afternoon doing tram laps. Do you have a size recommendation? I’m caught between the 169 & 177.

    1. Hi Chad!

      I think you’ll like the Enforcer 100 and I would agree that it’s performance falls somewhat in between the Bonafide and Soul 7. Probably a little bit closer to the Bonafide just because of the construction, but in my opinion it’s a lot more forgiving. I think it makes sense that considering you’re looking for performance in between those two skis it also makes sense to get the length in between those two skis, the 169 cm. I would worry that you’d have a similar reaction to the 177 cm Enforcer 100 as you do to the Bonafide, just a little too much ski so to speak.

      What do you think?

      SE

  67. Hi SE. Good site.

    I’m considering new skis and have been drawn to the Enforcers by various reviews and the local demo shop. I hope to do a demo day soon and am going to make the Enforcers, both 93 and 100 my starting point, then try some similar alternatives.

    I’m 71 years old, 6’2″, 195 lbs. I ski mostly at Kirkwood near Tahoe and Heavenly a bit. I’d call myself an advanced skier. My good days start with some fresh snow but typically progress quickly to chopped up fresh, then crud then groomers. Other days start with groomers but then see me off into the crud to the sides if it is skiable. Occasionally the trees at Heavenly. Overall probably 60/40 groomers and other stuff.

    My current skis are Salomon Czars 182mm (longest available at the time). Those have been good all around skis. I especially like them in the crud. Stuff that I used to avoid became fun on the Czars. I also have some older Salomon Scream 10s (70mm underfoot) but rarely use them now, seeming to prefer the Czars given their versatility. The Czars are OK on the groomers but but I wouldn’t call them fond of turning. They like speed and big turns.

    I’m torn between trying to find another one ski quiver ski, to simply replace the Czars, or supplementing the Czars with a ski that does better on the groomers but can still handle the variety of conditions I often encounter on the same day. I’m also not getting any younger and think that as I age I may find myself sticking to the groomers more and emphasizing form over speed.

    I’d be interested in your opinions on the one or two ski approach for me and the Enforcer 93 or 100 and other skis I should try before buying. Thanks so much.

    1. Hi Terry!

      I bet you’d find an Enforcer 100 accomplishes just about everything you are looking to do on skis. There’s something nice about having just one pair of skis to do everything because you really get to know that particular ski and adjust to its performance. The Enforcer 100 does just fine on groomers, but can also handle deeper snow conditions, off-piste terrain, etc really well. The turn radius on a 185 cm Enforcer 100 is actually relatively short, so I think you’ll find them more maneuverable than your Czars. They can still make big turns and go fast when you want to, but more user-friendly for those slower speed, shorter turns.

      I would try to get on at least a few other skis in that high-90, low-100 mm waist width range. Salomon QST comes to mind, Blizzard Rustler 10 would be interesting to try as it’s a little bit more soft snow oriented than the Enforcer, but again still does fine on firm snow. Rossignol Sky 7 HD is a favorite for some as it offers a lighter weight feel and tremendous maneuverability. Lots of other good ones in this category, but I think if you can just get on a few pairs it will help steer you in the right direction.

      SE

  68. Hello. On a similar vein to Jeff’s story, I ski in the Pacific Northwest, 5′-11″ and 170lbs but still rock 15 year old park skis, 169cm @ 85 underfoot. They do terrible out west and it’s time to make an upgrade. I’m almost reluctant to call myself an advanced skier because I’ve been limited by skiing on buttery twintips in cruddy terrain. I dig the advertised all-around capability of the Enforcer and am pretty much sold. The debate is between the Enforcer 100 or 110, 177 or 185. I spend half my time on-piste ripping turns, and half off-piste usually going slower in the trees or steep bumps.

    I can rarely time getting out on a powder day, so I’m learning towards the 100s over the 110s. Plus, it’s an incentive to one day invest in a true full rocker powder ski. I still would like to float on wet, deep snow, and I’m hoping the 100 would get me on top to some degree. I’m used to skiing on centermounted 169cm and the leap to 185 could make for a steep learning curve, especially in the trees, but the 185s would pay off when the mountain calls for speed.

    What are your thoughts on underfoot and size? Appreciate any input.

    1. Hey Steve!

      I replied to your comment on our blog post, but I thought I would leave it here as well for others to reference:

      Hi Steve!

      If you’re spending half of your time on groomed slopes I would stick with the 100. It definitely outperforms the 110 on firmer snow conditions, is a little quicker edge to edge, holds an edge better, etc. It still does really well in soft snow too. I would have no issue with skiing it off-piste in Whistler terrain. Sure there are some days out there where I’d prefer the 110 if it was really deep, but for the most part the 100 will perform great. I kind of agree that 177 cm is probably more appropriate considering you’re coming off of shorter, lighter, center mounted skis. 185 cm might feel like a lot of ski to you.

      If you have the means it would be interesting for you to try the Soul or Kore compared to the Enforcer. I would guess you’d prefer the Kore over the Soul, but maybe not. If you decide not to demo any other skis I don’t think you’ll be disappointed with a 177 cm Enforcer 100 by any means, but it’s always fun to try more skis.

      SE

  69. Hello, and thanks for helping everyone here 🙂

    I ski Bachelor and live in Bend. I went to a pair of Enforcer 93’s in 177 at the beginning of the season and find them to be the best ski I’ve ever used. Too much so perhaps, to the point that most terrain no longer represents any challenge.

    Thought it would be a great idea to get a more long-turn powder-oriented ski, and get a pair of Enforcer 110’s in 185 cm. This appears to have been a mistake. While they may be a capable powder ski, and have some family resemblance to the 93’s, they are just too slow and the tips too soft when conditions become steep, tight, and chopped up.

    I’m thinking that skipping over the 100’s was a mistake. I’m 5’11, 165 lbs, and like to ski challenging terrain, which normally isn’t at higher speeds. If you think this might be a good direction, any input on size?

