Comparison Review Demo Day at Loveland, tested 10 pairs of skis

[Ken_R]

So Today was the Christy Sports Demo day at Loveland. Coincidently a foot of snow fell the night before so I decided to mainly test 100mm+ wide skis (with 2 exceptions).

Here is what I skied (same run off of chair 1) in the order I skied them:

Head Kore 105 (189cm)

This is the first ski I took out. It was very cold out (9ºF) and as soon as I skied off of the lift the ski felt slow and very sticky, ditto down the first run. Wax issues, need to demo that ski again for sure. Very light for the size.

Kastle BMX 105 (181cm)

Wow, right away I liked this ski. Conditions were starting to bump up but this ski felt so smooth and easy. Like butter. Made everything better. Would love to try the HP version. This is the first Kastle I have ever skied.

Head Monster 98 (177cm)

I loved this ski. I wished they would have had the 184cm long version but not because I did not like the 177. It was awesome, not as smooth as the Kastle but close and really had no speed limit. It just did whatever I wanted it to. Great resort ski wow. Chopped up snow? No problem on this ski, at any speed. It read my mind. Most stable ski tested today but still very responsive (to me).


DPS Wailer 106 Alchemist (185cm)

I did not know what to expect with this one. I liked it. It has a very wide performance envelope. Light but pretty smooth still. Easy to pivot but works very well on edge in soft snow as well. Awesome one ski for both backcountry and resort use as long as it is not super rough. But even so if you dial down the speed a notch it handles everything well.


Blizzard Rustler 11 (116mm wide, 192cm)

This ski looked like a beast but surprised me how manageable it was in pretty crowded resort conditions. It was a bit tiring in the bumps but workable. This is an awesome ski for big vert, higher speeds and deep snow. A bit overkill for the blue runs that were open but still fun.

Armada Tracer 108 (180cm)

Another ski that I had no clue about before today. This was a really good ski for me. Reminded me a LOT of the DPS Wailer 106 I skied earlier. The bumps were getting larger but this ski handled everything easily. Had a surprising amount of dampness for how light it is (and no metal), again, akin to the DPS. Great ski for double duty as well (backcountry and resort).

Dynastar Legend X106 (188cm)

And again, another ski I had zero clue about. Loved this ski. Almost as smooth as the Kastle but handled speed even better I think. good edge hold and just a fun ski for me even in the bumps. This would be a very good OSQ for Colorado Resorts (Like the Kastle) for sure. Handles crud well.

Nordica Enforcer 110 (185cm)

This is a good ski, felt like a slightly narrower and shorter version of the Rustler. Fun as a resort powder ski. Not super refined but still good feel.

Volkl 100Eight (181cm)

This ski felt good under my feet but it was a bit too washy at times for my taste but I could adjust to it. Pretty easy ski to ski and with good edge hold but it was not great in transition due to its tendency to want to pivot fast. Mixed feelings on this one for me but I can tell that a lot of people would like it as a resort ski.

Kastle BMX 105 (189cm)

This ski was odd to me. The middle and rear of the ski felt like the 181cm I tested earlier which I loved but the front was bit flappy and lacking in precision compared to the 181cm. I wished for a slightly stiffer front end. This is a good ski for powder but not as good as the 181cm for typical resort pow that turns into chow quickly and bumps later. I would pick the 181cm over the 189cm no question as a resort ski.

Head Kore 93 (180cm)

I liked this ski a lot but wished for a tad more stability although it was just impressive for how light it is. Very easy to ski and just another ski that has a wide performance envelope. Great resort ski for sure even in powder and mixed conditions. Really fun in the bumps. A LOT of people are gonna like this one.

 

[mikel]

Hey Ken, it was a pleasure meeting you today. Like you I had a good time on the Alchemist. In fact I probably had them out too long. I think when we were talking I had the 106 Foundation. Nothing wrong with the Foundation but it was just one of those easy going, can ski thru chop, and won't beat you up if you don't pay attention skis. He had me take the Alchemist out and I really enjoyed it. A lot. I got lucky and got to ski it in a mostly untracked directed run. I think it was Cat's Meow? Weird how they had the bottom roped off with only a narrow exit point.

