Stockli Stormrider 95 first impressions

[Alexzn]

Well, I’d love to try a demo of this years SR95. I’m intrigued.

 

[Captain Furious]

So SR95 was more stable than BMX195HP? Hard to believe, but possible...

I'm not saying it is more stable. I just like it better as I can pivot and make much shorter turns than I can on the BMX. I can also bang out long, GS style turns with the SR 95. If I was out west skiing bowls, the BMX would probably be my weapon of choice. But back east, any decent snow day = the SR 95.

Bill

 

[Alexzn]

I'm not saying it is more stable. I just like it better as I can pivot and make much shorter turns than I can on the BMX. I can also bang out long, GS style turns with the SR 95. If I was out west skiing bowls, the BMX would probably be my weapon of choice. But back east, any decent snow day = the SR 95.

Oh, that makes perfect sense. Based on my recollection of both skis I would fully agree.

 

[Freddo Bumps]

@LindseyB, you’ve got me pretty stoked to demo the 95. I’ll do the AX and SR88 at the same time. I know it’s not enough info, but 5’11”, 160lb...what length should get my first look, 175 or should I consider 166?

 

[Foss1997]

Excellent info. Does anyone know of any changes expected in the upcoming 2020 SR95?

 

[Kent]

@LindsyB Thanks for all the great info about Stöckli skis and, in particular, the SR95. I feel like I am between SR95 sizes. My sweet spot length in both the AX and the SR88 is 168cm. But I have a pair of 14/15 SR100s in 166cm and I struggle with fore/aft balance on them in the heavy snow we get a lot of where I ski. Therefore, I think I should go with the 175cm SR95s. However, I have never demoed a ski over 173cms I felt comfortable on. Thoughts? I'm 5'6" 200#. Demoing Stöcki skis is not an option in this area.

 

[LindseyB]

@LindsyB Thanks for all the great info about Stöckli skis and, in particular, the SR95. I feel like I am between SR95 sizes. My sweet spot length in both the AX and the SR88 is 168cm. But I have a pair of 14/15 SR100s in 166cm and I struggle with fore/aft balance on them in the heavy snow we get a lot of where I ski. Therefore, I think I should go with the 175cm SR95s. However, I have never demoed a ski over 173cms I felt comfortable on. Thoughts? I'm 5'6" 200#. Demoing Stöcki skis is not an option in this area.

The current SR95 is stronger than the SR100.
If you are happy on the 168 SR88, you'll be happy on the 166 SR95.

 

[LindseyB]

I might not be active the next few days.
Im in Denver for the snow show.

 

[pykie87]

I'd be interested in those with a bit more in depth knowledge on the last 5 or so models.

I've been on the lookout for the circa 2014 green/silver model to buy for the last month or so.

How does the new 2019 model compare to that one? As most of the reviews I've read have indicated this was an absolute classic compared to the carbon tip versions they've made since which weren't as good.

 

[James]

I've been on the lookout for the circa 2014 green/silver model to buy for the last month or so.

I can only comment on that one. It has a very soft tip. The shape is pretty good, nice tip, nice tail, the profile good. Not much rocker.
Overall, it's a bit of an odd ski. It's not a crudbuster, not a pow ski.The middle is rock solid when you get it up to speed. It's a very easy ski to ski, even with nearly 22m turn radius (192) it does pretty much any turn shape. I often forget I'm not on a slalom ski, but then I do that with my cheater gs too. But it's lighter than the slaloms, even with a Pivot 18 on it. I'm surprised how light it is when I carry it.

If you find a 192cm for cheap, because that was not a popular size, get it. It's not the ski for Cham though, too long, too much power in the middle.

Definitely has the baby seal skin feel.
People loved the carbon insert model when it came out, I guess it wore off?

 

[ARL67]

Ya, I don't get the negativity on the carbon insert one.
I really liked that ski but think I was in between sizes on that one with choices of 174 & 183. My 183 demanded a bit too much of me at the time, and the 174 just seemed a bit too short in principle for such a ski. And it looked mighty cool too IMO. I'm quite liking my SR97 in 177, it being a bit lighter & softer ski.

 

[James]

@FairToMiddlin , tell us about your carbon insert SR95?

 

[pykie87]

Ya, I don't get the negativity on the carbon insert one.
I really liked that ski but think I was in between sizes on that one with choices of 174 & 183. My 183 demanded a bit too much of me at the time, and the 174 just seemed a bit too short in principle for such a ski. And it looked mighty cool too IMO. I'm quite liking my SR97 in 177, it being a bit lighter & softer ski.

Yeah, I get multiple opinions.

The classic is considered that Silver/Green model though yeah?

 

[Kent]

@ LindseyB

The current SR95 is stronger than the SR100.
If you are happy on the 168 SR88, you'll be happy on the 166 SR95.

Thanks for the input! If by "current" you mean the 2019 model, will the 2020 SR95 be equally strong?

 

[FairToMiddlin]

@FairToMiddlin , tell us about your carbon insert SR95?

