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

Tony Storaro

Glorified Tobogganer
Skier
SkiTalk Supporter
Joined
Mar 2, 2020
Posts
7,806
Location
Europe
One interesting aspect is the AX comes with a 1.2 or 1.4 deg base bevel. I believe it’s the later,

Stockli recommendations are for 1.3 base but in my experience they come lower than that so you have a choice what to do.
This needs to be verified for each pair of ski of course but mine came at 1.
 

raytseng

Making fresh tracks
Skier
Joined
Mar 24, 2016
Posts
3,330
Location
SF Bay Area
Stöckli recommendations are for 1.3 base but in my experience they come lower than that so you have a choice what to do.
This needs to be verified for each pair of ski of course but mine came at 1.
to @TahoeWarrior If above is a concern to you, high end tuning shops such as smoothrides, will measure the angles on your skis with tools before doing work.

FWIW my Laser AX measured out to 1.3 on the svst base bevel meter and ski fine on that setup for squaw/alpine terrain. When I was getting used to it; I would "catch an edge" because it would hook up so well and due to my lazy technique when coming off my mainstream skis (which were 1/2); until I stopped being so lazy with my skiing. So I give a thumbs up to James strategy to at least give it a try it out first at its factory 1.3 setup. I doubt there will be issue due to the baseangle and complaints that is is too slow to hook up/transition given this scenario is a step up for the inter. skier; vs an ex-racer stepping down from their race skis and switching to casual skiing.
 
Last edited:

TahoeWarrior

Putting on skis
Skier
Joined
Feb 28, 2020
Posts
92
Location
Lake Tahoe
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
Very helpful - yes I’ll hone in on these sizes!
 

noggin

Getting on the lift
Skier
Joined
Mar 21, 2018
Posts
237
Location
ME
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
Would there be quite a bit overhang with the current 75{-8mm} or 95 {+12MM Diff from AR} Pivot brake sizes that might catch/snag the snow on the AR when carving? Thats why I went with the DXM's(Salomon). I have Pivots on my AX's.
 
Last edited:

scb

Booting up
Skier
Joined
Feb 20, 2021
Posts
38
Location
NYC
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


i love those. It would most likely look horrible on the AR, but could be awesome. Torn.
 

KingGrump

Most Interesting Man In The World
Team Gathermeister
SkiTalk Supporter
Joined
Nov 12, 2015
Posts
12,202
Location
NYC
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?

Ski for our wife? No thanks. I always have one. Don't need more than one headache at a time. :ogbiggrin:

If your wife is a intermediate and wants to improve. I would not go with the AX. Rather something softer and more compliant. If you can find the discontinued SR 85W, that would be good fit. Will take her into the expert level skiing with no issues. Mamie has four pairs of SR 85W. I picked up the first pair for her. The other three she bought without consulting me.

One of the key points we are keenly aware of when we suggest skis for other is not to "over ski" on the recommendation. We rather like to err on the soft side than too stiff. A ski that is too stiff or aggressive will often set a skier's progress back for a while. Usually until they buy a new softer ski.

We had converted many ladies to the 85W once they demo one of Mamie's. One did say she needed more beef. She ended up with the Kenja after riding my Kendo. Whatever floats your boat.

Most guys buy skis with their gonads. Most women I know likes their skis with some refinement.
If you are looking for a front side Stockli for skiing improvement for your intermediate wife. The Nela 80 is a good choice. Soft and comfortable.

You can think about this simple question. Do you and your wife run on the same testosterone level while out on the slopes?
 

Tony Storaro

Glorified Tobogganer
Skier
SkiTalk Supporter
Joined
Mar 2, 2020
Posts
7,806
Location
Europe
The Nela 80 is a good choice. Soft and comfortable.

Thank you!

Any observations on Laser MX and Orea Blanc/Noir?

I am heavily leaning towards the Nela 80 but would be nice to hear more on the other two.

In my case AX is not an option-no matter how good a skier you are, at 42 kg one can only push so much...
 

