• For more information on how to avoid pop-up ads and still support SkiTalk click HERE.

2023 Peak 98

tomahawkins

Making fresh tracks
Skier
SkiTalk Supporter
Joined
Dec 3, 2019
Posts
1,798
Location
Bellingham, WA
Would be helpful if you could pull the bindings off the rails and provide the weight for all to see. And other owners of Peak skis with different models, lengths doing the same, if it's not too much to ask.

It's frustrating that many mfg's do not post the weight of each length in their lineup or none at all (listening Peak?), but seemingly random pick one length for general specs & weight. For me, weight matters allot and could make or break the deal. Being an older skier, it can provide a more fun and safer experience. I want to control the ski and not it me. Of course, the boots & bindings all come into play, yet I'd say the skis make the most difference at the end of the day.

If it helps, my 104s (184) are 2050g and the 110s (188) 2070g.



Are you carrying them a long distance? THIS thread is a good example of why weight can be overrated, it is not so much what the weight of something is, but where that weight is. Swing weight of a ski is more important than the actual weight.

It's frustrating that many mfg's do not post the weight of each length in their lineup or none at all (listening Peak?), but seemingly random pick one length for general specs & weight. For me, weight matters allot and could make or break the deal. Being an older skier, it can provide a more fun and safer experience. I want to control the ski and not it me.

If you are looking for control and safety, I'd want more swing weight, not less. The mass of the ski and the mass distribution is one of the main factors of ski stability. Personally I have no interest in riding light, twitchy skis anymore. @KingGrump has an expression here that I'm sure I'd misquote, but if you have to throw the mass of the ski around to control it, you're doing it wrong. The ski should ski itself; all you have to do is ride it.
 

AltaSkier

I stick uphill ice...
Skier
SkiTalk Supporter
Joined
May 16, 2017
Posts
232
Location
Michigan
I had a pair of Peak 98's show up in the mail this morning. The bindings are still on the way, so right now, they are just blanks sitting in my office. Hopefully the binders show up soon and I can get them on snow.
I ended up with a pair of 178's as they were out of the 184's. I'm a little nervous about going that short with an all mountain ski as I like the leverage a longer ski offers in variable terrain.

One thing I noticed right away was how light these skis seemed in hand. I was very surprised.
 

Andy Mink

Everyone loves spring skiing but not in January
Moderator
SkiTalk Tester
SkiTalk Supporter
Joined
Nov 12, 2015
Posts
12,910
Location
Reno
Long Term Update: It was a good day for a test of the 98s at Mt. Rose today. There was fresh light snow, shin deep or more in spots, falling snow, and some very flat light. Those are the conditions where you want the ski to work WITH you when you can't really see what the snow is like on the ground in front of you. I can safely say the Peak 98s felt very chill in these conditions. There were no surprises as I went from untracked to tracked to piles, in many cases not being able to see it until I was in it. The long rise in tip and tail rode the changes without complaint and made quick pivots in the line easy even though the radius is a pretty relaxed 23 meters. While on edge and not smearing or pivoting the long radius made for a very stable ride over the small but numerous wind waves on the lower green groomers. The skis felt very quiet and composed. The tips stayed surprising planted and fairly high speeds felt safe, even in the poor light.

With the 16 or so inches over the last few days on top of what was in the trees already, I was able to dive in without a lot of worry about finding rocks or stumps. The quick, pivoty feel made short work of even the tighter trees. The skis have a very surfy, playful feel IN the snow but can be pushed at a pretty good clip ON the snow.

I was skiing the Peak at 184. The ski is quick enough that only the tightest trees would make the it seem too long. A bigger skier on a wide open area would also definitely want the longer option.

