Volkl AC50 - Review

Today was my first day on Volkl AC50's, which I purchased pre-season.

Conditions: A single blue run at A-Basin. The snow was surprisingly good, with small bumps, some slush, and a few hard patches. In the afternoon, snow was soft and smeary on top, with hard base beneath. Conditions and terrain weren't varied enough for a full vetting of the skis. Hence, findings here are preliminary.

Me: (Thought you'd never ask ). 6'1", 185 lbs, level 8 skier. Good basic technique, with reasonable facility in powder and varied conditions.

Skis: Volkl Unlimited AC50. Dim: 128-85-112 Radius: 18 meters. iPT Wide Ride 14 Bindings - 30% wider than most bindings. Flex: stiff. Weight: medium. Wood core (Sensorwood) with two titanium layers, and bindings embedded deep within "power channels" over each edge.

Other Skis: Volkl Gotama, Atomic M:EX, Atomic M:9's, Volant Chubbs.

MO: I began with medium-radius turns, lengthening into long, swooping turns. I then tightened into short, quick turns, and targeted moderate bumps. I varied between feathered, smearing turns, and fully angulated carves.

Turn Initiation: Automatic - much easier than my M:EX's. The AC50's are wider in the tip, and hook-up quickly on the turn. Engaging the tip required much less effort than anticipated.

Stability: Imperturbable. On the run I skied, it wasn't possible to red-line the skis. They were stable as a freight train. The Sensorwood core provides a smooth feel on crusty or variable surfaces.

Edge-Hold: Predictable Volkl edge-hold. The AC50's grab like crampons. On the worn hard spots I found (on the edge of the run), I purposely angled hard. They never let go.

Feathering: On the soft snow, I had no problem letting the tails go.

Forgiveness: It's difficult for me to measure this. I found as long as I stayed over the skis, they were completely accommodating. If you get into the back seat, I'm sure they'll spank you.

Long Radius: I couldn't make many wide turns due to the number of people on a single run. Near the bottom, however, I could let the skis run a bit. No surprise here. They arced confidently, with precise control.

Short Radius: This was the biggest surprise. Due to the stiffness and size of these skis (more surface area than my Volant Chubbs), I didn't expect much in terms of short turns. I was wrong.

The AC50's snapped short-radius turns almost as well as my Atomic M:9's (74 mm waist), and with better control, stability and smoothness.

Moguls: Hard to say. We only had small bumps on the hill, except near the end when medium-sized moguls formed. On these easy bumps, the AC50's were fine. I had no trouble carving over, and around the moguls. The easy turn initiation helped. I doubt these skis would be great in large, hard bumps.

Energy: Explosive. The AC50's are dynamic, and nimble. They'll cruise fine, but prefer to dance.

Soft Snow: Hard to know. There was a few inches of soft slush on top in the afternoon. In this snow, the AC50's were easy to steer. They floated over the chunks. Real powder is another animal, which must wait for another day.

Conclusion:

When I first received the AC50's, I worried I'd be overpowered by these skis. The flex was stiffer than my M:EX's (84 mm underfoot), and they're wider in the tip and tail. Comments from reviewers, such as: "feels more like a wide race ski than a midfat", deepened my concern.

Within 30 seconds, all concerns vanished. The AC50's are an easy ski to manage. They turn with remarkable ease and quickness for a ski this size.

If you have decent basic technique (over your skis, with good angulation), you'll have no trouble driving the AC50's.

Volkl's wide iPT binding does what they say: brings greater power to the edges. I wouldn't expect an 85 mm ski to be this agile.

Last year I always brought both my M:EX's and M:9's to the hill, because they didn't overlap much. This year, I'll bring the AC50's in place of both.

If the AC50 can also handle deep snow with reasonable facility, it's as close to a true one-ski quiver as I've skied.

I'd like to compare the AC50 to Atomic's Nomad Crimson TI, and Blizzard's Magnum 8.7 IQ. Both are skis I considered before going with the AC50's.

Of the many skis I've owned and demo'd, the Volkl AC50's are, by clear margin, the most fun and versatile skis I've tried.

Thanks.

Yes, more conditions and terrain are required for a complete report.

I'd like to get these puppies up to tear-inducing speeds, to see how they handle pressure. The titanium layers surrounding the Sensorwood are supposed to provide dampness and stability.

Also, deep snow performance is a biggie. I'm interested to see how well they surf soft stuff, and mank.