    Thanks,
    Jeff

    1. Hi Jeff!

      I can understand where you’re coming from. The 110 compared to the 93 definitely feels slower edge to edge. Not quite sluggish, but definitely not as quick. Also, 177 cm to 185 cm is contributing to that feel as well, in my opinion. Just a heavier swing weight.

      The 100 definitely performs more like the 93. They share the same rocker profile, while the 110 and Pro have much more tail rocker. It’s also a different core, which doesn’t drastically change performance, but it does have an effect. Based off what you’re saying I wonder if Enforcer 100 in the 177 cm length is the way to go. I’m about your size (and hey, my name is also Jeff) and I feel like we’re the category of skiers that feel a little bit in between sizes on the Enforcers. My logic is that considering you liked the feel of the 93 in the 177 cm length you should go with the 100 in the 177 cm length. Are you keeping the 110 or are you going to try to pass it on to someone else? 100 in 177 cm and 110 in 185 cm would be a nice little mini-Enforcer-only quiver.

      What do you think?

      SE

  70. Hi. Looking for ski/size recommendation. 5’10, 190lbs, intermediate to advanced, not super aggressive, skiing only Tahoe. Mostly on grooomers but want something that can also handle powder when it does eventually snow. Enforcer seems a good fit but wondered any others you recommend and size?

    1. Hey Simon!

      While you probably could ski both the 177 and 185 cm lengths, I’m leaning towards 177 cm simply because you say you’re not super aggressive. I’m around your height, although a little lighter but probably more aggressive, and kind of go back and forth between the 177 cm and 185 cm Enforcer 100. I usually prefer 185 cm, but I recently had a day on the 177 cm length and it reminded me that’s it’s still plenty of ski for most people in that length. A good way to think about it is the 177 cm will be more user-friendly, more maneuverable, and more forgiving, while the 185 cm will have better stability at speed, but if you’re not skiing fast you might not need that extra stability and instead would be taking away from maneuverability and forgiveness in some sense.

      SE

  71. Understood. I have found some confidence and feel like I will progress quickly now that I am closer to ski country. I am also looking at the K2 Pinnacle 95. Do think this could be a good fit? Do you think the 2017 model with less metal would be better than the updated 2018 model? I would assume your recommendation for the 177 cm would hold for this ski as well? Thanks.

    1. Hey again Tyler!

      Yeah, I think the Pinnacle 95 could work too, especially if you feel like you’re maybe not quite aggressive enough for the Enforcer yet. There’s not a huge difference in performance from 17 to 18, although the 18 does feel a little bit more stable. Not Enforcer levels of stability, but closer. Yeah, 177 cm is probably still best, although in a ski like the Pinnacle 95 I would worry less about you skiing the 184 cm than I would about you skiing a 185 cm Enforcer 100, does that make sense?

      SE

  72. Hi,
    I’m a 23 year old 6’0″, 160 lb intermediate skier who just moved to western Washington. I am trying to decide if the enforcer 100 would be a good western all mountain ski for me. I am looking for one ski to do it all while I progress to more advanced riding. Do you think this ski would be a good fit? Also do you think that the 177 or the 185 would be a better size?

    Thanks in advance,
    Tyler

    1. Hey Tyler!

      Do you feel like your progressing pretty quickly? The Enforcer 100 can be a little bit much for an intermediate skier, although I’m guessing you’re a pretty athletic guy considering your height, weight, and age. Do you feel timid or unsure of yourself on skis? Or have you already found some comfort and confidence? If it’s the latter, I think you can probably handle the Enforcer 100 just fine. If not, maybe a lighter ski with less metal would be better.

      For length I think it’s a bit of a toss up. On one hand a lot of skiers your size go with the 185 cm, but on the other hand considering your ability level I think 177 cm could be better. It should be stable enough for you as you’re not exceptionally heavy, and a little easier for you to maneuver.

      Hope that helps!

      SE

  73. Currently thinking enforcer 100 over bonafides, but could be swayed. Would like length recs for both too. I’m 40 years old, 6’2″, 185 lbs. Former soccer player and college football place kicker, now cyclist, so a lot of my skiing ability is powering through and athleticism. Think I have above average technique, but the former can often get me out of most mistakes. I become a considerably better skier with heavier/more snow for this reason. 15-20 ski days a year last 3 years, 5-10 a year before that. Half in Colorado/ Utah/ Jackson/ Tahoe with two trips and half with single days in Vermont (live in CT). Consider myself one of the stronger/ better skiers on midweek days in Vermont, but definitely better skiers than me on weekends and when I’m out west. Still will ski just about anything. Prefer bowls, not-too-icy bumps and not-too-tight trees. Hit groomers mainly when these are not available. Current skis are ~10 years old, Solomon X-wing Hurricanes 172cm with 85 underfoot. I actually still like them a lot in most conditions, which is why I have not upgraded sooner. Thanks for any advice. Feel free to recommend something other than enforcer 100 or bonafides if you think they apply.

    1. Hey Jon!

      In my opinion the Enforcer 100 has a more versatile feel and is more fun to ski in un-groomed snow. It’s more forgiving, while still being powerful, so is a little more user-friendly without being sloppy or too easy by any means. I think it’s a great ski for the mix of skiing you do. The Bonafide is a great ski, but it’s more demanding than the Enforcer 100, especially when you’re in softer snow, and even more so when that soft snow is kind of heavy and grabby. At your height and weight in the Enforcer 100 you’ll probably want to go 185 cm. I know that might sound long, but they ski a little bit short and are quite maneuverable considering the length and 2 sheets of metal. I think you’ll appreciate having the extra length and stability in bowls and other open, un-groomed terrain.

      Where do you ski in Vermont? We’re located in Stowe. If you make it this far north let us know and we’ll come take some runs with you!

      SE

  74. Looking for a ski suggestion and appreciate your ski reviews. Advanced NE skier 5’09” 220, currently on Nordica El Capo 185, looking for an NE All Moutain ski to enjoy what the mountain throws at us that day, Pow, dust, trees, crud, corn, groomer, etc. Appreciate your insight on the following, Nordica Enforcer, Elan, Rip Stick, and Salomon QST 99.

