• For more information on how to avoid pop-up ads and still support SkiTalk click HERE.

AmyPJ

Skiing the powder
SkiTalk Tester
SkiTalk Supporter
Joined
Nov 12, 2015
Posts
7,835
Location
Ogden, UT
Atomic Vantage 86C
Dimensions: 123-86-106.5
Radius: 17.2m@165cm
Sizes: 157, 165, 173
Size tested: 165
Design: NGT

This
ski was a very pleasant surprise. I grabbed them toward the end of the second day on a whim, and am glad I did. The first half of the run I was a bit skeptical, as they just seemed a bit noodle-y and soft, but once I got them up to a bit faster speed, they came to life. I am pretty sure they said, “Oh, you want to go faster? Let's do it!” I could see this being a really great intermediate ski for a lot of folks: easygoing when you want it to be, but up to the task when you want to venture off piste and up the speed game a bit. I wasn't sure how they'd hold on anything scraped off, but they did much better than anticipated when I hit a few spots on a steeper pitch that had seen a lot of skier traffic.
  • Who is it for? The advancing intermediate who wants a great dance partner.
  • Who is it not for? A hard charger.
  • Insider tip: They ski longer than comparable skis in this category, but don't be intimidated by that.

Blizzard Black Pearl 82
Dimensions: 121-82-105
Radius: 15m@166cm
Sizes: 152, 159, 166, 173
Size tested: 166
Design: All New

A slimmed-down version of one of my favorite skis of the past three seasons? Say it isn't so! This ski felt like its big sister, the Black Pearl 88, but of course was quicker to get on edge thanks to its smaller waist. This ski is just easy to ski, yet has the chops to take it up a notch in speed and terrain and remain fun and stable. I think this ski will appeal to a lot of cautious intermediates who are ready to step it up from a “rental fleet” ski and get one of their own. I did not ski this ski in any crud or chop, just soft groomers, but have no doubts based on my vast experience with its sibling ski that it would be easy and confidence-inspiring in those conditions.
  • Who is it for? The cautious intermediate who is ready to step up her game and buy a ski.
  • Who is it not for? A hard-charging powderhound.
  • Insider tip: Size up if you are in between sizes.

DPS Yvette 100 Foundation
DPS Yvette 100 Alchemist

Dimensions: 131-100-116
Radius: 15m@171cm
Sizes: 153, 163, 171
Size tested: 171
Design: All New


Smooth like buttah is how I would describe these beauties. First I took out the Alchemist version of this ski, then to compare, I took out the less-expensive Foundation version. I skied them on their native turf: powder and the subsequent velvety leftover chop. They just did whatever I asked. Very easy, confidence-inspiring, and lovely skis. The Alchemist series ski was a bit smoother and slightly more refined feeling, but honestly, I didn't notice enough of a difference that I would step up to it.
  • Who are they for? Cruising powder hounds.
  • Who are they not for? Greta groomer skier.
  • Insider tip: Go longer.

Dynastar Intense 4x4 82 Pro
Dimensions: 130-82-110
Radius: 16m@164cm
Sizes: 156, 164, 171

Size tested: 165
Design: All New

Want to get your carving groove on? This ski had super edge grip —I wish I had asked what tune it had, as I suspect it was less than 1° on the base. Very easy to get on edge and hold, thanks to a ton of camber, which made it a very fun ski. I felt that the binding had more ramp than I prefer, or it was mounted farther forward than I like, so it wasn't as intuitive as some of the other skis I tested, and I'd love to try it with a flat binding, but alas, it is sold as a system (and at a very sweet price, I might add!) Overall this was really a nice ski that would be a great groomer ripper for someone who spends the majority of their time there, whether by choice or not.
  • Who is it for? The frontside ice queen.
  • Who is it not for? A variable-conditions lover.
  • Insider tip: Don't be afraid to play with the mount point of the system binding.

