Stockli 20/21

[Tony Storaro]

CSC is Carbon Steering Control. Laminated to the top front portion of metal is a strip of carbon that will allow the ski to flex upward and bend in a turn, but not bow downward. This causes less chatter.

So basically it works the same as those god-awful ugly rods Atomic mounts on the top sheet, but more elegant?

See, that's why I love Stockli...

 

[MNF]

Hoping I could get some help from folks here.

I demoed a pair of Laser AX a month ago and thought they were great (although I only had them for a limited period of time when skiing with the kids so I couldn't take them for a thorough test drive). I'm looking to take advantage of year-end sales and might get a pair. But I'm not sure if I should go with the 168 or 175 length. I ski in Ontario but will take regular trips to other East coast resorts. Ski frontside in typical east coast conditions (groomed in the morning but chopped up in the afternoon and ski some soft snow). I want a ski that I could rip down groomed runs but able to handle various conditions so I can use it all day - don't need a ski that's a great carver first thing in the morning but useless when conditions get chopped up. So I think the Laser AX would be a great choice.

I'm 5'7'' and 170 lbs and I like to ski aggressive/fast. Not sure if I should go with the 168 (probably better length for me but at only 14.5 m turn radius would it be stable enough when skiing fast with large turns?) or do I go with 175 (I prefer the longer turn radius of 15.9 m but is the length too long for me?).

Would love to demo again but won't be able to this year. Thanks in advance.

 

[EricG]

I'm 5'7'' and 170 lbs and I like to ski aggressive/fast. Not sure if I should go with the 168 (probably better length for me but at only 14.5 m turn radius would it be stable enough when skiing fast with large turns?) or do I go with 175 (I prefer the longer turn radius of 15.9 m but is the length too long for me?).

Would love to demo again but won't be able to this year. Thanks in advance.

similar size. I liked the 168. The 175 Was fun, but just felt a bit too long for me. Dont read into the turn radius too much.

 

[cosmoliu]

@MNF

I believe that you are exactly in between those two lengths. I'm 5' 8", 140# and the 168 is perfect for me. You are a smidge shorter than me but somewhat heavier. I like my skis on either side of 170 cm, depending on the design and length breaks in the series. I prefer slightly short rather than slightly long because I value agility in bumps over Mach X groomer speeds. And there is where I think you should insert your own preferences. Like bumps more than speed? Then 168. Like speed more than bumps? 175.

 

[Plai]

@MNF I'm basically your size and weight, but ski Tahoe. I'm on my second pair of Laser AX 168/9. I like that it skis well at kid speeds and can still clock in low 50s (mph) in a heart beat. Can't talk about edge hold or Eastern conditions. The 168/9 size just seems effortless to me. (BTW, first pair is available for sale). Yes, the AX handles Tahoe afternoon crud just fine.

My other skis have been Renoun Z90 in 174 (also for sale). It's more stable at higher speeds and more demanding. That said, there was too much overlap between the Z90 and the AX (on-piste oriented). Now moving towards more off-piste so went SR95 174.

Also, I'll ski either in small to medium moguls, but they're probably soft compared to Eastern bumps.

 

[Noodler]

Hoping I could get some help from folks here.

I demoed a pair of Laser AX a month ago and thought they were great (although I only had them for a limited period of time when skiing with the kids so I couldn't take them for a thorough test drive). I'm looking to take advantage of year-end sales and might get a pair. But I'm not sure if I should go with the 168 or 175 length. I ski in Ontario but will take regular trips to other East coast resorts. Ski frontside in typical east coast conditions (groomed in the morning but chopped up in the afternoon and ski some soft snow). I want a ski that I could rip down groomed runs but able to handle various conditions so I can use it all day - don't need a ski that's a great carver first thing in the morning but useless when conditions get chopped up. So I think the Laser AX would be a great choice.

I'm 5'7'' and 170 lbs and I like to ski aggressive/fast. Not sure if I should go with the 168 (probably better length for me but at only 14.5 m turn radius would it be stable enough when skiing fast with large turns?) or do I go with 175 (I prefer the longer turn radius of 15.9 m but is the length too long for me?).

Would love to demo again but won't be able to this year. Thanks in advance.

