The Never-Ending Stöckli Discussion

[cosmoliu]

I skied the new SR 105s (170 cm) Fri in knee deep untracked, to crud, to corduroy. No hardpack to be found . Comparing with my three generations old 107s (the version before the one with the tip cut-outs, with the stylized dragon looking "S"at the tip) (174 cm), the new 105s are definitely more nimble, with a pleasant snap from the tail if pressured Just right at the end of the turn. Definitely a feel that belies the width under foot. I liked that quality for sure. Float in untracked seemed to be a push between the two pairs of skis. However, I like the crud performance of my old 107s better, though I don't discount the possibility that it might be the Indian, and not the arrow. Also, the 4 cm difference might be a contributing factor to all comparative impressions. For my height and weight (5' 8", 140#), 170 cm might be a tad short for the intended purpose, but the next length, 179 cm, seems too much of a stretch. At any rate, I did not come away from the day's demo with a burning desire to replace my 107s. For sure, though, it was great fun and a very informative expenditure of $60.

 

[LindseyB]

Been away and super busy, but just wanted to stop in and give a heads up.

While the 182 AX is a lot of ski, the AR in 182 is a lot more accessible for the length.

I skied it Monday at Big Sky and was really happy with the length. I hadn't skied it yet in the 182 and both myself and brother felt like even a 189 would be a really cool length to come out with. The turn initiation was effortless and it skied shorter than I expected in regards to handling.

To sum it up. The AR does not ski as long as the AX per size for me.

I ski the AX in 175 90% of the time when on that model and feel it is just a tad short for me at that length. If I could custom size an AX I would do one in 178 for me. I will ski the AR in 182 90% of the time when on that model and feel like it is perfect for me at that size.

 

[neonorchid]

Been away and super busy, but just wanted to stop in and give a heads up.

While the 182 AX is a lot of ski, the AR in 182 is a lot more accessible for the length.

I skied it Monday at Big Sky and was really happy with the length. I hadn't skied it yet in the 182 and both myself and brother felt like even a 189 would be a really cool length to come out with. The turn initiation was effortless and it skied shorter than I expected in regards to handling.

To sum it up. The AR does not ski as long as the AX per size for me.

I ski the AX in 175 90% of the time when on that model and feel it is just a tad short for me at that length. If I could custom size an AX I would do one in 178 for me. I will ski the AR in 182 90% of the time when on that model and feel like it is perfect for me at that size.

Thank you for the information, would be helpful to know your height and weight?

 

[James]

Another sale of the AX.
I tried to get my sister to buy a pair last year on close out. Didn’t happen. So local shop became a new dealer, we were in there last night, before their demo day. She thought she’d try the Stormrider 85. I told her the only one she had to try was the AX. It’s no brainer, and they didn’t have the SC. Whole family went out demoing Stockli’s today and her daughter got a pair of the AX. Mounting up tonight.

What’s the Turtle Shell? It used to be a more obvious 3-d pattern on the top right?

 

[LindseyB]

Another sale of the AX.
I tried to get my sister to buy a pair last year on close out. Didn’t happen. So local shop became a new dealer, we were in there last night, before their demo day. She thought she’d try the Stormrider 85. I told her the only one she had to try was the AX. It’s no brainer, and they didn’t have the SC. Whole family went out demoing Stockli’s today and her daughter got a pair of the AX. Mounting up tonight.

What’s the Turtle Shell? It used to be a more obvious 3-d pattern on the top right?

Awesome.

Turtle Tech is a designed cut in the one of the titanal layers. AX top layer. CX and SX bottom layer.

When ski is not being twisted or bent very much the ski is less torsionally stiff.

Once the ski has pressure applied and bends or twists, the two separate sides connect and restore the torsional stiffness it had before the cut was applied. This is one of the reasons the AX is friendly at low speeds and skidding around, but increases aggressiveness with speed. The other is that as the ski is tipped, the edge contact increases due to the tip and tail shaping.

 

[SBrown]

Whoaaaaa. That's cool. lol.

 

[LindseyB]

Thank you for the information, would be helpful to know your height and weight?

