or Connect
EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › Ski Gear Discussion › Anyone familiar with the Nordica El Capo's?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Anyone familiar with the Nordica El Capo's?

post #1 of 23
Thread Starter 
I demoed them last season and liked them a lot. I felt like I could do almost anything on them except to me they seemed to ski a lot longer and bigger than a 185cm ski. I don't know if its the construction or shape or what.

I am 6'2" 180lbs so perhaps I'm a little light for that length on such a burly ski? I'm an advanced skier, not an expert and I usually ski high 170's to mid 180's in length.

Just wondering if the 177's would be a better size for me especially since I do a lot of tree skiing. And since there are some killer deals on these right now it would be awesome to pick some up before season. So if anybody is familiar with these skis and would like to comment on the El Capo's sizing I'd appreciate it.

Thanks,
LZ
post #2 of 23
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemon Zest View Post

I demoed them last season and liked them a lot. I felt like I could do almost anything on them except to me they seemed to ski a lot longer and bigger than a 185cm ski. I don't know if its the construction or shape or what.

I am 6'2" 180lbs so perhaps I'm a little light for that length on such a burly ski? I'm an advanced skier, not an expert and I usually ski high 170's to mid 180's in length.

Just wondering if the 177's would be a better size for me especially since I do a lot of tree skiing. And since there are some killer deals on these right now it would be awesome to pick some up before season. So if anybody is familiar with these skis and would like to comment on the El Capo's sizing I'd appreciate it.

Thanks,
LZ

I am pretty familiar with them. The do run long, the 185 is more like a 188, the 177 is more like a 181. You could get away with the 177, it is a strong enough ski. If MUST have the 185, go with the Vagabond, same mold of a ski but no metal and is lighter. Yeah..there are some good deals out there, I know Start Haus has them in stock. 

 

Check out this thread. El Capo, Vagabond, Wildfire Overview

post #3 of 23
Thread Starter 
Terrific post, Philpug, thank you. I like metal so I'm inclined to stick with the El Cap. Do you think the 177 would ski the same as the 185 since they appear to be built proportionally? If anything I'm hoping they'd be a bit easier in the trees shaving a bit of length and weight off of them, its the only area where I felt they were starting to get a bit too big for me.
post #4 of 23
LZ

I'm a 185 lb 5'10" 50 year old Ex USSCA coach and PSIA full / III cert.

On a week out west for work with a heli ski trip we got canceled so I went off demoing skis and I wanted to try to love the blizzard Cochise to go with the bones. I just couldn't feel them work for me so the demo guy suggested the Capos and I bought a pair the following day- I love em! - 177'S here.

I'm tired of people thinking and suggesting they have to be a certain length. If 177 works for you , go for it!

I know josh matta chimed in on these, check out his review. Very Interesting ski. Good luck in you search.
post #5 of 23
Thread Starter 
Cool, thanks for the feedback also, Old fart. I kind of think the El Capo's are a little under hyped. Almost no one I've spoken with besides a few guys at the shops whose job it is to sell them- know of them or have skied them. But they're a *really* good ski. IDK, maybe I'm just a regular skier and not a meat huckin gnar-bropro but these things did everything I asked of them and never once did I feel like it let me down.

Maybe for the experts they're not a good enough ski but they did everything well for me. Floated well, handled all the crud I could throw at it, heck even felt smooth and damp on the groomers and I could make any turn I wanted without feeling locked in. Again the only area where I felt they weren't the best were in the trees and I was hoping maybe a shorter length would make them a bit more playful there. The problem is I only demoed the 185 not the 177. But it doesn't sound like I would have a problem with the 177's really its just that with a ski with so much early rise I usually size longer.
post #6 of 23

The 177 El Capo for your weight, the 185 Vagabond for your height. 

post #7 of 23

I'm 6'2", 240 and went with the 185 as per my local shop's recommendation.  Only got in 3 days before the end of the season.  I went fast, they didn't complain.  I rolled over refrozen spring junk, they didn't notice.  I cruised through some moderate moguls and trees, they were manageable.  Held an edge well, and turned when I needed them to.  I would describe them as damp and Cadillac smooth.  I think I really like them, probably don't need longer on an average day, and am looking forward to a full test this winter.    No idea yet how well they float in the uber deep.

