K2 Xplorers

Skier stats. 5-8, 175 lbs, expert level skier.

The skis. K2 Xplorer, 170 (128-84-112) 17m radius

Weather. 9" new reported, (closer to 12") with areas to 18" where it blew in, and in the normal snow collection spots. Temp range was 12-20 degrees with an average wind of 15mph with gusts.

I put these skis on everything I could find.

They REALLY liked the windpacked snow. Not the hard slab stuff, but just soft snow that had been blown into blankets on the trails. On average the firmer snow depths were from 0-9" deep and the ski seldom rode on the base below the new stuff.

They did well in broken powder also to any dept I could find which I suspect maxed out at about 14".

They were pretty stable at speed and not much change at transitions from powder to groomed and vise versa.

I tried them in powdery bumps early in the AM. Not much fun there. I seemed to be playing catch up. Followed that up with hitting some nicely groomed snow which they did well on. They were reasonably quick edge to edge, vs the 68 - 73 mm skis I normally cruise around on. These skis were smooth to ski on (expcept for the bump run) and damp (like most K2's)
I managed to find some frozen hardpack (what in CO would be considered ice). They did well in medium and long turns on that but hated anything short. I could not develop any rebound with these skis. In general they lack energy.

Then I headed to the deep stuff. Float? NOPE! What a surprise! I skied my normal stance and could get through the deep stuff but had a hard time getting the tips to rise. I was not expecting this. After an hour or two of "skiing w/o seeing" the tips and bogging down to a stop, I stuck myself in the backseat to get the tips to rise and the ski really began to perform.

The sweet spot on these skis is WELL BACK. I normally ski with a upright to slightly back stance, so for me to go further back is not something I aim at. The skis did VERY well once I found their spot. I later returned to the bump run I tried mid-morning, (minimal change in conditions) got in the back seat and the ski rode smoothly and controlled. Well I did get a chuckle out of that.

I'm looking for a ski that handles powder and also works in bumps covered with powder as there is a lot of that here in Colorado. This ski isn't it.

I have 6 more on my list to demo and I'll try to get a gear report on all that I can till I settle on one. Hope this helps for those of you looking for a honest detailed report.

Have you skied the AC50 or 8K's yet, and if so, how do they compare?

The 94 is on my demo list for tomorrow, as it the Recon.

Also under consideration is;

Blizzard Magnum 8.1 IQ (checking the specs, looks like the 8.7's may work better)
Line Profit 100
Head Supermojo 105

The Volkl Katana got some very high marks in the Ski/Skiing ski tests. If I head toward a powder specific ski, that probably would be it. Now finding a demo here.....that's a different story.

Thanks Dawg

Would your move "back" amount to standing on the back of your arch instead of on the middle of it?

Could the demo binding have been part of the more rearward sweet spot?

Where you guys skiing, Louie?

I did check the location of the boot at the end of the day. That was my first thought too, when I finally figured out where the sweet spot was. It was in the right location. I was back, as in on my heel.

I'm here solo right now, for a few more days (long story). Demoing at Vail tomorrow. I'll shoot you a PM or post when I'll get over your way.

Uncle Louie, A review like you just written is one of the reasons I rarely read these reviews anymore. I have skied a number of days now on the Xplorers....both on a 177 and 184. The Xplorer is an awesome ski with a huge sweet spot, great edge hold and it works in a wide range of conditions. You say you're an expert skier.....PLEASE! You think the sweet spot is back. It must be because that's where you ski....in the back seat. When you say the ski lacks energy, that's because you haven't loaded the ski up so it can respond. If you can't ski and 84mm waisted ski in the soft snow you need to get a Pontoon or Sumo.

Would you be willing to share your popcorn?

Here are a few pics from last years Gathering. There was 3 - 4 FEET of fresh snow. I'm on my 168 Crossfires (109-68-99).

Case Closed.

http://forums.epicski.com/showpost.p...64&postcount=1

That's a pretty dissimilar group.............

BTW, I skied the Explorer last Wednesday and again today in a pretty diverse mix of skis.

It was really, uhhhhm......OK.

SJ

Yep, I can't decide which direction I really want to go.

North!

If I may make an alternative suggestion...

DOWNHILL.

You and my wife disagree on what direction I should go?

Oh MY.

I'm not seeing this going well.

But of course! As long as you're willing to share with Sadie! So, SKI-3PO, which direction do you think UL should go?

