or Connect
EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › Ski Gear Discussion › 2016 Volkl and Mantra discussion.....
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

2016 Volkl and Mantra discussion..... - Page 3

post #61 of 70
Quote:
Originally Posted by Whiteroom View Post

I loved the 100eight when I skied it. The best Volkl I've been on in a long time (though I haven't been skiing too many Volkls over the last few years). A great combination of 'loose when you want it, but locked in when you want it', I'd call it better than the Cochise as a wide ski that can rip anywhere. Might be a great travel ski... but I need a bit more time on it to be sure.

Would you happen recall the length that you demo'ed? If so, what is your height, weight, terrain preference?

I just bought the 189s and they're way too big and cumbersome for my liking. I'm trying to decide between the 173s and the 181s.
post #62 of 70
Quote:
Originally Posted by FairToMiddlin View Post
 

Dawg, I'm happy you drew first blood this year...

 

I skied the Kendo next to the Monster 88, Motive 95, Pinnacle 95, Stormrider 95, Bonafide, Cham 97, and a host of other players.  

 

Off-piste, the Kendo took me off my game, it didn't elevate it.  Steep bumps and trees in Lower Enchanted/Cash Glades were a chore, I felt like I had forgotten to manage balance.  I skied the same spot on the Bonafide, Vantage 95, Vantage 100, Scott Sagebrush, Q Lab 183, etc, and none of them were upsetting.

 

Fine, the Kendo is narrower than all of them, arguably more on-piste oriented; then why was it inferior to all of them on piste?  Inside leg collapsing/shortening/whatevering produced a vague response compared to the Bonafide, easily the least carve-y of the skis mentioned above.  Once I coaxed it onto edge, it didn't feel planted or reassuring.  The Kendo excelled at nothing.  SSH is too kind, I think the new Kendo is detrimental to a tail skidder...

 

 

Hate to say I had a similar experience with the Kendo. Have discussed it elsewhere on Epic but will repeat it again here.

I'm 5'6.5" 140lbs, tried the 170cm, "Elvis leg" chatter going on trying to carve turns on the groom. The tip seemed to flap around, couldn't get it to engage the snow. Swapped it for 177cm which had significantly less of that skip skip chatter, and the tips engaged carving turns. Only I had trouble in the bumps. Kept clanging tails together as if too long getting in the way of one another. Felt the ski was a springboard too. I'm sure much of it was more my bad bump technique, coupled with the first bump run, second time on skis this season.

Am I too light weight for it, not aggressive enough, bad tune, Idk, just couldn't get them to work for me.

For comparison sake, I tried the Enforcer 170cm that day (same trails), and it locked into a carve without the side skip skip chatter. Also was easier to handle in bumps, shorter length. Still stiff but I felt that was offset somewhat by the short 170cm length. Had tried the Enforcer in a 177cm prior in worse groomer conditions and wasn't overly impressed. Didn't have any trouble doing short, medium and long turns with it. Just had found the 176cm Vantage 90cti to have worked better for me that day, seemed a little lighter and snappier, easier to throw around, quicker edge to edge carving. Don't know about the bumps. there weren't any that day and that is a concern.

post #63 of 70

I'm also interested 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Toecutter View Post


Would you happen recall the length that you demo'ed? If so, what is your height, weight, terrain preference?

I just bought the 189s and they're way too big and cumbersome for my liking. I'm trying to decide between the 173s and the 181s.

I'm also interested in this. I'm looking to purchase the 100eights and am debating between the 173 and 181. At 5'10 and around 183lbs the 181 should  be the clear choice but I really prefer shorter skis and wondering if the 173 is taking it too short....

post #64 of 70

I ended up buying the 173s on Monday, which fit my 5'8" 160# much better than the 189s. I'm guessing the 181 is your appropriate size. The 173s go right to the top of my forehead.

 

The peculiar thing I discovered is that the 173s are actually 1cm LONGER than my 177cm Blizzard daily drivers, and only 1cm shorter than my 179cm K2 pow skis.

post #65 of 70
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheBlackSpider View Post

 

I'm also interested in this. I'm looking to purchase the 100eights and am debating between the 173 and 181. At 5'10 and around 183lbs the 181 should  be the clear choice but I really prefer shorter skis and wondering if the 173 is taking it too short....

Go for the 181, you won't regret it. I'm 5'9" and 165lbs and purchased the the 181 and am super pleased with them. At your height and weight the 173 is going to be a little bit skittish at high speeds.

post #66 of 70

So I was able to demo the pair last week and actually ended up going with the 173 which was surprising even to me.

 

I skied Mammoth for a few days on them and they never felt unstable or too short. I think I would've been fine with the 181's as well but I tend to prefer shorter. As Toecutter mentioned, the skis' are actually around 177 or so even though they say 173.

 

I'm really enjoying the 100eight and think it's a great ski. Was in fresh powder as well some packed a few days later and it felt great on all terrain.

post #67 of 70
In case anyone is dubious about the lengths, here's a visual:







post #68 of 70

The sizing thing is weird. I actually tape measured my 181s and they are exactly 181 to the mm. However I have a pair of Head Rev 85 that are 3cm shorter than manufacturer label!?

 

Anyhow, the 100eights are a great ski, I've had so much fun on them in the four days I've skied them, very confidence inspiring. I've only been skiing for about 3 years but I'm starting to up my game with these sticks.

post #69 of 70
Topic dear to my heart. Own a first year pair of early tip rise Mantras. Best wide ski ever made IMHO. A little background will help you know.
1. Sugarloaf 2. PSIA Level 3 skier and ski 70+ days a year. E. 190+lbs 5'10" and love the 177's. I am the target audience for that ski. It is do damn good I could teach a beginner in the morning and ride the rails down Gauge at full schnell in the afternoon and never once found the speed limit of the ski.
The new rocker ski was nice in the 3 inches of freshies I tried it in last year, but at the expense of its unshakeable edgehold on our notorious hard pack and grey yellow ice after some wind scoured negative digit nights. The old models have all been gobbled up so guess its time to try the Bonafides. The wife adores her brand new Sambas BTW and shes only 5'2" 90lbx on the 159cm. She walks away from me on them hehe. Another player is the Ramp Groundhogs btw. Demoed and love them Alpine last year. Thought, man would these make some great Tele skis. Edge hold is awesome for 100 under foot. All on sale for $399 online BTW.
SO I TOO CAN'T BELIEVE HOW BADLY VOLKL FU$$ED UP WITH THE ROCKER CRAP MANTRAS!!!
post #70 of 70
In the east, to me , anything wider than 100 under foot is waste and may get used 3-5 days per season. Then there's that rocker thing which is great when the snow is bottomless buts sucks everywhere else. Guess I'm not dumb enough to listen to the marketing hype. BTW Ive tried a bunch of them. Out west , I see the advantages, in the east, not this guy. At 54, I may only hike a few runs per year but on the hill I can still give the youngens more they anticipated...I train by skiing by young skiers at beginning of season when they stop to rest.
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 › 2016 Volkl and Mantra discussion.....