Hi everyone,
I meant to post this last spring, but got busy selling bikes. Spring came on pretty quickly and before I knew it, wintertime activities were in the rearview mirror.
Note: this has not been proofed! This is a summary of random thoughts, so don't laugh at me!
I have some video somewhere of Wade and I testing these skis. We did 2 days at Squaw and 1 day at Northstar in spring conditions. The terrain was primarily spring bumps (smaller and tight at Northstar, long and big at Squaw), paired with the occasional groomer.
I am 5 foot 9, 160 lbs, and was skiing fairly well at the time. I had been skate skiing a couple of times a week over the past couple of months, and it really helped me "open up" my hips, which are understandably very tight from years of cycling and running. Opening up my hips really allows me to generate power and counter forced that build during the turn.
Skis tested: all 2019 models along with the 2018 Laser AX (my control ski).
Stormrider 88 177cm
Stormrider 95 175cm
Stormrider 95 184cm
Stomrider Motion 166cm
Laser AX 168cm
Laser AX 175cm
Laser SX 170cm
Laser SC 170cm
Laser WRT-ST 172cm
First of, the Stormrider 95 pair. The 184cm is a length I like in deeper snow conditions at high speed, but I prefer the 175cm for all-around conditions. Going back and forth between the two, the length difference is less than one would think. Somehow, the 175cm can feel long for its length, and the 184cm can feel short and nimble. It is tough to describe, aside from chalking it up to some sort of Stockli magic, but it is somewhat true. Starting on the 184cm, I had no trouble with bumps at speed, and felt very comfortable loading that tip during the transition. The ski was incredibly stable yet very easy to ski, and it certainly gave me a measure of confidence in that soft PM snow. Typically, a 184cm ski feels heavy and wooden under my feet in the wrong conditions, but the 184cm here was more than passable.
Next, I jumped on the 175cm, which was a great choice for soft PM snow. Perhaps it was a bit wide (which was later confirmed once I hopped on the AX), but overall, I didn't need more than 175cm for this day. The SR95 is my favorite all-around wider ski, and boy did it deliver. It has more precision than a 95mm ski should: it really feels like a scalpel masquerading as a wood axe. I have praised this ski previously, but I still feel it is one of the best one-ski quivers ever made. The tip is perfect for absorbing soft spring snow and bumps: it is laterally stiff enough, but not so torsionally rigid when tipped on edge that it bites excessively and take flight underfoot. It has the right amount of flex, and the tip will bend up underfoot when pressured. The tail is also just about perfect: not a "pintail" that doesn't finish the turn, but also not a square tail that holds on a bit too long in soft conditions. Underfoot, the ski is pliable but very predictable; there is a smoothness that gives the skier the perception of ease. The reality is that one can haul-ass on this ski and not find the speed limit, but the smoothness and dampness of the ski does a great job of masking speed, yet is incredibly nimble and easy in bumps. On groomers, the same description applies: it could pose as a GS-bred race carver, and is capable of any shape turn, at any speed. I didn't have it on 1st thing in the morning for the spring re-freeze test, but having skied it in those conditions previously, I can confirm that it will arc under the right skier. There really isn't anything the 175cm SR95 cannot do in an above-average manner. All of the ski attributes one would want in a high-performance all-mountain ski are present: stability, smoothness, connectedness, ease-of-use, predictability, power, and high levels of skier engagement. Does this ski have any weaknesses? Given the design limitations of a fairly short 95mm all-mountain ski, I cannot find any.
The next ski up was the Stormrider 88 in 177cm. I had been looking forward to testing the SR88 all spring! The SR88 really is not a "narrower" 95: it is a softer ski with a different profile. The tip is more shapely, with less taper. The tail also has less shape and a more square profile. Both skis have a tip that shares the same rise, but the tail on the SR95 has more rise than the 88. In terms of flex, the SR88 feels substantially softer underfoot, and marginally softer at the tip.
