Hi: Skimo
The official recommends C-Raider 12 binding. But I do own raider 10, usually I don't need 4 riser options. Is ATK Crest Binding a good option to drive this pair of skis? Because Elan Ripstick Tour 104 is relatively heavier than other peers. In order to save some weight and try other model.
Thank you
Zesheng
Elan Ripstick Tour 104 Ski
Glen Plake. Do I have your attention now? This signature model ski is fully backed by the legend himself - can you imagine how much more rad, "Blizzard of Ahhh's," would have been if Elan's Ripstick Tour 104 existed back then? This ski is sure to become as iconic as his beloved mohawk given its ability to float in the deep stuff and keep you out of trouble when conditions take a turn for the worst. The moderate sidecut makes this ski want to arc big, beautiful turns that are just too much fun some days. A great mix of a damp ride with a supple feel is achieved by utilizing two layers of carbon as the bread with a woodcore as the peanut butter and jelly. Carbon is further utilized in the Carbon Bridge Technology feature. This construction includes a carbon tube that runs the length of the ski to absorb vibration and create a progressive flex underfoot. In addition, Elan added Amphibio edge-to-edge rocker so you can easily initiate turns no matter the conditions. Want to stand out without needing a crazy hairdo or skiing unreasonably dangerous lines? You can do just that with a set of Elan's Signature Edition Ripstick Tour 104's.
- Multiple carbon sheets add torsional rigidity to avoid deflection in the tip of the ski keep you headed in the right direction.
- Carbon Bridge Technology creates a stable ride that absorbs vibration for an enjoyable experience.
- Amphibio profile* means an edge-to-edge rocker in the tip for easy turn initiation.
- 360° pyramid-shaped ABS sidewall cuts weight while adding durability.
* For those not familiar with Elan's signature tech, you will have a left and a right ski with Amphibio.
| Specifications | |
| Lengths (cm) | 166, 173, 180, 187 |
|
Weight |
1465g [166] 1505g [173] 1555g [180] 1665g [187] |
| Weight (pair) | 2930g [166] 3010g [173] 3110g [180] 3330g [187] |
|
|
129-104-122 |
|
Turn |
19.0m [166] 21.5m [173] 23.0m [180] 25.4m [187] |
|
Skin |
Tip notch, flat tail |
| Specs Verified | Yes |
| Design | |
|
|
Amphibio edge-to-edge asymmetrical rocker |
|
|
Tapered tip and tail |
|
|
Carbon Bridge Technology |
|
|
Carbon, fiberglass, woodcore |
| Skimo Co Says | |
| Usage | Deep days mixed with wind scoured faces |
| Notes | Huge turning radius makes this ski want to charge |
| Bottom Line | Versatile powder ski that handles itself well outside of its wheelhouse |
| Compare to other High-fat Skis | |
Related Products
Questions & Reviews
5/9/2023
5/9/2023
Zesheng, I looked at your recent mounting form, a binding with a top release of 10 is plenty for you.
There are no rules for which binding and ski, regardless of the size of the ski to use. Small, lightweight bindings will ski pretty much the same as a heavier Tech binding. You have rather accurately pointed out the main difference between the Raider and Crest models, one less riser flap. The Crest 10 would be a good choice to save a bit more weight and $.
There are no rules for which binding and ski, regardless of the size of the ski to use. Small, lightweight bindings will ski pretty much the same as a heavier Tech binding. You have rather accurately pointed out the main difference between the Raider and Crest models, one less riser flap. The Crest 10 would be a good choice to save a bit more weight and $.
Answer this question:
4/14/2023
I bought these for days where I want to go on longer tours (I have a pair of bent chetler 110 with cast for “shorter” tours and pow days) but am wondering what you think of the mounting points? I’m a skier who likes to play around a lot and want to be able to maneuver in slushy conditions since I think that’s when I’ll mostly be using them. Would you say recommended or perhaps +1? I’m just scared mounting them + will make them more wiggly and hinder me from skiing fast big turns.
