The Never-Ending Stöckli Discussion

[mikel]

I think I would enjoy demoing the Montero. Just based on the video it sounds more like a PX81 than an MX83 except maybe the tail performance.

 

[LindseyB]

Excellent review - thanks for throwing this up!
Slight tangent - what remains in the Laser group now?

Laser Group:
DH FIS
SG FIS
GS FIS
GS
SX FIS
SX
SL FIS
SL
WRT-ST
WRT-PRO
CX
CX OREA
MX
SC
SC OREA

 

[LindseyB]

Add a 185 (18.4m radius) to the Montero AR line up.
We need to wait until fall to see the reviews of how the skis ski. My personal rule of thumb for ski length is one size less than the max for that line. That would put me on the Montero AX 178 to replace my Laser AX 175. We hope the reviews will tell us if the Monteros ski short or ski long...that is feel soft for a length or feel stiff for that length. And, we hope, that the reviews tell us if the Montero is a real improvement over the Laser line. The alternative is likely the Blossom AM77 https://www.skitalk.com/threads/2022-blossom-am77.24192/

The Montero AR comes in 185 next year.

 

[bisikaufmann]

Some thoughts on the FIS SL after skiing them this season as a major part of the quiver…

For context, I am a recovering Atomic race room ski junkie (summertime raids on WC athlete quivers / wintertime recreational skiing of said bounty with the occasional run at glory in the local Masters scene).

My primary point of reference is the 165 cm FIS Redster S9. Set-up: X20 binding / solid plate / running .5/4 bevels. I have >1M vertical ft on this set-up over the past 3 seasons.

My initial reaction to the Stöckli FIS SL in early season skiing was pure unadulterated enthusiasm. I had never skied a ski that blended so much power with so much playfulness. I stand by this impression, although as I have spent more time on the ski, there are some important nuances.

Side-cut - this ski is 2.0 mm wider in the tip, 1.5mm narrower in the waist, and 2.5 mm wider in the tail than it’s S9 counterpart. On paper, the differential in turn radius is minute at (.1m); but experientially the Stöckli’s preferred radius is MUCH shorter than the Redster. The Stöckli can snap off turns that radius-wise are unthinkable on the Redster. On the other-hand, the Stöckli is quite resistant to being skied at the occasional GS-radius turn length, which the Redster does with aplomb. This smaller radius of the Stockli is very confidence-inspiring when skiing gates, as one can arc through even the most desperate of recovery-turns.

Longitudinal Stiffness - this ski shares some heritage with the other Stöckli skis that I have sampled with regards to longitudinal stiffness, as there is a distinct differential between tip and tail stiffness with the tips being softer than the tail. This leads to an ease of turn initiation that is unique in this class of ski. This aspect makes pre-fall line engagement a breeze at surprisingly low speeds, and allows a level of precision/control in the Redster requires higher speeds and higher edge angles to replicate.

The Stöckli tails are not only comparatively stiff in relation to the tips, but on an absolute scale seem much stiffer than the Redster’s. In turn, the Stöckli delivers an extraordinary amount of power coming out of a turn, but need to be fully and rather intentionally flexed in order to work their magic. (I skied two full days until I first accessed the full strength of the tail quite by accident, and had to stop to take my heart out of my throat) In combination, this fore-aft differential in longitudinal stiffness invites a pronounced “fore-to-aft” migration of the optimal balance point on the ski during a turn. This takes some adaptation when transitioning from a ski like the Redster that seems to have a comparatively narrow and more neutral balance point; but once mastered opens up a FUN game of nuance between pressure strength and timing. This wider range of balance makes it delightful in variable snow conditions, or during ‘recovery-mode’ after badly mis-judging a cross-rut on a race course. It is particularly delightful in full-crud conditions with a firm base. The edges will hold for days underneath the crud, while the wide balance range will allows you to work though the ‘potato-sack thud’ sensation of incoming crud-chunks.

Torsional-Stiffness - If the fore-foot of the SL “lacks” comparative longitudinal-stiffness to the Redster, it is clearly “superior” in the category of torsional stiffness. In fact, it is the combination of a certain longitudinal suppleness and torsional rigidity in the fore-foot that is the hallmark of this ski, and it’s most subtle nuance. The ease of turn initiation, followed by a ‘dagger-on-ice’ edge hold that doesn’t deteriorate with pressure or speed, and is equal parts counterintuitive and mind-blowing. Something that flexes so easily shouldn’t possibly be able to hold so firmly, but it does it VERY WELL. This translates into an experience that builds confidence in high edge angles on steep terrain, and likewise in ripping lightening-fast transitions on ice. That outside- edge will be there sooner than you expect and cannot be overpowered torsionally. This aspect of the ski develops quite a “hero-complex” over time and is highly addicting.

