or Connect
EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › Member Gear Reviews › Demo Skis Tested as SIA, 2014 models, super quick reviews
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Demo Skis Tested as SIA, 2014 models, super quick reviews - Page 3

post #61 of 87
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rainy512Day View Post

Did on3p have a demo day at Bachelor with their 2014 gear? I've been interested in the Tychoon but haven't found a single review anywhere. Would like to hear your take on them and how they compare to other 98-ish skis. I know the width of the Tychhons varies with length.


It was at the industry demo.  The Tychoon w/metal was similar to the Vicik: Vicik more stable, smoother, initiated easier in the tip.  The Tychoon was a little more rattled in crud, quicker, held better, but was really just a narrower Vicik that didn't have the same top end. Tychoon tour model was quick, fun, but overpowered at speed; definitely a touring/AT model, rather than a fast skiing resort crusty-snow off-piste ski. 

 

The Vicik was in the top 2 or 3 fun 105mm skis I have been on. It was really versatile in any sort of off-piste snow. It reminded me of the FX104 in terms of snow feel and versatility., also the old Head Inferno.  I don't know if I have been on any other skis in that width that combined those 2 traits as well as these 3. Certainly been on some great soft snow skis in that width, but these 3 are all great in mixed snow too.

post #62 of 87
Quote:
Originally Posted by jaobrien6 View Post

 

Interesting, I wonder if they've softened up the vicik at all.  I know ON3P tends to tweak their skis from year to year, and I remember the vicik I skied 2 years ago was pretty stout.


Last season they put a lot of effort in to delivering a more rounded flex pattern across the board. I owned the first year Vicik, and loved it. The second generation was more of a gun than I was looking for. last year they added back a tiny bit of tail rocker to both the Vicik, and the Wrenegade to dial it back just a bit for the general public(as well as dialing back/rounding out the flex). Though in special cases I'm sure they would be more than happy to throw in a couple of full width carbon sheets, and make them I-beams for the right person.

post #63 of 87

dawgcatching, I see from your profile that you're 5'9", 155#.  Could you please give us Kevin's ht. and wt.?  Thanks.

post #64 of 87
Quote:
Originally Posted by dawgcatching View Post

Tychoon tour model was quick, fun, but overpowered at speed; definitely a touring/AT model, rather than a fast skiing resort crusty-snow off-piste ski. 

 

Just a quick comment; big debate over at Wildsnow these days about the fairness of evaluating AT/Touring skis using predominately downhill criteria. Apparently several major touring ski makers withdrew their advertising from one of the mags because they felt their products were consistently being downgraded for being "unstable" compared to heavier alpine crossover models.

 

Don't have a horse in this race, but I have noticed that virtually every mention of a touring model, from Kastle to ON3P, seems to contain the adjectives "overpowered," or "unstable" or "lively." Or conversely, testers express surprise that the model handles speed "almost as well as a downhill ski." So there's always a faint or obvious ding. 

 

I find myself in sympathy with the p.o'ed manufacturers; touring skis are supposed to tour, first and foremost, yes? And for all those who have not ever put on skins, trust me, unless you're Chris Davenport, or some other TGR Films Ski God/Goddess, you don't want an extra lb of ski just so you can dream of ripping down the side of heli-provided giant peaks. Most touring skis spend most of their time slogging on comparatively flat terrain, and the "downhill" is often a glade or open face that lasts all of 400 feet. 

 

Just saying...wink.gif

post #65 of 87
Love the reviews of the wide body skis in this post. Interested in under 70 skis for here in MI.

Anybody see or ride the revived Nordica Spitfire series? Looking for dims. Pretty familiar with the characteristics of the series. My 2011s were stolen and want to get back on a pair.
post #66 of 87

Hi Dawg,

 

First of all I'd like to thank for your reviews. I'm interested in the new SR 95 and 100. Did you demo the 100 in 182 or also in 174 as you did the 95? Last week I could demo the VXL and the old (2013) 95 on groomed and some soft- and hardpack snow in the Alps. The VXL feels like a true GS on groomed but I fear that it could be a little bit too demanding offpiste (I'm a very solid groomer adn ski usually with the Laser SL but not very experienced off piste). The 95 felt too heavy on groomed. How do you compare the piste performance of the 95, 100 and VXL?

 

Thanks for your reply.

post #67 of 87
Quote:
Originally Posted by beyond View Post

Just a quick comment; big debate over at Wildsnow these days about the fairness of evaluating AT/Touring skis using predominately downhill criteria. Apparently several major touring ski makers withdrew their advertising from one of the mags because they felt their products were consistently being downgraded for being "unstable" compared to heavier alpine crossover models.