4/14/2023
Jespef,
I'd stick with the recommended mount point. These are super easy to manage edge to edge to begin with thanks to the asymmetrical rocker profile, so I'd be hesitant to sacrifice stability at speed for more maneuverability.
I'd stick with the recommended mount point. These are super easy to manage edge to edge to begin with thanks to the asymmetrical rocker profile, so I'd be hesitant to sacrifice stability at speed for more maneuverability.
Answer this question:
4/3/2023
Apologies for asking the same question in two different places.
Can I safely mount the atk r16 plate on these skis? It’s not clear how wide the mounting area is.
Can I safely mount the atk r16 plate on these skis? It’s not clear how wide the mounting area is.
4/3/2023
Eric,
No worries about the duplicates!
You'll have no issue mounting a R16A plate on this ski.
No worries about the duplicates!
You'll have no issue mounting a R16A plate on this ski.
Answer this question:
3/14/2023
Spencer 
(used product regularly)
I've put quite a few scratches on my pair of Rip Stick Tour 104 skis, but thankfully haven't core shot them...yet!
I bought 3 other pairs of backcountry skis before arriving at these, and these are easily the best. They turn the easiest, float the best, are the most stable at speed, and they look cool too. They feel surffy and pivot easily. They're not too heavy and they're not too light. They seem to be just right, weight-wise.
Initially, I had mine paired with some light-weight carbon fiber boots, then remounted my bindings for a beefier pair of boots. I recommend the former configuration, but I can live with the decision I made. You don't need a beef boot to drive these skis. I recommend a nice light-weight, carbon fiber mountaineering ski boot. Then you'll have the ultimate setup.
I bought 3 other pairs of backcountry skis before arriving at these, and these are easily the best. They turn the easiest, float the best, are the most stable at speed, and they look cool too. They feel surffy and pivot easily. They're not too heavy and they're not too light. They seem to be just right, weight-wise.
Initially, I had mine paired with some light-weight carbon fiber boots, then remounted my bindings for a beefier pair of boots. I recommend the former configuration, but I can live with the decision I made. You don't need a beef boot to drive these skis. I recommend a nice light-weight, carbon fiber mountaineering ski boot. Then you'll have the ultimate setup.
Comment on this review:
2/17/2023
I'm wondering if I've come across two "heavy" pairs of the Riptick Tour 104 in a 173 length, but the two pairs I've weighed (on different scales) have come in at 1570g and 1604g. Are mine heavier than the norm?
2/18/2023
Hi Deborah,
That is slightly heavier than the average, but not by an unusual amount. Due to the varying densities of wood used, amounts of glue used, etc, there are some weight discrepancies between individual skis of the same model. Thanks!
That is slightly heavier than the average, but not by an unusual amount. Due to the varying densities of wood used, amounts of glue used, etc, there are some weight discrepancies between individual skis of the same model. Thanks!
2/18/2023
Hi Deborah, we have noted a tick-up in weight since the first batch that arrived in late 2021, but we have not encountered any over 1600g! The average of recent batches is more like 1535.
Answer this question:
2/16/2023
Hey- thinking hard about these as a daily driver in CO to complement V8s for softer days. Also to take on bigger multi-day alpine tours. Thoughts on those uses, and comparison to M-Tours? Also- can I fit a 100mm dynafit ski brake and crampon on these (mounted -1 or -2cm as suggested)?
Thinking 180 over 187 as a 5'11" 170ish expert but not super hard charging skier? Are these true to length? Thanks.
Thinking 180 over 187 as a 5'11" 170ish expert but not super hard charging skier? Are these true to length? Thanks.
2/16/2023
Greg,
First - the numbers. The 180cm ski measures 178cm tip to tail. At 5'11" I think that the 180cm would be plenty of ski. The 100mm brakes would be fine, but the ski crampons would need to go up a size to fit over this ski. Compared to the M-Tour 99 this ski is going to want to go fast and make big turns. The Dynastar will be happier in hardpack conditions, although for a wider ski the Ripstick 104 handles itself nicely. Another ski you may consider as a complimentary option to your V8 would be the Ripstick Tour 94. This will be better handling in variable conditions and save you some weight on multi-day trips. Just a thought!