Fischer My Ranger 102 FR
Dimensions: 135-101-125
Radius: 17m@168cm
Sizes: 159, 168, 176
Size tested: 168
Design: All New

Fischer's My Ranger 102 was very easy to turn and did great on the soft groomers considering their width, but they did not wow me in the crud and chop. I'm not sure if the ramp angle on the bindings threw me, or perhaps the mount point, which seemed quite forward (which I don't like.) I just felt like I was going to go over the handlebars in crud, and they didn't smooth things out like so many other skis in their class. I think a lot of skiers will love this ski, but it just didn't do it for me.
  • Who is it for? A powder cruiser who has a quiver to switch to when things get tracked out.
  • Who is it not for? A gal who craves stability in the crud.
  • Insider tip: Consider moving the bindings back a centimeter or two.

Head Kore 93W

Dimensions: 130-91-113
Radius: 15.4m@171cm
Sizes: 153, 162, 171
Size tested: 162
Design: All N
ew

Are you hard Kore? No? Well, you don't have to be to have a blast on this ski! Definitely one of the favorites that I tested, it was intuitive and easy to ski, stable yet playful, quick, and smile-inducing. It handled cut-up powder with ease and smoothness. An added bonus to this ski is that the the waist gets narrower with the shorter sizes. I didn't get a chance to take it there, but I think this ski would excel in moguls.
  • Who is it for? Someone who wants an extremely versatile, easy, yet strong all-mountain ski.
  • Who is it not for? Greta groomer skier.
  • Insider Tip: Just buy a pair. Really.

Head Total Joy
Dimensions: 134-85-113
Radius: 13.8m@163cm
Sizes: 148, 153, 158, 163, 168
Size tested: 163
Des
ign: All New

Did they make the Joy series even more joyful? I do believe they did! The sidecut on this ski makes it ridiculously easy to enter into a turn, yet I could feather the edges and drift and skid and basically do whatever I wanted on it. I did take it into the soft, deep chop that was left after the huge snow in the previous 24 hr, and it did well there, which was a pleasant surprise. This ski was predictable and smooth despite its light weight. I think it will appeal to a lot of women and possibly lighter men thanks to its gender-neutral graphics, and many who have the old version will like this one even better. It just feels more refined and smooth.
  • Who is it for? One-ski Wonder Woman who doesn't want a quiver.
  • Who is it not for? Someone who doesn't enJOY skiing.
  • Insider tip: Don't fear the sidecut.

Kästle FX96 W
Dimensions: 133-96-119
Radius: 14m@164cm
Sizes: 156, 164, 172
Size tested: 164
Design: All New


These skis matched my outfit so perfectly, I really should have begged the rep for a pair. Okay, so really, I liked this ski a lot. To say it was right at home in the afternoon powder party leftovers is an understatement. I took it into a few of my favorite pitches where the crud forms in masses, and they smoothed things out unlike anything I've skied. Yet, I got on the groomer and they were solid and really fun there, too. I'm still not a huge fan of the tip shape of this ski because it can seem kind of vague at times, but in true soft crud and powder, which is where it's meant to be, it was a really fantastic ski.
  • Who is it for? The resort skier who likes to seek out stashes and the crud in between.
  • Who is it not for? Someone who is afraid to ski crud.
  • Insider tip: Buy an outfit to match.

K2 Mindbender 88Ti Alliance
Dimensions: 125-88-112
Radius: 14.7m@163cm
Sizes: 149, 156, 163, 170
Size tested: 163
Design: All New

Will the Mindbender 88Ti blow your mind? Well, it might! It was the first ski of the bunch that I skied, and I was not disappointed. Super easy to ski, but stable and playful, they made me feel a bit like a superhero. They were fast and damp, yet playful and just ridiculously easy to ski. I would not cry if a pair of these showed up on my doorstep.
  • Who is it for? The gal who wants to rip all over the mountain.
  • Who is it not for? Someone who only skis on powder days.
  • Insider tip: They ski true to length.

