Enforcer 94 length

[bbm]

I'm getting ready to purchase some Enforcer 94s and am trying to decide on length.

I currently ski on narrow (69mm waist) 167cm full camber skis. The length feels right for me in full camber.

I have heard the Enforcer 93 skis a bit short (rocker profile). Given this, I am inclined to go with the 172cm in the Enforcer 94. Those who have skied the Enforcer 94, does it ski short, and do you think 172cm is likely to be the right length for me, if I'm normally skiing 167cm full camber skis?

 

[Scotty I.]

The first thing that people are going to ask you is your height and weight.

 

[bbm]

Sure, 5'6" 155lbs expert skier. But optimal ski length will vary from person to person, so please also factor in what I ski on now (167cm full camber).

If it's useful to know the exact ski I am on currently, this is it: https://www.skiessentials.com/2018-ski-test?skis=blizzard-quattro-7-2-ti

 

[François Pugh]

You are skiing on the 2nd shortest of 4 available lengths for your Quatro.
Since the Enforcer comes in 5 lengths, this suggests you should either choose 172 or 179. I'm betting 179.

 

[DocGKR]

I typically ski the Enforcers at least 10cm longer than a 72mm wide sport carving ski like the Quatro.....

 

[Carl]

For your height and weight I think a 179 would be a lot of ski unless you just want to bomb down the groomers. It depends on the type of skiing you want to do. I think the decision is between the 165 and 172, not the 172 and 179.

 

[Fuller]

OK, 172 it is. Next!

 

[GregK]

Another vote for 172cm as the 179cm would be “too much ski” for your size. The E94 was stiffened in the tail and overall weight increased vs the E93 so the 179cm version would not be forgiving in bumps or off trail.

If they were eventually looking for a wider powder/soft snow ski like the Enforcer 104, then the 179cm version comes into play.

 

[ski otter 2]

172 sounds right, a bit more versatile ski than the Quatro 7.2, which, I gather, has a turn radius of 12 or so, rather than the r. 16 of the next longer Quatro version.

BUT this depends on the use you envision. If you want a more versatile, semi off piste friendly ski to compliment what you have with almost similar quick near slalom ski turns or a bit longer, then 172. This 94 ski would also be more intuitive, natural and less energy consuming doing shorter turns at all speeds than the next longer 94. On the other hand, if you envision a more GS, longer type of turn, or a more in between SL and GS type of turn, and a bit more speed, then the 179. The trade off is that this ski becomes a bit more work to keep at lower speeds when desired, or to keep in tighter turns. But keeping up with your bombing friends would become easier. So this longer length also makes a certain sense, in that the longer turns would complement rather than duplicate the type of turn you have now, with somewhat more versatility.

Note: Because of your size and height, the 179, I would guess, would tend to behave a bit more long turn oriented than it would for a bigger, taller guy. If you are an expert, then handling the longer length would not really be a problem, near as I can tell. (At the same time, a bump ski this 179 ain't.)

 

[Philpug]

When the Enforcer 93 wa 177, that night have been the option but the 179 is a different ski and skis much longer. I agree, the 172 is THIS ski is the choice.

 

[Viking9]

It seems to me Phil that the days of sizing up are a thing of the past.
More and more you guard against sizing up as there is no need.
I myself have purchased the longer length and had to sell and by the shorter .

 

[tromano]

If you're an expert then your height weight are relevant but you could ski any of the sizes up to 186 depending on what you want the ski to do. Talk move about how you ski and where you want them to shine.

172 is the chalk pick.

 

[AlexisLD]

I'm getting ready to purchase some Enforcer 94s and am trying to decide on length.

I currently ski on narrow (69mm waist) 167cm full camber skis. The length feels right for me in full camber.

I have heard the Enforcer 93 skis a bit short (rocker profile). Given this, I am inclined to go with the 172cm in the Enforcer 94. Those who have skied the Enforcer 94, does it ski short, and do you think 172cm is likely to be the right length for me, if I'm normally skiing 167cm full camber skis?

@bbm I did a few comparisons for you...

The Enforcer 94 in 165, 172, 179 and 186 cm:
https://compareskis.shinyapps.io/compare/?_values_&selected_rows=[1721,1722,1723,1973]&tab="Compare"

Stiffness scaling: the 165 is very close to the 172 and the 186 is very far from all the others.

Mass scaling: Even though the 165 and 172 are similar in stiffness, the 172 is heavy for its surface area.

Enforcer 94 165 (2021) vs Enforcer 93 169 (2019):
https://compareskis.shinyapps.io/compare/?_values_&selected_rows=[741,1973]&tab="Compare"

These are virtually identical skis: camber, contact points, sidecut, tip/tail rocker, stiffnesses, etc. Masses are within 60g of each other. The parts of the tip/tail shape that are up in the air are slightly different however.

Enforcer 94 172 (2021) vs Enforcer 93 177 (2019):
https://compareskis.shinyapps.io/compare/?_values_&selected_rows=[742,1721]&tab="Compare"

Shapes are virtually identical again. The 94 is softer in bending, stiffer torsionally and about 200g heavier.

Quattro vs Enforcer 94 172 (2021):
https://compareskis.shinyapps.io/compare/?_values_&selected_rows=[1083,1156,1721]&tab="Compare"

Unfortunately, our database doesn't have the Quattro 7.2 Ti in the 167 length. I compared with the Quattro 7.4 Ti 174 and the 8.0 Ti 168 (you could pick other skis). Both Quattro camber shape are quite similar. The E94 gives you about 10 cm less contact length in the front and maybe 7 cm less in the back (we should really show the contact point better!). However, the E94 has a tail that is about 5 cm longer, but that is slightly up in the air. You won't feel it on groomer, but you will feel it when you ski soft or moguls.

What worries me a bit is that the Quattros are some of the softest ski torsionally while the Enforcer 94 is one of the stiffest (see below). The Quattro is stiff in bending however (i.e., no tip flapping at high speed). The shapes are quite different though, so I am not too sure what that means exactly (e.g., if the contact point is closer to your foot, you will need less torsional stiffness). The review that you linked says that the 7.2 Ti is more "approachable, not-as-demanding, more forgiving (but barely)" than the Quattro RS, so maybe you are not looking for max torsional stiffness.

I should also probably look at the torsional stiffness distribution to understand a bit more that low torsional stiffness (e.g., the Head Supershapes have torsionally stiff tips and a soft center section, which makes for a low average... that being said, some of us think that the tip torsional stiffness is more important than the center, specially in slalom-ish skis, but we are not 100% sure quite yet). Let me know if you are interested in more detailed stiffness curves, I could generate them.

Hope this helps!

 

[Philpug]

It seems to me Phil that the days of sizing up are a thing of the past.
More and more you guard against sizing up as there is no need.
I myself have purchased the longer length and had to sell and by the shorter .

Depends on the ski. I am not for or against it, but look at each ski on a case by case basis.

 

[bbm]

Thanks everyone for the very helpful information! I ended up going with the 94s in 172cm.