or Connect
EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › Member Gear Reviews › 2014-2015 Stockli Laser AX
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

2014-2015 Stockli Laser AX - Page 2

post #31 of 47

Sounds Great. For me the prize is almost the only thing that holds me back, so I want to be more sure than normal that this ski would suit my needs. I'm not in a position to demo them, so I need to buy them untried.

post #32 of 47
Quote:
Originally Posted by ventende View Post
 

Thanks for sharing!

 

I see that your review was posted last season, but as far as I know the AX 2015/16 is the same product? At least thats what I've heard in shops. I'm considering this ski as a pair number two. I already have the Atomic SX:9 Supercross, so I'm looking for something less stiff so that I can enjoy longer days on piste. The Atomic carvers are great fun but after a couple of hours I'm totally beat. My legs are hurting! Somebody mentioned the Laser AX as a super allrounder that was less wild to handle compared to race carvers but still scoring high on fun factor. I've talked to some sales people that says the AX was the best allrounder they demoed in 2014, but I don't know if that's just sales talk or autentic response. Still, I've read some pretty nice reviews here and there as well. I've actually never read or heard anything really negative about the Stockli AX.

 

I'm an intermediate+ skier wanting to further my turn skills. I ride mostly on groomed slopes. I skied a lot growing up then made a "comeback" about 7 years ago. Would you say the AX is hard to handle or is it difficult to make'em carv? Perhaps it's not the greatest of questions but I'm afraid they will be so much harder to carve than my Atomic carvers. I've seen some inspiring video clips of people skiing allmountain skis pretty agile, with both short and long carved turns. I'm not quite at that level yet, but need as ski to grow with. At the same time I want to be able to ski those long 8-9 hours days with my friends without having to take 30 minutes breaks every hour cause my legs are totally exhausted from handling those race carvers.

 

The suggested AX ski length for my height was 175 cm in the shop. My carvers are 170 cm. The sales person said that I would need those 175 cm in order to get a stable ride in high speeds (I love speed) and he told me that it wouldn't be any problems at all making short turns even if the ski is 5 cm longer than my Atomics.

 

 

Age: 42

Gender: Male

Height: 180 cm (5.9 foot according to the calculator)

Weight: Approx. 93 kg (205 ibs according to the calculator)

 

So, what do you say - should I get them?

 

 

 

 

 

I will admit that some skis are less tiring than others to ski, but if your legs are getting fried to the point of being "totally beat", then it's not the ski -- it's you.  I don't know if there's a fitness issue that can be addressed, or a technique issue that can be worked on, or perhaps a boot setup issue (i.e, if your boots aren't setup properly for your body type, then it's your muscles, not your skeleton, that's holding you up, and that's going to destroy your legs, and fast)...  Or some combination of the above?

 

Basically, new skis aren't going to magically give you more endurance.

post #33 of 47

I hear you. Well, I've been lifting weights for many years so I'm used to putting power into everything I do. I've heard my skiing is quite "agile" in lack of better words. I ski quite low with my torso and I'm quite low in general. I know I have a lot of ground to cover as far as technical skiing goes, so I might have alot to win adjusting that. The thing is however that my Atomics are by far the ski pair that drains me from power the fastest. I've rented a fair share of "softer skis" and they make me substantially less fatigued. I don't get tired in my legs with less racing oriented ski profiles. 

post #34 of 47

I will demo the Stockli Laser AX in 167 and the head iSupershape Rally in 163.  The skis I eventually select will be used for teaching Levels 5-7 and for use as a versatile harder snow ski to compliment the Kastle FX94 in 166 that I already have. I'm confused. In one of the various threads here about the AX, some people say it's easy, some say it's not easy, one or two said that the Rally is what the AX should have been. When people have negative reactions - about from obvious individual preferences - what are they missing about the AX?  What in particular should I be looking for, sensitive to, when I demo each of these skis?  The Rally being 163 and the AX being 167, there may be a difference of experience caused by length variation. What do you all think? Help me out, please. 

post #35 of 47
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by ventende View Post

Thanks for sharing!

I see that your review was posted last season, but as far as I know the AX 2015/16 is the same product? At least thats what I've heard in shops. I'm considering this ski as a pair number two. I already have the Atomic SX:9 Supercross, so I'm looking for something less stiff so that I can enjoy longer days on piste. The Atomic carvers are great fun but after a couple of hours I'm totally beat. My legs are hurting! Somebody mentioned the Laser AX as a super allrounder that was less wild to handle compared to race carvers but still scoring high on fun factor. I've talked to some sales people that says the AX was the best allrounder they demoed in 2014, but I don't know if that's just sales talk or autentic response. Still, I've read some pretty nice reviews here and there as well. I've actually never read or heard anything really negative about the Stockli AX.