    1. Hey Tim!

      You’d probably love the Enforcer 100 in the 185 cm length. It’s basically like you take all the performance benefits of the El Capo, but in a ski that’s drastically easier to ski, more playful, more forgiving, more versatile, etc. The El Capo is a pretty serious ski, so considering that’s what you’re coming off I don’t think the Rip Stick or QST 99 would be quite enough ski for you, unless you feel like you want a drastically different feel (lighter, less stability, etc.).

      Hope that helps!

      SE

  75. Hi,

    I’m also going to get a pair of Enforcer 100s. I am 5′ 10″, 165 lbs. I am an advanced/expert skier, 54 years old and have been skiing since I was 16. I like to ski fast, but not necessarily mach speed fast. I ski primarily in Tahoe, CA with occasional trips to other big mountain western resorts. This would be my second of a 2-ski quiver. The other are Dynastar Speedzone TI 12s in 174cm, which are great for groomer days.

    The Enforcer 100s would be replacing an old pair of powder skis (from way back when 100mm underfoot were considered powder skis!), I am looking for performance in powder, crud/spring snow and soft bumps (knees and back getting too old to bash hard bumps). But they still need to perform well on groomed slopes as I find myself skiing groomed runs more and more. During powder days, I prefer skiing in the trees at Northstar. As with many others my size, I’m torn between 177 and 185. Based on your previous comments about these skiing short, I am leaning towards the 185. But I am concerned that I have not skied on skis this length since the days of skinny skis and also about quickness in bumps.

    Thanks in advance for your guidance!
    Steve

    1. Hi Steve!

      I do think the Enforcer 100 skis a little bit short, but there are some skiers your size who go with the 177 cm length and are perfectly happy. I always say it comes down to level of aggressiveness. Do you consider yourself an aggressive skier? Almost has more to do with line choice and movement than actual speed if that makes sense, although the 185 cm is a little more stable at speed. As long as you’re a relatively aggressive skier and are comfortable driving a ski and maneuvering a ski that length 185 cm will be a lot of fun, especially for that western terrain you ski. On the other hand if you want to maximize maneuverability and don’t think you need the extra stability and power of the 185 cm, 177 cm could certainly work too. They’ll definitely feel easier to maneuver than those old straight skis, although I do think the 177 cm feels a little quicker in bumps than the 185 cm. Fairly similar, but lighter swing weight translates to quicker movements.

      Hope that helps!

      SE

      1. Thanks; I greatly appreciate the personal recommendation.

        Ya, you reinforced my thinking. Stability at speed and float in powder versus maneuverability, particularly in the bumps. Your answer to Simon below reminded me that the 177 is still plenty of ski for most people. Maneuverability and performance in bumps is pretty important to me, so now I’m thinking the 177 might be the way to go for me.

        Thanks again!

  76. Hello,

    I’m 33, 5’11”, 180 lbs advanced all mountain skier.

    I am considering a pair of Enforcer 100’s for resort skiing (90% Colorado, 10% Utah & Tahoe). I’ve been on 179cm Line SuperNatural 108’s as a 1 ski quiver for the past 3 seasons with over 100 total days on them and took a bad spill last month that fractured my tibial plateau… so I’ve had some free time to read up on the current gear.

    I view the SN 108’s as an extremely hard charging ski, and in my experience on groomers it takes more effort to ski them moderately than to rail the edges with big sweeping GS turns at 60-70 mph. I never wanted more length in the 108’s, and I like them in powder and varying depths of chop.

    I’m in the market for new sticks because this was my 5th surgery on this knee and I really need to slow down and be more conservative in my approach to the sport if I want to keep skiing in the future. I read other reviews stating the Enforcer 100 can be pushed hard but is still content on groomers at low to moderate speed with tighter turns – was this SE’s experience as well? I want to be able to dictate how I ski rather than the ski demanding that I constantly drive it at redline… so looking for a more forgiving, playful ski than the SN 108 that is quicker edge to edge and still has decent stability, dampness, and powder float.

    I was happy with the SN 108’s at 179cm.. would you recommend 177cm or 185cm for the Enforcer 100? I had 177cm Head Monster 82’s before the SN 108. I’m going to keep the SN 108’s for deep days and want one ski for everything else. I don’t ski moguls or tracked out trees (knee).

    I’m also considering the 2018 Sky 7 HD.. Any input on it and other skis to possibly consider would be appreciated.

    Thank you!
    Kyle

    1. Hi Kyle!

      Yes, the Enforcer 100 is relatively unique in the sense that it really can be pushed hard and skied fast without feeling like you’re pushing it past its limits, but it’s impressively forgiving and willing to ski at slower speeds. We think it’s largely what has made it such a popular ski. It can handle a lot of different ski styles, level of aggressiveness, etc, and that’s true within one person just as much as it means it’s appropriate for a lot of skiers. In one day you can charge down steep lines and you can also just cruise groomers; the Enforcer 100 feels very comfortable doing both.

      For length I would probably go 177 cm, just because you’ve been hovering around that length in other skis and because you’re coming off an injury. While there are a lot of skiers your size that ski the 185 cm, I don’t necessarily think you need to. I think the 185 cm would just be tough on your knee sometimes (I’ve had 3 knee surgeries and a snapped femur myself, so I know where you’re coming from), and you probably don’t really need the extra length.

      The Sky 7 HD is a great ski, but I’m guessing it won’t have the stability you’re looking for for those days you want to open it up a little and ski fast. It’s ultra-maneuverable, but considering your background I think you’ll prefer the feel of the Enforcer 100.

      What do you think?

