or Connect
EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › Member Gear Reviews › Long Term Test: 2016 K2 Pinnacle 95
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Long Term Test: 2016 K2 Pinnacle 95

post #1 of 24
Thread Starter 

 

Review:

K2 has started a revolution with their product line for 2016, with the new IKonic collection and the focus of this review, the Pinnacle 95. This will be a long term test of what will be one of the top selling models in the new collections, the sour apple colored Pinnacle 95. The Pinnacle is like no other K2 you have seen before, it is much of a departure from the K2's that you are used to as the Pontoon was, but the Pinnacles are for the masses and not a specialized powder ski. 

I will say that I was a bit sceptical of the fore body of the Pinnacle with it's extended rocker and how it will react on groomers and firm snow and questioning it of could be too soft snow biased but it was just not the case. Yes, like some skis with early rise, you get some tip flutter but with the Pinnacle, it did not affect performance on the groomers and the ski carved quite well and laid trenches fine (just ask @Living Proof who skied behind me at Jackson Hole). Skiing it for the full day at Jackson was great, as expected, the Pinnacle was easy peazy on the groomers of Apres Voux but I was more impressed on how it was in the heavier snow and steeper terrain off of Thunder and this is where i found it to be more in it's element. The 184 was surprisingly nimble in the trees and the steep bumps, a trait that I am finding with most of these mid 90mm skis with a lot of early rise, you need to size up. The runs that I took at Snowbird were limited but it was revealing, the 95 is one of the better soft snow choices in this category. The tip design just brings the front of the ski up and out and back in the snow like a seal playing with a ball, completely in it's element. Back at Northstar, it was full on spring conditions and in the soft bumps on  The Plunge and again easy and playfulness. 

 

  

 

 

 

 

I plan on getting more days on these and they are available for other Epic Members. Stay tuned for more. Also check out my Preview: 16 Pinnacle 95/105 thread for the Pinnacle series. 

 

 

 

 

Product:

Length Tested:184

Dimensions/Turn Radius:  132/95/115 17M@184cm

Camber (select one, delete the rest): Early Rise Tip & Tail w/camber

Binding: Salomon Warden

Mount point: Suggested 

 

 

Other Skis in Class:

*Dynastar Cham 97

*DPS Cassiar 95

*Atomic Vantage 95

*Fischer Motive 95

 

Environment & Conditions:

Location of Test: Jackson Hole/Northstar/Copper/Snowbird

Number of Runs: Many

Snow Conditions: Everything but boilerplate

Demo or Own: Demo, now own

 

Tester Info:

Username: Philpug

Age: 51

Height/Weight: 5'10" 190lb

Ski Days/Season: 60+

Years Skiing: 35+

Aggressiveness: Moderate (Finesse) 

Current Quiver: 

-15 Nordica FireArrow 76 Ti 176cm w/Marker Piston Plate M20.0

-14 Scott The Ski 175cm w/Look Pivot 15

-16 Nordica Enforcer 177 w/Rossi FKS 185

-16 Blizzard Cochise 185cm w/Salomon Sth2 16

-16 Scott The Ski Sagebrush 178 w/Salomon Sth2 13

-16 K2 Pinnacle 95 184 w/Salomon Warden

-various vintage skis

Home Area: Squaw & Northstar

Preferred Terrain: bumps, off-piste, trees

post #2 of 24

Phil -- nice review!  I'll have to add these to my always-growing demo list.  What is "Konic Technology" -- gimmick or real?

post #3 of 24

+1, cool ski if it lives up to the hype...

 

post #4 of 24

How do these compare to the Rictor 90 xti?  Should I upgrade next season?  I like the Rictors btw.

post #5 of 24
Quote:
Originally Posted by core2 View Post

How do these compare to the Rictor 90 xti?  Should I upgrade next season?  I like the Rictors btw.

IMHO, yes.
post #6 of 24
Thread Starter 

I have been skiing the Pinnacle 95 for the past couple days here in Colorado (and the last few in Tahoe) and the more I ski them the more I like them. One of my concern with the amount of early rise and how they would perform of firm conditions. While I haven't had a chance to ski them on boilerplate ice, on the early morning refreeze Vail & A-Basin groomers and they held surprisingly well. Where I did enjoy them the most was over on the nice mid winter feeling snow on Palli's and 4th Ally where the light and & nimble fell of the Pinnacle 95 just came around very easy even for the 184cm size. 