I never did get to ski the Kore 105. I guess the 180 was extremely popular and was always out when I stopped by their tent.

 

[Ken_R]

Hey Ken, it was a pleasure meeting you today. Like you I had a good time on the Alchemist. In fact I probably had them out too long. I think when we were talking I had the 106 Foundation. Nothing wrong with the Foundation but it was just one of those easy going, can ski thru chop, and won't beat you up if you don't pay attention. He had me take the Alchemist out and I really enjoyed it. A lot. I got lucky and got to ski it in a mostly untracked directed run. I think it was Cat's Meow? Weird how they had the bottom roped off with only a narrow exit point.

Likewise, if only for a brief moment!

Wow, you lucked out. I heard about that opening but missed it.

The Alchemist is a really nice ski no question. Would love one with a tech setup.

 

[Tony S]

Ken, more info on your height and weight?

Nice reviews. Thanks.

 

[Ken_R]

Ken, more info on your height and weight?

Nice reviews. Thanks.

Oh yeah, forgot about that!

Im 6'-2" , and about 185 lb. My skiing style is pretty "traditional" but can adapt it somewhat to the demands of different skis.

I generally enjoy medium speeds 20-30 mph and a wide range of snow conditions. Most of the time I am on ungroomed steeper terrain. I ski almost 100% in Colorado. (i70 region)

Boots: Lange RS130 27.5's (This is an important part of the equation)

 

[kimmyt]

I also skied the Armada Tracer108 and it was my pick of the day. Great ski!

 

[Monique]

Head Kore 105 (189cm)

This is the first ski I took out. It was very cold out (9ºF) and as soon as I skied off of the lift the ski felt slow and very sticky, ditto down the first run. Wax issues, need to demo that ski again for sure. Very light for the size.

Waitaminute. Were you one of the three guys in line ahead of me at the Head tent? I went poking around in the inventory, and when another guy said he was also looking at the 171 (?), I bailed?

 

[Ken_R]

Waitaminute. Were you one of the three guys in line ahead of me at the Head tent? I went poking around in the inventory, and when another guy said he was also looking at the 171 (?), I bailed?

I dunno I had gray pants and an orange jacket. I went to the HEAD tent several times during the day so it coulve been me.

 

[Monique]

I dunno I had gray pants and an orange jacket. I went to the HEAD tent several times during the day so it coulve been me.

This was at like 8:25.

 

[Ken_R]

This was at like 8:25.

I was at the lift line at that time (got 5th or 6th chair!)

 

[Philpug]

10 pair? Thats pretty good for a consumer demo. Not a bad pair in the bunch. A lot of one-Oh-Somethings.

 

[Monique]

10 pair? Thats pretty good for a consumer demo. Not a bad pair in the bunch. A lot of one-Oh-Somethings.

In comparison, I managed 4 pairs by about 1pm. But I was with multiple people, we took breaks, etc. After 11 runs, my knee was ready to be done.

 

[Nancy Hummel]

My fave of the day. Kastle MX89 -164.
I am 5"8,140. This ski skied suprisingly long. Easy to turn, super stable and solid.

I have used the Kastle LX82's as my teaching and everyday ski so I was interested in trying out the LX85's. Not a fan. The 169's skied very short and were just kind of ok. Not a bad ski but just kind of blah. The 176 was a much better length. I think that this ski may be a good intermidate ski but not my cup of tea.
I prefer a traditional cambered ski and do not think it was necessary to change the LX.

 

[mikel]

I only managed 5 pair and technically 4 because 2 were just different lengths of the same ski. One of my favorites of the day was the DPS Alchemist 106. Interestingly I went to their website and used their ski finder to see what they would recommend for me. I could never get the Alchemist to be 1 of the 3 recommendations no matter how much I tried. Then I decided to see what the reviews on here said. BAM. @Philpug had reviewed both the Alchemist and the Foundation. The Foundation review was exactly what I felt yesterday, minus the tree stuff. No tree skiing yesterday.