 

I've had '185ish' skis that were much shorter than these (Rossi S3 and Rossi S5).

 

I also 'accidentally' bought a pair of 193 Cochise's last week.  So now I can spend the winter fussing over the 185 El Capo vs the 193 Cochise.  Praying for good snow!

 

-Bruce

post #8 of 23
Quote:
Originally Posted by CanmoreBruce View Post

I'm 6'2", 240 and went with the 185 as per my local shop's recommendation.  Only got in 3 days before the end of the season.  I went fast, they didn't complain.  I rolled over refrozen spring junk, they didn't notice.  I cruised through some moderate moguls and trees, they were manageable.  Held an edge well, and turned when I needed them to.  I would describe them as damp and Cadillac smooth.  I think I really like them, probably don't need longer on an average day, and am looking forward to a full test this winter.    No idea yet how well they float in the uber deep.

I've had '185ish' skis that were much shorter than these (Rossi S3 and Rossi S5).

I also 'accidentally' bought a pair of 193 Cochise's last week.  So now I can spend the winter fussing over the 185 El Capo vs the 193 Cochise.  Praying for good snow!

-Bruce

Ya, Bruce, your ski season is gonna suck with decisions like that to make. Better stock up on brown liquor and Advil. El Capo is a fun ski to be sure.
post #9 of 23
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemon Zest View Post

Cool, thanks for the feedback also, Old fart. I kind of think the El Capo's are a little under hyped. Almost no one I've spoken with besides a few guys at the shops whose job it is to sell them- know of them or have skied them. But they're a *really* good ski. IDK, maybe I'm just a regular skier and not a meat huckin gnar-bropro but these things did everything I asked of them and never once did I feel like it let me down.

Maybe for the experts they're not a good enough ski but they did everything well for me. Floated well, handled all the crud I could throw at it, heck even felt smooth and damp on the groomers and I could make any turn I wanted without feeling locked in. Again the only area where I felt they weren't the best were in the trees and I was hoping maybe a shorter length would make them a bit more playful there. The problem is I only demoed the 185 not the 177. But it doesn't sound like I would have a problem with the 177's really its just that with a ski with so much early rise I usually size longer.

It's a ski that likes expert input. Great ski... Plenty burly for 99.99% of the general public, and too burly for many.
post #10 of 23

I'm 51, 5'9.5" and 180# to 185# advanced level skier.  I've demoed both the 177 and 185 length El Capo.  Very nice ski.  If I were to buy the ski for myself, I'd get the 177.

 

Go long for floatation and stability, short for maneuverability.  Having said that, the 177 would meet my needs for floatation and stability for this type of ski.

 

Most skis I've measured in a straight pull from tip to tail are about 2cm short of the manufacturer's specified length.  People have posted that the El Capo is actually 2 or 3 cm longer than specified length.  Hence, as Phil posted above, the 177 is actually about 179 long and would probably be labeled as a 181 by most manufacturers.

 

Dave

post #11 of 23
Thread Starter 
Quote:
I'm 6'2", 240 and went with the 185 as per my local shop's recommendation.  Only got in 3 days before the end of the season. I went fast, they didn't complain.  I rolled over refrozen spring junk, they didn't notice.  I cruised through some moderate moguls and trees, they were manageable.  Held an edge well, and turned when I needed them to.  I would describe them as damp and Cadillac smooth.  I think I really like them, probably don't need longer on an average day, and am looking forward to a full test this winter.No idea yet how well they float in the uber deep.

I've had '185ish' skis that were much shorter than these (Rossi S3 and Rossi S5).

I also 'accidentally' bought a pair of 193 Cochise's last week. So now I can spend the winter fussing over the 185 El Capo vs the 193 Cochise. Praying for good snow!

Thanks for posting your experience on these bad boys. "Damp and cadillac smooth" was how I felt, too. Although you're heavier enough than me to perhaps have a different experience on these, I still thought they were soft enough for me to bend. Certainly not as stiff as a Cochise! Sounds like you're gonna have a great season!
post #12 of 23
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by markojp View Post

It's a ski that likes expert input. Great ski... Plenty burly for 99.99% of the general public, and too burly for many.

