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

AndréL

Booting up
Skier
Joined
Mar 2, 2021
Posts
17
Location
Montreal
You will have tough time trying to overpower the AX in 175. Their softish tips are deceptive, lots of firepower underfoot.

And the more you push, the stiffer they get and the more they push back.
For the sake of being curious, what’s missing (or of lesser degree) in the SC’s pedigree to fit the bill?
 

TahoeWarrior

Putting on skis
Skier
Joined
Feb 28, 2020
Posts
92
Location
Lake Tahoe
You will have tough time trying to overpower the AX in 175. Their softish tips are deceptive, lots of firepower underfoot.

And the more you push, the stiffer they get and the more they push back.

So, going back to a ski for my wife (intermediate/5’4/120) - If she’s between the 154 - 161 AX (or Nella 80/88) would you error on shorter?
 

James

Out There
Instructor
Joined
Dec 2, 2015
Posts
24,431
This stupid thread. Has no right to have legs like this. Keep getting sucked in.


He's definitely not my hero. There are only two likely outcomes:
1) He loves them and won't stop giggling on the hill.
2) He sells them and they are too long for me.
Either way I'm not amused.
Hey, might you be interested in a Motion 85? The really good looking blue, silver and pink one.
At 175cm, it’s way long for the audience. I think, isn’t it a women’s ski? I suspect it will eventually go for cheap.
It’s either this one or very like it. These were the pretty graphics that came out after they sent the guy who did the snakes and barbed wire graphics away for “retraining”.

This one was ‘15/16-
FA38832B-FF4F-4F1E-B5FC-2B1EF5D46F07.jpeg
 

scb

Booting up
Skier
Joined
Feb 20, 2021
Posts
38
Location
NYC
want Look Pivot 15s when I buy my ARs. I guess I'll go Raw? The purple forza would be awesome if it turned into the yellowish-green of the AR...
 

James

Out There
Instructor
Joined
Dec 2, 2015
Posts
24,431
I've commented on my love of my AR's i own and the AX's I've demo'ed several times. Now a Q for the group:
I'd like to upgrade my wife to the Stöckli family, but am struggling on size and model, help?

She is a solid intermediate, able to hit some groomed blacks, skis 90% on piste. She is 5'4 120lbs and is currently on a Salomon QST85. We ski at Squaw/Alpine 99% of the time. Options: AX, AR, Nella 80/88/96 . . . smaller lengths (150-160) that are likely a good fit (?) for her are not available to demo that I've seen.....

Feedback on any of these and sizing for her based on above?
Good question. Got nothing for you. That 85 motion was a classic. The AX has a pretty wide performance envelope, but afaik, it’s more suited to advanced skiers. I may be wrong.
@KingGrump may have something.
What length are the Qst 85’s ? Is she open to different lengths, or does she get nervous if the second number has a 6 in it?
 

TahoeWarrior

Putting on skis
Skier
Joined
Feb 28, 2020
Posts
92
Location
Lake Tahoe
Good question. Got nothing for you. That 85 motion was a classic. The AX has a pretty wide performance envelope, but afaik, it’s more suited to advanced skiers. I may be wrong.
@KingGrump may have something.
What length are the Qst 85’s ? Is she open to different lengths, or does she get nervous if the second number has a 6 in it?

Thanks James. Her QST’s are 153. For 2 runs she tried a friend’s AR’s in 161....she said they felt a bit heavy :rolleyes:;)I think the AR might be too much for her, but would love more feedback on other choices.....if 6 is digittwo it’s ok as long as digit three is < 3....
 

James

Out There
Instructor
Joined
Dec 2, 2015
Posts
24,431
I would probably consider the Nella 80. You’d be talking 157 as the next one is 165. I think that 157 is a good length. It’s a light ski, significantly lighter than the AR. Looks like about 0.5 kg per pair lighter and that’s a 157 Nella vs 154 AR.