 

Don't have a horse in this race, but I have noticed that virtually every mention of a touring model, from Kastle to ON3P, seems to contain the adjectives "overpowered," or "unstable" or "lively." Or conversely, testers express surprise that the model handles speed "almost as well as a downhill ski." So there's always a faint or obvious ding. 

 

I find myself in sympathy with the p.o'ed manufacturers; touring skis are supposed to tour, first and foremost, yes? And for all those who have not ever put on skins, trust me, unless you're Chris Davenport, or some other TGR Films Ski God/Goddess, you don't want an extra lb of ski just so you can dream of ripping down the side of heli-provided giant peaks. Most touring skis spend most of their time slogging on comparatively flat terrain, and the "downhill" is often a glade or open face that lasts all of 400 feet. 

 

Just saying...wink.gif


Funny thing is though that the Wildsnow crowd is also the one that is incredulous that anyone would ever favor downhill performance in their rig.

post #68 of 87
Quote:
Originally Posted by ecimmortal View Post


Funny thing is though that the Wildsnow crowd is also the one that is incredulous that anyone would ever favor downhill performance in their rig.

 

 

Rillllyy ..... I'd love to hear their reviews of my current BC rigs: last generation Mag 8.7s and Rev 105s .....  Cuz I digs the downhill.  

post #69 of 87
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by vilu View Post

Hi Dawg,

 

First of all I'd like to thank for your reviews. I'm interested in the new SR 95 and 100. Did you demo the 100 in 182 or also in 174 as you did the 95? Last week I could demo the VXL and the old (2013) 95 on groomed and some soft- and hardpack snow in the Alps. The VXL feels like a true GS on groomed but I fear that it could be a little bit too demanding offpiste (I'm a very solid groomer adn ski usually with the Laser SL but not very experienced off piste). The 95 felt too heavy on groomed. How do you compare the piste performance of the 95, 100 and VXL?

 

Thanks for your reply.

Hi,

 

I didn't ski the VXL, and the only lengths available for test on the other 2 were 174.  SR95 is a much lighter ski than before: you need to ski the 2013/2014 model, as my reviews aren't relevant to this year's ski.  As for the piste performance of the SR's I reviewed: you can compare them to the other skis I reviewed here to get a feel for it.  They ski well. 

post #70 of 87
Quote:
Originally Posted by dawgcatching View Post

No, they have a crazy 50 pair buy in, no internet distribution.  I was honestly blown away, they were completely different than my old Stormriders: much softer, much more supple, perfect flex, but vice-like edge grip. The 95 had almost the same grip and nearly the same carving power and feel as the MX83, and beat out every other ski over 85mm there, not to mention it was as stable as anything else I tested, despite the short length. In fact, I thought I was on the 183cm the whole time because it was so stable. Not until I got back to the tent I saw I was on the 174cm; I was shocked.  Then I got on that Stormrider 100 and was laying down railroad tracks: I haven't been on a ski in that 98mm category that even comes close to that race-ski feel that I can release, throw down the fall line, get a high-C turn early, pull up that inside foot, and really nail it across the fall line. Here is a quick frame grab of the 100: snow is soft on top, scrubby manmade just underneath.  I never feel this confident on firm snow on a 100mm ski!  Honestly this could sub as a very solid groomer ski, and those of you who read my reviews pretty much know that I disdain wide skis for carving, as even if they are stable and hold well, never have carver characteristics like energy and excitement. 

 

Dawg -- What criteria would you use to choose between the 95 and the 100?  The Stockli 2014 literature paints them as being essentially identical in build . . . not likely to purchase, just intrigued by their lineup choices.

post #71 of 87
Quote:
Originally Posted by dawgcatching View Post

 

Stockli Stormrider 95: maybe the best ski I have ever been on.  It was one of the top 3 skis in bumps, held better on firm snow than most of the 80-90mm group, was super easy and forgiving, and had the stability of a 183cm (I skied 174cm).  What a ski!  Only issue is the relatively short length for new snow.

 

Stockli Stormrider 100: same performance as the 95, but even quicker with a 17mm radius.  There is video of me running railroad tracks on this ski, not something I normally trust to a ski this wide, because they wash out and track funny. Not this ski. Also awesome in bumps and junk snow, I ripped through a tree section that Finndog showed me, with total confidence.  Great ski. 

 

Thanks for posting these reviews.  Interestingly, in the 2014 Stockli catalog (http://www.zuzupopo.com/xe/index.php?mid=catalog&category=84317&document_srl=91823), the 95 is listed as having a slightly tighter radius than the 100 (SR95: 16.9 m @ 174; SR100: 17.8 m @ 174), so to the extent the 100 felt quicker it probably wasn't the radius (unless these pre-production skis that were made available for the demo differ in spec from the catalog listing).  