Well I definitely don't consider myself an expert but I was able to handle these really well which is why I liked them. Perhaps they prefer expert input but are still forgiving enough for an advanced skier? I didn't ever really feel badly punished by them and I can occasionally get tired and lazy on the slopes. At least not like some other skis. If so that makes these skis even better imo. I'm sure I wasn't able to tap into their full potential even.
post #13 of 23
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave86 View Post

I'm 51, 5'9.5" and 180# to 185# advanced level skier.  I've demoed both the 177 and 185 length El Capo.  Very nice ski.  If I were to buy the ski for myself, I'd get the 177.

Go long for floatation and stability, short for maneuverability.  Having said that, the 177 would meet my needs for floatation and stability for this type of ski.

Most skis I've measured in a straight pull from tip to tail are about 2cm short of the manufacturer's specified length.  People have posted that the El Capo is actually 2 or 3 cm longer than specified length.  Hence, as Phil posted above, the 177 is actually about 179 long and would probably be labeled as a 181 by most manufacturers.

Dave

Since we're so close in size and weight this really helps.

Yeah that's usually the tradeoff right, stability vs maneuverability when you size up or down. I felt the 185's had plenty of float as long as I skied them more freestyle oriented I just thought they lacked some maneuverability in the trees.
Quote:
Having said that, the 177 would meet my needs for floatation and stability for this type of ski.

This is my primary concern and I'm really glad you addressed that. I'm feeling more confident about the 177's and everyone's feedback here including yours here has helped so thanks again!
post #14 of 23

Check out this review...

 

http://blistergearreview.com/gear-reviews/2013-2014-nordica-el-capo

 

and

 

http://blistergearreview.com/gear-reviews/2nd-look-nordica-el-capo/2

 

The folks at Blister tend to "test" skis over a broader period than most ski mags - a plus.

 

However, there is usually only a single skier (in this case - two reviews) with his or her inherent bias - perhaps a minus, unless your experience has been consistent with the reviewer.

 

While these reviews don't directly answer your question about length, I suspect that they will give you some insight into the ski that will help you answer your question.

post #15 of 23

If you're looking for a deal, yes go with the Vagabonds. The El Capo and Vagabond were sweet skis but the new NRGY 100 has remedied everything about that ski that you were talking about. It has a torsion bridge of metal that is widest tip and tail and tapers as you get closer to the binding so its not as burly as the El Capo but more stable than the Vagabond. Thing mashes all kinds of conditions. Totally agree with Phil and Dave with the Capo lengths. The 177 would be the way to go at any rate.

post #16 of 23
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by neonleonbst View Post
 

If you're looking for a deal, yes go with the Vagabonds. The El Capo and Vagabond were sweet skis but the new NRGY 100 has remedied everything about that ski that you were talking about. It has a torsion bridge of metal that is widest tip and tail and tapers as you get closer to the binding so its not as burly as the El Capo but more stable than the Vagabond. Thing mashes all kinds of conditions. Totally agree with Phil and Dave with the Capo lengths. The 177 would be the way to go at any rate.

 

Yeah there's two things I can forsee throwing a monkey wrench into my new 2-ski quiver plan: the NRGY 100 and the new Mantra, both of which I am looking forward to demoing this season.

 

Right now I plan dropping my 98 Hell n back, and picking up an El Capo and a mid-eighties frontside 80/20 "all-mountain" ski for this season.  That would cover 98% of my days. While I do get powder days, they're rarely over a 1-2 foot deep so I haven't needed a dedicated powder ski in years. Unless I'm visiting other resorts and get lucky of course.

 

I'm pretty confident about sizing the El Capo @ 177cm now and I'll be picking one up soon. I've read Philpug's review, the Blister reviews (thanks btw Canadianskier for the links), and every other review I could find. Worst case is I'm out $300-400 on a ski I already know I really like (there's some great deals on these right now) and my quiver is a little fatter.

 

And while I haven't chosen my new "frontside" ski, I've got another thread where I've got so many great suggestions that I have a really good list of skis to demo, some of which I would never have considered.

 

Now the NRGY 100 and Mantra both sound like skis I would enjoy. Been reading up on these two as well. The NRGY sounds like a much more "easy-going" ski than the Hell and back, Bonafide, and Mantra which tbh isn't a bad thing. Some days, especially after having skied four days straight, its nice to ski something less demanding.

