• For more information on how to avoid pop-up ads and still support SkiTalk click HERE.

Rossignol Sender Free 110 Reviews

GregK

Making fresh tracks
Skier
Joined
Mar 21, 2017
Posts
3,938
Location
Ontario, Canada
I know there's now a few of use on here with this new ski, so I thought I'd give an overview of the ski itself and then myself and others can feel free to add their reviews of the ski on this thread.

The Sender Free 110 is supposed to be the "baby" of the Blackops 118 and the Sender 106Ti but honestly much more similar to the Blackops 118 in shape, mount point and profile. All skis in this series feature a similar poplar wood core with the biggest similarities of the Sender and Sender Free being a sheet of metal underfoot(Blackops 118 now uses an ABS reinforcement underfoot) and the use of an AirTip plastic tip spacer to lighten swing weight. The Sender Free though adds rubber damping material on the tips/tails like the Blackops 118/98 and the shape of the Sender Free is almost a mirror image of the BO 118 but narrower.

The Blackops 118 rocker length, sidecut and tip splay are nearly identical with only the tail splay being reduced a bit on the Sender Free 110. Flex pattern profile is again very similar between the BO 118 and Sender Free 110 but the SF 110 uses a slightly thicker core throughout so it is uniformly stiffer throughout. Increased tips/tail stiffness is more obvious on a hand flex on the SF110 but I'm sure when it is eventually machine measured the underfoot should measure stiffer as well(torsionally too with the added metal sheet).

The Dimensions of the 184cm Sender Free 110 are 140mm/110mm/133mm with a 20m turn radius and spec weight of 2200gr each. The 191cm moves 1mm wider underfoot and goes to a 22m turn radius and 2350gr spec weight. Both skis have a Recommended mount around the -3.4 to -3.6 range with marks for directional skiers at -2cm and progressive skiers at +2cm. My 184cm versions measured at 2230gr/2220gr with a -3.25cm rec mount that I mounted at -3cm(-6.25cm total) which is still 0.5cm ahead of the -1.5cm from the very similar dimensions 21 CT 3.0 ski. Of all the older skis on the market, the 21 CT 3.0 is the most similar with the largest differences being the stiffer tip/tail but softer underfoot flex of the CT 3.0 and lack of rubber tip/tail like the narrower 21 CT line featured.

Like any ski, check that the bases are flat and that the edges are uniform. The bases on my last 2 Blackops 118 were base high and edges were not as uniform as they should be but a stone grind and hand tune remedied this. My Sender Free 110 bases were flat but there were areas on the side edge that the machines didn't even hit(0 degree side edge angle) on the tips of both skis. So give them a once over before skiing!

Excited to try them out and will post with updates. Any others who have tried them out feel free to post your thoughts too!
 
Thread Starter
TS
GregK

GregK

Making fresh tracks
Skier
Joined
Mar 21, 2017
Posts
3,938
Location
Ontario, Canada
Copying this @ski otter 2 post from the Blackops 118 thread to start some Sender Free 110 reviews.
Hope to be out on my 184cm versions this week.


At any rate, today I got out on the Rossi Sender Free 111/191/r22/2300 gm stated weight, at Keystone in 3" of fresh,
on a day with relatively few folks on the mountain, and new slopes opening up.

It was fairly light snow, cold, but not all that deep - still....

Just preliminary comments:
This is a great ski. It feels like a Black Ops 118 with more of an "on edge" feel when that's wanted.
It has both the Black ops "turny" feel and dynamics, and yet a bit more on edge, race ski like feel when that's wanted.
Damp. Dang!
A five star ski, for my profile, already. Amazingly easeful to ski, also,
even though I don't have the mount point dialed in yet.
Really glad I got this ski.
Thanks, @GregK, for spotting it so early on!

I mounted it with Schizo bindings, on the recommended middle line,
not the more forward "progressive" line (7/8th inch forward - odd)
nor the more rearward "directional" line (2 cm. back - odd again).


