Lightest SKIS for Skimo Racing and Ski Mountaineering – comparison:

Comments

1. Stano Faban says

   February 28, 2014 at 11:54 am

   Hi Jake! Yes, some of these are made longer. My personal opinion/experience is that longer will ski better overall (160 vs 170 or so). So I think you would benefit with slightly longer unless you are very short (say under 170cm). Once your skills advance you can consider a shorter ski for racing and still use the longer one for training and touring. But there is also nothing wrong by just “dealing with it” if you plan on spending lots of time in the race track 😉 Hope this helps.

2. Jake Douglas says

   February 28, 2014 at 10:27 am

   I notice that some of these race skis are also made in a longer length, around 170cm. Is it typical for heavier racers to choose a longer one? I am…let’s just say…much heavier than a typical racer and also a new skier (2nd season). Do you think I would benefit from a 170cm race ski for more stability on the downhill, or should I just get a 160cm and learn to deal with it?
   Cheers

3. Stano Faban says

   January 19, 2014 at 11:28 pm

   Thanks Steve! I updated the weight. Have to stop by there with my scale too 🙂

4. steve sellers says

   January 19, 2014 at 7:45 pm

   Hi Stano (thanks for the stickers, they’re cool). ‘ was in MEC the other day and weighed the Voile WSP race ski. It came in at 800g (claimed wt. 730g).

5. Stano Faban says

   January 14, 2014 at 12:04 pm

   Thanks Jason, I will update the weights.

6. jbo says

   January 14, 2014 at 12:18 am

   Hey Stano, I can confirm the Fischer RCX is overweight at 715g, feels nice and stiff though. Triglavs right on at 730g, much softer. Latest batch of X-Races are slightly under 700 with an in-between flex.

7. Stano Faban says

   January 13, 2014 at 9:54 pm

   Jeff, by the way, my new Hagan X-race skis weigh in at 720g for 163 instead of manufacturer listed 730g. That’s an acceptable deviation but 40g seem too much for your Fishers, especially since going up.

8. Stano Faban says

   January 13, 2014 at 9:27 pm

   Jeff, thanks for the note. I believe you that yours 160 weigh in at 720g but Fisher has in their catalogue 680g for 160. On their website it is not clear but in the catalogue they have weight for each ski and only one length. Anyone else that can confirm the weight of their Fisher RCX skis?

9. Jeff says

   January 13, 2014 at 9:05 pm

   The Fischer RCX is 720g in a 160. Maybe the 150 is 680g? Just got them and put them on a scale.

10. Andrew Nichols says

    November 2, 2013 at 6:52 am

    Hey Matt,
    There were a few pairs of Atomics at snowinn.com last spring but they are gone now. Now that it is November, I am about to pull the trigger on either the Triglavs, Voile’s new ski, or (if can afford them) the PDGs. Those seem to be the lowest price points I can find after lots (too much) of research. 🙂
    Jonathan, we had such a ball in your race series the past couple of years, just wanted to say thank you again! We are back in Park City now, so if you ever need a place to crash, we have plenty of room!
    Happy winter everyone, Andrew

11. Stano Faban says

    October 19, 2013 at 12:17 pm

    Hi Matt, thanks for the kudos 😉
    I just sold a pair of Ultimates I had but email me through the contact page and I might be able to help you out if you are really interested.

12. Matt says

    October 19, 2013 at 9:01 am

    Stano, this is an awesome resource, thanks for your work.
    I live in Kelowna, and am trying to find a pair of Atomic Ultimates…anywhere, really. I have had no luck at all. Any suggestions for where to find these skis in Canada? (Andrew, you said you had found them for $450?)
    Thanks in advance.

13. steve sellers says

    October 2, 2013 at 7:43 pm

    on the quiver killers, Andrew, I have them on my training Trabs (w/ a Dynafit binding plate to deal with different boot sole lengths-what a pain). The inserts are supposed to be more solid than a trad mount & I believe it. Another issue, interesting Stano about your comments regarding rocker and uphill skinning performance. I`ve been thinking that the rocker concept might be a good one, but then again if it reduces the surface area contacting the snow it could make climbing more difficult. So why then do they put any camber (traditional) into skis? You’d think a flat, stiff ski would be the way to go.

