2018 Nordica Enforcer 93 2018 Nordica Enforcer 93

2018 Nordica Enforcer 93 Skis

The Nordica Enforcer 93 emerged onto the scene after the success of its wider counterpart, the Enforcer 100. It’s become a very popular all mountain ski among advanced and expert skiers all across the world due to its versatile nature and high performance in a variety of terrain and conditions. The entire Enforcer collection uses two sheets of metal, tip and tail rocker (of varying amounts), and Nordica’s Blunt Nose Profile. The Enforcer 93 was one of the most popular skis in our test with lots of skiers looking to get on a pair after completing their assigned skis. Because of that we came away with a whole slew of test forms that held a lot of positive feedback.

James Stewart tested the 185 cm length and referred to the Enforcer 93 as “a near perfect blend of stability and playfulness.” He felt it had “metal-clad dampness with a fun and loose shape.” We see a lot of skiers choosing the Enforcer 93 as their do-everything, every day ski and it’s relatively obvious why. As James put it, the Enforcer 93 is “a fantastic blend of all the qualities you want in a daily driver.” It’s versatile, it’s powerful, it’s relatively forgiving, and it’s fun.

Although it’s technically a men’s ski, Kristi Brown was able to get out on the Enforcer 93 at the end of one of our test days. Her very first comment about the Enforcer 93 was, “Wow! Last run, fun ski!” She continued to give it a huge compliment, “the Enforcer 93 might be my MVP and I’ve never skied it before!” Kristi skied the 177 cm length and gave the Enforcer 93 high scores across the board with stability, torsional stiffness, edge hold, and overall impression all receiving 5 out of 5. She was also very impressed by the ski’s ability to adapt to her ski style and terrain. “I was blown away by the effortless intuition, as it skied exactly like I ski. There were no negotiations and no ‘meet and greet’.”

Rory Burke decided to alter our test form to add another column so he could give the Enforcer 93 6 out of 5 for overall impression. Very creative, Rory! He also gave it 5 out of 5 for flotation (it does float great for a 93 mm ski), stability, quickness, playfulness, and torsional stiffness.” Rory is not a man of many words, and his only comment about the Enforcer 93 was simple “definitely a crowd pleaser. It does it all, and it does it all well.”

Pat Toporowski is the type of skier that’s always looking for things to jump off or other ways to “play” down the mountain. He tested the 185 cm and thought it was “very fun charging around on the Enforcer 93.” It “leaves trenches and springs you into each turn.” He also thought the Enforcer 93 was both “smooth and versatile.”

Brooks Curran really hit the nail on the head describing the Enforcer 93 in our opinion. He skied the 185 cm and according to Brooks the ski “loves to be on edge and makes smooth arcs of all shapes and sizes.” We think this is one of the highlights of the Enforcer 93: its ability to make a variety of turn shapes relatively easily. Brooks also commented that it “seems to work for a wide range of skiers. If you ski aggressively it will pull some amazing turns, but if you sit back and relax a little you won’t be punished.” Well said, Brooks. For a ski with two sheets of metal, the Enforcer 93 is exceptionally forgiving.

As it has over the past few seasons, we know the Enforcer 93 will continue to be a favorite all mountain ski among advanced and expert skiers. Even strong intermediates should be able to handle it thanks to its impressive maneuverability and forgiveness.

Testers

Rory Burke

Age: 37Height: 6'2"Weight: 215 lbs.

Ski Style: Smooth, deliberate, balanced telemark backcountry

Pat Toporowski

Age: 36Height: 6'"Weight: 165 lbs.

Ski Style: Adventurous playful freerider

Kristi Brown Ski Tester Headshot Image

Kristi Brown

Age: 48Height: 5'9"Weight: 136 lbs.

Ski Style: Energetic, precise, very smooth and skis with a lot of finesse

Brooks Curran Ski Tester Headshot Image

Brooks Curran

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

Ski Style: Ex-racer, now backcountry freerider

James Stewart Ski Tester Headshot Image

James Stewart

Age: 28Height: 6'2"Weight: 170 lbs.

Ski Style: Energetic, Playful, Fun to Follow

Caroline Kessler Ski Tester Headshot Image

Caroline Kessler

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

Ski Style: Fast and aggressive, yet playful

Kris DeMello Ski Tester Headshot Image

Kris DeMello

Age: 28Height: 6'2"Weight: 225 lbs.

Ski Style: Aggressive, fast, fearless

238 Comments on the “2018 Nordica Enforcer 93 Skis”

  1. Hi,
    I am a sporty skier, I am 178 cm tall and weigh 79 kg. I ride a GS ski, Völkl Racetiger GS Pro in 175 cm. I prefer long and medium turns. 180 cm would be more suitable as a GS. But the 175 cm is better from handling than all-day skiing. Now I want to buy an Enforcer 93 and face the question 177 cm or 185 cm. I actually mostly ski on the slopes, but I want to use the Enforcer for fresh snow days and difficult slope conditions. Occasionally for trips into deep snow. What length do you recommend to me, 177 cm or 185 cm? Thank you.
    Greetings from Germany

    1. HI Raik!
      I’d recommend the 177 unless you really know you like longer skis. Just to throw a wrench, the 2021 Enforcer 94 comes in a 179–a bit updated model with different sizing. Worth the wait? Take care!
      SE

  2. Hi, and thanks for responding helpfully to all these comments. My situation is that of a less aggressive skier than most here. I’m 73, 5’9″ after shrinkage, lol, 185# and have been happily and occasionally skiing at Keystone and Breckenridge (two or three times a week) as an upper intermediate for about six years, after just a few times a year for decades. No interest in bumps or steeps. My Rossi Bandit B2 skis (174 length) have been fine but are getting old and the 78mm waist isn’t helpful when there’s been a snowfall during the hours after grooming. So, exclusively blue groomers and a desire for something I don’t have to fight when a couple of inches of powder have fallen. Was looking at Rossi Experience 88 but maybe not much of an improvement there when there’s fresh powder. Then I read about the Nordica Enforcer 88 and 93 as well as Volkl Mantra 102 (maybe too wide for my needs) and last year’s M5 Mantra, also HEAD Kore 93. What thoughts, please?

    1. Hi Eric!
      You sound like a Kore 93 skier to me. None of these skis have changed until then, so if you find a Kore, it doesn’t matter what year. Just the light nature and the high-performance puts the Kore on a more accessible level than the other skis on your list. The other skis really need to get up to speed before their best performance kicks in while the Kore has better versatility at all speeds. Have fun!
      SE

  3. I’m 61 years old, 5’8″, and 155 lbs. I’ve been skiing since I was 10 and consider myself to be an advanced-expert skier and ski primarily in central and southwestern Colorado. I have narrowed my new ski choice to the Enforcer 93s but am trying to decide on the length, 169 vs. 177 cm. I just had a full knee replacement this past June and also have an artificial hip that will be 17 years old next month. I used to ski pretty aggressively and typically would tackle all types of terrain in a day, except I don’t much care for skiing tight trees. I find that I am slowing things down as I get older and have more body parts replaced. This coming season I am going to try my best to self-regulate and stay on the groomers or chopped pow until I gain confidence in my new knee. However, I do want to get off into the fresh powder on those 6 to 10 inch days. I’m coming off of K2 Amp Aftershocks in 167 cm and Head Rev 98s also in 167 cm. I like to link together short to medium turns but I also like to feel stable at higher speeds on the groomers. I was just about to purchase the E93s in 169 cm but after reading some of your responses I’m wondering if I should step up to the 177 cm length instead. Would appreciate your thoughts. Thanks!

    1. Hi Rich!
      I think if you were coming into the season fresh and not concerned about new body parts, you would like the 177, but given your current situation, I think the 169 would be more appropriate. If you go longer, you’ll likely feel more torque on the knees and hips, while the shorter length will be more maneuverable. Given the build, they’re still pretty stiff and stable, and you might just have to learn a new balance point on the 169, but with two sheets of metal, they’re still going to hold up to some strong use. Hope that helps!
      SE

  4. Hi !

    First of all thanks for you article, it’s complete and well explained.

    I’m hesitating between the Enforcer 93 and 100. I really can’t decide. It’s hard to find any comparaison and the 100 are far more popular but I was thinking a bit large for my usual usage. After reading the comments section, I was woundering what size is right.

    I’m 23yo, 171cm (5.6” I think) and 63kg (140 lbs), advanced skier in both on and off pist, and athletic. I mostly ski offpist whenever I can (most of the day and most of the day even if it hasn’t been fresh snow for a few days. I prefer the wildness (and no people), the experience and it’s more fun). I ski in the Alps, I don’t know if you are familiar with the conditions here. On well known off-pist itineraries the snow gets pretty quickly transformed which is where I had less control with my old skis and old boots (more on that after). I had great fun on fresh pow like everyone here !
    I’m coming from Black Diamond Current 2013 (176cm – 86mm) (ski touring skis equiped with hybrid binding). I really liked them, specially offpist, really fun, just ok on groomed. But now they are too old and they lived their last season. My ski boots are pretty old as well, the foam is packed which made me move in my shoes (just saying because that’s one of the reasons why I felt having less control on my skis). I did a little ski touring with them as well, but not as much as justifying having such light skis (and flexible skis which were shaking hard at high speed).
    I tried my father’s Atomic Vintage x80 CTI : I really like them on pist, they made me rediscover the pleasure to ski on groomed pists. Off-pist they were very nice although I was missing some thing (maybe floatness…) and I found them less playfull. But they where far better in bumbs (so easy to do bumbs with the Vantage compare to the Currrent).
    That’s for my experience.

    I was going for the E93, but they are harder to find at a good price so I started considering the 100. What skis would you suggest based on what I described ?
    I really don’t know if I should go with the 169cm or the 177. The “all mountain” charts are saying 169 but I’m used to 176cm (even if I feel they are harder to manage in bumbs). What size is the right for me ?

    I have another question :
    A friend of mine suggested I put ski touring bindings on them even though they aren’t ski touring skis. I dicided not to buy freerando skis again (ski touring skis mixte with all mountain skis) because they are thiner so they get used quicker (less material to repair holes and sharpen them). But I like the occasionnal ski tour. We don’t do more than half a day. I don’t have a lot of money so I was going to put ski touring on the side for a few years until I can buy ski touring skis again. So he suggested I’d put ski touring bindings on the enforcer which would be more expensive than regular bindings but less expensive than 2 pairs of skis and sufficiant for my usage (heavy but ok for 1/2 day). What do you think of that ?

    1. Hi Jeff!
      At the end of the day, we’re only talking about 7 mm in the width, so it’s not really going to make or break your ski season as they’re both very accomplished and high-performance all-mountain skis. I personally prefer the 93 by just a bit because they are a bit more snappy and poppy than the 100, but there’s really not a huge difference. If you find the 100 at a good price, I’d go with that. In terms of sizing, I think the 169 is the way to go–they’re very stable so I wouldn’t go to the 177. As far as bindings, I understand the cost involved with having two setups, but I think they’re really two different sports that do require two different setups. I wouldn’t put a touring binding on my Enforcer, but if you have to, it’ll be fine, just heavy. Have fun!
      SE

  5. Hi guys, love your reviews and I wondered if you could help?

    I have been looking at the Enforcer 93 for a while and I’ve found the skis on sale here in the UK for £200! This is the E93 in 193cm length.

    I am 190cm tall, 26 y/o and weigh 210lbs and consider myself to be an athletic, advanced-expert skiier. I ski aggressively and love doing longer GS turns but also use the mountain as a playground and my previous skis have been the 2014 K2 Shreditor 102 (189cm) and 2016 Line Chronic (185cm). I love the Shreditors as an all mountain plaything but they can be tricky on really firm groomers, and I’m not a huge fan of the Chronics.

    On my seasons I used to dabble in the park and all over the rest of the mountain, but don’t see myself in the park much anymore.
    I am very interested in picking up the E93 but wanted to ask about the main differences between the 185cm and 193cm lengths please?

    Many thanks!

    1. Hi Lewis!
      You’re right on the cusp, and if you didn’t tell me the price, I’d say your were a 185 skier. I’m 188 cm and about 220 lbs and I skied the 193 Enforcer 100 for a few years. While I loved it and took it everywhere on the mountain, I wished I got the 185 more often than not. They’re just very long, and as a result, not only heavier in terms of overall weight, but also swing weight. That said, if you’re on-trail carving fast turns, you’ll like the 193’s stability for sure. Bottom line, I feel like the length is worth the cost. That’s a good deal.
      SE

      1. Thanks for your reply!
        I’m still thinking about it, but like you said, I’ll struggle to find a ski this good for that price.

        All the best

  6. Hi.
    To start I’m 38. 5’10” 185 lbs. skiing for 30 years. I’m intermediate to expert with an aggressive style. Mainly prefer long fast carves up to 50 mph. I am very impressed with all your feedback and guidance here so thank you. I am set and excited about purchasing the enforcer 93’s. I’m hung up on the length. I currently ski 20 year old rossignal 177. All facts steer me to the E93 177. But like many others I’m teetering on the 184’s. I’m not interested in moguls or glades but will occasionally take a glade run. My thought is I don’t want the 177’s to feel too short. But with the 184’s I still want to be able to hold back my speed on steeps and still feel in total control. Any thoughts on length or any further questions? I would appreciate your feedback.

    1. Hi Jeff!
      The faster you ski, the more emphasis you should put on the longer size. If you were a mellow skier and preferred shorter turns, I’d nudge you to the 177, but if you’re aggressive and fast, the 185 is the way to go, especially if you’re mostly on-piste. Have fun!
      SE

  7. Thank you for all your work on the website and videos.
    I am 60 years old 5’10” 200lbs. I ski 20-30 days a year mostly in New York, Vermont with 1 or 2 trips to Crested Butte or Snowbird. I am a advanced skier who went from K2 Unlimited 200cm from 1990 to Head Stong Instinct 177cm 2018 skis. I think the the K2’s had the same tip chatter at the Heads 2018 but the Heads are unstable at 40mph. I would like the Enforcer 93 or Enforcer 88 I think because you guys say such great things? I would like stablility at 40-50mph on steep drops when needed but I also want to be able to do short fast turns in bumps or lumps. I do stay on trail but ski the edges of the trail for snow to turn on. I also am forced to ski hard pack frozen manmade junk that the Heads work well on. I am scared of trees because of an event in Crested Butte.

    So Enforcer 93 or 88
    Size 177?

    1. Hi MIke!
      It definitely comes down to what you ski more. The 93 is the all-mountain, all-conditions ski while the 88 is certainly more trail-oriented. It sounds to me like you’re an 88 skier, and that comes in either a 172 or a 179, versus the sizing of the 93. If you’re fast and aggressive, go with the 179, but if you’re more mellow these days, the 172 should be stable enough for you. Have fun!
      SE

  8. I’m also trying to make a decision between a 169 or the 177. I’m 5’10” but on the lighter side at 140lbs. Consider myself an intermediate to advanced. Don’t care about high speed but want to be able to navigate bumps and weave through trees. I’ve skiied both lengths but in different conditions – 169 in fresh powder and the 177 in warmer/heavier stuff. I found the 177 a bit more to maneuver quickly, but not sure I should strive for longer length or be confident the 169s will work for me longer term. Thanks for your help!

    1. Hi DS!
      I’d go with the 169 if you don’t care about high speed. If you were fast and aggressive all over the mountain, then I’d recommend the longer length, but it sounds like you appreciate the maneuverability and quickness of the shorter ski. Hope that helps!
      SE

    2. Hi
      I got the enforcer 177 100 end of last year, coming off 173cm atomic vantage 85. My first day I thought the enforcers were a lot of work on my legs, but I liked them. I actually got a used set of rosignol experience 88 a couple days later, thinking i might like them. I thought the enforcers might be too much work for me. I went to mammoth and left the atomics at home and figured rossi or enforcer would do. After a few runs on the rossis, I was not impressed. They just seemed to catch edges on me a lot. They werent right for me. So..I was forced to get on the enforcers for the day. I was regretting not bringing my atomics. But…after those two “forced” days on the enforcers…i loved them! they didnt seem like too much work anymore. Over the coming ski days end of season and beginning of this…they feel pretty snappy and quick. and…shorter?

      So…I got a big powder day a couple weeks ago…and my enforcers were feeling small. I also had a slip on ice a couple months back and thought longer would be better – more edge. So, was looking into the other enforcers. I bought a demo set of the enforcer pro 115 wide and 191 length. Yes. I was intimidated. But, what the heck. I took them out yesterday and was concerned about the jump in size. But, they were very easy to adapt to. Very similiar feel. I love them. SOOO much speed so easy and the speed carries. If you know how to ski…you can manage the speed. The bigger problem is creating speed from a ski that is too small.

      Bottom line comment to you is – after you have been on the enforcers a while they will shrink,. They will feel smaller and smaller and you will feel quicker on them, and they will feel more and more playful. Granted, I have more weight on me than you – not recommending you do the 191.. But, I tend to think go longer is the better choice. You will get used to them, they will get more nimble. That is my experience on the enforcer. I am selling my 177. Debating a 185 in the 93 to complement the 115 191 set. But..??? Maybe the 100 in a 185. Dare I consider 193 since it is a narrower ski? The caveat is the 115 does have a fair bit more tail rocker.

  9. I’m looking for skis for a 21yo 5’7” 120# intermediate/advanced skier who skis primarily in VT. He skis mostly groomers but also loves glades. He has racing experience, and will ski everything, although isn’t super aggressive. He demo’d Enforcer 100s in Utah and loved them. Would the 93s be a good fit? What length? Thanks.

    1. Hi AB!

      Yes, the 93 would be a great choice! If he loved the 100, he’ll love the 93 too. They perform very similarly, and the 93 is a little more appropriate for our Vermont terrain as a daily driver than the 100. Quicker edge to edge, but still super fun in the trees. What length did he try in the 100? Whatever he liked there should carry over to the 93. My guess would be either 169 or 177 cm. He’s light, so 169 cm might be better, but some skiers his size do go 177 cm.

      SE

  10. Hi – I am very excited about the Enforcer 93 and need advice. I am 5’6 160lb, somewhere between intermediate and advanced. The shortest Enforce 93 is 169cm which is just about my height. I am wondering if 169cm is going to be too long for me, and that I should go for a different pair of skis?

    Felix

    1. Hi Felix!
      I’d say the 169 is on the long side, but not too long. They also make the Santa Ana 93 which is the ladies version (same ski, different graphics and sizing) that you could get in the 161 cm length. Also check out the Blizzard Rustler 9 which comes in a 164. It’s a versatile ski (92mm underfoot) with a metal layer that tapers towards the tips and tails for stability underfoot and increased maneuverability in the tips and tails. Hope that helps!
      SE

  11. Hi guys,

    I’ve been watching your videos and reading everything I can but my head is spinning with all the options!

    I’m 6’4″, 290 lbs skiing in Utah. This is my first season really skiing a lot and for now I’m very comfortable on groomed blues. I haven’t really done much as far as powder, bumps, or trees but I want to keep progressing.

    I demoed the Enforcer 100 in 185 and I liked it quite a bit but I had been skiing some Rossignol Experience 80 in 184 which seemed a bit more responsive and nimble on the groomers.

    That brings me to the Enforcer 93 as a sort of compromise as I look for a frontside all mountain ski that I can enjoy on the groomers but start to take on more advanced terrain.

    I have two questions:

    1. Should I look at something else besides the Enforcer 93 for a groomer friendly all mountain ski as a very large but intermediate skier?
    2. In the Enforcer 93, should I try the 185 or 193s?

    I can demo most anything here in Utah but there’s just too much to choose from!

    Thanks,

    Mike

    1. Hi Mike!
      So many options! Your size warrants the 192 in the E93, but your ability level says 185. They’re pretty stable due to the two sheets of metal, so I don’t think you’ll overpower the 185. Check out the Blizzard Rustler 9 (188) and the Rossignol Experience 94 (187) for comparison. But at the end of the day, the Enforcer 93 is a pretty sweet ski and you’ll appreciate the extra maneuverability versus the Enforcer 100. Have fun!
      SE

  12. First of all thank you for the detailed reviews. I’m an advanced skier, 6ft and 185lbs. I’m a very agressive skier that loves speed. I also love some fun off piste in the powder, and that’s where my current (race) ski always fail me. Is the E93 the ski that can allow +60mph on the slopes but also playful in fresh powder and snowy conditions? What lengte would you recommend or any other ski’s that i should check out?

    1. Hi Olivier!
      If you currently have a race ski, I’d suggest bumping up the Enforcer 100. They’re as stable as the 93, just a bit wider so more flotation and better soft-snow performance. I’d say the 185 in either Enforcer model would be appropriate. Have fun!
      SE

  13. Hi,
    I’m 5’10”, 158 lbs, and 65 yrs old. I’ve skied most of my life, but only get to go out a few times each year, mostly Eastern skiing. However, I usually go out West once a year (usually in Spring when there’s not as much powder). I’ve been skiing for many years on the K2 ModX axis with a sidecut of 107-70-97. I’m not sure of the length, but they’re probably about 6 ft long. I’ll ski everything from blue’s to double diamonds, and I’m still relatively aggressive of groomed runs with good snow, but get conservative on ice, big moguls, and chutes. I strained my ACL in really deep snow a few years ago, so now I ski with a brace. By the end of the day the knee aches a bit, so I’m looking for a lighter ski that won’t chatter on hard-packed at speed, can hold a good edge, is stable on the groomed stuff, but easy to maneuver on the more challenging terrain. I’ve read good things about the Kore 93 from Head and the Nordica Enforcer 93. I like the lighter weight of the Head, but I’m concerned the 171 length may be too short and the 180 may be too long. I looked at them at a shop and the Enforcer didn’t feel that much heavier than the Kore. The fellow at the shop said they were identical in performance, but the Kore was lighter. I was wondering which you would recommend for me? Given how long I hold onto a ski, this is likely to be my last pair, as I don’t ski enough times/year to warrant multiple skis.

    Thanks very much,
    Tom

    1. Hi Tom!
      If you’re looking for lightweight, then certainly the Kore is a better choice. I would say that I believe the stability and damping properties of the Enforcer are superior to those of the Kore because of the dual metal laminate. If you are looking for the higher performing of the two, I would recommend the Enforcer in the 177. If you’re looking for easier turning and a lighter, more maneuverable feel, then go with the Kore. I think if you’re used to longer skis, that you could handle the 180 in that ski. Hope that helps!
      SE

  14. Hey Guys,

    I’ve read through a lot of comments (and a ton of reviews!) but admittedly bailed out after about 100 so bear with me if this has been asked…

    How do you think these E93’s compare to a Kanjo in the 185/182 lengths? I’d say I’m a moderately aggressive, solid intermediate/advanced skier at 6’1″, 220lbs. I do ski mostly groomers in my 20+ days a year at Killington but am having more and more fun off the trail and in the bumps as my skills are increasing. Really looking for something more playful/forgiving in the bumps that also like to carve and will happily keep up with my progressing skills. Also considering the Pinacle 88 and the Brahma CA, thoughts on the ski choices and 18X ish lengths?

    Thanks!

    1. Hi Chris!
      The Kanjo is certainly more forgiving than the E93. The Titanal Band in the Kanjo keeps the center of the ski nice and damp while the wood over the edges gives the ski a playful feel. I’m about the same size as you and I would prefer skiing the Kanjo in moguls and in more playful situations. The E93 is fairly stiff, and while you get phenomenal performance and a very damp feeling, they can be cumbersome in the moguls. In terms of your other skis, I’m a huge Pinnacle 88 fan due to its maneuverability and mogul performance. I have found the Brahma CA (now Bushwacker again for 2019) to be a bit “pingy” while the K2 has more of a “woody” feel, which I prefer. Hope that helps!
      SE

  15. I just purchased the enforcer 93. I’m 6’4” and about 230. I got the 185cm and I’m afraid I made a huge mistake not getting the 193cm. I’ve got a racing background but ski a lot of mixed terrain. Are these just going to be a mess for me at speed?

    1. Hi Christian!
      I’m not sure they’ll be a mess at speed, but yes you might feel like you’re overpowering them. At your size with a racing background, if you’re skiing aggressively, I would have gone with the bigger ski, but if you’re not on the aggressive side, the 185 should work fine! Have fun!
      SE

      1. I foresee a ski swap in my future. I guess we’ll know tomorrow. I made the mistake of not adding the rocker into the equation.

  16. Hello, I hope you can help me narrow my decision down.
    Background: 30+ yrs experience with a few breaks in skiing over the years. 52 yrs old, 6′ 0″, 185 lbs. Athletic and consider myself upper intermediate/advanced. Will tackle anything, but mainly ski the groomed runs, but have been venturing into the trees more lately. Prefer fast, short slalom like turns, but like longer GS turns as well. The two pair of skis I currently own are older (Rossi 9S Course 201 cm and K2 Apache Explorer 184 cm). I like them both, but sometimes feel like they might be longer than I need, especially with the K2’s.

    I live in the PNW. I’m looking at the Nordica Enforcer 93 and 100 and can’t decide if I should get the 177 or 185 length. The K2’s were the first shape ski I’d ever tried. Will the Enforcer’s feel dramatically different? Any advice would be appreciated.

    1. Hi Ben!
      The Enforcers definitely feel different. From the sounds of your skiing, I think you’ll like the 93 more due to the fact that you prefer quick turns. You will lose a bit in the powder performance, but at 93 mm underfoot, that ski does just fine. Either model I’d recommend the 177 cm length based on your desired turn shape and style. They’re both great skis, but I think you’ll absolutely love the 93. Have fun!
      SE

  17. Hi SkiEssentials,

    I love your site and your reviews. I’m 6’4 200lb advanced west coast skier and looking to replace my 2010 Mantras. How you compare the Enforcer 100 to the Stormrider 95 ? It sounds like the E100 would be more agile and forgiving, but less speed than the Stormrider 95. Is that fair to say? What would be your assessment?

    Thanks.

    1. Hi Lance!

      Yes, the Enforcer 100 is a little more agile and forgiving than the Stormrider 95. You really don’t lose much stability or performance at speed, although you could say you lose a little bit. Overall, however, both handle aggressive skiing and high speeds just fine. In my opinion the shape of the Enforcer 100 is a little better for west coast terrain. You get a lot of softer snow conditions out there and the tip shape of the Enforcer 100 loves soft snow conditions, while the ski can still rip on firm snow too.

      Hope that helps!

      SE

  18. Hi,
    I am an athletic 6’1, 155lb, 21 year old that skis in Tahoe. I consider myself an intermediate to advanced intermediate skier. I can comfortably do groomed blacks, but struggle to do runs with moguls. I am looking for a ski that will allow me to ski more difficult mogul runs. I’m a little worried that the enforcer, with its metal, will provide too much ski for me, but from reading responses to other comments, it seems that the enforcer turns quite easily. Ideally, I’d want a ski that can make smaller turns while I’m learning to ski more bumpy runs. I enjoy ripping down runs to race my brother, but would like the ability to ski slower with my parents. Does the enforcer 93 fit the bill? And if it does should I go for the 177 or 169?
    Thanks Alex

    1. Hi Alex!

      Just so you know, we have to approve comments before they are live so that we can manage spam. I deleted all your other comments as they all seemed similar, except for your question on the Kore 93 page. Enforcer 93 would be a great ski for you. It does have metal in its construction, but its relatively thin, so doesn’t make it overly heavy or too stiff. It has a great mix of performance across firm snow and softer snow and un-groomed terrain. Rips GS turns, but still feels relatively maneuverable and forgiving in off-piste terrain. At your size, you should be able to ski the 177 cm without any trouble.

      Hope that helps!

      SE

      1. Thanks so much for the response! Sorry about the multiple messages I thought my comments just weren’t going through. I like the enforcer 93 a lot; I’m still just a little worried the ski will be too fatiguing and not maneuverable enough for me on bumpy or overgrown terrain.
        Thanks Alex

      2. Hi gain Alex!

        Don’t worry about it. It’s pretty darn maneuverable, and pretty forgiving overall too. You’re a young, athletic guy, I don’t expect you’ll have any trouble on it whatsoever.

        SE

  19. I’m on the fence between Rustler 9 and Nordica E3. 58 year old,155 pounds/5’7″, advanced, ski western Colorado about 20 days per year. I like to ski the entire mountain, minus the real double diamonds. I want a ski that is playful and fun, easy to go in the trees and moguls, but that also works on hard snow for cruising and will turn and hold lines on hard pack at speed. My Pinnacle 95s really don’t do well in the aggressive hard snow category for me. Suggestions?

    1. Hi Mark!
      A lot of aggressive skiers really like the versatility of the Enforcer 93. You can ski it fast or slow, and it is non-abusive and totally competent. The Rustler 9 is a great ski as well, but the two sheets of metal in the E93 really put it over the top. Happy skiing!
      SE

  20. SE,

    Thankyou for all the great reviews and recommendations. I don’t see much feedback from those you advise so I thought I’d pay back by giving some. But first, my info. I’m 60 yrs old, 210 lbs, 6’3, and have been skiing off and on for 40 yrs. I consider myself advanced and fairly aggressive but don’t get crazy anymore. I ski most of the mountain but mostly love carving all turn shapes and speeds, moguls, and powder when available. Last summer, I decided to upgrade my 20+ yr old 205cm full cambered Atomic skinny skis that were great for carving but not much else. I used your reviews and others to narrow down to E93, E100, Rustler 9, and Atomic CTI 90. I mentioned these to a local rental shop guy and he reached over and pulled out a 185cm E93 demo pair he had for sale…must be fate so I got them. Now the feedback. I took a shake-down trip to Loveland ski area a few weeks ago. Since I never skied shorter, wider, shaped skis before, I started slow and tentative trying different turn shapes and sizes and was pleased with all. It was like immediate confidence and I turned up the speed with the same results. Next into the moguls. I was concerned the relatively heavy ski weight and metal would be a negative for the bumps but. The E93s were very quick, precise, and smooth…a night and day improvement from my old 205s. WHAT FUN! The snow at Loveland was fairly good, packed powder but did have some icy areas and the E93 handled it perfectly. I didn’t have significant powder to try but, since I’m used to the challenge of skiing powder on skinny skis, I expect to be pleased when I get the chance. I did try the edges of the run that had 6″ of powder/chop and the E93 performed well. So, only one day of testing but I couldn’t be more pleased. I was tentative about ski weight and stiffness but I didn’t notice either while skiing but I’m a big guy and coming off skis with similar weight and stiffness. Also, even with my height, I never felt 185cm was to short. Bottom line: Completely satisfied with my choice. I hope this helps others and thanks again for your guidance.

    Bob

    1. Hi Bob!

      Thanks so much for sharing your experience!! I’m glad you’re loving that Enforcer 93, and I’m sure others will find your feedback useful.

      Thanks again, you’re the man.

      SE

  21. I’m an east coast skier, 53 years old, ~185 pounds, still skiing on the ancient Pre 1200’s I bought in 1983 (195cm). I love them, but they are showing their age. I’m an advanced/expert skier, though not overly aggressive. I have tried shaped skis before, and I didn’t like them, or at least not the models I tried (I don’t remember what they were), but I’m willing to try again. I ski almost exclusively in the east, but I have skied elsewhere, and would love to go again, given the opportunity. I love moguls, and I enjoy tree skiing when I get the chance.

    Any recommendations?

    1. Hi David!

      How long ago did you get on shaped skis? The early versions weren’t the best, but these days everything is a shaped ski. Even a DH race ski is technically shaped, although their turn radius is around 50 m.

      Were you considering the Enforcer 93 on this page? I think that would be a good ski for you to transition to from your straight skis. You could get the 185 cm, as you’re already used to a pretty long ski. I think you’ll find they’re outrageously more fun than straight skis once you get used to it. And skis right now are head and shoulders above those early shaped skis that I’m guessing you tried.

      If you have the opportunity, it could be worth doing some demos this season too. As you don’t really have a base for comparison, it would be valuable for you to at least try a few different skis in different shapes, widths, flexes, etc.

      Hope that helps!

      SE

  22. Question – I am 42 years old, 6’1” and 180 lbs and have been skiing for 35 years. I am a intermediate-advanced skier. A good bit of groomers, softer un-groomed runs when the conditions allow, and some sparse runs in the trees. Nothing too much with moguls or double black. I do like to go fast I am looking at the Enforcer 93 but I am stuck between the 177 and 185. I skied the Brama 180 last season and liked it. I’m leaning towards the 177 at is it closer to the 180 then the 185. Any thoughts on which I may prefer?

    1. Hi Aaron!

      So, this question and this particular comparison comes up relatively frequently. In my opinion, a 185 Enforcer 93 is actually easier to ski than a 180 cm Brahma. The rocker profile and flex pattern of the Enforcer 93 makes it significantly more forgiving than a Brahma. At your height and weight, the 185 cm feels more appropriate to be honest. It should still be plenty maneuverable for you even when you get into tighter spots in the trees, and I can pretty much guarantee you’d prefer it on groomers.

