Stockli Laser AX vs Renoun Z-77

[MattD]

Have any of you been lucky enough to ski both of these? Would like to hear comments/comparisons.

Thanks!

 

[Paul Lutes]

Funny you should ask: I just returned from a rigid, objective evaluation/comparison of AX, Z-77, and Fischer Curve GT in prime Sierra corn.
After an exhaustive and painstaking amount of hard work and suffering, I've concluded the following: AX - best, Curve - close second with different more playful personality, Z-77 ...... OK (they will not be in my quiver next season). Note: the Z-77s are 180cm, while the Curve and AX are 176 and 175 respectively. Conditions were firm to moderately deep mush.

 

[MattD]

Thanks for the note. What characteristics caused you to like the Z-77's least?

Had not considered the Curve GT ... perhaps I'll have to look into that one as well.

 

[James]

What size are you talking? It makes a difference.
I can say that the 183 AX is a lot of work on steeps where you want to make short turns. Too much imo. I ached. Loved it on the lower angled high speed runs. Unless you weigh over 200lbs, and maybe well over, or only want long fast turns, go 177.
Note that there are 4 Curve models. The GT is the fat one. The curve with no suffix in the longest length is a beast.

 

[MattD]

I'm under 170 lbs. and only ski in the East, so would go with either 167 or 175 in Laser AX. I usually go with the shortest length that is stable enough for me (for added maneuverability in glades/tight spaces), so might opt for 167 in that ski.

 

[mdf]

That was my 183 AX James was on. I skied someone elses 167 AX a couple of years ago. They are totally different skis. The 167 is a great bump ski, the 183, nahhh. The AX feels long compared to other skis with the same quoted length.

As an aside, I thought the 183 was unskiable my first day on them, but I like them now. (Other than staying out of tight bumps on them. Long bumps are fine.)

 

[Jim McDonald]

I loved the 183 AX on groomers, but it was far too much ski for me anywhere else.
At 6'2" 165 I'm thinking about a 175 AX, but was recently told the 167 AX would be a better choice at my weight.
I have reservations about going that short, would welcome advice.
I ski fast on groomers and in low-angle powder, medium in variable snow, slow in trees, avoid (which is to say I can't ski) bumps.
Current quiver: Stockli SR 107 at 183, Nordica Enforcer 100 at 185
Skis I've liked: Stockli SR95 at 183, Praxis Protest at 177, Blizzard Titan Cronus at 180, and way back when K2 555 at 200
Skis I'm considering aside from the AX: SR88 at 177, Blosson White Out at 176, Atomic Vantage 83cti at 175, Monster 83/88 at 177, Titan at 177, FX85 at 181

 

[Paul Lutes]

I originally bought the 183 AX, coming off the predecessor AR, and it was a huge, jarring change. I didn't like it at first, but over time adjusted to larger turn radius and slower response time. Then was able to compare it to the 175 AX and I went back to not liking the 183 (I'm 6'1", 155 lbs). The 175 is still very stable at high speeds on groomers.

Re the AX vs the Z-77: the AX is much more precise and has an aggressive attitude, the Z-77 is softer, less predictable in variable conditions and less decisive in it's response. I probably would like the 174 more than than the 180, but at that length it would need to be a lot more burly for me.

 

[mdf]

Full disclosure, we are all talking about the same pair of skis. I bought my 183 AX from Jim. Hmmm... maybe there IS only one pair.

 

[cosmoliu]

That was my 167s mdf was on. Now my favorite ski of the 30 years I've been doing this. I'm 5'8" and 140#. I also liked the Blizzard Cronus (Eos, actually) a lot. But had that at 167. I demoed the SR95 this past February in some stellar wind buff at Mammoth, which seems to be its natural environment. Most of that day I wished the 175s could be shorter and softer. By the end of the day I decided I could settle for shorter OR softer. But I still didn't love them. Looks like the SR97 would be a perfect mid-90s ski for me, intended as a OSQ.

But back to the issue at hand- 167 for someone weighing 165-170# could very well work. Might feel a tad short going stupid fast on groomers, but would be excellent in trees/bumps.

 

[James]

I loved the 183 AX on groomers, but it was far too much ski for me anywhere else.
At 6'2" 165 I'm thinking about a 175 AX, but was recently told the 167 AX would be a better choice at my weight.
I have reservations about going that short, would welcome advice.
I ski fast on groomers and in low-angle powder, medium in variable snow, slow in trees, avoid (which is to say I can't ski) bumps.
Current quiver: Stockli SR 107 at 183, Nordica Enforcer 100 at 185
Skis I've liked: Stockli SR95 at 183, Praxis Protest at 177, Blizzard Titan Cronus at 180, and way back when K2 555 at 200
Skis I'm considering aside from the AX: SR88 at 177, Blosson White Out at 176, Atomic Vantage 83cti at 175, Monster 83/88 at 177, Titan at 177, FX85 at 181

What areas are you skiing?
Ski makers really should make more sizes in narrrower skis instead of more models. Between 167 and 185 there should be 4 lengths. Say 167/8, 172/3, 177/8, 182/3. Not all skis need that but substantial skis like an AX, Kastle MX I think do.

As to the 183cm Stockli AX, I own a '15 192cm Stockli SR 95. Honestly, that is less work than the 183 AX in short turns on steeps. There's something about the front end of the AX ski that is very weighty and requires lots of work. Now maybe going +1 to 2 would change that. Don't know. I'm not surprised you sold it.