      SE

  77. Hi,

    I am thinking of getting a pair of Enforcer 100’s and have a sizing question. I am 6′ 0” and 150 lbs. I would say that I’m an expert skier, I’m always seeking out steep chutes and tree runs, but also like to ski fast through the crud on the groomers. I am trying to decide between the 177 and the 185. Given that I am an advanced/expert skier I am gravitating towards the 185, but I still want something that I can throw around in the trees/bumps. For reference I currently ski a 178cm Dynastar Cham 97, they also have quite a bit of tip rocker similar to the Enforcers, but when I am at high speed I don’t feel a lot fo confidence coming from my Dynastars.

    Thanks,

    Lucas

    1. Hi Lucas!

      Just based off of what you said about your Chams, I would get the 185cm. Unless you’re really popping through rabbit holes in ridiculously tight trees, you should have no problem. And I’d say in bumps, the extra length will give you more stability. I’m 6’1″ and 165 lbs, so I’m about your size and I ski the 185cm.

  78. Hi,
    I’m in for buying a pair of all mountain ski.
    Tried the Elan ripstick 96 181cm. Found it verry playful and easy to turn. It’s allmost half kilo lighter then the nordica per ski. I’m looking now between Ripstick, Fischer Ranger98 and Enforcer 100.
    Can you tel me some crucial diferences between this skiis?
    I’m 185cm tall and about 90kg.What size would you recomend.
    I like going between trees and powder when there is some.
    Allso I’m ski instructor so level expert.
    Greetnigs from Croatia

    1. Hi Oliver!

      The Ripstick 96 and Ranger 98 feel relatively similar. Both are quick, easy to turn, relatively playful, but still have some solid power, vibration damping, stability, etc. The Enforcer 100 takes the stability and damping properties to the next level with its 2 full sheets of titanal, but it’s at the expense of weight and some maneuverability. The Enforcer 100 isn’t overly demanding, in fact it’s quite maneuverable considering those two sheets of metal, but it does feel more challenging to maneuver compared to the Ranger and Ripstick. Usually speed and level of aggressiveness are a good way to determine which way to go in this scenario. Do you like to ski really fast? Charge down the fall line no matter the snow condition? Enforcer 100 is probably best. Slower speeds, more turns, more of a playful ski style? You’ll probably prefer either the Ripstick or Ranger.

      Hope that helps

      SE

      1. Ordered the Nordica.
        Hope didn’t make a mistake.
        Even in fresh snow I will be 50% on slope so better grip will do better.
        Allso liked the size 185 same hight as I’m.

      2. Hey Oliver!

        Pretty much impossible to make a mistake when buying an Enforcer 100! 185 cm sounds like the perfect length for you, 193 cm would be overkill most likely, but I think you’ll appreciate the stability, edge grip, and power of the 185 cm, and it’s still impressively maneuverable.

        Let us know what you think after you’ve had a few days on them!

        SE

  79. Hi, great review!
    I’m intermediate-advanced and have grown up skiing east Ontario/upstate NY, which is usually hard pack groomed runs.
    Would the enforcer 100 be the right play here or the enforcer 93?
    I’m 6foot, 220lbs

    1. Hi Adrian!

      It’s somewhat of a toss up between the 93 and the 100 for eastern skiers. 93 is definitely a little quicker edge to edge and feels a little more appropriate on firm snow, but the 100 isn’t a slouch on firm groomers by any means. It can still hold an edge really well, and doesn’t feel sluggish edge to edge, it’s just not quite as quick as the 93.

      Hope that helps!

      SE

  80. Hi,

    I am looking to get the 2018 enforcer 100 this year to compliment my atomic vantage 90 cti. I am in the west skiing Montana and western Canada
    I am 5’5″ and 143 lbs advanced-intermediate looking for something that can go fast and make some quick turns that goes thru crud.
    I figured with the reviews that this would be the go to. unfortunately i dont have a chance for a demo but would 169 work for me?
    i have also read in some forums that the 169 kinda feels different from the other sizes is this true?

    1. Hi Robert!

      Sounds like the Enforcer 100 will be a fun ski for you. It’s definitely a ski that can blast through crud at high speeds, but it’s also relatively easy to maneuver at slower speeds too. I do think 169 cm is the way to go for you. 177 cm would be a bit long for your size. We’ve heard that feedback too, but in our testing we haven’t found a huge difference in performance between the 169 and 177 cm lengths.

      SE

      1. Hello again,

        How would this compare to the K2 pinnacle 105? in terms of the whole characteristics of the skis.
        I see that the k2 has minimal metal in it.

      2. Hi again Robert!

        The Pinnacle 105 is a little bit more forgiving. It’s lighter as the metal only runs along the edges of the ski, so a little easier to throw side to side, especially in longer lengths. It’s still a smooth, stable ski and you can still put some power down with that Konic style construction, it just doesn’t quite have the same power or vibration damping of the Enforcer 100. So, similar, but a little easier to ski.

        SE

  81. Hello,
    I’ve recently moved back to the Washington from working abroad and had a pair of Nordica Hell & Back’s I haven’t mounted yet. I purchased them before after demoing and liked how light weight they were. I used to think I’d be charging a lot as I progressed to advanced/expert level, but these days, I think I just enjoy making smooth turns at moderate speeds. I’m a bit torn whether I should keep the H&B’s and mount them or go with an Enforcer 93 or Enforcer 100. The H&B’s flat tail was great for carving when I demoed them, but I do notice myself doing a mix of carving and slarving my way down the mountain these days. It wasn’t the most forgiving ski to go down the mountain casually.

    I demoed the Salomon QST 99 this season and it was a very easy ski to ski and very lightweight, but didn’t feel particularly strong carving when I wanted to lay into them. I think most reviews of saying they were surfy are quite accurate.

    I’m 5’9″ and 160lbs, advanced skier who stays on piste probably 80% of the time. Mostly ski at Mt. Baker and Crystal Mountain. I grew up skiing in Tahoe and have noticed Washington to get a lot more snow. I think the 177cm length definitely fits what I’m looking for, but I’m having trouble deciding between keeping the H&B’s, or go with an E93 or E100. I haven’t had a chance to demo the enforcers, but is the weight gain of the two sheets of metal going to feel significant in the amount of effort you need to put into skiing them? Also I’ve read the E93’s feel more stiff than the E100’s and also the weight of both are about the same?