I'm almost exactly the same size. My advice is the length chosen depends on what you need the ski to do. If you're leaning toward a front side groomer zoomer, then go with the 168. If you want something that can also do some light all-mountain duty then go with the 175. I have the 175.

 

[raytseng]

Agree with Paul, you can go either way; the 168 will go at higher speeds than what you would deem safe in a public ski area (as in if you were to randomly crash you'd most likely be dead)., it will not go wonky due to it's construction. But what you may find is you will need to ski better and drive it more (press on them) to access the extra stability at high speeds.
The 175 you could probably just be lazy on and stand in your boots at the high speeds.

 

[flbufl]

Get the AX in 168 this year. Then get the AR in 175 next year~

Hoping I could get some help from folks here.

I demoed a pair of Laser AX a month ago and thought they were great (although I only had them for a limited period of time when skiing with the kids so I couldn't take them for a thorough test drive). I'm looking to take advantage of year-end sales and might get a pair. But I'm not sure if I should go with the 168 or 175 length. I ski in Ontario but will take regular trips to other East coast resorts. Ski frontside in typical east coast conditions (groomed in the morning but chopped up in the afternoon and ski some soft snow). I want a ski that I could rip down groomed runs but able to handle various conditions so I can use it all day - don't need a ski that's a great carver first thing in the morning but useless when conditions get chopped up. So I think the Laser AX would be a great choice.

I'm 5'7'' and 170 lbs and I like to ski aggressive/fast. Not sure if I should go with the 168 (probably better length for me but at only 14.5 m turn radius would it be stable enough when skiing fast with large turns?) or do I go with 175 (I prefer the longer turn radius of 15.9 m but is the length too long for me?).

Would love to demo again but won't be able to this year. Thanks in advance.

 

[Tony S]

I'm 5'7'' and 170 lbs and I like to ski aggressive/fast. Not sure if I should go with the 168 (probably better length for me but at only 14.5 m turn radius would it be stable enough when skiing fast with large turns?) or do I go with 175 (I prefer the longer turn radius of 15.9 m but is the length too long for me?).

I'm almost exactly the same size. My advice is the length chosen depends on what you need the ski to do. If you're leaning toward a front side groomer zoomer, then go with the 168. If you want something that can also do some light all-mountain duty then go with the 175. I have the 175.

There is a lot of collective experience here with this ski. Attempting to factor the fragile male ego into the equation, it looks to me like where it lands is where it generally lands with frontside skis, which is to say, "when in doubt, go shorter." The OP says "I like to ski aggressive/fast." Well, every guy on every ski forum in the history of ski forums says this. It's pretty much required. So who knows. I'm going to throw some data points out there.

Dawgcatching (5' 9" 155 stupid strong) says he was happy on the 168. That's enough for me right there. My instructor at Taos was maybe a little thinner than @MNF , but a 99.9th percentile skier. 168 on this ski. He mentioned in passing that Alain Veth was on the 161!

Noodler is also a 99.9th percentile skier. Consider that when reading his comments. I'd say go for the 175 if you're planning to race GS on them. Otherwise why?

 

[MNF]

Great - thanks for all the thoughts everyone! Very helpful. It sounds like I can't really make a mistake but the 168 seem like the better choice for me.

Cheers,
MNF

 

[Tony Storaro]

Get the AX in 168 this year. Then get the AR in 175 next year~

Too much overlap.
Get the AX in 168 this year and GS in 175 next year. Or SR, depending on priorities.

 

[Tony Storaro]

The womens Laser MX is completely new though. New dimensions and lengths. Wonder if anyone demoes them and posts a review.

Second that. My wife will get a Xmas present in the shape of MX...although perhaps she will want something else, like new phone, or something...but the MX is what she is gonna get and that's that.
Hope 146 will not disappear as fast as did the 144 this season.

 

[Johnny V.]

There is a lot of collective experience here with this ski. Attempting to factor the fragile male ego into the equation, it looks to me like where it lands is where it generally lands with frontside skis, which is to say, "when in doubt, go shorter." The OP says "I like to ski aggressive/fast." Well, every guy on every ski forum in the history of ski forums says this. It's pretty much required. So who knows. I'm going to throw some data points out there.