I think you would be very suprised at how much you can get out of a substantial ski in the 167-170 range. I regularly ski a 165 and weigh 30lbs more. It may feel "unstable" at first but you get used to it. Shaped skis felt squirrely when we switched from straight skis. When i demoed lots of shaped skis before getting my first, I included a straight tuck run for each. Near the end I skied the Volkl P30 RC. The one with the plastic tip. I liked it so much it didn't matter the straight run. From then on performance going straight down never mattered. I did try it in 198!- That pains me just thinking about it. Lots of work.

In stuff like spring chopped corn, a slalom or short ski will challenge your balance. But, spend time on a Bosu ball or just ski to develop balance? To maintain speed in that you do have to adjust line from a longer ski due to the resistance of snow on the binding/boot. But, so much fun.

You just have to get them on edge early, commit inside and slice through. The 183 AX was just too easy in that. I could go faster, and probably had more choice in suddenly adjusting line. But if I only could have 1 all day I'd take the slalom. Maybe even the one with the hole in the tip-Fischer. Now that added a whole new dimension of sensations skiing it in deep spring corn. Like being in the bow of a motorboat as it hits waves.

In terms of coming to "like" a ski, what happens likely is we adapt technique to the ski. This can be minor or require more and can emphasize some bad habits.

From the list of your skis I'd say you should try something shorter in the carving category. Learn to get the most out of it. It'll make you better. I once spent a lot of time one season in the east on a 155cm junior slalom that had lost most of it's camber.

 

[Jim McDonald]

Damn, I think maybe I need both the 167 & 175 AX

I loved the 183 SR95, found it very easy to ski in every condition; that's why I thought I could handle the AX at 183, plus I demo'd it in Switzerland and was fine, but there was no new snow and the off-piste was washboards, so I only had it on groomers in Davos & Flims.

Here in Japan I ski mainly in Niseko/Furano/Fusutsu in Hokkaido, or Nozawa Onsen/Shiga Kogen in Nagano.
When I go to N.America it's usually Alta in recent years, but have skied Tahoe, Banff, Jackson, catski in Targhee

 

[Wendy]

As to the 183cm Stockli AX, I own a '15 192cm Stockli SR 95. Honestly, that is less work than the 183 AX in short turns on steeps.

In terms of coming to "like" a ski, what happens likely is we adapt technique to the ski. This can be minor or require more and can emphasize some bad habits.

Funny you mentioned this, but when I read this thread, just out of curiosity, I remembered seeing somewhere else that you were on a 192 SR and thought, “whoa!”

My SR’s are my normal length preference, 174, and sometimes they are easy, other days when I’m tired they are more work. But you are an exponentially better skier than I.

I always wondered how to recognize when one is developing bad habits in adapting to a particular ski vs. “Oh, go longer, it will be more stable and will help you grow.”

 

[mdf]

In terms of coming to "like" a ski, what happens likely is we adapt technique to the ski. This can be minor or require more and can emphasize some bad habits.

One more comment then back to work....
The biggest difference I feel in different skis is where they want my weight front to back. (Maybe some of that is mount point rather than the ski itself. Dunno. They are a package deal.) My old Coombas wanted my weight very centered. My Atomics want my weight more forward. The AX want my weight even more forward. When I switch the first run is a bit awkward.

 

[Jim McDonald]

FWIW the 2019 AX is 124-78-11 and comes at 154, 161, 168, 175 & 182, radii of 11.8, 13.1, 14.5, 15.9 & 17.4
I've also read that the Turtle Shell titanal layer has been altered to soften the flex just a little

 

[cosmoliu]

Damn, I think maybe I need both the 167 & 175 AX

When I go to N.America it's usually Alta in recent years,

If we're ever in the same place at the same time, you are welcome to try my 167s. If we and @Lorenzzo are ever in the same place at the same time, you could probably try both the 167s and the 175s

 

[PTskier]

I'm 6', 175#, and my 2017 175 cm AX are just right for me. They are the best skis I've been on in all conditions I've tried except deep snow, and even there they're great for 78. My take on the Laser AX is that they do every thing better more easily.

 

[MattD]

If anyone comes across a great deal on a 167 Laser AX ('18 model), send me a PM!

 

[mdf]

In terms of coming to "like" a ski, what happens likely is we adapt technique to the ski. This can be minor or require more and can emphasize some bad habits.

Well, don't forget that you said I was skiing better on the AX than my other skis. So adaptation is not necessarily a bad thing.

 

[tromano]

One more comment then back to work....
The biggest difference I feel in different skis is where they want my weight front to back. (Maybe some of that is mount point rather than the ski itself. Dunno. They are a package deal.) My old Coombas wanted my weight very centered. My Atomics want my weight more forward. The AX want my weight even more forward. When I switch the first run is a bit awkward.

I used to have that problem of skis wanting different balance points I solved it by mounting all skis in the quiver on the same balance point based on ratios of running surface in front and behind the tic mark in the boot. After that I could A, B, ... All skis in the quiver with out having to adjust balance. Some care needs to be taken with rocker profiles.

The only skis that so far have broken the rules are the monster 98, they felt more balanced after I set the binding back about 1.5 cm from what the ratio said it should be.