95 - 100 free touring ski

[Ben]

I'm seriously looking for a 95 - 100 freetouring ski.
I have narrowed it down to the following but would consider any other recommendations at this point.
Currently thinking about
Stockli SR 100 (2015)
Stockli SR 95 (2016)
Skilogik Urls Chariot BC
Black Crows Camox Freebird
Dynastar Cham 97 2.0
Scott Superguide 95
Blizzard zero g 95
Absolutely don't want a noodle!!! Only interested in hiking to ski down untracked powder.

 

[markojp]

IMHO, With the exception of the Zero G, the weights of the skis on the list sort of take them out of the true touring ski category I'm in the same process at the moment and am looking at the Zero G 95 and Kastle TX 97. Volkl & G3 also make products worth considering. If one had a two ski touring quiver, the Zero G 108 and TX 107 should be on the list for powder/winter touring and an 80'something for springtime applications. (Speaking only for myself, a <100 allows me to reuse existing skins, bindings, and ski crampons. )

 

[Philpug]

Replace the Cham 97 2.0 with the Mythic Rider and I agree with @markojp about the weights of the other skis mentioned. Add the Volkl 90Eight to the list.

 

[Ben]

Guys, I'm a little worried about buying a noodle!! I don't want a hut to hut touring ski, I'm looking for something that is a free touring ski - capable of skinning 500 meters of verticle in order to access the many off piste areas of the Dolomites.

One of the reasons I raised this post is because last year the Stockli SR 100 182 was 3890 grams and marketed as a ski touring or free touring ski.

Stockli SR 95 this year in 183 weighs 3690 grams.

Skilogik Urls Chariot backcountry 182 - 3500 grams and they market it alongside the Piton and the Yeti in their backcountry touring range.

Black Crows Camox Freebird 178 - 3150 grams is part of their touring collection and the Dynastar Cham 97 2.0 178 weighs in at 3400 grams. The Dynastar Cham High Mountain was almost the same weight and last year was marketed as the free-touring mid fat ski from Dynastar.

I used to own Dynafit Mustagh Ata Superlight in 187 and it weighed 3100 grams. Frankly, I hated the ski!! It was the most twitchy, nervous ski I have ever used and I am frightened about making a similar mistake twice!

I know Dynastar has released the Mythic which is under 3 kilos and Scott has released the Superguide, Blizzard the zero g 95 but how do these super light skis perform???

It seems that the ski industry has gone for 'lighter is best' as every major brand sheds weight off its skis but are we being encouraged to buy twitchy noodles or have they really invented that back country, free - touring, perfect up perfect down ski weighing in under 3 kilos

I haven't had the luxury to ski any of the above mentioned skis and I would be grateful if people who have could make several comments relating to the weight, (pardon the pun) in which they ski.

 

[Philpug]

These new light skis are performance light skis, think of the old Colin Chapman mentality, they are adding lightness, not taking away substance. IIRC, the Blizzard ZeroG skis have over 1,000,000 vert of testing. While I admit I have not been on them, I do know many of the testers who have. These are well respected skiers and know what to expect out of a ski. I agree with you on the Dynafits and some of the other BC specific designs, while I am sure they climbed fine, these were scary on the decent. Let me ping Craig Dostie, maybe I can get him in here to to give you an insiders view.

 

[The Dad]

You're in Europe, or I might suggest looking at something from Praxis.

But an obvious omission from your list is the DPS Wailer 99. http://www.dpsskis.com/en/skis/all-mountain-mixed-snow/wailer-99.html

There are four different constructions, but the lightweights are the Pure3 at 1665g and the Tour1 at 1410g, both in the 184cm length.

 

[bjohansson]

From a different perspective....if you're not looking at a long-range touring ski, why obsess over weight? What bindings are you planning on using? From what you've said, I'd look at downhill performance first and only. I tour on Rossi S3s with Marker Tour F12 bindings and don't notice the weight. My typical day is climb 2000 vertical feet ski down 600-800 feet. Climb back up the 600-800 feet. Repeat multiple times. If you're bootpacking, that's a different story. If you have to carry your rig, weight matters more than if you're mostly skinning.

 

[Nobody]

Well, along.with the zero g 95, my other favourite in this category would be the Voelkl BMT 94.
I'm keeping an eye on both and hope to lay hands on either one before the season ends...

 

[Philpug]

Well, along.with the zero g 95, my other favourite in this category would be the Voelkl BMT 94.
I'm keeping an eye on both and hope to lay hands on either one before the season ends...

I forgot about the BMT 94...Great option.

 

[Dostie]

Weight is great but light is right. Which side of that sentence applies is determined more by how long your approach is. If it's a long approach, light is right. For that I'd lean to the Volkl BMT series, probably the BMT94, or 90eight, or Blizzard's Zero G based on your list. Am not familiar with Stoekli's lightweight skis, so I can't comment on those with any accuracy. Of course their reputation precedes them, but the same is true for Volkl.

Am also fan of Dynastar's Cham HM 97. It is a very versatile ski, with excellent hardpack performance and yet, thanks to a bow instead of a mere early rise tip, it floats like a boat in the deep stuff, but holds an edge where a boat never could. I'll also throw in Black Diamond's Carbon Aspect or Carbon Convert. They aren't as solid as the BMT, but darn versatile considering their weight.

