I have had these skis for about a month now and have put about 50,000 ft of vert climbing (and just as much skiing) on them so far. I am 5’9” and 170 pds, and I went with the 169s. I paired them with the Superlites 2.0 and the Spitfire 2.0s. My primary use is for ski mountaineering. I am very impressed with everything about this ski. They are light, nimble and playful. They are really responsive and turn on a dime in the tightest places. I have skied every condition that the mountain can throw at me, sometimes all in a single day. I was surprised at how well they handle in icy cruddy conditions, and when you get any kind of soft snow (whether powder, heavy wet, windblown, etc.) they make you look like a pro! I love them on steeps. They are so light on my back, I forget they are there, and I’ve had days where they were on my back for over 8 hours. At first I had buyer’s remorse for getting such a short length. I have never skied anything under 185. But now I’m happy that I went short. I have ice climbed up narrow gullies (not much wider than one person) with them on my back in places that I would have never taken my previous set-up. I still ski as fast and hard on them as I ever did on longer skis, and they handle it fine (not that I ski that hard in the backcountry; they ski comfortably up to 35mph and start to feel wobbly after that). They did take some getting used to at first. It was like learning to ski again, but I quickly adapted. They are, now, my favorite ski.
Hi Randy, I'm debating between the Alp Tracks 94 vs. the 84 and as I'm reading your review I'm leaning towards 94 more. Regarding the size, I'm debating between 177 and 169 and usually I would pick 177 without thinking since I'm used to rocker skis north of 187, but I think these skis have more of a subtle rocker and more effective edge. As I read your review, I'm wondering how come you went with the 169 and not the 177? If you have tried the 84's and/or have any feedback on them, would be great to know. Thank you.
P.S awesome video!!
Hi DK, I haven't tried the 84s, but as far as width goes I am very pleased with the 94s and wouldn't want to go any narrower. I went with the 169 as kind of an experiment. I usually ski around 185. I was looking to shave weight and ease of movement on the ascent, knowing that the kind of terrain I'd be hitting would include a lot of carrying on my back and looking for a tight turning ski on the downhill. I kind of regret not going one size longer. I love them on the uphill and in tight places, but the short length greatly effects the downhill stability, especially when trying to push the speed. However, most of the time I am fine with the length. I have to make a conscious effort to stay centered on them as they don't function well in the back seat, and it seems like they quickly throw me there. It was a bit of a learning curve. I'm not sure if the back seat thing is an issue with the ski or with the short length. I highly recommend these skis, but I'd suggest going longer rather than shorter. That's my two cents!
Thanks a lot for the feedback Randy. I greatly appreciate it. As i read the above i wonder if you would recommend going with Alp Tracks 100 if a bit of the extra weight wasn't an issue for you but having all the conditions you have encountered on the 94's in mind
Comment on this review: