Salomon MTN Explore 95 Ski
If your objective with skiing is to go as light as possible without sacrificing even a bit of the ability to rail turns like your alpine gear, then look no further. Salomon’s MTN Explore 95 is the carving, floating, smile-inducing ripper designed to charge in any terrain. A 3D Full Woodcore construction reinforces the ski where it’s needed and drops weight in superfluous areas that could use a trim, reducing swing weight and mass on the way up. The core is wrapped in a pre-preg CFX Superfiber that runs tip to tail, enhancing power transfer and minimizing the amount of core material needed to create a strong and damp ski. Total Edge Reinforcement above the edges is sandwiched within the core to reduce chatter, thus creating a more confident edge hold along the entire length of the ski. An ABS-Reinforced Koroyd tip further increases surface-area-to-weight ratio and deadens impacts to create a lighter ski that tracks through crud like a meaty plank. The tip and tail employ a five-point tapering tactic, called Hook Free Taper, designed to increase the smooth performance in soft snow and tracking precision in less than ideal conditions. With substantial new-school shaping influenced by Salomon’s alpine line, the MTN Explore 95 doesn’t mess around when the skis get pointed back down the fall-line.
- Oversized Pulsepad is a vibration reducing layer placed along the front half of the ski that contributes to the confident handling in any terrain.
- Carve zone maximizes the effective edge length on hard snow without affecting the performance of the tip and tail rocker.
- ABS Sidewalls underfoot deaden impacts and chatter, while also increasing durability.
- MTN Rocker is a gentle and generous rocker design specific to the MTN line of skis.
- Spaceframe 2.0 minimizes swing weight for quicker kick turns and energy savings on the climb.
Update 2020/21 – Just a topsheet change with pretty new graphics.
| Specifications | |
| Lengths (cm) | 169, 177, 184 |
|
Weight |
1395g [169] 1505g [177] 1585g [184] |
| Weight (pair) | 2790g [169] 3010g [177] 3170g [184] |
Dimensions
|
130-95-116 [177] |
|
Turn Radius
|
17m [169] 18m [177] 19m [184] |
|
Skin Fix
|
Round tip, flat tail |
| Specs Verified | Yes |
| Design | |
|
Profile
|
Rocker tip, camber underfoot, flat tail |
|
Shape
|
Round tip, medium-turn radius, slightly tapered tail |
|
Construction
|
Superfiber sandwichs with mini sidewalls |
|
Core
|
Karuba wood |
| Skimo Co Says | |
| Usage | All-mountain skiing, traveling to parts unknown |
| Notes | Burly enough for resort skiing |
| Bottom Line | All around crusher for either Hemisphere |
| Compare to other High-fat Skis | |
Related Products
Questions & Reviews
1/4/2021
Hi, I am considering this ski, but unsure of the correct size. I am 5-8, about 145lbs, intermediate skier. Looking for something that will do it all spending about 75% of the time touring off piste (up and down), and 25% on piste.... mostly in Maine and europe, so pretty varied terrain. I have a Scarpa Maestrale RS boot... Thanks!
1/4/2021
Hi dbeach, while you would enjoy the 177 (especially in powder), I think the 169 is a better match for your usage.
Answer this question:
Skied couple of days in the resort and backcountry and I love it. Most of us are always concerned how these lightweight skis perform in difficult conditions. So I will talk about that first, tip chatter was almost minimal to non-existent in hardpack/icy conditions and the bite is terrific. Edge control was great and I have to give some credit to the binding I put on - Marker Alpinist 12 (I'll review that later). Won't claim I reached high speed (like my resort one), but it always felt very stable and predictable when I drove it hard.
I have the ZeroG95's and I love the stiffness and how they rail in hardpack, so I guess that's my benchmark for lightweight skis how they should perform. And I cannot say it under-performed compared to the ZeroG95's.
Was lucky to have a pow pow day in the backcountry and all I can say is I enjoyed skiing much more the MTN compared to the ZeroG95's. I got these for multi-day tours when I foresee powder days, so hopefully these will serve the purpose well.
On the uphill, they were just fine and can't say I felt the additional ~300gm compared to the ZeroG95 pair (with bindings). May be on longer tours/altitude that would be noticeable, but for now I really can't feel the difference. I like lightweight but not an obsessed gram shaver. :)
Is it more or equally demanding like the ZeroG95's? It didn't feel that way. Never felt like I have to drive and put a lot of skier effort. Felt tad easier compared to the ZeroG95's. Pretty sweet swing weight and predictable. It has a bit more camber than ZeroG95's, so I guess that also helps with the pop and rebound a bit more.