Immediately, I felt that I had to make a mount position change,
but I wanted a baseline of the ski at the rec. line.
Once I got used to it and adjusted some, the mount point seemed better.
Also, when the snow got a bit deeper, and the slope steeper,
the ski felt more natural for me still. So easeful!

Once I get more used to it, and the mount point more dialed in,
I think I'll like this ski on a par with the Salomon Blank 194, but
that's still preliminary. (I'll probably go a cm forward to start with,
then go the other direction from rec. line about a cm also,
just to get a sense of the range of this ski.)
 
Thread Starter
TS
GregK

GregK

Making fresh tracks
Skier
Joined
Mar 21, 2017
Posts
3,938
Location
Ontario, Canada
Adding @Chuck danache comments off another thread here on his 184cm Sender Free 110.


Based on how the BO118 skied for me at the end of last season, I was as anxious as others in the Sender Free post to get on mine to see if there are similarities, so I brought my pair along in spite of the conditions. In the icy entrance and firm upper sections of the cornice there was really decent edge hold. Definitely better than I was anticipating and I was expecting the edge hold to be good for this width ski. Skiing the crudded up, ungroomed area skiers left of Cornice, I found the skis to be nimble and stable, easy to release the tails (as one would expect), yet also hold a turn well, damp. They ski lighter than their stated weight.

Skiing down Saddle Bowl to Broadway or Stump Alley and letting the skis run was pure joy…incredibly damp, easy to change direction on a dime, absolutely zero chatter. Pretty sure I won’t find the speed limit on these skis. You will not be disappointed (and this was on a bit of (west coast) ice and firm conditions.

On my way out of town I stopped in at Footloose and spoke with one of the staff about my experience on the ski. He stated that if the ski was all that in these conditions, imagine what it will ski like in it’s intended conditions.

Once again I can’t wait!!

BTW, me 5’10”, 162#, mounted 2 cm behind the rear line. 186 cm.
 

ski otter 2

Making fresh tracks
Skier
Joined
Nov 20, 2015
Posts
2,836
Location
Front Range, Colorado
One thing about the Rossi Sender Free 110, especially on the longest 191 length, is that it will make the neat turny
quality of the Black Ops 118s at any speed in crud, powder and on softer groomers available to a lot more people,
and with more versatility - better on groomers. Bigger folks, one or two ski quiver folks, and folks who don't want
such a heavy or wide ski, will get a crack at a wonderful powder/crud and softer groomer, ski - these things can carve also.

(In the shop, a hastily measured pull length seemed to be only 189, so it's not that long. Will confirm this today
and change if needed)
 
Thread Starter
TS
GregK

GregK

Making fresh tracks
Skier
Joined
Mar 21, 2017
Posts
3,938
Location
Ontario, Canada
Got out on my 184cm Sender Free 110 today and exactly what I expected and hoped for. The slightly softer tips/tails and added rubber vs the CT 3.0 make them absorb rough terrain a bit better while still keeping their great carving ability. Excellent edge grip and seemed easy and fun in some afternoon Spring like bumps. Heavy snow that would be better suited for the longer length or the BO 118, so should be great in lighter, colder snow.

Still a step up in suspension going to the longer 190cm CT 3.0(and assume 191cm Sender Free 110) but for its weight and length, the 184cm SF 110 is very good.
Round 2 maybe tomorrow and hope to take out the BO 118 after too.
 

ski otter 2

Making fresh tracks
Skier
Joined
Nov 20, 2015
Posts
2,836
Location
Front Range, Colorado
So I've gotten out again on the 191 Sender Free 110 a few more days.

I'd already skied it on the central rec. line, and I moved it next to +.5 cm.
(See previous post for how it behaves at rec. line.)
On a third day, I moved the mount point to roughly +.30 to +.25 cm, just past halfway in between.
I was a bit surprised at the results, though it fit what I'd already experienced.

