picking length of Stockli Laser AX

skeejunky

At the base lodge
Skier
Joined
Oct 15, 2018
Posts
4
Location
Mt. Bachelor, Bend., Oregon
Didn't really want to start a separate thread but might be for the best. Reviews both magazine and Pugski and general public really like the Laser AX as an all around high performance ski so I am looking to buy a pair. So do I go 168 or 175?

So I am about 150 lbs (with boots and uniform) just at 6 foot and hard aggressive expert skier. I am going for my second try at level three PSIA this year, just barely missed it last year (I did get half way there and passed teaching). I love the crud, ice, hard pack, bumps and pow (of course), with every condition a challenge to make it fun but challenging always improving skill level. I ski a 178 E88 and a 175 E84. 175 seems reasonable but just wondering if I would be missing some of the ski's ability by going too long.

So the question is how long should I go? Any ideas would help. Thanks
 

Philpug

Notorious P.U.G.
Admin
Pugski Ski Tester
Joined
Nov 1, 2015
Posts
23,740
Location
Reno, eNVy
The tip on the AX is a little gradual and it skis a smidge on the short side, I would say because of your 6' height and that you are a solid LII instructor, the 175cm.
 

cosmoliu

Out on the slopes
Skier
Joined
Dec 6, 2015
Posts
652
Location
Central CA Coast
I'm 140# sans boots and 5'8". The 168s are perfect for me. You sound a lot like @Lorenzzo in size and ski style, and he seems very happy on the 175s. Maybe he will come to the red paging phone.
 

martyg

Out on the slopes
Industry Insider
Joined
Nov 24, 2017
Posts
787
Skee - the Lazer AX is an excellent test ski. It is my all-day, day-in, day-out work ski for the same reason. I can be in the beginner area, or in bumps, or in steeps, or pow, or tippin' and rippin' and the ski performs superbly across such a wide range no matter who my guest / client is that day. I even have two pair, and alternate weeks on them with one sitting with a fresh tune, while I ski the other.

When testing skis I skied both the 167 and the 175. I could certainly ski the 167, and be comfortable with it. However in inconsistent snow I had to pay just a bit too much attention to pressure control for me to LOVE it as a ski that I am on from bell-to-bell. It may help me be a better skier, but wasn't loving it like the 175. To me, the 175 doesn't feel like it compromises on edge engagement, and it is just a bit more user friendly.

I'm 168ish. 5'9"ish.

Enjoy.
 

Lorenzzo

Right On The Line
Skier
Joined
Nov 12, 2015
Posts
2,124
Location
Not Here.
Got the page. I'm 6'1" 187 and am on the 175 from the previous generation. Length considerations are likely the same for both generations. I remember being concerned the 175 would be too small but was encouraged by the Jans buyer in Park City in fact he said I'd be happy on the 168, that they are very stable and ski long, and this coming from a guy with a race background who handled Jan's race ski department. For me the 175 is money. I use it mostly as a soft snow ski as on firm I have race and near race skis so I wanted something good in crud and up to 6 inches of fresh and surfaces not as hospitable to hardback carvers.

In your case I think you'd be happy on either. That said It's less a drive the boot ski than most Stocklis and thrives more on lateral, tipping input. Also the longer I ski it the more I take it into crud and powder and for that length helps. It absolutely rips in crud and forming bumps. I'm almost drooling thinking about them in those conditions with the new season upon us. Based on your weight and that you're thinking you'll use it for the L3 you'll need to figure out trade-offs which might be somewhat different than others of us who are on them.
 

Magi

Instructor
Instructor
Joined
Apr 8, 2017
Posts
379
Location
Winter Park, Colorado
Get the 175.

I passed my L3 last season on the 17/18 Laser AX 167s (I am 169cm tall), and occasionally think I'd like the next length up more, so I think you'll be happier on the 175.
 