The other favorite was the BMX 105. If I had to do it over I would pass on the FX 95 and gone straight to the BMX 105. My Z90 with the 105 or DPS 106 works for me!

My least favorite was the QST 106 in a 181.

 

[Monique]

Is this the place we're all posting Loveland demo day mini reviews?

Me: 5'5, 200 pounds. Historically a fat ski fan in all conditions, but recently needing to size down as my knee is still not fully recovered from surgery. I am more at home smearing than carving. Like, a lot. My impressions may not be super helpful on their own, but perhaps can help alongside other impressions.

Kaestle FX95 @ 165: first ski of the day. The snow was slow and grabby due to cold. These skis performed admirably in the bumps, but they tired my knee quickly and I felt like I was working too hard. They were more fun for me on the groomer. They also held an edge really nicely at the top of the run, which was scraped off and nasty. Generally I felt a little like I was disappointing them - like they had potential for a Serious Skier, but all they had to work with was me.

Faction Candide 2.0 @ 172: second ski. The snow was getting better. These were also fun in the bumps, but again more work than I would have expected, especially with a listed turn radius of 15m. They did not hold an edge as well as the Kaestles. Kinda felt planky, but that very likely is because I have not been on >100mm skis this season.

Armada ARW @ 163: I fell in love with this ski instantly. It seemed to turn me into someone who can ski bumps with finesse and aplomb. Easy to ski, but still fun. Did not hold an edge well on scrape - not sure if that was the tune or the ski. It also seemed a lot easier on the knee. Strongly looking at buying this ski, although I'm waffling because I'd usually go one size up. I don't care for the women's graphic. The men's isn't my favorite, but better than the women's for me.

Armada Tracer 98 @ ?? - This was almost as fun as the ARW, but not quite as fun for me. The rep suggested that this is because it has a flat tail rather than a twin tip. My knee at this point was pretty beat up, so I had to call it. I did have a lot of fun in the bumps on this one as well, plus an epic yard sale that I'm going to blame on skiing through a tree top, because obviously I would never yard sale in the bumps without getting caught on something. Obviously.

 

[ski otter 2]

Loveland demo day, 14 runs, 8 skis (three just different lengths of the same ski). Me 5'10"/150 lbs, 71 yrs.
(To buy, I look for a ski that's got something neat, beyond other skis I've tried.)

In the order skied:

(I've wanted to try the Gunsmoke for years, so I was eager to try their successors, the Rustler 11.)

192 Blizzard Rustler 11 (r 19@180). 139-112-129. ($840)

Surprisingly easy to ski, considering its length. Very good ski. Burly but loose enough; good in blue run powder bumps. A great powder board, but not for me, seemingly. I agree with @Ken_R on this one, mostly. Not sure how it will hold in crud/rough, relatively speaking. It seemed suspect in this regard, this day, for me.

(Note: I'd asked for the 188 and gotten the 192 by mistake. In the end, I liked the 192 better, perhaps partly because I got on the longer version early, but also because it felt more able to charge than the 188, at least in better snow.)

182 Faction Prime 3.0 (r 23@182). 133-108-123. $1289. (Ouch.)

Almost Katana-like. Maybe this is a ski the Head Kore 105 hopes to be. ( Oops, sorry.) Excellent, in bumps, powder, crud and packed - slow or at speed. May not have a speed limit. And it is lightweight, a touring ski in terms of weight. But performance is as good as a top resort ski. If I didn't already own the Katana, and if I could find this Faction for less somehow, I'd want to try this ski more, or buy. My impression is that it is not quite as powerful as the Katana - maybe.