K2 Mindbender 98Ti
Dimensions: 134-98-120
Radius: 15.6m@168cm
Sizes: 154,161,168, 175
Size tested: 168
Design: All New

So, this ski went beyond mind-blowing to me and kind of was more like butt-spanking. I believe it was just too long for me considering the construction. The K2 rep mentioned that they are really closer to a 170. Unfortunately, they didn't have any of the shorter lengths available. This is a serious ski, and I do think a lot of very skilled women skiers will love it. But it was a bit much for me, which in truthfulness says a lot about how much K2 is revamping its lineup -- in a good way. There are other options for the inter-vanced skier like myself. (See Mindbender 88 above.)

  • Who is it for? The gal who has a good skill set and likes to go fast off piste in variable conditions.
  • Who is it not for? An intermediate who has a bit of hesitancy at times. (Wish I could have tried it shorter.)
  • Insider tip: They ski very true to length.

Liberty V
76 W

Dimensions: 126-76-106
Radius: 12m@158cm
Sizes: 151, 158, 165
Size tested: 158

Design: All New

Holy little sports car! I think I would prefer it in about a 162 length, but it still inspired me to zip down the hill at a fast clip, and dip into some soft moguls that had formed along the sides of the runs, where it was a hoot. The sidecut and shovel made me think it was going to lock me into a turn and not smear, but that was not the case. It was quite effortless and definitely fun!
  • Who is it for? Someone who doesn't want to think too much while skiing.
  • Who is it not for? Someone who prefers to straightline.
  • Insider tip: Don't hesitate to size down.

Liberty V82 W
Dimensions: 129-82-110
Radius: 12.5m@165cm
Sizes: 151, 158, 165
Size tested: 165

Design: All New

See the above review of the V76. These two skis were very similar in feel and shape. I did ski this V82 in some untracked powder and crud, in addition to soft groomers, and it was just easy. It smeared in all conditions, yet didn't feel like it wanted to wash out at any time. Liberty is producing some very nice skis that are user-friendly yet can handle a lot more than just cruising!
  • Who is it for? Someone who wants a refined, easy ski that can handle variety.
  • Who is it not for? Over-aggressive charger.
  • Insider tip: Want moguls? Go shorter. Want to zoom? Go longer.

Nordica Santa Ana 88
Dimensions: 119-88-107
Radius: 15m@165cm
Sizes: 151, 158, 165, 172
Size tested: 165
Design: All New


The beloved Santa Ana series of skis has a new little sister, but don't be fooled by her smaller width: this girl has some serious spunk and power! I believe Nordica has hit a home run with this ski. It is fast, stable, and smeary yet holds an edge; it is fun in chop, fun on groomers, and fun in soft bumps; and it is stupid easy to initiate turns on. This ski was very intuitive to me. I got on it and took off like a shot and never slowed down. I skied it again the next day to make sure I wasn't just biased by the superb snow conditions the first day. I wasn't. This ski is on its way to me, I liked it that much. I did a lot of giggling and whooping and hollering on it, so how could I not make it my new ski BFF?
  • Who is it for? The advancing skier who wants a ski that will give them the confidence to explore new places.
  • Who is it not for? Someone who never smiles while skiing.
  • Insider tip: Size up a couple centimeters if you are in between sizes.

Salomon QST 92

Dimensions: 128-92-111
Radius: 16m@161cm
Sizes: 153, 161, 169, 177
Size tested: 161
Design: All N
ew

This ski is so new, they don't even have a full size run available yet, so I skied it shorter than I really would have preferred. Even so, it didn't feel unstable or too crazily short. I wasn't a fan of the previous versions of the Lumen line, but this one is a huge improvement -- as in, if a pair showed up on my doorstep, I might hug them. Where the Lumens were kind of bouncy and boring, these are smooth and have power on the groomers I wasn't expecting. They slice through the crud like knives and transition from one type of snow to another without missing a beat. Salomon has done a great job with the redesign of its skis for 2020.
  • Who is it for? The gal who wants a one-ski quiver.
  • Who is it not for? The non-adventurous.
  • Insider tip: They ski longer than you might think.