      Hope that helps!

      SE

  23. SE,
    I’m 5’8″, 180 lbs, 58 years old, and an aggressive skier based on my ’70s and ’80s racing background. I love both the long wide high speed GS turns and the quick slalom turns, but I need a ski that can handle those wonderful UT and CO snow storms – which my current Head Rev 80 Pros don’t. I believe my Enforcer 93 size would be 177 cm. Please advise if I should go with the 177 or the 185.
    Thanks,
    Steve

    1. Hey Steve,

      At your size, you should be just fine on the 177 cm length. 185 cm would be quite a bit taller than you, which just feels like overkill. The 177 cm is already taller than you, but by a more reasonable amount. Should give you way better performance in UT and CO terrain and deep snow than your Rev 80s.

      Have a great season!

      SE

    2. SE – One last question, which I should have asked before. Will the 177 length still remain solid and without vibration at higher speeds (60 mph plus), even with the enhanced tip rocker? If so, the Enforcer 93 has to be a real winner, both for the old racer who’s looking for the perfect blend of any-speed stability and playful float-ability.
      Thanks again!
      Steve

      1. Hi Steve!

        I don’t expect you’ll find it unstable, even at those speeds. It’s not race-ski stability, but still really solid. You don’t get much of the tip flapping movement that can happen in some rockered skis because the metal extends through the full length of the ski. There’s a reason why it’s one of the most popular skis in the world, and you’ve essentially just described why.

        SE

  24. Hi SE
    I am intrigued by the Nordica enforcer 93 reviews as I am looking for a more all mountain ski but I have some questions on size and seek your opinion if the enforcer 93 is the right choice. Some background; I currently live in Switzerland and mainly ski in either France or Switzerland, I am 49, 6’2, 235lbs and would characterize myself probably as an upper intermediate skier trying to advance myself further. I like faster skiing and quick maneuverability and carving. I currently ski Heads magnum super shape 177 which I really like but for me are best on well groomed pistes. Do you think the performer 93 would serve me well in my quest of advancing skiing as it relates to fast and better carving and more alround all mountain or do you have other suggestions. If the 93 performer is a preferred choice should I then go with 177 or should I go with 185?. Any opinion preferred bindings.

    In advance many thanks for your opinion

    Hans Christian

    1. Hi Hans!

      Yes! I think the Enforcer is a great choice. It’s also a good ski to compliment your Supershape Magnum. You get much more versatility out of the Enforcer 93, and it’s also a little bit more maneuverable and forgiving in general. Softer flex and more rocker compared to your Magnums. Sounds like a great ski to add to your quiver as it handles off-piste terrain much, much better. For length, I would go 185 cm. If you can ski a 177 cm Supershape, you’ll have no trouble on a 185 cm Enforcer 93. Again, much more rocker in the Enforcer, so it skis a little shorter than what you’re used to. At your size, 185 cm is the more appropriate length.

      Hope that helps!

      SE

      1. Thank you SE for quick reply which is really appreciated!. One more question regarding complimenting my Supershape skis, how do you see the difference between the Nordica navigator 90 and the Enforcer 93 and which one would you recommend.

      2. The major difference between the Navigator and Enforcer is the tail shape. The Navigator has a cambered, flat, squared off tail, much like your Supershapes. The Enforcer 93 uses more tail rocker and early taper, as well as a rounded off finish. This makes it much easier to release the tail edge, which helps a lot in variable terrain, soft snow, or really anywhere you’re trying to pivot or smear the ski. The Navigators are kind of more wide carving skis than versatile all mountain skis, and considering you already have carving skis, I think the Enforcer makes more sense.

        SE

      3. SE,
        Thank you! One last question (I promise). Do you favor the Enforcer 93 over the Heads Kore 93
        Best

      4. Hey Hans,

        Generally for heavier skiers, yes. Its construction provides a little more stability overall.

        SE

  25. Hi guys,
    I’m from New Zealand coming to Telluride and crested butte in feb . Looking at purchasing thru you guys the enforcer 93 great all round ski, a mate ski s it and loves it and thinks it will be perfect for me. I like short aggressive parallel turns but also like to do longer carving turns on more open flatter groomers . I skied most of my life but the jumped to snowboarding for the last 15 years I’ve gone back to skiing for my kids sake and love it . Admittedly I’ve only skied parabolic skis for 7 days and wow .prior to jumping on snowboard I was on straights.
    I’m an advanced intermediate skier ski 50/50 on off piste in New Zealand first time coming to America can’t wait.
    6 ft and 187 pound (85 kg ) I’ve skied 180 demo s the last 4 days on the mountain and once I had my head round the longer ski I started to get into the groove prior to that was 176 which I did feel a bit more in control of but should I be pushing myself into the 1850 moving forward .
    Cheers Jono

    1. Hey Jono!
      I’d agree that moving into the 185 would be the way to go. Sounds like you know enough about the sport to make that call, and your size tells me that you’re a good candidate for the 185. If you’re comfortable on the 180, it’s not a huge leap to the 185 at all. Have a great winter!
      SE

  26. Hello

    I have been looking for an all mountain ski for a while now and I think narrowed things down to the Enforcer 93 and the Kore 93. I think they’re both the width I would like to ski on, giving enough float in the powder but allowing me to charge groomers. I initially preferred the Kore 03 due to the low swing weight, which would be beneficial in trees. But after looking at the Kore 93 in person and seeing the scrapes they get just in transit I think I have settled on the more classic construction of the Enforcer 93. I am 5’11 and 165lbs, I would usually ski something just shorter than a 180 but people have been advising me to get the 185 in the enforcer due to the rocker in effect making the ski shorter. My thoughts are that relatively speaking I don’t weigh a lot and don’t want to be fighting the ski, as I may in a longer length. The shorter turns from the shorter skis appeal but I don’t want to lose some of the floatation in the soft stuff or stability at speed that comes from the longer ski!!

    A little more information, I mainly ski Europe where we don’t have massive powder days (often) so probably ski 70% on piste and 30% off. I will ski any conditions anywhere if they present themselves (although I don’t often choose to go through moguls), usually when on piste our group will charge around but I will equally find myself cruising around with beginners helping them out. Because of this I don’t want something which I have to fight at low speeds but want something which will instil confidence when breaking 100km/h.

    Any advice on the length?

    Lim

    1. Hi Lim,

      You certainly wouldn’t need to get the 185 cm length. I am about your size exactly and have skied both the 177 and 185 cm. The 185 cm is fun, but it’s really best for skiing fast and aggressively. It’s a bit much when you’re skiing slower or trying to maneuver the ski in tighter terrain. On the other hand, the 177 cm provides me plenty of stability for skiing pretty darn aggressively, but is noticeably easier in tight terrain and at slower speeds. If you’ve been on skis shorter than 180 cm in the past, I would think the 177 cm Enforcer 93 would be plenty of ski for you.

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

      SE

      1. Thank you so much for the reply. You guys are amazing. It is very reassuring to get independent advice. I would guess that you’re a more advanced skier than me and if you don’t over power the 177 I will probably have a blast on them.

        Regards,

        Lim

  27. Hello! Thank you for all the reviews and comments and especially for taking the time to answer all these questions!
    I am 45, 6’ tall, 270 lbs and I think I am at the upper-intermediate level. I ski some Fischer ProMnt 74, which really feel unsafe to me when picking up a little speed. I am looking for something that could carry my weight and help me learn and become a better skier. I don’t see myself ripping at 100 miles/hr down the slopes. I ski in the West and I’m trying a variety of terrain. I would like to buy something of a swiss-army knive: would like to carry one pair of skis for a while, so I was looking at something wider, stronger (for my weight again) and which I could learn into. I would also like something more forgiving, which won’t punish me at my first mistage and send me headxfirst into who knows what tree or hard snow pack.
    I looked at the Navigator 90, but I was told I will outgrow it fast. I looked at the Dynastar Legend X88 but some reviews scared me away (not planning to ride them as hard and fast as they likely deserve). On the Head Kore 93 I wasn’t sure if maybe they are not stiff enough for me (and read about delamination and that it doesn’t have a steel edge?? – how do you sharpen them). At Nordica 93 I am not sure if they are forgiving enough for me, but they seem an all-rounded ski into which I could maybe grow?
    Which statements above do you think are maybe not too accurate and what do you recommend?
    Thank you very much for your help!

    1. Hi Eugen!
      The Kore definitely has metal edges that can be sharpened. They’re also pretty stiff for how light they are, but at your weight you’ll probably overpower them due to the lack of metal. The Dynastar is a good choice, I think, and although they have two sheets of metal, the shape lends itself to a more playful and maneuverable nature. You’ll push the Navigator to its limits pretty quickly. The Enforcer 93 is a great choice for you! The dual metal laminate that is found in these skis is thinner than other skis, so despite the fact that it has two full sheet of metal, they’re still quite maneuverable. I’d recommend the 185 length in that ski for you. Hope that helps!
      SE

      1. You people are fenomenal! Thank you so much! What bindings would you recommend?
        How can I buy from you, over in Canada? I am in Edmonton, Alberta.
        Great website, great reviews and great service!

        Eugen

      2. Eugen,
        We pair those skis with either the Marker Griffon 13 or the Tyrolia Attack 13. Both are great performance, safety, and value, especially with our Killer Deals.
        SE

  28. Hi, great review as always.
    I’m 5’8″ pretty light at 145lbs & an advanced level skier I usually ski on a 170/2cm ski wondering if the step up to 175/7 will be a step too far? Also I’m looking to pick a daily driver ski to throw around the mountain, I enjoy 50/50 and always looking for jumps and diving into the marginals or small tree sections. Usually ski in France/Germany so not always a massive amount of powder days about just the odd flurry. Currently torn between the Volkl Kanjo and the Enforcer 93 looking for a bit of advice. Cheers

    1. Thanks, Adam!
      The Enforcer 93 is a perfect 50/50 ski. They’re stable, quick, and tons of fun. I think you could do the 177, the 169 being your other option, but I feel that would be on the short side. They’re very maneuverable, so the “extra” length shouldn’t be an issue. I’d place the Kanjo as more of an on-piste model in comparison. I’d say it’s more of a 70/30 ski. They’re narrower and have less metal in them, so they are lighter. I’d peg them as more of an intermediate to advanced rather than advanced to expert, like the Nordica. Hope that helps!
      SE

  29. Hi thanks for the great info. I’m 6’3” 205ish late 20s strong intermediate skier. Comfortable on blue and black groomers and intermediate on off-piste/woods/moguls but lookinng to improve. 60/40 Vermont/Colorado and like exploring all over the mountain. Looking for a ski that will grip at med-high speeds (but not extreme) on groomers/east coast conditions but also is maneuverable enough to help me improve in more varied terrain and has enough float to perform in powder. I was thinking enforcer 93 @185 but also considering enforcer 100 and head kore models. Thoughts on these? Does 185 sound right?

    1. Hi Dave!
      Great choice with the Enforcer 93 in a 185! If you were more 40/60, then the Enforcer 100 might be a better choice, but for mostly eastern conditions, the 93 is just perfect. The Kore 93 and 99 are also great skis, and have similar performance levels. I’d say the Kore is a bit stiffer and a tad less maneuverable, so I’d stick with the Enforcer 93. I’m 6’2 220, and ski on the Enforcer 100 in a 193 and find it a bit too long, especially in our eastern trees. For a strong intermediate looking for maneuverability, the 185 is a great option. Happy skiing!
      SE

  30. Thank for all of the great gear reviews! Im 5’9” 175 and an advance skier. I’m trying to Decide between the enforcer and 95 HP. How would you compare the Enforcer 93 to Kastle FX 95 HP? Thank you so much!

    1. Great comparison, Chris!
      Both are great skis, first and foremost. You’ll find a lot more similarities than differences between these two models. I’d give the on-trail performance to the Kastle, even at 2mm wider in the waist. Their use of materials, flatter tail, and the hollowtech tip makes them strong, damp, and quick. They hold a tremendous edge, and the tail is more reminiscent of a wider carving ski than an all-mountain freeride ski. Conversely, the Enforcer is built more like a narrow freeride ski. The tip and tail rocker (as well as the taper) make the skis float a lot better than the width would indicate. The dual metal laminate of the Enforcer 93 is no slouch on the groomers as well. If you’re looking for the main difference, I’d give the edge to the Kastle on-trail, and the Enforcer off-trail. Hope that helps!

  31. Hi there! First of all, I wanted to thank you for the great amount of reviews, information an effort that you bring out to the community. I would love to hear your feedback on the conclusions I’ve drawn after doing some research on what might suit me best. I am 174 (5′ 8″) cm tall and my weight is somewhere around 70 kg (155 lbs). I would define myself as an early-advance skier who can ski pretty much everything but who still has room for improvement. So far I’ve been using full camber short and light skis (164 cm long 71 cm at the waist) and I think it’d be a good time to step my game up with something more suitable to an advanced stage. I am mostly on the piste but whenever the conditions are more powder friendly I am always happy to go off the groomers. That is why I narrowed down my choices to the Vantage 90 CTI (17/18) and the Enforcer 93. As far as I’ve understood, the former are relatively stiff skis but still forgiving and quick in response; versatile and suitable to early advanced skiers. On the other hand the Nordicas are perhaps too little forgiving. What do you think, am I looking in the right direction or you actually think that the Enforcers would be a better choise? As for the length of the ski, I’m still doubting whether I should go for 169 or 176/177. I kind of feel more inclined to opt for the 176/177 since in the long term they will be more stable while the 169 might fall a bit too short. On the other hand, I’ve gotten used to driving very shorts skis and it could be too much of a jump. Do you think I should choose the 176 or instead stick to the 169 since I’m more of a lightweight skier? Once more, thanks lots and cheers! Alvaro

    1. Hi Alvaro!
      Both are great skis! The Enforcer 93, for being an advanced ski, is actually quite user-friendly. The metal laminates found in the Enforcers are very thin, so it doesn’t behave like a stiffer ski, even though it can handle a lot of different terrain and snow conditions. The Atomics have a lot going for them as well–you’ll get slightly better on-piste performance out of these skis based on the narrower waist and the front side character. The Enforcer is more of an all-mountain freeride ski whereas the Vantage is an all-mountain front side ski. As far as sizing, I do think you’ll outgrow the 169 fairly quickly as you are advancing and progressing. Hope that helps!
      SE

  32. Thank you for the excellent reviews and patient replies to all the questions. They are extremely helpful.

    I am buying my first pair for three weeks of ski trips with kids in CO and UT. Debating between Kendo and E93, I am leaning towards E93. I am 5’11 and 155 lbs, mostly on groomed blue and black, but sometimes have to chase kids into moguls and woods. Shall I get 177cm or a longer one?

    1. Hi LW!
      The E93 is a better choice for all-mountain skiing. The Kendo is great, but has more of a wide, on-trail personality and it’s built more like a race ski. The shape and rocker profile of the E93 are more “freeride” oriented, so better suited for different snow conditions and terrain. The 177 is probably the smart choice given what you’re doing on them. Chasing kids in the moguls and woods is hard enough. Have a great winter!
      SE

      1. Thanks very much! Enforcer 100’s review is also very impressive, if not better than E93. Which is a more popular one?

      2. Hi LW!
        Both are phenomenal. I have the 100, and it’s perfect for almost everyday, and especially in the softer snow. On firm days, I do wish I had the 93, but overall I really like my 100’s. If you’re ACTUALLY skiing more soft/fresh snow than not, then the 100 is a better choice. They are built exactly the same, just 7mm different in overall width. So you’d get the same size probably if you got the 100. In terms of overall popularity, the 100 came out before the 93, so overall, I’d say the 100 is more popular, but the 93 seems to be gaining fast! I’d still recommend the 93 in the 177 for you based off of previous correspondence. Hope that helps!
        SE

  33. Hi,
    I’m in the market for new skis, and have been doing a lot of research. (Your reviews and detailed replies have been a huge help, ya’ll are awesome!). My current skis are a pair of 2013 K2 AMP Force’s. I’ve had them for years, and they are what took me from greens to blacks. I would classify myself as an advanced skier on groomers who likes to ski fast and aggressively (mostly blues and blacks), and intermediate on moguls and in glades. I would like to increase my confidence and skill in various conditions on moguls and in glades, while still having a ski that can slay groomers, which is where I currently spend most of my day skiing. I ski a few times a season, so I would expect these skis to last me for years. I will mostly be skiing Snowshoe in WV, and out west (headed to Big Sky in the spring). I’m 23, 6’0″, 205 lb. Would you say the Enforcer 93s 185cm would be a good choice for me? (From my understanding, they are an all mountain ski that maintains strong on-piste performance). Some of the other skis I’ve been looking at include the Navigator series (85/90), and Brahmas. Also, how hard will it be to transition from my fairly light 74mm K2’s to a heavier and wider ski? Thanks in advance!!

