It starts with expectations. Jim Steenburgh, the oft-mentioned PhD of Utah Powder, says the key to happiness is keeping them low. With K2, I like go a little further, and keep them at zero. I've been disappointed with skis from Blizzard, Nordica, Volķł, Atomic, Nordica, Sțocklǐ, Elan, Fischer, Nordica, Icelantic, Lib Tech, Salomon, Nordica, and probly many more. Strangely, I cannot think of a disappointment endured while skiing K2. Sometimes, like the Pinnacle from almost a decade ago, the ski didn't bend my mind so much as give it a gentle and kindhearted surprise, like when you taste the cardamom in an Ocean Roll from Sparrow Bakery. Last year, during a particularly drawn out (like, seriously, days long) discussion about bindings, Ryan (The Owner) found a pair of Recons from '08 at St Vinnie's on Broadway. They had the aubergine S914 binding I've been searching for since I sold my last pair back in around '010. I had always hated that ski without ever having skied that ski. LB and I tuned upwards of 80leven hundos of em, and we just spat and made fun of em. Over, and over. And yet, aside from a lower ceiling than I want from a daily driver, the Recon is actually really nice. Very easy to ease into, clean, mid-radius sidecut, dense without really deadening, and real smooth in the more smooshier of snows. Don't even try to ski the good cheesy pow on it, cos it'll be at the bottom dragging like an anchor, but that's not why you by a 76mm all mountain board from almost 20 years ago.
Here, of course, is the thing: the Mindbender 99 Ti from K2 is really fun. I didn't know what to expect, so I didn't, I just made a hard right around the top terminal of 1 and pretended the snow was actually good, and wouldn't you know it, the ski did exactly what you want a big, stout, metal all-mountain ski to do. Broke through the meringue, carved up the carveable, held an edge on the groomers, and most importantly made me want to ski more, and faster, and at high edge angles, and drive the cuff, and turn left into the chop instead of right onto the groomer even though it was awesome on the groomers. It's stiff enough without being overpowering. Dense enough while still maintaining some rebound. Ugly enough to remember what brand of ski you're on. (I was in shops for the worst of their topsheet sins. If I never see another deathclown graphic, it'll be too soon.) For a ski this big, I doubt it'd float much, and I didn't get a chance to test my hypothesis anyway. That, too, is part of keeping expectations low. If it floats at all, it's a win.
The third ski I took out was the Dynastar MPro 94. Since no one is paying us, I can say what I think, which is, wow, um, that was like, um, something. Nothing? Heck, I don't know. I couldn't tell what was going on. It was kinda like the front was one ski, and the back was another ski. It was like the Apex boot that is a snowboard binding in skeletal ski boot shape. Couldn't get a feel for anything. The front of the M 94 is soft, deflectable. Full of tip flap. The rear is fairly stiff, which means it overpowers the flappy tip like me on a 1999 Specialised FSR XC with an undamped coil shock. Flynn, who is somehow both the head coach for C of I and the shop manager at McU's, was pretty googly eyed over them, and I gotta say I now worry for his sanity. I mean, this same cat rips on 15 year old 30 metre GS boards, knows the value of a good 18 din World Cup PX Racing, and yet thinks I'd dig this ski. He did not track when I told him it was two skis. He also said it was a perfect teaching ski, which, sure, whatever, I've never taught anyone so I wouldn't know, but dag. I was sorely disappointed. I never skied the ski it replaced, but I skied the ski that the ski it replaced replaced, and with that apparently super old ski in mind, this ski is up there with the TenEighty Gun and the oldest new Enforcer as far as disappointments go. There's just no there there.
I bought the original Vôlkl Kendo in '09. Or '010. Or '011. Can't remember, because I'm old. At least that's what Jake (the coworker) tells me. I didn't know anything other than it was similar to the Mantra M2, but, like, the best width, which is 88mm. The Mantra had surprised me with its carving prowess on a test ride with a customer who couldn't get a handle on his new pair, and I figured a centimetre less material should be even more carvier. (Turns out his bindings had developed a Shaq-sized case of the Tyrolia Twists.) At any rate, Lisa (the patroller with the deals) knew somebody who knew somebody, and in exhange for pro deal cash and, for some reason, an awkward hug, I had me a 177 Kendo, replete with fairly indecipherable topsheet graphics. As I'd hoped, it absolutely ripped. Top 5 skis. I threw a take-off 14-din FreeFlex that itself would later develop a nasty bout of Tyrolia Twist on there and skied it until we needed the cash to escape the dungeon known as Weber County, when I sold it at the Fairgrounds Ski Swap.