    Sorry for all the questions but hope I can get some advice!

    1. Hi Ray,

      Quick and easy answer: Get a 177 cm Enforcer 100.

      Long and (still easy?) answer: Your description of your skiing corresponds more to the performance of the Enforcer 100 than the H&B, largely because of the flat tail. The Enforcer 100 is much easier to pivot, smear, slarve, etc than the H&B. Also, it sounds like you enjoyed your time on the QST 99, which is making me lean towards 100 mm as a more appropriate waist width for you than 93. Where you ski kind of solidified that opinion for me as having that extra 7 mm of width will help on those deeper days. You know, we’ve read comments and reviews saying the Enforcer 93 feels stiffer too, but in our opinion it’s a very marginal difference. They feel a touch quicker edge to edge; that’s more noticeable than any difference in stiffness.

      Hope that helps!

      SE

  82. Hi there,

    I’ve recently got into skiing after snowboarding for the last 15+ years and am super eager to get on the enforcers based on reviews and all-mountain versatility. I’ve tried the Rossignol sky 7s (172) and more recently the Armada ARV 96 (184). Both very different skis, I like the Armada’s playfulness and twin-tip but noticed they were pretty floppy at high speeds/hard snow or crud. The Rossignols were a bit too heavy and seemed somewhat tough to maneuver despite smaller size. Not sure which size I should go for on the Enforcers, I’m 185lbs and 5’11, the Armada 184 seemed a bit too long, so I’m leaning towards the 177 size.

    Thanks!

    1. Hi Jeff!

      I agree the 177 cm is probably the best length to go with. Eventually you might want a longer length, but that 177 cm should be plenty of ski and will give you a better tool to get back into skiing. A couple years from now when you’re a little more aggressive you might want to go with a longer length if you start to ski faster, but I think 177 cm is just fine to start. A lot of skiers your size go with the 185 cm length, but I think that might be a bit much at first.

      SE

  83. Hi,
    after 10 years of snowboarding i’m coming back to ski. Last year I rented various kind of ski but i decided to buy my own for this season! i’m a good skier and i’m searching for a versatile ski (groomers + pow + few days a season touring) and Enforcer seems to be what i’m looking for. I’m only wondering if there is such a big difference between 93 and 100 expecially on hard snow or ice. Moreover which one do you suggest for some touring days?? What about size? I’m 174 cm (5.7) x 165 lbs .
    Thank you!!!

    1. Hi Andre!

      Welcome back to skiing! Do you remember what you skied last season? Did you get to try the Enforcers at all?

      You don’t lose too much performance between the 100 and 93 on hard snow. The 93 is a little quicker edge to edge and arguably holds an edge slightly better, but realistically they feel very similar. Same turn radius, construction, etc.

      Neither is a traditional touring ski as they both use two sheets of metal and wouldn’t necessarily be described as lightweight, but you wouldn’t be the first person touring on a pair, that’s for sure. Again there’s not going to be a huge difference between the two. If you find yourself lucky enough to get a lot of powder on your touring days, the 100 will have a little better float and better performance in deep snow, but other than that you’re looking at relatively similar performance.

      I think the 177 cm is likely the way to go, unless you were skiing much shorter lengths last year. 169 cm could certainly work, although the Enforcer series do ski a little short. Do you remember what lengths you were skiing last year?

      SE

  84. So I finally purchased the Enforcer 100s after a year of looking and reading. No one close by had demos to offer so I just broke down and bought them. I figured with such great reviews if I didn’t like them someone else would. They are not as good as my Mantras on hard icy surfaces just as others have reported. I believe its due to the rocked tips. Otherwise the ski is heavy and stiff as my old Mantras, the way I like them. In the broken-up crude they tend to ride up getting more pushed around, rather then plowing through which is preferable to me. But when it comes to the real deal powder they are amazing. I believe you end up buying a ski and adapting to it, I’m still adapting. However I’m already sure I won’t be passing these ski on to someone else.

    1. Hey Jack!

      I think that’s a pretty accurate comparison to the Mantra. I agree they feel like they’re on the snow more than plowing through the snow, which I like as well. It gives them a more maneuverable feel if you need to slash a quick turn or dump some speed. I find that I ski the Enforcer 100 with a more balanced, neutral stance than the Mantra. Do you find the same? It does take a little bit of an adjustment to really unlock the sweet spot of the Enforcer. Not too much tip pressure, more lateral input than fore and aft. Would you agree?

      Thanks for sharing your experience!

      SE

  85. I’m 5’10” 160 LBS, 56. I’ve been skiing since I was 10 but have been living in the deep south for 25 years so I don’t get to ski more than a couple times a year. I usually ski Utah or Wyoming, now I’m heading up to Big Sky! My question is what is your recommendation for a good length for me in the Enforcer 100? In the past my biggest obstacle has been skiing moguls where my skis seemed too long, at the time I had 180’s. The next skis were 165’s and seemed about right.

    Thanks

    1. Hi Paul!

      What were your 165 cm skis? My instinct is to recommend the 177 cm Enforcer 100. Chances are it has more rocker than your previous skis, so will ski a little shorter and will be more maneuverable. Going too short will take away from the stability and float of the Enforcer 100; two attributes that make it a great ski for where you’re skiing. It’s known for being relatively forgiving as well. I think you’ll find the 177 cm easy enough to handle. I would worry that the 169 cm would feel too short, although you thought your 165 cm skis felt about right, so maybe I’m wrong. Most people tend to size up on the Enforcer 100, however. Something to keep in mind.

      What do you think?