(I was only in 3" to 5" of light, Colorado fresh (powder, crud and skied off) all three of these times skiing.
I still want to try it in deeper powder/crud, though I'll generally switch to a wider ski past 4-5".)

I did mount changes this small because I'd experienced that this ski is more precise fore-aft than the Black Ops 118/186,
or than the Pettitor. And it has a smaller fore-aft sweet spot at each mount point, in terms of length and fore-aft balance.
At all these mount point settings, it is still very forgiving and easy to both carve and turn in powder/crud, but it's a tighter,
more precise feel - with a relatively large change in dynamics skiing, for such small adjustments, at least for my skier profile.

@ +.5 cm., for me the 191 becomes almost full on "turny" while still retaining an ability to drive the tips some;
whereas the rec line setting is a bit "turny" plus being more directional, able to carve well in synch with, say, a GS or tweener race ski.
By contrast, the Black Ops 118 transforms less in this way with roughly a full centimeter move forward (and doesn't have a position
where it is as good carving groomers and such). And the K2 Pettitor 118/190 makes a similar transition with roughly a two centimeter
move forward (and does have positions where it carves this well, in spite of how wide it is).

The only other fat ski I've found to make such a large change in such a short range of mount position fore-aft has been
the Volkl V-Werks Katana 112/184, which changes similarly, but maybe even more dramatically, with .25 and .50 centimeter shifts,
as I recall. (The longer Volkl V-Werks 112/191, by contrast, is not so sensitive to mount point shifts - .50 and 1 centimeter shifts
change it comparably instead, almost the same as the Black Ops 118/186.)

To me, the +.5 cm. mount position on this Rossi 110 Free felt almost too turny, making the ski feel a tad short, or a bit too drifty instead of edge
engaging more - at least in that depth of light snow. Thus no need to try moving any farther forward.
So I moved things back almost halfway, to maybe +.30 cm. from central rec. line, to see if I'd get the best of both.
(I know, a really small amount.) This produced an "in between" change, slightly better, with both more on edge ability than +.50,
and more drift/"turnyness" ability than the central rec. line.

I had a few initial takeaways from all this: First, this ski is really precise fore-aft, even though the changes result in behaviors that feel similar to
the range of changes found with the Black Ops 118, and the Pettitor 118; more than, say, with different lengths and mount positions
with the V-Werks Katanas 184 and 191.

Second, this 191 Sender Free 110 skis easier (and shorter?) than these other fat 19x skis, at the slightly more forward mounts in particular.
I think an even longer version - maybe 194 to 196 - might work well also with bigger skiers. It might even work well for me.
It's by no means as big a deal as the shortness of the 186 Black Ops 118. But it is noticeable, a possibility.

Third, at any of these mount points, this ski is noticeably dialed in and easy to handle, once one gets used to it.

For now, on 1" to 3" (less deep soft snow) days, and packed powder days, I'll probably use the central rec. line or only a quarter cm. or so forward.
And for 2" to roughly 5" or more, I'll use a quarter cm. forward from rec line to a half cm. forward, still experimenting. :)
 

SpeedyKevin

Out on the slopes
Skier
Joined
Apr 14, 2022
Posts
869
Location
Truckee
I have been using the BO118 in anything more than 5-6", how does the 110 feel in 1-4"?
 

ski otter 2

Making fresh tracks
Skier
Joined
Nov 20, 2015
Posts
2,836
Location
Front Range, Colorado
I switch to the BO 118 even earlier, 4-5", but notice it has less edgehold once things get skied off than the 110 at all three mount points.
That extra edgehold is partly why I'll use the 110 in snow where carving a potential crust underneath would come into play more.
The float feeling of the 118, and thus its relaxed playfulness, is just greater fun than the 110 can muster, once the snow gets to roughly
4 to 5 inches or more. At the same time, the really dialed in carve and crud busting to the 110 is a hoot, and is great also. Especially in that
1-4" range, at least.