 

Also according to the catalog, by a tiny margin the SR107 is the tightest of all in the core 2014 SR series (95/100/107/VXL/Pro) (i.e., I've omitted the Pit Pro, LXL, and Light), with 16.6 m @ 174; but it may be designed to be skied longer, in which case the radius would effectively be larger.


Edited by chemist - 3/19/13 at 3:49pm
post #72 of 87
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by sullywhacker View Post

Dawg -- What criteria would you use to choose between the 95 and the 100?  The Stockli 2014 literature paints them as being essentially identical in build . . . not likely to purchase, just intrigued by their lineup choices.

I can't say for sure. I skied 174cm: great on hardpack, but not my ideal length. Both of these I would choose for softer conditions: in fact, 100mm is normally the widest ski I use with any frequency at my weight.  It has been nearly 3 seasons since I have had a day where I desired more ski. Of course, I sometimes grab one for the heck of it, like last week when I was testing some stuff in 6-10 inches of new.  Rarely though do I need something wider: the snow here is rarely deep enough, and I am light enough, where the ~100mm ski isn't just about perfect.  With that said, for a 100mm ski, I would want something like a 180.  174cm just has me going over the handlebars; but as comfortable as the 174's were, I would think an SR95 would be a lot of ski in the bumps in 183.  I bet a 178 would be a great length: long enough in the soft stuff, still nimble in the trees and bumps. They didn't have a 183 available, and I checked with them at least 4 times.  There is no PNW rep, so little opportunity to demo outside of the SIA show.  

 

To extrapolate my findings though: Both were superb for their width on hardpack.  The 95 obviously a bit quicker edge to edge, the 100 a bit more lazy and likely more fun in variable snow in the trees. I would prefer the 95 in bumps, likely a little more zip would make it a marginally better firm snow ski.  100 is going to have more float, and seemed like it had more tip rise. 

post #73 of 87

Hello there Dawgcatching, thanks a TON for the review information and advice on here! I have a question. I'm 6' 170-175lbs and I finally got to try out the 2013 Kastle MX83 (173) and FX94's (176). While the 83 was invincible and effortless on near-ice conditions in the Northeast after a rain/refreeze, they almost felt too much like they were "on rails". I couldn't play around with them as much as I would have hoped, and they seemed a bit stiff in the moguls. I tried the FX94 a few days later, and conditions were still very icy/hard. It felt like it was slipping a lot and required a lot more concentration to carve on this, but I could ski backwards, be playful, etc... with ease, almost like the guide rails and training wheels came off. It snowed 5" during the day and by the end the 94's were immaculate, and felt a bit better for bumps, but could still fly stable at high speeds. My ideal would be an FX feel that had a bit better edge grip on ice and be slightly more aggressive without sacrificing its versatility for ungroomed stuff.

 

Sorry, now to my question. How does the 2014 FX84 compare to the FX94 in terms of stability at high speeds (something people cited as a weakness in the 2013 FX84). I hear the metal is a bit thicker this year? Based on my impressions of the 2013 Kastles, would the 2014 FX84 split the difference of them nicely? I ski the East exclusively, so would the 2014 FX94 be too much ski for hard pack days now that they have more metal?

 

This is a TON of money to spend on a pair of skis, I'm just paranoid about making the right choice that'll last me 5-10 years.

 

Thank you!

post #74 of 87
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Haftarun8 View Post

Hello there Dawgcatching, thanks a TON for the review information and advice on here! I have a question. I'm 6' 170-175lbs and I finally got to try out the 2013 Kastle MX83 (173) and FX94's (176). While the 83 was invincible and effortless on near-ice conditions in the Northeast after a rain/refreeze, they almost felt too much like they were "on rails". I couldn't play around with them as much as I would have hoped, and they seemed a bit stiff in the moguls. I tried the FX94 a few days later, and conditions were still very icy/hard. It felt like it was slipping a lot and required a lot more concentration to carve on this, but I could ski backwards, be playful, etc... with ease, almost like the guide rails and training wheels came off. It snowed 5" during the day and by the end the 94's were immaculate, and felt a bit better for bumps, but could still fly stable at high speeds. My ideal would be an FX feel that had a bit better edge grip on ice and be slightly more aggressive without sacrificing its versatility for ungroomed stuff.