The Faction rep said that he uses the Prime 3.0 for deeper days and the Prime 2.0 as his daily driver.
(Note: 184 Prime 2.0: 126-98-114. (r 19@178.) 1550 gm. per ski. I ran out of time to try this 2.0. Shucks.)

184 Faction Candide T. 2.0 (r 16@178.) 135-102-135. 2035 gm. per ski. $699 or less currently.

A playful 4 to 5 star ski, for me. Poppy, easy, wonderful, good rhythm, good edge, at least in soft. Quick turning. Fairly light. Good in soft bumps. A standout. I really liked this ski, a lot. For me, it would be a great daily driver here in the Rockies for fairly laid back, easy going days. A great contrast to an FIS GS race ski day. I will probably get this ski. My guess is that it has a speed limit, but I didn't test that. So it will go fast or slow, not pushing it too much, perhaps. It handled chop/crud well, in addition to powder.

Note: The shop folk at Christy's love this ski, and have bought it in droves. They tell me it is great on "old snow days" too. At many stores it is among their top sellers, for good reason. Wow.

180 Head Kore 105 (r 17.8@180.) 135-105-125. 1755 gm. per ski. $800.

I was prepared to love this ski, based on reviews in the mags and its specs.
But just okay, for me. Disappointing. It is light like the Katana, but... so so edge. Little pop or excitement. Not great flex, for me. Maybe not a good crud ski, or bump ski. Not so good in powder. Shucks.

180 Blizzard Rustler 11 (See 192 above for specs.)

A very good ski, a nicely playful length of this ski, for me, that can also be great on edge, good handling. Butter in soft bumps, fairly good in harder ones. But, I was tossed a bit going faster in crud/uneven. This is an "almost buy" ski for me, but not quite, so far. For myself I'd take the playful quality of the 180 over the charge of the 192, but it's close.

182 Dynastar x106 (r 17@182.) 123-106-139. $750, currently.

Holy cow. Glad I demoed. A real surprise - like a forgiving race ski but in chop/crud bumps and such.

At first these felt like chargers, but then I realized they would turn on a dime anyway, super easy carve, almost like a near slalom race ski, but in crud/chop bumps and such, and you pick the arc. It felt like I was on groomers, but I sure wasn't.

I'm just a civilian with limited experience on different skis, albeit over lots of years; but still, this was something new, to me. It almost felt like the edges were railed, they turned so powerfully, consistently: but also so easily - perfect tune anyway, whatever. Wonderful. These felt a bit heavy, but for this ski "heavy" is mostly good. Damp, no speed limit, quick turning, neutral, these carve bumps (or corduroy) picking different types of lines - any old line.

I could go on about this ski, but enough - so different from the Faction C.T. 2.0s, but I may well get both.

188 Rustler 11 (Again, see 192 specs above.)

To beat a dead horse, there I was again, on another length Rustler 11, the one I'd intended to ski at the start. Maybe my legs were tired, or the snow was worse, but I liked the 188 the least, less than either the 192 (a bit of a charger) or the 180 (a more playful ski, at my size). I wanted to make absolutely sure about the Rustler 11, I guess, after all the recommendations for them - and the Gunsmokes - I've gotten. Oh, well. For me, this ski took it to a full count.

174 Blizzard Quattro 8.4 Ti (r 16@174) 129-84-113. $900 currently. 2 mm. tip and tail rocker.

Looking at the two different Quattro lines, with different widths available in each, I asked the rep which ski he'd recommend for this pow/chop/crud bumped up and a bit skied off day.

He pointed to the Quattro 8.4 Ti, and said, "These are a bit more forgiving, more flex, bumpable, maybe, for today. More forgiving than the Quattro Rxes."

So I went with these. A wonderful, versatile ski. If I hadn't already fallen for the Dynastar x106's full ski flex carve, I'd have maybe fallen for these instead. They also handled crudded up soft snow bumps on edge, so that I could just take any line and carve - charge or take my time, either way.

