Report from Loveland demos, November 2015

[mike_m]

Just got back from the demos at Loveland. Wanted to try possible replacements for two of my go-to skis: my everyday teaching skis (versatile, but biased toward the frontside with a waist around 80) that I can comfortably ski all day for six days straight(!) and a possible replacement for my moderate-depth soft-snow skis; again, ones that are versatile (good in snow up to 10 inches, in trees and bumps, but also with good hard-snow grip). My current skis are previous-generation Volkl RTM 80s and Rossi S3s.

Conditions were perfect for demos: The first day, we had about 9 inches of fresh at 9 AM, turning to crud by 10, then bumps by midday. The next day was clear and cold, with the trail starting as a velvet groomer and turning into hardpack and firm bumps by midday.

Me: Copper instructor, 5' 10", 165 lbs., modern technique. I'm what's called a "feeler," so my reviews are quick impressions of well-regarded/well-reviewed advanced-expert skis. Notes were scribbled on the chairlift after a run: totally subjective! I like skis that are just "there" underneath me as a natural extension of me, whatever the condition: not so stiff that my legs are always being pounded (i.e., older Volkl carvers/Mantra), not so soft that they don't give me confidence on hardpack or at speed.

So, with that disclaimer, and taking into account that a 230-lb. linebacker would certainly prefer skis I find to be too stiff or burly, these were my notes. All models were skied in 170-177 lengths for the narrow mid-fats; 177-180 for the wider skis. As a general note, there are very few bad skis out there! Manufacturers have seemed to settle, in general, on a design of camber underfoot with varying degrees of early rise, and modest rise in the tails. The defining difference I found was the degree of firmness/stiffness in the ski. Obviously, my preference, at my weight, is a ski with less of a burly construction (usually with less, or no, metal).

Starred skis (*) were my favorites.

Narrow mid-fats, 78-84 waist

Everyday, go-to skis. Looking for playful, versatile, shorter-turning skis with decent off-piste performance and good grip on boilerplate.

*Volkl RTM 81 (177 length): Excellent everyday ski for 90 percent of ski days. Very versatile. Very good in crud, bumps, and hardpack. Livelier and firmer than previous version of RTM 80s.

*Dynastar Powertrack 84 (176) Very user friendly and easy to ski. Great for a mellow or advancing skier. Very good in crud, bumps, and hardpack. More of a speed limit than the Volkl and less dynamic, but fabulous for most recreational skiers at most areas.

*K2 Ikonic 80 (170): A very good ski from K2. Good in crud, bumps, and hardpack. Damp, but not dead; huge improvement over Rictor 82s. New Volkl RTM 80 a bit better for a dynamic skier.

Kastle CPM 82 (172): Very good ski. Powerful carver; great on hardpack, pretty good in crud, but too firm for me to ski everyday.

Head Instinct (83 waist; 177 length). Very good ski but too stiff for my weight.


Soft-snow skis to replace Rossi S3, 95-102 waist

Looking for playful skis optimized for soft snow up to about 10 inches but with decent hard-snow grip and good in soft bumps and trees.

*Atomic Automatic 102 (180); *Salomon Rocker 2 100 (178): Both excellent, versatile skis, nimble, good in everything I encountered over the two days. Both a bit firmer than my S3 but ski very similarly.

*Dynastar Cham 97 (178) Excellent ski. Big change from the previous iteration of Chams. A bit more dynamic than the two above but not burly at all. Equal versatility. Looks like a wider version of Powertrack 84s and 89s.

*Line Sick Day 95 (179) Very nice. Good in crud, bumps, and hardpack. A bit damper and less nimble than the Salomons or Atomics above.

Volkl 90 Eight (177): Powerful, versatile ski, but a bit too firm for me.

Scott Sagebrush (100 waist, 178 length): Very nice ski, but not really playful and a bit too firm for me.

Atomic Vantage 100 (180): Excellent, versatile ski for someone over 180 lbs., but too burly for me.

Fischer Ranger 98: (180): Burliest of all demoed. Excellent, versatile ski for someone over 180 lbs., but not for me.

Line Sick Day 102 (179) Too wide to be nimble, better for deep snow. Good in crud; unwieldy in bumps.

K2 Pinnacle 95 (177) No. Tried at Epic A-Basin gathering. Huge early rise. Never knew where it was going to take me. (Very mixed reactions from testers; some liked it a lot.)

Hope this was of some use. Have a great season!
Mike

 

[Ron]

Hey Thanks! did they have the enforcer to demo?

 

[Philpug]

Good perspectives, thanks for sharing, it is always great getting a lighter skiers view. For those reading, Mike is a nice smooth technical skier that is more on the finesse side of the scale than the power.