 

Sorry, now to my question. How does the 2014 FX84 compare to the FX94 in terms of stability at high speeds (something people cited as a weakness in the 2013 FX84). I hear the metal is a bit thicker this year? Based on my impressions of the 2013 Kastles, would the 2014 FX84 split the difference of them nicely? I ski the East exclusively, so would the 2014 FX94 be too much ski for hard pack days now that they have more metal?

 

This is a TON of money to spend on a pair of skis, I'm just paranoid about making the right choice that'll last me 5-10 years.

 

Thank you!


The new for 2014 FX84 certainly felt very solid for me. In fact, it did feel like an upgrade to the 2013 model, and I wasn't exceeding it's top end, even though I tend to enjoy skiing fast and aggressively. I didn't run it on pure ice: mostly in bumps and on cut-up groomers, but it was super solid at speed, and as well as the new 94 held, I can't imagine the 84 not being better, considering it is a similar ski, just narrower.  I love the 94, but for hardpack and bumps, the 84 just has the edge. It is that much quicker, more nimble in bumps, more confident in firm conditions.  The 94 is getting wide for a bump ski, the 84 is a nice width for bumps. As far as stability goes, they felt pretty darn similar next year.

 

There is also the MX88: it is less aggressive than the 83, a bit softer at the top of the turn, not quite as mellow in junky snow as the FX94, but close, and has more top end (slightly) than either the 84 or 94. It is tough to choose, as Kastle makes a ton of great skis. One factor also: the MX83 you had tried: was it tuned?  I have skied them out of the wrapper, and although they were easy enough to ski, they were edge high and skied a bit railed.  Once ground flat, they were money, so if you didn't get a pair that had been ground and re-beveled, it may have contributed to a hooky feeling.

post #75 of 87

The pair I was on had been skied at most 10 times according to the shop. They seem to be one of the best in my area for tunes and adjustments; many of their employees are avid skiers themselves who take them out all the time. I could see how changing the tune would make the 83's a bit less hooky, but I think one of my main issues with it personally was just the flex for bumps and the fact that the tail, by design, didn't really like playfully going backwards and whatnot. Perhaps a tuning could change that but based on what you're saying about next year's 84, I think that'll be the ski for me overall. And PLEASE tell me that the pics I've seen of the 2014 FX84 are right-on (ditching the "hot" neon pink in favor of a slick deep red). Thanks for the feedback!

post #76 of 87
Hi dawgcatching and others, been lurking a bit trying to finalise a purchase decision for next tele ski. Based in Australia so limited opportunity to try before I buy. I'm looking for something for softer snow, tree runs etc in the US and Japan, also likely to do some back country skinning here in Oz where the snow is usually a bit denser. Had just about pulled the pin on some line P98 which seemed to tick the boxes for a nimble ski for a 175 lb 40yo moderately aggressive freeheeler. Then I started salivating over the stormrider 100, but need a bit of input here. Current ski an atomic Kailas from about six yrs ago. Keen on going new school but no experience with rockers yet.
Flex? Forgiveness at the end of the day? Durability of balsa core in the stockli?
Many thanks, great forum!
post #77 of 87

Hi alex

 

Two weeks ago I had the chance to ski the Stocklies in the Austrian alps for two days. We got about 30cm fresh snow, the piste was soft, in steeper parts crud. There has been a small offpiste area with soft moguls on top. I have the same weight as you and would call me expert on groomed (40-50days per saison) and medium/advanced offpiste. As offpiste/allmountain-skies I tested SR100 (182cm), SR95 (183), VXL (180) and Y85 (187). Compared to the heavy SR95 2011/12 they did a big step into the right direction. Both SR100 and SR95 feel much more versatile and have a softer flex. I felt comfortable in deeper snow and they remained stable in crud. They work well with slow- and high-speed. I preferred the SR95 a little bit, got the smoother feeling especially in the moguls and on groomed. But it's not a huge difference.

 

The VXL asked for higher speed on groomed but needed more concentration and a more exact stance offpiste. The Y85 was all over more versatile but not as stable offpiste as SR100/95. It would be a great one-quiver.
 

post #78 of 87
Quote:
Originally Posted by Haftarun8 View Post

The pair I was on had been skied at most 10 times according to the shop. They seem to be one of the best in my area for tunes and adjustments; many of their employees are avid skiers themselves who take them out all the time. I could see how changing the tune would make the 83's a bit less hooky, but I think one of my main issues with it personally was just the flex for bumps and the fact that the tail, by design, didn't really like playfully going backwards and whatnot. Perhaps a tuning could change that but based on what you're saying about next year's 84, I think that'll be the ski for me overall. And PLEASE tell me that the pics I've seen of the 2014 FX84 are right-on (ditching the "hot" neon pink in favor of a slick deep red). Thanks for the feedback!