So. Keyhole Technology. I honestly can't say whether or not it does what it's claimed to. Maybe on harder snow it would make itself known but in the soft snow I encountered today I'm not sure. Skiing two pair of Peaks side by side, one with and one without, might be the only way to really notice a difference. A ski that does what it's designed to do and does it transparently is a good thing. In the meantime I'll take Bode's word for it. You don't buy a ski for it's tech; you buy it because it skis how you want it to and does it well. And I'll be glad to take these skis out again and again.
4A6E8749-B4AB-4799-973B-27C4A1929D95.jpeg
Screenshot_20221205_172736.jpg
 
Last edited:

Andy Mink

Everyone loves spring skiing but not in January
Moderator
SkiTalk Tester
SkiTalk Supporter
Joined
Nov 12, 2015
Posts
12,910
Location
Reno
Long Term Update: It was a bluebird day at Mt. Rose today and my legs are still not up to mid-season condition, especially after a longer day than normal yesterday. Lots of the open powder and push piles had been either groomed or skier packed so conditions were a bit different than yesterday. Visibility was also top notch. The Peaks continued to put a smile on my face in the remaining soft bumps and skier packed runs. The trees that were barely touched by the time we left yesterday had seen a lot more action so moving from untracked to tracked out was the name of the game. The long rise just ate up the differences and the ski proved again it is easy to pivot and slip when an unexpected tree pops up in your chosen path.

The snow over the two days I've been on the Peaks has been stellar, remaining soft and fun. I'll be interested to see how the Peak 98 handles if things firm up and scratchy groomers appear.
 

ski otter 2

Making fresh tracks
Skier
Joined
Nov 20, 2015
Posts
2,920
Location
Front Range, Colorado
It's a great and useful contrast between us on the Peak 98, @Andy Mink, because I rarely pivot or slarve; I carve a ski off piste and on, groomer or uneven, pretty much (though not all the time when floating/drifting in soft, nor in trees; I do carve through moguls, mostly).
So this is a ski that works well for both carvers and pivoters. Very versatile, it seems.
.
The 98, carving, and crud busting, kills everything, so far. Just a wonderful ski, for me.
Carving at speed, including at high speed, and on groomers, the Keyhole tech is obvious, in my case: the 184 has the fore-aft stability and dampness (no continuous vibration reaching the skier because of the keyhole; thus maintaining a quiet edge) of a size or two longer ski,
in spite of how obviously light weight it is also.

To get comparable dampness, I'd be on a damp 189 at least, or longer, and a 2250 to 2350 weight ski at least,
rather than what feels like a c. 2000 gm ski. So there's a certain cognitive dissonance, you might say - in this case very pleasant.
For me it's remarkable each run, just a hoot.
 

Andy Mink

Everyone loves spring skiing but not in January
Moderator
SkiTalk Tester
SkiTalk Supporter
Joined
Nov 12, 2015
Posts
12,910
Location
Reno
It's a great and useful contrast between us on the Peak 98, @Andy Mink, because I rarely pivot or slarve; I carve a ski off piste and on, groomer or uneven, pretty much (though not all the time when floating/drifting in soft, nor in trees; I do carve through moguls, mostly).
So this is a ski that works well for both carvers and pivoters. Very versatile, it seems.
.
The 98, carving, and crud busting, kills everything, so far. Just a wonderful ski, for me.
Carving at speed, including at high speed, and on groomers, the Keyhole tech is obvious, in my case: the 184 has the fore-aft stability and dampness (no continuous vibration reaching the skier because of the keyhole; thus maintaining a quiet edge) of a size or two longer ski,
in spite of how obviously light weight it is also.

To get comparable dampness, I'd be on a damp 189 at least, or longer, and a 2250 to 2350 weight ski at least,
rather than what feels like a c. 2000 gm ski. So there's a certain cognitive dissonance, you might say - in this case very pleasant.
For me it's remarkable each run, just a hoot.
I'm looking forward to getting it into some more challenging conditions including heavier chop. The last two days have been cold, light snow that doesn't really compact, so much so that I have been pretty careful pushing too hard in turns on groomers. The snow just kind of pushes out of the way.