TahoeWarrior

Putting on skis
Skier
Joined
Feb 28, 2020
Posts
92
Location
Lake Tahoe
Ski for our wife? No thanks. I always have one. Don't need more than one headache at a time. :ogbiggrin:

If your wife is a intermediate and wants to improve. I would not go with the AX. Rather something softer and more compliant. If you can find the discontinued SR 85W, that would be good fit. Will take her into the expert level skiing with no issues. Mamie has four pairs of SR 85W. I picked up the first pair for her. The other three she bought without consulting me.

One of the key points we are keenly aware of when we suggest skis for other is not to "over ski" on the recommendation. We rather like to err on the soft side than too stiff. A ski that is too stiff or aggressive will often set a skier's progress back for a while. Usually until they buy a new softer ski.

We had converted many ladies to the 85W once they demo one of Mamie's. One did say she needed more beef. She ended up with the Kenja after riding my Kendo. Whatever floats your boat.

Most guys buy skis with their gonads. Most women I know likes their skis with some refinement.
If you are looking for a front side Stöckli for skiing improvement for your intermediate wife. The Nela 80 is a good choice. Soft and comfortable.

You can think about this simple question. Do you and your wife run on the same testosterone level while out on the slopes?
Again - very helpful feedback. I personally love the AX and AR, but indeed based on several of you providing questions and feedback, perhaps the Nela 80 or even 88 could be a better fit than the AX since she doesn't ski aggressive. That 80 is new but gets great reviews so far . . . I'll still consider the AX, but will be on the look for the 80 . . . maybe 88.
 

KingGrump

Most Interesting Man In The World
Team Gathermeister
SkiTalk Supporter
Joined
Nov 12, 2015
Posts
12,202
Location
NYC
Thank you!

Any observations on Laser MX and Orea Blanc/Noir?

I am heavily leaning towards the Nela 80 but would be nice to hear more on the other two.

In my case AX is not an option-no matter how good a skier you are, at 42 kg one can only push so much...

I saw couple pair of Orea demos out in the lift lines at Taos last year. Asked Alain about it. He said he will sell me a pair when I can show him my dentures and gums my oatmeal for breakfast. They are nicerelax cruisers.

The MX is a expert oriented short turns ski. Most will find it skittish.

Again - very helpful feedback. I personally love the AX and AR, but indeed based on several of you providing questions and feedback, perhaps the Nela 80 or even 88 could be a better fit than the AX since she doesn't ski aggressive. That 80 is new but gets great reviews so far . . . I'll still consider the AX, but will be on the look for the 80 . . . maybe 88.

80 if she is mostly skiing on piste. 88 if she wants to wander off piste - a lot. The 88 will give her more float in ungroomed snow.

At 5'/4" & #120 I think a Nela 80 in 157 cm would be a good fit. Don't go shorter. This is coming from a guy that like short skinny skis.
 

Steve

SkiMangoJazz
Pass Pulled
Joined
Nov 13, 2015
Posts
2,338
The Edge 88 in 168 is a great woman's ski. It's their touring ski, but my understanding is that it is basically a lighter version of the Stormrider 88.
 

AndréL

Booting up
Skier
Joined
Mar 2, 2021
Posts
17
Location
Montreal
It’s been a great read going from the start of this thread, multiple discussions on forward or stock mount line, tuning edges vs factory cut, resin vs powder. Guess it’s my now turn to get ready to jump into the Stöckli family for 2021/2022 season. Can’t wait to read the suggestions! I’ll be getting the 2022 version of the skis.

Advanced male skier, 42, 5.11, 210, stocky build. Skied my whole youth, no racing. Got into skiing the past 2 years with my 7yo daughter getting into skiing too. Didn’t ski for the last 15 years after completely blowing out a knee in moguls at Jay Peak. Skiing the groomers of the Canadian East, no interest of doing moguls nor off trails.

Looking for something playful, that can rip when I have the opportunity, can handle the late afternoon crud, not too demanding so that I can follow my daughter around while she grows into the sport and still have plenty of ceiling to keep the skiing interesting.

Currently skiing some 2016 Elan Amphibio 78. My “short” list: Alpha group: Laser SC 170, Laser AX 175. Beta group: Laser AR 175, SR88 175 and SR95 175.

