2019-2020 Folsom Blister Pro 104

23 comments on “2019-2020 Folsom Blister Pro 104”

1. I’m curious – which reviewers were targeting this particular mix of characteristics as their daily driver? It sounded like Luke had a pair of ROMPs built with the hope of finding that ski last year. This sounds more like Jonathan’s preferred type of almost-charger?

   • Sam, Luke, and I were all very much weighing in on this ski, and we all spent pretty equal time on the various iterations. So at the end of the day, it’s supposed to be a ski that Luke, Sam, and I could happily use in the way we’ve described, as well as some of our other reviewers like Eric Freson & Drew Kelly. Luke still really likes those ROMP skis, but they are quite light — like, the opposite end of the spectrum from these — so better suited to a bit more forgiving conditions.

   • Really strange experience on the FBP 104. First “run” was a long cat track from the parking lot to the lift. I’m not sure how to describe it. The FBP’s resisted running flat on the bases, or wanted to hook up when I wasn’t trying to turn, or dramatically accentuated flaws in my knee alignment, or something. It was a huge effort just to get them to run straight.

     For context, I’m an advanced skier by any measure and have enjoyed Volkl, Head, K2, Atomic, Nordica, etc. skis of all shapes and sizes in all types of conditions. (Of late, I spend a lot of time on the Mantra M5 and, in deeper snow, the VWerks Katana.) Some skis are more intuitive than others. Some just set up better for me than others, naturally. But I’ve never been on a ski that just flat-out refused to be told what to do like that – running straight on a cat track, no less.

     I very nearly ended my trial on the FBPs right there but, perhaps unwisely, decided to continue the experiment on an actual run. The resort had just received a few inches of new snow. Conditions were forgiving.

     The rest of the story is less dramatic, though not a happy one. I found that I could ski the FBPs but only from an extreme forward position. From that position, they hooked up quickly and finished turns well. I could shape different kinds of turns. Good edge hold, fairly quick edge to edge for beefy ski that’s 104 underfoot.

     What I still couldn’t do, however, was just ski. I spent a lot of mental and physical energy maintaining my extreme forward stance. Otherwise, the skis became extremely stubborn, again.

     I called the very nice folks at Folsom’s offices in Denver, CO, to receive enlightenment about my experience on the FBPs. “Just keep skiing them. There’s a break in period” is what they told me. COVID cut the season short, so I never had a chance to take them out, again.

     Curious if anyone has any insight or a has had a similar experience on these skis?

     • Hmmm… can’t say this aligns with our experience of the ski. In fact, we were all quite surprised by how *loose* the ski felt upon arrival.

       So Folsom might be right and you just need to get used to the ski … but if that doesn’t do the trick, then it sounds like you might not be getting along with the tune of the ski — you could double check to ensure that the base is flat (neither concave nor convex), and while I am not sure of this based on your description … if the ski’s bases are flat … then it sounds like you might want to consider detuning the tails — it sounds like you are having some trouble releasing them?

       • Thanks. Appreciate the insight.

     • I had a base issue on my pair. Bases were “convex with too heavy a structure down the middle” according to best ski tech here in slc. It was okay first days in soft snow but dicey on on a subsequent firm day when bases were flat. Take it to a really good ski tech who does race skis.

       • Thanks. I’m in SLC, as well. Any recommendations on a ski shop?

2. A little surprising you guys went so stiff on the tails. Guessing that wasn’t 100% intentional. Any chance the “production” version will have sightly softer tails?

   Otherwise, this ski isn’t thatttt much different than the hammer.

   • Having skied the Hammer and having skied these … we can tell you that they are – and feel – quite different. The shovels are much softer on the Pro 104. It’s a narrower ski with more sidecut. It’s not flat / reverse camber.

     And we’ll see about the tails. As we reported, the tails are very similarly stiff as the Fischer Ranger 102 … and the Ranger 102 is a much lighter ski. And as I often say, the heavier the ski, the stiffer you can go without the tails feeling punishing. And at a lighter weight, the tails of the Ranger 102 don’t feel punishing … so we’ll see. But if you think you want a softer tail, Folsom can certainly do that for you.

   • Like Jonathan said, this is a new shape for us that is narrower everywhere and offers more sidecut. In response to the stiffness of the tails, we worked with BLISTER on that very aspect of this Blister Pro 104, which is what makes it a “stock” ski for us. Because we liked the shape so much, we actually decided to make a custom shape called the Primary 104 so that we could adjust the overall flex, along with other construction options, and tailor that to each specific customer.

3. Supernatural 108 replacement? Looks promising.

   • Interesting ski to bring up! We haven’t been talking about the SN 108, but the weight is spot on with the BP 104. We’ve got more tip splay and a more forward mount point now, but we’ll see how similar / different the two skis feel on snow. And I’m now going to go pour one out for the SN108.

     • More tip splay but stiffer tips should feel similar, in my non-expert opinion. I’m excited to see the full review and hear how hard these can be driven (hard I expect). I can probably scrape one more season out of my 108’s then I’m in the market. Blister 104, Woodsman 108, Mindbender 108, I’m spoiled for choice.

4. Curious why no metal at all in the ski, not even a bit under the bindings. I would think a sheet of titanal would help make a strong and stable charger?

   • I suspect that the short answer is “Folsom doesn’t make metal skis”

     From (long-ago) experience as a mechanical engineer, adding metal sheets to a fiberglass/carbon/wood laminate structure ups the difficulty quite a bit. It’s a pain to treat/coat the metal so that the epoxy *can* stick (usually via phosphoric acid anodization), and then more voodoo on top of that to press a ski such that the epoxy *does* stick. There aren’t many places outside of the major makers’ race rooms that make individual custom skis with metal.

     Introducing metal skis seems to be the thing that triggers some small makers (but not all – ON3P is a notable exception) to outsource the job to an established manufacturer.

   • Patrick is exactly right, Jeff. We have tried to implement titanal into prototypes in the past, however the results were not up to what we would call Folsom quality, and did not feel that the titanal skis matched our brand identity well. However, we’ve had fantastic success adding two stringers of Maple into our Poplar & Bamboo core to match the torsional rigidity, dampness and stability that titanal would have, without the added excessive material weight of it.

5. w.r.t. improving edge grip with tune vs flex, the challenge there is that you can only gain a certain amount of grip by improving the “sharpness” of the edge, and to go beyond that you have to start increasing the side edge bevel (i.e. go to 3/1 or even 4/1 instead of the more common 2/1). The problem is that that makes for really fragile edges that chip at the mere sight of rocks. I’ve run plenty of race skis as high as 4/1, but I prefer my all-mountain skis to have adequate grip at 2/1.

   Of course most people happily ride on what I think are horribly dull edges, so maybe the typical skier has room for improvement without compromising edge integrity.

6. I find it interesting that you essentially made a slightly different version of the enforcer 104 when, at least to me, your review of the enforcer 104 was essentially “meh”. Did I misinterpret the review?

   FWIW, my current daily driver for Utah (park city side of the ridge) is the enforcer 93 but I am thinking about splitting that into an enforcer 88 + enforcer 104, so any additional content you can pump out regarding those two skis would be great!

   • To be honest, I’m really not sure how you arrived at the conclusion that we are “essentially ‘meh'” on the Enforcer 104? I’ve been singing its praises for over a year now — though perhaps that has come through more on our GEAR:30 podcasts?

     And happy to discuss your quiver with you – become a Blister member and send us an email, and I’m certain that we can get you sorted out on why you should or why you shouldn’t. (But my sense is that you’ve got a larger question about what ski quiver will actually work best for you.)

7. Why did you pick 104mm for the waist for a ski that is meant to perform best in all conditions, not excel in deeper fresh snow? Wouldn’t the advanced/expert skiers this ski is targeted on do fine in chop and shallow pow on a 95-100mm waisted ski, while making it quicker edge to edge and more agile in mogul troughs?

   • Think off-piste, variable and / or punchy conditions. Dropping into steeper lines where you will almost certainly find a mix of scraped-off entrances, and then pushed-around snow below. Or some pockets of really manky snow. And maybe some softer moguls and firmer moguls.

     But also think about a day or two after a 6″ snow storm, where you might find a stash or two of some pretty good / fairly deep snow, but you will definitely find a lot of soft chop, possibly some crust, possibly some thick, sun-baked goo.

     Given that range, I tend to like that ~104/105-ish width. Many skis in the 95mm-wide range have tended to feel a bit too hooky or get too ‘stuck’ in some of the conditions I’m describing.

     But I also don’t want to get too hung up on a couple of mm of width, and could see if someone else’s sweet spot for what we’re describing here is a bit narrower.

     The more we’re talking about smooth ice, the more sense I think a narrower ski would make. But even if we move to refrozen coral reef (just awful stuff), there, I personally, definitely, prefer a wider platform and the additional mass and (potential) additional suspension.

     • Thanks,
       As Luke knows ;-), I have been thinking about new skis, and I tend to ski the conditions and terrain you describe (but at way lower speed and skill level), so base width has been one of my considerations.

       I know many of the skis you reviewed in that terrain have been that width, but I also though that was perhaps due to other factors like shape and flex. So I was curious, if you were starting with a blank slate, if you still would pick that width, and why.

8. Soooo… you’re making a detuned comp ski?

   It’s the “Blister Ex-Pro Rider” (literally in Eric’s case, I guess). Sounds good to me.