or Connect
EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › Member Gear Reviews › SkiEssentials 2016 Volkl Kendo Review
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

SkiEssentials 2016 Volkl Kendo Review - Page 2

post #31 of 38
Quote:
Originally Posted by Max Capacity View Post
 


At your size you don't want the Kendo in 177, I'm 195-200lbs 5'11" ski it in 177. I find it to be an amazing ski.

 

I ski my original Kendo's (first year) as my rock skis now. This is the second full season on my 2014 European top skin Kendo's I bought from skiessentails in Dec.2014 with The Knee Binding.


I'm his size 5'6.5" and 25lbs lighter at 140lbs. Getting sick of posting this all over the place but I couldn't get the '16 Kendo 170cm to work. Skipped chattered, couldn't set a edge and hold a carve, was not so much of a problem with the 177cm, just too much for me in the bumps. I suppose I'm too light and or not a hard enough charger for it, idk.

Gear mentioned in this thread:

post #32 of 38
Quote:
Originally Posted by neonorchid View Post
 


I'm his size 5'6.5" and 25lbs lighter at 140lbs. Getting sick of posting this all over the place but I couldn't get the '16 Kendo 170cm to work. Skipped chattered, couldn't set a edge and hold a carve, was not so much of a problem with the 177cm, just too much for me in the bumps. I suppose I'm too light and or not a hard enough charger for it, idk.


IMO you should demo it in 163cm, your fairly small for that much ski in 177cm. Did the 177cm seem slow or hard to turn ?

post #33 of 38

The metal in the ski (especially the older versions I'm on...can't say much about the new as I haven't taken them out) requires you are on the ski to make it work.  I say it's effectively a solid GS ski with a wider waist.

 

You might be a bit light to pressure them enough?  Or not up at a high enough speed to make them work at your weight?  Or it could be a bad tune as well.  So many variables.

 

As I said, I'm heavier than you, ski aggressively (a bit of a racing background and currently still train in the gates) and the 170 handles anything I can throw at them (including SG speeds down the side of a closed training course).  They are a bit more of a handful in the bumps, but I can handle it just fine.  So maybe 163 would be better, or simply a different ski.

post #34 of 38

I just bought the new Kenja in a 163, which is the same ski with the pink graphics :mad and I LOVE it. I tend to agree that the 163 might work for you as well. I'm 5'5" 125 lbs and the 163 was the most solid feeling, stable ski I have ever been on. And I disagree that you have to stay on top of them all the time, I found them incredibly easy, absolutely delightfully easy to ski! I am an advanced intermediate who has been stuck there for 2 seasons now, and I have no doubts these skis are going to carry me to becoming an advanced skier. So confidence inspiring!

 

I echo all of what Skiessentials said in their review, with the caveat I have not taken them out in crud or powder yet. That will happen this weekend. They are so easy to maneuver and felt so solid on any choppy stuff I HAVE hit so far, I have no worries that I'll enjoy them in less-than-smooth conditions.

 

My other daily driver skis have been the Blizzard Samba in a 166 and the Blizzard Black Pearl in a 159.

post #35 of 38
Quote:
Originally Posted by Max Capacity View Post
 


IMO you should demo it in 163cm, your fairly small for that much ski in 177cm. Did the 177cm seem slow or hard to turn ?

 

I have a hard time with the idea of going down to a 163cm rocker'ed ski. Allready feel my 168cm Kastle BMX88 are too short. 

I had no trouble turning the 177cm on the groomers, just tilt up on edge and the long running length did the rest. At lower angles and in transitions I could feel and see the tips engaging the snow, 170 tips looked like they were raised (wanna say flapping), off the snow, like I see with my early rise Kastle BMX's.

Quote:
Originally Posted by hbear View Post
 

The metal in the ski (especially the older versions I'm on...can't say much about the new as I haven't taken them out) requires you are on the ski to make it work.  I say it's effectively a solid GS ski with a wider waist.

 

You might be a bit light to pressure them enough?  Or not up at a high enough speed to make them work at your weight?  Or it could be a bad tune as well.  So many variables.

 

As I said, I'm heavier than you, ski aggressively (a bit of a racing background and currently still train in the gates) and the 170 handles anything I can throw at them (including SG speeds down the side of a closed training course).  They are a bit more of a handful in the bumps, but I can handle it just fine.  So maybe 163 would be better, or simply a different ski.

Yes what I was thinking, choose a different ski.