      SE

  86. Hello,

    I am currently trying to decide between the Nordica 100, Blizzard Rustler 10, and Blizzard Bonafide. I live in the Rocky Mountains and spend most of my time off the groomers either on the bumps, in the trees, or out in the back bowls. Looking for a quiver of one ski that I can take out no matter the conditions. I’m 5’10” 190lbs, ski pretty aggressively, and love looking for things to jump off of :). My old sticks were Rossi S5 Barras 185cm which were a pure camber and could ski through just about anything and still float the powder good enough to enjoy. I sadly had to retire them to because I blew out the side wall hitting a rock (coverage is really bad out West right now). Any thoughts on the which of those would better fit my riding style? All seem like good skis!

    1. Hey Cameron!

      I’m leaning towards the Rustler 10 for you as it is the most playful of the bunch. As soon as your said you love looking for things to jump off my mind went straight to that ski. It’s quick and fun and definitely loves to play, while still being plenty stable for more aggressive skiing from time to time. I don’t think the Bonafide would have quite the playfulness you’re looking for. It’s the type of ski that likes to stay glued to the snow, while the Rustler 10 will love flying through the air. The Enforcer 100 kind of blends the two in my opinion. It’s more forgiving and versatile than the Bonafide while still being powerful, but not as playful or quick as the Rustler 10 because of the two sheets of metal. I think the Rustler 10 feels the best out of the three in true powder conditions too, which will help on those deep days out west when it finally starts snowing.

      You’re totally correct in saying they’re all good skis. Chances are you’d have a blast skiing all three, but it sounds like the Rustler 10 will match your ski style really nicely.

      SE

      1. Excellent. Thanks for the guidance! Does the Rustler ski short or true to length? Weighing the 180vs188 lengths.

      2. Hey Cameron!

        I would say it skis pretty true to size. It does have a nice maneuverable feel, but I don’t necessarily think it skis short. I think considering you’re coming off a 185 cm length you shouldn’t have any trouble with an extra 3 cm of ski. I’m about your height, but a little lighter, and I think if I was still living out west and I was making that decision I might go 188 cm too. Here in Stowe I would choose 180 cm for the tighter trees, etc.

        Hope that helps!

        SE

  87. I’m 5’9’ 175 lbs advance intermediate skier. I ski mostly on the western part of the US. I mostly ski on piste, but occasionally go for off piste. I’m trying to decide 177 or 185 in length. Thanks!

    1. Hey Ben!

      It’s somewhat of a toss up. I know skiers your size on the 177 and I also know skiers your size on the 185 cm. None of them are disappointed with their length. In my opinion it comes down to how aggressive you are. Do you like to ski fast and make big sweeping turns or do you prefer more moderate speeds and shorter turns? I definitely think both lengths could work for you. The 185 will be a little bit more stable and float a little better in powder, while the 177 will be a little quicker, but you lose a touch of stability and float. Another way to think about it to help guide you to the right length is what you value more: stability or quickness? I think that answer combined with how aggressive you are as a skier should help you choose the right length for yourself.

      Are you leaning towards one or the other? Let me know what you think

      SE

  88. Hello,

    I demo’d the Nordica Enforcer 100’s in a 169cm and the Volkl Mantra 170’s this weekend at Breckenridge. I really liked the Enforcer and am thinking that is what I am going to purchase. I have been on the Volkl Mantra 170’s for the past 10 years. The Enforcer’s felt like they had a little more pop then the newer mantra’s. I am 5’6″, 182lbs and an expert skier. For the Colorado conditions, all mountain, powder, bumps, trees, etc, am thinking the 169cm is the way to go? That said am interested in your thoughts?

    Thanks,

    JE

    1. Hi Josh!

      That extra pop and energy you’re feeling is due to the cambered section of the ski. The Mantra is a great ski, but that reverse camber shape sometimes lacks a little bit of snap and pop in and out of turns. If you enjoyed skiing the 169 cm Enforcer 100 I think it’s hard to make an argument to go with a different length. If you wanted a more stable ski for charging down choppy snow you could bump up to the 177 cm, but considering it sounds like you had a blast on the 169 cm I’m guessing 177 cm would be a little bit of overkill. That length would be quite a bit taller than you. I’d stick with the 169 cm unless you felt they were unstable at any point during your demo day.

      Hope that helps! Have a great season.

      SE

  89. I am 6.2 @ around 170 LBs advanced skier. Currently I ski the Rossignol Experience 98 @ 180. I am reading a lot of good things about the Nordica enforcer 100 and I like to throw my money at it without trying it, but I am not sure wich lenght to go for; 177 or 185. Open to your suggestion. Thank you

    1. Hey Frank! If you’ve been skiing a 180 cm Experience 98 you’ll want to go with the 185 cm Enforcer 100. It’s a great ski, a touch more versatile and definitely maneuverable in softer snow than your Experience 98. Because it uses more rocker, especially in the tip, most people find that it skis a little bit short. It’s pretty common for someone who typically skis a 180 cm to bump up to the 185 cm Enforcer 100 instead of going down to the 177 cm, especially for an advanced skier like yourself.

      Hope that helps!

      SE

  90. I’m an aggressive, hard charging telemark skier and am torn between the Enforcer 100 and the Rustler 10s. I’m 6’3, 180 lbs. I ski about 25% backcountry and pretty much exclusively in Colorado. When on piste, I seek out steeps, chutes, and bumps but also enjoy high speed carving when the snow is firm and fast. Have any of your testers skied both of these skis?

    1. Hi James!

      We have a lot of people on our staff who have skied both the Enforcer 100 and the Rustler 10. I can understand why you’re feeling torn between the two. The Rustler 10 is definitely a little bit more maneuverable and a little bit more forgiving, but I think the Enforcer 100 has the edge at high speeds, especially if you’re the type of skier that likes a very stable ski. It’s not to say the Rustler 10 doesn’t have good stability; that tapered sheet of metal does give it a nice stable feel under foot. The tips and tails are more supple, however, which is where the difference comes from.

      I just bounced the question off our resident expert telemark skier. He’s a little heavier than you, but overall about your size. I asked him if he was choosing between the two for predominantly ungroomed terrain which he would go with and his answer was the Rustler 10. He said he would prefer the maneuverability and the softer tips and tails for the type of terrain you’re describing.