Völkl Kenja 88
Dimensions: 129-88-111
Radius: 15m@163cm
Sizes: 149, 156, 163, 170
Size tested: 163
Design: All New


The Kenja has been redesigned this year to match the construction of its big sister, the Secret, which was new last year. I really liked this ski a lot on the groomers, which has always been the case with Völkl for me. The Kenja is so stable and fast on the groomers, but for this lighter-weight gal, a bit too stiff in crud and chop. That being said, advanced intermediate and higher skiers who like a stiffer ski for off piste really owe it to themselves to give these a try. They initiate turns easily, and again, hold like a vise grip through the turn. I owned the predecessor to this ski, a 2016 Kenja, and these are definitely an improvement in overall ease of use.
  • Who is it for? Advanced to expert women who like fast groomers.
  • Who is it not for? Tentative lightweights.
  • Insider tip: Don't size up on these babies.
 
Last edited:
Thread Starter
TS
AmyPJ

AmyPJ

Skiing the powder
SkiTalk Tester
SkiTalk Supporter
Joined
Nov 12, 2015
Posts
7,835
Location
Ogden, UT
You're not alone with the weird mount points on the Fischer line.
Oh, thanks for chiming in. I always wonder, "is it just me, or??" One of those skis that I think I'd really like, except for the feeling that I was about to go over the handlebars the whole time. Then I wonder who sets the mount points, and if they tested them out first.
 

Analisa

Making fresh tracks
Skier
Joined
Dec 29, 2017
Posts
982
Oh, thanks for chiming in. I always wonder, "is it just me, or??" One of those skis that I think I'd really like, except for the feeling that I was about to go over the handlebars the whole time. Then I wonder who sets the mount points, and if they tested them out first.

They tout it as their "Women's BMP: Forward binding mounting point to make turning easier for energy-saving skiing." Reminds me of the sales guy who was shocked my friend was shopping for the Backland 102s because "women don't usually like skis that wide. Anything over 95 or 100, their thighs just get too tired."

This is their visual for the women's line - god I hope it's not to scale. I kind of face palmed when they reached out this winter like "Is it the colors? Is it the Ranger name? Why don't women like our skis?"

bmp.jpg
 

James

Out There
Instructor
Joined
Dec 2, 2015
Posts
24,856
Reminds me of the sales guy who was shocked my friend was shopping for the Backland 102s because "women don't usually like skis that wide. Anything over 95 or 100, their thighs just get too tired."
Well that's a new one! Damn.
Shopping at Teddy Brosevelt's Ski and Sport?
That graphic practically looks center mounted.
IMG_6400.JPG
 
Thread Starter
TS
AmyPJ

AmyPJ

Skiing the powder
SkiTalk Tester
SkiTalk Supporter
Joined
Nov 12, 2015
Posts
7,835
Location
Ogden, UT
They tout it as their "Women's BMP: Forward binding mounting point to make turning easier for energy-saving skiing." Reminds me of the sales guy who was shocked my friend was shopping for the Backland 102s because "women don't usually like skis that wide. Anything over 95 or 100, their thighs just get too tired."

This is their visual for the women's line - god I hope it's not to scale. I kind of face palmed when they reached out this winter like "Is it the colors? Is it the Ranger name? Why don't women like our skis?"

View attachment 72614
Well that's interesting...I've skied a few Fischer's I've liked, and I didn't NOT like these, I just didn't like where they were mounted. Well, that's at least what it felt like. Makes me want to try them again with the bindings back 2 cm or more.