If you're starting out and quickly ascending, and only doing 500m, then you can afford a little extra weight for better downhill performance, especially when the snow is heavy or hard. Of the skis I mentioned above, the Cham or BMT are better in funk and chunk than Zero G and many other lightweight, carbonfiber infused skis. For relatively straight up and down tours with little or no flat terrain to cover, today's mid-weight skis are light enough, and generally better for turns.

The bigger Q should relate to shape. How much rocker do you like in the tip and the tail? That can dramatically affect your choices.

 

[Philpug]

I will defer to @Dostie he is about as smart anyone I know regarding back and side country gear.

 

[Ben]

Wow, brilliant response!!!
Would be great to hear some opinions from Dostie but Thanks so far!
I'm going to mount with either a Diamir Viper or Dynafit Radical ST mark 2
Also thinking about pairing with Scarpa Freedom SL

 

[Philpug]

Wow, brilliant response!!!
Would be great to hear some opinions from Dostie but Thanks so far!
I'm going to mount with either a Diamir Viper or Dynafit Radical ST mark 2
Also thinking about pairing with Scarpa Freedom SL

Yeah, Dostie is good. Lets see want we can go about keeping him around to help out with the back country stuff. @Dostie , what say ye?

 

[markojp]

Wow, brilliant response!!!
Would be great to hear some opinions from Dostie but Thanks so far!
I'm going to mount with either a Diamir Viper or Dynafit Radical ST mark 2
Also thinking about pairing with Scarpa Freedom SL

Have a look at the Katana V-Works. Great ski, light, sassy, but not a cheap date.

 

[bjohansson]

Scarpa Freedoms are great. That's what I tour and ski in. They are not light weight as far as touring boots go but they are lighter than typical alpine boots with walk modes and great going down.

 

[Ben]

I tried on some Dynafit Khion last week both the carbon and non carbon versions. To be honest, stood in the shop the difference in stiffness between the two was hardly noticeable. If anything, the non carbon version seemed to have the more progressive flex.
Anyway, I didn't really like the fit so I can rule those off the list and get back to the Freedom SL.
Thanks bjohansson for the thumbs up on the Scarpa.

 

[Ben]

PS: still waiting for the snow to arrive!! Its torturous.

 

[bjohansson]

2 things:

• Boot flex in the shop bears no resemblance to boot flex when it is 50 or more degrees colder when skiing.
• I have read in several reviews that the non-SL Scarpa Freedom has more progressive and slightly stiffer flex than the Freedom SL. The downside is that the SL comes with an Intuition liner and tech sole lugs, while the non-SL comes with a fair to good liner and DIN soles. The non-SL is cheaper by a fair stretch; enough to buy an Intuition liner and the tech sole lugs and still come out ahead. I can't comment on the flex differences but I went with the non-SL Freedoms because I have no interest in tech bindings. It took 45 days for the stock liners to give out (which I thought was actually pretty god) and I now have Intuition Pro Tours in them.

 

[pais alto]

• I have read in several reviews that the non-SL Scarpa Freedom has more progressive and slightly stiffer flex than the Freedom SL. The downside is that the SL comes with an Intuition liner and tech sole lugs, while the non-SL comes with a fair to good liner and DIN soles. The non-SL is cheaper by a fair stretch; enough to buy an Intuition liner and the tech sole lugs and still come out ahead. I can't comment on the flex differences but I went with the non-SL Freedoms because I have no interest in tech bindings. It took 45 days for the stock liners to give out (which I thought was actually pretty god) and I now have Intuition Pro Tours in them.

Things have changed with this year's (2016) Freedoms. I got both last month so that I could compare and the 2016 non-SL has a noticeably softer flex than the 2016 SL, and the non-SL is a 3 buckle model which may be part of the reason. The other thing that's changed is that the non-SL version now comes with a nice moldable Intuition liner.

I ended up liking the SL version better and selling the non-SL. I haven't tried the Freedom RX (stiffer) but if the OP is looking for burly boots, that might be worth checking out.
https://www.scarpa.com/freeride

The OP might also want to take a look at the current Black Diamond ski offerings. The Boundary model might meet the needs, but I haven't skied them.

 

[Ben]

2 things:

• Boot flex in the shop bears no resemblance to boot flex when it is 50 or more degrees colder when skiing.
• I have read in several reviews that the non-SL Scarpa Freedom has more progressive and slightly stiffer flex than the Freedom SL. The downside is that the SL comes with an Intuition liner and tech sole lugs, while the non-SL comes with a fair to good liner and DIN soles. The non-SL is cheaper by a fair stretch; enough to buy an Intuition liner and the tech sole lugs and still come out ahead. I can't comment on the flex differences but I went with the non-SL Freedoms because I have no interest in tech bindings. It took 45 days for the stock liners to give out (which I thought was actually pretty god) and I now have Intuition Pro Tours in them.

Of course, the difference when skiing a boot is huge to the moment when you're stood in the shop trying them on but how many of us get the chance to demo ski boots before buying????
I guess the answer is not many. So we stand there pushing forward and tilting left and right. When I stood in the shop with the Carbon Khion on my right foot and the non carbon on my left, the difference in the flex was barely noticeable and made me question the price difference, that all.
Anyway, as I always find with Dynafit, the fit is too tight for me.
I'll be trying out the Scarpa Freedom SL this week but to be honest, we're still waiting for the first snow to fall :-(