For me, that's where the 110 probably excels. Dang, it's a fun ski. And so far no slippage to its edge when carving -
in 1-4" of powder/crud/skied off/and groomers. And it's also so playful in the ways the Black Ops 118 is playful,
in any soft snow. The two skis behave very similarly, same wheelhouse. I could see the 110 as a one ski quiver
for some freeriders, with a lot of versatility to the styles it likes.

(At the same time, I want to ski it back to back with the Salomon Blank 194, an equally good ski for my skier profile,
to see how they compare, now that I own and have been on both. I think I'll find that the Rossi handles a bit easier
and more restfully, but the Blank with its slightly shorter radius is special in the way it carves/plays in crud and soft snow also,
although differently than the Black Ops 118 in its turn feel. How nice to have such choices!)
 

SpeedyKevin

Out on the slopes
Skier
Joined
Apr 14, 2022
Posts
869
Location
Truckee
I switch to the BO 118 even earlier, 4-5", but notice it has less edgehold once things get skied off than the 110 at all three mount points.
That extra edgehold is partly why I'll use the 110 in snow where carving a potential crust underneath would come into play more.
The float feeling of the 118, and thus its relaxed playfulness, is just greater fun than the 110 can muster, once the snow gets to roughly
4 to 5 inches or more. At the same time, the really dialed in carve and crud busting to the 110 is a hoot, and is great also. Especially in that
1-4" range, at least.

For me, that's where the 110 probably excels. Dang, it's a fun ski. And so far no slippage to its edge when carving -
in 1-4" of powder/crud/skied off/and groomers. And it's also so playful in the ways the Black Ops 118 is playful,
in any soft snow. The two skis behave very similarly, same wheelhouse. I could see the 110 as a one ski quiver
for some freeriders, with a lot of versatility to the styles it likes.

(At the same time, I want to ski it back to back with the Salomon Blank 194, an equally good ski for my skier profile,
to see how they compare, now that I own and have been on both. I think I'll find that the Rossi handles a bit easier
and more restfully, but the Blank with its slightly shorter radius is special in the way it carves/plays in crud and soft snow also,
although differently than the Black Ops 118 in its turn feel. How nice to have such choices!)
Good stuff!!!

Final question, how does it compare to the CT3 (I believe you had a pair?). I use the CT3 for the exact reasons you described for your 110 use cases
 

ski otter 2

Making fresh tracks
Skier
Joined
Nov 20, 2015
Posts
2,836
Location
Front Range, Colorado
Thanks!

For me, the CT3 is very different in its two longest lengths, the 18x and the 19x, but both have liabilities, for my profile.
I have to say I'm probably in between sizes with these CT3s, and for me, this manifests in, first, the 184 having a dialed in turn
and being great in bumps and trees but getting tossed in rough crud at speed, and having a sudden speed limit in uneven
that requires me to be constantly anticipating and almost strategizing ahead, to not reach that limit; and in, second, the 19x
being good at crud, but downright sluggish for my size: it turns in a sluggish manner as it crud busts, and it does not float or
have playful drift either. Yes, it has more edgehold in 1-4" snow, but I don't just want SG and otherwise slightly awkward long turns
with little float, and little play.

Only when one is echoing the technique of Candide does the CT3 191 shine, in my case: it near straightlines (SG like) and pops airborne
in the ways that CT uses it, amazing then.

By contrast, the Rossi 110/191 has many of the attributes of the Black Ops 118/186, with a great dialed in carve for me as good as,
but more versatile and varied than, the CT3/184; and no speed limit, with the crud stability of the longer CT3/191:
sort of the best of both those CT3 skis without the liabilities of either - at least so far.

All three skis lack the playful bit of float/drift of the Black Ops 118, which also is a tank in crud, just tops at that.
But it's a heavy, wide ski, that has less edgehold occasionally when that's wanted, in shallower or skied off/ice underneath conditions.
And it's too short to have enough fore-aft stability for many larger but terrific skiers.

To me, the Black Ops 118 and Sender Free 110/191 complement each other well - in the soft snow part of a quiver, for someone not too big
(because of the limits of the Black Ops 118/186).

(Maybe the new Sender Free 118 in its longest length will correct this.)
 
Last edited:
Thread Starter
TS
GregK

GregK

Making fresh tracks
Skier
Joined
Mar 21, 2017
Posts
3,938
Location
Ontario, Canada
Always thought it was too bad @ski otter 2 got such “bum” 184cm CT 3.0, 190cm CT 3.0 and 183cm CT 2.0 skis as they should have all been skis he’d like.
The 184cm CT 3.0 seemed base high and the 190cm CT 3.0 edge high by his descriptions as I had the exact same issues on my sets initially. The 184cm felt unstable especially in variable snow and the 190cm version felt like WAY MORE ski than the 184cm length.
Both needed 2 rounds of grinds to get right and then were transformed.

That being said, the 184cm CT 3.0 was just good, not great in super heavy crud where a softer tip/tail flexing ski would have done better to absorb the terrain and that was answered in the 184cm Sender Free 110. It still isn’t the crud buster of the Blackops 118 of course but a noticeable improvement over the 184cm CT 3.0. Just as stable in light snow as the 186cm BO 118 though.

My 190 CT 3.0 takes another jump up in stability but i don’t find it needs a bit open space or lots of speed to come alive. I happily ski it on 500’-720’ hills without issues. Still think it would be “more ski” than the 191cm Sender Free would be as it again wouldn’t have the softer tips/tails and rubber damping found in that ski.
I think @SpeedyKevin would be happier on a 191cm Sender Free 110 near rec(or a touch behind) as it’s going to be more forgiving, have a better suspension yet be similar in stability to the 190cm CT 3.0.

Find the Sender Free 110 more like a lighter, more precise version of the Blackops 118 as its flex pattern is the same, just stiffer. More similar feeling to the narrower CT 2.0(and CT 1.0) than the CT 3.0.

btw-no longer lengths of the Sender Free 118 for next year and still just the 176cm and 186cm lengths listed.

Was wondering if @ski otter 2 had tried his set behind the rec line at all yet? I’d probably try the -2cm line if comparing with the 194cm Blanks to at least get their mounts a little closer to one another. Should “ski longer” like the Blackops 118 does when mounted back.
I cringed when I saw the Blister Flash comparison between the 192 MFree 108 mounted at -8cm and mounted the 191cm Sender Free 110 at its -3.6cm line and then commented on powder performance. Wow, surprising that the Sender didn’t float as well there…..lol
 

ScottB

Making fresh tracks
Skier
SkiTalk Supporter
Joined
Oct 29, 2016
Posts
2,146
Location
Gloucester, MA
From a big guy perspective, I find the CT3.0 to be an exceptional ski. I have tried it mounted from -1.0 from CT factory line to -2.5cm. At the -1.0 mount it turns into a super turny, pivoty ski that feels a little less than ideal when carving. At -2.5 it feels so good carving and looses a lot of the pivot ease. I settled at -1.75-2.0 as the best of both worlds for me. Most find -1.5 to be the sweet spot. I can do short radius quick(ish) turns easy with some pivoting, can roll it on edge and bend it into a med. radius turn, or kind of stand on it and do super G turns. For me its an ideal size. Its standout feature for me is how it handles my 250 lbs with no complaints and no quirks. It feels like the most rock solid ski I have been on since my 205cm slalom race ski days. It busts crud fine and is very stable. I have not found its speed limit. It does want you to have some "Candide" in your style as it loves going fast, flat, and skis close together. Just lean back a little and hop over everything.

