EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › Member Gear Reviews › Reviews: 2012 Stockli Stormrider 95, current / 2012 VXL, CX, LXL, and Spirit Motion
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Reviews: 2012 Stockli Stormrider 95, current / 2012 VXL, CX, LXL, and Spirit Motion

post #1 of 9
Thread Starter 

 

 

Title:  Review: 2012 Stockli Stormrider 95, current/2012 VXL, CX, LXL, and Spirit Motion

Environment and Conditions:

Stowe Stockli demos (big shout out to Whiteroom), 2-3 runs per ski, 32-38 degrees F, clear and windless, spring conditions over frozen. Demo was at Spruce, did not take skis over to Mansfield. 

Tester Info:

Middle aged, 6' 170 lbs, 30+ days this season, 30+ years skiing, PSIA level 8-9

Aggressiveness:  Moderate to assertive finesse/technical on populated slopes, compete a bit, like to turn, prefer trees or chutes to groomers unless I'm working on stuff. Knees too crappy to jump.

 

Current skis I like: Anything over 70 mm from Kastle, anything under 100 mm from Blizzard, Rossi race skis and fatties, Stocklis that I can flex, iM Heads, PM Gear and DPS for specialized fats. 

 

 

My tests

 

Stormrider 95 (rockered, 183 cm, 95 mm waist, 22 m radius, 11 mm taper) - Have been wondering when someone would catch up to Kastle. But while everyone's been watching the new Blizzards, Stockli snuck in and stole the crown. Certifiable rocker in a Stockli!  Looked to be about 30 cm long, bullet shaped tip that never flared upward very much. So long and low variety. Tail has a fairly long flip that doesn't rise very far. Construction is classic Stockli, two fairly thick sheets of metal, not sure if synthetic or wood or mix as core. Nicely textured topsheet is kelly green with abstract long spikes of black, red, and white. Not fugly, but not elegant either. Since there's not much taper, the tail looks large. Oddly, no finishing/cover at tip, so doesn't look very Stockli-like at a glance.

 

These felt heavy in the hands compared to 176 FX94's, but they ski like lightweights. The predominate feeling is easy, unflappable, silk. These aren't crushers in the sense of a Head Mojo or longer Atlas. You really notice the rocker and flip tail, not because they engage abruptly - actually the best mesh of rocker and tail to sidecut I've ever encountered - but because the ski runs like it's in the middle 170's. Just tip 'n turn. I'd like to try a 175-177 if I were going to use these mainly in the east, but the 183 would be perfect for the west. Don't know what increments they'll come in. 

 

In heavy mush and piles of crystals, these tended to iron out, rather than bulldoze. These were perfectly happy to smear and pivot all you wished. I was doing whirlies on the blue groomers, skiing backwards with the kids, all the stuff Stocki's aren't supposed to enjoy. In partly refrozen crud that was bouncing my Atlases, these required less active compensation than either MX88's or FX94's, skied more like a relaxed MX98 squaretail, or a stouter current MX98. At 40 mph, definitely without the kids, these kept saying (in singsong Swiss German, of course), "So when you going to ski, ya?" They didn't feel as race ski precise as a metal Kastle, but better in that regard than any other rockered 90-something I have tried.

 

On refrozen crust and soft ice, these carved predictably. They engaged positively and progressively, no flapping or sudden "uh, there's the sidecut." Compared to my M88's, a touch less absolute grip and a different feel at initiation, very easy, but not that light dive into the turn the MX88's have. Felt very planted in the belly of the turn, and required less attention at the end than MX88's. I attribute this to the single radius and flip versus dual radius and square tail. I did not find these to reach high edge angles as effortlessly as a Kastle, maybe more like an Atlas. They'll get up there, but you have to ask. Not quite as quick onto their edges as the FX94, but a whole lot more poise once there.

 

In bumps, these required a hair more positive initiation effort than Kastle or other lighter skis such as the Atlas or Legend 94, but they were also less work pivoting than all but the Legend, and more fun than the bunch. Once or twice I had to look down to verify I was slicing big piles of heavy crud that had overmanned my Atlases a run earlier. Absorbed everything the mountain threw at them without braking a sweat. Not sure these would be as pleasant as a softer ski like the Legend or  Blizzard One/S3 in more packed moguls like you have at National, though. The weight didn't wear me down in bumps, but I only skied two runs on them, so...