The nuance here is that the ski rewards ‘good’ technique and punishes ‘bad’ technique. Edge engagement on the new turning ski above the fall-line is what these skis seem to be built for, while turn initiation in or after the fall-line generates a distinct ‘pumping-the-brakes’ sensation and has the tendency to scrub ALOT of speed very quickly. For me, this tendency is more pronounced in steep/icy terrain when technique begins to fall apart.

Rebound/Feedback - In sharing the heritage of the rest of the Stockli line, there is a secret in the core of the ski that is hard to describe but is evident in a certain feeling underfoot; particularly in the sensations felt when flexing and unflexing the ski. The Stöckli responds to nuances in the pressure phase of a turn (timing, speed, & angle) that are unobservable in the Redster. The active feedback from the ski during each phase of the turn creates a form of sensory-driven situational awareness that borders on black magic. The Redsters feel blunt in comparison, and when transitioning from the Stöckli to the Redster, I find myself grasping for supplemental visual and auditory cues to compensate for the lack of sensory input from the the ski.

In totality, I absolutely love the SL, and see many more pairs being added to the quiver; albeit there are rare applications where I may still occasionally reach for the Redsters.

A couple of fun brand shots to accompany this review. After a week on the FIS SL in spring conditions in Switzerland, I stand by and double-down on the fact that this ski is the ULTIMATE corn snow super weapon.

 

[James]

A couple of fun brand shots to accompany this review. After a week on the FIS SL in spring conditions in Switzerland, I stand by and double-down on the fact that this ski is the ULTIMATE corn snow super weapon.

You have like a half dozen oeople here wanting to get that now. (Whether that happens is another thing)

Judging by the photos, it’s not just short turns. Yes?

 

[Tony S]

You have like a half dozen oeople here wanting to get that now. (Whether that happens is another thing)

Judging by the photos, it’s not just short turns. Yes?

Looks like only one of the pics is of the SL.

 

[motogreg]

Love the last bit of the SE review, "If you can't afford it, uh, get a second job, second mortgage, home equity loan....."

 

[Jeronimo]

LindseyB, if you could comment to sizing, how would you recommend people size given the new length changes in the AX. People on 175 Laser AX -> 178 Montero AX? Or drop down to 173cm since the common impression is that the AX ski's long?

 

[Winks]

From the last day of the year. these are 172 I have the180 on order for next year. They are the most epic ski I have ever had the pleasure to turn!

I could not agree with you more! This is the best ski I have ever been on.

 

[LindseyB]

LindseyB, if you could comment to sizing, how would you recommend people size given the new length changes in the AX. People on 175 Laser AX -> 178 Montero AX? Or drop down to 173cm since the common impression is that the AX ski's long?

I would base it off of weight.

If someone was in the 175 range of the old AX and they weigh <170ish I would drop to the 173. If they weigh >170 I would steer toward 178. I would only use this as a general rule, there are always outliers like love really long or short skis despite what anyone might expect.


I have typically reached for other ski models from our line up and never bought into the AX craze as I felt so many other skis were overlooked, but between Feb/Mar/Apr of this year I kept pulling the 178 AX out of the truck on my personal ski days more than anything else. The next most skied was the CX. Then the WRT Pro, but it seemed like somebody was always borrowing the WRT Pro more than it was in my truck.

For me the new 178 AX hit a perfect sweet spot between stability in the nose and playability across a wide range of snow consistencies. As long as I kept the side edges polished sharp, it hooked up well, and when it got too soft at lower elevations it transitioned nicely without getting hooky or washing out. I weigh 190 and never felt like I wanted a longer length, I ski mostly forward, sometimes too much so and never felt like I might go over the handle bars. When I was going high speed, I would leave the binding on the mounting line, and when I was shorter turn carving, I would click it forward 3 notches for faster initiation turns. I really like the new Strive platform for this ski and like that it adjusts performance so easily. Similar to how I adjust the shocks on my mountain bike for different trails, the fade/draw setting on my driver for different courses, and different air pressure on my Onewheel for street vs. trail, it's only takes a few seconds and I'm having a varied experience that enhances the fun.

If someone is on the fence about which length, I would factor in the adjustable binding option.
I.E. at the SV demo last March, I had a lady ski up with the 21-22 version of the AX she had purchased earlier in the year, she said she liked it a lot but felt like she was in too long a size(168) and asked if she should buy the (161), I thought after hearing her description of her preferences that the 161 might feel too short for her and that it might not be the perfect fit either. I noticed she had the matching adjustable Warden, so I asked her to take off the skis and moved her 3cm forward and told here to go ski it before buying another pair. About an hour later she came back and was thrilled saying that it skied so much easier and that it felt perfect. For her the ideal AX would probably be built in a 164, but having the adjustable binding made it possible to get her closer to a sweet spot since not every length of ski can be made.

 

[Jim McDonald]

So @LindseyB, at 70kg (155#) on a 175 '19-20 AX (and sometimes feeling it's a little too much ski) would you recommend I move the bindings forward a cm or 2?

 

[Johnny V.]

Here's a question for @LindseyB: where can I purchase a Stockli T -shirt either long or short sleeve? I'd like to display my cult membership proudly!

 

[LindseyB]

So @LindseyB, at 70kg (155#) on a 175 '19-20 AX (and sometimes feeling it's a little too much ski) would you recommend I move the bindings forward a cm or 2?

yes. can't hurt to test that out and see how you like it.

 

[Tony S]

Nela96 is special. I can’t begin to tell you how many male testers asked if we could just make it in a 180 with a unisex graphic. Light and quick, but very stable and supportive.

Fortunately I'm not too tall for the 172.

 

[Stocked2022]

I own and ski a pair of 2015 Stockli AX's which I plan on replacing this year with a pair of Montero AR's or AX's. I'm 5'10" and weigh 160. There are two skiers in the Ski Essential's review video of the Montero Ax on page 179. Jeff is my size and weight, Bob is 6'2" weighs 225. Jeff liked the 178 cm AX they both were skiing. Bob liked the 178 but would have preferred a longer ski. I use multiple ski reviews in making my selections. Video reviews showing the skis reaction to pressure and snow are very helpful.

 

[Henry]

Lindsey said, "...the new 178 AX hit a perfect sweet spot...." and, "...I weigh 190...."

So, for me at 5-11 & 170# (and I'll bet that Lindsey is a stronger, skier than I am), I guess that puts me on a 173 Montero AX vs. my 2017 175 AX that I loved and am about to jilt? (I rented the 168 AR last winter and felt it was too soft, felt like too much pressure was on the snow underfoot and not enough on the ends of the skis.) And, I'll like the tighter turn radius of the shorter AX.

 

[ctsnowplow]

Would one size up on the AR? If you were a 175cm, would you move to the 180?

 

[Henry]

CT, my rule of thumb for getting the ski stiffness that works for my skiing is to get one size less than the max whatever the centimeter length turns out to be. I'm batting about .900 with at approach. If something like that has worked for you, then with the new AR max at 185, the 180 might be your ski (previously the 182 was max and 175 was one size down). For the new AX it seems that I'm on the cusp between the 178 & 173 (183 is the max), and I'd rather have my skis a bit soft than a bit stiff. If they just weren't so difficult to find a demo where I ski...and to be able to try both sizes the same day....

 

[Stocked2022]

If you check the new sizing of the Montero AX and AR you will notice we have a lot more choices if we consider both skis in our selection process.

163 165 168 170 173 175 178 180 183 185 (AX = Green AR = Blue) The difference in width between both skis is 4mm which is 1/8" or the width of one ski edge. Both skis are very popular in the New England area. The AX is a little more precise where the AR is a little more versatile.

 

[Tony S]

If you check the new sizing of the Montero AX and AR you will notice we have a lot more choices if we consider both skis in our selection process.

163 165 168 170 173 175 178 180 183 185 (AX = Green AR = Blue) The difference in width between both skis is 4mm which is 1/8" or the width of one ski edge. Both skis are very popular in the New England area. The AX is a little more precise where the AR is a little more versatile.

People used to pull out this trick for the Kästle MX series when the size increment was 10cm. I didn't buy it then and I don't buy it now. If two models aren't significantly different in how they ski, then why not just make one model in more sizes? And if they are significantly different, then picking the model based on length rather than on behavior doesn't make sense.