14. Stano says

    February 13, 2013 at 8:22 pm

    Hi Andrew, good questions.
    Durability could be questionable with lots of the race gear, however, Dynastar skis always hold up for me for 2-3 seasons, and I am definitely not only racing on them. The biggest problem I see with race skis is hitting a rock close to the edge, that’s where I find them very fragile.
    Another factors to consider is 1) how much you weigh and 2) how aggressive do you ski (and how much snow/rock you ski). The Atomic Ultimate skis feel quite soft out of the box but that is no problem if you are a 60kg rabbit. If you are over 75kg then most race skis will get softer under you than under most racers. They will still ski quite well, but maybe not crust 😉
    And I don’t think you should any problem mounting any bindings on race skis. Should be all good. I always use epoxy. Also, I used to have the Dynafit Classic on my race skis 6 years ago without any problem.
    Hope this helps.

15. Andrew Nichols says

    February 2, 2013 at 8:02 am

    Hello All,
    If this is not the correct forum, please help to redirect?
    The challenge I am realizing (and I feel as though I am pretty internet research savvy) is finding any sort of realistic on-snow reviews for these skis. For instance, I can now find the Atomic Ultimates and Elan Triglavs at pretty good price points <$450. But for my quiver need –low-key rando races and long east/west coast tours/mountaineering — are they a good fit durability wise versus something more pricey? Any thoughts would be appreciated.
    Also, has anyone had any problem using quiver killers with these narrow waist skis? Particularly with different hole patterns (i.e. TLT Speed v. Speed Radical)?
    Thanks! ajn

16. Michael Hagen says

    December 17, 2012 at 7:39 pm

    Stano – Yes, there is a variance in weight within each model. In most cases, I would think, following a fairly normal bell curve. In the case of the X-Race, 20 grams or about 3% seems to be the standard deviation.
    As far as stated weights, there is always the matter that some manufacturers will be conservative and others will be far more “aggressive.” Perhaps best to label it “claimed weight” – and add an independent “scale weight” when available.

17. Stano says

    December 14, 2012 at 9:22 am

    Michael, thanks for the info. I will update the Unknow for the length.
    With the weights it’s kind of tough – I don’t necessarily want to list a certain weight unless it’s the same on manufacturer’s website, it’s official info. The reason being that I want readers to find stats here of what manufacturer has officially claimed because each specific pair of the same skis can be different in weight. Correct?

18. Michael Hagen says

    December 13, 2012 at 3:48 pm

    Stano – Great collection of stats on skis, bindings and boots. To fill in the “unknown” data on the Hagan X-Race, it is the 160cm length of the X-Race that weighs 700 grams. The 150cm version weighs 630 grams. As Jonathan noted, many of the X-Races are coming in under 700 grams. And similar to what Colin said, although the design goal for the X-Race was 700 grams, the catalog went to print in the pre-production phase so it was decided to be conservative and list the X-Race at 730 grams. Distribution of the X-Race is limited but they can be found at http://www.mtnoutfitters.com

19. Stano says

    December 11, 2012 at 4:07 pm

    Thanks for the info Henrik, that is interesting!
    I think about 15-20g (2-3%) difference per ski is OK but if it’s heavier than 20g the company should pay back $5 for every extra gram 🙂

20. Henrik says

    December 11, 2012 at 3:21 am

    Stano, Yes I’m sure. I also put the Movement fish on the scale and it ended up at 678grams. So It was better than expected. Got some pics on my blogg http://henkewestling.blogspot.se/2012/12/ratt-vikt.html 🙂

21. Jonathan Shefftz says

    December 5, 2012 at 11:53 am

    Measuring three pairs of 2012-13 Hagan X-Race skis, the average per ski is 685g, which is slightly *under* the 700g spec!

22. Stano says

    November 22, 2012 at 9:27 pm

    Henrik, thanks for the info. I will ask my friend if he can weigh his for me. But are you sure that it’s the Rocker model? Because the Pierra Menta Carbon used to be around 760g. In my experience, my last two pairs of racing Dynastars were lighter than listed, before I didn’t check.

23. Henrik says

    November 17, 2012 at 12:12 pm

    It would be fun to se the actual weight on these skis, for example The Dynastar rocker carbon is 760g if you put in on the scale. It’s a big difference.

24. Stano says

    October 4, 2012 at 4:15 pm

    Jonathan,
    The ski stiffness is quite noticeable when you skin on hard (to icy) snow over uneven terrain (moguls lets say). Stiff ski needs to be “heavily” weighed at all times for your skin to have good grip. If you transfer your weight to another foot just slightly the skis “bounces” back to traditional camber position and you slip. On softer ski such skinning is easier. However, the stiff ski will soften over time thus improves its uphill performance yet be still stiff enough for good skiing. So that’s what I personally experience going to Dynastar Carbon Pro Pierre Menta skis.

