Pretty sure this is a ski that everyone should own. Mine are 177cm. The AX may be versatile but the SC is compliant.My “short” list: Alpha group: Laser SC 170,
Pretty sure this is a ski that everyone should own. Mine are 177cm. The AX may be versatile but the SC is compliant.My “short” list: Alpha group: Laser SC 170,
For the sake of being curious, what’s missing (or of lesser degree) in the SC’s pedigree to fit the bill?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.
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.
Ok, I think I get you, but help me understand what you mean by the SC being compliant.Pretty sure this is a ski that everyone should own. Mine are 177cm. The AX may be versatile but the SC is compliant.
Hey, might you be interested in a Motion 85? The really good looking blue, silver and pink one.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.
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.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?
A vote for raw here. Think it would compliment the ski and have a subtle elegance. Anyway, my 2 cents.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...
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?
I vote for this one, unless you could find a bright greenwant 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...
Hard to argue with either color, eh??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
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 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....
For the sake of being curious, what’s missing (or of lesser degree) in the SC’s pedigree to fit the bill?
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
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?
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....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.
....she needs an ego and confidence boost.