Had no trouble on the 170cm Enforcer carving the groom or in bumps where it did feel a little stiff but I thought the short length compensated for that. Will say it did lock in a carve as Kimmy pointed out, yet I felt I was able to release them too. Also did fine on the 177cm, only never had that one in the bumps, where I suspect it would be a handful for my rusty body and technique. Not to mention I'm no longer a immortal teenager - mid twenty something. Dang it takes so long to recover and heal these days, I hold back much too much.

Mentioned yet not convinced Enforcer or E 93cm is the right ski for me, maybe...idk, been a terrible snow year back East. Little chances to demo the way I'd like. May end up sitting this one out altogether, look for end of season bargains. I know I want a new ski but could very well be in the same place next year typing, tell me about that Elan Ripstick 96 etc., etc. :\

Quote:
Originally Posted by contesstant View Post
 

I just bought the new Kenja in a 163, which is the same ski with the pink graphics :mad and I LOVE it. I tend to agree that the 163 might work for you as well. I'm 5'5" 125 lbs and the 163 was the most solid feeling, stable ski I have ever been on. And I disagree that you have to stay on top of them all the time, I found them incredibly easy, absolutely delightfully easy to ski! I am an advanced intermediate who has been stuck there for 2 seasons now, and I have no doubts these skis are going to carry me to becoming an advanced skier. So confidence inspiring!

 

I echo all of what Skiessentials said in their review, with the caveat I have not taken them out in crud or powder yet. That will happen this weekend. They are so easy to maneuver and felt so solid on any choppy stuff I HAVE hit so far, I have no worries that I'll enjoy them in less-than-smooth conditions.

 

My other daily driver skis have been the Blizzard Samba in a 166 and the Blizzard Black Pearl in a 159.

So, then probably a weight vs length issue. Thanks for the input.

post #36 of 38

Sorry, I have to question your skiing ability next. It doesn't make sense at your size to find a this type ski, in177cm, enjoyable to me, unless your skiing in the back seat.

 

When I ski a ski that is to long for me, I find them slow and hard to turn.

 

I will say in the past, I have found high end Rossi skis to ski long. Back during the 2000's when I was on a 170cm Volkl and demoed Rossi's I had to go down a size to find them fun and lively.

post #37 of 38
Quote:
Originally Posted by neonorchid View Post
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Max Capacity View Post
 


At your size you don't want the Kendo in 177, I'm 195-200lbs 5'11" ski it in 177. I find it to be an amazing ski.

 

I ski my original Kendo's (first year) as my rock skis now. This is the second full season on my 2014 European top skin Kendo's I bought from skiessentails in Dec.2014 with The Knee Binding.


I'm his size 5'6.5" and 25lbs lighter at 140lbs. Getting sick of posting this all over the place but I couldn't get the '16 Kendo 170cm to work. Skipped chattered, couldn't set a edge and hold a carve, was not so much of a problem with the 177cm, just too much for me in the bumps. I suppose I'm too light and or not a hard enough charger for it, idk.

 

I didn't want to be the first to state the obvious. Since Max said it, I might as well put in my $0.02.
 
Skip chatter on a ski usually result from too much lateral push on the ski at the bottom of the turn - not enough shaping of the turn. You can get away with the lateral push on softer skis. They will just slip a bit. The 2016  Kendo is softer than the previous two gens but still fairly stiff. Looks like you'll be happier on a softer ski.
 
On the length issue, if you find the 177 more suitable to your skiing - it is probably another technical issue rearing its head. I'm 5'6" /165 lb and I find the 170 cm a good fit.  The 163 cm feels a bit short but still acceptable.      
 
My current daily driver is a 2016 Mantra 170 cm. Do not feel an requirement to go longer. The Mantra and Kendo are very similar skis in terms of feel. The Mantra is a bit wider and more suitable to western conditions. I find the Mantra very playful, especially in the bumps. If I were skiing the NE, I would be on a pair of Kendo like white on rice.  YMMV
post #38 of 38

I just skied these at Keystone last week and they were a blast- true GS ski IMHO.  I'm about 6' 180 and tried the 184.  It took me a few hours to get a handle on these skis, but once I figured them out- WOW!  They seem to respond well to being on top of the ski and aggressive as others have stated.  Just played on groomers and didn't get into any bumps.  My take is they would be a little stiff for bumps.  I also skied the Faction Nine (183) and found this ski to be easier to turn/carve, but it's softer than the Kendo.  That being said, I had more fun carving with the Kendo.

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Member Gear Reviews

Gear mentioned in this thread:

EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › Member Gear Reviews › SkiEssentials 2016 Volkl Kendo Review