 

post #7 of 24
Thread Starter 

More talk about the Pinnacle 95 from basins.com

 

Quote:
 

K2 Pinnacle 95

Another ski that stood out was the Pinnacle lineup, available in 95 and 105 underfoot.  This is another great ski for the intermediate to advanced skier that likes to ski in bounds but all over the mountain.  You’re getting K2’s triaxial braid with hyritech sidewall, metal laminate and nanolite core.  A super nimble ski that can take you all over the mountain and have you begging for more at the bottom.

Available Sizes: 170, 177, 184, 191

132-95-115/ 17m (185m)

post #8 of 24
Sort of the un-review the way they mention the 105 in passing and never address the strengths or weaknesses. Why bother?
post #9 of 24
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by sibhusky View Post

Sort of the un-review the way they mention the 105 in passing and never address the strengths or weaknesses. Why bother?

I am looking t get on the 105 more this fall. I have just maybe a half day and a few single runs on it but when I think of the ski, I do feel a devilish smile grow. 

post #10 of 24
Quote:
Originally Posted by core2 View Post
 

How do these compare to the Rictor 90 xti?  Should I upgrade next season?  I like the Rictors btw.

Looking at all the reviews so far, I can't see how these would be as good on groomers or hard pack. Am I wrong?

I've skied the Rictors in 177 last season & absolutely loved them.

post #11 of 24

It's simple. Don't believe those of us who have skied them. Reserve judgement until you demo them. Doesn't matter a lick to me one way or the other. My take is it's a nice ski. The best IMHO that K2 has made in a long time, but the 'O' is just that, an 'O', not a  fact.

post #12 of 24
Quote:
Originally Posted by markojp View Post
 

It's simple. Don't believe those of us who have skied them. Reserve judgement until you demo them. Doesn't matter a lick to me one way or the other. My take is it's a nice ski. The best IMHO that K2 has made in a long time, but the 'O' is just that, an 'O', not a  fact.

I love the passion being displayed for them here. I really do. And I'd love to demo them and then come on here & rave about them.

But I don't have the luxury of a demo living in the UK.

And as amazing as they sound, I can't see that they'll have the same speed & edge hold on hard pack as the Amp Rictor 90s.

If I could be convinced that they weren't just a floaty, fun ski for the trees & pow - I'd be sorely tempted to just buy a set & run them for the upcoming season.

post #13 of 24
Maybe this is the year K2 gets its mojo back.

You can download quite an informative technical manual from the website, complete with mathematical formulae.
post #14 of 24
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by okenobi View Post
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by core2 View Post
 

How do these compare to the Rictor 90 xti?  Should I upgrade next season?  I like the Rictors btw.

Looking at all the reviews so far, I can't see how these would be as good on groomers or hard pack. Am I wrong?

I've skied the Rictors in 177 last season & absolutely loved them.

Hmm..I will say the P95 is different than the Roctor 90 on groomers, the Rictors might have the edge (pun intended) on the firmest of conditions but the Pinnacle is much more fun. The shorter wheelbase and tighter turn radius make the difference. I realize there are compromises with every design and I agree with K2's direction with the new series, the pluses vastly out weigh any compromises. 

post #15 of 24
Quote:
Originally Posted by okenobi View Post

I love the passion being displayed for them here. I really do. And I'd love to demo them and then come on here & rave about them.


But I don't have the luxury of a demo living in the UK.


And as amazing as they sound, I can't see that they'll have the same speed & edge hold on hard pack as the Amp Rictor 90s.


If I could be convinced that they weren't just a floaty, fun ski for the trees & pow - I'd be sorely tempted to just buy a set & run them for the upcoming season.

Let me be clear. It's one of a handful of really nice new skis on the market this year. There are others. Personally prefer, but of someone gave me a pair, I would certainly put them to good use. smile.gif
post #16 of 24
Quote:
Originally Posted by Philpug View Post

Hmm..I will say the P95 is different than the Roctor 90 on groomers, the Rictors might have the edge (pun intended) on the firmest of conditions but the Pinnacle is much more fun. The shorter wheelbase and tighter turn radius make the difference. I realize there are compromises with every design and I agree with K2's direction with the new series, the pluses vastly out weigh any compromises. 

 



Thanks Phil.

I'm 5'11" 165lbs. I loved the Amp Rictor 90s in 177. Is the 184 the better size for all round flexibility and perhaps more stability on groomers? Or should I be riding the 177?