I am not particularly good in moguls; I don't like to carry a lot of speed and I tend to shop for turns a bit too much. Carving, especially on a ski that has a 23 meter radius, is out of my comfort zone in the bumps. I like to pivot on top or slip the sides. The 98 allows me to do that with no fuss. Same in the trees, it allows very quick changes of direction.

What really impresses me is how stable it is at speed even with the long tip rise.
 

Philpug

Notorious P.U.G.
Admin
SkiTalk Tester
Joined
Nov 1, 2015
Posts
42,624
Location
Reno, eNVy
We did see another pair of 98's on the hill at Rose. I noticed them as I passed then he went a different direction. I will keep an eye for him in the future.
 

ski otter 2

Making fresh tracks
Skier
Joined
Nov 20, 2015
Posts
2,920
Location
Front Range, Colorado
I'm looking forward to getting it into some more challenging conditions including heavier chop. The last two days have been cold, light snow that doesn't really compact, so much so that I have been pretty careful pushing too hard in turns on groomers. The snow just kind of pushes out of the way.

I am not particularly good in moguls; I don't like to carry a lot of speed and I tend to shop for turns a bit too much. Carving, especially on a ski that has a 23 meter radius, is out of my comfort zone in the bumps. I like to pivot on top or slip the sides. The 98 allows me to do that with no fuss. Same in the trees, it allows very quick changes of direction.

What really impresses me is how stable it is at speed even with the long tip rise.

For myself, I'm such a finesse skier that I'm dependent on the just right ski to carve moguls (though not in big, uniform mogul fields anymore, mostly),
more or less well; but not so much on the wrong ski.

Unfortunately, this has become more true as I've aged.

I'll experiment in this regard with the various Peaks.
 

ski otter 2

Making fresh tracks
Skier
Joined
Nov 20, 2015
Posts
2,920
Location
Front Range, Colorado
P.S. I've had a few more days on the 98/84, and a few on the Peak 110/188, in both soft new snow and on groomers, for both skis.
Five stars for both skis.

Real difference between them: one is a near ideal, versatile, all mountain ski, for my profile and probably for many others.
(To me, occasionally, it can feel just slightly short, if I don't lay it over enough, on steeps at speed.)

The other, at 110/188, is a near ideal freeride ski, such as advanced/expert freeriders would like, at least at my size, etc.
Da bomb.
It is also an ideal crud charger, at my profile. Top of the heap. :)

(But my impression is it will do fine for a lot of skiers handled in a more relaxed fashion; versatile that way.)
 
Last edited:

Philpug

Notorious P.U.G.
Admin
SkiTalk Tester
Joined
Nov 1, 2015
Posts
42,624
Location
Reno, eNVy
IMG_3925.jpeg

Long term update: Mt Rose, the day after 16-19" of fresh, not heavy, not light, not Sierra Cement but nice dry compacted windbuff that turned chalkier and chalkier run after run. There was no less than 6-10 skis I could have grabbed from our rack but I chose the Peak 98. IMHO, the reference ski for my in these conditions would be the Augment AM98ti, so how does the $899 Peak 98 compare to the $1,395 Augment? Well I can say, if you don't have the means or the cajones to drop almost $1,400 for the Augment ...that is even if you can get your hands on one, you will be too short changed to be on the Peak 98 with still almost $500 still in your bank account or better, not on your credit card statement.

What does that all mean? The Peak 98 handled these condtions as well as I could have expected and it did it without fanfare. The Peak 98 is a good example of why we do these long term updates, these skis are like onions, the more we peel back the layers, the more we learn.
 

Quandary

Out on the slopes
Skier
Joined
Mar 27, 2020
Posts
843
Location
Colorado & Wisconsin
Three different skis. What is the goal, what are you looking for out of the ski?