The second Kendo I skied was in '016, and instead of surprising me with the goods, it disappointed me. Those were some dark times. Heavy rocker was on its way out, but still fouling a lot of should-have-beens like Boa is fouling the ski boot world right now. It was damp, to the point of death. It was solid, to the point of feeling heavy. It had a set turn radius, to the point of feeling stuck. And it was dark blue, boring to the point of disinterest. I loved the confusing black paint-on-titanal topsheet of the OG, and this then-new ski was just utterly, utterly uninteresting.
This past McU's Happy Fun Time Demo Day, the first ski I grabbed was a 184 Kendo Mantra 88. (Sorry, Volķl. Silly name changes don't improve skis.) In keeping with my Steenburgh-like dispassion, I expected little. Especially in memory of that M2 ski back at The Place That Shall Not Be Named. McU's helped my lack of interest by installing a 10-din piece of plastic I was worried would shatter at Tower 1 under the depression sheaves, but thankfully, that didn't happen and I'm still here. Once all the pomp and circumstance and waiting was over, and I could throw it on a nice edge angle, I felt good. Happy, even. It's a stout ski, but alive. Holds an edge like the original, and lets go when it should. It reminds me of the original, though not quite as quick out of a turn. Not as much rebound, which I guess is fine since they are aimed ever so slightly below me. They still don't have the kick-in-the-teeth snap that the original did, and for that I am a touch dismayed. I wish ski manufacturers were more willing to toss off a bike industry style f-bomb and say "here's a ski, and it's up to you to ski it." No one does anymore, and we're worse off for it.
The hand-offs on demo day are always a little awkward. Usually shops send up their mechanic types so that they don't have to indemnify any sales kids who can't be trusted to actually know what forward pressure is, and we mechanic types don't always got that good customer service. One guy told me I was stepping into the binding too fast, as though bindings care how quickly they open and close. He took the Võlkļ Peregrine 80 I skied second with a rote and dispassionate "how was it," that wasn't even really a question, and then got really weird when I said it was super easy to ski. I think he wanted me to say it ripped like a gelada baboon on MDMA or sliced like a dull ginsu through luke-warm camembert or something. I don't know. All I know is it was a ski that did skiing. If I had never skied a race ski, or an old-timey Head Monster, maybe it woulda been interesting, but it just wasn't. It held the edge like you'd want a frontside ski to do, released that edge quickly, and transitioned well, but that's like saying I turned the key in my Forester and it started up, and that when I pushed the gas pedal it went forward as long as I'd released the clutch while also in gear. It is supposed to do those things.
Record scratch.
I just gooooooooogled for retail (a cool grand, if you must know, and without choice in binding cos Marker Dalbello Vołķľ group) and realised that it was designed to be "approachable". I did what Rob Christensen back in '94 said I would when I assumed something. This is a herky-jerky way of bringing it all back around, then. Expectations. I knew of the ski because one of the most relaxing things to do when I'm all tense or whatever is watch Ski Essentials product videos. Jeff and Bob have that podcast chemistry, and they keep the sales goop to a minimum while still showing excitement for the product. Apparently I sat too far in the back of the class during the Peregrine episode. I figured that if it's named after the fastest bird in the world, it'd be the fastest ski on the hill. I guess ze Chermans don't think like that.
Not being an aspiring intermediate on the ski like I very much am on the mountain bike, I can't say how precisely they nailed it, but Ima give em a solid A-. As an expert skier--like, seriously, I'm the best skier on the mountain, hash tag G.N.A.R. points--I didn't have to think at all to roll out some nice full-width carves on LuLu My Favourite Run At Bogus. It held on, more than I'd expect from something mainline publications would call "agreeable", all the way until I told it to let go.