    1. Hi Chris!
      I think you’ll be surprised at how light and agile the new skis will feel. The Enforcer 93 is a great all-mountain ski with fairly traditional construction. The tip rocker is pretty long, so they have great flotation for a 93mm underfoot ski. The Navigator 90 (I’d recommend over the 85) is a slightly toned-down version of the Enforcer with a more on-trail personality. The Brahmas are a bit narrower at 88 mm underfoot, and these are the most high-speed, on-piste oriented skis on your list. If you’re going fast on-trail, that’s your ticket, but they’re pretty stiff, so require more effort to be steered in the moguls and trees. Overall, I’d steer you towards the Nordicas. If you spend more time on-trail, get the Navigator 90, but if you’re more all-mountain/off-trail, go for the Enforcer 93. Both are great skis and will take you to the next level. Have fun!
      SE

  34. Love what you guys are doing! Really appreciate the in depth reviews, and really like the fact you are based on the east coast and have great insight into the nuances here.

    I am looking for a new all mountain ski. I currently have 4 yr old Blizzard Bonafides 187. I do like the skis, however they clearly dont like me taking a variety of quick turns vs wide arching carves….. and they dont like me on the medium- small bumps as much either. They do like me a lot when I stay on top of them and attack the groomers and stay in a wider carving pattern.

    I am liking what I read and hear about the Enforcer 93s. I ski both Stowe and Sugarbush, and like to ski fast on the groomers but do venture into varied terrain as well. However I am considering buying a dedicated powder/woods ski in addition to the E93s.

    My question: At what point would you recommend the Enforcer 93 in a 193 length? I am 55, 6’3″, 230 lbs. Reached what I feel is Advanced level (not an expert) and am wondering if i should look at the 193 vs the 185 length. Would value your input on this and any input on a combo Powder/Woods ski for the east as well?

    I plan to come into the store in Stowe to buy 🙂

    Thanks guys!!!

    1. Hi Pat!
      Your size warrants the 193 but I’m not sure your preferred terrain does. I am 6/2 220 and I have the Enforcer 100 in the 193. After a few years of skiing it, I wish I had the 185. I ski at Stowe, all over the mountain, and I find that length to be somewhat prohibitive in the woods and narrower trails. The 185 will still carve very well on-piste, and you’ll most likely find it to be friendlier than the Bonafide. Check out the Blizzard Rustler 9 as well for comparison. It comes in a 188 that would probably be the sweet spot for you. See you at Stowe!
      SE

      1. Hi SE and thanks for the reply.

        Interesting comment to look at the Rustler 9 as well. After seeing your reviews on it, it appears to be possibly a bit “easier” to ski it in soft snow and ungroomed on-piste terrain in comparison to the Enforcer 93s, while still a good “grip and rip” on the groomers.

        Would this be an accurate read of the reviews? I do need a ski thats good on groomers, and the variable on-piste terrain.

        Thanks again guys!

      2. Hi Pat!
        You read the reviews correctly. As with any competing ski models, there are more similarities than differences. Both of these skis will do pretty much anything you want them to do if you’ve got the skills to drive them accordingly. If you’re leaning towards more off-trail, go with the Blizzard; on-trail, the Enforcer. Ultimately, they’re both going to be great at everything. Have fun!
        SE

  35. Hey SE,

    I am 6′ 190lb, advanced to expert skier who has spent the past 6 years on the west coast with 50+ days per season and 1 season of patrol but no formal ski instruction (I have been told I sacrifice power for style). I recently moved to the east coast and am looking to trade in my 185 Line Mr. Pollard’s Opus for a more powerful front side carver, I will be skiing with mostly ex racers and need to keep up. I like the idea of the freeride shape (to provide some forgiveness for my poor form) combined with the metal sheets for power. I will not be doing a lot of tree skiing so am concerned the shape will sacrifice on piste performance (compared to the brahma).

    I am also looking at the Head Kore 93 but am leaning more towards a ski with a metal construction.

    Any thoughts or insights would be greatly appreciated.

    1. Hey James!
      Sounds to me like you need to get yourself a pair of 185 Enforcer 93’s. Yes, you’ll sacrifice a bit of on-piste performance when compared to the Brahma, but you get a much more appropriate all-mountain ski. The Kore is on the light side, but is still stiff. We’ve just found that people such as yourself really enjoy the E93 and it’s strong blend of versatility and performance. Have fun!
      SE

  36. Hello,

    I’m 59 years, 6’2″, and 175lbs. I’m in good shape, and ski about 30 days a year, with 3 trips out west coming up this season. I’m definitely advanced on piste, but somewhere between intermediate to advanced off piste.

    I love short radius turns and keeping my speed sane. My eastern skiis are Nordica Dobermann Pros in the 170cm length with a 14m radius – the best skis I’ve ever owned.

    Would the Enforcer 93s in the 177cm be too short for me, given my height?

    Thanks!

    John

    1. Hi John!
      Yes. I’d recommend the 185. The Enforcer has a longer tip rocker shape, and as a result skis on the short side. As such, the 185 would be right in your wheelhouse. Hope that helps!
      SE

  37. looking at the 93 enforcer for my daily primarily in-bounds ski, as I have a dedicated powder ski. I am now skiing about 45 days per year, 5′ 10/11, 200 lbs, strong skier, my current skis which are fun (sin 7, 180) are just way to soft. I am looking for a ski I can rip when it is hard and will not chatter to much at speed. Trying to decide 177 or 185.

    1. Hi Kevin!
      Great choice. Enforcer 93 is a great ski. They have a pretty long tip rocker profile so they end up skiing a bit on the short side. As such, I’d recommend the 185, and then you’ll never have to second guess whether your skis are long enough. If you’re looking to rip, that’s your stick.
      SE

  38. SE,

    I am an expert level 6′ 175 lb skier living out on the west coast. I raced for 15+ years, and while I do enjoy carving at high speeds, especially on the larger mountains like bachelor where i can sustain those longer carves for an extended period, my local mountain is smaller (about 1100 vertical feet) and requires something more maneuverable at lower speeds. I currently have a pair of blizzard Cochise in 185cm length that I use for powder days and big mountain skiing and an old pair of Dynastar Legend 8000s for on piste only days. I am pretty set on the Enforcer 93s for an expanded on-piste/off piste combo that will have more stability than my Legends at the larger resorts but I am torn as to the size. I know I could ski the 185s no problem, especially at Bachelor, tahoe, mammoth, etc but am afraid they may be a bit more work than I would like at the lower speeds and tighter turns on my local mountain and perhaps the 177 would be better in that regard. Suggestions?

    1. Hi Collin!

      I can understand where you’re coming from, but I do think you’d prefer the 185 cm length. Is the 177 cm easier at slower speeds and in tight terrain? Of course. That said, the Enforcer 93 is impressively maneuverable and pretty forgiving in the longer lengths. At your size, the 185 cm should be plenty maneuverable for you. For comparison, it will feel much more forgiving and easier to maneuver than your 185 cm Cochise. I would worry more about the 177 cm feeling unstable at speed that I would worry about the 185 cm being hard to maneuver in tight terrain, so in my opinion it’s worth going with the longer length for you.

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

      SE

  39. Hey, I’m 5’7” 135lb. I’m an expert skier and very aggressive/fast in all terrain. I’ll ski powder whenever it exists, but when it’s gone I’m always seeking moguls/trees/chutes (I don’t spend much time on groomers). I like a stiff ski. I mainly ski on old Blizzard Answer ~171 (105 underfoot, 130 tip), but they are getting old and the 130 is wider than I’d like for non-powder days. I’m hoping to get a one-quiver ski for trips when I’m flying. Do Enforcer 93’s 169cm sound appropriate? Any other suggestions?

    1. Hi Zeb!
      You’re on the right track with the E93. They do it all, and really well. That 169 sounds about right for your dimensions–the 177 is probably a stretch. Hope that helps!
      SE

      1. SE, I’m 5-7 as well, but weigh 157. 169cm or 177cm? Will ski 10 days a year out west – 70% groomed, 30% ungroomed (i.e. bumps and crap) and powder when it comes.
        Thanks.
        Paul

      2. Hi Paul!
        You’re definitely in the middle! I think it depends on your level of aggressiveness. If it’s high, go with the 177, if it’s low, the 169. You’ll certainly get more stability out of the longer length, so if you’re a fast skier, you might like that! Have fun!
        SE

      3. Thanks SE. Since I’m right in the middle, what about a Ranger 95 TI in a 172? (or Ranger 90?).
        Thanks again.
        Paul

      4. Hi again Paul!

        I definitely think that could work. Whether you choose the 98 or 90, I think you’d be just fine on a 172 cm Ranger. Definitely a ski that’s similar in performance and overall feel to the Enforcer collection, and a nice solution if you’re really stuck between the 169 and 177 for the Enforcer series.

        Hope that helps!

        SE

  40. I am an intermediate skier trying to advance. I am 5′ 10″ and 175 lbs. I ski in the East, New Hampshire primarily, particularly Sunapee, Loon and Cannon. I am mostly a front side skier but would like to enter the glades as well. I enjoy skiing fast but want good control, and I also ski with my kids who are much slower than me and need a ski that will serve me well and not require a large amount of effort when I want to lay off the gas. I also want a ski that will hold edge well in the conditions we have out here in New Hampshire and will not have too much chatter in the crud and ice. I was recommended the Nordica Enforcer 93 by one individual but want to know if there is a better ski out there for what I am wanting to do, and also what length would be best for me.

    1. Hi Keith!

      The Enforcer 93 is a great ski, but sometimes it can be a little bit much for an intermediate skier. What have you been skiing on in the past? The Enforcer 93 uses two full length sheets of metal, which makes it relatively heavy. It’s not super-stiff, but still relatively stiff compared to other all mountain skis. It’s not the most demanding ski, but it’s up there. Could it work? Yes, it could, but you should be aware that it’s not the most forgiving ski. If you’re a fairly athletic guy that skis somewhat aggressively, it should work for you, and I would recommend the 177 cm length. If that doesn’t sound like you, however, there are some other skis out there that are a little easier going.

      The Kore 93 from Head retains similar performance, but is lighter weight, so a little less fatiguing, and thus a little more forgiving. The new Experience 88 Ti from Rossignol is also similar in terms of its versatility as an all mountain ski, but again is a little more forgiving than the Enforcer 93.

      What do you think? Do you think you’re up for the Enforcer 93? Or would you like to learn more about similar, but more forgiving skis?

      SE

      1. I skiied the Renoun Z-line 90 last year. It skiied pretty well, but the top sheets did not hold up.
        I probably want something a little more forgiving, but stable. I don’t want to get too fatigued.

      2. I also should mention I do like to go fast down the groomers at times, and some skis feel a bit unstable and hard to control in those situations. I need a good balance.

      3. Hey Keith,

        Considering you were on the Renoun Z90 last season, I think you’ll be just fine on the Enforcer 93. It’s a little more forgiving than the Renoun, but still has good stability. Just by making the titanal laminates a little thinner, Nordica has retained that vibration damping and stability we all like, but it’s a softer flex pattern than most skis with metal. The shape also gives it a more forgiving feel than most skis in the two-sheets-of-metal world. While it’s a little more challenging to ski than the other skis I mentioned, it’s not too demanding. Seeing as you like to ski fast and value stability, I think the Enforcer 93 is an excellent choice.

        You’ll love the durable top sheets too!

        SE

  41. Hi,

    I’m trying to decide between the 177 and 185 Enforcer 93s. I’m 28, 6’3″ 165lbs. I’ve been skiing my whole life and raced at Pico when I was younger, so I ski pretty aggressively, most of my resort time is in the bumps and glades. I know for my size I’m supposed to use the 185, but I’ve been skiing Head Rev 90s in 177 for the last few years and really like how they ski and react when I want them to turn. I’m hoping you can shed some light for me on this for the Enforcers. I’d love to demo them, but I found a couple of good deals so I want to get them before they’re gone. The only skis I’ve ever actually skied at 185 are the GS skis I use for days when we just get pure ice.

    Thanks!

    1. Hi Taylor!

      I think you can ski the 185 cm length without any issue. The Enforcer uses much longer rocker than the Rev 90, so realistically a 177 cm Enforcer would actually feel shorter than your 177 cm Rev. If you’re fairly aggressive, been skiing your whole live, and have a racing background, I’m pretty confident you’d prefer the 185 cm length over the 177 cm. For someone like yourself (age, ability level, aggressiveness) it’s almost always worth going with the longer of two lengths.

      Hope that helps!

      SE

  42. Hi,

    I’m 38 years old, 5′ 7″, 150lbs, early advanced, aggressive west coast skier. I was on 169cm Enforcer 93 last season at 140lbs for about 40 days. I also ski the Bibby Pro for the deep days. This coming winter I am aiming for 100+ days :D.

    I liked how maneuverable and playful the Enforcer 93 felt, but would like a little more power and stability at speed in the hard, chunky, variable stuff. Something with a tad more punch and charging power. I love the feeling of being launched in to the next turn. And while the Enforcer 93 does give me that feeling, I want to feel like I’m being blasted out of a cannon at the end of a carve. I’m torn between the decisions:

    1. Keep my 169cm for the maneuverability, or sell it if there isn’t much sacrifice in playfulness and maneuverability – and purchase the 177cm for the increased stability.
    2. Buy either a Bonafide/Mantra/Kastle FX95 HP/Moment Commander 98.

    I’ve been waiting for any reviews on the internet about the Commander 98, but seems no one has any ready yet. I’ve been trying to decide for a while now, but since I don’t know anything on the Commander 98, I feel I cannot make an informed decision. Is there any suggestions you guys can give me to help me make a sound decision? Thanks so much in advance.

    -Corndog

    1. Hi Corndog,

      I think you should combine option 1 and 2. Keep your Enforcer 93 in the 169 cm length, but add something like a Bonafide for days when you really want to get out and charge. A 172 cm Bonafide, for example, is a drastically different ski than your 169 cm Enforcer 93. Punch through power is better, stability at speed is better, etc. What really makes me think that’s the way to go is I also think a 172 cm Bonafide outperforms a 177 cm Enforcer 93 in all those areas. Not as maneuverable, not as forgiving, but gosh darn it’s a powerful ski.

      The Mantra doesn’t quite have the Bonafide-level power or stability, but it’s close. FX 95 HP would be another good choice, I consider it’s performance quite similar to the Bonafide. If you don’t mind the extra price, it’s a fantastic ski. We’ve done a number of articles and videos discussing whether it’s worth spending the extra money, and ultimately the decision has been if you can afford it, it’s worth it.

      Unfortunately I don’t have too much experience on the Commander 98, not enough to sway you one way or another on that ski. Overall, however, I would keep your Enforcer 93s and get a slightly wider, more cambered ski with plenty of metal. Bonafide and FX 95 HP would be at the top of my list of recommendations.

      Hope that helps!

      SE

      1. Thank you for your quick reply. I wasn’t expecting such an in depth response! I really appreciate that.

        I am actually really relieved you suggest that I keep my 169cm Enforcer 93. I absolutely love them, aside from my greed for speed, which is why I assumed I just needed a longer pair. Glad you set that straight for me.

        As you suggested, I read up on your articles on the FX95-HP. They seem to be exactly what I am looking for in terms of high speed performance on harder, choppier snow, but as always there is the price. Your articles say they are worth the money due to the performance. You also said that Bonafides along with the FX95-HP would be at the top of your list for what I am looking for.

        So then my questions are:

        1. Due to the lower cost of the Bonafides, would it be safe to say they wouldn’t quite measure up to the FX95-HP overall (how little or a lot that may be)? Which, in the end, is the more capable, higher performing ski at speed and harder snow conditions? I assume it’s going to be the Kastle, but I’m not so good at assuming things xD
        2. If you were to pit them together, what would their pros and cons be relative to only each other?
        3. If you could sum up each each pair with only 2 words, what would you say would be most appropriate? Stable, Powerful, etc
        4. At the same speeds and snow conditions, how would the Brahma be as a possible choice, or should it even be?
        5. And finally, which sizes would you say are most appropriate for me if I chose to go with the Bonafide or FX95-HP?