On the snow, my first impression of the 88 is increased lateral quickness compared to the 95. 7mm in width does make a difference, as does the 88's lighter weight in comparison to the 95. This ski will changed directly in a rapid-fire manner. When opening up the ski at high speeds, I found the ski to want to turn a bit more, and be a bit happier on edge, than the 95. It has more sidecut, yes, but also being softer, wants to bend into an arc more easily when pressured. It is a quick, playful, slalom-like tool for an all-mountain skier. As a bump machine, the SR88 is hard to beat; the way it bends up in the bumps is easily as good as the 95, but it is quicker edge to edge, and loves the Squaw steeps L-shaped drift turn. I did get a few more "open" runs around West Face where the snow was smoother, and the SR95 was a bit grippier here at speed. The 88, under pressure on steeps, seemed a bit too soft for the speeds I was skiing, but at more "average" speeds, I think it could be a better choice than the 95. The 95, although wider, does have increased torsional rigidity and is a more powerful ski.
Getting the SR88 back onto the groomers, it again felt quick and most suited to moderate, snappier turns. It doesn't have the power and GS dampness of the 95, but it is a special ski: very quick, extremely predictable, smooth as silk, and refined, for those skiers looking for something a bit tighter in radius with the ability to be bent up at moderate speeds. I think most skiers here would find the 88 or the 95 suitable for their off-piste adventures, but which one should be chosen would depend on the skier's ability, speed, and how they prefer a ski to respond.
Moving onto the Stormrider Motion, I was shocked at how good this ski was! It felt just like the SR88, only shorter, which makes sense. The average woman will be lighter than the average guy, and a softer ski with flex similar to the 88 makes a lot of sense. In some ways, the Motion was a better ski than the 88, as it had what felt to be a laterally stiffer and more responsive tip. That could also have been due to the shorter length. Aside from that, everything I said about the SR88 applies to the SR Motion. It is the perfect on or off-piste tool, but the SR95 in a shorter length is a great option for a woman looking for a more powerful ski.
Next up, the Laser AX, in 168, 175, and the 2018 in 167cm as a comparison ski.
The 2019 AX is "tweaked" as it looks more different on paper than it does in real life. Gone is the tip taper and early rise: the 2019 ski has a similar profile to the other Laser skis (SC, SX) although it doesn't have as much taper as the SC, which is more of a slalom carver (hence the SC name). The overall ski hasn't changed that much, however. I skied it mostly on groomers and in bumps, as things were getting pretty soft toward the end of the day and I didn't want to test fate charging through a steep slushy face at speed. I started out on the 175cm, and immediately felt the difference between this ski and the 167cm: this ski is beefed up! It feels stiffer at the tip and a bit "more" than the 2018 version. For the record, I prefer the 175cm in the 2018 version, but the 175cm 2019 is stiffer and very, very stable. I skied quite well on it, driving the ski from tip to tail in the bumps, and the ski was fluid the entire time. On groomers, the 2019 AX has another gear compared to the 2018; the tip is more unflappable (probably due to the new design) and hooks up earlier in the turn, with less deflection. It feels more like a carver on groomers, whereas the 2018 felt like a narrower all-mountain ski on groomers. I liked it! It was a bit more work in the bumps, again due to the stiffer tip, but manageable and fluid. It felt more like a detuned SX or SC than it did previously.
Onto the 168cm (2019) Laser AX: this was the ski length for me! I used to size up on the AX, but due to the increase in running length (around 3cm due to lack of tip rise) and the new profile, the 168cm now fits like a glove, whereas the 167cm 2018 version always felt great in tight spots but a bit lacking when opened up. The 168cm is now THE length for someone my size. Not only was even more fluid in bumps than the 175cm, but also was more fun on groomers too. The 175cm AX had a slight GS feel to it: the 168cm feels like a true, slightly detuned and wide carver when ripping the admittedly soft groomers. This is actually a pretty good test of a ski: slushy piles that are starting to harden toward the end of the day are much tougher to ski than buffed out hero corduroy. Skis are easily deflected and grabby in these conditions. The 168cm AX was a whole lot of fun and not far off of the "real" carvers we tested this day. Once I got back to the off-piste conditions and skiing in the slushy bumps, I appreciated the ski even more. I was rewarded with a large sweet spot and utter predictability in the softening and challenging snow; the AX really could do no wrong.