OK, I went the other way-I just bought a pair of demo AXs in 182. I skied both the 175 and 182 last year and felt at higher speeds the 182 was more stable, yet was very manageable at lower speeds. It wasn't even bad in the bumps. It should fit nicely between my Atomic G9 beer league skis (that I reserve for race days) and my 2018 Stomrider 177 88's. I spend a lot of weekdays at our home hill skiing groomers at a fairly quick pace (we have few bumps and no glades to speak of) and they should be perfect for that. Unless things change I won't find out until next year though..............

 

[Tony S]

OK, I went the other way-I just bought a pair of demo AXs in 182. I skied both the 175 and 182 last year and felt at higher speeds the 182 was more stable, yet was very manageable at lower speeds. It wasn't even bad in the bumps. It should fit nicely between my Atomic G9 beer league skis (that I reserve for race days) and my 2018 Stomrider 177 88's. I spend a lot of weekdays at our home hill skiing groomers at a fairly quick pace (we have few bumps and no glades to speak of) and they should be perfect for that. Unless things change I won't find out until next year though..............

Racers on small eastern hills are special.

 

[Johnny V.]

Racers on small eastern hills are special.

Yes, we are "special"............

Our home hill is 1200' so I've got a little room to let them run.

 

[James]

OK, I went the other way-I just bought a pair of demo AXs in 182. I skied both the 175 and 182 last year and felt at higher speeds the 182 was more stable, yet was very manageable at lower speeds. It wasn't even bad in the bumps. It should fit nicely between my Atomic G9 beer league skis (that I reserve for race days) and my 2018 Stomrider 177 88's. I spend a lot of weekdays at our home hill skiing groomers at a fairly quick pace (we have few bumps and no glades to speak of) and they should be perfect for that. Unless things change I won't find out until next year though..............

Search for @ScottB ’s experience with tuning and moving the mount forward on that ski. One of the biggest issues is shop dulling of the edges at the front of the ski. Hopefully, yours didn’t get the treatment. Also, the factory base bevel is 1.2 degrees. (Some shops don’t know this, thankfully, or by the time they put a 1.2 on, it would be 2 degrees)

 

[Johnny V.]

Search for @ScottB ’s experience with tuning and moving the mount forward on that ski. One of the biggest issues is shop dulling of the edges at the front of the ski. Hopefully, yours didn’t get the treatment. Also, the factory base bevel is 1.2 degrees. (Some shops don’t know this, thankfully, or by the time they put a 1.2 on, it would be 2 degrees)

That's one of the reasons I wanted the demos with the demo binding so I could play the boot position. I'll check the tune-they haven't been skied a lot, so it's probably close to factory.

 

[KingGrump]

My instructor at Taos was maybe a little thinner than @MNF , but a 99.9th percentile skier. 168 on this ski. He mentioned in passing that Alain Veth was on the 161!

Taos is a short ski hill. I have personally seen Jean telling others in my ski weeks to come back the next day with shorter skis. With Jean, it's a command rather than a recommendation.

 

[ski otter 2]

OK, I went the other way-I just bought a pair of demo AXs in 182. I skied both the 175 and 182 last year and felt at higher speeds the 182 was more stable, yet was very manageable at lower speeds. It wasn't even bad in the bumps. It should fit nicely between my Atomic G9 beer league skis (that I reserve for race days) and my 2018 Stomrider 177 88's. I spend a lot of weekdays at our home hill skiing groomers at a fairly quick pace (we have few bumps and no glades to speak of) and they should be perfect for that. Unless things change I won't find out until next year though..............

The 183 ski (in the yellow with green diagonal stripes version just before the pure yellow version) is one of my favorite all time skis, still. After getting the next year's yellow version in 175, I still prefer the 183. And it does remind me a bit of an Atomic G9 GS ski, in a sort of cheater version. It's a bit heavy and smooth, though versatile also. Fun in some new snow. (But on really steep slopes or in lotsa bumps, I prefer the 175, mostly. It just doesn't have the smooth charge and strong character of the 183.)

 

[Brad J]

Taos is a short ski hill

Last time I skied there was on my 203 4S's, I really loved the place, need to go back