I won't even touch the first part of your post...:doh:
 

GregK

Skiing the powder
Skier
Joined
Mar 21, 2017
Posts
4,039
Location
Ontario, Canada
I know of the Men’s version of the Fisher 102 FR that the binding mount is a pretty traditional 10cm back from center but since it’s a twin tip, many move the bindings forward 2-4cm for a more freestyle feel. The new 94FR is already bumped forward 2.5cm forward(7.4cm back from center) of the 102FR from the factory line.

Wondering if the rep just “assumed” most people like the 102FR more forward forgetting the My Ranger version is already more forward from the factory compounding the issue? Curious how much more forward the My Ranger versions are.

Btw-that’s a hilarious/sad comment about women from the rep not liking wide skis! That’s why I’m thinking they might have messed up the binding position somehow.
 

Erik Timmerman

So much better than a pro
Instructor
Joined
Nov 12, 2015
Posts
6,357
Btw-that’s a hilarious/sad comment about women from the rep not liking wide skis! That’s why I’m thinking they might have messed up the binding position somehow.

The rep is out there doing demos every day. He probably only said it because women keep coming back to his tent with wide skis saying "wow, my thighs are tired".
 
Last edited:
Thread Starter
TS
AmyPJ

AmyPJ

Skiing the powder
SkiTalk Tester
SkiTalk Supporter
Joined
Nov 12, 2015
Posts
7,835
Location
Ogden, UT
Btw-that’s a hilarious/sad comment about women from the rep not liking wide skis! That’s why I’m thinking they might have messed up the binding position somehow.

The rep is out there doing demos every day. He probably only said it because women keep coming back to his tent with wide skis saying "wow, my thighs are tired".
Ha! Maybe their thighs are tired because the bindings are mounted too far forward or the ramp angle of the bindings is too steep. :roflmao:
 

Erik Timmerman

So much better than a pro
Instructor
Joined
Nov 12, 2015
Posts
6,357
The rep is out there doing demos every day. He probably only said it because women keep coming back to his tent with wide skis saying "wow, my thighs are tired".
Ha! Maybe their thighs are tired because the bindings are mounted too far forward or the ramp angle of the bindings is too steep. :roflmao:[/QUOTE]

Could be, I thought this quote was from the Atomic rep? Anyway as for the Fischer, the FR is for freeride, mount point can get funny there, the FR is mounted farther forward than the Ranger Ti models, and a lot of park people still son't think it's far enough forward. I think mine are fine right on the line, but I could see moving them back a bit too. I don't know anything about MyRanger mount point vs, Ranger, so won't comment on that.
 

Erik Timmerman

So much better than a pro
Instructor
Joined
Nov 12, 2015
Posts
6,357
Wow, those quotes are pretty broken and I don't know how to fix them.
 
Thread Starter
TS
AmyPJ

AmyPJ

Skiing the powder
SkiTalk Tester
SkiTalk Supporter
Joined
Nov 12, 2015
Posts
7,835
Location
Ogden, UT
Ha! Maybe their thighs are tired because the bindings are mounted too far forward or the ramp angle of the bindings is too steep. :roflmao:

Could be, I thought this quote was from the Atomic rep? Anyway as for the Fischer, the FR is for freeride, mount point can get funny there, the FR is mounted farther forward than the Ranger Ti models, and a lot of park people still son't think it's far enough forward. I think mine are fine right on the line, but I could see moving them back a bit too. I don't know anything about MyRanger mount point vs, Ranger, so won't comment on that.[/QUOTE]
Ahh that's good information. I'm NOT a freeride girl at all, apparently.
 

VickieH

Contrarian
Skier
Joined
Nov 13, 2015
Posts
1,933
Location
Denver area
@AmyPJ -- You currently have a predecessor to some of those skis. If you did not, which would be your top pick to purchase?
 

Tricia

The Velvet Hammer
Admin
SkiTalk Tester
Joined
Nov 1, 2015
Posts
27,605
Location
Reno
Wow, those quotes are pretty broken and I don't know how to fix them.
I think I fixed them. Take a look.
It was missing the " before the ] in the beginning part of the quote.
 