For me, these felt they liked a bit more forward lean, pressure point on the side for about a foot and a half at or near the tip of the ski, rather than along the full flex as much as the Dynastars.

(Note: the Quattro Rxes are stiffer, 14 instead of 12 DIN bindings, more precise maybe, better for a more groomer day, maybe - though with almost the same specs otherwise.)

 

[kimmyt]

I guess I'll add my $0.02 as well here, not sure how much use it will be as I am a primarily 'by feel' skier. I skied 12 runs- 4 skis

Me: 5'3" 130 lb of the female persuasion advanced skier likes to ski all the fun stuff on the mountain.
My current ski: Armada TST 165 but recently been toying with the idea of getting a new ski because I want more length and it lacks stability at speed and over crud

168 DPS Nina 99- Fun in the bumps and stable enough in the crud but I found it not as inspiring as I wanted it to be and it seemed to lack a bit of pep. Good and solid, though, and would be good choice for a backcountry ski or for anything where you need stability over variable snow conditions.

164 Armada Trace 98- Very fun and playful in the bumps. Turned on a dime, and had slightly more stability than my TST in crud but the feel was very similar and I still got tossed around quite a bit on the lower angle terrain with cut up bumps over which I was carrying a bit more speed. Has what I would identify as the "Armada Feel"- smeary, surfy, slarvy.

172 Armada Trace 108- I wasn't even going to try this ski because I wasn't looking for something this fat, but the woman who was working the tent (Yes, a WOMAN!! Working a demo tent!) was about my size and said she used it as her daily driver and then she complimented my skiing even though she hadn't seen me ski because 'you look like you know what you're doing'. Apparently I'm a sucker for a rad looking lady complimenting me. So I got on them. And oh. MY. GOD. Loved them. Like, I demoed skis all last season and didn't find a one I cared too much for so I'm not usually gushing all over skis, but this was a great ski. Playful in the bumps, stable over crud at speed. Just enough of a hint of dampness so that it ate up the crud but still having that typical responsive and fun feel of most Armadas I've skied. I couldn't test it out on a real groomer because of the conditions, but in the mostly groomed soft stuff it was still great. Liked big turns, small turns, all turns. I should have just stayed on this one for the rest of the day.

165 Liberty Genesis 96- I was getting pretty tired and mostly just didn't want to walk around to all the tents to see what they had, so since I had never skied a Liberty I decided to check it out. Caveat that this ski had an AT binding on it, so the feel was a bit different for me since the binding was raised up off the ski. Aside from that though, it was a fun and lively ski. It felt 'bright'. Lots of energy, not much dampness. As such, it suffered a bit in the chopped up crud and it didn't really wow me overall, but I didn't hate it.

Anyway, long story short, i was just casually reviewing and with no real need to buy, but now I really want the Trace 108.

 

[Monique]

Anyway, long story short, i was just casually reviewing and with no real need to buy, but now I really want the Trace 108.

Couldn't possibly identify ;-)

 

[mdf]

172 Armada Trace 108

I'm wondering, is this longer than you usually ski? No experience with this ski, but I just noticed you loved the longest ski you tried.

 

[kimmyt]

I used to ski a 168 Kiku (before they added rocker to it) which was probably my biggest ski. It was a lot of work, but I was a weaker skier then. I decided I wanted something a little less burly in the trees, which is why I moved down to the TST in a 165 even though it was slightly on the short side (I probably would have aimed for something around 168/169 with rocker) but I just never found something I liked enough. It worked well for a while and I was going through pregnancies and post pregnancies so it was nice to have a short easy ski to ride, but I knew that ultimately I should be on something high 160s and low 170s. I wanted to try the Trace 108 in a 172 but they didn't have it with them. I did ski the Nina at a 168, which was where I want to be too. I don't think I want to go too much higher than low 170s though.

I do agree that its hard to tell if its the length I liked or the ski itself, but given that in the past I have tried other skis in the low 170s and not been as head over heels, I'm thinking its a bit of both but also that the ski is just a good fit for me.