To summarily dismiss UL’s review and state [paraphrasing] he can’t ski falls well short of reasonable. UL is an accomplished skier skiing expertly. I have shared many trails with him both in groups and 1-1.

The particular value of his review provided here is realized by the many bears who have skied with him who know his skiing style, characteristics and approach. I happen to “get” what he is describing but while it may not be what I may specifically experience on that ski…his comments have ‘context’ for me.

Certainly in a vacuum reading a negative review regarding a ski you hold to a high standard is difficult to understand if not often considered a personal attack. Yes, some of us treat our skis as our own kids [believe me…I’ve been there]. My clarion call came once I began to ski with the many bears who would write reviews in this forum. I found my skiing dictionary, skills and equipment knowledge ramp up very quickly. Moral: Keep reading, posting and importantly, skiing with bears Cheers.

If 1 ski worked for every skier in all conditions, the ski business would be even worse than it already is.

I agree with everyone go North and then DOWNHILL.

First off, thanks Don.

I didn't find the review all that negative. I said I had a tough time finding the skis sweet spot in powder and bumps, but once I found it, they worked fine. I also stated that they worked teriffic in some situations and snow conditions. The problem is that it isn't the ski for me.

Those of you who have skied with me know my style is somewhat "unconventional". That ski just didn't work well with what I do. It may for others as Don Denver hinted at in his comment above.

Cruddog, you're just way way wrong about UL's ski ability. He doesn't need me to tell everybody how good he is, but I can't resist.

He's got it like that. Period.

I really relate to what Uncle Louie said here about finding the sweespot in powder. I don't know what it is that makes skis so different for different people, but it very frustrating when a relatively fat ski bogs down in powder. You just don't expect it. I have had that surprise with several skis that are supposed to be good in fluff. I still wonder if fore/aft positon is part of the answer.

 

Many years ago I was demoing some Volant PowerKarves in a big storm at 12'000 plus feet in Colorado. My problem was the opposite. I had to get way out over the tips to get them to turn in the fluff. Then I remembered that I had accidently discovered, a few years earlier, that my balance point tended to be about a centimeter forward. These Volants had an adjustable Marker toe, so I went back down and moved toe and heel forward a cm.  Voila, as they say. It was a different ski and by the end of the day I had decided to buy a pair.

 

I have since heard that other people had the same experience with Volants. Just my 2 cents. LewBob 

 

hi everybody,

 

at first, sorry for my poor english, I'm not a native speaker (from Germany) - but I own a pair of K2 Xplorers too and made different experiences! I'm 1.85m tall, 77kg heavy and 22 years old. I've been skiing for 17 years now... so, let's say, I know how to move a ski in nearly every kind of snow: I love pow (who doesn't?) pillows, treeskiing, etc., hate icy groomers, bumps are ok, crud can be fun... my skiing style might sound a little bit strange too: I like short turns und mid-ranged turns at middle speed, but really dislike going highspeed with superwide turns (even if everybody is doing exactely that at the moment with those fatskis).

 

I can't agree with every point, Uncle Louie mentionned: My K2s are 177cm long and they work well on the groomers: Short turns are ok - but it gives me a hard time turning them very quick from edge to edge as I used to do with my old slalom-spaghetti-skis (agree with that, UL). On icy runs, you can rely on them! That's what makes 'em a real All-Mountains, I think.

Crud - never had something better than this pair of skis! Highspeed long turns, low speed short turns whatever you want to ride, they'll deliver and with lots of fun too, they are very stable although their flex is rather soft (agree with UL).

Bumps - had no probs with em... ok it needs more power in your legs, but it's ok, maybe not so lively as the short radius (17m) promises.

Pow - I was lucky to find some really deep pow this March at St.Anton, Austria and they really performed well at every speed: I tried different skis, such as Dynastar Legend 8800 and Mythic Rider and Salomon X-Wing, but the first skis, that gave me a touch of "surf" feel in the deep snow, were the Xplorers. Easy to turn, wide enough to float, not bound to one specific radius or speed! Small drops work well with them without superman-to-faceplant . Of course: Rockered Skis and those with more than 100mm underfoot provide a much better performance in the deep stuff. But the Xplorers' tips never dove down!

 

I have to mention, that my standard position on skis is probably a bit more backseat than aggressively forward leant. And I ski my Xplorers with a Naxo NX22 freeride binding, which gives me a plus on standoverheight. The mounting point ist normal.

 

Hope, this different review helped you!

Bye

To cruddog/ski4good....thanks for comments - considering your comments, we may be similar skiers....I've been demoing skis for quite awhile to look for that "one" ski that will do it all for me (been renting and demoing a lot) and I thought that I found it in the K2 Apache Recon (at Whistler).  

I skied it at 167 or 170 (I thought it was 167 but shop where I rented it said 170), I don't ski that often anymore but looking for a ski so that I can get rid of my Atomic 9.20 (180cm) when I travel to big mountains (I live in flatland).  I am 5'7" and about 175lbs.

I loved the Recon - I skied it fast on groomers, I skied it in the bumps, in the crud, I skied it short radius and i can flex it for a lot of rebound.   I thought it was very forgiving and had a huge sweet spot (compared to my Atomics - need to be very precise in the center). Had some but didn't have a lot of powder. Seemed to do good. 

It does a lot of good things and I like to ski all types of conditions on the same run when on the front side.  So it was just what I was looking - something slightly detuned from a full out high performance ski but still have a lot of performance.  It was damped but I still got a lot of feedback so no problem.  Damped meant I could go full bore on it (fast) and it was still stable (not quite as stable as my Atomics at the same speed but they are short GS skis but I am good with that). 

I was prepared to buy but the shop didn't have the length by the time I was about to buy (end of seadon) and I am waiting for 09/10 season.  The shop suggested the Explorer - they said, same shape, same flex except slightly wider by 6-8 mm.  They have 170cm.  My review of the Recon sounds very similar to your reviews of the Explorer.  

The shop says try it and I will.  They say it has a slightly longer natural turn radius and that seems okay to me, the Recon was very quick and I can do very short radius turns but I can ski short rads longer.  So do you have the same experience with the Recon...Is there significant difference in weight (I like the light weight of the Recon), quickness (swing weight) and flex.   I read the numbers but it doesn't really tell the story.  I do go into the backcountry/cat/heli skiing and have experienced the benefit of wide (100mm+) for powder and so wide is good but I like to fly/ski it all in one run.

Thanks....thinking about skiing in June already.

Uncle Louie:

I don't think a 175 lb. guy on a 170 cm conventional demensioned ski can really expect to be able to get their weight forward without it diving in powder, and overpowering it on hardpack.  You might want to try something longer to get the results you are looking for.  Short skis force you to ski in the back seat, unless they are very stiff and you are on hardpack.

I love this ski to bits. 182cm 80kg, I have the 177. No the most technical review but it handles everything I throw at it. It's a very confidence inspiring ski for me :) I'd class myself as 'almost expert', I can ski everything but have a lot of room for improvement.

I've been a fan of the Recon since its first itiration as the Mod X Pro, and wanted to get onto some Xplorers since I had a chance to take a couple runs on them in the spring of 2008.

Finally picked up a pair my last few days of this past season and found them to be the ride I was seeking.   They behave for me like a big, burly version of the Recon, requiring just a tad more input and providing a significantly smoother and more stable ride.

Haven't had a chance to use them in significant powder yet, but I was happy in all the other conditions. 

I thought the Recon's were very smooth, so if the Xplorers are even smoother...I can't imagine :-)))

Re body position discussion...I thought they skied best right in the middle like Austrian skis but they were very forgiving whether forward or back meaning that if I wound up too far forward or back, I could still get them to turn unlike my Atomic skis which if I am back - the skis go straight.  I don't suggest that it is good to ski them forward or back just that I can still get them to flex and turn.  By back, I mean weight on the heel - not way back in the old hot dog days of Wayne Wong.

Another comment from left field -- I demoed Xplorers for a just few runs at Loveland last season.  Except for one 20 foot long powder patch that everyone had overlooked, it was all hardpack.  My impression was that they skied very similarly to my own skis, which are Rossi B3's.  Since my goal was to explore significantly different skis, I traded them in quickly.  But I had no complaints about them in my limited time on them.

Only had 1 day on the Explorers @ Crystal Mt. with a boat load of new snow.  Agree in they were forgiving and felt they liked me to stand in the middle of the ski.  Am 6' 200 lbs. skied the 185?. 

Weren't real lively, but turned easily at slower speeds (I'm the wrong guy to ask about skiing fast (my racing colors were red and yellow for bloody chicken).  Honestly don't know if the tips were floaty or not, try not to look at them.  They would carve on the soft corduroy, but what won't.  Was impressed in the chopped crud.  Liked them so much I didn't buy them.

Demoed Solomon Lord a couple of days later, liked them better in duplicate conditions.  They still didn't make me get out the checkbook.  Better try the Goats.