Cy: Jonathan already discussed the FINDr 102’s design elements, so I won’t reiterate too much of what he said. But I do have a couple notes to add. Jonathan points out that this ski doesn’t have much in the way of taper or rocker — it’s pretty traditional. I’d agree, and I’d agree that this is a good call for this ski.
The 102 mm waist width is sort of an interesting area — it’s possible to make very fun powder skis of this width, and it’s also possible to make very stable firm-snow chargers at this width. I.e., it’s harder to lump a ~102mm-wide ski into any single category.
But the FINDr 102 is the widest ski in a line of mountaineering skis — not the narrowest ski in a line of powder skis, and its shape and profile reflect that.
Mount Point
Cy: At almost -11 cm from center, the FINDr 102 has a pretty traditional mount point. I’m of two minds about this: on the one hand, most mountaineering skis have a setback mount point in this range, and it makes sense to have more ski out in front of you, especially when trying to ski faster, so that you can drive the ski. Especially with a lighter, directional ski.
But personally, “going faster” is not what I myself am looking for in a mountaineering ski, and I find that a more centered mount makes for easier hop turns, and makes it easier to maneuver the ski when you’re (a) making very low-speed turns, (b) making steps to get in position, or (c) negotiating rocks and other obstacles. In tight, exposed lines where I’m making slow, deliberate hop turns, I prefer to be closer to the middle of the ski than -11 cm. So if you’re buying this ski primarily as an all-around touring ski and want to ski faster, more open terrain, or you just get along well with more traditional mount points in general, I think the recommended mount is perfect. But if you’re looking to get into that whole “downclimbing with skis on, and occasionally making a turn” side of the sport, it might be worth considering whether a ski with a traditional mount point makes sense for you.
Jonathan: For what it’s worth, I found this ski to be so light and easy to maneuver, that, while I agree with Cy that this is a question worth considering, I had zero issues with the mount point. Then again, in general, I tend to get along better / spend more time on skis with traditional mount points than Cy does.
Uphill Performance
Cy: In my experience, light skis with minimal rocker skin really, really well on firmish snow. They grip well, and they are predictable on edge. On firm skin tracks, the FINDr 102 is a real pleasure, which is no surprise. However, it wouldn’t be my first choice to break trail with — I might opt for a ski with more tip rocker.
Jonathan: As I wrote in my Flash Review of the FINDr 102, I loved going uphill on the combination of it + the G3 ION binding.
Downhill Performance
Cy: I first skied the FINDr 102 at Grand Targhee on a variable-conditions day. There were a few soft stashes left, but the mountain was mostly a mixture of chop, crud, and groomers. In these conditions, I’d say the FINDr 102 performed above its weight class — but it’s important to remember that its weight is pretty low. These were challenging conditions for any touring ski, and I don’t think any touring ski would have really felt at home in them. But the FINDr 102 is billed as a ski mountaineering ski, not a powder-only ski, so I felt that testing it in these more challenging conditions was worthwhile.
In smooth snow that’s soft at all (thawing groomers, or untracked, spring backcountry snow), the FINDr 102 felt powerful to me. That stiff flex and lack of rocker and taper make for a ski that’s comfortable going fast in consistent conditions.
When things got a little rougher, I found that while the FINDr 102 is damper than say, the Kitten Factory Toors Lite, it still feels like a ~1500 g ski, and the FINDr 102’s low weight feels more apparent. The shape and rocker profile of the FINDr 102 beg to let the ski run, lay it over hard, and then straight line it out, but the weight and lack of dampness really reminds you that you are on a touring ski. So the name of the game in rough conditions is more finesse, less sheer force. If I stayed light on my feet and was more deliberate about my turns, I felt fine going faster through crud on the FINDr 102. But if I didn’t, the ski very quickly reminded me of its uphill orientation.
In tight terrain, I found this ski to be pretty challenging. It’s not that long, but all of its characteristics (flex, shape, rocker profile) combine to make it feel longer than most ~184 cm skis with more taper and rocker. This is not a great ski to noodle around on, making lots of small turns.
So what does that mean in the backcountry? If you’re touring for big days of more-or-less open corn skiing and you like to go fast / make bigger turns, this is a perfect ski. It’s light, but in consistent snow, it feels strong. It won’t do as well on deep, fresh days as something with more rocker and more taper, but its width and traditional mount should help a bit with float.
Jonathan: I said as much in my Flash Review, but where I would be quickest to recommend the FINDr 102 is for anyone whose tours tend to involve fairly fast faster yo-you laps or longer tours in more mellow terrain. E.g., touring around Red Mountain Pass, CO, or volcano-skipping up Mt Hood would make good sense.
Cy: On the ski mountaineering front, this ski has a lot of qualities that people in that space will appreciate. It’s light, and it offers great edge hold, an important quality when you really, really don’t want to fall. Personally, though, I’m never going to venture into really consequential terrain on a ski with this rearward of a mount. I would probably bump the mount up to around -6 cm if I was planning on skiing big lines on this ski, and my guess is that I’d love the ski at that mount point. It would be easier to turn in tight terrain, and more balanced when hop turning and traversing.
Jonathan: In consequential terrain, I personally wouldn’t mind the mount point; instead, I think I just generally would prefer a heavier ski (something like the heavier 4FRNT Raven.) But that is neither here nor there, and ultimately, lighter skiers or those who are just more accustomed to touring on skis this light should be just fine.
Length
Cy: The FINDr 102 comes in a 179, 184, and a 189 cm length. I’m a fan of sizing down a little for touring skis, especially ones that I’m going to use in tight, high-consequence terrain. So if I was going to ski the FINDr 102 as just a mountaineering ski, I’d size down to the 179 cm version.
As an every day, firmer conditions touring ski though, the 184 cm is a pretty perfect fit for me at my size (6’0″, ~175-180 lbs), and I wouldn’t recommend that most people size up unless you are either a giant or you are only planning on skiing very fast in open terrain on this ski. This is a ski with pretty minimal rocker and taper, so it already feels pretty long, and I am more hesitant to recommend sizing up than usual.
Jonathan: Again, I’m sticking to my “this ski is so light that it’s easy to swing around” position. And given that I don’t imagine that bumping up to the 189 cm FINDr 102 would produce a significant increase in stability, I think I’d stick with the 184, and I have less interest than Cy in dropping down to 179 cm.
Who’s It For?
Cy: G3 implies that the FINDr 102 is a good ski for a ski mountaineer looking for something wider, something that starts to bridge the gap to a freeride touring ski. And I think that’s a pretty fair assessment. But it might pigeon hole this ski a little too much.
If you’re looking for a touring ski in the 100-106 mm waist range, and your priority is powder skiing, there are plenty of other skis out there that I think are better options. But if you like pretty traditional shaped skis, and are looking for something that can handle a wider variety of snow conditions without taking a weight penalty, the G3 FINDr 102 is a great option.
Bottom Line
There is a huge range of skis similar to the G3 FINDr 102 in width, and there are options that specialize for plenty of different conditions. However, the FINDr 102 is G3’s widest ski in their ski mountaineering lineup, and I think it skis exactly how it should for that slot. It doesn’t float incredibly well in powder, and it’s not that damp. But that’s not the point of this ski, and G3 knows it — which is why they make different skis in the SENDr and Synapse series).
The FINDr 102 is most at home walking uphill fast in order to ski consistent snow with some speed and power.
NEXT PAGE: ROCKER PROFILE PICS
Let’s hear it: What did you think of these? Thinking about these vs. Helio 105s….
Spent a half day demoing the Helio 116 and I own a pair of the FINDr 86’s…yes opposite ends but gimme a second.
Based on this review it seems like the philosophy of shape/ mount/ weight carries all the way through the FINDr line. Based on Blister’s review of the 106, I feel like it does a much better job executing that philosophy in the thinner side of the line (Love my 86’s).
Seems like now a days it’s worth going with more rocker and a more forward mount as you get wider, for all the reasons Cy outlined. Especially if you want to ski tight steep stuff (jump turns were a breeze on the Helios). The Helio 116’s I demo’d I didn’t want to give back, compared some other directional 105+ light skis that left me meh (even a three letter company’s). The day was also far from ideal conditions wise being heavy rain saturated snow (thank god not ice) but in the coliours at Alpine I was loving them. I’d be interested to know Blister’s take on how they think powder board design features should change as the weight changes (like Jonathan’s tip taper theory)
Yes, I’m wondering as well. the backcountryskiingcanada website likes the G3’s much better than the Helios 105s. But then I heard some really good things about the BDs.
Demoed both the 175 Helio 105 and 172 FINDr 102 back to back this past weekend. Despite similar dimensions and weight, they skied very differently. The Helio felt more like a slarvy powder ski than I would have guessed, drifting around on the wet crud I was mostly on. They did ok on the icy sections once the edge engaged, but it did take a minute to get there. It skied like a powder ski, in other words.
The FINDr only really got good for me when the snow was smooth and you could carve medium radius turns. On the slightly deeper, more roughed up snow at the start of the run, they didn’t feel either locked into turns or slarvy. Kind of neither. A big vague. They didn’t get tossed too badly, but just didn’t feel locked in either. Hard to explain. Once the pitch backed off and the snow was smoother, they felt really nice. Damp for a carbon ski.
Only a couple runs on each at a demo, so no deep snow or touring, so YMMV.
Jonathan,
I’m 5’11”, 175lbs, aggressive skier….would you recommend a 184 or 189 in the G3 FINDR 102? I ski in western Montana, all conditions, 2000-6000′ average climbing/day…mix of trees and open glades, chutes, and bowl skiing.
not so patiently awaiting the rest of this review =D
Any plans to test either the Seekr 100 or 110?
Also curious of any plans to test the seekr.
Thirded.