or Connect
EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › Member Gear Reviews › 175cm Volkl Tigershark 12
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

175cm Volkl Tigershark 12

post #1 of 9
Thread Starter 
175cm Volkl Tigershark 12

I had the chance to use a 175cm Tigershark 12 while my gear was getting a little attention this week.

With a 124-79-108 sidecut the Tiger shark is a high performance alternative to the AC3 and could also be positioned as a quicker and carvier version of the AC4.

The Tigershark has a power switch feature that can stiffen the ski. I used the ski without the switch engaged. The snow was soft packed powder and moguls so a stiffer ski in not needed. I carved up the groomers at high speed, went into the boot-top snow on the fringes of the runs and worked a few moguls. This is a very stiff ski as is.

The ski is a strong performer for strong skiers. The ski does not feel as wide as it is; it is very good edge to edge. It also has strong grip, this is not a ski for soft-edge & mellow cruising with skidded turns. This ski likes to be carving at speed. It can move around the slope with good agility. Its not a slalom ski by any measure, but it can change direction well and perform high “C” turns.

The ski is demanding, for sure. More demanding than the 183cm Monster 82 or 175cm Progressor I was also using this week. The Fisher Cold Heat offers the same level of performance as the Tigershark without being as demanding IMO.

This might be the ultimate one-ski-quiver for those with the skill and want the Volkl feel. It’s not a powder ski and it’s an agile race like ski. But it does cover a wide performance range if you have the ability and like speed.

Michael
post #2 of 9
I skied the Tigershark 12 168cm today. I was very impressed, and although it was carvy on hardpack, it was actually no slouch in crud. The Tigershark outperformed the iM78 in the crud (a bit more stable) but was more work when I took it into the bumps. Still, this is a very well-rounded ski for those looking for a powerful, yet versatile carver. I had it in the "off" position the whole time. It felt longer than 168cm and narrower than 79mm underfoot, yet in the crud, was almost the equal to the Cold Heat. On-piste, it was more fun than the Cold Heat, but worse in the bumps. I would recommend this ski, but I think you need to be a pretty decent skier to get the most out of it. Too bad it costs so darn much (I heard street price is $1200 w/binding!). You could almost buy 2 skis for that much.
post #3 of 9
Thread Starter 
Hi Scott,

I'm probably a little biased against Volkls because they cost 50% more than other great gear but don't provide that increment in performance improvement.

I also like the versatility of a midfat but am never really thrilled with the performance. Several skinny skis are very versatile and can ski crud and boot-top deep snow without a problem. Also several fat skis can carve up the groomers while floating well in the deep stuff. Midfats don't satisfy to the same extent.

Michael
post #4 of 9
Michael...I tend to agree with you...the only "mid-fat" ski that I have used that comes close to satisfying the "all mountain" hype is the the IM78, but I did not get to ski it crud. The others all seemed to fall way short of their goal in at least one area. I am very curious to hear some examples fo narrower ski (Dynastar Contact 11/Limited being one) that do well in mixed conditions as well as wider boards that do well on hard pack. The caveat being that they are still user friendly in bumps.
post #5 of 9
Quote:
Originally Posted by barrettscv View Post
Hi Scott,

I'm probably a little biased against Volkls because they cost 50% more than other great gear but don't provide that increment in performance improvement.

I also like the versatility of a midfat but am never really thrilled with the performance. Several skinny skis are very versatile and can ski crud and boot-top deep snow without a problem. Also several fat skis can carve up the groomers while floating well in the deep stuff. Midfats don't satisfy to the same extent.

Michael
Yes, I understand what you are saying. I remember my old 178cm P40 Platinum skis did fine in crud and moderately deep snow (up to 12") and they were only 63mm under foot!
post #6 of 9
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by allan o'neil View Post
Michael...I tend to agree with you...the only "mid-fat" ski that I have used that comes close to satisfying the "all mountain" hype is the the IM78, but I did not get to ski it crud. The others all seemed to fall way short of their goal in at least one area. I am very curious to hear some examples fo narrower ski (Dynastar Contact 11/Limited being one) that do well in mixed conditions as well as wider boards that do well on hard pack. The caveat being that they are still user friendly in bumps.
I think the reason why the Contact 11 (AKA Limited) does as well in deep snow as a midfat comes down to two factors;

1) Midfats are not wide enough to truly float a big skier like me in powder
2) The Contact 11 has a tapered sidecut (wide tip, skinny tail) that keeps the tips up in powder.

Cheers,

Michael
post #7 of 9
Below is my review of the same ski when I skied it last winter:

Quote:
Originally Posted by HeluvaSkier View Post
2008 Volkl Tigershark 12 (79mm waist one) [175cm]
The only reason I tried this ski is that I was very skeptical of it's performance and especially the little gizmo that changes the flex of the ski. First I skied the ski on the ski without the gizmo engaged. Pretty much I hated it. They carved alright on the soft setting and probably would have skied bumps very well, but they weren't at home at speed. The next run I immediately flipped the switch on the tails (very easy to do btw), and it was literally like someone... well... flipped a switch. The skis stiffen up a lot. They actually felt stiff. The sidecut actually runs up the tip similr to a race ski, so the tips engage very aggressively in comparison to the AC40. After the first set of turns down the headwall on these skis (after skiing the AC40) my brothers comments were "I like these skis a lot better." I felt the same way actually. I can say that these are probably not for everyone. They are very stiff, and quite demending on their stiffer setting. If I had a choice between the AC40 and the Tigershark I would opt for the Tigershark. The 79mm waist really does not give up much to the AC40's 82mm waist in choppy conditions and you can soften them up if you have to. The Tigershark and AC40 didn't really wow me however. My brother really enjoyed the Tigershark and I think was his second favorite of the day. I liked it, but I didn't find anything that it excelled at - despite it's stiffness. It did make long and short radius turns nicely on both the stiff and soft settings though. On the soft setting the skis were left wanting for stability and edgehold. On the stiff setting they just wanted more input and actually skied fairly nicely (what you would expect from a ski of this caliber) when you got them going.
post #8 of 9
Glad to know most of the reviews are positive. I just bought the Tigershark 12 175. Earlier in the year i skiied the Tigershark 10 (73 underfoot) and loved it. it skied great in 6-8" of powder but I imagine the 12 with the wider waist will be great. I am a FL skier and can only bring one set of skis with me.

The overall thought of most skiers, in my opinion, is that if you have to go to one ski the high 70-low 80s underfoot give you the best all mountain performance with little or no degradation on groomed trails.
post #9 of 9
Yes, I really liked it. After another 5 runs on the demo pair, the only weakness I found was that it doesn't do bumps well. This ski is stiff. Besides that, it was great in crud, and on groomers. Not quite the equal of the Progressor, but as the Fischer had the edge on groomers, the 12 had a similar edge in crud.
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 › 175cm Volkl Tigershark 12