Ever since I first read this thread, I really wanna try these skis! Also, what binding is best?
post #17 of 24
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by okenobi View Post
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Philpug View Post
 

Hmm..I will say the P95 is different than the Roctor 90 on groomers, the Rictors might have the edge (pun intended) on the firmest of conditions but the Pinnacle is much more fun. The shorter wheelbase and tighter turn radius make the difference. I realize there are compromises with every design and I agree with K2's direction with the new series, the pluses vastly out weigh any compromises. 

 



Thanks Phil.

I'm 5'11" 165lbs. I loved the Amp Rictor 90s in 177. Is the 184 the better size for all round flexibility and perhaps more stability on groomers? Or should I be riding the 177?

Ever since I first read this thread, I really wanna try these skis! Also, what binding is best?

If you liked Rictor in the 177, then the 184. 

post #18 of 24

I'll chime in for a second here- I feel like even though the Rictor 90 has a more traditional camber profile, the Pinnacle 95 is much stronger torsionally. They are a lot more fun on groomers due to more energy coming out of the ski. As long as you can get the ski on edge to engage the side cut and de-camber the ski enough to match the rocker profile (not that hard to do) you will enjoy quite a bit more. If you cant get enough edge angles any moderately rockered ski will feel a little less stable than a traditionally cambered ski. I agree with Phil too on the 184.

post #19 of 24
Thank you both.

Clem, one would assume that this could potentially present a nice challenge for me to improve technique to accommodate the rocker, yes?
post #20 of 24
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by clem View Post
 

I'll chime in for a second here- I feel like even though the Rictor 90 has a more traditional camber profile, the Pinnacle 95 is much stronger torsionally. They are a lot more fun on groomers due to more energy coming out of the ski. As long as you can get the ski on edge to engage the side cut and de-camber the ski enough to match the rocker profile (not that hard to do) you will enjoy quite a bit more. If you cant get enough edge angles any moderately rockered ski will feel a little less stable than a traditionally cambered ski. I agree with Phil too on the 184.

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by okenobi View Post

Thank you both.

Clem, one would assume that this could potentially present a nice challenge for me to improve technique to accommodate the rocker, yes?

Plus the shorter radius gives the Pinnacle a more nimble playful feel. 

post #21 of 24

You wont be challenged that much, it will just take a few runs to get used to, just get your feet a little further away from your body and let the skis do the work. In my experience on the Pinnacles you'll get back what you put into them. If you wanna hang back and cruise-the'yre fine, but step on the gas and you'll be stoked on the energy and rebound you get back!

post #22 of 24

I'm in need of advice. Planning to buy a pair of the Pinnacke 95s but can't decide which length to choose. I'm 175 cm height (around 5' 8") and 73 kg (161 lbs). I want to spend more time off-piste and these would be my first all mountain/off-piste skis. Should I go for the 177s or should I stay with the 170s?

post #23 of 24
Quote:
Originally Posted by johnnyfirpo View Post
 

I'm in need of advice. Planning to buy a pair of the Pinnacke 95s but can't decide which length to choose. I'm 175 cm height (around 5' 8") and 73 kg (161 lbs). I want to spend more time off-piste and these would be my first all mountain/off-piste skis. Should I go for the 177s or should I stay with the 170s?

5'6.5" 140lbs and struggling with the same decision Re: Atomic Vantage 90cti 176 or 169. Skied the 176cm and it was good. Got mixed responses here, most local (East coast), shop guys said 169cm, Atomic rep said 176cm, that he wouldn't sell me the 169cm in that ski. Was leaning to 176cm. but second guessing myself since finding the 177cm Kendo difficult in bumps and the 170cm Kendo horrible on the groom, major chatter grip problem.

 

Again at 5'6.5" 140lbs I skied the Pinnacle 95 in a 177cm and by the way that ski made such short slow smooth carving turns I wouldn't have ant trouble purchasing Pinnacle 95 ski in that length.

post #24 of 24
My take:
177
Pinnacle 95 better on softer snow at slower speeds, fun in the well shaped and spaced bumps I tried. Not my first choice as an overall one quiver for eastern skiing because edge hold is compromised and feels somewhat unstable at higher speeds.
170
Rictor 90 more hard snow oriented and a better one ski quiver for eastern skiing.
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 › Long Term Test: 2016 K2 Pinnacle 95