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

Ripstick 96 Green and Black

tazdevl

Putting on skis
Skier
Joined
Jan 20, 2020
Posts
158
Location
CO
The 172cm RS 106 Black hath arrived. Waiting on the 96 in my size.

I don’t have anything handy to measure atm but eyeballing it, seems a tad shorter than 172cm. I’ll post the tale of the tape when I’m able.
 

Attachments

  • 7DAC0CD2-00A1-4D36-8647-F6B927F99745.jpeg
    7DAC0CD2-00A1-4D36-8647-F6B927F99745.jpeg
    96.3 KB · Views: 26

Jim McDonald

愛スキー
Skier
Joined
Nov 15, 2015
Posts
2,101
Location
Tokyo
Compared in a shop here on the weekend, the 180 Ripstick 96 Black is almost 1cm shorter than the 177 Mantra M6.
If I have a chance later this week, will go back and take a photo.
 

tazdevl

Putting on skis
Skier
Joined
Jan 20, 2020
Posts
158
Location
CO
Tale of the tape….

172cm 2022 Ripstick Black 106

Tip to tail notch, straight pull - 169cm
Tip to end of tail, straight pull - 169.5cm’ish.
Bottom, tip to tail notch - 170cm
Bottom tip to end of tail 170.5cm’ish (dropped a bit because I wasn’t pulling).
 

Attachments

  • C173BD73-76F4-4356-AF61-D614DDF746EB.jpeg
    C173BD73-76F4-4356-AF61-D614DDF746EB.jpeg
    139.2 KB · Views: 27
  • 71285906-BEA5-4A2A-920D-9607406E8FF6.jpeg
    71285906-BEA5-4A2A-920D-9607406E8FF6.jpeg
    168.8 KB · Views: 20
  • EC886E99-324C-4BE6-BC01-617F8BED3B05.jpeg
    EC886E99-324C-4BE6-BC01-617F8BED3B05.jpeg
    109 KB · Views: 19
  • 0BA2D351-0114-46E4-8623-1849CDA7E850.jpeg
    0BA2D351-0114-46E4-8623-1849CDA7E850.jpeg
    121 KB · Views: 23
Last edited:

tazdevl

Putting on skis
Skier
Joined
Jan 20, 2020
Posts
158
Location
CO
Forgot… anecdotal feedback from a few shops who have people that skied both 2022 RS Blacks, 106 Black is a fair bit stiffer than the 96 Black.
 
Last edited:

Jim McDonald

愛スキー
Skier
Joined
Nov 15, 2015
Posts
2,101
Location
Tokyo
I haven't skied them, but from hand flexing I'd agree.
 

tazdevl

Putting on skis
Skier
Joined
Jan 20, 2020
Posts
158
Location
CO
It does seem a bit counterintuitive the softer snow ski is stiffer no?
 

tazdevl

Putting on skis
Skier
Joined
Jan 20, 2020
Posts
158
Location
CO
Given the increase in surface area with the wider overall width, not necessarily.

Sorry I wasnt clear. I understand why it’s stiffer but from a design perspective, softer snow skis are typically softer flexing skis. Good example is going from rustler 9 to 10 to 11.

Also, iirc messing with skis in a shop a while ago, regular 106 had a softer flex than the regular 96.

Mainly just putting down a few observations since there aren’t a lot out in the wild and I’m running a size smaller (172) than the 2 pre-release sizes (180/188).

Regardless I’m looking forward to taking these to Jackson and Targhee with my Rustler 11s. If the CO front range snow looks like it did last season, I’ll be on my Ripstick 88s for most of the season if I’m skiing locally.
 
Last edited:

Wendy

Resurrecting the Oxford comma
Admin
Skier
SkiTalk Supporter
Joined
Mar 13, 2016
Posts
4,905
Location
Santa Fe, New Mexico

BigSlick

Getting off the lift
Skier
Joined
Mar 12, 2020
Posts
214
Location
California
I picked up a pair of Pivot 14s I picked up cheap end of last season for cheap, so I finally gave in and ordered a pair of RS96 Black editions in 180cm so the bindings wouldn't feel abandoned. Going to be long wait now for snow to review them.
 
Last edited:

Darryl

Booting up
Skier
Joined
Nov 8, 2018
Posts
46
Coming into this thread a little late, but found it using the search function. I have been debating between the regular and black editions of the Ripstick 96, along with what length to get. My local shop has them in stock at the moment.

I am an advanced skier, 5'8, 170 pounds, starting to push 50, so enjoy a lighter ski. This will be my out west travel ski, 50% groomed, 50% bowls, moguls and trees. It may also spend some time in Sutton Quebec, Jay Peak and Mad River Glen.

I feel like I am in-between the 172 and the 180. Given what I have read in this thread, I am leaning towards the regular Ripsticks in 180. Does that sound right? I am slightly worried they may be too long in moguls/trees.

Thanks,
 

Tony S

I have a confusion to make ...
Skier
Team Gathermeister
SkiTalk Supporter
Joined
Nov 14, 2015
Posts
12,630
Location
Maine
Coming into this thread a little late, but found it using the search function. I have been debating between the regular and black editions of the Ripstick 96, along with what length to get. My local shop has them in stock at the moment.

I am an advanced skier, 5'8, 170 pounds, starting to push 50, so enjoy a lighter ski. This will be my out west travel ski, 50% groomed, 50% bowls, moguls and trees. It may also spend some time in Sutton Quebec, Jay Peak and Mad River Glen.

I feel like I am in-between the 172 and the 180. Given what I have read in this thread, I am leaning towards the regular Ripsticks in 180. Does that sound right? I am slightly worried they may be too long in moguls/trees.

Thanks,
What are the details of your other skis, that this one is designed to complement?

I wouldn't worry too much about the length in bumps / trees. If you are having problems in that terrain the length of your skis is only 2% of the issue, almost invariably.

Since it sounds like this is going to be your softer snow / bigger mountain ski, I'd go with the 180 to optimize stability in choppy conditions and/or deep snow, should you be so lucky. FWIW I'm 5' 7" 140 and on the older 174cm Black. The only reason to go to the 172 would be if you were really focusing heavily on tight trees and steep bumps to the exclusion of open terrain.

My two cents only.
 

Darryl

Booting up
Skier
Joined
Nov 8, 2018
Posts
46
What are the details of your other skis, that this one is designed to complement?

I wouldn't worry too much about the length in bumps / trees. If you are having problems in that terrain the length of your skis is only 2% of the issue, almost invariably.

Since it sounds like this is going to be your softer snow / bigger mountain ski, I'd go with the 180 to optimize stability in choppy conditions and/or deep snow, should you be so lucky. FWIW I'm 5' 7" 140 and on the older 174cm Black. The only reason to go to the 172 would be if you were really focusing heavily on tight trees and steep bumps to the exclusion of open terrain.

My two cents only.
Thanks, much appreciated. I have Head eRally 170's for my Ontario small resort/ice ski. These will be the bigger mountain ski, and although that does contain some trees, open bowls are my favorite. Looks like the 180 for me.

Cheers,
 

François Pugh

Skiing the powder
Skier
Joined
Nov 17, 2015
Posts
7,617
Location
Great White North (Eastern side currently)
@Darryl 180 cm. Don't even think of going shorter.
I skied an older version of the regular at 150 lbs. As to regular or black, that depends on how fast you plan on skiing and on how hard the snow is. Even on soft Pacific coast snow, the regular did let me know I was being unwise when I skied them fast, but they still went where I pointed them. I could ski them fast, but it did make fast skiing more thrilling. If I had something I would be satisfied with at speed, they would really suck at tight trees and moguls. On the other hand the extra 30 lbs might make the black a good compromise for you.
 

BS Slarver

Making fresh tracks
Skier
Joined
Nov 20, 2015
Posts
1,527
Location
Biggest skiing in America
Err, correction darryl, my 96s are black and the regulars are the106, both in the 180 length. IMO, not much difference between the two as far as flex or turn radius.
Per Elan website all the RS in 180 be it RSB 96 / 106 are 18r
and the regular 96 / 106 are 18r. RSB feel a tad bit snappier, if I’m feeling sporty and it hasn’t snowed in bit. Can’t go wrong with either as a OSQ out west.
 

tazdevl

Putting on skis
Skier
Joined
Jan 20, 2020
Posts
158
Location
CO
Elan quiver is done. Back in black. Mounted, Phantom’d and Wintersteiger release tested. Rustler 11 and Bent Chet 120 getting tuned and release tested.
685FE6C9-F624-4A4E-9ADF-210D8AE99018.jpeg
 
Last edited:

Sponsor

Staff online

Top