The Never-Ending Stöckli Discussion

[James]

They’re making sizes in 5cm increments. Can’t ask for more than that!

Kastle’s increments of 10cm were terrible. The making you go to a completely different ski to get a proper size was completely ridiculous. The attempts at justification from many just made it even worse.

I don’t think Stockli’s sizing is “a trick”. At least give them credit for bucking the less sizes trend. Though I guess they have axed the short ones.

 

[Tony S]

They’re making sizes in 5cm increments. Can’t ask for more than that!

Kastle’s increments of 10 were terrible. The making you go to a completely different ski to get a proper size was completely ridiculous. The attempts at justification from many just made it even worse.

I don’t think Stockli’s sizing is “a trick”. At least give them credit for bucking the less sizes trend. Though I guess they have axed the short ones.

Yeah, my quibble isn't with Stöckli; it's with the concept espoused in that post.

 

[James]

Well if someone buys skis based on length numbers, it makes sense. Though I can’t recall someone looking for a specific size, like 164cm.
I suppose there’s worse ways to pick sizes, like going off the constant Bro sizing of Blister’s 155lb reviewer.

 

[Gina D]

@LindseyB the FIS SL's now are all called WRT-SL FIS. What does that mean?

Would someone who loved the SRT SL but isn't a strong racer, enjoy the FIS ski on smaller mountains?

 

[ski otter 2]

@LindseyB the FIS SL's now are all called WRT-SL FIS. What does that mean?

Would someone who loved the SRT SL but isn't a strong racer, enjoy the FIS ski on smaller mountains?

Stockli has different levels of construction and corresponding binding setups; for example, SRT (for more all mountain versatility and playfulness) , VRT (with most of the lasers, I believe), and WRT (their race room construction).

The WRT is noticeably more precise - and until one gets used to it, probably more demanding, more attention required.

Corresponding to the differences in construction are SRT binding setups, and race room, or WRT binding setups, which really emphasize more precision and immediacy of response in the ski, in my experience.

If you can be and like being a strong, more precise skier, then the WRT setup may well work for you, as long as you like that extra strength/precision.
Recreationally speaking, to me the difference is just plain fun: the setups are different and each has its pros and cons, on a scale from more playful to more precise.

Hope that helps.

 

[Henry]

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.

I don't care how long my skis are. I care how they perform for me, how they respond to my inputs. Ski length is used as a substitute for ski stiffness with the shortest in each line being also the softest for the slower skiers and the featherweights while the longest are also the stiffest for the big, fast, strongest skiers. Years ago a ski maker (Salomon?) tried to change how skis were designated by using a PR number instead of the centimeter length. PR (Performance Rating?) was a single digit number that referred to the ski stiffness, and in any line of that brand the higher PR number skis were also longer as well as stiffer. It was a great idea that did not catch on.

The skis on my rack from two makers and three models of skis are 170 (longest in this line), 175 (next to longest), and 180 (next to longest), and each one in its line performs just right for me. That's the challenge...pick a ski line to do what I want, then pick a ski stiffness that performs best for me regardless of the actual length. If I go from my Laser AX 175 to a Montero AX, do I want the 173 or 178??? I'll wait for the reviews of how the Montero AX performs in the size the tester is on.

 

[LindseyB]

@LindseyB the FIS SL's now are all called WRT-SL FIS. What does that mean?

Would someone who loved the SRT SL but isn't a strong racer, enjoy the FIS ski on smaller mountains?

Really there are only 2 SL's. FIS and non-FIS.
The FIS always have gate protectors on them. The Non-FIS don't. I wouldn't worry too much about all the acronyms in the name of the ski other than if it says FIS.

 

[Stocked2022]

I don't care how long my skis are. I care how they perform for me, how they respond to my inputs. Ski length is used as a substitute for ski stiffness with the shortest in each line being also the softest for the slower skiers and the featherweights while the longest are also the stiffest for the big, fast, strongest skiers. Years ago a ski maker (Salomon?) tried to change how skis were designated by using a PR number instead of the centimeter length. PR (Performance Rating?) was a single digit number that referred to the ski stiffness, and in any line of that brand the higher PR number skis were also longer as well as stiffer. It was a great idea that did not catch on.