 

By contrast, my FX94's are no fun at all in these conditions, plenty quick and supple, but needing constant management, and they can get jouncy in a hurry. MX88's OTOH are supple and easier at the start, but let you know they have a big heavy flat tail waiting; they prefer short swing zippering to longer swing pivots and rolls. Best comparison for the SR 95's would be a current MX98; nearly as quick, bit less forgiving and supple, smoother and stiffer without being planky.

 

Overall, I find these to be a (gasp) better ski than the FX94, slightly better than current MX98, and way better than any other mid to high 90's I have skied. (No, I have not skied the new Blizzards yet. But I'd be very surprised if they top this.) A surprisingly close call with the late lamented squaretail MX98, depends on taste and mission, still maybe a touch behind the MX88 overall, which I like better for the frontside, not as much for off-piste, toss in tight places. Unfortunately, Stormrider 95's may be too heavy to hike any distance or skin. Paging Stockli guys: Any weights?

 

Stockli VXL (179 cm, 87 mm waist, 21 m radius) - Had not skied these before Sunday. If the SR95's are next generation, these are fully executed this-generation. An honest competitor to the MX88. I found these more stable in the muck and crud than any ski in the 87-89 range I've skied except the 89 Stockli SS and XXXL, and those are far more kick-you-in-the-a** planks when you don't bring your A or A- game respectively. Very nice grip in on undemanding ice, very planted and smooth in bumps. Effortless on transitions from soft groomed to scratchy. Extremely damp; found myself wishing for a touch more snowfeel once or twice.

 

These required a bit more active management in heavy difficult snow than several comparable skis such as the Sultan 85, MX88 or Apex. Could have been me, moving from ski to ski, but they seemed a touch irritable about lateral CM. And the traditional tip, while nicely softened over the XXXL, still lends itself to going through, rather than over, so that's a matter of taste. Overall, I would group this with the Apex, a bit behind the MX88 but ahead of any of the other "Crazy 88's."

 

Stockli CX (170 cm, 69 mm waist, 15 m radius, 16 mm taper, wood core, polymide inserts in top Titanal sheet) - Had heard a lot of good things about these and the SX. Couldn't get to the SX's. For about a half run I kept looking down at my boots because the CX's felt so diminutive. (Also a better looking ski in person than pics convey; nice pebbled surface and bold simple graphics.) Then I realized I could just push them harder and harder and they wouldn't fold. Conversely, I could relax and they were fine with that too. Just a superb all around carver for days when you face variable snow and may spend some runs ripping on your own, some cruising with the family.

 

On hard snow and soft ice, very planted and non-temperamental. Not as much grip as my G-Forces, but better than most other skis of this genre I've tried. Silky smooth, light feeling, and unflappable; you just initiate and if you wish the ski will take care of the rest, regardless of the surface or speed. Well, to about 40 mph, which was as fast as conditions allowed here. Suspect for GS speed freaks on bigger terrain, the SX would be the ticket, although it might give up some of the CX's suppleness at lower speeds. Found myself wishing for that demo, a touch more snowfeel on the CX (very damp; have a hunch the demo binders don't help with that), and another 2 cm of length. (They felt about as stable at 170 as my G-Forces do at 167.)

 

In bumps, this was comparable to a Supersonic or Contact Ltd/Cruiser, which is high praise. Not as flickable as a Supersonic, not as airy as a Contact, not quite as versatile as either in the tail for different kinds of turns. But smoother and more secure than either; kinda felt like a mini Apex, that terrain-hugging quality. Better in bumps by far than my MX70's, or Head SS's, or my various Fischers. Also comparable to my old Rotors (the original bright blue ones), but a bit quicker and lighter edge to edge.