I'm an intermediate+ skier wanting to further my turn skills. I ride mostly on groomed slopes. I skied a lot growing up then made a "comeback" about 7 years ago. Would you say the AX is hard to handle or is it difficult to make'em carv? Perhaps it's not the greatest of questions but I'm afraid they will be so much harder to carve than my Atomic carvers. I've seen some inspiring video clips of people skiing allmountain skis pretty agile, with both short and long carved turns. I'm not quite at that level yet, but need as ski to grow with. At the same time I want to be able to ski those long 8-9 hours days with my friends without having to take 30 minutes breaks every hour cause my legs are totally exhausted from handling those race carvers.

The suggested AX ski length for my height was 175 cm in the shop. My carvers are 170 cm. The sales person said that I would need those 175 cm in order to get a stable ride in high speeds (I love speed) and he told me that it wouldn't be any problems at all making short turns even if the ski is 5 cm longer than my Atomics.


Age: 42
Gender: Male
Height: 180 cm (5.9 foot according to the calculator)
Weight: Approx. 93 kg (205 ibs according to the calculator)

So, what do you say - should I get them?


I own this ski, and ski it every day every where. It is decidedly not a ski for those who cannot ride the center of a high-performance ski. In fact, it will "reward" such skiing with an uncomfortable, demanding ride.

If the Atomic is "too much," I think the AX will be even more demanding for you. The ski is really about balancing well along the ski and being able to guide the ski through the turn.

That said, it's so much fun it must be illegal. tongue.gif
post #36 of 47

Hi,

 

Thanks for your input on this. It makes things even less clear I'm afraid cause since I've posted this I've talked to even more people that have first hand experience with this ski (even the 2015/16 model now) plus the pair I already have. They all say the AX is less demanding than my SX:9 Atomics - or any other carver I was considering. The stores tell me to match it with VIST bindings on Speedcom plate for optimal performance. I wanna add that I have rented quite stiff carvers with very firm response mechanisms before, I consider them fun and somewhat tiring but not as much as the 9'ers I have. With less demanding I don't mean easier to turn, or easier in any technical manner. I'm referring to the ski characteristics. The SX:9 is quite "fragile" and tend to act jumpy when speed picks up. The AX are described as more stable, both in speed and in transition between groomed pist and light powder for instance. With the Atomics I feel I need to really be agile and work them actively in order to ski them as they would like to be treated, but so many of my friends say they have bought a second pair of allmountain skis for those long days in the hills, cause those skis are easier to ride in varied speeds and terrain. Their not like a sports car constantly screaming for gas.    

 

Hm, I guess I just have to buy them to find out as I'm not in a position to demo the AX. But overall everyone I've spoken to about this ski does not classify it as a ski for the very ambitious or professional skier: When I e-mailed VIST for binding questions they shared their opinion on the AX and thought its a good allrounder for intermediate skiers that wanted something stable and fun. Do you really think they are that demanding? I mean, how demanding can an allmountain ski with these specifications be? Ok, so I'm not Aksel Lund Svindal but I'm not Bambi on ice either.  :p   


Edited by ventende - 11/6/15 at 10:48am
post #37 of 47
Quote:
Originally Posted by ventende View Post
 

Hi,

 

Thanks for your input on this. It makes things even less clear I'm afraid cause since I've posted this I've talked to even more people that have first hand experience with this ski (even the 2015/16 model now) plus the pair I already have. They all say the AX is less demanding than my SX:9 Atomics - or any other carver I was considering. The stores tell me to match it with VIST bindings on Speedcom plate for optimal performance. I wanna add that I have rented quite stiff carvers with very firm response mechanisms before, I consider them fun and somewhat tiring but not as much as the 9'ers I have. With less demanding I don't mean easier to turn, or easier in any technical manner. I'm referring to the ski characteristics. The SX:9 is quite "fragile" and tend to act jumpy when speed picks up. The AX are described as more stable, both in speed and in transition between groomed pist and light powder for instance. With the Atomics I feel I need to really be agile and work them actively in order to ski them as they would like to be treated, but so many of my friends say they have bought a second pair of allmountain skis for those long days in the hills, cause those skis are easier to ride in varied speeds and terrain. Their not like a sports car constantly screaming for gas.    