I am 5'10" 180-190 LBS.

 

[Rebound Hound]

@LindsayB I'm looking for a new set of skis and i'm becoming increasingly confused about what to get. I skied the Atomic G9 Redsters in a 177cm 18.4m radius for a season and qualified as an Anwarter instructor last year. I love short to medium radius carving turns on piste where i'm able to build up loads of energy in the ski and get plenty of pop and rebound. This is what I really enjoy and find fun. Where the skis almost seem to just be turning themselves. It's a magical feeling. I'm all about the carving and looking to perfect it as far as possible.

The G9s really lack versatility though and I want to be able to explore the side piste and expand my horizons more. I'm very new to off piste and powder skiing though and thought maybe I wanted a ski that excelled in this as well as on piste. I tried the Head Kore 93 in 180 and found they seemed to have decent edge grip to carve with although it felt more like surfing the way the skis come across your body. I tried the Nordica 93 in a 185 and found them pretty awful for carving on piste. Perhaps they needed a service or I just didn't like that length in that ski. However they gave me loads of confidence to explore the crud, cement, tracked snow and whatever bits of powder I could find. They also seemed to generate lots of fun pop and and bounce in the turn off piste. I found them very big, heavy cumbersome and difficult to turn though off piste - perhaps that's the cement like snow I was skiing.

Anyway having gone from thinking I wanted a 90-105mm ski now I'm not so sure. I saw the SR88s today in person and even they looked pretty wide compared to what i'm used to. So my choices are try and find a ski that feels like my G9 or better but will perform with more versatility in off piste conditions - the crud, powder, and slush. Or stick with my G9 on piste and get a ski that i'll just mostly on off piste and on snow days / powder days. I was hoping to find a ski that would be a great all rounder - that could do it all and still feel like an exciting grippy energetic ski on the piste yet still give me some float in the side piste powder and bash through the crud and chopped up stuff. I also want to improve my mogul skiing as well as off piste.

I want versatility without giving up too much piste performance. I've been considering the AR, AX, SR88, SR95. Maybe people seem to say you need 100+ off piste or at least 90+ The Nordica 93 really put me off wanting a ski that huge though. Sluggish, hefty and slow to turn. I bet I'd love a slalom ski - trying to get really low on carves and a really snappy, exciting, energetic rebound. A friend of mine tried the WRT and really wants that badly. Said it made him feel like a much better skier than he was. I think what i'm looking for is a 1 ski quiver tyre of ski or failing that just an off piste ski like the SR95 to use when not using the G9. Maybe a versatile race carving ski that doesn't mind off piste or powder would be right for me. Maybe something like the SR88 strikes the perfect balance between piste and off piste. I'm not sure. I suppose if I got the SR95 and decided I didn't like it on piste I could at least have it as my second ski and just use it for off piste etc. Perhaps the 88 might be too wide for me on piste and not wide enough off piste - the worst of both worlds in a way.

Strangely when I tried the Whitedot Altum 94 it felt very energetic and lively on piste - a bit of a handful - perhaps it was too soft? It felt very easy to turn, responsive and not very wide at all. Totally different to the Enforcer and that was in the 187cm i think.

I'm about 90kg and 180cm - I'd say a strong intermediate. Although I'm an instructor - it is my instructors that are real advanced / experts. I think I have a long way to go to get to their level.

Thanks,
Pete

 

[James]

^^ Dude, you're all over the map!
I'm thinking the AR for you. There really isn't one that does everything.
You don't "need" a wide ski for off piste, it just gives you more options, and flat runouts are easier cause you don't sink. The E93 must have had a bad tune. It's pretty decent on piste.

I honestly think my '14/'15 SR 95 is better on piste than off. Newer ones are much different.

 

[Scrundy]

I have the 95, 88, AX. My most used ski is the AX followed by the 95. On any given day the 88 will work but the AX does it better. Every time I come off the AX and ski the 88.... I wish I had my AXs on the first turn. The 95s only come out when we have a dump and I expect tracked out snow. I don’t do much off piste where I ski, it’s not available. But if I was to do off piste I think you could find a better choice then Stockli.