 

In heavy mush and crud, this ski was weirdly untroubled. I've never been on a recreational carver that was so unaffected by slicing through bad snow. It has the ease of a Dynastar Contact, but far more secure on rough snow. Perhaps call it a 4x4 for lighter skiers. My G-Forces are just as solid or moreso, but provide a lot more feedback about what's happening out front; this can be a good thing on ice, but distracting in heavy crud. Superior in every way, on every surface I tried, to Kastle MX70's, which appear to be directed at the same audience. Cannot speak to the RX's, but if I were Kastle, bet I'd be hearing breathing at my shoulder from the SX...

 

Wife's test; she's late 30's, 5'8", 140, PSIA level 7-8, power over finesse, loves trees and speed (although not at same time necessarily), currently owns 5* (161) and MX88's (168), has never demoed before and MX88's are first ski since the 5* were new, so little as comparison :

 

Stockli LXL (170 cm, 80 mm waist, 17 m radius) - Hit of the day for her. Said that they had a lightness and ease even in the heavy muck that surprised her. Typical Stockli stability. She liked them in bumps, on soft ice, all over the mountain. Compared to her MX88's, they felt quicker edge to edge, lighter, friendlier, but not as planted at speed, nor as much grip. She said several times they felt stiffer once in the turn than the 88's, which surprised me. About the same effort to achieve a given edge angle.

 

Her comments about stiffness could reflect either the fact that the 170 LXL's are the longest in that model, while 168 MX88's are the second shortest out of four, or that she was skiing slower today than usual because of conditions. In either case, she said she'd think about these as keepers if she didn't already own the 88's.

 

Stockli CX (170 cm, see above). Wife skied the same CX I did since they did not have shorter lengths. Predicably, she had troubles with it, said that it felt planky and unresponsive until she got it moving, then she liked the stability and smoothness. Not a fair test, we agreed, because of the length issue.

 

Stockli Spirit Motion (165 cm, 69 mm waist, 14 m radius). These served as a comparison to her 5*'s. She found them compliant, smooth, easy to initiate, "just a very nice ski." Very easy in bumps, were not deflected at moderate speeds by piles of heavy mush. They were noticeably softer than her 5* and she didn't feel the same "oomph" when she hit the accelerator, or what she described as a "special, right there-feeling" when she edged on harder surfaces. But she enjoyed the refinement, not as raw feeling as the 5* either. We agreed that this would be a superior ski for intermediates, or for advanced skiers who wanted to take it easy and cruise big arcs on the frontside.

 


Edited by beyond - 3/22/11 at 7:32am
post #2 of 9

Just wondering...Your title mentioned the LXL, a ski I am very interested in for my daughter, yet I saw no mention of it in the review. Was it a misprint or yet to come?

post #3 of 9
Thread Starter 

redface.gif Wow, my mistake, Allan O. Too many letters too early in the morning, I guess. The LXL was the fatter ski my wife skied, not the VXL. We only shared the CX. All the rest of that review is accurate. I changed the subhead to reflect this. Glad you caught it. Will add that she ruminated over which car it resembled, felt it was as refined but less sharp edged than a Porsche 911, as smooth as a Caddie but more nimble, so she settled on a current Mustang GT cuz it felt planted and powerful but not heavy... Phil, I did not prompt her on this. Her words. biggrin.gif

post #4 of 9

Did you mean VXL? Here's the LXL reviews. 

beyond, great review.

I'm wondering if you reviewed the VXL and your wife the LXL? Typo on your review?

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by beyond View Post

 

Stockli LXL (179 cm, 87 mm waist, 21 m radius) - Had not skied these before Sunday. If the SR95's are next generation, these are fully executed this-generation. An honest competitor to the MX88. I found these more stable in the muck and crud than any ski in the 87-89 range I've skied except the 89 Stockli SS and XXXL, and those are far more kick-you-in-the-a** planks when you don't bring your A or A- game respectively. Very nice grip in on undemanding ice, very planted and smooth in bumps. Effortless on transitions from soft groomed to scratchy. Extremely damp; found myself wishing for a touch more snowfeel once or twice.