It will be interesting how they perform against my Zero's during spring tours, when ski objectives and conditions are quite different. I'm 170lbs at 177cm, I got the MTN at 177 as well, although my ZeroG95's are at 171. So it will be interesting, long term which ski I reach out for most of my trips.
Shout out to Skimo team since they always do an exemplary job in communication, packaging, and even leave a nice personal sticky note :) Cheers!!!
I have the ZeroG95's and I love the stiffness and how they rail in hardpack, so I guess that's my benchmark for lightweight skis how they should perform. And I cannot say it under-performed compared to the ZeroG95's.
Was lucky to have a pow pow day in the backcountry and all I can say is I enjoyed skiing much more the MTN compared to the ZeroG95's. I got these for multi-day tours when I foresee powder days, so hopefully these will serve the purpose well.
On the uphill, they were just fine and can't say I felt the additional ~300gm compared to the ZeroG95 pair (with bindings). May be on longer tours/altitude that would be noticeable, but for now I really can't feel the difference. I like lightweight but not an obsessed gram shaver. :)
Is it more or equally demanding like the ZeroG95's? It didn't feel that way. Never felt like I have to drive and put a lot of skier effort. Felt tad easier compared to the ZeroG95's. Pretty sweet swing weight and predictable. It has a bit more camber than ZeroG95's, so I guess that also helps with the pop and rebound a bit more.
It will be interesting how they perform against my Zero's during spring tours, when ski objectives and conditions are quite different. I'm 170lbs at 177cm, I got the MTN at 177 as well, although my ZeroG95's are at 171. So it will be interesting, long term which ski I reach out for most of my trips.
Shout out to Skimo team since they always do an exemplary job in communication, packaging, and even leave a nice personal sticky note :) Cheers!!!
5/27/2019
Any update from the spring? I am considering this ski, the Zero G 95 or the Backland 95.
9/9/2019
I reached for my Zero G95 for most of my spring trips. The stiffness and weight was the key. Did few late spring trips to Zermatt and Chamonix around 14k's and the Zero G95's stiffness to weight ratio was definitely a huge benefit. HTH
Comment on this review:
4/14/2018
How would you compare the Explore 95 with the Movement AT 100 LT and the Movment Shift/Control? I know the AT is significantly lighter, but they all seem to be aimed at Wet Coast type conditions--deeper snows from powder to crud and with good capabilities in other conditions as well.
4/16/2018
Hi Andrew, the MTN Explore 95 and the Control compare pretty favorably. The AT 100 is a pretty different ski. Where the MTN Explore and the Control are really set up to be general all mountain touring skis (particularly in the coastal snow you describe), the AT 100 more of a lightweight powder oriented ski.
The Control has a little more sidecut than the MTN Explore and will be a bit "turnier," and so I suggest gearing your decision between the two based on your preferred turn shape.
The Control has a little more sidecut than the MTN Explore and will be a bit "turnier," and so I suggest gearing your decision between the two based on your preferred turn shape.
Answer this question:
These are an outstanding general purpose ski that do everything well. Not too heavy but with enough bulk to cope with variable snow, they excel in spring/softer conditions. They retain a very solid edge, but have a little too much sidecut for my liking on the steep and icy, but they are still very manageable.
They have reasonably soft tips, but are stiff underfoot. This is a great ski that can be ridden hard or in a relaxed manner at any level and on any terrain. A great all-round option.
They have reasonably soft tips, but are stiff underfoot. This is a great ski that can be ridden hard or in a relaxed manner at any level and on any terrain. A great all-round option.
Comment on this review:
8/11/2017
Hey boyz. I'm debating between the mtn 95 and the dps wailer 99 for a hard charging quiver of one wasatch ripper ski. I've got F1s on my feet and I'm coming off the Coomback 104s. Hoping to keep up with Gemma on the uptrack and ski like a big mountain freerider on the down. What will make me an instasensation?
8/12/2017
Hi David, that's a tall order! You'd definitely be a insta-stud if you could be Gemma + Angel. The Wailers are great in powder and mixed conditions, very easy to ski so you'll look good in photos. In comparison, the Salomons are better on hard snow and at higher speeds, but more likely to buck you just when your friend's shutter clicks. You likely won't have any problems after the Coombacks though. The F1s are a good match with either.
Answer this question:
Earn store credit by writing reviews. Learn more.
