Hi Skimo,
Do the Salomon Mtn Explore 95s handle quiver killers ok? Same question for the Blizzard Zero G 95s.
Thanks,
Jesse
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] |
|
|
130-95-116 [177] |
|
Turn |
17m [169] 18m [177] 19m [184] |
|
Skin |
Round tip, flat tail |
| Specs Verified | Yes |
| Design | |
|
|
Rocker tip, camber underfoot, flat tail |
|
|
Round tip, medium-turn radius, slightly tapered tail |
|
|
Superfiber sandwichs with mini sidewalls |
|
|
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
11/9/2023
11/9/2023
Jesse, either ski will take Quiver killers just fine.
Answer this question:
3/8/2023
I'm 193cm (6'4), 180lbs, currently using K2 Wayback 88mm, 181cm (K2 run long actual length is ~183cm). They're pretty good but I think I would need something shorter for jump turns and easier handling in steep. The terrain I'm skiing is often hard and icy but powder days happen too.
I have rather average skiing technique, I can handle my Wayback 88 pretty well and don't want new skis to be too difficult for me.
Would you reccomend Salomon MTN 95 177cm or Atomic Backland 95 177cm or maybe K2 Wayback 96 177cm? Or maybe something different?
I have rather average skiing technique, I can handle my Wayback 88 pretty well and don't want new skis to be too difficult for me.
Would you reccomend Salomon MTN 95 177cm or Atomic Backland 95 177cm or maybe K2 Wayback 96 177cm? Or maybe something different?
3/8/2023
Mariusz,
Of the skis you mentioned, the Backland will be the easiest to ski. Both the Backland and MTN Explore 95 will handle crud well. The Wayback is fairly stiff, which makes it powerful, but somewhat demanding.
Of the skis you mentioned, the Backland will be the easiest to ski. Both the Backland and MTN Explore 95 will handle crud well. The Wayback is fairly stiff, which makes it powerful, but somewhat demanding.
3/13/2023
Thanks for reply. Considering my height, do you think 177cm would be long enough?
3/15/2023
Mariusz,
177 would be great for steep skiing and trees, but you'll definitely sacrifice a bit on powder days. Your waybacks are about what I'd recommend (183ish) for an all around touring setup. For a powder ski, you could even go closer to 190.
177 would be great for steep skiing and trees, but you'll definitely sacrifice a bit on powder days. Your waybacks are about what I'd recommend (183ish) for an all around touring setup. For a powder ski, you could even go closer to 190.
Answer this question:
1/19/2023
I am 5'10" (177cm) tall, 145lbs, and an "expert" skiier. I am looking to purchase the Salomon Mtn Explorer 88 for backcounty touring purposes. I live in CO and will primarily use them for spring tours and will likely (hopefully) encounter some moderate powder days as well. I am torn between going shorter at 169cm for weight savings and manuverability on the uphill or if I should go with the more traditional length of 177cm for a slightly more enjoyable descent. What would you suggest? Thanks.
1/19/2023
Hi Traesa,
Thanks for reaching out! Your decision on which length of Salomon MTN Explore 88 boils down to a few pros and cons. If you go with the shorter length, you get a lighter ski that is easier to kick turn, and more maneuverable on the way down. However, the longer ski will possess more stability at speed, and more float in deeper snow.
For what it is worth, I typically recommend that folks downsize in the backcountry. If you put a premium on stability at speed, go with the longer ski. Otherwise, go for the 169cm length.
Thanks for reaching out! Your decision on which length of Salomon MTN Explore 88 boils down to a few pros and cons. If you go with the shorter length, you get a lighter ski that is easier to kick turn, and more maneuverable on the way down. However, the longer ski will possess more stability at speed, and more float in deeper snow.
For what it is worth, I typically recommend that folks downsize in the backcountry. If you put a premium on stability at speed, go with the longer ski. Otherwise, go for the 169cm length.
Answer this question:
3/29/2022
I’m considering either this or the Fischer Hannibal 96. Very different weights, I know. Someone mentioned above that they are similar skis - is that the case? I’m willing to go a little heavier for some more performance - I’m not an aggressive skier, but we all want the down to be fun - but I’m just trying to get a sense of how much better something like this might ski.
3/30/2022
Hey John, the MTN 95 and Hannibal share a similar feel, however, the extra mass of the MTN 95 will lead to a more damp feel in variable conditions and help bust through crud. They're both good skis overall, but the extra mass of the MTN will be noticeable on both the up and down.
Answer this question:
3/24/2022
I am trying to determine if the MTN Explore 95 is right for me. I have done some research and it appears this should be a good fit for what I want to do, but I am still not sure because I have not been able to demo them. About myself, I am 185.4 cm (73 inches) tall, weigh 86.2 kg (190 pounds), and classify myself as a type III skier. I have not skied any back country with the exception of one day where I rented my gear, but I do want to start skiing backcountry in addition to my resort alpine skiing. My current setup for resort skiing are a pair of Nordica Enforcer 104 Free, 186 cm length. For my backcountry setup, I have already purchased and fitted a pair of Scarpa Maestrale boots. For bindings, the front runner right now is the Fritschi Tecton 12 due to its downhill performance with release capability, while not being as heavy as some other tech bindings with these features. As far as what I will primarily be skiing, I want flexibility to ski in all kinds of conditions in the PNW, however, I know more of my days will likely be with variable conditions and spring conditions instead of chasing powder.
