OK. I bought skis online, as demo options in Europe are very limited, especially over 80 mm. After a lot of reading I chose the Salomon Stance 90 but they were already out of stock. So I went for the Enforcer 88 @ 179 (me: 5'9'', 190 lbs, 48 years old, skiing since age 5). I was reluctant to go over 90 mm as I really ski mostly on piste. Also, was attracted to the turned up tails, as in the last year have dealt with some back issues, so a ski that doesn't lock me in a turn should fit.
First impression was: tips are too short! Mounted on the line, but the rocker and a higher delta on the binding did that.
Second impression - not heavy or stiff. Not really carving skis. Somewhat reminded me of the straight skis. The first 2 days were ice with death cookies in the morning and slushy bumps in the afternoon. Afterwards, it started snowing so the conditions were very varied.
On ice they really hold well. Really nice bump ski for me. Fresh snow, crud, slush - on piste really nice and easy. Last day there was fresh snow above the boot, but also bad visibility (and my legs were already tired) so wider would have been nicer.
On the second day there was a Nordica test tent on the mountain (I knew that they MIGHT be there, with no way yto know in advance what they'll have available) and I tried the 94. It was still icy and hard. I didn't feel that there was anything the 94 did less well, rather that they were more stable, even on the hard snow. My guess is that the Enforcer profile negates the benefits of a slimmer waist, and a ski with less tail rocker (Brahma or Stance) would feel "carvier" and the waist difference more pronounced. I like the feel of a carved high angle turn and that's not easy at all to achieve on the Enforcers (other than that they were good).
Overall I'm quite happy: I had a good ski trip, and had no back issues whatsoever (thanks to my Pilates instructor, too). OTOH If I had gone a bit wider it might have been better, especially if I'd rented some Atomic GS ski for the first 2 days.
Maybe if I put a 97 bevel on them (instead of 98 from the factory)?
First impression was: tips are too short! Mounted on the line, but the rocker and a higher delta on the binding did that.
Second impression - not heavy or stiff. Not really carving skis. Somewhat reminded me of the straight skis. The first 2 days were ice with death cookies in the morning and slushy bumps in the afternoon. Afterwards, it started snowing so the conditions were very varied.
On ice they really hold well. Really nice bump ski for me. Fresh snow, crud, slush - on piste really nice and easy. Last day there was fresh snow above the boot, but also bad visibility (and my legs were already tired) so wider would have been nicer.
On the second day there was a Nordica test tent on the mountain (I knew that they MIGHT be there, with no way yto know in advance what they'll have available) and I tried the 94. It was still icy and hard. I didn't feel that there was anything the 94 did less well, rather that they were more stable, even on the hard snow. My guess is that the Enforcer profile negates the benefits of a slimmer waist, and a ski with less tail rocker (Brahma or Stance) would feel "carvier" and the waist difference more pronounced. I like the feel of a carved high angle turn and that's not easy at all to achieve on the Enforcers (other than that they were good).
Overall I'm quite happy: I had a good ski trip, and had no back issues whatsoever (thanks to my Pilates instructor, too). OTOH If I had gone a bit wider it might have been better, especially if I'd rented some Atomic GS ski for the first 2 days.
Maybe if I put a 97 bevel on them (instead of 98 from the factory)?