Bottom line, I cannot understand why they did away with this version, other than (taking at face value) the off hand comment I got from a rep saying they were having delamination issues. Chris and I both have them, and have skied ours a lot, with zero durability issues.

Longer version: they are stable in crud, easy to maneuver in any terrain, carve well (if not particularly exciting), have better than average float in the 94-100mm genre, and have a tip shape (shared with the previous-gen SR107) that shrugs off snow snakes when submerged. It feels expensive (glutinous?) and composed compared to just about anything else in the category. I prefer it to the current-gen solid tip (it’s even less exciting to carve with), but I never got to try the (previous-er) gen that you own, would like to find out how they compare.

 

[James]

Yeah, I get multiple opinions.

The classic is considered that Silver/Green model though yeah?

View attachment 64063

Well I skied it yesterday in the cutup pow and some untracked. Just go get one. (By far the coolest looking one is the carbon insert tip one)

Very nice ski. There's a precision to it that's subtle. Love the tail. You can smear it or stomp it for power. The tip shape I like, flex wise it might be a little soft. But the rest of the ski backs it up. I haven't tried to find the speed limit but it would be high.
If you weigh north of 170lbs I'd seriously consider the 192. Just smooths the cutup out at speed. On runouts and flat cat track sections after a pitch you will motor right past people if you have any wax on it.

 

[Scrundy]

Very nice ski. There's a precision to it that's subtle. Love the tail. You can smear it or stomp it for power. The tip shape I like, flex wise it might be a little soft. But the rest of the ski backs it up. I haven't tried to find the speed limit but it would be high.
If you weigh north of 170lbs I'd seriously consider the 192. Just smooths the cutup out at speed. On runouts and flat cat track sections after a pitch you will motor right past people if you have any wax on it.[/QUOTE]

Think you pretty much nailed it.

Yes the tip is a little soft (carbon inserts) but i like the feel. For bombing cut up steeps maybe a little too soft but beating around edges or skiing snowboarder lines" perfect."

As far as the tail i love it, hell i find all Stockli's tail's wonderful. Because the tip is soft... if i get into anything over 6" i end up on the tail's a lot more, they just take over .

Therefore got to agree with your thinking on length. I go north of 170 and wish at times i went longer (have 183) but the way i ski them, if i did go longer i'd probably wish i went shorter.

Maybe i see a 107 in the future

 

[erickucla]

Sorry to bring up an old thread, but I am getting ready to make my purchases for the upcoming season! I am debating between getting one ski only - the Stockli Stormrider 88, or two skis - The Stockli AX and the Stockli Stormrider 95.

I am 5'11, 190lbs, intermediate to advanced skier. I am not really comfortable going off-piste, but I may consider doing that I get better. I suck at moguls, so no interest there. I ski mostly in Tahoe and Utah and 90% on-piste, so there is a good amount of chunder from time to time.

So, is the SR88 perfectly sufficient for me? Or should I get two skis. If two skis, are those a good balance? I would note that last year I demoed the Nordica enforcer 93, and thought that ski was too much for me. I also demoed the Rossi Exp 88, which I thought were awesome and easy to ski. However, I just do not like the Rossi design and the Stockli craftsmanship seems very alluring.

Thanks for any advice you guys can give!

 

[Philpug]

Sorry to bring up an old thread, but I am getting ready to make my purchases for the upcoming season! I am debating between getting one ski only - the Stockli Stormrider 88, or two skis - The Stockli AX and the Stockli Stormrider 95.

I am 5'11, 190lbs, intermediate to advanced skier. I am not really comfortable going off-piste, but I may consider doing that I get better. I suck at moguls, so no interest there. I ski mostly in Tahoe and Utah and 90% on-piste, so there is a good amount of chunder from time to time.

So, is the SR88 perfectly sufficient for me? Or should I get two skis. If two skis, are those a good balance? I would note that last year I demoed the Nordica enforcer 93, and thought that ski was too much for me. I also demoed the Rossi Exp 88, which I thought were awesome and easy to ski. However, I just do not like the Rossi design and the Stockli craftsmanship seems very alluring.

Thanks for any advice you guys can give!

Which Rossi 88 did you demo? this pat year's or the previous generation, they are vastly different. If you can gat both the AX and SR95, that is ideal and will cover your for 95+% of your skiing here in Tahoe. The 88 is a very good ski and will cover your for 70%, you will still lose the 5% for deep snow that the 95 is also missing but not be as good as the AX when we have't had snow for a few weeks...something that is not uncommon for Tahoe.

 

[Scrundy]

I have all three, if I was you I’d pass on the 88 and get the AX and possibly the 95. The AX is a much more versatile ski and does well in dumps up to 6”.
The 95 I have is with the carbon insert tips ( 3 years old) I do like them but don’t love them like the AX. I assume you want the 95s for deeper snow and I think you could find a better option. I am a east coaster so the 95 fits good here. On the 95 I wish I went longer (have 180) and I wish the tip wasn’t so soft but I am hearing on here the newer 95s are not so noodle. Just for reference I am your size.