3/24/2022
Thanks for reaching out! It sounds like the MTN Explore 95 will fit the bill. It is designed for those wanting a more substantial backcountry ski that can serve as a quiver of one. Compared to your Enforcer Free 104, the MTN 95 will have a significantly flatter tail, which means it may not feel as "loose." Overall, many who are willing to carry a few extra grams to the top for increased performance on the down have been quite happy with the MTN 95. Feel free to give us a call if you want to talk through this or other options!
Answer this question:
3/11/2022
Hi guys, Just had a sizing question. I am 185cm at 185lbs and currently ski the K2 Pinnacle 88 in 177 and the Black Crows Orb Freebird in 178. I've heard the MTN 95 skis a bit short. Should I look at the 177cm or 184cm? This will be an all mountain touring ski that I intend to use in the Eastern Sierra and NW volcanoes. I ski conservatively and like short, precise turns on steep terrain. Any thoughts? Thanks!
3/11/2022
Hi Bill, I also remember reading some reviews on other sites that claim they ski short, but I would not necessarily put too much stock in those descriptions. For your usage, the 177cm sounds like a nice choice!
Answer this question:
1/23/2022
How would you compare this ski to the Hannibal 96? Looking for a ski that can handle volcanoes, high consequence turns, and occasional daily duties.
1/24/2022
Alejandro, This and the Hannibal are fairly close in feel. The Hannibal has a little rounder flex pattern and the Salomon has a little more power underfoot. The extra weight will add some dampness to the ski too.
Answer this question:
1/13/2022
Hi guys!
I have decided on this ski as an all-round touring ski. I will mount them with ATK Crests and use the Maestrale RS boots. It will be my first touring setup. I'm torn between the 177 and 184 lengths. I will use them both in winter (some pow, but not crazy deep, i ski in Europe), and spring (faster corn laps, and some longer tours where getting to the peak would be the objective).
I'm 182cm (5-11) and 70kg (155lbs) and an intermediate skier. I like making larger radius turns and going (relatively) fast (+ for the 184). However, later i would also like to get in some steeper terrain and learn to jump turn (+ for the 177). I have been skiing the 183cm Armada TST as my resort ski.
Which length would you suggest?
Thank in advance, you guys rock!
I have decided on this ski as an all-round touring ski. I will mount them with ATK Crests and use the Maestrale RS boots. It will be my first touring setup. I'm torn between the 177 and 184 lengths. I will use them both in winter (some pow, but not crazy deep, i ski in Europe), and spring (faster corn laps, and some longer tours where getting to the peak would be the objective).
I'm 182cm (5-11) and 70kg (155lbs) and an intermediate skier. I like making larger radius turns and going (relatively) fast (+ for the 184). However, later i would also like to get in some steeper terrain and learn to jump turn (+ for the 177). I have been skiing the 183cm Armada TST as my resort ski.
Which length would you suggest?
Thank in advance, you guys rock!
1/13/2022
Hey Luka, thanks so much for your question and the kudos! I would recommend the 177cm for your situation. As a backcountry ski, I think you will find them easier to use for kick turns, tree skiing, and performing jump turns. Hope that helps!
Answer this question:
12/27/2021
I am just getting into touring and getting my first touring set up. I am considering the Blizzard Zero 95s and the Salomon MTN 95s. I have the technica cochise 105 boots and I have salomon shift bindings, but I think I am going to return them /resell them and get the pure tech bindings. Any strong arguments for this ski over the blizzards. I ski Blizzard Sheevas 172 resort. I am 5'10 /148lb. I am a pretty intermediate skier, def not advanced and ski in WA.
12/28/2021
Hi Anna,
Happy to chat pros and cons of the Salomon MTN Explore 95, and the Blizzard Zero G 95.
I will start with the Zero G 95. This ski is pretty stiff and less forgiving than some of the other options on our wall. It excels in firmer snow, but has a versatile waist width for a wide range of conditions. Also, it is pretty lightweight.
The MTN Explore 95 has a more forgiving construction. It is heavier, which will translate to a damper ski that absorbs variable conditions well. Also, the wider tip will float a little better in deep snow.
If you have further questions on ski comparisons, reach out to help@skimo.co!
Happy to chat pros and cons of the Salomon MTN Explore 95, and the Blizzard Zero G 95.
I will start with the Zero G 95. This ski is pretty stiff and less forgiving than some of the other options on our wall. It excels in firmer snow, but has a versatile waist width for a wide range of conditions. Also, it is pretty lightweight.
The MTN Explore 95 has a more forgiving construction. It is heavier, which will translate to a damper ski that absorbs variable conditions well. Also, the wider tip will float a little better in deep snow.
If you have further questions on ski comparisons, reach out to help@skimo.co!
Answer this question:
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.