I haven't had it in deep snow yet, and I suspect in a foot of snow it might sink a bit more than other 110 skis. I doubt that will mater much to its performance, except it will never be a floaty, slarvey type of ski like the BO118. It did need the tune corrected at first and then it just was magic in how it skied.
 

ski otter 2

Making fresh tracks
Skier
Joined
Nov 20, 2015
Posts
2,836
Location
Front Range, Colorado
Always thought it was too bad @ski otter 2 got such “bum” 184cm CT 3.0, 190cm CT 3.0 and 183cm CT 2.0 skis as they should have all been skis he’d like.
The 184cm CT 3.0 seemed base high and the 190cm CT 3.0 edge high by his descriptions as I had the exact same issues on my sets initially. The 184cm felt unstable especially in variable snow and the 190cm version felt like WAY MORE ski than the 184cm length.
Both needed 2 rounds of grinds to get right and then were transformed.
No and no. I took a straight edge to both. I don't think so, respectfully. And I know what base high and edge high feel like. So no.
I could be wrong in some unusual way, but don't think so this time. :)

I think it's probably just skier size difference and profile. I'm 5'10"/145 lbs currently. And not as strong as I once was.
But I ski, and charge, pretty well. In soft snow that isn't all that deep, I like to carve when not floating, when possible.

The 184 CT feels too dialed in and right on when carving, big time, to be base high; when doing bumps also, for being base high.
It's edge wasn't disengaging or slipping; it wasn't slipping off to the side.
It just starts to get tossed in rough soft, uneven, wind blown, at speed. For my skier profile.

The '21 is better that way than the other year CT 2.0, 3.0, 4.0 and even 5.0 I've demoed over the years. The others got tossed
much more easily at speed. The higher the number, the more noodle they were.

The '21 191 CT is better, but not on a rail (edge high). It turns, pretty easily. Pivoting isn't its problem. It doesn't get tossed.
I'm probably too light to flex it for carving like I'd want to. (If I were thirty or fifty pounds heavier, and younger, maybe it would work right.)
Like I'm used to. To have it feel dialed in. It is very stable at any speed, for me. Again, it is not fixed or bossy on a rail (edge high).
It does not feel too long.

But for me it's carve/flex just is not dialed in, unless I want to ski it like CT. Then it is - it comes to life. Not rail high, more than likely.
(These days, I prefer to make at least GS fall line turns whether fast or slow: my prescription for an old guy.
At my size and profile, this ski does not do that well - for me.)
 
Last edited:

ski otter 2

Making fresh tracks
Skier
Joined
Nov 20, 2015
Posts
2,836
Location
Front Range, Colorado
P.S. Another thing about these CTs that is relevant here is that they are definitely, relatively, stiffer at tip and tail, softer in between.
This is something one can feel pretty easily. The stiffer tip/tail gives a ballast to these skis. It stabilizes them side to side
when skiing/carving in the fall line, from both front and rear, at speed. This tends to add a specific, unusual stability and quality
to the way these skis handle, flex and carve.

It's a feel to exploit, to get involved with. For instance, it offers an unusual, fun rebound to shallow carves.

And the way Candide skis - shallow turns fast in the fall line, riding on edge - fits this side to side stability/rebound,
and the kind of forgiveness it offers.
When he pops airborne, that side to side stability comes into play also. Less waver on landing. Confidence-inspiring.

I think all this is more noticeable when one is carving, or riding on edge. Slarving or pivoting, it would be less noticeable.

For me, this side to side stabilizing from the front and rear comes into play with all the CT skis I've been on, mostly for the best.

In the case of the longer '21 CT 3.0 191, however, that stiffer tail/tip ballast is part of what doesn't work for my profile at times,
when I want to carve wider, or wider and faster, instead of more shallow (CT) turns.
 

SpeedyKevin

Out on the slopes
Skier
Joined
Apr 14, 2022
Posts
869
Location
Truckee
Alright folks, could use your help with mount point on the 191 length. 5'10 185lbs

Planning to use the Sender as a day after pow day ski or for variable snow/1-4 inches of snow. 5+ goes to black ops 118

Big fan of the BO118 at -2/2.5.
Have the CT at -1.5, they kind of felt a little short for me and not as stable as I'd prefer
Dictator 3 188 at slightly in front of progressive point (-9.3 from center) and love it soft bumps


was considering -2 but worry it's too far back and would lose the playful smeary feel. Anyone try -1cm?
 
