Me: 140+ 5' 7" 59yo amateur race background
Ski: 2022 Black Crows Serpo @ 168cm 93mm waist, 20m (!) radius
I had been wanting to try this ski for quite a while, after reading very positive reviews from @Cheizz , @Noodler , @SkiEssentials , and Blister, among others. During the Aspen Gathering I saw a pair calling my name from the demo racks at one of the shops, so I ponied up and rented them for a day.
I waffled on whether I wanted to try the 174 or the 168. Since bump skiing would be a primary mission for this ski if I were ever to buy it, I decided to go with the shorter length. Also the bases and edges looked to be in excellent shape on the 168.
Conditions during the day I skied it at Snowmass with the usual suspect gang were chalky and mostly very dry with no new snow. The ski saw a lot of bumps, a few honest steeps (AMF, KT Gully), and a few groomers. The binding was a Marker demo which Phil warned gravely had a negative delta. I felt that, but don't think it was a big impediment to my enjoyment or technique on that day.
I loved this ski in shallow 3D snow, trees, and bumps. It is super intuitive and forgiving in the moguls without lacking at all in spunk or energetic fun factor. As others have pointed out, the tip has a pretty traditional shape from the top view, and the early rise is very low but quite long. This design partners perfectly with a medium-soft shovel that has very gradual linear flex pattern. The tail, similarly, does everything in an extremely predictable way. I think the long radius helps in all this, preventing any kind of hookiness despite the not-very-tapered tip. It's basically the opposite of the all-mountain design pattern which I know I DON'T like, where you have a lot of curvy early rise and turn-up in a stiff shovel, as I've experienced with several skis from Fischer and Head, among others, over the years. The snow feel is also very nice and communicative as long as the snow is not icy or refrozen, with ample but pleasantly muted feedback. (No "loud tips" here.)
In summary, I'd call this a "not for dummies" ski that will not make your turn for you, but will support you in whatever kind of off-piste turn you want to make. I never skied Uncle Louie's flexy 90mm "powder ski" but I suspect it was designed with some of the same principles in mind.
At higher speeds on harder groomer snow, and in afternoon shallow harbor chop and micro bumps, however, I was not anywhere near as happy. I suppose PART of this could be the short-ish length, but not all. (I skied most of the week on my 85mm Stormriders, also @168cm, which did not suffer the same weaknesses.)
My beef was that the tips were neither quick nor reliable in their engagement. Could this have been a tuning issue? I suppose. The edges did not appear, to my educated thumb, to have been egregiously dulled back at the tips or anything. When tipped up on high edge the 20m radius was adequate - I could tighten it up a bit if needed. But no matter the edge angle there was quite a bit of disconcerting tip flap. That in itself is not a showstopper for me, but overall the sense of stability just was not there in this kind of skiing. In hindsight I probably should have gone back and re-taken these runs on the 174 to see if that solved the issue. I ski my personal 90s-width ski - Ripstick Black - in a 174, and no doubt I was unconsciously and unfairly comparing the two in this area.
Ski: 2022 Black Crows Serpo @ 168cm 93mm waist, 20m (!) radius
I had been wanting to try this ski for quite a while, after reading very positive reviews from @Cheizz , @Noodler , @SkiEssentials , and Blister, among others. During the Aspen Gathering I saw a pair calling my name from the demo racks at one of the shops, so I ponied up and rented them for a day.
I waffled on whether I wanted to try the 174 or the 168. Since bump skiing would be a primary mission for this ski if I were ever to buy it, I decided to go with the shorter length. Also the bases and edges looked to be in excellent shape on the 168.
Conditions during the day I skied it at Snowmass with the usual suspect gang were chalky and mostly very dry with no new snow. The ski saw a lot of bumps, a few honest steeps (AMF, KT Gully), and a few groomers. The binding was a Marker demo which Phil warned gravely had a negative delta. I felt that, but don't think it was a big impediment to my enjoyment or technique on that day.
I loved this ski in shallow 3D snow, trees, and bumps. It is super intuitive and forgiving in the moguls without lacking at all in spunk or energetic fun factor. As others have pointed out, the tip has a pretty traditional shape from the top view, and the early rise is very low but quite long. This design partners perfectly with a medium-soft shovel that has very gradual linear flex pattern. The tail, similarly, does everything in an extremely predictable way. I think the long radius helps in all this, preventing any kind of hookiness despite the not-very-tapered tip. It's basically the opposite of the all-mountain design pattern which I know I DON'T like, where you have a lot of curvy early rise and turn-up in a stiff shovel, as I've experienced with several skis from Fischer and Head, among others, over the years. The snow feel is also very nice and communicative as long as the snow is not icy or refrozen, with ample but pleasantly muted feedback. (No "loud tips" here.)
In summary, I'd call this a "not for dummies" ski that will not make your turn for you, but will support you in whatever kind of off-piste turn you want to make. I never skied Uncle Louie's flexy 90mm "powder ski" but I suspect it was designed with some of the same principles in mind.
At higher speeds on harder groomer snow, and in afternoon shallow harbor chop and micro bumps, however, I was not anywhere near as happy. I suppose PART of this could be the short-ish length, but not all. (I skied most of the week on my 85mm Stormriders, also @168cm, which did not suffer the same weaknesses.)
My beef was that the tips were neither quick nor reliable in their engagement. Could this have been a tuning issue? I suppose. The edges did not appear, to my educated thumb, to have been egregiously dulled back at the tips or anything. When tipped up on high edge the 20m radius was adequate - I could tighten it up a bit if needed. But no matter the edge angle there was quite a bit of disconcerting tip flap. That in itself is not a showstopper for me, but overall the sense of stability just was not there in this kind of skiing. In hindsight I probably should have gone back and re-taken these runs on the 174 to see if that solved the issue. I ski my personal 90s-width ski - Ripstick Black - in a 174, and no doubt I was unconsciously and unfairly comparing the two in this area.
- Who is it for: Finesse skiers looking for a highly rewarding "not for dummies" narrower ski for any and all off-piste adventures. People who like to bend the ski themselves, not have it bent for them.
- Who is it not for: Anyone who prioritizes carved turns on hard snow
- Insider tip: Check out the quips written on the sidewalls
- One thing I would change: A smidge more sidecut flare near the tip and tail might turn this from an off-piste specialist to a phenomenal all mountain generalist.
Last edited:
