Like the baby brother, there is significant taper too, especially in the nose.
The mounting point is way back at -7.75cm, but I went for a conservative, for me -4.5cm.
Approximating flex numbers is always a gamble but Id go with 5/7.5/9/8/6.5 from tip to tail.
Theres a full sidewall there but it tapers down to a microcap in the rockered section.
I neednt have worried, these things are a lot of fun on groomers.
I actually prefer them to the narrower MFree 99.
The grip, especially given how easily this ski pivots, is impressive.
I had no issues cranking them into turns either forward or switch.
I was pleasantly surprised by how comfortable these skis felt switch, even at -4.5cm.
The MFree 108 gripped better and felt a lot less twitchy while being just as easy to release.
If you skied these on rails they would definitely suck on groomers, as all heavily rockered skis do.
So if you want to edge, keep em sharp basically.
Park/Jibbing:
I only hit a couple of jumps and did some very basic stuff on the MFree 108.
I normally mount skis at around -2.5cm so I could definitely feel that these were further back.
The radius and shape dont naturally lend themselves to skiing really fast down the fall line.
Durability:
So far so good.
Mounting felt super solid with the titanal plate, so Im not worried about binding retention in the slightest.
Comparisons:
Atomic Bent 110:
The Bent 110 is much softer and much lighter than the MFree 108.
Its probably stiffer overall, has less rocker, and has a longer sidecut.
The only thing it lacks is metal, so it isnt as damp.
These two make for an interesting comparison.
The 106 is more work.
The rocker profiles are fairly similar and they are both freestyle capable rather than freestyle specific.
The Jeffrey also has better sizing options.
Regardless of that, I think the MFree 108 is one of the most versatile skis Ive tried.
It has enough power to handle most conditions, even if it isnt as chargey as some.
But it remains super playful and it is one of the very best skis for tree skiing Ive tried.
The biggest shortcoming of this ski is actually the sizing.
I would say probably 179, 185, 192 would make the most sense.
I would have liked those few extra cm on steeper/deeper days and I am far from the biggest guy.
They lack energy in comparison to those skis, but they make up for it in solid performance.