Will be using the stock bindings coming with the skis.
Got to demo the SL-165, SC-170, Laser SR 168 and SR88-175 today.
Loved the AR above all by a clear cut. Too bad they didn’t have the 175 version. It was a beast! Plows easily through anything smoothly. The ski gets better as you go faster.

Anyone have thoughts concerning 168 vs 175 for the AR?
 

TahoeWarrior

Putting on skis
Skier
Joined
Feb 28, 2020
Posts
92
Location
Lake Tahoe
Got to demo the SL-165, SC-170, Laser SR 168 and SR88-175 today.
Loved the AR above all by a clear cut. Too bad they didn’t have the 175 version. It was a beast! Plows easily through anything smoothly. The ski gets better as you go faster.

Anyone have thoughts concerning 168 vs 175 for the AR?
Yep - like many Stockli’s- def gives more energy back the more you push it. You might not ski the Elan much with an AR;) I skied the 175 in demo (no choice), then bought the 168 which is perfect as I’m small and light. You’d surely love the 175. Go for it!! Unless you want a wider ski...
 

Dougb

Out on the slopes
Skier
SkiTalk Supporter
Joined
Dec 31, 2019
Posts
1,104
Location
Alameda, California
Yep - like many Stöckli’s- def gives more energy back the more you push it. You might not ski the Elan much with an AR;) I skied the 175 in demo (no choice), then bought the 168 which is perfect as I’m small and light. You’d surely love the 175. Go for it!! Unless you want a wider ski...

Care to share your weight and height? 175 seems to be the magic number for a lot of people here.
 

Guy in Shorts

Tree Psycho
Skier
Joined
Feb 27, 2016
Posts
2,168
Location
Killington
Ok, I think I get you, but help me understand what you mean by the SC being compliant.
The mountain pretty much doesn't have a chance when I have these cheaters on my feet. They comply with every command given under every condition. Ski them in the the ungroomed, powder, bumps and trees. Yes they do fine carving on the groomed but skiing on flat terrain is my last choice. If you want a ski that many consider versatile get the AX, if you want beyond versatile get the compliant SC.
 

AndréL

Booting up
Skier
Joined
Mar 2, 2021
Posts
17
Location
Montreal
Yep - like many Stöckli’s- def gives more energy back the more you push it. You might not ski the Elan much with an AR;) I skied the 175 in demo (no choice), then bought the 168 which is perfect as I’m small and light. You’d surely love the 175. Go for it!! Unless you want a wider ski...
I hopped on some SR88 175 after the AR and it felt like I was cruising around on a mountain bike. Could tell it was a great ski but not the feeling I’m looking for. I’m convinced the SR95+ must be top of the class in powder.
 

AndréL

Booting up
Skier
Joined
Mar 2, 2021
Posts
17
Location
Montreal
The mountain pretty much doesn't have a chance when I have these cheaters on my feet. They comply with every command given under every condition. Ski them in the the ungroomed, powder, bumps and trees. Yes they do fine carving on the groomed but skiing on flat terrain is my last choice. If you want a ski that many consider versatile get the AX, if you want beyond versatile get the compliant SC.
First thing I noticed with the SC was its lightness and nimbleness. I tried them late morning after the 6” fresh powder had been pushed around and I couldn’t get them to track as good as the AR. The snow was dictating the ride and not skier. That’s more on me than the ski.
Thought the SC would be a total blast on fresh corduroy.
 

DocGKR

Stuck at work...
Skier
Joined
Apr 1, 2019
Posts
1,689
Location
Palo Alto, California
AR 175 for your height and weight.

AR is better than SC for the conditions you described above. Without the fresh snow, I suspect you would like the SC.
 

Dougb

Out on the slopes
Skier
SkiTalk Supporter
Joined
Dec 31, 2019
Posts
1,104
Location
Alameda, California
AR 175 for your height and weight.

AR is better than SC for the conditions you described above. Without the fresh snow, I suspect you would like the SC.

I meant 175 being the magic size for most people here, even those who normally ski longer skis. Stockli recommends intermediate and advanced skiers buy the AR and AX in their height FWIW.
 

Sponsor

Staff online

Top