 

[Rebound Hound]

I have the 95, 88, AX. My most used ski is the AX followed by the 95. On any given day the 88 will work but the AX does it better. Every time I come off the AX and ski the 88.... I wish I had my AXs on the first turn. The 95s only come out when we have a dump and I expect tracked out snow. I don’t do much off piste where I ski, it’s not available. But if I was to do off piste I think you could find a better choice then Stockli.

That's very telling. I guess the 88 could end up being disappointing all around then - not as good as the AX for on piste - not as good as the 95 for off piste. What kind of ski were you thinking that would be better than the SR95? They seem very highly praised. I'm quite tempted by the Kore 93 although I don't like the topsheet and also the Rossignol 94ti.

@James I wouldn't be surprised if it was a bad tune. The reviews seem to suggest it might be one of the best 93mm carvers around. Perhaps the 185 length combined with my not being used to such a fat ski and hardpack conditions didn't help. Perhaps they were just too big and burly for me or perhaps the 177cm length would be more appropriate. I do ski a 177cm full camber at the moment though and they seem the perfect size. I guess it's always going to feel slow compared to a 68mm ski though. Perhaps I don't need such a wide ski but I definitely would like something a lot more appropriate than what I have at the moment for the off piste / powder. Maybe something in the mid 80s would be a nice compromise as you say like the AR or perhaps the Elan Wingman 86 or Brahma 82.

 

[James]

I have the 95, 88, AX. My most used ski is the AX followed by the 95. On any given day the 88 will work but the AX does it better. Every time I come off the AX and ski the 88.... I wish I had my AXs on the first turn. The 95s only come out when we have a dump and I expect tracked out snow. I don’t do much off piste where I ski, it’s not available. But if I was to do off piste I think you could find a better choice then Stockli.

What length AX are you skiing and what are your stats? You on the mount line? Thanks.

 

[Scrundy]

What length AX are you skiing and what are your stats? You on the mount line? Thanks.

176 cm I’m 5’10” 200 lbs. I had them mounted +1 and like them there. Was the first year model and kept trying to find info where everyone was mounting them. I went with the majority, glad I did.

 

[Rebound Hound]

Well Merry Christmas to me. I lost a ski today in the deep powder and have very little hope of finding it. On the plus side I did improve quite a lot at skiing on one ski.

So either I'll buy the same G9s again plus another ski or perhaps look for a Stockli that is amazing at piste carving but with perhaps a little more versatility than the G9. Probably AR or AX. Is there much love for the AR vs the AX? Why is the AR called an all mountain racing ski and the AX is just called an all mountain ski?

I guess a direct replacement for my 177cm 18.4m radius G9 would probably be the WRT-ST or a Laser GS. I do have a preference for high rebound and energy in and shorter to medium radius turns where the ski almost overpowers your legs and snaps across and under your body. I loved those kind of turns on my G9s but not so much long turns. The WRT are quite short though aren't they at 172 cm? Why is that? 170 cm SL could be an option too if I'm going that short. Not sure what the difference is between the two really.

 

[LindseyB]

@LindsayB I'm looking for a new set of skis and i'm becoming increasingly confused about what to get. I skied the Atomic G9 Redsters in a 177cm 18.4m radius for a season and qualified as an Anwarter instructor last year. I love short to medium radius carving turns on piste where i'm able to build up loads of energy in the ski and get plenty of pop and rebound. This is what I really enjoy and find fun. Where the skis almost seem to just be turning themselves. It's a magical feeling. I'm all about the carving and looking to perfect it as far as possible.

The G9s really lack versatility though and I want to be able to explore the side piste and expand my horizons more. I'm very new to off piste and powder skiing though and thought maybe I wanted a ski that excelled in this as well as on piste. I tried the Head Kore 93 in 180 and found they seemed to have decent edge grip to carve with although it felt more like surfing the way the skis come across your body. I tried the Nordica 93 in a 185 and found them pretty awful for carving on piste. Perhaps they needed a service or I just didn't like that length in that ski. However they gave me loads of confidence to explore the crud, cement, tracked snow and whatever bits of powder I could find. They also seemed to generate lots of fun pop and and bounce in the turn off piste. I found them very big, heavy cumbersome and difficult to turn though off piste - perhaps that's the cement like snow I was skiing.