So there you go. Hopefully that's as clear as mud.
Speaking of disappointing skis, women's ski reviews usually be like JUST BUY A BLACK PEARL 88, it's Got A Furry Cuff. Don't ask questions, don't demand other things. Never mind if you're as average as an American woman gets, you're somehow too big and too small and too strong (but not tall enough), so we just don't think you're our target market. Just say yes and hand over swipe put your card in the slot tap your card wave your watch and make sure you buy an approved Marker binding cos marketing. You only need a 9 din binding, I can tell. Pretty sure they make pink 9 din bindings.
We don't do that here. We turn our noses up at pink-it & shrink-it and gape open-mouthed at the Atomic rep who enthusiastically tells us they "took all the metal out," so it's better now. Here, we use our gear until it's threadbare because the retail experience is so horrendous that we avoid it as long as possible (and if we're honest, can't afford retail prices anyway). And when we do go to the shop, we try really hard not to make eye contact with anybody while striking a balance between not looking too interested in anything in particular and not looking too lost, because I don't want to be mansplained at and...
An obnoxious trend I've noticed of late is unisex skis. It's not that the unisex skis are annoying. No, unisex skis are a good thing. In fact, any ski can be a unisex ski if you're a Tall Enough woman, or a Brave Enough man. But what's obnoxious is rebranding men's skis as unisex and not making them in a full range of sizes. IT'S NOT A UNISEX SKI IF THE SHORTEST LENGTH IS A 163. Most women's skis come in a range of lengths, usually 4 or 5 options from 143ish cm long to 180ish cm long. However, most "unisex" ski I've seen start at about 165 cm, with some variation for style (carvey skis go shorter, big-mountain skis go longer). By not making the skis in shorter lengths, they're making these products inaccessible to a whole bunch of women who need a shorter ski. It doesn't just suck to make a unisex ski that a bunch of people can't ski, but it's super gaslighty to say, "Oh, look at us, we are gender inclusive," and then exclude a bunch of of people who don't have as many options to begin with. I get it: budgets are tight these days so you can't offer as many choices as you could in a better economy. But, instead of actually doing diversity, we're just back to ignoring half the population.
No surprise, amongst the 30-odd pairs of skis, demo day featured one ski I was excited to ski, and two others that I can say nice things about. There were a couple (as in, two) other skis made for women that I just wasn't interested in, and my runs are limited these days, so you'll just have to look elsewhere for a review of the Rossi Rallybird and whatever Line is up to. I would have been interested in trying the Rossi Super Blackops 98. Technically a unisex ski, but a) I don't think they had it in my length, and b) even if they did, the two shortest lengths are sold out. Go figure.
Volkl Secret 88 in 163 cm length
This ski is fucking great. I would buy this ski. That is the highest praise I can give a piece of gear. Despite the tone of the previous four paragraphs, I'm being serious here.
It's lively and quick, springs from turn to turn. Yet, it's also damp (metal!), holding an edge without chatter when loaded up. I made small, medium and large turns and it liked 'em all. This ski wants to be on edge and does not want to be ridden flat. But it can also skid and slarve. Other things to know: it has a little rocker, but skis more like a traditional cambered ski, and it's got those sweet, sweet sidewalls. Ignore the 3D Radius Sidecut marketing copy that claims "Three radii in one ski for maximum TURNING & SPEED VERSATILITY IN ALL MOUNTAIN SKIING."* The stated sidecut for the waist of the ski at 163 cm is 13 meters, which sounds about right based on its performance. This is an all-mountain ski for advanced and expert women and it does it right. Dang, good ski reviews are boring to write.
*This is an overly-complicated way to describe the shape of the ski. In practice, you can't somehow get three different radii in one turn, which is what the marketing copy sounds like. When you bend a ski, it creates an arc, which makes the ski travel in the shape of a turn. When you bend it more, the arc gets smaller and the turn tighter. Put less pressure on the ski, it straightens out and the turn radius increases. The ski's sidecut affects how much you can bend a ski, but I'm skeptical that this technology makes a noticeable difference in how the ski skis. I certainly didn't notice on my handful of runs on this ski.