 

[Gerry Rhoades]

Yeah, nice job. I should have looked before I posted my question at the other joint. But here it is again. Feel free to only answer here.

Head Instinct (83 waist; 177 length). Very good ski but too stiff for my weight.

Interesting. At 83mm, this should be the Strong Instinct Ti. I'm 5'7", 145-150 pounds. I demoed this ski in a 170 at Copper last season and really liked it, enough that there is a pair in my garage. I also own the Nordica Fire Arrow 84EDT and found the Heads to be quite a bit lighter and softer. The Head will be used when I just want to play around and the Fire Arrows for when I feel like being serious. Have you ever skied the Fire Arrows?

And you ought to consider the Nordica Soul Rider as a replacement for the S3.

 

[Tricia]

Nice thumbnail reviews. Its good to see notes from days of demoing like this.

 

[Living Proof]

I was looking at the new Volkl website for info on the RTM series. I could not find a RTM 80, but, there is an RTM 81. In past years, Volkl did make both, so, I am just looking for clarification about the width. I demo'd last years RTM 81 and liked it, Phil has stated that adding camber back in '16 makes it a better ski.

 

[mike_m]

Yep, it's RTM 81 for 2016. Thanks for the catch. Very different from last year's RTM 80 or RTM 81. Camber underfoot, some early rise.

 

[Philpug]

I was looking at the new Volkl website for info on the RTM series. I could not find a RTM 80, but, there is an RTM 81. In past years, Volkl did make both, so, I am just looking for clarification about the width. I demo'd last years RTM 81 and liked it, Phil has stated that adding camber back in '16 makes it a better ski.

Yep, it's RTM 81 for 2016. Thanks for the catch. Very different from last year's RTM 80 or RTM 81. Camber underfoot, some early rise.

I just edited Mike's to show RTM81

 

[MattD]

Just spent 4 hours demoing the 2016 RTM 81 at Sugar Mtn in NC. Primarily groomers were available.

My demo of previous iterations of RTM 84 and RTM 80 really did not do anything for me. After reading others comments about the change in the new models, I thought I would give it a try. Very different ski than previous version. I was pleasantly surprised that the feel of the ski was much more of a match for me than previous version. Definitely more versatile for me ... varied turn shapes, nice grip, held carves well, but easy release, easy to ski in ungroomed crud on the side of trails, etc. Much happier than old version in lower edge angles as well. No opportunity to try trees or any real bumps.

Ski was also much more lively and "poppy" than what I recall from prior versions. I can see why a lot of folks would like this ski, as there were no glaring weak points I noticed.

Note to Living Proof - Still like the feel of my Hart Pulse better!

 

[Living Proof]

Just spent 4 hours demoing the 2016 RTM 81 at Sugar Mtn in NC. Primarily groomers were available.

I was pleasantly surprised that the feel of the ski was much more of a match for me than previous version. Definitely more versatile for me ... varied turn shapes, nice grip, held carves well, but easy release, easy to ski in ungroomed crud on the side of trails, etc. Much happier than old version in lower edge angles as well. No opportunity to try trees or any real bumps.

Ski was also much more lively and "poppy" than what I recall from prior versions. I can see why a lot of folks would like this ski, as there were no glaring weak points I noticed.

Note to Living Proof - Still like the feel of my Hart Pulse better!

Matt,
Nice review, the RTM 81 was a ski high on my demo priority, but, the Volkl rep did not have one during my demo day. I was on my Hart Pulse today for the first time this season, they are now 4+ years old in design, but, they continue to match newer ski offerings.. Compared to my memories from last season on the RTM81 and my demo of the RTM 84 this season, both Volkls hook up in a more powerful carve, sort of digital, on or off. The Pulse is more progressive and much smoother in arcing turns, I felt I control the turn radius, where, on the Volkls, sometimes they controlled me. Volkls need more attention, but, the 84 sure made me smile.
I envy the 4 hour demo, my 3 runs on the 84 on good snow and low groomer slopes was just too short to put the RTM through it's repertoire

 

[MattD]

Matt,
I was on my Hart Pulse today for the first time this season, they are now 4+ years old in design, but, they continue to match newer ski offerings... The Pulse is more progressive and much smoother in arcing turns, I felt I control the turn radius, where, on the Volkls, sometimes they controlled me.

Interesting description ... this puts into words concisely what I implicitly felt trying to compare the RTM 81 to what I am used to with the Pulse. "Progessive hook-up and smoother arcing" ... I think there is something special about the flex of that ski ... Thank-you Blossom factory!