Anyway having gone from thinking I wanted a 90-105mm ski now I'm not so sure. I saw the SR88s today in person and even they looked pretty wide compared to what i'm used to. So my choices are try and find a ski that feels like my G9 or better but will perform with more versatility in off piste conditions - the crud, powder, and slush. Or stick with my G9 on piste and get a ski that i'll just mostly on off piste and on snow days / powder days. I was hoping to find a ski that would be a great all rounder - that could do it all and still feel like an exciting grippy energetic ski on the piste yet still give me some float in the side piste powder and bash through the crud and chopped up stuff. I also want to improve my mogul skiing as well as off piste.

I want versatility without giving up too much piste performance. I've been considering the AR, AX, SR88, SR95. Maybe people seem to say you need 100+ off piste or at least 90+ The Nordica 93 really put me off wanting a ski that huge though. Sluggish, hefty and slow to turn. I bet I'd love a slalom ski - trying to get really low on carves and a really snappy, exciting, energetic rebound. A friend of mine tried the WRT and really wants that badly. Said it made him feel like a much better skier than he was. I think what i'm looking for is a 1 ski quiver tyre of ski or failing that just an off piste ski like the SR95 to use when not using the G9. Maybe a versatile race carving ski that doesn't mind off piste or powder would be right for me. Maybe something like the SR88 strikes the perfect balance between piste and off piste. I'm not sure. I suppose if I got the SR95 and decided I didn't like it on piste I could at least have it as my second ski and just use it for off piste etc. Perhaps the 88 might be too wide for me on piste and not wide enough off piste - the worst of both worlds in a way.

Strangely when I tried the Whitedot Altum 94 it felt very energetic and lively on piste - a bit of a handful - perhaps it was too soft? It felt very easy to turn, responsive and not very wide at all. Totally different to the Enforcer and that was in the 187cm i think.

I'm about 90kg and 180cm - I'd say a strong intermediate. Although I'm an instructor - it is my instructors that are real advanced / experts. I think I have a long way to go to get to their level.

Thanks,
Pete

The ski you're are looking for is the AR in 182cm. 17.9 radius. Kills it on piste. Super versatile off piste. I do't like to say just trust me to a stranger about a ski suggestion, but just trust me.

 

[LindseyB]

Well Merry Christmas to me. I lost a ski today in the deep powder and have very little hope of finding it. On the plus side I did improve quite a lot at skiing on one ski.

So either I'll buy the same G9s again plus another ski or perhaps look for a Stockli that is amazing at piste carving but with perhaps a little more versatility than the G9. Probably AR or AX. Is there much love for the AR vs the AX? Why is the AR called an all mountain racing ski and the AX is just called an all mountain ski?

I guess a direct replacement for my 177cm 18.4m radius G9 would probably be the WRT-ST or a Laser GS. I do have a preference for high rebound and energy in and shorter to medium radius turns where the ski almost overpowers your legs and snaps across and under your body. I loved those kind of turns on my G9s but not so much long turns. The WRT are quite short though aren't they at 172 cm? Why is that? 170 cm SL could be an option too if I'm going that short. Not sure what the difference is between the two really.

The WRT-ST has the speed abilities of a much longer ski while feeling like a slalom ski when initiating turns. It is a true World Cup room GS build with a tighter radius. You can't shake the ski unless you are straightlining it at stupid high speeds.

The WRT-ST is in a class all it's own.

The SL in a 170 is a non FIS SL. IT is not in the same power class as the WRT-ST.

What is really crazy is how much the binding choice affects how these skis perform. If you are looking for power, the X-Lab/WRT binding and plate is really an awesome driver.

But just get the AR for now.

This guy gives a perfect description:

 

[LindseyB]

I have the 95, 88, AX. My most used ski is the AX followed by the 95. On any given day the 88 will work but the AX does it better. Every time I come off the AX and ski the 88.... I wish I had my AXs on the first turn. The 95s only come out when we have a dump and I expect tracked out snow. I don’t do much off piste where I ski, it’s not available. But if I was to do off piste I think you could find a better choice then Stockli.