 

Hm, I guess I just have to buy them to find out as I'm not in a position to demo the AX. But overall everyone I've spoken to about this ski does not classify it as a ski for the very ambitious or professional skier: When I e-mailed VIST for binding questions they shared their opinion on the AX and thought its a good allrounder for intermediate skiers that wanted something stable and fun. Do you really think they are that demanding? I mean, how demanding can an allmountain ski with these specifications be? Ok, so I'm not Aksel Lund Svindal but I'm not Bambi on ice either.  :p   

 

The AX is fairly mellow, yet high performance.  The Laser SX is another beast entirely.   Maybe whomever you spoke to had them confused? Easy to do.  Just flexing the AX shows it isn't some burly bruising ride. 

 

Scott

post #38 of 47

I don't think you are following me Scott. When I'm describing the skis I already have I'm referring to the Atomic SX:9 and not Stockli Laser SX. In terms of Stockli I'm talking about the Laser AX only. That is the model that my local stores have and I've been talking to people that's been skiing that model since it was launched. The 2015/16 model is the same as the 2014/15 model. It was such a big hit for Stockli that they stuck with the winning concept. From what I've been told from the importer of Stockli the best combo for his ski is the Speedcom plate system with the VIST  VSP412 binding.

 

As mentioned they all describe the AX as a great allmountain ski (and allmountain is Stocklis classification too) with good stability and the ability to tackle the transition between groomed pist and other less groomed conditions with ease. Everyone that I've talked to has said it's a great second pair if I already have a "mad carver" and want something that's not as tiring to ride as my SX:9. It's like the AX can be skied with less punch and power yet still offer some fun, whilst my other pair constantly wants to be charged or else it's just not gonna respond very well. The SX.9 are not very stable in high speed either of course, as they are not constructed to be. The response I get is that the AX is more capable of being stable in high speed situations, don't you agree? I'm talking about the 175 cm length here. I'm 180 cm or 5.9 foot according to the calculator.

 

Ref:

http://www.stoeckli.ch/int-en/stockli-markenwelten/ski/product-line/laser-ax


Edited by ventende - 11/8/15 at 1:05pm
post #39 of 47
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by ventende View Post
 

Hi,

 

Thanks for your input on this. It makes things even less clear I'm afraid cause since I've posted this I've talked to even more people that have first hand experience with this ski (even the 2015/16 model now) plus the pair I already have. They all say the AX is less demanding than my SX:9 Atomics - or any other carver I was considering. The stores tell me to match it with VIST bindings on Speedcom plate for optimal performance. I wanna add that I have rented quite stiff carvers with very firm response mechanisms before, I consider them fun and somewhat tiring but not as much as the 9'ers I have. With less demanding I don't mean easier to turn, or easier in any technical manner. I'm referring to the ski characteristics. The SX:9 is quite "fragile" and tend to act jumpy when speed picks up. The AX are described as more stable, both in speed and in transition between groomed pist and light powder for instance. With the Atomics I feel I need to really be agile and work them actively in order to ski them as they would like to be treated, but so many of my friends say they have bought a second pair of allmountain skis for those long days in the hills, cause those skis are easier to ride in varied speeds and terrain. Their not like a sports car constantly screaming for gas.    

 

Hm, I guess I just have to buy them to find out as I'm not in a position to demo the AX. But overall everyone I've spoken to about this ski does not classify it as a ski for the very ambitious or professional skier: When I e-mailed VIST for binding questions they shared their opinion on the AX and thought its a good allrounder for intermediate skiers that wanted something stable and fun. Do you really think they are that demanding? I mean, how demanding can an allmountain ski with these specifications be? Ok, so I'm not Aksel Lund Svindal but I'm not Bambi on ice either.  :p   


Let me try, again.

 

Yes, the AX is an All Mountain ski. My mountain is Copper Mountain here in Colorado, and I have skied the ski in virtually every condition possible, from chunky to velvet. It performs extremely well in all conditions, provided you are balanced on the skis and have the skills to stay reasonably centered. If you get off-center, you can still ski them (perhaps this is the "more forgiving" to which you refer), but they drop off in performance and let you know that you're not centered (rather like a hybrid blade in golf, for example). They are not full-out race (as Scott notes), but they have many of the characteristics of a full-out race ski, and can hold (for example) far better than most skis of this width.

 

I would also not recommend them for a blue/red skier, but many skiers like to purchase above their skill levels...

 

I have skied this at a (tracked by GPS) 40mph will complete stability, so I would be comfortable saying they are reasonably stable at all recreational speeds.

post #40 of 47
Quote:
Originally Posted by ssh View Post
 


Let me try, again.

 

Yes, the AX is an All Mountain ski. My mountain is Copper Mountain here in Colorado, and I have skied the ski in virtually every condition possible, from chunky to velvet. It performs extremely well in all conditions, provided you are balanced on the skis and have the skills to stay reasonably centered. If you get off-center, you can still ski them (perhaps this is the "more forgiving" to which you refer), but they drop off in performance and let you know that you're not centered (rather like a hybrid blade in golf, for example). They are not full-out race (as Scott notes), but they have many of the characteristics of a full-out race ski, and can hold (for example) far better than most skis of this width.