Yes, the FX84 is indeed red now.
FWIW, I skied the new FX84 at Winter Park and at Whistler. At Winter Park, it was amazing - one of three standouts in that waist width that week. It felt like it might make a very good teaching skis as well and was quite versatile.

I didn't like the ski as much at Whistler, but it was still very good. I suspect it was a tune issue.

They are quite stable at speed, not as stable as an MX, but surprisingly close. For some, the lighter feel will drive their decision.
post #79 of 87

Vilu, did you find the Y85 stable at speed on piste?  Tip flap?

post #80 of 87
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gunnerbob View Post

Vilu, did you find the Y85 stable at speed on piste?  Tip flap?

I tested the Y85 already in December in 177 on hard pack (artificial snow) and there it felt quite stable. It requires that you keep your wheight in front (which is quite usual for Stocklis). If you stay too centered on hard pack the wide tip shows the tendency of flapping and breaking out. In April there was only soft snow. The Y85 kept stable through crud. Under this conditions the 186 felt more relaxed and stable while the 177 needed some more concentration. It's not as stable as the VXL but much more versatile and easier to handle especially offpiste. Personally I would prefer the Y85 to the VXL.

post #81 of 87

Great reviews as always Dawg.   Hey...am looking for that snowstorm-day anykind of depth ski for northern NewEngland...where we can get anything under the sun....good snow and then wind-hardened 4-day stuff...especially off-trail.

Can you remember vast distinction between new Stormriders(95/100) and Nordica's Vagabond(107?)?

 

Philfeel free to jump in...as you've demoed the Vagabond.

 

 

 

Thanks...

Steve

post #82 of 87
Hi dawg, here's hoping the northern summer bringing lots of sun. Reading about the Colorado fires, heart goes out to the communities.
The Australian winter has seen one of the worst early covers ever. Hope our season is simply "late" rather than "awful".
Anyway, I'm wondering whether you might consider posting the video reviews you mentioned at the top of this thread. ESP the stocklis, there is just about zero independent info on the new SRs.
Cheers!
post #83 of 87
Hi
Quote:
Originally Posted by vilu View Post

Hi alex

Two weeks ago I had the chance to ski the Stocklies in the Austrian alps for two days. We got about 30cm fresh snow, the piste was soft, in steeper parts crud. There has been a small offpiste area with soft moguls on top. I have the same weight as you and would call me expert on groomed (40-50days per saison) and medium/advanced offpiste. As offpiste/allmountain-skies I tested SR100 (182cm), SR95 (183), VXL (180) and Y85 (187). Compared to the heavy SR95 2011/12 they did a big step into the right direction. Both SR100 and SR95 feel much more versatile and have a softer flex. I felt comfortable in deeper snow and they remained stable in crud. They work well with slow- and high-speed. I preferred the SR95 a little bit, got the smoother feeling especially in the moguls and on groomed. But it's not a huge difference.

The VXL asked for higher speed on groomed but needed more concentration and a more exact stance offpiste. The Y85 was all over more versatile but not as stable offpiste as SR100/95. It would be a great one-quiver.

 
Thanks vilu, sounds like the 100 might be the elusive light weight/fun/stable/forgiving bit of tele gold that I've been looking for. Good to know. Having a look at the Swiss engineering company that produced the new balsa core (bcomp), it looks that apart from ticking all the Eco-karma boxes, the combination of materials gives the core a combination of strength and dampening that surpasses carbon, glass, or various metals. The only question left is durability; early adoption of any new technology is always a bit of a gamble. Pretty solid looking outfit though. If I end up with a pair this southern winter I'll certainly provide some feedback.
Cheers,
Alex.
post #84 of 87
Oh, were you happy with the 182? Did you feel they skied shorter with the early rise?
Alex.
post #85 of 87

Dawg, out of interest what bindings are you putting on your FX84's?

post #86 of 87
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by beejay View Post
 

Dawg, out of interest what bindings are you putting on your FX84's?


I don't have any at the moment, but if I were mounting them up, probably either a Head PRD12 or just an Attack 16.

post #87 of 87

Are you talking about the new 2014 FX84s? I bought a pair and they're sitting in the shop as we speak flat, waiting for bindings! Would those Head PRD12's work well for general east coast skiing that includes whatever glade and mogul trails I can find? (I have a knack for always looking for bumps to play in). I'd like something light enough to keep the skis agile in mogul turns when I need them to be but still compliment the versatile nature of the ski. Thanks!

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 › Demo Skis Tested as SIA, 2014 models, super quick reviews