Last edited:
Thread Starter
TS
GregK

GregK

Making fresh tracks
Skier
Joined
Mar 21, 2017
Posts
3,938
Location
Ontario, Canada
Alright folks, could use your help with mount point on the 191 length. 5'10 185lbs

Planning to use the Sender as a day after pow day ski or for variable snow/1-4 inches of snow. 5+ goes to black ops 118

Big fan of the BO118 at -2/2.5.
Have the CT at -1.5, they kind of felt a little short for me and not as stable as I'd prefer
Dictator 3 188 at slightly in front of progressive point (-9.3 from center) and love it soft bumps


was considering -2 but worry it's too far back and would lose the playful smeary feel. Anyone try -1cm?
Would be still plenty fun and playful at -2cm for your size which is still only around -5.5cm back from Center. Most Blackops 118 owners are mounting their 191cm Sender Free 110 skis a similar amount back to each other. The only ones going rec on either are lighter weight skiers that have a more centered stance and/or ski switch often.

There’s a few more Sender Free 110 users who have commented on mount points on a similar thread on TGR. Most are directional skiers around your size mounting the 191cm around -2cm and still finding it perfect there. You could always split the difference at -1.5cm/5 cm total back similar to the BO 118 -2.5cm mount. The 191cm Sender Free 110 is longer but has a lighter swing weight being narrower and the rubber damping starting below the AirTips in that ski.

For reference, the CT 3.0 CT line is about -5.2 back from Center, so you were about -6.7cm back on that ski. That’s why I went -3cm on my 184cm Sender Free 110 to improve its stability for my 175lbs size.
I’m about -6.3cm back on my 190cm CT 3.0 and it’s more ski than the 191cm Sender Free 110 I think. I’d probably go -2cm on my 191cm Sender Free 110 to make it more playful in tighter spots than the 190cm CT 3.0 but still similar in stability.
 

SpeedyKevin

Out on the slopes
Skier
Joined
Apr 14, 2022
Posts
869
Location
Truckee
1000001581.jpg
 

Bandit Man

Booting up
Skier
Joined
Sep 17, 2016
Posts
33
Alright folks, could use your help with mount point on the 191 length. 5'10 185lbs

Planning to use the Sender as a day after pow day ski or for variable snow/1-4 inches of snow. 5+ goes to black ops 118

Big fan of the BO118 at -2/2.5.
Have the CT at -1.5, they kind of felt a little short for me and not as stable as I'd prefer
Dictator 3 188 at slightly in front of progressive point (-9.3 from center) and love it soft bumps


was considering -2 but worry it's too far back and would lose the playful smeary feel. Anyone try -1cm?
5’ 8” and 200-lb PNW-based directional skier here. Have a few days on my 191’s mounted at the rear mark (-2-cm). At that mark, I am amazed at home pivoty and playful they are. Plenty of float but so quick and easy to toss around. Love them in new snow, but less enthused about heavy, skied out variable. They are okay here, but definitely give something up compared to the BO118. YMMV.
 

SpeedyKevin

Out on the slopes
Skier
Joined
Apr 14, 2022
Posts
869
Location
Truckee
5’ 8” and 200-lb PNW-based directional skier here. Have a few days on my 191’s mounted at the rear mark (-2-cm). At that mark, I am amazed at home pivoty and playful they are. Plenty of float but so quick and easy to toss around. Love them in new snow, but less enthused about heavy, skied out variable. They are okay here, but definitely give something up compared to the BO118. YMMV.
Good to hear!! I also went with the -2 mount. Thankfully, I also have a BO118 for the tracked out conditions. But I will also be the first in line for if/when they release a 192+ Sender Free 118.....

Also...you also on TGR?
 

Sponsor

Staff online

Top