 

These required a bit more active management in heavy difficult snow than several comparable skis such as the Sultan 85, MX88 or Apex. Could have been me, moving from ski to ski, but they seemed a touch irritable about lateral CM. And the traditional tip, while nicely softened over the XXXL, still lends itself to going through, rather than over, so that's a matter of taste. Overall, I would group this with the Apex, a bit behind the MX88 but ahead of any of the other "Crazy 88's."

 

Wife's test; she's late 30's, 5'8", 140, PSIA level 7-8, power over finesse, loves trees and speed (although not at same time necessarily), currently owns 5* (161) and MX88's (168), has never demoed before and MX88's are first ski since the 5* were new, so little as comparison :

 

Stockli LXL (170 cm, 80 mm waist, 17 m radius) - Hit of the day for her. Said that they had a lightness and ease even in the heavy muck that surprised her. Typical Stockli stability. She liked them in bumps, on soft ice, all over the mountain. Compared to her MX88's, they felt quicker edge to edge, lighter, friendlier, but not as planted at speed, nor as much grip. She said several times they felt stiffer once in the turn than the 88's, which surprised me. About the same effort to achieve a given edge angle.

 

Her comments about stiffness could reflect either the fact that the 170 VXL's are the longest in that model, while 168 MX88's are the second shortest out of four, or that she was skiing slower today than usual because of conditions. In either case, she said she'd think about these as keepers if she didn't already own the 88's.

 

Stockli CX (170 cm, see above). Wife skied the same CX I did since they did not have shorter lengths. Predicably, she had troubles with it, said that it felt planky and unresponsive until she got it moving, then she liked the stability and smoothness. Not a fair test, we agreed, because of the length issue.

 

Stockli Spirit Motion (165 cm, 69 mm waist, 14 m radius). These served as a comparison to her 5*'s. She found them compliant, smooth, easy to initiate, "just a very nice ski." Very easy in bumps, were not deflected at moderate speeds by piles of heavy mush. They were noticeably softer than her 5* and she didn't feel the same "oomph" when she hit the accelerator, or what she described as a "special, right there-feeling" when she edged on harder surfaces. But she enjoyed the refinement, not as raw feeling as the 5* either. We agreed that this would be a superior ski for intermediates, or for advanced skiers who wanted to take it easy and cruise big arcs on the frontside.

 



 

post #5 of 9
Quote:
Originally Posted by beyond View Post

redface.gif Wow, my mistake, Allan O. Too many letters too early in the morning, I guess. The LXL was the fatter ski my wife skied, not the VXL. We only shared the CX. All the rest of that review is accurate. I changed the subhead to reflect this. Glad you caught it. Will add that she ruminated over which car it resembled, felt it was as refined but less sharp edged than a Porsche 911, as smooth as a Caddie but more nimble, so she settled on a current Mustang GT cuz it felt planted and powerful but not heavy... Phil, I did not prompt her on this. Her words. biggrin.gif


Thanks for the update / edit. Having skied several Stocklis recently, I knew my wallet was likely in for beating!

 

I also found your review of the CX very interesting especially their performance in bumps. I was curious about that ski. I recently had the opportunity to ski the revised 2012 Laser SC (now 72mm underfoot, up from 63) as well as the 2012 Laser SL. The SL is a fabulous, very dynamic true SL radius ski. If you are prepared to work allot to turn constantly and stay on top of them they are the great. No real surprise there. They may not be a race stick ski but they are a serious slalom ski. At the ripe old age of 55 I could not imagine skiing them all day except on a short hill.

 

The SC on the other hand is completely different. Much more mellow, super stable, great grip but not that much zing to them I found. Hard to complain about just stand on the edges and go, no matter what the speed. Very easy to adjust the radius mid turn by just varying your pressure for and aft a bit. Unfortunately, I did not get to try them in bumps.

 

So...the only question is: SC, SX or CX? If you ever get to compare the CX to either of the others please post an update! If anyone else can chime in it would be greatly appreciated.