 

While I like the bones, and its an exceptionally good ski, I always already had something to fill its spot. The old mantras were always just a bit too demanding for me, but the new ones have apparently been made more approachable. I also like Volkl's ELP full rocker design. All that said though the Helens have served me really well, so if I do consider another 98-class ski to replace it only seems right to look at its successor.

post #17 of 23

You won't get any arguments from me.  For full price skis I like to know that it is really the model and length that I want.  For discounted skis I'm happy to buy them, ski them for a bit, and then sell them if they aren't quite 'me'.  Typically this works out far far cheaper than demoing skis (at ~$50/day).  Of course I also have a big pile of skis, so I may have carried this theory slightly too far....

 

Enjoy, I hope 177 is a good length!

post #18 of 23
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemon Zest View Post

.

Now the NRGY 100 and Mantra both sound like skis I would enjoy. Been reading up on these two as well. The NRGY sounds like a much more "easy-going" ski than the Hell and back, Bonafide, and Mantra which tbh isn't a bad thing. Some days, especially after having skied four days straight, its nice to ski something less demanding.

While I like the bones, and its an exceptionally good ski, I always already had something to fill its spot. The old mantras were always just a bit too demanding for me, but the new ones have apparently been made more approachable. I also like Volkl's ELP full rocker design. All that said though the Helens have served me really well, so if I do consider another 98-class ski to replace it only seems right to look at its successor.

Don't think it's (nrgy100) any more or less easy going than the Hell and Back myself... Different for sure, but not 'less'. Ten again, I thought the Hell And Back was kind of lively good fun.
post #19 of 23
Yeah, that's my less demanding ski. Apparently I don't own this playful category referred to in another thread. I thought my Hell and Backs were those, then discovered that since it had a flat tail, it wasn't.
post #20 of 23
Quote:
Originally Posted by sibhusky View Post

Yeah, that's my less demanding ski. Apparently I don't own this playful category referred to in another thread. I thought my Hell and Backs were those, then discovered that since it had a flat tail, it wasn't.

 

*snicker* *snort*

 

I do understand your reference to the ski jargon thread BTW - and there is an obvious logical escape clause in that poster's argument as it only applies to skis that poster has been on and only to the stiff tailed ones amongst that limited set - but I thought the Kastle MXs were more playful than the H&B's on the day I had them out back to back and there has been at least one thread in which I referred to the Kastles as 'meh'.  :D 

 

Label me...studying up to become cat-level-picky.

post #21 of 23
And hence my confusion with some of this jargon. Which is why my ideal buying sequence is 1) demo, 2) form own opinion, 3) buy, then 4) read.
post #22 of 23
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by markojp View Post


Don't think it's (nrgy100) any more or less easy going than the Hell and Back myself... Different for sure, but not 'less'. Ten again, I thought the Hell And Back was kind of lively good fun.

 

Hmm, just goes to show how easy it is to form false or misleading conclusions just based on reviews. This is why I like to demo. Just buying a different length ski (the 177cm vs the 185cm) from the one I demoed is a risk! Because sometimes one size up or down can make a big difference.

 

I'm not up on all the modern jargon and lingo, but the HnB is what I would consider lively if by lively you mean poppy and energetic with that shoot you out of a turn b/c of those flat tails kind of feel. Its a ski that while not overly demanding still wants you to have good form and execute your technique well. I'm aware that's not the definition of lively everyone has though.

post #23 of 23
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemon Zest View Post
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by markojp View Post


Don't think it's (nrgy100) any more or less easy going than the Hell and Back myself... Different for sure, but not 'less'. Ten again, I thought the Hell And Back was kind of lively good fun.

 

Hmm, just goes to show how easy it is to form false or misleading conclusions just based on reviews. This is why I like to demo. Just buying a different length ski (the 177cm vs the 185cm) from the one I demoed is a risk! Because sometimes one size up or down can make a big difference.

 

I'm not up on all the modern jargon and lingo, but the HnB is what I would consider lively if by lively you mean poppy and energetic with that shoot you out of a turn b/c of those flat tails kind of feel. Its a ski that while not overly demanding still wants you to have good form and execute your technique well. I'm aware that's not the definition of lively everyone has though.

 

Demoing is great, you get to demo the snow, you get to demo the tune and then you get to demo the ski. ;)

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Ski Gear Discussion
EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › Ski Gear Discussion › Anyone familiar with the Nordica El Capo's?