Comparison Review Various demo comparisons: Head Kore 93, Head I-Titan 80, K2 Mindbender 90, Elan Wingman 86 CTI, Atomic Vantage 75, Blizzard Brahma 88

[Wolfman Tom]

Hey guys. Just wanted to take a shot at some comparisons since I just got back from a trip to BC where I demoed a bunch of skis. Just wondering if what I feel resonates with anybody else. What surprised me was that what I thought I would love, I actually hated. Skis are really personal preference I am finding out. I know that these skis are not really all from one category, but testing a wide range was very helpful to me.
My stats: 5'10", 195 lbs, Intermediate +, 42 years old. Ski 15+ days/year.
My gear: Tecnica Mach1 120 (haven't bought skis yet, but plan to!)

1. Blizzard Brahma 88 - 166. First ski tested. The specs on this ski said I would love it. Heavy, stiff, burly. Took it out on the hard pack corduroy at Beaver Creek (BC). This is a very demanding ski. Could be that I had a bad tune, but skis felt dull and unforgiving, and very, very chattery. I can say that if I was a technically better skier, I would probably like them a lot more.

2. K2 Mindbender 90. 170cm. A very good ski. Light, solid, smooth, fairly damp. Skis true to length. I might have preferred the 163 more though. Feel like the 85 may be the sweet spot for this one, but didn't test it.

3. Head Kore 93. This ski has a good reputation, but sorry to say--I really hated it. It felt like planks of wood under my feet. Slow edge to edge and skis wanted to wash out if I didn't keep edges fully engaged through the entire turn. Felt very unstable and unforgiving.

4. Atomic Vantage 75. Very generic, unremarkable. Not very energetic. Seems like a retro ski, sort of old school.

5. Head I-Titan Super shape. Heavy, stiff, but really good, solid, businesslike. It does exactly what it is meant to do on the groomed runs. Very stable. Very good carving ski. But not playful and not really for off-piste IMO.

6. Elan Wingman 86 CTI 172 cm. Everything I read said that this ski would be too light for me. But asking around the ski shops, everybody said that this ski was special and that I needed to try it in the CTI version (which is supposed to be much better than the TI version). So I did. Bottom line, this is the best ski I've ever tested for on-piste. Skis slightly shorter than length because it is very light. Very fast edge to edge. Very stable, forgiving, and good from groomed to crud. Playful, fun. Damp, but you can feel everything you want to feel. The carbon transmits information and feel so well, you know that this is special. I think also that the amphibio tech with dedicated left and right skis makes sense too, not just a gimmick. Very intuitive from edge to edge. On my last day we got some fresh powder and the ski was still very good in 4-5 inches or less; but over 5 inches, not so much. Maybe with a lighter person, the float would be there, but not for me at 190+. That is why I think this is probably not truly an all-mountain ski (as advertised), but it is an almost all-mountain ski, as it is the ski you want for almost everything frontside. So what I might do is buy this one and use it for 80% of the time -- and on powder days, demo a Ripstick 96 or 106...

So the Wingman is awesome, but I haven't yet tried the Ripstick in order to compare. Has anyone compared the Wingman 86 to the Ripsticks? I would assume based on their shape that the Ripstick would not be quite as good as the Wingman on groomed runs, but I am honestly not sure. Please let me know.

 

[tromano]

I think the Brahma 88 you were on was a bit short, a 173/180 would be more your size. But your right technique makes a big difference in what skis work well for you. Also what you are working on in your technique.

If you find a ski that resonates with you, don't ask more questions. Just start saving your pennies and then go get 'em.

 

[Andy Mink]

I feel very similarly about the Wingman. It does so much very well while not being demanding. It's very easy to have a great time on the ski.

 

[Tony S]

the Wingman is awesome, but I haven't yet tried the Ripstick in order to compare. Has anyone compared the Wingman 86 to the Ripsticks? I would assume based on their shape that the Ripstick would not be quite as good as the Wingman on groomed runs, but I am honestly not sure. Please let me know.

I own the Wingman 82 CTi @172cm and the Ripstick 96 Black @ 174cm. You basically already nailed it. The overall Wingman design is essentially a groomer ski with some minor concessions to off-piste. The Ripstick is the reverse, regardless of specific model. However, it's pretty amazing how well my Ripsticks can carve on a groomer at high edge angles. Reading between the lines of your post, you may not be quite at the point of taking advantage of that, though.

To quote @Philpug , "You've struck oil; stop drilling." The reward-to-input ratio on the Wingman is off the charts.

 

[Wolfman Tom]

I own the Wingman 82 CTi @172cm and the Ripstick 96 Black @ 174cm. You basically already nailed it. The overall Wingman design is essentially a groomer ski with some minor concessions to off-piste. The Ripstick is the reverse, regardless of specific model. However, it's pretty amazing how well my Ripsticks can carve on a groomer at high edge angles. Reading between the lines of your post, you may not be quite at the point of taking advantage of that, though.

To quote @Philpug , "You've struck oil; stop drilling." The reward-to-input ratio on the Wingman is off the charts.

Tony, could you be more specific regarding the differences between the Wingman and Ripstick? Obviously width, but besides that, feel, edge to edge, etc. It is obvious that the shape of the Wingman is more parabolic and the Ripstick is more shovel shaped. Does that make the Ripstick a less stable ski on hardpack? Thanks!!

 

[ScottB]

Just curious, have you tried longer skis?? At your spec's, I would put you in a 175-185 length depending on the ski. It sounds like you prefer shorter skis, but don't go to short or you will regret it in a few years. Tony knows the Wingman well and I would trust his advice. My 2 cents is you should be on a 178ish length in that ski. You found a match, just "tinder it" and have fun.

 

[Tony S]

Tony, could you be more specific regarding the differences between the Wingman and Ripstick? Obviously width, but besides that, feel, edge to edge, etc. It is obvious that the shape of the Wingman is more parabolic and the Ripstick is more shovel shaped. Does that make the Ripstick a less stable ski on hardpack? Thanks!

Well, again, I've only been on the Wingman 82 and the Ripstick 96. So it's not only a design-and-construction comparison, it's a width comparison. Not just apples to oranges, but crabapples to pummelos.

That said, I'll attempt to address each of your points.

Feel: The Ripstick has a more "carbon-y" feel. It's VERY light. On soft or soft-ish snow the feel is great. On hard or hard-ish snow it's too bright for my taste. Too much feedback from each little granule under foot.

Edge to edge: Easy one. Wingman 82 is far quicker here, obviously. If you were comparing, say, the Wingman 86 vs. the Ripstick 88, it might be a different story. In that case, the edge change would be about the same in terms of speed, but the engagement from the Wingman would still be more immediate and solid.

Shape: There is a difference in shape from the top view, as you mention. My Ripstick has almost the same radius and actually a shorter effective edge than my Wingman, even though 2cm longer. This is due to the tip and tail taper. The tapered tip on the Ripstick is part of what makes it more forgiving in crud and most bumps.

However, the rocker profile is more important because it's more different. Combined with the taper it gives the Ripstick much more in the way of off-piste chops. This is hardly news - same deal with most 82 (86) vs. 96 comparisons.

Stability: The other side of the above is that the Wingman feels much more natural on groomed snow, regardless of whether you're alluding or scarving brushed "instructor turns" or skiing arc to arc. As I mentioned earlier, though, it's amazing how well the Ripstick can carve. It's rather binary on that regard on hard snow, though: You really have to know how to tip and rip or you're stuck in slide mode.

To sum up, the audience for the Wingman is (or should be) huge. The audience for the Ripstick is technically sound finesse skiers looking for a western OSQ.