Pair: 3.34kgs - 2.81 kgs = .52kg = 1.14lb = 18.3 ozs

The heavy feeling of the 161 AR could be a lot of things. Moving binding forward +1.5-2cm can help. Might be too much ski, might be the length, might even be the tune.
If that’s the feedback though, I’d eliminate the AR in 161 anyway.

There have been some very good lesser known Stockli’s with offbeat names in the past, but I don’t know them.
Looks like the current ski with the strange name is the Orea. Orea is 70 or 68 underfoot which might be a bit narrow for all mountain west. But on piste that’s good for learning technique.

want Look Pivot 15s when I buy my ARs. I guess I'll go Raw? The purple forza would be awesome if it turned into the yellowish-green of the AR...
I vote for this one, unless you could find a bright green
BA8F123D-B468-419F-8804-5A0C2957FB88.jpeg
 

Bobalooski

Getting off the lift
Inactive
Joined
Nov 12, 2015
Posts
484
Location
Rocklin, CA
I would probably consider the Nella 80. You’d be talking 157 as the next one is 165. I think that 157 is a good length. It’s a light ski, significantly lighter than the AR. Looks like about 0.5 kg per pair lighter and that’s a 157 Nella vs 154 AR.

Pair: 3.34kgs - 2.81 kgs = .52kg = 1.14lb = 18.3 ozs

The heavy feeling of the 161 AR could be a lot of things. Moving binding forward +1.5-2cm can help. Might be too much ski, might be the length, might even be the tune.
If that’s the feedback though, I’d eliminate the AR in 161 anyway.

There have been some very good lesser known Stöckli’s with offbeat names in the past, but I don’t know them.
Looks like the current ski with the strange name is the Orea. Orea is 70 or 68 underfoot which might be a bit narrow for all mountain west. But on piste that’s good for learning technique.


I vote for this one, unless you could find a bright green
View attachment 126424
Hard to argue with either color, eh??
 

raytseng

Making fresh tracks
Skier
Joined
Mar 24, 2016
Posts
3,330
Location
SF Bay Area
Thanks James. Her QST’s are 153. For 2 runs she tried a friend’s AR’s in 161....she said they felt a bit heavy :rolleyes:;)I think the AR might be too much for her, but would love more feedback on other choices.....if 6 is digittwo it’s ok as long as digit three is < 3....

What are you attempting to solve by buying the new skis. Is she not happy with the QST, or is fine with it? What is the conditions/scenario where the qst are not working; or what are new skis supposed to be doing better? Is it supposed to replace or complement? Is she a fast skier or cautious skier? On those black groomers, is she just surviving to keep up? or does she actually enjoy the steeper runs and will challenge or even beat you in a race to the bottom? Is she carving turns on the qst and hitting stability limits or not even getting to the the qst limits?

I'd just suggest the AX in 154. Compared to the tip/tail rocker QST; the AX and AR with flat tail and no tail rocker, skis longer; so jumping on the 161 would've been more like a 1.5 sizing 12 cm jump up rather than just 8cm. The stockli magic fairy dust makes the ax as stable as mainstream skis that need to use10mm extra waist to get the same stability. I bring this up because if no float is needed, I don't think extra waist is a a necessary requirement to get stability for offpiste / less manicured skiing, so AX!

But, if the issues are more technique or comfort/confidence/mental approach related, perhaps the better part of your purchase is also bundling in a private lesson.
 
Last edited:

Tony Storaro

Glorified Tobogganer
Skier
SkiTalk Supporter
Joined
Mar 2, 2020
Posts
7,805
Location
Europe
For the sake of being curious, what’s missing (or of lesser degree) in the SC’s pedigree to fit the bill?

In the length from your list-length and width. SC will be undoubtedly an excellent choice for on piste, AX will be more versatile.
You cant go wrong with SC in 177 as well.
 

TahoeWarrior

Putting on skis
Skier
Joined
Feb 28, 2020
Posts
92
Location
Lake Tahoe
I would probably consider the Nella 80. You’d be talking 157 as the next one is 165. I think that 157 is a good length. It’s a light ski, significantly lighter than the AR. Looks like about 0.5 kg per pair lighter and that’s a 157 Nella vs 154 AR.

