Enforcer 88 vs 94

Tbone

In the parking lot (formerly "At the base lodge")
Skier
Joined
Nov 20, 2021
Posts
9
Location
NY
Greetings. I am struggling with length choice and was hoping for input. I am 5’ 7” 180 lbs 57 years old. Consider myself expert for my age and am fairly strong/ fit for my age. I am in Northeast and ski mainly frontside but venture off piste and head west a few times a year. Have gotten rec for both 172 and 165. Not sure if going 165 would be better for a more playful feel, but then worry about stability at speed. Appreciate any thoughts. Thanks.
 

Philpug

Notorious P.U.G.
Admin
SkiTalk Tester
Joined
Nov 1, 2015
Posts
31,936
Location
Reno, eNVy
Greetings. I am struggling with length choice and was hoping for input. I am 5’ 7” 180 lbs 57 years old. Consider myself expert for my age and am fairly strong/ fit for my age. I am in Northeast and ski mainly frontside but venture off piste and head west a few times a year. Have gotten rec for both 172 and 165. Not sure if going 165 would be better for a more playful feel, but then worry about stability at speed. Appreciate any thoughts. Thanks.
172. With the rise in the tip and tail the 165 will be very squirrelly.
 

Carl

Moving through life
Skier
Joined
Nov 18, 2015
Posts
135
Location
New England
Greetings. I am struggling with length choice and was hoping for input. I am 5’ 7” 180 lbs 57 years old. Consider myself expert for my age and am fairly strong/ fit for my age. I am in Northeast and ski mainly frontside but venture off piste and head west a few times a year. Have gotten rec for both 172 and 165. Not sure if going 165 would be better for a more playful feel, but then worry about stability at speed. Appreciate any thoughts. Thanks.

I think your choice is between the 172 and 179. For your size the 165 is not a good option. I think the 172 will give you the combo of playful feel you desire and good stability at speed.
 
Thread Starter
TS
T

Tbone

In the parking lot (formerly "At the base lodge")
Skier
Joined
Nov 20, 2021
Posts
9
Location
NY
172 it is! Thanks!
 

Atomicman

Out on the slopes
Skier
Joined
May 6, 2017
Posts
510
I am 5'10 1/2" (Used to be 6 feet! :rolleyes:) and weigh under 180 and ski the Enforcer 100 and 110 in a 186 and just bought a '21 Enforcer 110 in a 185. Of course the 94 is considerable narrower which means you can ski it longer. With the early rise, they ski short. I have never felt like I wished I was on a shorter ski with my 100's
 

surfsnowgirl

Instructor
Skier
Joined
May 12, 2016
Posts
4,769
Location
Londonderry, VT
I'm 5'6", 175 and have the enforcer 94 in a 165
 

Henry

Getting off the lift
Skier
Joined
Sep 7, 2019
Posts
540
Location
Traveling in the great Northwest
I am in Northeast and ski mainly frontside but venture off piste"
So, why is a 94 mm ski the best for this? The few days you, "head west a few times a year," rent if there is fresh snow. Consider a sub-80 for "...Northeast and ski mainly frontside but venture off piste...."

I've lived and skied a lot in the Rockies. Deep powder days are few and far between, especially if one skis according to a schedule, not according to weather forecasts.
 
Thread Starter
TS
T

Tbone

In the parking lot (formerly "At the base lodge")
Skier
Joined
Nov 20, 2021
Posts
9
Location
NY
I am in Northeast and ski mainly frontside but venture off piste"
So, why is a 94 mm ski the best for this? The few days you, "head west a few times a year," rent if there is fresh snow. Consider a sub-80 for "...Northeast and ski mainly frontside but venture off piste...."

I've lived and skied a lot in the Rockies. Deep powder days are few and far between, especially if one skis according to a schedule, not according to weather forecasts.
Felt that the 94 would offer more versatility while still performing well frontside, based on my research and reviews. Also considered the Enforcer 88. Thanks for the input!

Any thoughts on going to the E88 would be appreciated. Just worry that it won’t be as versatile when the snow gets a bit deeper/ cruddy.
 