Which year 95? Every generation has been very different from the others.

 

[Scrundy]

Which year 95? Every generation has been very different from the others.

Either a 16 or 17 don’t remember. It’s probably the easiest of the 3 to ski at slow speeds. The reason I said not my choice for off piste is all 3 really come to life at speed. The 95 I use on days we have a dump and I expect conditions to be skied out crud.
They blast threw conditions like this at speed but I do find the tip a little on the soft side. I think The torsional stiffness is the reason I like Stöckli skis as I’m a bigger guy. I put higher stress on tips and there has been no going down for no apparent reason since skiing them.

 

[Rebound Hound]

The WRT-ST has the speed abilities of a much longer ski while feeling like a slalom ski when initiating turns. It is a true World Cup room GS build with a tighter radius. You can't shake the ski unless you are straightlining it at stupid high speeds.

The WRT-ST is in a class all it's own.

The SL in a 170 is a non FIS SL. IT is not in the same power class as the WRT-ST.

What is really crazy is how much the binding choice affects how these skis perform. If you are looking for power, the X-Lab/WRT binding and plate is really an awesome driver.

But just get the AR for now.

This guy gives a perfect description:

The WRT does sound pretty awesome. I'm not really about straight lining - all about carving turns and the feeling you get from the energy of the ski rebounding. How does your FIS slalom ski compare to the WRT? I haven't tried a slalom ski yet. Would you get more rebound or less from a slalom ski - I guess you are pressuring it less to get the same kind of turn from an 18m ski so perhaps less and when you push it you'll get a smaller turn and the same rebound.

I was thinking of the AR in possible a 175cm length as i'm quite comfortable at 177cm but do you think it's worth levelling up? I'm currently trying a Nordica enforcer 93 in 185cm and I'm finding it very hard work. Too wide / long / stiff for me possibly. It just feels like driving a truck when I want to be driving a sports car. I was considering the SR95 until I tried the enforcer 93 and now I just think perhaps I prefer narrow skis - or maybe I just don't like that particular ski very much. What are the reasons you'd push me away from the AX and towards the AR? I read the AX is amazing on piste but also has versatility. Is there really a lot of difference between the two?

 

[LindseyB]

The WRT does sound pretty awesome. I'm not really about straight lining - all about carving turns and the feeling you get from the energy of the ski rebounding. How does your FIS slalom ski compare to the WRT? I haven't tried a slalom ski yet. Would you get more rebound or less from a slalom ski - I guess you are pressuring it less to get the same kind of turn from an 18m ski so perhaps less and when you push it you'll get a smaller turn and the same rebound.

I was thinking of the AR in possible a 175cm length as i'm quite comfortable at 177cm but do you think it's worth levelling up? I'm currently trying a Nordica enforcer 93 in 185cm and I'm finding it very hard work. Too wide / long / stiff for me possibly. It just feels like driving a truck when I want to be driving a sports car. I was considering the SR95 until I tried the enforcer 93 and now I just think perhaps I prefer narrow skis - or maybe I just don't like that particular ski very much. What are the reasons you'd push me away from the AX and towards the AR? I read the AX is amazing on piste but also has versatility. Is there really a lot of difference between the two?

The WRT has a more power than an SL FIS, but isn't quite as snappy because the radius is a little longer. It lets you ride a long radius or roll shorter turns. The short turns require some good cardio if you are hammering it because of how much energy the ski pushes back. The ski matches the power you put in to it. On Ice, the WRT-ST with a powerful binding is really fun.

The AR and AX are very different. The AR is more versatile for more conditions.

I think for versatility you will like the AR more. If you feel the 185 Enforcer being a double rocketed ski is too much work in the 185, you might want to go with the AR in 175cm. I was suggesting the 182 because of your weight and height, but the 175 will still support your size just fine.

Start with the AR and then build your quiver from there. Eventually you will want the SR95, it is more responsive, grippy, and stable than the Enforcer, but doesn't sound like it would be your daily driver.