      Hope that helps!

      SE

  91. Great comments, though I am slightly lighter than most commenters 6’0″ and 154lbs female, I love my Stockli VXL in 170cm length, they are great in European Alps as I haven’t been so lucky with loads of powder on my holidays. Looking for a fatter skis as we go to Fernie this season and tested Enfrcers 100 in 177 in snow-dome, really enjoyed them! I also tested Bonefide in 180 which I liked but found too aggressive for my style, so my heart is set on Enforser but do you think I should go for 177 or 185? I feel that maybe 185 might be a bit of a jump for me? And while I love speed I like to stay in control and be able to ski the ski the way I want and not how the skis want to be skied (what I felt with Bonefide).

    1. Hi Elena!

      I can say that I (Jeff) am about your size (5’11” 150 lbs) and I definitely prefer the 185 cm Enforcer 100. In my experience, and I think this is something that most skiers find, the 185 cm Enforcer 100 is easier to ski and more forgiving than a 180 cm Bonafide. The Bonafide has a flatter, stiffer tail, which really makes it want to finish a turn with some power, almost like a dedicated carving ski. The Enforcer 100 washes or pivots a turn around a lot easier, which in turn makes it feel more maneuverable and forgiving. I think you’ll be able to manipulate turn shape a lot more easily on a 185 cm Enforcer 100 than when you were on the 180 cm Bonafide, especially in variable snow conditions. My only concern with the 177 cm would be that it might feel unstable at high speeds over chopped up terrain. Did you have a chance to test it in conditions like that? It’s a bit of a toss up for sure, and there’s something to be said about the fact you’ve already skied the 177 cm Enforcer 100 and liked it, but I do think you could certainly ski the 185 cm too.

      What do you think?

      SE

  92. Thanks for the comments. I’m like Don but a bit smaller, 5’6” and 155-165 lbs. range. Meanwhile I love to rip groomers when there’s no new snow and of course search out powder when there is new snow. I’m 45 and have been skiing since age 3. I mostly ski in California. In this era of new skis I’ve never gone higher than 174, so despite the consensus about sizing up I’m not sure I should go 177. Given the above, share your thoughts on proper size! Thanks again.

    1. Hi Daniel!

      I also think 177 cm is probably the way to go for you. California has a lot of relatively open terrain. Really the only reason to go with the 169 cm is if you wanted to maximize maneuverability for tight terrain, and I don’t foresee that being a huge concern for you skiing California. It sounds like you have a strong skiing background and I expect you’ll really enjoy the feel of a 177 cm Enforcer 100 while ripping around the groomers and off-piste terrain where you live. What was the 174 cm ski you were on? Always interesting to compare rocker profiles in a scenario like this.

      SE

  93. I am an advanced skier, 5’7”, 165 lbs. What would you say is a good length for me for the Nordica Enforcer 100? I feel like I fall in between the 169cm and 177cm lengths.

    1. Hi Dom!

      As an advanced skier at your size I think the 177 cm is going to be the way to go. We come back to this a lot with the Enforcer 100 (and 93), but they’re relatively forgiving skis considering the two sheets of metal. A lot of skiers will tell you they “ski a little short,” and it’s a good rule of thumb to go with the longer length when you feel like you’re in between on the Enforcer 100, especially for advanced and expert skiers.

      Hope that helps!

      SE

  94. Hey how are ya!

    I too have a sizing question about the Enforcer 100. I got back into skiing last year after 20 years. I am now 38 and back to being highly addicted to skiing! I live in the NE and do most of my skiing there with a couple trips out west each season. In my younger days I ripped it on 210 straight skis. (There was no such thing as shaped skis then….man I feel old:) There was definitely a slight learning curve skiing on the new tech, but boy o boy is it awesome! I got in about 30+ days last year and was chasing the pow pow as often as I could. I definitely saw an improvement in my skills from the beginning compared to the end of the season. I wasn’t quite where I was when I was 18 but hopefully this year I will! Like I said, I’m a man possessed again!!!!…lol

    I am 6’5″ and about 240lbs. I skied 187 Blizzard Brahmas last year and really enjoyed them. I was looking into getting a wider ski this year and am unsure if I should go with the 185’s or the 193’s in the Enforcer?

    Thanks for any advice you can give me!
    btw I’ll be in Stowe the first week of February. pow pow!

    1. Hi Danny!

      Welcome back to skiing! The new equipment certainly makes it different, huh? Psyched you’re back to it and having a blast!

      I think the Enforcer 100 is going to be an awesome ski for you. Considering you were skiing the Brahma in the 187 cm length I definitely think you can handle the 193 cm Enforcer 100. It has a more pronounced rocker profile, especially in the tip, so skis a little bit “shorter” than its length suggests. For a ski with two sheets of metal we’re very often going back to the fact that it’s quite forgiving. I think the 185 cm would lack a little bit of stability considering your size.

      Shoot us a message when you’re heading to Stowe! Hopefully we can find time to get out and take some runs together.

      SE

      1. I’m in the same boat as Danny! 38, getting back into skiing regularly after close to 20 years.
        I’m 6’2″ about 220 lbs.

        I picked up a pristine completely unused rossignol pro course 9x 184cm and have been using them this season. I just came back from a great day at Mount Snow blasting through mashed potato and ice on the north face all day long.

        I was looking at the Enforcer 100 193cm.

        I also used to wear 210s back in the 90s.

        Will the 193 be too long, or should I be ok?

      2. Hey Darien!

        I felt pretty comfortable and confident recommending the 193 cm length to Danny, but that’s partially based on his size (taller and heavier than you) as well as the fact he’s skied a 187 cm Bonafide and really like that length. A 187 cm Bonafide is a pretty demanding ski, so I kind of knew if he could handle that he could probably handle a 193 cm Enforcer 100.