First - the numbers. The 180cm ski measures 178cm tip to tail. At 5'11" I think that the 180cm would be plenty of ski. The 100mm brakes would be fine, but the ski crampons would need to go up a size to fit over this ski. Compared to the M-Tour 99 this ski is going to want to go fast and make big turns. The Dynastar will be happier in hardpack conditions, although for a wider ski the Ripstick 104 handles itself nicely. Another ski you may consider as a complimentary option to your V8 would be the Ripstick Tour 94. This will be better handling in variable conditions and save you some weight on multi-day trips. Just a thought!
Answer this question:
2/1/2023
How does the Ripstick tour 104 compare to the Armada Locator 104?
thanks a ton
Joe
thanks a ton
Joe
2/1/2023
Joe,
They are pretty similar skis, both amazing. I would say the Armada has a bit more energy to it - the more you push it, the more energetic it gets, almost to the point where it's too energetic. The Ripstick is very quick edge to edge, having a left and a right ski does actually make a big difference. Not sure how much of a difference the rocker at the tip would make in powder, but it was definitely noticeable on groomers.
They are pretty similar skis, both amazing. I would say the Armada has a bit more energy to it - the more you push it, the more energetic it gets, almost to the point where it's too energetic. The Ripstick is very quick edge to edge, having a left and a right ski does actually make a big difference. Not sure how much of a difference the rocker at the tip would make in powder, but it was definitely noticeable on groomers.
Answer this question:
3/25/2022
How would you compare these to the Hyper Manti’s as an all around winter touring ski encountering variable snow conditions (in the Sierra)?
3/25/2022
Hi WCJ,
Happy to weigh in. The Voile Hyper Manti is a great all around ski. With a shape aimed at a wide range of conditions, it will float in powder, handle in the trees, and hold an edge in more variable snow. typical of Voile skis, the Hyper Manti is playful, with a more manageable turn radius. It will be lighter than the Elan Ripstick Tour 104.
The Elan Ripstick Tour 104 is a super versatile ski. It has a medium turn radius, with a really lively feel. Although heavier than the Hyper Manti, that weight will make it more damp in chundery snow. Easy to initiate, this ski is great in powder, fun to carve, and reasonably maneuverable. If you have further questions, feel free to reach out to help@skimo.co!
Happy to weigh in. The Voile Hyper Manti is a great all around ski. With a shape aimed at a wide range of conditions, it will float in powder, handle in the trees, and hold an edge in more variable snow. typical of Voile skis, the Hyper Manti is playful, with a more manageable turn radius. It will be lighter than the Elan Ripstick Tour 104.
The Elan Ripstick Tour 104 is a super versatile ski. It has a medium turn radius, with a really lively feel. Although heavier than the Hyper Manti, that weight will make it more damp in chundery snow. Easy to initiate, this ski is great in powder, fun to carve, and reasonably maneuverable. If you have further questions, feel free to reach out to help@skimo.co!
12/17/2022
I wanted to share something others may already know but the Ripsticks all measure short, the 180’s are actually around 177-178’s depending how you stretch the tape. The regular Ripsticks as well. Maybe this is normal for certain factories? My Blizzard ZG85’s are 2cm under stated length too. Just a heads up if you’re deciding on what length to go with — subtract 2cm.
Answer this question:
3/22/2022
I'm curious if you guys have gotten out on these skis yet, and if you have an opinion of their suitability for the typical fresh "powder" that isn't really powder which are the typical conditions I'd experince when seeking real powder here in the PNW.
3/22/2022
Hi Eric,
I have had the chance to get out on the Elan Ripstick Tour 104! Here is my rundown:
The Ripstick Tour 104 has a flatter supportive tail, with a rounder flex in the tip. It is quite damp, with a medium turn radius. I find this ski has tons of energy, and works well with a wide range of skiing styles. It is pretty easy to bring around, but is still a great platform to push off for harder charging skiers. This ski really shines in variable snow. It will do a great job of absorbing whatever cascade concrete has to offer. Also, the wide shovel will do well in powder, even higher water weight stuff.
One thing to add, from what we have heard, the Ripstick Tour 104 skis best about -2cm of recommended.
I have had the chance to get out on the Elan Ripstick Tour 104! Here is my rundown:
The Ripstick Tour 104 has a flatter supportive tail, with a rounder flex in the tip. It is quite damp, with a medium turn radius. I find this ski has tons of energy, and works well with a wide range of skiing styles. It is pretty easy to bring around, but is still a great platform to push off for harder charging skiers. This ski really shines in variable snow. It will do a great job of absorbing whatever cascade concrete has to offer. Also, the wide shovel will do well in powder, even higher water weight stuff.
One thing to add, from what we have heard, the Ripstick Tour 104 skis best about -2cm of recommended.
Answer this question:
2/16/2022
I am wondering if you can let us know the actual measured length of these skis? I understand that the regular Ripsticks are quite short -- e.g. the 188 is actually about 184. Is that the case with these too?
2/16/2022
Hey Eric, the actual full measured length of the ski does measure 180cm. Are you talking about the measured running length?
2/17/2022
I wasn't talking about measured running length. The full measured length of the non-tour version of the Ripsticks are about 4 cm shorter than their nominal length.
So I was wondering if that is also true of the Ripstick tour. Sounds like it isn't.
So I was wondering if that is also true of the Ripstick tour. Sounds like it isn't.
5/25/2022
Hey Eric, when measuring the 173, it was 2.5cm shorter than advertised. I hope this helps!
Answer this question:
1/31/2022
Besides the amazing colors, these are the first skis to catch my attention in awhile. Minimally cambered, high turn radius, generous rocker. Light but not too light for charging weight. I know you guys are fans of downsizing but I've been really appreciating the extra length on relatively progressively mounted generously rocker skis. Been skiing 190 4frnts and 186 BMT 109s lately.
I think you guys know my weird tastes now, as I would describe currently as loose, slarvey, pivoty, but just as easy to jump turn and have great edge engagement on hardpack and stable at speed. No hookiness allowed. I guess these days I don't mind lack of dampness as long as it's stable. Basically I want a similar feel to a 4frnt or BMT 109, but want to see how light I can go before performance fades. Generally I find high turn radius generous rocker, minimally cambered skied to fill the void in my heart. This looks decambered to have similar effective edge to a 4frnt Raven.
Will this scratch my itch? Does it fulfill the niche of reasonably light but modern loose freeride shape? Secondly back to my first rambly sort of question-180 or 187? Is it rockered enough and have a progressive Mt point that 187 is more appropriate? Or does it feel more traditional and would b fine to down size? I ski neutral and laterally, not a cuff abuser and like to ski fast and centered when I can get away with it. Anything off my radar? 1500g 100-110, with the above-mentioned attributes? All other skis seem either too sidecutty, or too traditional/locked in edge wise. Thx fam. Addicts helping out other addicts.
I think you guys know my weird tastes now, as I would describe currently as loose, slarvey, pivoty, but just as easy to jump turn and have great edge engagement on hardpack and stable at speed. No hookiness allowed. I guess these days I don't mind lack of dampness as long as it's stable. Basically I want a similar feel to a 4frnt or BMT 109, but want to see how light I can go before performance fades. Generally I find high turn radius generous rocker, minimally cambered skied to fill the void in my heart. This looks decambered to have similar effective edge to a 4frnt Raven.
Will this scratch my itch? Does it fulfill the niche of reasonably light but modern loose freeride shape? Secondly back to my first rambly sort of question-180 or 187? Is it rockered enough and have a progressive Mt point that 187 is more appropriate? Or does it feel more traditional and would b fine to down size? I ski neutral and laterally, not a cuff abuser and like to ski fast and centered when I can get away with it. Anything off my radar? 1500g 100-110, with the above-mentioned attributes? All other skis seem either too sidecutty, or too traditional/locked in edge wise. Thx fam. Addicts helping out other addicts.
2/1/2022
Following, I drive my skis like I drive my car, neutral, not a steering wheel abuser
Answer this question:
Earn store credit by writing reviews. Learn more.