The skis on my rack from two makers and three models of skis are 170 (longest in this line), 175 (next to longest), and 180 (next to longest), and each one in its line performs just right for me. That's the challenge...pick a ski line to do what I want, then pick a ski stiffness that performs best for me regardless of the actual length. If I go from my Laser AX 175 to a Montero AX, do I want the 173 or 178??? I'll wait for the reviews of how the Montero AX performs in the size the tester is on.

I'm not stuck on sizes or widths either. I have six pairs of skis (165/65-183/100) in the back of my pickup truck all winter. I usually bring two pairs to the rack and switch at noon. I don't ski on weekends which gives me more freedom to choose my turn shape and speed when safe of course. I will probably go with the 178 AX or 180 AR. What a fun problem to have!

 

[David]

Does anyone know why the new SR88 & SR95 are now 184 cm instead of thec186 cm that they have been? I'm just curious if they are measuring them different or did they change the tip & tail and have the same running length, etc...?

 

[Tony Storaro]

Does anyone know why the new SR88 & SR95 are now 184 cm instead of thec186 cm that they have been? I'm just curious if they are measuring them different or did they change the tip & tail and have the same running length, etc...?

Ermmm…..when was it when the SR95 were 186? As far as I know they are 184 since at least 3 gens…

 

[James]

Yeah back to 14/15 at least. It was 192 then 184cm.

 

[David]

Ermmm…..when was it when the SR95 were 186? As far as I know they are 184 since at least 3 gens…

It looks like for the 22/23 version which is what surprised me.

 

[LindseyB]

The SR88 were a 186 and now are a 184. There is no rocker in the newer SR88.

The SR95 were 183, and now 184. There has not been a 186 SR95 so far.

 

[David]

The SR88 were a 186 and now are a 184. There is no rocker in the newer SR88.

The SR95 were 183, and now 184. There has not been a 186 SR95 so far.

You're right about the 95. My bad. But Ske Essentials says there is still tip rocker and a snapshot from the Stockli website confirms that. Still curious why it's now shorter though. Maybe it's just more efficient & cost effective to use the same length as the 95.

 

[ski otter 2]

You're right about the 95. My bad. But Ske Essentials says there is still tip rocker and a snapshot from the Stockli website confirms that. Still curious why it's now shorter though. Maybe it's just more efficient & cost effective to use the same length as the 95.

As near as I can tell, brands very often use slightly different length descriptions in the same model year to year as a way of differentiating one year model from the next. Often, there is no actual change in length or related design: one millimeter is so small that the slight variations/tolerances in the same year model length would often be within plus or minus a millimeter either way anyway.

 

[James]

one millimeter is so small that the slight variations/tolerances in the same year model length would often be within plus or minus a millimeter either way anyway.

Centimeter?
Only brand that goes to millimeters is Black Crows, and it’s completely ridiculous.

 

[ski otter 2]

Centimeter?
Only brand that goes to millimeters is Black Crows, and it’s completely ridiculous.

You're right. Thanks. Not sure what that does to what I was saying, besides weakening it. But there have been routinely models that seemed to have the same pull length, but slightly changed up the centimeter length number anyway, no obvious changes otherwise, other than graphics.

 

[James]

But there have been routinely models that seemed to have the same pull length, but slightly changed up the centimeter length number anyway, no obvious changes otherwise, other than graphics.

Most commonly done in slalom skis of 155/56 or 157/8. Really denotes the construction.

 

[KingGrump]

Most commonly done in slalom skis of 155/56 or 157/8. Really denotes the construction.

Mostly stiffness and durability.

I remembered way back, the Volkl P9 RS was offered in 200, 203, 205 and longer. There was significant difference between the 203 and 205 in their handling.

 

[David]

I asked Stockli as well but they have not responded. I wonder if there are any reps out there?