After skiing the 2019 models, I jumped back on my 2018 AX 167cm test skis and found that they are pretty darn good too. Bump performance is similar, and the tip is just a smidge more forgiving than the 2018. It was less likely to get hung up in the heavy slush. Underfoot, they feel similar, if not identical. I really love this ski off-piste, and as mentioned above, this generation AX always felt like 1/3 frontside carver and 2/3 narrower off-piste terrain eating machine. On the slushy frontside groomers, it was in some ways better. The tip was a bit more likely to be deflected and not get hung up in the junky slush piles. It finished the turn with a bit softer feel, which is great in unpredictable snow. Stability was fine, but did not quite match the new AX; perhaps 95% of the new ski? The soft conditions were tailor-made for this ski however, and it was quick, snappy, and fun.
After skiing all three, I lean toward the idea that the new AX is a slight improvement: it trades a bit more power and stability, along with a more responsive tip, for a bit less forgiving feel. The very slight decrease in forgiveness is offset however, when one considers the ability to size down in length from the old AX. I was previously running a 175cm as my default length, and I am now happy on a 168cm. For me, this is an upgrade, as I now will get the quickness I always missed on the 175cm paired with the stability that I liked on that longer length. Even if the tip feels a touch more aggressive, the difference isn't significant and is something that any skier would quickly get used to. The more powerful, snappy feel is welcome however, and although I may have preferred the older 167cm AX on this very slushy day, I am 100% confident that I would prefer the new AX on most firmer groomer days, when I am not dealing with 60 degree temperatures and April California sun. That being said, the old AX is no slouch and is every bit as good, if not better, off-piste. Overall however, I prefer the new AX package.
The last ski of the day (and the first ski of the following day) was the new Laser SX, with a carve plate from Salomon. The SX has, in the past, been a great ski, but one best kept to groomers. It was a real powerhouse carver. The new SX has been updated with the same technology that the AX employs, but in a more aggressive tip design with additional stability built in.
First off, in bumps, I found the SX to be more than passable. It was quite easy to ski, although required more commitment than the AX. It also should NOT be skied from the tail, as it contains a Tigger-like coil, ready to spring. I was able to find the sweet spot on the SX very quickly; it was fluid and relatively easy in the bumps, although maybe 15% less forgiving than the AX. This is a compliment however, as the SX is a powerhouse and there is no way to add energy and power without subtracting forgiveness. I found the SX to be more than competent off-piste. It was a whole lot of fun in bumps; snappy and energetic. Where the SX really shines, however, is on a fast groomed slope. The conditions this day were not ideal, due to the slush, but still, the SX was a cut above everything else I skied. I could load and trust the SX in a way I could not trust any other ski: it had an absolutely locked-in feel when on edge, and instead of getting pushed around by the crud, the SX was pushing the crud out of the way. It was like the old Chuck Norris joke: "when Chuck Norris crashes his bicycle, the road gets Chuck Norris rash". That succinctly sums up the SX. It has the power of a pure carver; the SX is simply unshakable, whereas each of the other skis I tried this day, aside from the WRT, got kicked around to varying degrees in the slush. At speed, I trusted the SX more than any other over the 2-day period. It simply was at a higher level of performance; locked in, powerful, unshakable. I could lay this ski over in a way that I didn't dare with the other skis. The SX allowed me to work the ski; I could run it in big lazy arcs, or dial up the energy and tighten the turn radius for a snappier, more involving ride. I have skied a lot of skis in my day, but I would rate the SX as amongst the best carvers I have ever skied. It is right up there with the nearly perfect MX74 from Kastle, but is obviously a much different ski. I sent the rep a check for his demo pair immediately. If you are in the market for something close to a pure carver, the SX has to be on, if not at the top of, your list.