Thread Starter
TS
AmyPJ

AmyPJ

Skiing the powder
SkiTalk Tester
SkiTalk Supporter
Joined
Nov 12, 2015
Posts
7,835
Location
Ogden, UT
@AmyPJ -- You currently have a predecessor to some of those skis. If you did not, which would be your top pick to purchase?
Of the skis I reviewed above? The Nordica Santa Ana 88. I purchased it immediately after the ski testing and have loved them in literally all conditions, even foot-deep powder. They were a BLAST in spring slush, too. I was seeking a replacement to my Black Pearl 88s that had more oomph and was better in powder than the BP (I use an 88mm ski for just about everything, as do a lot of the really good skiers at my mountain) and found them in the Santa Ana. I have videos of before and after I got these skis, and my skiing improved a lot after I got them.

A close 2nd was the Head Kore 93 (which at 162, is 89 under foot, so again, my magic width.) I'm going to be looking for another 100mm under foot type ski for next year, and am anxious to try a pair of the Kore 99s to see if they would suit my needs. My pre-metal Santa Ana 100s are too light when the snow is of a denser variety, and my Sheeva 10s are about 5mm too short. I find that I don't care for and truly don't NEED anything wider than that.
 

Eleeski

Making fresh tracks
Skier
Joined
Nov 13, 2015
Posts
2,296
Location
San Diego / skis at Squaw Valley
Thanks for some good baseline info. That is really valuable for us.

Did you get to experiment with the binding placement? Sometimes that can really dial in some characteristics - given that women's mount recommendations can be different. Personally I often end up 1cm forward of men's mounts.

Are these skis suitable for men? At the risk of sounding creepy, what are your physical statistics? You are testing about a size smaller than my preferences and a size bigger than my daughter in law.

It sounds like you had some fun in the process.

Eric
 
Thread Starter
TS
AmyPJ

AmyPJ

Skiing the powder
SkiTalk Tester
SkiTalk Supporter
Joined
Nov 12, 2015
Posts
7,835
Location
Ogden, UT
Thanks for some good baseline info. That is really valuable for us.

Did you get to experiment with the binding placement? Sometimes that can really dial in some characteristics - given that women's mount recommendations can be different. Personally I often end up 1cm forward of men's mounts.

Are these skis suitable for men? At the risk of sounding creepy, what are your physical statistics? You are testing about a size smaller than my preferences and a size bigger than my daughter in law.

It sounds like you had some fun in the process.

Eric
I did not play around with binding placement, which (as is referenced above) I wish I could have with a few of the skis. We just go go go and get on as many as we can, so playing with mount points doesn't usually happen. I AM very sensitive to ramp angles and try to reference that in my reviews when I think it played a role in me scratching my head about a few of the skis.

I'm 5'5" and weigh about 130 this year. I just turned 50, and am a cautious level 7ish skier (sometimes, I'm barely a level 4 :P) I have been seeking off-piste much more for the past two seasons, but still balk at big moguls. I had a bad injury skiing 4 years ago, and that made me realize how quickly your life can be turned on its head in an instant, so, I dial back and have zero issues saying "nope!" when people, who know my skill set and know I COULD ski it, try to talk me into something I'm not feeling up for.
 
Thread Starter
TS
AmyPJ

AmyPJ

Skiing the powder
SkiTalk Tester
SkiTalk Supporter
Joined
Nov 12, 2015
Posts
7,835
Location
Ogden, UT
Thanks, your insight is even more useful.

Good attitude - but I'll still try to coax you down the big bumps at West Face when you come to Squaw.

Eric
Maybe by the time I actually make it out there, I'll be skiing moguls on my own :D Funny, my 12 YO daughter seeks them out, she loves them!
 

Sponsor

Staff online

Top