        That being said, 193 cm Enforcer 100 is a lot of ski. It’s not light by any means and requires a fair amount of skier input even on the feet of bigger skiers like yourself. I’m wondering if maybe 185 cm is more appropriate for you. It should still give you plenty of stability, but will also be more user-friendly and more forgiving. Considering you’re just coming back to the sport after close to 20 years I feel like 193 cm might be somewhat unnecessary.

        Hope that helps! Let me know if you have any other questions.

        SE

  95. Hi,

    Torn between the 177 and 185 lengths. It’s been way too long since I’ve purchased new skis so I’m unfamiliar with how rockered tip skis ride length-wise compared to my 2006/07 Salomon Foils in 182cm length which I always felt were my max length, if not a little too long. I’m 5’11” 175 and an aggressive skier. I was an instructor for 8 years. I’m apprehensive to get the 185s b/c a 177 would be my perfect length in the past. What do you recommend for size? Do the enforcers ski significantly shorter than the 185cm suggests? What would the comparable length for a non rockered tip ski be? Thanks!

    1. Hello!

      Chances are you’ll be happiest with the 185 cm length considering your experience, size, and ability level. The Enforcer 100 is surprisingly forgiving and has quite a lot of tip rocker, which is the reason why so many people say they ski short. In fact, I would venture a guess that the Enforcer 100 in the 185 cm is going to feel shorter than your Salomon Foils in the 182 cm. If you had said all the same things, but that you’re not aggressive, that might be reason to stay with the 177 cm, but I really do think you’ll be best off on the 185 cm.

      It’s tough to compare it directly to a non-rockered ski, but my best answer to a comparable length for a non-rockered ski would be in the 175-180 cm range.

      Hope that helps!

      SE

  96. I only see one comment on ski test length.. Did all testers ski the 177cm or are these reviews for multiple lengths?

    Follow up: How versatile is the 185cm here in the east? I’m about the same size as your tester Jamie Bisbee, (though, undoubtedly not as good of a skier), I want a versatile 98-100mm to become east coast pow and travel ski in my quiver. I’ve heard that this ski handles shockingly well in the 185cm, but I’m typically on a 177cm range ski.

    Thanks! These are all wonderful reviews and I love the accompanying videos. FWIW (to anyone reading this) I’ve bought a few skis through ski essentials and they’re the best online dealers I’ve dealt with, very attentive and professional.

    1. Hi Liam!

      I believe Caroline, Brooks, and Jake all skied the 185 cm, and Jamie owns the 185 cm. What’s your height and weight? It really performs well in both the 177 and 185 cm lengths. I would say the 185 cm has become the most popular length, as a lot of people find the Enforcer 100 skis a little bit short because it has such pronounced rocker (especially in the tip). Quite a lot of our staff ski the Enforcer 100 here in Northern Vermont and most of them are on the 185 cm. It’s plenty maneuverable for our tight off-piste terrain. Let me know your height and weight and I’ll let you know if I think it would be worth jumping up to the 185 cm length.

      SE

      1. Thanks for replying:

        I am 5’9.5, 185lbs, I patrol down in southern new England and travel west 1-2 weeks a season. Its tree and bump behavior matter a lot to me (as well as crud busting). It’d be a 3rd (or 4th) ski in the quiver (but hopefully a 40% of the time ski).

        I’d normally jump on the 177cm, but I have read a ton of reviews and comments that all seem to suggest to go a little longer with this ski.

        Thanks!

      2. Hi Liam!

        The Enforcer 100 is a ski that people have been sizing up on. It has quite a lot of tip rocker and is really maneuverable considering the two sheets of metal in its construction. Being based in Stowe we’re very familiar with New England terrain, and we have quite a few staff members skiing an Enforcer 100. Our staff around your size are kind of split between the 177 and 185 cm. The more aggressive skiers usually go towards the 185 cm, although some of our lighter weight or less aggressive staff do prefer the 177 cm as it’s a little more maneuverable. I think if you’re really trying to maximize maneuverability in bumps and trees you could certainly justify going with the 177 cm. What else is in your quiver? If you already had a maneuverable bump/tree ski that might be reason to go to 185 cm for the increased stability.

        SE

  97. I bought the Enforcer 100’s last year (2016-2017) an I am EXTREMELY PLEASED! Here in western Washington we get it all…..ice, heavy concrete, slush, dustings on ice to soft pack and even occasional deep powder. These are the best all-mountain, all-condition skis I have ever skied in my 42 years of skiing. For the deep powder they handle quite well for a 100 width waist but, of course, not as much float as a true full fledge powder ski. A GREAT one quiver ski.

    1. Hi Greg!

      Thanks for sharing your experiences on the Enforcer 100! It really is a great all mountain ski and has an impressive ability to do just about everything. There’s a reason why they keep doing so well in ski tests across the board!

      SE

  98. I’ve got a 193cm Enforcer, mounted -2cm, with STH2 16’s. IT SKIS SHORT, isn’t at all precise, bland uninspiring feel, is marginal all around in the east and doesn’t feel like a high performance ski. It’s pretty good in some powder, weird heavier powder and lots of light crud. It’s very easy to ski on, plenty maneuverable in eastern trees.

    Probably the most overrated skiing product I’ve purchased since literally the Ski Tote.

    1. It sounds like you would prefer a ski with less rocker. A lot of what you’re saying about the Enforcer is actually why so many people like it. It’s exceptionally forgiving for having two sheets of metal, which we can understand might be a downside for some and could correspond with your “isn’t at all precise” comment. It’s also exceptionally versatile. While we agree it doesn’t have a standout highlighted terrain preference, its ability to ski just about anything in any snow condition is down-right impressive.

      What skis do you like? All of us here at SkiEssentials.com are very curious. I would guess something with less tip and tail rocker so you’d get increased responsiveness even if at the cost of reduced forgiveness.

      1. Thanks for asking. I like Head’s and Stockli’s around 190cm, usually with metal, full length sidecut and minimal rocker. I do really like the original 187 Bonafide w/FKS as a whippy all around ski. I’m about 20% bigger than your testers.

Comments are closed.