Help me with the middle of my quiver!

[Dougb]

I have not skied it, but the Salomon Stance 96 is a ski in the mid-90s range drawing very good reviews for being frontside carvers close to the Bonafides, Mantra M5, and Ranger 99ti, but being much easier to ski in the bumps and trees with a tail that's easier to release. @Ron can weigh in here.

Also do not overlook the 96mm-waisted J Skis Masterblaster which came up in another thread recently. "Fun" is the operative word for this ski which is stable, playful, can carve, and is versatile. Not the best at any of those but a special ski nonetheless. I speak from experience on that one.

 

[DB Cooper]

I’m a Utah-based skier with a 2 ski quiver: enforcer 88 and a 1-oh-something, currently backland 109, but I’m in the process of replacing it with something else. Current leader in the clubhouse is an Atris but still have a few more to try.

I am also bigger at 6’3”, 225 and I love the enforcers. Skied the 93 for the better part of the past 4 years and switched to the 88 this year. I can ski the enforcers in a couple of inches no problem and anything more gets taken over by the new, wider ski.

like others have suggested, it’s hard to balance an 80 something all mountain, a 90 something all mountain, and 100 something all mountain. Too much overlap. I manage just fine with an 88 and a one-oh-something.

 

[Ecimmortal]

funny - I was just looking at those. Shop in the area carries that brand - may inquire about hem.

That's cool. Not many shops carry ON3P (by design) so at least you can put hands on them.

 

[Noodler]

I would definitely fill that gap with a 93-95mm waist ski.

And there's a ski that I bet would "rock your world" and change your perception of what a 95mm ski can do. It's the older Fischer Pro MT 95 Ti. Plenty of rocker for a semi-deep day along with carving performance that most skis in this width can't get close to. Luckily they can be had right now brand new for very good prices if you look around.

 

[Ron]

I have not skied it, but the Salomon Stance 96 is a ski in the mid-90s range drawing very good reviews for being frontside carvers close to the Bonafides, Mantra M5, and Ranger 99ti, but being much easier to ski in the bumps and trees with a tail that's easier to release. @Ron can weigh in here.

Also do not overlook the 96mm-waisted J Skis Masterblaster which came up in another thread recently. "Fun" is the operative word for this ski which is stable, playful, can carve, and is versatile. Not the best at any of those but a special ski nonetheless. I speak from experience on that one.

right on the money @Dougb! super damp and quiet. Really quick too. I wouldn't put it in the frontside carver class, much more of an "all mountain" ski. the 114 tail is a bit narrower than a typical carver. It can and does hookup very nicely but I bought it for my 6" plus day and leftover skis. its quite strong underfoot and holds well on steeps. It has a really light swing weight which makes it much more of a fun ski than most in that class.

 

[Erik Timmerman]

I would definitely fill that gap with a 93-95mm waist ski.

And there's a ski that I bet would "rock your world" and change your perception of what a 95mm ski can do. It's the older Fischer Pro MT 95 Ti. Plenty of rocker for a semi-deep day along with carving performance that most skis in this width can't get close to. Luckily they can be had right now brand new for very good prices if you look around.

Yes, great ski. I should grab a pair, but I still like my Motive 95s!

 

[BMC]

Imho, that's way too much overlap to coexist in a sane quiver. Honestly, there just isn't that much space between a 105 and an 82. These work pretty well as a two ski quiver. But if you're going to do it, low to mid 90s is dead center. The Enforcer 94 would make more sense than the 100. But I think a ski with a fairly different personality would make even more sense because then the overlap matters less (say the aforementioned Rustler 9?). Or go in a completely different direction and make the Kästle the middle ski by buying a pow ski... Really depends what you're looking for.

It’s not like I “disagree” with what you say. The 94 has a good logical argument for it. But the Kastle 105 and Nordica 100 will ski quite differently. That different “feel” is the main reason for recommendation, and taking in account the ops desires.

i honestly don’t feel there’s a need to fill a “gap” between an 80 something mm ski and a 100mm ski. Not once in my ski life have I found myself on an 80 something ski saying “I wish I had a low 90’s ski today”. Nor when skiing a 100mm ski have I said the same thing.

Thats not to say there’s no value in a 90 something waisted ski. I own and use Salomon QST 92s as an AT ski. But the point I make still stands.

So my recommendation was more about a different “feeling” and use case than trying to fill out a quiver with equidistant gaps in waist widths. Plus I was also using prior ski preferences as a guide, taking on board the stated preferences.

None of this is a “narky” response, incidentally. Just explaining such logic as there was behind the recommendation.

 

[CascadeConcrete]

It’s not like I “disagree” with what you say. The 94 has a good logical argument for it. But the Kästle 105 and Nordica 100 will ski quite differently. That different “feel” is the main reason for recommendation, and taking in account the ops desires.

Totally agree with you that there's no big need to fill the gap, I said as much in my post too. I'm not so sure that I agree these skis are that different though. One is a 100ish, double metal layer, relatively stiff, relatively heavy, medium radius, rocker-camber-rocker, freeride-focused, all mountain ski. And the
other is a 100ish, double metal layer, relatively stiff, relatively heavy, medium radius, rocker-camber-rocker, freeride-focused, all mountain ski. Admittedly I've never ridden the Kästles. But honestly, in the grand scheme of things, are they really that different? If OP wants a different feel, I suspect they can find something far less subtle.

 

[BMC]

Totally agree with you that there's no big need to fill the gap, I said as much in my post too. I'm not so sure that I agree these skis are that different though. One is a 100ish, double metal layer, relatively stiff, relatively heavy, medium radius, rocker-camber-rocker, freeride-focused, all mountain ski. And the
other is a 100ish, double metal layer, relatively stiff, relatively heavy, medium radius, rocker-camber-rocker, freeride-focused, all mountain ski. Admittedly I've never ridden the Kästles. But honestly, in the grand scheme of things, are they really that different? If OP wants a different feel, I suspect they can find something far less subtle.

All good. You’re looking at a bloke (me) who owns a Nordica Enforcer Free 104, and Nordica Enforcer 100, and has convinced himself they have different use cases! And they do! One (the 104) use as my base ski in Niseko where lots of powder skiing off piste in trees is the norm, with say 30-40% piste skiing. The other (the 100) is either my snowy day ski in Oz, or base ski pretty much anywhere else.

Yes either could easily slot into much the same space in the quiver, but there it is! too much free time in covid to explore post purchase dissonance (it was a total toss up between these two all the way).

Apropos of not much!

 

[Ron]

For those interested in the Stance 96, I just updated the review page. https://www.SkiTalk.com/threads/2021-salomon-stance-96.20633/page-2. Post #28.

Skied boot high to crotch deep pow today. the stance is superb. I cant recommend this one highly enough. its a true Western OSQ with a heavy nod to crud and powder or leftovers for skiers who love bumps and trees.