Last edited:
Thread Starter
TS
T

Tbone

In the parking lot (formerly "At the base lodge")
Skier
Joined
Nov 20, 2021
Posts
9
Location
NY
Having read previous threads regarding this, I am still a bit conflicted. I am in NE, and ski about 80% frontside, but do hit the ungroomed and off piste the rest of the time. Head west a few times a year. I was originally thinking of the 88s but as I did research, it seemed like the 94 offered good frontside carving ability, while being a bit more versatile when things got a bit deeper or in crud. They both seem like frontside oriented skis, just not sure which way to go. Any input would be appreciated. I am 5’ 7” and 180 lbs if that makes any difference in input.
 

Cheizz

AKA Gigiski
Skier
Joined
Aug 15, 2016
Posts
1,110
Location
The Netherlands
If you're looking for a frontside ski, get the 88. Are you looking for more of a 'one-ski-quiver' kind of thing, only then would I get the 94. Bottom line for the 80% of the time that you ski on-piste, I'm with @DocGKR on this one. Get something like a Blizzard Rustler 10 for the soft snow in the East or trips out West.
 

Philpug

Notorious P.U.G.
Admin
SkiTalk Tester
Joined
Nov 1, 2015
Posts
31,936
Location
Reno, eNVy
Any thoughts on going to the E88 would be appreciated. Just worry that it won’t be as versatile when the snow gets a bit deeper/ cruddy.
When? How about if? It really wasn't too long ago that 88 was a powder ski. Remember the Volant Chubb? That was 88 underfoot, slightly before that the acclaimed Volkl Snowranger was only 78 underfoot.

Get the ski for the conditions you actually ski verses conditions you hope to ski. The 88 might be the better options especially for where you ski and your size. The 88 is scaled for your size compared to the 94 would be for someone my size at 5'11" 190lb.
 

Tom K.

HRPufnStf
Skier
Joined
Dec 20, 2015
Posts
4,462
Get the 88 and be happy darn near every day.

Maybe add a pair of used 100s for your western trips, when the weather forecast looks favorable? They are easy to find.

Odd thing I'll add: I didn't love my 100s until I moved them back a bit behind the factory line. Not the case on the 88s. Bang on the line works beautifully. No idea why the difference, but I fought it for a season.
 
Thread Starter
TS
T

Tbone

In the parking lot (formerly "At the base lodge")
Skier
Joined
Nov 20, 2021
Posts
9
Location
NY
When? How about if? It really wasn't too long ago that 88 was a powder ski. Remember the Volant Chubb? That was 88 underfoot, slightly before that the acclaimed Volkl Snowranger was only 78 underfoot.

Get the ski for the conditions you actually ski verses conditions you hope to ski. The 88 might be the better options especially for where you ski and your size. The 88 is scaled for your size compared to the 94 would be for someone my size at 5'11" 190lb.
"Get the ski for the conditions you actually ski verses conditions you hope to ski." Well said! Thanks
 

Philpug

Notorious P.U.G.
Admin
SkiTalk Tester
Joined
Nov 1, 2015
Posts
31,936
Location
Reno, eNVy
Merged two threads.
 
Thread Starter
TS
T

Tbone

In the parking lot (formerly "At the base lodge")
Skier
Joined
Nov 20, 2021
Posts
9
Location
NY
appreciate the community and all the replies!
 

Noodler

Just call me Sir Turn-a-lot
Skier
Joined
Oct 4, 2017
Posts
4,364
Location
Denver, CO
Everybody posting so far on these skis is focusing on the width. I skied these two skis back-to-back yesterday and there's a lot more going on here. The 88 isn't simply a narrower 94. These skis are very different; like night and day. The 88 has been significantly "detuned". According to the rep it has a thinner core and it feels like it. The 94 is much smoother, damper, more stable. It feels like a much more substantial ski. The 88 would be fine for a lighter less powerful skier.

Personally I hate when manufacturers "dumb down" the narrower skis in a line-up. Note that this isn't the case with the current K2 Mindbender 90 vs. 99 (among other examples).
 
Top