Are the Stockli Stormriders going to kick my butt?

[BlizzardBabe]

I used to own them and loved them. I also bought them via an irresistible bargain. Realistically, they were too short for me, so I eventually sold them. That spot in my quiver is now covered by other skis, but I wouldn't mine having another pair in the correct length.

 

[liquidfeet]

I love mine. Bought the Stormrider 85 at Taos in 2017. Only ski them out west. Put Phantom on the bases after a couple seasons. They are as much fun now as ever. Perhaps more because my technique is better. Just skied them in spring bumps at Alta today.

@marzNC, does Phantom help skis slide on sticky snow?

 

[Emms]

I used to own them and loved them. I also bought them via an irresistible bargain. Realistically, they were too short for me, so I eventually sold them. That spot in my quiver is now covered by other skis, but I wouldn't mine having another pair in the correct length.

$350 is irresistible though I have to remind myself it is $500 because they will need a remount… and these are the correct size for me… sigh

 

[Gonzogirl]

I am a lazy intermediate skier who still scrubs speed & smears their turns*. Currently on a 147cm Volkl Yumi 84 (am 5’1” and ~120 +/- 5lbs) & have been planning on demoing wider & longer skis this season….Whistler is my home mountain and these are comically small & skinny by local standards. Yumis will be demoted to be my town skis for using at Grouse/Cypress. I love the quickness in bumps from the short length but I don’t feel stable opening up my turns & I definitely get bucked about in crud (which is what I ski 70% of the time in Whistler since I am not an early riser and at best I get tracked out powder. But I honestly don’t know what I’m looking for.

Then a pair of barely used 2020 model Stockli Stormrider 85s, 154cm turned up in the Vancouver FB Marketplace for C$350 & I’m picking them up tomorrow morning. So excited! They’re so pretty!!! It’s such a screaming bargain!!

But: Are they going to be too much ski for me? Will I need to work super hard to stay on top of them? My sister, ever the pessimist, is the one who put the fear of “too much ski” into my head saying “aren’t they too advanced for you?”

I would really like to know how your experience was this years with your new babies! Please do give a review? Apologies in advance if you posted about it & I overlooked it. I purchased the AW at 150 &—under the guise of a gift to my daughter—a pair of Nela 88 at152 (lengths might be reversed). My usual ski has been the VERY lightweight Nordica Santa Ana 93 at 151. Because they are so lightweight, they are more of a powder ski for me & just shy of a disaster on ice or slush (I’m 5’1 & 120#). These carvers are amazing. I’m just curious about your experience with a longer heavier ski this season.

 

[marzNC]

@marzNC, does Phantom help skis slide on sticky snow?

Yes! I did two tests early on. Meaning I brought two pairs of skis for a late season trip to Alta, one with Phantom and one with traditional wax. It was no contest that when there is sticky snow, having Phantom treated bases is better.

 

[snoWYmonkey]

Yes! I did two tests early on. Meaning I brought two pairs of skis for a late season trip to Alta, one with Phantom and one with traditional wax. It was no contest that when there is sticky snow, having Phantom treated bases is better.

Out of curiosity, same skis or two different skis? Just curious as I have the same base grind pattern on two different makes and models that are the same dimensions and I am convinced that the base material is the difference. Would be fun to have identical skis freshly full tuned and then compare.

 

[Aerlind]

I would really like to know how your experience was this years with your new babies! Please do give a review? Apologies in advance if you posted about it & I overlooked it. I purchased the AW at 150 &—under the guise of a gift to my daughter—a pair of Nela 88 at152 (lengths might be reversed). My usual ski has been the VERY lightweight Nordica Santa Ana 93 at 151. Because they are so lightweight, they are more of a powder ski for me & just shy of a disaster on ice or slush (I’m 5’1 & 120#). These carvers are amazing. I’m just curious about your experience with a longer heavier ski this season.

That’s literally the first time I’ve heard the Santa Ana 93 called “light”. The Unlimited (backcountry) version, sure. The normal ones? I wouldn’t call them light. Mine are nearly as heavy as my SO’s Liberty Origins, and my skis are 165 and his are 182…I would also not describe them as a powder ski. Now, they absolutely did an admirable job the last powder day I skied them in (10-12” of fairly wet powder), but they definitely lack the float and lightweight construction of a TRUE powder ski.

I’ve done both ice and slush skiing on the Santa Anas (notably in the same day a couple weeks ago at Sun Valley…) and they did well on both. The ice wasn’t fun, but they held their edge and turned as best as conditions (and skier ability) allowed!

All of that said, I did (physically, I didn’t buy them) pick up a pair of Stockli Nelda 88s off of a demo rack at Big Sky to see how heavy they were, and my initial thought was “Holy crap these are heavy!”: but also, demo bindings (heavier than non-demos). Also they were “short” for me, in the 152 range, so I just put them right back down. I can see how, by comparison, the Santa Anas would be lighter than a Stockli, but I wouldn’t consider either a “light” ski.

 

[marzNC]

Out of curiosity, same skis or two different skis? Just curious as I have the same base grind pattern on two different makes and models that are the same dimensions and I am convinced that the base material is the difference. Would be fun to have identical skis freshly full tuned and then compare.