Pair: 3.34kgs - 2.81 kgs = .52kg = 1.14lb = 18.3 ozs

The heavy feeling of the 161 AR could be a lot of things. Moving binding forward +1.5-2cm can help. Might be too much ski, might be the length, might even be the tune.
If that’s the feedback though, I’d eliminate the AR in 161 anyway.

There have been some very good lesser known Stöckli’s with offbeat names in the past, but I don’t know them.
Looks like the current ski with the strange name is the Orea. Orea is 70 or 68 underfoot which might be a bit narrow for all mountain west. But on piste that’s good for learning technique.


I vote for this one, unless you could find a bright green
View attachment 126424

Helpful - thanks!
 

TahoeWarrior

Putting on skis
Skier
Joined
Feb 28, 2020
Posts
92
Location
Lake Tahoe
What are you attempting to solve by buying the new skis. Is she not happy with the QST, or is fine with it? What is the conditions/scenario where the qst are not working; or what are new skis supposed to be doing better? Is it supposed to replace or complement? Is she a fast skier or cautious skier? On those black groomers, is she just surviving them to keep up? or does she enjoy the steeper mtn and will challenge or even beat you in a race to the bottom? Is she carving turns on the qst and hitting stability limits or not even getting to the the qst limits?

I'd just suggest the AX in 154. Compared to the tip/tail rocker QST; the AX and AR with flat tail and no tail rocker skis longer; so jumping on the 161 would've been more like a 1.5 sizing 12 cm jump up rather than just 8cm. The Stöckli magic fairy dust makes the ax as stable as mainstream skis that need to use10mm extra waist to get the same stability. If no float is needed, I don't think extra waist is a pure requirement for stability for offpiste / less manicured skiing.

But, if the issues are more technique or comfort/confidence/mental approach related, perhaps the better part of your purchase is also bundling in a private lesson.
All valid points - I mostly want her to look as good as me when skiing into the Chalet or line at Siberia Bowl! Haha....her QSTs are getting pretty beat up, so why not push those into the rock ski category. Like my semi pro golf buddy says, new clubs might not technically change your game, but the confidence from new equipment you admire can have a positive impact....
Her technique is very good, her ability is better than her head thinks....she needs an ego and confidence boost.
 

raytseng

Making fresh tracks
Skier
Joined
Mar 24, 2016
Posts
3,330
Location
SF Bay Area
For sure, especially as confidence goes, a major part of the AX is that it will grip on ice, as compared to freeride skis which may need a half inch of soft stuff before they will lock in and hold the edge.
If you take away problems with slippage on steeps/ice it will greatly improve confidence (e.g. in mornings such as siberia or on bobbys/scott run at alpine).
On the AXes (and I assume other frontside/carver type skis); this goes as far as you will become confident enough to even prefer icier side of the groomer run as long as it is smoother and no more of the "need to wait for it to soften" . Despite being "icy" that terrain is more precise and predictable than skier cut or softer sections once slipping becomes a non-issue..
 
Last edited:

James

Out There
Instructor
Joined
Dec 2, 2015
Posts
24,431
It’s hard to argue against an AX in 154. It really is a classic modern ski. They’ve nailed the flex/profile/shape integration.
I’ve skied it in 168,175, and 183. (Wherever it was mounted, the 183 needed to be +3)
It is really a guess as to how it scales to 154cm and someone who’s getting towards 100lbs lighter. But, no reason to think it wouldn’t.

One interesting aspect is the AX comes with a 1.2 or 1.4 deg base bevel. I believe it’s the later, which we find a ghastly travesty, but can be used to advantage. You start off stock, with the big base bevel, then as confidence grows you go down to a 1 deg bevel. Maybe the next time the ski is ground you go 0.7deg. So you are creating a quicker acting more precise ski. If you’re west maybe you leave the side at 2 deg.

How about a 154cm AX with a 160cm Nella 88? ogsmile
 
Last edited:

Sponsor

Staff online

  • Dwight
    Practitioner of skiing, solid and liquid
Top