Volkl BMT 94 - how good is it?

[sf]

So, I'm looking for a mid 90s spring/steeps touring ski. Will prioritize downhill performance over weight. Have considered all the usual suggestion, but for some reason there's not much talk about the BMT 94.
According to Wildsnow and Earnyourturns the 94 is the tits, and the 94 and 109 won their respective classes in Friflyt magazine's test of touring skis.

https://www.wildsnow.com/14816/volkl-bmt-94-backcountry-ski-review/

http://www.earnyourturns.com/25752/review-volkls-bmt-series-94109122/

All reviews claim that they are great on hard snow as well as on soft snow, and that they ski cut up snow like a normal freeride ski. All this while being relatively easy to throw around.
Had a quick look at them at the store yesterday and I'd say they look very nice. Med/stiff, light etc etc. And of course the construction looks a bit scary, but none of the reviews mentions durability as a problem, and as far as I've seen the thin construction hasn't been a problem on the Katana V-Werks either.

What am I missing here? Why aren't everybody on these skis? Except from the price that is. And the issues with the mounting area.

[gregL]

V-Werks BMT 94 is the tits. Not the lightest ski in the class, but impeccable performance in harder snow and super precise/predictable handling. Question is whether it's $200 better than, say, the Dynafit Denali which is lighter and has an edge in soft snow, and if the binding you intend to use falls within the reinforced binding mount area. Or if you should wait and get the Zero G 95, which is even more bomber on hard snow.

[wasatchback]

171 and 178 Zero G's are available now.... For a lot less than a BMT 94. 185 won't be done until next fall unfortunately.

[gregL]

171 and 178 Zero G's are available now.... For a lot less than a BMT 94.

Well, $400 buys you a set of Dynafits which will mount no problem because the Zero G has a full-width sheet of Titanal in the mount area . . .

[rod9301]

I ski the vwerks katana, and it's great on firm steep snow.

I hand flexed the katana vs the bmt skis, and the katana was a lot stiffer torsionally that the bmts.

I always thought that torsionally stiff skis hold better on ice, but that's the extent of my knowledge.

[gregL]

I hand flexed the katana vs the bmt skis, and the katana was a lot stiffer torsionally that the bmts.

You mean you held the ski in your hands, stuck the tail in a tight spot, and twisted it to arrive at that conclusion?

[rod9301]

Yes, not sure what it means for this ski, but in the past,torsionally soft skis did not hold well on ice.

[meina222]

Greg is being facetious - it'd be hard to judge the torsional rigidity of a ski without skiing it or without some special tools.

[creaky fossil]

and without something to take the carefully measured data, and translate it to on-snow feel

[rod9301]

Actually, it was pretty obvious that the bmt was torsionally softer, and yesterday I was skiing with a friend who was on the bmt, on icy groomers and it did seem like he had a harder time holding an edge.
Uncharacteristically, since he is an excellent skier.

[sf]

Ok, even though it may be softer than the Katana I'm still not too worried. I'm not planning on skiing steep ice at high speeds (icy groomers for example).

But, for those who have skied them: how are the BMTs when it comes to carving vs slarving? Are they happy with being thrown around at slower speeds in steep terrain, or are they a ski that likes best to be skied on edge / follow the sidecut? Given that they are reverse camber with a medium sidecut I'm guessing they are quite capable of sliding around, but there's something about them being Volkls that worry me a bit. I'm not looking for a carbon GS ski....

[bsavery]

Anyone skied the wider versions? A pit softer torsionally might be ok in a powder touring ski like the BMT 122

[bsavery]

You mean you held the ski in your hands, stuck the tail in a tight spot, and twisted it to arrive at that conclusion?

If that's the test I did some torsional testing last night...

[XXX-er]

V-Werks BMT 94 is the tits. Not the lightest ski in the class, but impeccable performance in harder snow and super precise/predictable handling. Question is whether it's $200 better than, say, the Dynafit Denali which is lighter and has an edge in soft snow, and if the binding you intend to use falls within the reinforced binding mount area. Or if you should wait and get the Zero G 95, which is even more bomber on hard snow.

that mounting plate on the V-werks cracks me up, how much weight did Volkl really save by cutting away enough titanal so it misses the screw pattern of the most prolific therefore the most popular BC binding out there, why would any ski maker create a situation where a prospective buyer is asking if he should buy a Volkl that doesn't have a full mouning plate for his fleet of dynafit bindings OR a Denali which does and is still lighter?

I seen a deconstructed Denali over at my buddies ski manufacturing facility and that plate is the whole flat area under foot ... a good 2' piece of Titanal

[galibier_numero_un]

that mounting plate on the V-werks cracks me up, how much weight did Volkl really save by cutting away enough titanal so it misses the screw pattern of the most prolific therefore the most popular BC binding out there, why would any ski maker create a situation where a prospective buyer is asking if he should buy a Volkl that doesn't have a full mouning plate for his fleet of dynafit bindings OR a Denali which does and is still lighter?

Even given that a G3 Ion would work with this ski, such short-sighted idiocy removes it from any potential short list of skis on principle. Volkl can go on and on if they to choose about performance parameters and such, but to my way of thinking, this is irrelevant. Given a clean slate, and before performance is considered, a simple set of use cases needs to be built:

• What's the typical skier profile
• The typical environment (carving, all mountain, powder, freeride touring, touring, etc.)
• Price-point (might affect choice of materials)
• External interfaces --> BINDING COMPATIBILITY !!

In my business, I face the same issues with manufacturers of tonearms (I manufacture high end turntables). Many of these tonearm designers seem clueless as to the fact that their product should be easy to implement in its intended application (a turntable). Cartridge manufacturers aren't much better.

I continue to be amazed at the level of insulated short-sightedness designers choose. Don't get me started on some car designers who forget the primary purpose of a car is not to replicate a video game.

Cheers,
Thom