Different skis. I also did a test in Oregon the year before. Ended up skiing the narrow skis that were not really appropriate because I trusted them more with sticky snow than the all-mountain skis I had at the time.

Bottom line is that I stay out longer than most people at Alta when it's warm in the afternoons. I have Phantom Glide on all my skis. Waited a couple seasons before treating the Stormriders since I was only skiing them on cold snow.

 

[BlizzardBabe]

Phantom is better on sticky man-made stuff as well. I have it on my Blaze 94s, and will be treating my Blaze 86s before next season.

On the light/heavy topic -- my lightest ski by far is the Blaze 86. My heaviest is the Stockli AS (76). Both are the same length and have pretty much the same bindings. I haven't measured precisely, but I'd say that a single Stockli ski is heavier than the pair of Blaze 86s -- at least that's what it feels like when I'm loading/unloading the car.

 

[Gonzogirl]

That’s literally the first time I’ve heard the Santa Ana 93 called “light”. The Unlimited (backcountry) version, sure. The normal ones? I wouldn’t call them light. Mine are nearly as heavy as my SO’s Liberty Origins, and my skis are 165 and his are 182…I would also not describe them as a powder ski. Now, they absolutely did an admirable job the last powder day I skied them in (10-12” of fairly wet powder), but they definitely lack the float and lightweight construction of a TRUE powder ski.

I’ve done both ice and slush skiing on the Santa Anas (notably in the same day a couple weeks ago at Sun Valley…) and they did well on both. The ice wasn’t fun, but they held their edge and turned as best as conditions (and skier ability) allowed!

All of that said, I did (physically, I didn’t buy them) pick up a pair of Stockli Nelda 88s off of a demo rack at Big Sky to see how heavy they were, and my initial thought was “Holy crap these are heavy!”: but also, demo bindings (heavier than non-demos). Also they were “short” for me, in the 152 range, so I just put them right back down. I can see how, by comparison, the Santa Anas would be lighter than a Stockli, but I wouldn’t consider either a “light” ski.

Ok. I never called the Santa Ana 93’s a powder ski. They are all-mountain but for my stature/weight, they are very light on the powder & more difficult for me to access purchase in icy conditions, despite tuning. I’m not a tuning or ski expert but I know enough that I can tell the difference as an athlete. Regardless, both Stockli’s are heavier & the narrower waist of the AWs is pretty dreamy in non powder conditions.

 

[Aerlind]

Ok. I never called the Santa Ana 93’s a powder ski. They are all-mountain but for my stature/weight, they are very light on the powder & more difficult for me to access purchase in icy conditions, despite tuning. I’m not a tuning or ski expert but I know enough that I can tell the difference as an athlete. Regardless, both Stockli’s are heavier & the narrower waist of the AWs is pretty dreamy in non powder conditions.

My apologies if my post came off as combative or insulting in any way, that was not my intent! I was just so baffled about the Santa Anas being called "light" because that hasn't been my experience. I'm taller than you but not heavier, and haven't experienced issues with purchase on what passes for ice out west (though that Sun Valley day was icy even by east coast standards!), though I agree they're definitely on the wider side for hardpack.

I actually walked away from the big powder day I mentioned thinking "You know, for "only" 93 underfoot, these skis did a pretty darn good job." Would it have been fun to have some massive, 110+ underfoot ski that day? Of course. But I don't have any of those!

 

[Gonzogirl]

My apologies if my post came off as combative or insulting in any way, that was not my intent! I was just so baffled about the Santa Anas being called "light" because that hasn't been my experience. I'm taller than you but not heavier, and haven't experienced issues with purchase on what passes for ice out west (though that Sun Valley day was icy even by east coast standards!), though I agree they're definitely on the wider side for hardpack.

I actually walked away from the big powder day I mentioned thinking "You know, for "only" 93 underfoot, these skis did a pretty darn good job." Would it have been fun to have some massive, 110+ underfoot ski that day? Of course. But I don't have any of those!

Maybe I just have crappy technique or don’t match with the Santa Ana’s as well as I thought I did. I do have a blast with them as an everyday driver in UT. The whole reason why I demoed Nela & Montero in the first place were to guage the difference between the 3 on ice. Anyway, I have never skied backcountry or tried fat skis but as a powder lover both are on my list!

 

[Jilly]

I hated the SA's. I had the 88's. They were too wide for my knees. And with the rocker, I just couldn't get used to them, except to "surf" them. That is just not how I ski. So I sold them.

I learned to ski powder on straight skis, so I should be able to ski it with my Forza at 78mm.

 

[BlizzardBabe]

I hated the SA's. I had the 88's. They were too wide for my knees. And with the rocker, I just couldn't get used to them, except to "surf" them. That is just not how I ski. So I sold them.

I learned to ski powder on straight skis, so I should be able to ski it with my Forza at 78mm.

I'm with you, @Jilly . I know peeps who love the SA, but I demo'd them about 3 years ago in Vail on a hardpack day and hated them. Of course, it could've been the tune/edges/wax, but I found them to be useless on ice/hardpack. I disliked them so much that I didn't even search out softer conditions for comparison - since I mostly ski hardpack and ice in the east, a ski has to pass that test first.