Volk Secret 96 in 163 cm length
This ski also did it all, just in a different way than the Secret 88. I personally don't prefer a width in the mid-90s (unlike the pop-punk bands of my youth); it's just too in-between for me. I want a ski I can carve when I want to and it's too wide for that. I can ski a mid-80s ski off-piste just fine, but I want something at least 100 mm underfoot for true powder. So a 96 mm wide ski just doesn't have a lot of functionality for me. That said, this ski edged almost as well as it skidded. It was good and stable at speed. The big different between the two Volkl secrets is that this one didn't like to make quick turns--which seemed to be the Secret 88's m.o.--but I also wouldn't expect that from a ski this wide. Unlike the 88, it did like to go flat, so if you're into tucking down cat tracks, it'll do that for you. Oh, and I just found out from looking at the Volkl website that this ski claims to have even more sidecuts: 4 in total!
I'd be remiss not to mention that "Secret" is the name of a deodorant. How embarrassing!
When Aaron handed me this ski, his eyes lit up and he said, "This is an instructor's ski." I was suitably impressed, despite my initial skepticism. No, I wouldn't want to own this ski or make it my daily driver, but it did do all the things and did them well. The shovel-shaped, lightweight, rockered tip initiated extremely easily, and then the ski held on and held up as pressure built throughout the turn. The ski was turney and slidey, which is to say, it's very easy to steer into any turn shape you want. I'd call it "contemporary" as opposed to "traditional." The older lady at the demo tent on the same skis seemed confused by it, and I don't blame her. When I asked her what she usually skied, she said, "they're old," so I assume she's used to a ski that take a lot of input to direct them where you want to go. You can't try too hard on this ski; it won't hook up and it doesn't drive. But if you use a light touch, you will be rewarded by a smooth and stable ride. Basically, as long as you don't expect it to go like a race ski, and if you would rather ski in the chop and slop than work on your schmedium-radius carved turns on the groomed, it'll do you well in most terrain and conditions.
Dynastar M-Pro 92 in 162 cm length
Why? Why would anyone want this much rocker? What is this ski for? I truly don't know. I'm not just trying being rude here; this ski is not very functional. The extremely rockered tip just flaps in the breeze, smacks the snow in way that is both distracting and destabilizing. Oh god, I just looked at the marketing copy and this claims to be an all-mountain ski for intermediate to advanced skiers. It would not be good for either. It's squirrely; I realize that its goal is not to rail an edge (because it really, really can't do that), but an expert ski should be able to handle a little extra speed without feeling unstable. And an intermediate who wants to improve their turns would not be well served by a ski that so twitchy that you can't rely on pressuring or tipping it to get you through the turn.
K2 Reckoner 92 in 169 cm length
To say this ski is "not for me" is being generous. To be fair, this ski is not for me. But I'm also confused about who this ski is for. The advertising goes, "From the park to the trees, to the afternoon chop, these approachable, yet playful skis and their versatile All-Terrain Twin Rocker will have you wondering why you waited so long to jump on the twin-tip train." Ok, let's break that down. "From the park to the trees, to the afternoon chop" means it's a park ski that you might also ski to and from the chairlift and on a lap with your friends who know all the good stashes, which is to say, it's a park ski. "Playful" and "versatile" in this case means a cheap, cap-construction ski that's not good at anything in particular. The thing about jumping on the "twin-tip train" is so outdated, I am confused about what they're going for here. Twin-tips were invented for skiing backwards. That's all. Rocker negates the need for this and adds the functionality of making transitions easier. Straight forward twin-tip park skis haven't been a going concern since like, 2005? Was this ski designed by some guy who watched some ski movies back in college? In terms of actual performance, it has none. It's bad at everything the Dynastar E-Cross is good at: it can't shape a turn (you just have to throw the ski sideways), lets the terrain throw you around, and the tip and tail slap the snow all the way down the hill. But maybe that's what you want from a park ski? A ski that goes straight, that you can throw around when you encounter obstacles, and makes a good noise when you land? I guess if that's what you want, this might be the ski for you, you still shouldn't buy this ski. See, that was way more fun to write than a complimentary review.
