picking length of Stockli Laser AX

[raytseng]

So good Scott.
Took them out 12/8 for firstday at AlpineMeadows for morning carving and short turns. Performed awesome on the hard groom and bites in on the hard prepped slopes.
Eats up all the imperfections and sticks to the snow giving you confidence, gives you back all the energy you put in.

Very first few runs they felt a little high sprung, but loosened up after about 10laps to be more predictable to load up and release

I plan to stay onpiste with these, and at 168 are super stable, no tipflap, wobble vibration, or chatter, with a speed limit beyond what I feel comfortable with for resort skiing.

5'6" 155lbs.
173 bonafides are my standard ski.

The 168 ax feels like it has more edge and length than the bones to me. I couldn't see myself skiing the 175 for the runs i want to do with then. Frontside skis seem to measure shorter but ski longer than the backside or powder skis (see post from Jerez who sized down); i would say if your e84s def. feel short then go 175, if they feel normal or enough to you then size down.

If you're taking them everywhere over your e84 or e88 also is one thing versus just staying on groomers and or smallbumps

 

[dawgcatching]

yeah, they ski MUCH longer than the 173cm Bonafide. Running length has to be a few cm longer, not to mention the overall stability of the ski being higher than the Bonafide. These are just in a different world. I ski the Stormrider 95 as my consistent go-everywhere ski, and the 175cm is a good 20% more stable than the Bonafide in 180cm. The interesting part is that the SR95 is softer and friendlier than the Bonafide by a significant margin.

 

[UGASkiDawg]

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?

Holy crap I knew I loved this ski when i demoed it but now that I have two days on them. These skis are like having all the cheat codes for a video game. It's like skiing on a high G rail except if you want to loaf you can. Absolute perfection!
. They just go over or through anything and barely notice it's there. So awesome in the bumps.

 

[skeejunky]

so I asked and was answered and here are the results. I went with the 175, in general because that is the length I have been skiing previously, 175 178 in that range. Today I clicked into them for the first time, even though coverage was a bit sketchy. Hey, just a little kid sneaking a Christmas present open early.

Right along with David (above poster) these babies rock and roll like nothing before. Roll them up on an edge and they slice through everything carving just where you want them to go, and they get faster as you get used to them. Hitting that super hardpack stuff (some people mistakenly call it ice, not ice till you can see 4" into it) and all you had to do was tip them a little higher and they bit into it like a knife through butter. Super stable, more so than most of the other ski's I have ridden. I had them tuned at a mild 1 degree base and two degree edge side, normally do like a .5 instead of 1 but they were still amazing. more spendy than normal but I also skied the same stuff for two years, normally only one year, 100 days in a season, so figured I was worth it . If you have a chance to ride them do so, buy is even better.

So my twenty second review (and yeah, gouged out the base in a couple of spots, sigh, lucky mild and p-texable) thanks for all the help here, a bit spendy but I think worth the price . Oh yes, if they are this good on winter hard pack I can't wait for spring sludge skiing.

 

[jmills115]

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.

Any chance you skied the 183? With a used pair in 183 being available and me at 6’2 and 205 I am not very serious about them at the moment as I’m thinking the 175 would be a better fit for me but would like any input

 

[Lorenzzo]

Any chance you skied the 183? With a used pair in 183 being available and me at 6’2 and 205 I am not very serious about them at the moment as I’m thinking the 175 would be a better fit for me but would like any input

I haven't been on the 183 on either the last generation or current. I more or less got waved off by Squid at Jans on the last gen. When I felt the currents in 175 it was game over.

 

[James]

Any chance you skied the 183? With a used pair in 183 being available and me at 6’2 and 205 I am not very serious about them at the moment as I’m thinking the 175 would be a better fit for me but would like any input

The 183 is a ton of work when things get steep. I skied @mdf 's for half a day. Fun on the low pitch wet powder. On Ovation and Superstar it was a bear and not fun. Heavy and too much work. My 192cm Stormrider 95's were feathers in comparison.

 

[ski otter 2]

I ski the 183, as does my friend Randy. He likes them at +1 or so for everything. For me, it's at +1 to +3 (+1 for groomers and smoother slopes, up to +3 for moguls and mogulled steeps). 183 is great for both, if binding advanced some (with demo or Schizo binding).

Versus the 175, I think for rough mogulled uneven and moguls in general, 175 would be better. And more relaxed and playful. For groomers and more even slopes, 183. More stable at speed. Depends on what you ski more: trade-offs.

 

[pykie87]

I’m 6”5 (196cm) and 105kgs.

Mentioned in the other thread that I ski’d the 182 and the 175 today.

182 is a powerhouse on the wide open runs for me, it felt more like a GS in turns etc, was hard to muscle in mogels and where I needed quick turns.

The 175cm was unbelievablely responsive, the shorter ski in the moguls and crud and even in 10-20cm of fresh stuff was just a blast. Most fun I’ve had in years.

Even at my height weight, if I’m buying in a week, which I very well might be, I’m buying the 175’s. Had so much fun with them, an unbelievable ski and I think I’m converted to a shorter ski.

I’m trying the 170 Laser SL’s now.