 

I would also not recommend them for a blue/red skier, but many skiers like to purchase above their skill levels...

 

I have skied this at a (tracked by GPS) 40mph will complete stability, so I would be comfortable saying they are reasonably stable at all recreational speeds.


What was your take on that ski vs. the Scale Delta that I loved?  Can't remember if you skied it at Copper that day or not; was thinking you got a few runs on it as well.

post #41 of 47

Two remarks:

 

(1) Perhaps that balance point on the AX had something to do with delta, ramp, or fore/aft binding position.

 

(2) From what I've read about the Stockli Scale Delta, I'd like to see a review of that ski and the other Scale skis.

post #42 of 47
I did it, I pulled the trigger. The question I have is about length. I'm 6'1" 185. I've heard from some they ski long, others have said they ski short.

I want to be able to open it up on these skis but part of my motivation for getting them is skiing bumps. I have 2015 Mantras in 184 that I enjoy in the bumps but there are times that length gets pushed around. So I'm trying to balance stability/carving and bumps/playfulness.

I also race and train on Stokli GS >23 185 and Atomic Redster SL 165.

I'm getting conflicting advice on 175 vs. 183.

Thoughts?
post #43 of 47

I'd think that you'll be happy on the 175's. I've never encountered someone complaining about Stockil's being nervous or skiing short, I've owned several and 183 IME is a very long Stockli (I'm 6'0), and in any case while it'd be great if they made a 179, is still fine if your aim is bumps. If you wanted a slightly more forgiving GS, for really motoring in the wide open spaces, then 183. 

post #44 of 47
Quote:
Originally Posted by beyond View Post

I'd think that you'll be happy on the 175's. I've never encountered someone complaining about Stockil's being nervous or skiing short, I've owned several and 183 IME is a very long Stockli (I'm 6'0), and in any case while it'd be great if they made a 179, is still fine if your aim is bumps. If you wanted a slightly more forgiving GS, for really motoring in the wide open spaces, then 183. 
Thanks...I was able to get ahold of the rep who corroborated what you're saying, as did a local shop manager who skied them last year.

It makes sense, at my weight I probably shouldn't be skiing the longest ski in anything Stockli.
post #45 of 47
Thread Starter 

Quote:

Originally Posted by oboe View Post
 

Two remarks:

 

(1) Perhaps that balance point on the AX had something to do with delta, ramp, or fore/aft binding position.

 

(2) From what I've read about the Stockli Scale Delta, I'd like to see a review of that ski and the other Scale skis.


Well, since I know I'm set up solidly in balance (and I'm skiing them with Look Pivots which have virtually no delta), I don't think that's it. I'm surprised at the general belief that these are somehow "forgiving" skis. While they aren't full-up race skis, certainly, they are certainly more sensitive to skill and balance than many more typical skis. I enjoy full-on race skis, but prefer a broader performance window for the requirements I have to ski with my guests whenever I am scheduled as opposed to choosing my days based on conditions and other preferences.

 

If you like the feel of a traditional wood-core race ski and would like that in a somewhat wider and more versatile form factor, this is an excellent choice.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by dawgcatching View Post
 


What was your take on that ski vs. the Scale Delta that I loved?  Can't remember if you skied it at Copper that day or not; was thinking you got a few runs on it as well.

Right on, Scott. The Scale is more of a "forgiving all-around" ski than the AX. It doesn't have quite as high a top-end and isn't quite as demanding on-edge, but certainly has a lot more high-end performance than the vast majority of skis on the market today.

post #46 of 47
Then I'm baffled, because both Scott and Phil say that the AX is an easy ski. In fact, in a private message, Phil even referred to it as a "K2 Rictor". I'll demo the AX and see if it's more than I should be on for teaching Levels 5 and 6. AND for my own pleasure when line up results in no work. AND for keeping up with those who like to ski FAST.
post #47 of 47
Thread Starter 
Let me try again.

It's not a difficult ski to ski.

However, it rewards balance and skill with a quite dramatic and notable increase in performance. They aren't a bad ski, ever. But, when skied in balance and with suitable skill, they reward with a delightful experience.

As always, everyone experiences skis differently, and the AX is no exception. However, I would not want someone used to a K2 or Rossi to think that it skis and feels similarly to those skis. It doesn't. It's definitely Swiss and definitely a traditional wood core laminate.
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 › 2014-2015 Stockli Laser AX