I'd also like to demo the Nomad Crimson TI, and Blizzard 8.7 Magnum, for a balanced perspective.

Ahhh...right. A silly thing to overlook in a review.

177 cm.

James: I look forward to it!

I'd like to connect with more Bears this year. Groups are a blast.

I never had the opportunity to ski either of those models.

Some on Epic have commented on the difference between those skis and the AC50.

My guess is that the iPT binding system made a difference. Normally, I find performance claims due to bindings to be 90% hype. Short swing performance shouldn't have been so easy.

I'm not sure if the turn radius changed with the AC50. This width is greater (82 mm to 85 mm). We'll see how much difference it makes in deep snow.

Your quiver is familiar (except for the Shaman's - coolest graphics of the year).

I found the 177's to offer ample backbone. You needn't worry about the skis wimping-out on you.

If you're primarily a long-radius hauler, the 184's may be a good fit, at your size.

But, I'd lean toward the 177's for the same reasons: agility and versatility - especially on east-coast terrain.

Last spring I rode the lift with a guy on 184 cm AC40's. He was my height, but thinner. He looked bagged, and complained the 184's were too much in bumps. Size counts.

The AC50's snap turns with remarkable quickness. My M:EX's are slugs by comparison. I'm curious how much the iPT binding design (very wide, and deep into the ski) contributes to AC50's agility.

Ski engineering continues to transcend boundaries. I'm sure other brands have developed equally versatile contenders.

When 85 mm skis can move like this, we've come a long way.

I wouldn't be surprised if my old M:EX's float better in fresh than the AC50's.

The M:EX's have less surface area, but they're softer.

How these variables trade-off, remains to be seen.

Speed will be another facter. Sometimes stiffer is better in chowder/powder, if you're flying.

I've not tried the Contact 4x4.

Sorry.

2nd Day

Skied the AC50's a 2nd day at A-Basin today.

There's an inherent bias among anyone who buys a ski. You WANT to love it, because you paid for it and will feel like a Bozo if you don't.

Anyone who reviews a ski they purchased is guilty of the "original sin" - you're bought and paid-for. It's a bit like LeBron James endorsing Nike, because they pay him $zillions. Well, not QUITE like that - since I'm still poor. But, you get my point: limited credibility.

Hence, I wanted to re-visit my initial findings, slightly removed from the first-blush rapture, on similar conditions.

Although lifelines were horrific today (30-40 min - thanks Epic Pass), I managed a decent number of runs.

On Ramrod, A-Basin's 2nd run open (blue), conditions were crusty and a bit icey.

In these conditions, the AC50's again proved stellar. They initiated, held and released effortlessly. I wouldn't want a thinner ski, because I like the solidity. They're better than my M:EX's, and anything I've skied in this size, in terms of stability, edge-hold and agility. Yet the AC50's remained easy to drive.

My M:9's are a more agile, due to narrower width (74mm). But, they lack the AC50's rock-solid stability. The AC50's initiate as easily as the M:9's, and are almost as quick. I feel safer in the AC50's at speed and through soft snow/hard snow transitions.

I have to assume, what Volkl gave the AC50 in harpack performance, they removed in powder prowess.

As soon as Ulr cooperates, I'll post an update on chowder chops.

I've bought 3 pair of skis from Jason (but not my AC50's). He was wonderful to deal with.

Given your qualifications, I'll be interested in your findings.

I think the 170 cm choice was correct. The 177 is fine for me. For your size, weight and target use, 170 sounds perfect.

I look forward to your post.

Given your weight, ability and height, 170cm sounds right.

I used to live in Bellingham, and skied Mt. Baker. The snow out there can be heavy and manky. It also becomes "west-coast-icy" when wet snow freezes.

The width of the AC50 makes it a good all-round ski for such conditions.

If you go shorter, you'll compromise the ski's ability to carry you through the chunk.

Caveat: I haven't yet skied the AC50's on thick or deep snow. Given my experience on hard snow with a bit of loose on top, they'll power through heavy stuff without deflection.

I expect the AC50's to float fine, given they have more surface area than my Volant Chubbs, or M:EX's. But, they're stiffer than both those skis, and likely less "surfy".

So long as you're over the skis, and not a back-seat rider, you'll steer them easily.

I'd also like to try the Magnum 8.7. I suspect they're softer in the tip, and more damp. I'm sure they're excellent, and a better choice for some.

The AC50 is a thrill ride, with ferocious grip and stability. I found them easy to manage.