        Thanks again for all your awesome reviews, and professional insight!

      2. Hi again Corndog!

        Happy to help! The Bonafide and FX 95 HP are really quite similar. We do say the Kastle is worth the money, but realistically that’s only if money isn’t really an option. Is the performance as different as the difference in price? No, not really. Say the FX 95 is twice as much… is it twice as good? No. Does that make sense? To answer your questions:

        1. Kastle has a unique feel because they are hand-made. It’s somewhat difficult to put into words. Overall performance between the two is very similar. Performance at speed and through hard snow conditions? It’s a bit of a wash between the two. The difference is the FX 95 HP achieves that performance, but has a lighter swing weight and feels a little more precise.

        2. Bonafide: Pros: Stability at speed and overall power. It might even actually outperform the FX 95 HP if you’re just focusing on stability at speed and vibration damping. Cons: Forgiveness, maneuverability. It’s a demanding ski. FX 95 HP: Pros: Versatility and stability. More maneuverable than the Bonafide, although it could get deflected more by imperfections in the snow because of the lighter swing weight. Cons: Price?

        3. Bonafide: Powerful, demanding. FX 95 HP: Precision performance

        4. Brahma has the same overall feel as the Bonafide, it’s just narrower. So, quicker edge to edge on groomers, but gets bogged down more easily in softer snow conditions.

        5. Bonafide – 172 cm. FX 95 HP – 173 cm.

        Let me know if you have any other questions!

        SE

      3. SE,

        I have some serious stewing to do on the matter. I feel like I can finally make a well informed, educated decision. The problem is that both seem to be fantastic sticks for what I am looking for.

        The part where you say that Kastle just feels different due to the materials/craftsmanship is where I’m feeling I might miss out. But on the other hand, as much as the Bonafides are likely to kick my ass at first, a serious charger is probably what I really need as an aggressive skier, especially since my enforcer 93 and Bibby Pro are already on the maneuverable, “playful charger” side of things, in my opinion. Thanks again for taking the time to help. You guys are awesome.

      4. Happy to help!

        I have no doubt you could handle the Bonafide. There might be a bit of an adjustment period, but I don’t think it would take you that long to get used to. You really can’t go wrong with either choice, they’re both great skis.

        Let me know if you have any other questions as you’re getting closer to making a decision!

        SE

  43. Thanks so much for this great review. I’m VERY interested in getting my hands on a pair of these.

    I’m an advanced skiier, 178cm 83kg athletic, and had a great time earlier this year renting Stolki SR 88’s (around 185cm in length) and found them to be a near perfect all round ski for me, though they didn’t quite float the way I would’ve liked in powder. So basically I’m looking for something similar that has a little more float without sacrificing too much speed/energy on groomers.

    Would you see the nordica is a good ski for me? What length would you recommend? Thanks!

    1. Hey JB!
      From what you are describing, it sounds like the 185 Enforcer 93 will be a good fit. They float really well for a 93mm underfoot ski thanks to the rocker profile and tip and tail taper. They are really a tremendous all-mountain ski. Hope that helps!
      SE

  44. Hi

    Thanks for all the great comments.I am an 52 year old advanced skier 5′ 10″ 185 lbs who skis mostly in Colorado. I like a quick turning ski that can also handle occasional forays into the deeper stuff. I do also like occasional days of hitting the groomer at high speed! So basically I want to have my cake and eat it too! I am pretty much decided on the enforcer 93 but was not sure if the 177 or 185 would suit me better. WHat would your thoughts on that be? thanks Ian

    1. Hi Ian!

      Do you consider yourself aggressive? Do you ski fast through un-groomed terrain too? It’s always a bit of a toss up for skiers your size whether to go 177 cm or 185. You undoubtedly could ski both lengths, it’s really a matter of what performance characteristic you want to emphasize. The 177 cm will, of course, be a little quicker and a little easier to maneuver. The 185 cm will be more stable at speed, but a little more challenging to maneuver. If you’re also using them as powder skis you’ll also get a bit of extra float out of the 185 cm. That said, in my opinion it should come down to how aggressive you consider yourself and how fast you ski in un-groomed terrain.

      Let me know what you think, happy to answer more questions or talk about it in greater depth!

      SE

  45. Hi! I am 5’8″ and 175 pounds. I ski in the East Coast. Jay Peak is my favorite. I ski the entire mountain, including the glades. I ski everything, but I am not a zooming fast skier. Do you have a view on whether 169 or 177 is better for me in the Enforcer 93? Thanks!

    1. Hi Justin!

      I would go with the 177 cm length. Because the Enforcer 93 uses quite a bit of rocker and some early taper it’s pretty manageable in longer lengths. At your size, ability level, and the terrain you ski, I think you’ll prefer having the 177 cm. We’re nearby (Stowe) and most of our staff around your size prefers the 177 cm.

      Hope that helps!

      SE

  46. I am trying to decide between the 2019 Rossi 88’s @180cm vs the enforcer 93 @177cm. I currently ski an older Rossi 88 at 172cm. I tried a 180 last year and was amazing at how much more stable I felt. I am 5 ft 10 in. I weigh 210. At imes I ski extremely fast, ripping down groomers with an aggressive carve and other times I am more casual when skiing with other family and friends. I have alway felt my current skies failed me in the bumps and crud. I would just get stuck in my line and I would need to bail. Always felt weird because I consider myself a good skier. Anyway I was excited about the new Rossi’s 88, but now can’t decide between these two. Any advice would be appreciated. I love my Rossi’s and I am a little afraid of the two sheet of metal making me fatigue from the effort to control. I hear the enforcer need more skier input then the Rossi’s 88.

    1. Hi Jason!

      Did you try the newest version of the Experience 88? The 2019 Experience 88 Ti? They really changed the ski quite a bit and it’s much more appropriate and more user-friendly in bumps, crud snow, trees, etc. If you’re weary of two sheets of metal I think the Experience 88 Ti would be a more appropriate decision than the Enforcer 93. You’d like the Enforcer 93 when you were skiing at speed, but you might find them a bit fatiguing when skiing at slower speeds with family and friends. It does require a little more skier input because of the increased weight and slightly stiffer profile. The Enforcer is a fairly forgiving ski among those with two sheets of metal, but still more demanding than the Experience 88.

      Hope that helps!

      SE

      1. I own the 2015 versions @172cm and tried last years 2018 version @180cm. I really the extra length a lot more stable. Your second sentence confused me a bit, it says it’s “not” much more appropriate in the bumps etc. just want to clarify that maybe the word not was an error and you meant they are more appropriate? I guess how much performance am I giving up in the ungroomed snow by going with the 2019 Rossi’s 88 vs the enforcers? Enforcers seem to have much more rocker in the tips which seemed to look cool for crud and bumps, but don’t really know if the extra rocker actually matters when compared to the new tip rocker on the 2019 Rossi’s, would the 2019 Rossi’s be just fine as well. Should I size the Rossi’s up because of the loss of effective edged in 2019?

        Thanks so much!

      2. Hi Jason!

        Sorry for the confusion, the “not” was a type. I must have been thinking of wording it differently then switched halfway through my sentence. You’re really not “giving up” much ungroomed performance between the Enforcer 93 and the 19 Experience 88. In fact, one could argue that the Experience 88 is a little easier, simply because it’s lighter and easier to throw around. The Experience 88 just feels a little more appropriate for you as you’re still kind of developing your technique off-piste and also do some slower-speed skiing with the family. The tip shape on the new Experience 88 is much, much more similar to the Enforcer 93 than the old version. You definitely don’t need to go longer than the 180 cm Experience. Even though it has a shorter effective edge the stability stays about the same due to the new construction.

        Let me know if you have any other questions!

        SE

  47. My existing skis are Nordica Mach 3 Speed Machine. I find them difficult to ski in crud and I’m looking for a ski that handles that better. I’ve tried the Elan Amphibia 88 and the Rossie HD Experience 83. I liked the Rossies but I’m a Nordica fan because I love the Mach 3s. I’m a 72-year-old intermediate skier, 5″8″ and 165 pounds. I like the sound of the E93. Can you comment please? Thanks very much, I love your WEB site.it’s very informative.

    1. Hi David!

      The Enforcer 93 would be a great ski to compliment your existing skis, a nice little 2-ski Nordica quiver. The Enforcer 93 is more versatile than the Experience 83 too, and even better in crud snow and other un-groomed conditions. Most skiers your size typically choose the 177 cm length, but what lengths were you trying in the Experience 83? Do you remember? I think 177 cm would be fine for you, but if you’ve been skiing much shorter lengths you could justify going to the 169 cm. That length, however, might be a little unstable depending on how fast you like to ski.

      Let me know what you think!

      SE

  48. Hey,

    Looking to purchase skis, I’m a intermediate level skier, trying to get better. Love to hit moguls and glades all though I’m the best at them. I’m 6’0 and 175 lb. I have usually rent 169 skies but been wanting to go up. I’m also very bad at making decisions so some insight and knowledge would really help. I’m deciding in between the 93’s and 100 enforcer, I was wondering which one would better fit me as I mainly stick to trials but also trying to get better at hitting glades and moguls. And then size size wondering if 177 will be okay for me. Thank you!

    1. Hi Ashray!

      I would go with the Enforcer 93. As an intermediate skier you’ll have an easier time achieving a high edge angle on the slightly narrower ski. It’s still plenty versatile, and also a little quicker in moguls and trees, so I think the 93 is the way to go. At your size the 177 cm should be perfectly manageable. It likely has more rocker than skis you’ve been renting (unless you were renting a 169 cm Enforcer), so shouldn’t feel too long for you at all.

      Hope that helps!

      SE

  49. Hi. Great reviews and really useful info. I’m looking to purchase some new skis and think the Enforcer 93s at 185cm is what I need. I’m 51, 6’4” and around 235 lbs. I’ve been skiing about 7-10 days per season for the last 10 years and a solid blue level but occasionally try the blacks. Not so graceful but I can always get down them. I like a bit of speed and mostly stick to the groomed runs with the occasional off-piste through trees and around bumps and rocks. I currently ski on an older pair of Salomon Enduro XT800s that are 182cm I think. They’ve copped a bit of a battering and I really want a single quiver set of skis that suit Australia and New Zealand (not much powder here). I’ve demo’d a pair of Nordica NRGY 90s a few years ago and loved them but broke my ankle and skipped a season. How does the Enfocer 93 compare with the older NRGY 90s and do you think it’s a suitable ski for what I’ve described? Cheers, Brad

    1. Hi Brad!

      The Enforcer 93 is somewhat similar to the NRGY 90. It uses more rocker in the tip and also more metal in its construction (two full sheets compared to a grid of metal in the NRGY). It’s more stable, and also handles softer snow conditions a little better. It’s a touch more demanding, but at your size I don’t think you’d have any trouble on it at all. If you’ve been skiing a 182 cm Enduro XT800 you should be able to handle the Enforcer 93 in the 185 cm length. That should work well for your size and ability level. I think if you liked the NRGY 90 you’ll likely really like the Enforcer 93. The Navigator 90 would be another one to look at, as that ski replaced the NRGY collection, but it changed quite a bit. Mostly in the tail shape as it has a more firm snow oriented shape. I think the Enforcer 93 would be more appropriate given you like to take the occasional off-piste run.

      Hope that helps!

      SE

  50. Hi SE!
    I am 22 yrs old, 5’11 in height and weight 183 lbs. I ski mostly in Pacific Northwest. I would consider myself as an upper intermediate skier and I ski fairly fast. I plan to learn more about moguls next season. I am trying to decide the length for the Enforcer. I am lean towards the 177, but I saw folks of similar size in the comments went for 185 considering the effective edge. Please advice. thanks!

    1. Hi Jeff!

      On one hand you seem like you’re probably pretty athletic, so you could probably handle the 185 cm length. On the other hand, if you’re just getting into mogul skiing, the 177 cm would be a little bit more manageable. What skis have you been using in past seasons and in what lengths? That will give me a good sense of whether I think the 185 cm would be the way to go. If, for example, you’ve been skiing skis that are mostly camber somewhere in the mid to upper 170 cm range, it would probably make more sense to go with the 185 cm. Let me know and I’ll give you a stronger recommendation on length.

      SE

      1. Thanks for the reply! I had been skiing for two years and this going to be my first pair of skis. I usually did rentals around 170cm. I had once tried a friend’s blizzard Quattro 8.0ti at 180 for couple runs and was happy with its stability at high speed, but i did felt I am almost at my limit managing that ski.
        I am pretty much a rookie in mogul skiing, please take that into you consideration.
        Thanks!

      2. Hey again Jeff!

        I’d probably go with the 177 cm length. I would imagine you’d find the 185 cm Enforcer to be similarly challenging to the 180 cm Quattro you skied. They’re quite a bit different skis, but based off your response I think 185 cm might be a bit much. That 177 cm will be more user-friendly, and I don’t expect you’ll find it unstable. Should help you progress in the moguls quicker, too.

        SE

  51. Hi Guys,
    James here from New Zealand.
    I was once an advanced skier many moons ago.
    I’m wanting to get back up the mountain this year and need some new skis.
    I’m sold on the Enforcer 93’s but don’t know what length to buy.
    Most of my skiing will be on groomed slopes but will hopefully get a few powder days if I’m lucky.
    I’m 45 years old, 5 foot 9 and 168lbs.
    I was an aggressive skier but don’t think my legs will let me ski like I did when I was in my 20’s.
    I want to have fun so am thinking 169cm, but would love your advise if you think I’d be better on 177cm.
    Thanks heaps. James

    1. Hi James!

      Ahh, yes, the classic Enforcer 93 toss up. I think you’ll be just fine on the 177 cm. I am about your size actually and to me the 169 cm feels quite small. It uses enough tip rocker that they ski a touch short, so that 177 cm length will, in theory, feel more like a ~170 cm ski if it was all camber. The tip rocker really will just come into play on powder days and in other soft snow conditions. I think 177 cm is the way to go.

      Hope that helps!

      SE

  52. Hello,

    I am 5’8″ about 140lbs, an aggressive, early advanced skier. I’ve skied the 169cm, and loved all the different turns I can make, and just how maneuverable and quick handling they are. They are SO precise! They also have good energy when carving, and super fast edge to edge. However, I found that when I point them down the hill and straight line it and reach terminal velocity, I feel the ski lose it’s confidence and composure. Should I step up to the 177cm? Thanks in advance!

    1. Hi Corndog!

      Yeah, I think at your size you can definitely move up to the 177 cm length. I can understand the 169 cm feeling a little bit loose at high speeds. I don’t expect you’ll have that problem on the 177 cm, and it should still feel quite maneuverable for you. Maybe not just as quick, but pretty darn close, and I think it’s a worthwhile trade to give up some quickness for the proper stability.

      SE

  53. Hey there! My nene is Mauro and I’m a skier from Brazil. Before you start squizing your memory trying to remember if your Geograph teacher in Highschool ever mentioned snow in Brazil, let me say: there is not….. unfortunately! But I manage my love of skiing for the last 12 years going mainly to several places in Chile and Las Leñas (Argentina) – amazing powder – during South Hemisphere winter and USA and or Europe preferably in February and March. I have skied Stowe once and even visited Ski Essentials! I ski an avarege of 20 to 30 days per year. As I sad “love it”. Well…. I’m in the maket to buy a new two skis quiver, I think my current one is outdated, 2014 Rossignol E98, 188cm, my favorite and 2014 K2 Rictor. I”am 1,95m high and 94kg. Since I have focused these they my skiing off piste, sidecountry and very short backcountry tour, I decided to upgrade my quiver to a mid fat daily driver and an “almost” pure off piste freeride ski. Yes! Even though I’m a Brazilian skier, I think I have the skill for that. kkkk I’m just back from a 10 days ski trip to the Spanish Pyrenees, a place call Baqueira, birthplace of Aymar Navarro from FWT. I.e. perfect place for some off radar freeride adventure. I tested 2 skis, the new Soul 7 and Kastle BMX 105, non HP. My stile didn’t click at all with the Rossignol – too much tip chattering and instability when in the reds back to the resort, it does not handle hard European groomed pistes, I was tiered and almost put my self in trouble, didn’t fell confident. The other day I took the Kastle for a day test. Let’s just say, much better experience. Very versatile and confidence inspiring. Loved it on and of piste. Now back in Brazil, revising my thoughts and watching your amazing reviews, I’m planning my next trip and choosing new skis. I am considering the Kastle FX 95 HP at 189, as my “narrow”, “Swiss knife”, daily driver or the 193cm Enforcer 93, but I can’t find a decisive point of difference that would make me lean more toward one our the other. The second ski would be the Enforcer 110 or the Rustler 11, both in the longest size, but as before I’m a little undecided. My ski style would more toward a forward aggressive stance and mid high speeds, but I love putting some rithmic midsize and large size turns on the groomers. Sorry for the long text but I would really consider your thoughts. Thank you in advance for your time. Best regards, Mauro.