 

post #6 of 9

You asked so I'll say it - the Blizzard Bonafide is better than the Stormrider 95 for me and I think that most skiers that run them in a back-to-back test would agree.  Let me put it this way - on the Stormrider 95 you will definitely know that you're skiing a rockered ski whereas on the Bonafide at times it's darn hard to tell.  Turn transitions on the Bonafide are much smoother, but the Stormrider does have the Stockli construction - a superior "velvety" on-snow feel that I do prefer.  I told Stockli to flat out steal the Bonafide geometry and put it on the Stormrider.  That literally would be an ultimate ski for me.

 

BTW - Your wife should have tested the new Spirit O Two (as long as she likes the look of black leather).  That had to be one of the smoothest most supple skis I've ever ridden in my life, but it definitely has a speed limit unlike most Stocklis.  I would think a lighter weight skier would be in nirvana on those.

post #7 of 9
Thread Starter 

Well, I still seem to be unable to get my letters straight; think my automated spell gizmo changed my initial "V" to an "L" after I corrected it last night.

 

SO, one more time: Tog, I skied the VXL. Noodler's (former) love interest. 87 mm waist. My wife skied the LXL, which was said by the reps to be the female version. 80 mm waist. Everything past the damn three caps holds for both. I'm sorry for all the confusion. 

 

As far as your comment about the Bonafide, Noodler, obviously have to try it. Not so easy to find them - or any Blizzard - for demo back here. As Dawg and others have said, there is probably not a lot to separate several of these skis; they're all excellent. If I prefer the SR95 over the MX98, for instance, we're talking tiny increments. If I just skied trees, I'd take the MX98. If I just skied chop and refrozen, I'd take the SR95. For 2012, it may get down to personal preferences rather than some measurably superior performance parameter.

 

I found the rocker to sidecut transition on the SR 95 to be the best I've every experienced, pretty much seamless. If the Bonafide is "much smoother," hard to imagine. But willing to try. biggrin.gif More generally, I've always tended to prefer smooth over lively, progressive flex over pop, but nowadays my knees tell me Blizzards as a group are at the upper end of desirable liveliness, particularly in the irregular hard snow we get back here. The Power series works for me over a season, the Magnums would not. The Atlas, which most here term "damp," is only for variable softer days when I will hit patches of ice; best grip of any 90+ ski made. It's a long ways from being smooth, though, in my book. Fischers, Atomics, and Sollies are off my personal map. On the other hand, there can be zombie, cadaveral, damp (re: K2). So in my search for the perfect compromise, don't be surprised if I still prefer impeccable velvet over impeccable geometry. 

 

Allan, your experience with the SC is interesting. It sounds a lot like how the CX felt. Not a lot of pop at the end, but unshakable your-wish-is-my-command. And similar dimensions, I assume a bit more taper in the SC if they carried over the shape. So another marketing conundrum: Why have all these Stockli models clustering between 69 and 74 mm? Meanwhile, I still want to try the SX, and I'll see if I can mix in the SC. 

post #8 of 9

I will probably get to ski the SX this weekend, but there are no CX's to be had for demo. The SC reminded allot of my ex (unfortunately) Vist RC Team. High praise indeed. But it was even easier to ski especially transitioning from pure hard pack and ice to some piled up old snow. Perhaps a function of the 6mm of extra width. The SC does have a wider tip than the SX but the quoted radius per length is about the same...but I would have to look at that a bit closer.

 

In any case, they certainly do not make the decision easy with so many skis in similar widths all of which use the TST construction. There is not a bad one in the bunch, no doubt, but at those prices you are paying for subtleties.

post #9 of 9

beyond - I'm totally with you on the ski feel thing and the difference between Stockli and the Blizzards.  I also much prefer the Power series over the plain Magnum and Supersonic.  Blizzards are really right in the middle of the road with respect to dampness.

 

BTW - I skied both the SR95 and the Bone on what could be called Colorado boilerplate and I was very surprised at just how damp the Bone feels.  It's not quite a Stockli, but for the days I would take out a 95-98mm underfoot ski I would be less concerned with a damp feel as opposed to overall performance.

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Member Gear Reviews
EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › Member Gear Reviews › Reviews: 2012 Stockli Stormrider 95, current / 2012 VXL, CX, LXL, and Spirit Motion