25. Jonathan Shefftz says

    October 2, 2012 at 12:57 pm

    Colin, thanks for chiming in!
    Unfortunately though, Stano is too busy to test skis. Fortunately, his New England collaborator has plenty of time, so I’m ready when you are!
    Seriously though, these skis are so rare in North America, and the non-adjustable bindings doesn’t help swapping among races. This past season, three of us here all had the same boot size, plus I’ve owned two different pairs of race skis so far.
    The biggest difference I’ve noticed among models is in “deflection” in rough snow conditions. Otherwise, they all hold surprisingly well on firm snow, and they’re all very quick turners (even though the sidecuts tend to be relatively straight). Durability is another big variable, but unfortunately all I have on that is a limited sample out here (with pretty bad results…), plus all the Euro rumors and some Western disaster pictures.
    Interesting points on ski stiffness, especially with widely vary skier weights all on the same size ski. I’ve never noticed any difference in stiffness for the up, but that would be interesting to focus on. (For nordic though, matching the appropriate ski stiffness is way more important — I even bought a stiffer pair of xc skate skis for when I ski with our toddler daughter strapped to me, since I knew her 20+ pounds would render my own skate skis pretty much unusable.)

26. Eric C says

    September 25, 2012 at 12:28 pm

    It is normal for Nordic ski companies to produce different “flex” skis for different size skiers within their model line. Not really any reason skimo skis should be different (other than lack of demand).

27. Stano says

    September 25, 2012 at 12:02 pm

    Hello Colin,
    Thank you very much for commenting, not many brands do that 😉
    I would be very interested how LaSportiva boots and skis perform up and down for sure. This page wasn’t intended as a review but rather to help people compare skis based on manufacturers’ info. Yes, many people would claim something like this a “review” but I am not. I am planning on writing individual reviews as I get a chance to actually test the gear or I know a trusted person who tested/owns it.
    ISMF weight rule:
    I agree that it is “discouraging” innovation. As long as any gear passes some reasonable safety regulations it should be allowed. They are perhaps using cycling as a template for the weight rule as it can get a bit “out of hand” – only the richest would be able to afford the lightest. But 750g for ski+binding is getting a bit old school nowadays 😉
    What skimo racers want in skis and boots?
    I will speak mostly for myself but with deeper thoughts and experience:
    I believe there is no perfect skimo ski or boot. I believe there are only perfect skis and boots. What does this mean?
    From experience I know a light skimo ski can be too soft or too stiff, too stiff even for the uphill!
    I believe person’s weight and ski style really determines what is best for him. BUT a ski can “age” to be more what you want or don’t want. Personally, I like Dynastar for light skis but their Carbon Pierra Menta model (not meaning their new Rocker) was too stiff for skinning up technical/icy terrain/skintracks. Same for the down. It took about 20 sessions to soften them a little, from there I liked them.
    I know (from people) that SkiTrabs were a bit too soft in the past, however, this depends how heavy you are. If you are a 50kg Spanish goat then it’s not a problem. But if you are over 70kg then a soft ski might become way too soft after couple of hard sessions. Now, SkiTrab appears to have dialed in the balance of soft enough for ups and stiff enough for down.
    Maybe, instead of having a sub-600g ski at 160cm make it 650g at 170cm – might ski better while still being the lightest.
    With boots, I don’t find the same pattern as they don’t soften up, but they could be way too stiff/soft depending on the individual. When I started to ski Pierre Gignoux I found them very stiff compared to my old F1s and my knees were hurting on hard snow. After couple of sessions it’s fine. I suspect this is the case with all boots having carbon bottoms.
    So to conclude – as a manufacturer, you either figure out skimo people’s weight range for the biggest market share and make a ski for them, or have two versions – for below 70kg (or less aggressive) and above 70kg (or more aggressive) to cover the whole spectrum without compromise.

28. Colin Lantz says

    September 24, 2012 at 12:10 pm

    Great review Stano. Colin Lantz here from La Sportiva. How about doing a review on how they ski? Weight is only half the equation IMO. With the ISMF reg of 750 grams minimum weight for a ski+binding wondering what your take is on sub-600 gram skis? I don’t understand the need for this reg from the ISMF. I only see it hampering innovation from manufacturers. As it is, I’d hate to pay top dollar for a crazy lightweight ski only to have to put lead weights on it to bring the ski+binding package up to 750 grams. BTW – our ski the RSR actual weight of the production models is at 680 grams. We were able to shave weight after we went to print with the catalog. Guessing that this type of thing happens regularly to all brands. A review showing actual weights measured by the reviewing would be the most helpful. BTW2 – in your ski weight graph at the top of the page the text for our ski, “La Sportiva RSR” is not visible. Looks like it was omitted or got deleted. Final thought: I’d love to hear from you and your readers what they are looking for in the perfect skimo race ski. — Cheers.