The three skis I mentioned intrigue me. Of those 3 skis I would guess the Rangers and Peaks are more similar than the Kastle. Also likely more similar to my Praxis 9D8s (185, #4 heavy hitter core). The 9D8s are really good soft snow and crud busters but not quite as good as I would want on hard snow, although much better after I changed the edge angle to 2:1 from the 1:1 they come with. So I guess if I were to add another upper 90s ski I would want something as good as the 9D8s in soft and crud but was also able to rip harder snow better. (given if it is a pure hard snow day I have tools for that, and to be honest my Fisher Ranger 102FRs kinda fill that all arounder role already, but who doesn't need another pair of skis)
 

Andy Mink

Everyone loves spring skiing but not in January
Moderator
SkiTalk Tester
SkiTalk Supporter
Joined
Nov 12, 2015
Posts
12,910
Location
Reno
something as good as the 9D8s in soft and crud but was also able to rip harder snow better.
Look into the 4FRNT MSP99. Carves very strongly on groomers/harder snow, yet retains a fun personality in softer snow and chunky chop.
 

Quandary

Out on the slopes
Skier
Joined
Mar 27, 2020
Posts
843
Location
Colorado & Wisconsin
I have an admittedly unfounded bias towards a number of ski brands that simply don't trip my trigger. As a result I wouldn't buy their product, although I have owned a ski or two or more of many of these brands in the past. For example 4FRNT, RMU, Rossingnol, Salomon, Volkl, Blizzard, Folsum, Icelantic, Line and others. Weird yes, but hey there is no lack of quality product in the ski industry that I do find intriguing.
 

2SkiQuiver_GD

Booting up
Skier
Joined
Mar 14, 2022
Posts
7
Location
Minneapolis
The weight of the 98 at 184 cm is 1940 gm - that's from Peak skis. Adding my 2 cents, actual weight is important, not just swing weight. Take for example the late Fischer Ranger 102 FR which weighs around 2150 gm. It has low swing weight because of the the carbon tips but it is known for its stability in chop and worse. Best of both worlds. Cant say that about say something like a Head Kore 99 which is a dramatically lighter ski, it's remarkable that they have managed to give it the stablity that it possesses, but when conditions are less favorable I know which ski I would reach for.
 

2SkiQuiver_GD

Booting up
Skier
Joined
Mar 14, 2022
Posts
7
Location
Minneapolis
Yes, sorry. 184.

I think because of the keyhole tech, it handles and charges with the quietness and stability of a longer ski, more like a 192, in that way.
But it turns easily and is quick like a 184 or shorter. It also seems to ski with the dampness of a heavier ski.
At least it felt that way in soft snow - not a complete test.

For me, a ski of that width is mostly, usually, a soft snow ski, unless the ski shows me otherwise;
I'll go narrower for harder snow, most days, if I can.
Hi Ski Otter, thank you for your feed back on the 98! Now that we are into January I wonder if you can share your experience on the 104 and 110. There is practically no feedback on these skis yet.
 

ski otter 2

Making fresh tracks
Skier
Joined
Nov 20, 2015
Posts
2,920
Location
Front Range, Colorado

I posted it elsewhere, to the extent I could, for example, above. I hope this helps. :)
 
Last edited:

givethepigeye

Really, just Rob will do
Skier
Joined
Nov 13, 2015
Posts
1,704
Location
Charleston, SC
P.S. I've had a few more days on the 98/84, and a few on the Peak 110/188, in both soft new snow and on groomers, for both skis.
Five stars for both skis.

Real difference between them: one is a near ideal, versatile, all mountain ski, for my profile and probably for many others.
(To me, occasionally, it can feel just slightly short, if I don't lay it over enough, on steeps at speed.)

The other, at 110/188, is a near ideal freeride ski, such as advanced/expert freeriders would like, at least at my size, etc.
Da bomb.
It is also an ideal crud charger, at my profile. Top of the heap. :)

(But my impression is it will do fine for a lot of skiers handled in a more relaxed fashion; versatile that way.)
What was your impression on the 110 and the mount point? Pretty traditional? (Fingers crossed). Thanks
 

Sponsor

Top