Individual Review 2018 Stockli SR95 184

[ARL67]

Your are not alone in your thoughts on the newer vs older Stockli SR95 :

https://www.tetongravity.com/forums/showthread.php/319382-Why-you-should-own-a-Stockli-Stormrider

^^^ the blanket statement that they're "complete garbage" is certainly over the top, and requires context. There is a ski for everybody, build recipes change from generations and model refreshments, our skiing wants change, our physicality may change, etc. Over the last couple of years, I seem to be enjoying slightly softer skis than what I was previously chasing. I look forward to taking my softer SR97 177 on my Austria trip in a couple weeks.

 

[Noodler]

we'll be on them for sure!

Any comments on the differences between the 3rd and 4th gen SR95?

 

[Ron]

yep, very different ski i really loved my SR95 (2017) In the 184 it skied short but really stable. Near perfect blend of stiffness and flex in the tip, torsionally stiff. Great damp refined ride. If anything, they could add a touch more low rise in the tail. This ski benefits from a forward mount point. I found that at the factory mark, the ski was slow to engage, Short Radius turns took too much input and the tip felt a little vague, forward, it was much quicker and the tip felt much livelier with a much improved feel.

the older ski was much softer and the core was too light.

 

[Noodler]

yep, very different ski i really loved my SR95 (2017) In the 184 it skied short but really stable. Near perfect blend of stiffness and flex in the tip, torsionally stiff. Great damp refined ride. If anything, they could add a touch more low rise in the tail. This ski benefits from a forward mount point. I found that at the factory mark, the ski was slow to engage, SR turns took too much input and the tip felt a little vague, forward, it was much quicker and the tip felt much livelier with a much improved feel.

the older ski was much softer and the core was too light.

Just to be clear here, you're actually talking about the 2017-18 ski (with the cross-hatch pattern, not the carbon inserts), correct?

 

[Ron]

yes The Scottish tartan

 

[Brad J]

I hear a lot of love for the SR 95 in 184 from folks that are about my size, The difference is that I am in my mid 60's , slowing down a bit and in the east where it is harder snow, tighter trees, smaller miss shaped bumps. I have been looking for 175's thinking that 184's are too long. I am a level 8 ,decent bump skier. good soft snow skier , any one have a recommendation. The more I read I may already have the ski I want Kastle FX 85 HP in 173 that I haven't skied and am trying to sell. Ideas??????

 

[Noodler]

I hear a lot of love for the SR 95 in 184 from folks that are about my size, The difference is that I am in my mid 60's , slowing down a bit and in the east where it is harder snow, tighter trees, smaller miss shaped bumps. I have been looking for 175's thinking that 184's are too long. I am a level 8 ,decent bump skier. good soft snow skier , any one have a recommendation. The more I read I may already have the ski I want Kastle FX 85 HP in 173 that I haven't skied and am trying to sell. Ideas??????

Effective edge length on the 184cm ski is about 160cm. The running length (aka contact length) is only about 140cm due to the rise/rocker. Unless you're actually skiing these in 3D conditions, they ski much shorter than you would think. When you do ski them in deeper snow they turn quicker than you would expect because of the rocker profile. The additional length provides more stability in the chop. It's a win-win.

BTW - I know these numbers because I have 2 pairs of these sitting in my garage.

 

[Ron]

hmm, not so sure about that 160. Maybe where it absolutely touches on a concrete floor but in any kind of colorado groomer, there's much more contact, it certainly doesnt ski that short, more like ~180 feels.

 

[Noodler]

hmm, not so sure about that 160. Maybe where it absolutely touches on a concrete floor but in any kind of colorado groomer, there's much more contact, it certainly doesnt ski that short, more like ~180 feels.

Effective edge is measured with the ski 90* (perpendicular) to the floor. The measurement is taken from the farthest contact points from the tip to the tail. That measurement is about 160cm for the SR95 in 183cm (that's why I'm saying "about" and not exactly since the question was posed for the 184cm).

For comparison, my Stockli Laser CX in 170cm has an EE of 156.5cm. That's a full camber traditional sidecut design of course.

 

[givethepigeye]

Honestly, I own the blue tartan version in 184, came of a Kastle FX104 in 184 (yellow tip) w/ “marketing” rocker in the tip. Hardly noticed an difference in length. The SR95 is quicker...duh 104 vs 95. But never felt like “dang, I need longer skis - these are getting tossed and are scary @ mach schnell”. If you normally ski a mid 180-185, they are fine. Too much analysis paralysis sometime.

Grip =
Quick =
Stable =

I have skied some low 180 skis that felt like snow blades, the SR95 isn’t that......at all. Just one person’s experience.

 

[Noodler]

I think the general skiing population has lost touch with what skiing longer full camber skis was like. There's so much rise/rocker in almost every ski now, that most have forgotten. I have Scott Crusades at 179cm that ski much longer than the SR95 at 184cm (on groomers). The idea of effective edge is to put a quantitative measure on how much of the edge can actually engage on the snow surface (with the assumption of a theoretical 2D hard surface with little edge purchase into the snow). The EE is measured at 90⁰; giving you the absolute maximum amount of edge any skier could engage. When I measure it, I use the actual edge material length, not the chord length (which would be taken directly between the widest points instead of following along the curvature of the edge). The true edge material length is what comes into contact with the surface when the ski is bent into an arc.

 

[givethepigeye]

Agreed - more rise (tip or tail) on the SR95 from where it is now, is a path I’m not excited about traveling. There are other skis for that, they just don’t say “Stockli” on them.

 

[ARL67]

I'm in Solden Austria right now and my pal brought along some SR95 192 ( carbon insert version ) that he has never skied before until yesterday He usually skis 19x length skis but found the SR95 a lot of work once the slopes got bumped out. There was quite a bit of fresh and within 1.5 hours got quite bumpy. He said he had trouble turning and I mentioned it was probably the SR95 tail holding him up in those conditions, not releasing. He said wished he had brought his Kore 105 189 instead. In truth the 192 length was probably the wrong length for him in an SR95 type of ski -> 19x is fine for his other skis with more tip & tail rise/rocker.

FYI my SR97 177 were great in the bumpy conditions -> short enough & soft enough for me ( making them flick'able as I like to say ) to easily navigate bumpy terrain.

 

[givethepigeye]

Agreed - more rise (tip or tail) on the SR95 from where it is now, is a path I’m not excited about traveling. There are other skis for that, they just don’t say “Stockli” on them.

^ Well, they say part of personal growth is sometimes admitting mistakes. Skied them today @ Alta. In deep leftover snow, the tails were getting hung up a bit. Light was very flat for my old eyes so it might have been a speed thing too. Ie, poking along.

 

[pdxxer]

Thanks everyone for so much amazing information and thoughts! It's with all of your guidance that I've been the astonished owner of the Laser AX in 175 and loving every day out with it. So now, I'm looking at the SR 95. What length? I'm 48 y.o., 185#, 5'8". The 175 AX feels perfect to me. I'm stuck between the SR 95 in 17# and 18#. PNW, Mt Hood skier, can ski anything, but likely not with the refined technique many of you have.

 

[Noodler]

Thanks everyone for so much amazing information and thoughts! It's with all of your guidance that I've been the astonished owner of the Laser AX in 175 and loving every day out with it. So now, I'm looking at the SR 95. What length? I'm 48 y.o., 185#, 5'8". The 175 AX feels perfect to me. I'm stuck between the SR 95 in 17# and 18#. PNW, Mt Hood skier, can ski anything, but likely not with the refined technique many of you have.

I'm about your size/age. I have 2 pairs, both in 183cm. For the way I use this ski, I want the extra stability that the longer length provides in 3D snow. It's still a fairly quick turning ski in this length. If you tend to ski faster and value more stability from the ski, go longer.

 

[pdxxer]

Thanks for your response! My conundrum is reality vs desires. My desire to use these skis in bigger bowls, during heavier snow days, while mostly using my AX 175 for most days. Reality is that I am normally chasing my 15 y.o. son around while he darts in and out of trees and bumps.

Does the SR95 in 183 ski similar to the AX in 175 may be the other way to ask the question. I feel confident with my 175 AX in trees and bumps when there isn't much fresh snow, but less confident in same trees and bumps when there is a good amount of fresh.

 

[Noodler]

Thanks for your response! My conundrum is reality vs desires. My desire to use these skis in bigger bowls, during heavier snow days, while mostly using my AX 175 for most days. Reality is that I am normally chasing my 15 y.o. son around while he darts in and out of trees and bumps.

Does the SR95 in 183 ski similar to the AX in 175 may be the other way to ask the question. I feel confident with my 175 AX in trees and bumps when there isn't much fresh snow, but less confident in same trees and bumps when there is a good amount of fresh.

It's been a long time since I've been on the AX (and it was the first version). From what I've read on the AX from others, I believe that the answer is no, the SR95 does not ski like the AX. The SR95 is a Stormrider while the AX is a Laser; two different series of skis that have similarities, but also major differences. I'll leave it to the other PugSki testers who can probably provide much better detail on how the skis differ.

 

[USCskibum]

Any input or comparison between the Stormrider 95 vs. Mantra M5. Seems like the Mantra M5 would be the “best bang for the buck”, but what does the Stormrider 95 offer that you wouldn’t get with the Mantra M5?

Sounds like the 2020 SR95 is supposed to be a slightly lighter and softer?

 

[givethepigeye]

Any input or comparison between the Stormrider 95 vs. Mantra M5. Seems like the Mantra M5 would be the “best bang for the buck”, but what does the Stormrider 95 offer that you wouldn’t get with the Mantra M5?

Sounds like the 2020 SR95 is supposed to be a slightly lighter and softer?

Baby seal fur. . Have zero idea, never skied a recent Mantra. Seriously, I forgot about how much they were after the first 15 minutes on the hill. Might be able to get later season deal, since next year’s are changing a bit.

I’m old enough now to realize that when I think I want something and then I get something “similar” I usually end up paying twice. But that’s me.