Thread Starter
TS
skeejunky

skeejunky

At the base lodge
Skier
Joined
Oct 15, 2018
Posts
4
Location
Mt. Bachelor, Bend., Oregon
great input here, thanks to everyone With a sigh I think we will run on the 175, sounds like a better choice for the non-groomed ski and still a nice run on the groomed. Length is a very deciding factor for the float and I never really thought about the slow tip drop so yeah a little shorter on edge contact. so thanks and also thinking about another stellar snow year. summer (especially this dry and hot one) sucks.:ogcool::eek:
 

mdf

entering the Big Couloir
Skier
Joined
Nov 12, 2015
Posts
3,879
Location
Boston Suburbs
Well, I skied @cosmoliu 's pair of 167's for one run, and found them an amazing bump ski. (It was literally one run, so directly into the bumps with no "getting acquainted" period.) I probably weighed around 195 at that time. I didn't really have a chance to let them run on flat snow, but I'm guessing they might be a touch short. On the other hand, forty pounds difference.....So either should work for you.
 

ski otter 2

Out on the slopes
Skier
Joined
Nov 20, 2015
Posts
928
As a contrarian here regarding the AX in particular, my own feeling is that all three lengths of the AX are incredible, though different (including the 183, or whatever it is this year). Slightly different uses/feel. But hard to go wrong. In general, the more bumps, the shorter ones I'd favor. The more the crud and uneven or soft snow, and the more the big turns, the longer ones I'd favor.

For me, the trick is to just move the binding more forward, the longer the ski (and the shorter/lighter the skier). (For me, either on a PRD, other demo or a Schizo binding.)

And I wouldn't say this if I were the only one with this conclusion:

The Harb group folk (shutter!) have settled on +2.5 for this ski optimally, I'm told (and also the 175 at the same setting, which is farther on that than I'd probably prefer!)

The Larson shop man and Gorsuch shop woman I've skied with on these, all of us on 183s (me 150/5'10", him 185/5'8", her 155/5'11"), have enjoyed this ski from on the line to +3 at least. (The farther forward, the quicker at turns it gets, very wonderfully.)

This is a ski that, to me, has continual "sweet spots" as you move forward and back, instead of getting out of wack. The ski just changes, all of the settings neat.

So the 183s really like as much as +2.5 to +3.0 if you want to get optimal quick turns out of that ski (in trees or bumps, for instance). Also, the more you want it in crud/soft or variable snow, the more fore-aft considerations come into play, which also favors the longer and farther forward.
 

Philpug

Notorious P.U.G.
Admin
Pugski Ski Tester
Joined
Nov 1, 2015
Posts
23,740
Location
Reno, eNVy
I skied them on the line and thought they were stellar. I will leave it at that.
 

MarkG

Putting on skis
Skier
Joined
Dec 30, 2015
Posts
51
Location
Dublin, CA
...and for 200+/5'11"/Advanced Skier? 183? Or could I get away with something smaller (and easier to find on the used market)
 

dawgcatching

Snow? What is that?
Industry Insider
Joined
Nov 24, 2015
Posts
172
Location
SMU Cox School of Business
Didn't really want to start a separate thread but might be for the best. Reviews both magazine and Pugski and general public really like the Laser AX as an all around high performance ski so I am looking to buy a pair. So do I go 168 or 175?

So I am about 150 lbs (with boots and uniform) just at 6 foot and hard aggressive expert skier. I am going for my second try at level three PSIA this year, just barely missed it last year (I did get half way there and passed teaching). I love the crud, ice, hard pack, bumps and pow (of course), with every condition a challenge to make it fun but challenging always improving skill level. I ski a 178 E88 and a 175 E84. 175 seems reasonable but just wondering if I would be missing some of the ski's ability by going too long.

So the question is how long should I go? Any ideas would help. Thanks
I would go with the 175cm if you are skiing off-piste. The new AX (2019) skis a bit longer than the old version: it has less tip rise, less tip taper, and is slightly stiffer at the tip. I skied the 175cm or 167cm on the old version, but I am solidly on the 168cm for the current 2019 version. I skied the 175cm expecting to buy that length, but the 168cm was more fun. Then again, I have other skis, and don't need the extra length for softer snow.

Still, in your case, unless you are sticking primarily to groomers, the 175cm may make more sense. 168cm will be fine if you are just skiing groomers and frontside conditions.

The new AX is selling very well. How does everyone like it so far?
 
Top