Last up was the WRX-ST. This ski is a special ski: it utilizes the FIS layup seen in the race-stock GS ski with a burly plate system. The WRX is designed to be the "FIS ski with sidecut" and isn't far off from what Fischer is doing with their CURV lineup (specifically the Von Grunigen model). I figured the WRX-ST would be just up my alley: after all, I like power carvers that have no top end speed limit, that are responsive, and that offer great feedback. I often don't like sloppy skis for that reason: when I ski well, I want to be rewarded with a powerful finish and the positive feedback that comes with such a finish. When I am skiing well, I want the ski to let me know. When I am skiing poorly, I want feedback telling me to get my act together before I venture into the bumps and become Backseat Bruce.
Unfortunately, the WRX-ST wasn't that ski for me. It was too much ski, and not that enjoyable in most turns. I found the ski to be very stable, but not more stable than the SX was. Being so much stiffer, it lacked any sort of energy; I found it tough to really get anything out of the ski aside from it feeling like a super stable, lazy ski. I suppose if the SX is the snappy, race-bred ski for skiing fast on groomers, the WRT-SX is the "street-legal" race ski, which in this case, made it less suited to my skiing. I have never driven a "street legal" race car, at least in the old-school sense (before modern suspension tech) but I can imagine the feel just isn't that enjoyable on the street. I have driven a 997.2 GT3, and I can say that car was a lot of work, with a very stiff clutch, and didn't come alive on street-legal speeds. The WRX-ST falls in that category for me, although I am not saying it won't work for the right skier. For me, I want something that requires skill and energy to get the most out of, but not something that feels like it has to be skied at race-like speeds to have fun on. FYI, the "consumer" GS and SL are much softer and friendlier than the WRX-ST. Those 2 skis are similar in flex to the SX and feel like part of the same family on the snow. Stockli's "consumer" race lineup is not reviewed here, but my experiences on the skis have always shown them to be great carvers: rewarding yet forgiving.
Stockli Laser SC 170cm (with Salomon carve plate and binding system): I previously owned this in 170cm (2014 version) and was excited to get back on one of my all-time favorite skis.
The SC now has Turtleshell technology, but otherwise is a similar ski to what it was a few years prior. The SC is billed as a softer version of a slalom ski, perfect for cranking out turns on groomers or venturing into bumps and minor crud. The SC provides tons of feedback and is a great teaching and learning tool. I enjoyed the SC in these conditions, but it was susceptible to difficulties in challenging snow, much like the AX was. It had a lot of pop and energy, and produced a very clean arc, but in slush, it was a bit more work than I would have liked. The last time I skied this, on firmer, "normal" conditions, it really shined. The SX was the only ski to really cut through the crappy snow well, but I had fun on the SC, and it certainly is an absolute blast on firmer snow. It simply doesn't have the torsional rigidity at the tip to prevent deflection, but as a rapid-fire groomer ski, it is nearly untouchable. The SC also doubles as a great slushy bump ski! I was really impressed on it, although there were no surprises when I skied it. I know how good it can be, in the right conditions and under the right skier.
Overall, these skis were all at the top of their game. One certainly gets what one pays for with Stockli. On average, they have a bigger performance range than most any other brand, with superb snowfeel, refinement, and forgiveness. This is certainly the case with Stockli. The SX reminds me of the Fischer CURV DTX in terms of energy and top-end, but is even more forgiving with superior off-piste capabilities. The AX skis off-piste conditions as well as any narrower all-mountain ski such as the Blizzard Brahma, but is more forgiving, more stable, and is 100X the carver that the Brahma is. That isn't a knock on the Brahma, but is more a testament to just how good the AX is.
The most surprising ski here was the SX. I didn't expect to like it that much. I knew how good the rest of the skis tested were, but the SX jumped out at me as a genre-defining ski. That amount of power yet versatility should not be contained within one ski.
Once a person has skied a high-end ski such as Stockli, it is really tough to go back to a mass-market cheaper brand. The performance difference ranges from significant to massive, depending on the model. These skis really do enhance time on the hill and feel like a bargain when one considers the overall cost of skiing. I would personally brown-bag my lunches on ski days to be able to afford skis like this. Most of us can't afford to buy bespoke suits, drive supercars, or have a Patek on our wrist, but most of us can stretch for a few hundred dollars to have the privilege of skiing such a special ski.