    1. Hi Mauro!

      Thanks for the great description of your skiing! It really helps understand your position and allows us to make better recommendations. I think you’re on the right track here, and it’s good that you tested those two skis.

      The Kastle FX 95 HP is an absolutely awesome ski. It’s one of those skis where you kind of get what you pay for in a sense. There are other skis that definitely compete with it and perform similarly, but the FX 95 HP has such a great feel overall that it’s hard for me to say anything would be better than it as your narrower, every day ski. I also think it’s a little more versatile as well as a little more user-friendly in tight terrain than the 193 cm Enforcer 93. Slightly shorter, nice light swing weight, but still stable, you’ll have a blast on them I’m sure.

      In my opinion the Enforcer 110 responds better to aggressive skiing than the Rustler 11. The tips and tails of the Rustler are pretty light and can get deflected just a little bit. The Enforcer 110 with its two sheets of metal tracks exceptionally well and does really well at high speeds too. Great vibration damping and stability in that ski. As you’re not a small guy and you have a fairly aggressive ski style I think you’d really like the Enforcer 110.

      Overall a Kastle FX 95 HP and a Nordica Enforcer 110 feels like an AWESOME two ski quiver.

      SE

      1. Thank you, very much, for your inputs.
        This will be my 2 ski quiver. I am planning a trip to the US soon.
        Will the store be opened all year long? I find the same products and conditions on the físicas store or it is better to buy from your website?
        Again, best regards,
        Mauro.

      2. Hi again Mauro!

        Our physical store, Pinnacle Ski and Sports in Stowe, VT, will be open all summer long. Their summer hours are 9:30 to 5:30 every day. It really doesn’t matter whether you buy from SkiEssentials.com or from Pinnacle. If you want to place an order, however, just to make sure the product is yours, we can hold your order for pickup when you arrive. Whatever works best for you!

        SE

  54. SE,

    What a great resource you are! Never here before, but read every comment on the enforcers today, and even so wasn’t sure what you’d recommend for me, although the last letter and response (Li) gave me a pretty good idea.

    I’m 60, pretty good shape but not a great skier. Intermediate, with lousy form but like to go a little faster than my skill level might indicate I should. All on trail at Park City and DV; mostly blues with the occaisional blacks.

    May try to get better next couple of years….6’2”, 195. Have been renting 176 Elan RipStick 86s lately, and feel ok on those. Feel like 185s could be a little too much for me, although ht/wt could indicate that size. But left to my own devices I’d probably lean toward the 177s.

    How would you guide me? Thanks in advance, I’m a huge new fan. Take Care.

    Scott

    1. Hi Scott!

      Great description of your skiing. It helps a lot when people give us honest feedback about how they ski. I agree, the 185 cm might be a bit much for you. There are plenty of skiers your size that choose the 185 cm length, but it’s best to have some solid fundamentals and good form if you’re going with that longer length. I think you’ll find the 177 cm Enforcer 93 feels better for you than the Ripstick 86. Those Elans are very lightweight and at your size I would imagine they might feel a bit unstable. 177 cm should perform better, be more stable for you, but similarly easy to ski. Does that make sense to you?

      SE

  55. Hey SE, I am 6’0 and 205lb, intermediate ski.
    I just start to learn mogul and will spend quite sometime to learn mogul
    I spend most of time on trail, will try some off-piste next season. I have a few questions

    (1) I am try to choose between Kendo and Enforcer, which one do you recommend?
    (2) If choose enforcer, should I buy 169 or 185? I am currently renting a rossignal 167

    Thanks!

    1. Hello Li,

      1) I would go with the Enforcer 93. It’s more user friendly and forgiving in the bumps. The Kendo can be pretty demanding in moguls and is definitely much less forgiving.

      2) Why not the 177 cm length? I think 185 cm would be too big of a jump from the skis you’re on now, but you should be able to handle a 177 cm at your size.

      SE

  56. Hi,
    I’m 5′ 6″ and 140 lbs and am in the advanced/expert level of skier. I spend a good chunk of my time on groomers carving GS turns. I also enjoy jumping around the woods and skiing the glades at my go to Mtn (Smugglers Notch, VT) when the conditions are good. I don’t spend a lot of time on the moguls and have narrowed my search for skis down to the E-93’s My current skis are Nordica Hotrod Burners @ 170cm. Which E-93 would you recommend the 169cm or 177cm.
    Thanks in advance – Cheers!

    1. Hey Karl!

      I think you’ll be fine on the 169 cm length. They’ll be a little more maneuverable in our tight Vermont trees (we are based on the other side of the Notch from you!) and I expect you’ll find they still have plenty of stability when you want to ski fast. Really the only reason to go up to the 177 cm would be if you wanted a super stable ski for charging really hard, but you’re going to sacrifice some maneuverability there.

      Hope that helps!

      SE

  57. Hello,

    Thanks for those great reviews. I want to buy a new all mountain ski in the range of 88-95 mm waist width. I live and ski mostly in Austria but plan a trip to Chamonix soon. I am 196 cm 90 kg. Intermediate to advanced skier. I like medium speed and short to medium turns. I ski the whole mountain but want to improve in moguls and difficult snow the most. I first considered the Brahma but soon realized that this is probably not the right ski for me. I am now considering the Nordica Enforcer 93. Do you think this is the right ski for me? I am also stuck between lengths: I usually take the longest ski available but feel like 193 is a little too long for me? I currently ski the K2 Rictor 82 in 184 for mostly resort based skiing and a Atomic Automatic 102 in 188 for Off Piste skiing. I get along with both skis very well but feel like the Automatic is too long and to wide for large, difficult Moguls. I also feel like the Automatic does not have enough edge hold for hard, ice groomers and is overall very slow from edge to edge (when I am forced to use the groomers during my off piste skiing). The Rictor 82 is a nice ski (except for deep powder) and feels like it skis without any effort at all but than again it does need feel like a very “athletic” ski.

    Thank you for your input

    1. Hi Thomas!

      I think the Enforcer 93 will work really well for you. The Brahma is pretty challenging and quite demanding in moguls and variable snow conditions, while the Enforcer 93 is much more user-friendly. It should be a good ski for you to help improve your ability in that type of terrain. It’s also got a nice amount of stability for your size. I agree that 193 cm is probably overkill. The Enforcer 93 gets to be quite a lot of ski in that length. The 185 cm, on the other hand, should be a good size for you. I think you’ll find it’s more maneuverable than your 188 cm Automatic 102s, and will outperform your Rictor 82s on firmer snow too. The Enforcer 93 definitely has more torsional stiffness (edge grip) than the Automatic and I would actually argue it has more than the Rictor 82 as well, even though it’s also arguably easier to ski.

      Hope that helps!

      SE

  58. Hi
    I’m 66, 5’10 220. I’m skiing on 174 K2 Rictor’s that are 80 under foot. My powder skis are Rossi S7’s.
    I’m an advanced skier. I’m thinking the e93’s rather than the 100’s because I already own good powder skis and am really looking for a good 50/50 ski for groomer and in between days where I’d be skiing on 3 to 5 inches of new.
    Do you agree with my thinking the 93’s would be the way to go. Also what length would recommend.
    Thanks

    1. Hey Rick!

      Yeah I think the Enforcer 93 would be a great choice! I agree the 100 is getting a little too close to your Soul 7s in width. The Enforcer 93 will be a better compliment to those skis and is more of a 50/50 ski in my opinion. I think at your size and considering you’re an advanced skier you’ll probably be best off with the 185 cm length.

      Hope that helps!

      SE

  59. Hi all,

    I’m in the market for a new “all mountain” ski. I mostly ski in Vermont (Killington, Okemo, etc.), and when we have new snow, I love to ski the glades and moguls. However, because I’m mostly skiing the East, I do end up on a lot of groomed surfaces by default. I’m 29 years old, 5’ 8’’, and 140lbs. I’ve been skiing most of my life and would describe myself as a pretty advanced skiier. I’ve had an old pair of Volkl Unlimiteds (more traditional front of the mountain ski), and I’m looking for something newer and more versetile.

    After watching a few of your videos and reading reviews, I’m trying to decide between the following:

    Nordica Enforcer 93
    Volkl Kendo
    Blizzard Brahma
    (Any other recommendations you might have are fine too!)

    Any thoughts on how I could decide between these? Are my correct in thinking that a wider ski (such as the Mantra) is probably a bit more than I need here in Vermont? Any thoughts would be greatly appreciated!

    -Ray

    1. Hi Ray!

      You’ve narrowed it down to three really good skis. You’re definitely not alone in choosing between those three, that’s for sure. That said, are you a relatively aggressive skier? Ski fairly fast? All of those skis use two sheets of metal, so they’re on the stiffer, heavier side. If you’re an aggressive skier, that’s great as they provide excellent power, stability, vibration damping, etc. If you’re a less aggressive skier you might want a lighter, softer ski, but from the sounds of it you’ll probably be fine on those.

      Width is somewhat personal preference, but I agree that when you get up closer to 100 mm under foot the skis become less versatile. For eastern terrain and splitting your time between on trail and off I think you’re in a great waist width range.

      So, between those three skis the Enforcer 93 is the most versatile and the most maneuverable in moguls, trees, etc. The Kendo gets a little bit more demanding (slightly stiffer), then the Brahma starts to lean more towards firm snow use just because of its shape. I imagine you’ll like the rocker profile and maneuverability of the Enforcer 93, and I worry less about it being too stiff for you than those other two skis.

      Hope that helps!

      SE

      1. Hello,

        Just demo’d the Nordica E-93 in the 169 length. While I loved how forgiving and fun to ski, a bit unsure. Felt a little unstable if you let them run flat. I have been skiing on Rossi E-84 for a bunch of years and have trashed them. They turn like lightning on groomers but kill you in bumps and eastern hard pack. I am 62 and 5’6″-160lbs. Tried the Kendos and definitely more work than I want to put in. Loved them put they are unforgiving if you are not on top of them. Is 169 too short. The shop at Mt Snow/VT said no but everything in this dialogue seems to point me to 177. Is the trade off stability versus ease of turning at my size. I consider myself an expert who doesn’t do bumps anymore.

      2. Hi Chris!

        I don’t necessarily think the 169 cm Enforcer 93 is too short for you, but how long are your Experience 84s? The Experience 84 is basically full camber. Even though Rossignol says there is tip rocker, it’s pretty marginal compared to the Enforcer 93. It sounds like you’re somewhat not used to the feel of rocker. They do tend to wander a little bit if you’re riding a flat ski. Is that what you mean by unstable? The 177 cm would be a full 10 cm taller than you. Not unheard of in the Enforcer 93, but a little bit on the long side I would say. Likely what you’d notice is the increased swing weight.

        Let me know more about what exactly you were feeling in terms of instability and the length of your Experience 84s and I’ll make a suggestion for you!

        SE

  60. SE,

    Like others I’m torn about length for the Enforcer 93. I can get an incredible deal for a flat pair of 169s. I both worry about and like that “spoony” tip on the Enforcers.
    A little about me: 70 yr, 150 lb, 5’7″, consider myself an advanced skier who appreciates going fast but over the years strive to be a finesse skier seeking 3D terrain, crud, and of course powder. My daily driver has been a pair of 170cm 2014 Kendos, my 170cm 2012 Mantras were my powder, crud, crush it ski and most recently I picked up a 2016 pair of 170cm Head Cyclic 115s. I love both the Volkls but they are getting played out. The Head Cyclics I’ve only been on 3 days and am still learning them, they are pretty much a dedicated pow ski.
    I’ve watched your review of the new M5 Mantra and that may be the ski I should buy in 170cm but the Enforcer 93 interests me as a new daily driver to replace the Kendos. Can I get through the trees and bumps as easily on a pair of 177s as I do the 170 volkls or would I have more fun on the 169s?

    1. Hi Richmond!

      The Enforcer 93 definitely skis shorter than a Kendo. I just put a pair of the 177 cm Enforcer 93 next to a 170 cm Kendo and visually the effective edge is about the same between the two (more rocker in the Enforcer) and I think that mirrors how they ski as well. A 169 cm Enforcer 93 would definitely feel much shorter than your 170 cm Kendos. I’m sure you’d have fun on the 169 cm, because skiing is fun, but 177 cm does feel like a more appropriate length considering your ability level and the skis you’re coming off of.

      Hope that helps!

      SE

  61. Hello like others I am torn between length and width. 5-11 250 lbs aggressive advanced skier/snowboarder

    demoed the 177 93. Turned great I think in 93 the185 would be ideal.
    Local shop recomended185 93 or 100 177.

    Looking for a one ski do everything I like steep lean angles like snowboarding. What would u recomend

    1. Hi Paul!

      I think the 185 cm Enforcer 93 is probably more appropriate for your size than the 177 cm. Choosing between the 93 and 100 should be influenced by how often you’re in soft snow. I wouldn’t necessarily downsize, however, if you decide to go with the 100. The performance is largely the same as the 93, just a little wider, so I think you could probably handle the 185 cm there too. I assume you’re a relatively advanced skier?

      Hope that helps!

      SE

  62. Hi, I have read many of yr reviews and chats and really appreciate yr info, expertise and engagement. I´m 6,1-6,2 and 172 lbs. I have skied
    all my life, 70 years. I am an advanced skier and love fast controlled carving. I take every chance to go off piste to find powder and whatever.
    In average I ski 2 weeks in the North of Sweden and 2 weeks in the ALps. A couple of times per year I rent touring skis and skins, which is costly. I´m about to buy new skis and consider Enforcer 93, Head kore 93, Salomon XDR 88 or Blizzard Brahma CA 88.
    I will either go for AT tour frame binding – pros: can use alpine boots and gives more support and release on downhill. Cons: heavier.
    Or i will go for tech tour bindings – pros: lighter binding and smoóther walking. Cons: less support and little release downhill and costs more. Furthermore it means I will have to buy touring boots.Thus a much bigger investment.
    Maybe I will simply buy a pair of Salomon XDR 80 with alpine binding, which I can get at a very favorable price on sale, and postpone the big decision to next year (considering I will only ski one more week at Easter in the Alps). I read in yr Review and Chat that XDR80 are quite OK to bring out in the powder. Do you have any suggestions out of this somewhat unclear description of priorities.

    1. Hi Anders!

      Have you considered waiting for the new Salomon Shift binding? It’s much lighter and skis much better than any frame binding we’ve ever tested, and you get a pin tech system for the way up. Check out our review on Chairlift Chat if you haven’t heard of it. As far as skis go in my opinion the Enforcer 93 or the Kore 93 would be the way to go because those skis perform best in softer snow conditions and just about any conditions you’ll find off piste. If it were me I would put a new Salomon Shift binding on a Kore 93. You’d have a lightweight touring setup that’s also a ripping alpine setup.

      The future is here! What do you think?

      SE

      1. Hi, thank you so much for yr Quick response. I get What you’re sating. Thus I Will go for buying the xdr80 now and get a good allround ski which I can buy at just over 400 dollars and do the the big decision/investment next year. What do you think?
        Anders

      2. Hi again Anders!

        I think that’s a perfectly acceptable thing to do. That’s a good deal for a good ski and binding package.

        SE

  63. Hi, Great reviews, best I’ve found. I’m 62, 5ft 10in and weigh 200lbs, currently ski on old Rosignol Bandit 83 mainly groomers but have started to try and ski off piste which is generally swallow powder/crude and an looking for a ‘better’ ski than what I currently have. Was thinking about this enforcer, the Kendo and possibly the Head Kore 93? I’m a strong intermediate to advanced skier but tend not to race down a mountain. What would you suggest?

    1. Hi Guy!

      All great skis! I think the Enforcer 93 may be the most appropriate for you. I think you’ll enjoy the stability that the two sheets of metal provides. I know you’re not exceptionally aggressive, but at your size I think you’ll like having the little bit of extra stability compared to the Kore 93, which is much lighter. The Kendo, although it also has metal like the Enforcer 93, is quite a bit more demanding and I think you’d probably find it a bit challenging to ski off-piste at your ability level. So, considering your size, ability level, and the terrain you ski the Enforcer 93 sounds like a great choice.

      Hope that helps,

      SE

      1. I would go with the 177 cm Enforcer 93 to start. If you think you want to go shorter or longer you should feel it when skiing the 177 cm, but I’m guessing you’ll enjoy that length quite a bit.

        SE

      2. Hi, struggled to find any enforcer skis here in Courchevel, however tried a set of 180 Kore 93’s and have now bought a set!

        Great on groomers and spring snow, waiting for a dump due in a couple of days to try in Powder

  64. Hi,
    I’m 5 foot 9, 150-155 pounds and 19 years old.
    I’m an expert skier in Aspen and I’ve been skiing on the Rosignol Experience 88 at 162 for 5 years, but I’m in the market for new skis (even though I love these, they’re getting old)
    I demoed the K2 Pinnecle 88 this morning at 170 and while I liked the extra length on groomers and flats, It was tough to link a bunch of tight turns in a row in the bumps / trees.
    I also did the Line 86 in the afternoon at 165 and liked length better but worried too narrow for a powder day
    Trying the Enforcer 93 tomorrow morning at 168 and Blizzard Brahma at 165 in the afternoon.
    Any suggestions of other skis similar to the Experience 88 (they don’t sell those at stores I’ve looked at in Aspen) or things to look for tomorrow? Thank you!

    1. Hi Teddy!

      I’d throw the Salomon XDR 88 into the mix if you can find one to demo. It kind of splits the difference between the Brahma and the Enforcer 93 in a sense. Atomic Vantage 90 CTI would be pretty interesting to test too, similar concept to both the XDR and the Pinnacle 88 you skied.

      Have fun!

      SE

  65. Hi,
    Love your website and all the useful info. It’s been extremely helpful. I’m looking for a recommendation on length for the enforcer 93. I’m 5’10” 170-175 lbs and ski mostly smaller ‘mountains’ in Michigan. Powder days are few and far between so I’ll mainly be on piste. I’m just getting back into skiing coming from snowboarding for the last decade plus. I was surprised I was able to ski so well after all that time and found that I still like to charge at speed but also like to play around. I was also considering the head Kore as well but it seems to me that that ski might like a more off piste skier a tad more. Maybe I’m wrong, I don’t know. Unfortunately, I don’t have the option to try many skis before purchasing. Any recommendations??

    1. Hi Richard!

      The Enforcer 93 should be a good ski for you, it corresponds nicely with the way you describe your skiing: charge at speed, but also likes to play around a little. The Kore is actually very similar in its shape, but is lighter and focuses on maneuverability more than powder. The Enforcer 93 is a more stable ski at speed, so I’m guessing you’ll enjoy that. I would probably go with 177 cm if I were you. There are some people your size that size up to the 185 cm, but considering where you live and that you’re just coming back to skiing I think the 177 cm will be a little more appropriate and it still a ripping ski.

      Hope that helps!

      SE

  66. Howdy,
    I am 56 years old, 5’8 and 190 pounds and recently started skiing again after a long hiatus. I have been reading a lot about the Enforcer 93’s and thinking about getting a pair. They sound like a great all around ski for me. I ski in the Tahoe basin and love the fresh powder days but also ski the groomers and occasionally ski the moguls . I am a fairly aggressive skier and still enjoy going fast but need to be a little more cautious now that I am older. I am thinking about the 177 cm skis. What are your thoughts? Thank you.

    1. Hi Greg!

      I think a 177 cm Enforcer 93 would be a great ski for you! It’s a really good ski for Tahoe terrain. It can definitely handle soft, deeper snow conditions, while still performing really well on groomers and also in moguls. I think the 177 cm will also give you a nice level of performance. It will be plenty stable on days when you feel like skiing faster, but won’t be overly demanding. I think you’d find the 185 cm wants to ski pretty fast all the time, while the 177 cm will be more fun and more manageable for you at slower speeds.

      Hope that helps!

      SE

      1. Thank you for your response. These skis really are sounding like what I want but after I posted my question the other night I saw the You Tube review of the Enforcer 100 skis and hearing the they basically ski the same but are not quite as quick under foot I was wondering if these skis may work good for me as well? I am just wondering if they may be something for me to consider? Will they be hard to turn or hold an edge on hard pack or icy conditions? Thanks again.

      2. Hey again Greg!

        The 100 is definitely a ski you could consider. They largely have the same performance as the 93, but with a little more float and a little more stability through chopped up snow. That is, of course, at the cost of a little bit of quickness edge to edge. It’s not a drastic difference, but it is noticeable on firm snow. It’s also noticeable in the bumps in my opinion. The slightly narrower 93 is a little easier to handle in the bumps just because of the difference in width. There isn’t a huge difference in torsional stiffness, so they hold an edge similarly well on hard pack and icy conditions. Quickness is really the biggest difference between the two. So, I would ask yourself whether you feel like you want to boost performance in soft snow at the cost of a little bit of quickness edge to edge. That should steer you towards 100 or 93.

        Hope that helps!

        SE

  67. What a helpful thread!
    I’m a 5’6″ 170lb aggressive east coast skier and take one trip to Utah per year. I like to bomb as well as tight maneuvering. Ive skied the snot out of my very old set of 165s (they are thrashed!) and considering the enforcer 93s. Looking for a do everything ski.
    Would you recommend the 169 or make the jump to 177?
    Thank you in advance!

    1. Hey Carson!

      I think you could definitely handle the 177 cm and it will give you better stability at your weight than the 169 cm. Especially as an aggressive skier I think 177 cm is probably the better length. Quite a bit of rocker in the Enforcer 93, where I’m guessing your old skis have next to none, or none at all, so it will ski a bit shorter and is likely more maneuverable and overall more forgiving than what you’re used to.

      SE

  68. New England skier, advanced intermediate. 49 years old, 250 lbs 6’1″. Would I be crazy to order these in a 169 cm? I want to learn moguls better and experiment with some glades. I know you’re gonna suggest 185’s to me but I like to ski the steep and unfortunately icy black and double blacks. Would a shorter ski be better for steeps and bumps?

    1. Hi Bob!

      Would you be crazy? Mm… no. Do I think there is a better length for you? Yeah.

      At your size I think the 169 cm would be a little bit unstable. You get a pretty short tail on the 169 cm, so I think it might feel a little bit unbalanced for you. Is a shorter ski easier to maneuver through moguls? Yes, but you also need some stability, especially for those steeper icy runs. The shorter ski has a shorter effective edge, so won’t hold as well as a longer ski. I don’t necessarily think you should be on the 185 cm as you’re looking to try new terrain, but I do think 177 cm is a more appropriate length at your size.

      What do you think?

      SE

  69. Hi,

    Thank you for such a detailed review and great feedback to the questions. I’m 6.3/215 lbs and I’ve been skiing Volkl Gotama (186 full rocker). In the past few years snow conditions really pushed me to ski on groomers 60% of the time so I decided to buy a more versatile ski. I tested Salomon QST 92 (185) over the weekend and I felt much more control on groomers than on my Gotama. At higher speeds, however, I really wanted to slow down as I did not feel very confident on QST. What size of Enforcer should I be looking at? 193 cm should give me plenty of stability but maybe Enforcer as it is much stiffer and better suited for groomers than Gotama or QST. If it is the case I prefer not to size up to 193. Would be happy to hear your insights!

    Thank you!

    1. Hi Dmitry!

      I’ll start by saying the Enforcer 93 has much more stability than the QST 92. The QST 92 feels pretty lightweight and I find it gets deflected a little bit, especially at higher speeds. I can totally understand why you felt less confident on them. While they’re a great ski, they’re not the best for more aggressive skiers. So, without talking about length at all I think Enforcer 93 is a more appropriate ski for you. 193 cm in the Enforcer 93, however, is a lot of ski and starts to become pretty demanding just because of the length and extra weight. Our shipping manager, Bob St Pierre, who is a tester on here, is just about your size exactly, has some of the best technique I’ve seen, and even he feels like the 193 cm Enforcer 93 is a bit too much ski. So, I think you’ll be just fine sticking with the 185 cm. Should give you the stability and performance you’re after without being overwhelming.

      Hope that helps!

      SE

  70. I’m 5’6” 175 lbs expert easter skier and ski a lot of moguls and trees and like short turns. Been on the Nordica Hot Rod CA (no metal version) in 169 for 8 Year’s and love it. Trying to decide between the Enforcer 93 and Head Kore 93. Any advice on which and what length?

    1. Hi Gary!

      I’m guessing you’ll like the feel of the Kore 93 over the Enforcer 93 just because it’s a little lighter, feels a little quicker when making short turns through moguls and trees, and it sounds like you don’t necessarily need metal in your skis coming off the Hot Rod CA. 171 cm feels like the right length to me in the Kore 93. If you decide to go Enforcer 93 (a little more powerful, a little more stable, but not quite as quick or maneuverable) 169 cm is probably more appropriate than 177 cm considering you’ve been enjoying your current 169 cm skis. The Enforcer 93 does use more rocker, but it’s also heavier, so somewhat of a trade-off.

      SE

      1. Thanks you guys rock, Still debating after reading all the threads. I think I need both, ty.

  71. Hi there!

    Looking for all-mtn that can be used for variable conditions (except powder) for 70/30 on/off-piste use. Skied a friend’s Kore 93 (162) and found it less amazing than I was expecting – it certainly was a fine ski and forgiving and light but felt dead in feel and didn’t give me the feel of the snow that I think I like. I also don’t feel like I got any energy out of them that I get from say a frontside ski like the Head Titan with metal. I don’t know if that is due to the stiffness of the ski or the materials or what. Could it be that I prefer the feel of having metal even though they usually say to avoid metal if you are a light intermediate? I have been considering the N80/85 and never considered the E93 because I was worried it would be “too much ski” but now that I have researched this it seems like it could be a great fit. At my size / level, I’m thinking 169. What do you think? Would this be a good fit or too much ski? My feeling on the Kore 93 has thrown me a little as I was headed in that direction. Thanks!

    – (different) Steve

    1. Hey Steve,

      Skis with metal do have a very distinct feel, so yes, it could be that’s what you’re feeling. If you’re feeling good on a Head Titan and consider yourself an intermediate we can pretty much assume you’re not falling into the category of “avoiding metal as an intermediate.” You’re 5’9, 145 lbs, yes? I had to look back at an older comment. I think you could ski the 177 cm, but 169 cm could be fine too. Do you think you’ll be able to demo a pair? Although, now that I’m considering you skied the 162 cm Kore 93 maybe 169 cm is the way to do… I don’t think 169 cm Enforcer 93 will be too much ski. 177 cm? Maybe… I do think that Kore 93 is a little short for you.

      What do you think?

      SE

  72. Hey There,
    I am 6’ and weigh193 and I am 63. I ski in the east coast mostly and 1 week in CO a year. I ski on groomers and a few mogel runs, some off trails. I have not bought skis since early 2000’s, K2 axis x with 70 waist. On the east coast, I ski fall line because the trails are not wide or long, requiring short turns. When I go out west I would like being able to ski longer turns and be able to handle more powder. I got Solomon X pro 120 boots 3 years ago and now am ready to get new skis. I have read a lot about the enforcer 93 ski. Would this be a good all mountain ski for me? Also, I am an advanced skier and not sure what length to get, 177 or 185. Do you have any input? Thanks, Steve

    1. Hey Steve!

      Yes, I definitely think the Enforcer 93 is a good choice for you. It’s a very versatile ski, performs really well in a variety of conditions, yet is impressively forgiving considering its performance. It’s a ski that you can confidently bring to the mountain regardless of whether you’re on the east coast, west coast, if there’s powder, icy conditions, etc. Just does it all really well. I would get the 185 cm length, which brings me back to the forgiveness of the Enforcer 93. Because it uses quite a bit of rocker and because the tips and tails feel so smooth and catch-free it’s definitely a ski you can “size up” on when you feel like you’re in between sizes.

      I think you’ll love it!

      SE

  73. Hi:

    I am 64 years old, 5′ 10″, 175 lb. advanced skier with bilateral hip resurfacing! I still consider myself a fairly aggressive skier but tend to avoid too deep bumps (due to hips)! Am looking to upgrade from 175 cm Solomon Double Hot Chilis (which I love still). I tested the 169 cm Enforcer 100 and the 181 cm Head Kore105 (too big) and the Head Kore 93 (171), but only for a few runs. I like the Enforcer 100 a lot but feel like I wouldn’t sacrifice float with the 93 as I always felt the Hot Chilis (only 82 waist) were great in powder. My question is what length for the Enforcer 93, 169 or 177? Thanks

    1. Hey Jerry!

      I would go with the 177 cm Enforcer 93. I also agree, if you were happy on your Hot Chilis I think you’ll be psyched with how the Enforcer 93 handles powder conditions. What did you think of the Enforcer 100 in the 169 cm? Did it feel short? On paper I think 177 cm is the right length for you, and I feel like the 169 cm could get a little unstable for you at higher speeds.

      What do you think? Does 177 cm feel right to you?

      SE

  74. Hi,

    The discussion and comments here are great. I’m 6’1, 180lbs and currently have 180 Blizzard Brahma’s. Most of the recommendations above are leading people of my size to the 185 enforcer 93. I’m and advance piste skier and intermediate off piste. I prefer to do shorter turns and enjoy the playfulness of moguls and trees even though I spend most of my time on the groomers. I find my tails grab on moguls and have a hard time pivoting quickly in trees. I’m considering shorter skis to be more maneuverable, but don’t want to sacrifice too much on the groomers. Would I be making a mistake by trading in 180 Brahma’s for the 177 Enforcer 93s?

    Cheers.

    1. Hey Scott!

      I would say the 177 cm Enforcer 93 will feel quite a bit shorter than your 180 cm Brahma. If that’s what you’re looking for I think that’s a perfectly appropriate choice. I would also add, however, that the Enforcer 93 has a more forgiving and maneuverable feel than the Brahma anyways. A 185 cm Enforcer 93 doesn’t feel shorter than a 180 cm Brahma, but it does feel a little bit more user-friendly when you’re in tricky terrain, variable conditions, etc. The tail is a little softer and has more rocker, so is easier to smear and pivot.

      So, no, I don’t think you’d be making a mistake trading your 180 cm Brahma in for a 177 cm Enforcer 93, but in doing so you should understand that you’re losing a little bit of stability as speed. Not a ton, but definitely some. If you want to retain the same stability, I do think a 185 cm Enforcer 93 will feel more maneuverable than your 180 cm Brahma for you.

      Hope that helps!

      SE

  75. Hi,

    I’m 36, 5’11”, and fluctuate between 190-200lbs. Intermediate-Advanced skier here. I currently ski on a 175cm Salomon Xtra Hot from back in the day and I’m really interested in upgrading to the Enforcer 93. East Coaster here, primarily groomers but I absolutely love dipping into the trees at Jay Peak. Based on my height/size (and preconceived notion that the 177cm are probably more maneuverable in the trees), do you recommend the 177 or 185?

    Thank you!

    1. Hey Josh!

      A lot of skiers your size end up going with the 185 cm length, although you’re correct in assuming the 177 cm will feel more maneuverable in Jay trees. How fast do you like to ski? You’ll lost a little bit of stability at speed going with the 177 cm instead of the 185 cm, but if you’re not an overly aggressive skier you might not need that extra stability. I will say the effective edge of a 177 cm Enforcer 93 will be shorter than your Salomons, while the 185 cm will probably feel relatively similar. It’s also a relatively maneuverable ski overall, so you might not have any trouble maneuvering the 185 cm.

      Hope that helps

      SE

      1. This is great, thank you! I generally ski at moderate skis, but sometimes push it on wider runs. That’s very interesting you mention the length of the effective edge of the 185cms being closer to my current skis. This is already giving me confidence to give the 185cm’s a whirl. Thanks again!

  76. Hello,
    I am 52, 5’7″ 185LBS and just got back into skiing last year after a long hiatus . I consider myself “intermediate” and will spend most of my time on-piste and will ski pretty much entirely in Telluride and some in Mammoth. Looking for a ski that will not be “too much” ski but one that will handle more aggressive skiing as I get better.

    Thanks

    1. Hi Sam!

      I think you could probably handle a 177 cm Enforcer 93 just fine. It’s a pretty approachable ski considering its high performance nature, power, damp, stable feel, etc. It’s a pretty rare ski in the sense that a pretty wide range of abilities can get on it and enjoy it. It shouldn’t bee too much ski at first, and as you start to get more aggressive there’s plenty of ski there.

      SE

  77. Hi! I’m 19 years old, 5’9″ and 140ibs. I’m using 161cm skis and I do everything with them (they are meant for slalom, kinda). The thing is that now I do a lot more of “freeriding” but with those skis it’s quite horrible… and now taht I’ve discovered the enforcer lineup I don’t really know which of them I need. Is the enforcer 100 really wide? Is the 93 wide enough for powder? Are they ok for hard and packed snow? And which size should I choose?
    thanks!

    1. Hola Nacho!

      If you’re coming from a (kinda) slalom ski, both the 93 and the 100 are going to feel much, much wider and float a lot better in powder. If you’re going to be using them primarily in powder, I’d go with the 100. If you plan to ski on-piste a more often, I’d go with the 93. At 140 lbs, you should get pretty good float from the 93. Lengthwise, I think the 177 cm ski would be the right choice in either ski. Cheers!

  78. Looking for a little feedback and possible ski suggestions. I’m a Pacific Northwest skier looking to upgrade to new skis. I have Volkl Superspeed Supersports, but want something a bit more all mountain instead of just carving. With those skis I have typically been on groomers going for speed and really enjoy the carving ability. I would consider myself to be an advanced skier. I demoed the Enforcer 93s 185cm on a powder day at Crystal Mountain and had a blast. There were a few times I wanted better edge hold, but not sure I want to give up any float in order to get it. I was in up to hip deep powder, but as long as I was moving I could keep about ankle deep and see the tips of the skis. At no point did I feel like the 185 was too much ski for me. I have also been looking at the Blizzard Bonafide and Brahma, but have not demoed them. I’ve been told to look at the K2 Pinnacle 95 and the Line Sick Day 94 as well, but those seem to have less carving ability than the Enforcer 93’s from the reviews. At 6 foot and 185lb what are your thoughts on skis to be balanced, but a bit towards carving while still letting me go play around in bowls and trees? What would your opinion on going to a 193 on the Enforcer 93s be?

    1. Hi Matthew!

      I think you’ll be hard pressed to find a ski that does everything you’re looking for better than the Enforcer 93. It has an impressive blend of performance that allows you to carve turns on groomers, while still being playful in softer snow conditions and variable terrain.

      To compare it to the other skis you listed the Brahma and Bonafide are both a little bit less forgiving than the Enforcer 93. They’re shapes and flex profiles make them a touch more challenging in soft snow. They both rip, but don’t have quite the same maneuverability. On the other hand, you’re right, the Pinnacle 95 and Sick Day 94 can’t quite match the performance of the Enforcer 93 in terms of carving performance. They’re both a little bit more “playful” and both are very maneuverable, but you’re sacrificing a bit of power I think.

      The 193 cm Enforcer 93 is starting to get pretty long. At your size I think it might be a bit much. It’s kind of hard to tell without seeing you ski, but going from the 185 to the 193 in the Enforcer 93 is definitely noticeable in terms of maneuverability, forgiveness, etc. If you didn’t feel your tips diving on the 185 cm and didn’t find it unstable I would stick with that length. You could, however, consider going to the 185 cm Enforcer 100. You don’t really lose that much carving performance between the 93 and the 100 and you’ll get that much more surface area for softer snow. Just a thought. To me that makes more sense than a 193 E-93.

      What do you think?

      SE

      1. Thank you for the quick reply. I was wondering about going to the E-93 193 only because I felt like I could grow to out-ski the 185 since on day 1 I never felt like there was too much ski across groomers or powder. I don’t think I need any more float, but I can say that at 50 mph on groomers I felt that I was starting to get some chatter that convinced me to speed check a bit. My thoughts on the Enforcer 100 is that I always get wary where I hear “don’t really lose that much” on the carving performance. I know it’s not easy to quantify, but since I am coming from a dedicated carving ski I can already tell that I gave up some carving performance for the E-93, and most days of the year are spent on groomers for until I can go find un-tracked powder easily, but then when I do go find that powder it’s usually pretty deep. On my demo day with the E-93 I did find myself with a significant difference in skiing style between powder and groomers, but I expect that, while I had someone on a chair lift with the E-100 say he didn’t have to change style based on conditions. Would there be a considerable difference between the E-93 and E-100 out in a bowl of un-tracked powder? Once I start down the slippery slope of width I find myself asking “why not the 110” very easily. On the Enforcer 110 page one of your testers said, “carved impressively well once up on edge” and “any turn shape at just about any speed” which both sounded very good to me, but my question then becomes, is the E-110 just carving well for a powder ski, or does it actually carve well, and how much difference do you get from the E-93 to the E-100 to E-110 in the carving vs powder performance trade off?

      2. Between the 93 and the 100 you really don’t lose much performance on groomers. The shape and rocker profile of those two skis is basically exactly the same. The 100 has a little more surface area, so floats a little better in deep snow. Is it a considerable difference? Probably not, but I think there’s a bigger difference in soft snow performance than there is in groomer performance if that makes sense.

        I understand why it feels like a slippery slope, but really the 110 is a pretty different ski. Much more tail rocker on the 110, so it doesn’t complete a carving turn with the same pizzazz as the 93 or 100. Yes, it does carve well for a ski that’s 110 under foot, but it requires a pretty high edge angle to do so, hence the “carved well once up on edge” comment. It takes a little bit more to get up on edge than the 93 or 100. There’s definitely a bigger difference between the performance of the 100 and 110 than the 93 and 100.

        So, where are we now. I would say only size up to the 193 if the 185 cm felt short when you demoed it. You mentioned that you think you could grow to out-ski the 185 cm. That leads me to believe that the 193 cm would feel like a lot of ski at first. I would buy a ski for what feels right now, not for where you want to be. Does that make sense? Forgive me if I’m misunderstanding.

        SE

      3. Thank you again for your insights. I think you hit the nail on the head for what I was looking for with “There is a bigger difference in soft snow performance than on groomers” and your comments about the 110 actually being a fairly different ski even though it’s in the same family. I wish I could demo a 110 just to experience it for myself, but my local shop does not have that width available for demo. Based on your comments on the E93 vs the E100 I believe I will demo the E100 in a 193 length, and if I have another good day a 185 length just to be sure so I round out my 185/193 options as well as the E100 vs the E93. I have the personality and view point that I am always improving and pushing myself and I personally believe it is likely I will enjoy the 193 just as a challenge and be able to push myself into improving my skiing further. Thank you for the additional details about your reviews.

      4. No problem Matthew! Let us know what you think after you’ve demoed the E100. I like the way you’re thinking about the 193 cm. If that’s your mindset going into it (possibly challenging at first, but challenges are fun) then the 193 cm length is starting to feel more appropriate for you.

        SE

  79. Hi all, I am 56 years old, 5’10” 175ibs – advanced skier – 50/50 on/off piste – like to make quick turns and ski trees and steeps.
    Feel I am still an aggressive skier even though I do not get on the mountain as much as I would like.
    Looking for an all mountain ski that responds well in bumps and also can hold an edge at higher speeds on groomers. The Enforcer and Fischer Pro Mtn keep popping up. Has anyone skied both and can advise on the difference and which lengths? As a comparison, last year out in Tahoe (plenty of snow) I skied the Rossi Sole7 and loved the feel, light under foot, quick to react. But been told not as good on hard packed. Thanks for the help.

    1. Hey Ed!

      Sure can! The shape of the Fischer Pro Mtn is more inspired by carving skis than the Enforcer 93. It probably has the edge in terms of responsiveness and edge grip on groomers, but in all honesty they both handle groomers quite well. The shape of the Enforcer 93 with its slight early taper in the tip and tail and long, low tip rocker make it a little bit more versatile and maneuverable in soft snow conditions, off the groomers, etc. I also think it’s a little easier in bumps; a little bit less catchy thanks to the tapered tips and tails.

      Neither will feel quite as light and quick to react as the Soul 7 HD, but you’re getting a wider range of performance out of both the Pro Mtn and the E-93. The Soul 7 HD probably wouldn’t feel quite stable enough at really high speeds on groomers for you, while you’ll have no problem on the Nordica or Fischer.

      Hope that helps!

      SE

  80. Hi. I am in the market for a new pair of skis, and after doing plenty of research these skis sound like what I want. However, I really want to try them out for a day or two before I buy them to be sure there right for me. I have looked through a couple demo centers in my area but none of them stock this pair. If you have any suggestions it would be much appreciated. Thanks!

    1. Hey Ben!

      Where do you ski? I think you should be able to find a shop that has an Enforcer 93 for demo. It’s a really popular ski and it’s curious to me that you can’t find a pair to try. That being said, if you can’t find one to demo, I’m more than happy to help figure out if it’s an appropriate ski for you. How would you describe yourself as a skier? Favorite terrain? Height and weight? Let us know and we’ll let you know what we think!

      SE

  81. I am a 55 year old athletic intermediate skier who is 5’10” and 165 lbs and likes to take on the entire mountain (west of the Rockies). I just got Surefoot fitted for Lange RX 120 boots and wanted to pair it with an equal ski. Is the Enforcer 93 177cm that match or would you suggest something else?

    1. Hey Brad!

      I think that will be a perfect match! It’s a high performance ski, but isn’t insanely, overly stiff (similar to your boots). It has a great blend of performance for where you ski as well: narrow and responsive enough that it’s really fun on groomers, wide and rockered enough that it’s a blast in softer snow conditions as well.

      I say go for it!

      SE

  82. Hi! I’m 5’7″ 175#. I ski mostly east coast with a couple of west coast trips per year. I’d consider myself aggressive. I’m thinking I should go with the Enforcer 93 vs the Enforcer 100, but still stuck deciding between the 169 vs 177. Thanks!

    1. Hey Wayne!

      Like most people who find themselves between two lengths in the Enforcer collection you’re probably going to be happiest if you go with the longer length, the 177 cm. They do ski a little short, even considering the two sheets of metal, and considering you’re a pretty aggressive skier I don’t think you’ll have any problems handling that length.

      Hope that helps!

      SE

  83. Hi I am 6’4″ and weight 185 lbs. I ski mostly in Ontario Canada but do venture out to Whistler BC once a year and ski mostly on groomers. I would say I am an intermediate skier and been looking all over for a good all mountain ski. I have read a lot about the Nordica Enforcer 93 being top notch and thinking of going with the 177 cm length as I am lighter than most for my height. Wondering your thoughts.

    1. Hey Ross!

      Even though you might only be of the intermediate level right now, your height and weight (especially height) kind of points me towards the 185 cm length. What length skis have you been on in the past? Most people find the Enforcer 93 skis a little short. We find that most skiers can size up a little bit on it. I don’t necessarily think the 185 cm is even sizing up for you, considering your height and weight, unless of course you’ve only skied shorter length in the past. Let me know what you’ve skied in the past and in what lengths as that will give me a better sense of whether or not the 185 cm will be too much ski, but like I said at your size and even at the intermediate ability level I’m leaning towards 185 cm.

      SE

  84. Hi. I am 6’1″ and 217. I am an advance intermediate to expert skier, ski about 50-50 on/off piste. I too am concerned about the right length as I like quick, short turns and especially so for moguls. I am getting older now (50) and don’t ski as fast as I used to, but I do still like the spirited run. When I am off-piste, I prefer the steeper stuff and bumps. What do you recommend for length on the Enforcer 93? I have read many reviews and they often conflict, some advising the skis ski short and to go longer, while others say the opposite.

    Thanks

    1. Hi Armando!

      Most people your size go with the 185 cm; some really aggressive skiers you size even go longer. I would say it’s pretty rare for someone over 6 feet that’s of the advanced-expert ability level to go with the 177 cm, but if you really want to maximize quickness you could. We once had Marcus test the Enforcer 93 in the 177 cm length. He’s 6’5″ and 220 lbs. He prefers the 185 cm, but he didn’t find the 177 cm outrageously unstable and it was definitely really quick in moguls and trees. Your size and ability level suggest 185 cm, but it’s ultimately up to you!

      SE

  85. Hey SE.
    I’m 5’8 160. I’ve read a lot about sizing for the enforcers. I feel like because of my height im stuck in between 177cm and 185cm.
    I ski a lot at Holiday Valley in New York, but I do go to Burke and other areas in Vermont. Whats your opinion?

    Thanks

    1. Hey Pete

      You’re not alone; a lot of skiers find themselves in between sizes on the Enforcer 93. How would you describe your skiing? Are you fast and aggressive or do you like to make shorter turns at slower speeds? I would let that be your guide. If you consider yourself an aggressive skier you’ll like the extra stability of the 185 cm, but if you’re not skiing fast or don’t consider yourself aggressive you won’t need that extra stability and in turn the extra length just makes the ski harder to maneuver.

      What do you think?

      SE

      1. Hey,
        Thanks for the reply! I’d say I’m an aggressive ski. I like to go fast and carve hard. I’ve decided to go with the 185cm per your recommendation. I have another decision to make though. That is if I should get the 100 underfoot version of the enforcers. Im looking for an all mountain ski and I’ve seen both the 93 and 100 underfoot version show up in top picks on multiple websites for an all mountain ski. Any advice on this? Like I said before I ski in New York and Vermont

        Thanks,
        Pete

      2. Hey Pete!

        The Enforcer 100 definitely handles soft snow a little more easily than the 93, and it still rips on groomers. A few of our staff members here in Stowe use an Enforcer 100 as their daily driver ski. They like that they can ski fast and carve aggressive turns on groomers, but then use the same ski for tree skiing and powder. The 93 can do it all as well, but doesn’t have quite the same float of the 100. If you like to find soft snow you might enjoy having that extra width, and on the other hand if your preference is railing turns on groomers probably better to stick with the 93.

        Hope that helps!

        SE

  86. Hi,
    I’m 5’10” 163lb 36-years old, expert on piste, intermediate off piste, prefer quick short turns and like to ski fast, but not super fast, due to short turns style. I plan to replace my 2010 Fischer Watea 94 178cm. I also ski steeps so lower swing weight is important too. I plan to ski 60% on piste (also with kids) 40% off piste/light powder. I thought, that for my height and light weight the 177 should be perfect. I also discussed the length with you before, but last week I saw Enforcer 93 in store and was surprised about the amount of tip rocker. Camber looks too short on 177 and seller advised me to go to185, but I’m afraid, that the weight of 185 would be too much for me. Please advise. Thanks.

    1. Hi Martin!

      I (Jeff) am about your size exactly and do prefer the 185 cm ski because it has such pronounced rocker (especially in the tip). You bring up a good point about swing weight, and it’s true that the 185 cm will feel a little heavier than the 177 cm, but marginally. When skiing the Enforcer 100 it really doesn’t feel excessively heavy despite those two sheets of metal. On the other hand your preference for short, quick turns might be reason to go with the 177 cm. We’ve had some pretty big guys test the Enforcer 93 in a 177 cm and quick, short turns is definitely what that length excels at. At the same time we keep going back to the fact that the Enforcer 93 is very maneuverable and quite forgiving considering its two sheets of metal, which is why so many people end up “sizing up” on it and likely why the person you talked to pointed you towards the 185 cm. I think you’ll find even the 185 cm feels more maneuverable than your Watea 94, simply as a result of the skis shape and rocker profile.

      Hope that helps. We’re happy to chat more about it.

      SE

      1. Hi Jeff,

        There are some hints to go to 177 due to my weight and some others to go to 185, so I’m completely torn between 177 and 185 🙂
        The length of 185 should not be a problem due to tip rocker. But I’m not sure if I can bend (with my light weight – 163lb) heavier skis (185) to make tighter turns about as effortlessly as 177. Is there noticeably difference in stiffness between 177 and 185?

        Thanks.

      2. Hey Martin!

        You know, I wouldn’t say the 185 cm is noticeably stiffer than the 177 cm by any means. In fact, there have actually been some reviews where people have said the shorter lengths actually feel stiffer. We haven’t necessarily found that to be true in our testing, but we have heard some feedback like that. Keep in mind that you’re only bending the cambered portion of the ski when you’re laying into it on firm snow. If that’s your concern I feel pretty confident pointing you towards the 185 cm.

        What do you think?

        SE

    1. Hi Mike!

      The Enforcer 93 is relatively approachable considering it has two sheets of metal. In fact, it’s probably one of the only skis on the market that has two sheets of metal and could see be an appropriate choice for an intermediate. Where do you ski? Do you consider yourself relatively aggressive? Chances are you’ll want to go with the 177 cm length if you do choose an Enforcer 93. The 169 cm just seems a little short for your size, especially since the Enforcer 93 skis somewhat short.

      Hope that helps! Let us know what you think.

      SE

Comments are closed.