Volkl BMT 94 - how good is it?

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...ry-ski-review/
http://www.earnyourturns.com/25752/r...ries-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.

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wasatchback

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 . . .

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rod9301

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?

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

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

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

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.

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....

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gregL

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...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by XXX-er

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

Just registered for an account to put my own two cents in on this discussion. The BMT 94 is less torsionally stiff than the Katana because the Katana has eleven sheets of carbon, whereas the BMT has only six.

The V-Werks Katana weighs 1905 grams in a 184, and the V-Werks BMT 94 1580 grams in a 186. I don't think the 1900+ grams and 112mm width really works as a "spring/steeps touring ski." I skied the two skis a year apart, and never had the V-W Katana on anything firm, but the V-W BMT 94 handled impeccably on very hard groomers.

I've done the same hand flex torsion thing. While the BMT is noticeably less stiff torsionally, it's certainly not wimpy. The BMT feels stiffer torsionally than many alpine skis I've done this too. How accurate is this? Hard to say but relatively the BMT is not a noodle. I recently picked up a BMT 94 and so far like them a lot.
For a bit of background, I spent 15 years in the Wasatch and toured a lot on leather and pins. Yes, I'm old. Finished my Wasatch days on t2's and Mtn Surfs, which had an almost flat camber. Loved those skis. Anyway, I returned to the mid atlantic to be around aging parents. Currently ski 25 days here and 7 to 10 in the Wasatch. Bought the BMT94 186 to be a one ski on a plane thing, currently mounted alpine with plan to put a CAST on it. No long tours would use a dedicated tech setup for that.
The only fun around here is to- GASP carve and make as many arcs as possible, Otherwise, your down too soon, and it's very boring. Or park antics which hurt too much at this point in my life. Spent a winter on Slalom race skis, which was incredibly fun here but useless in anything 3d.
Went looking for something else and after demoing lots, ended up on Volkl RTMs. Still really carvey but with the ELP rocker I could skid turns whenever I wanted and ski bumps with ease. Perfect for here. So wanting something similar in a mid 90's ski ended up on BMT 94, as i wanted that ELP rocker.
So far only two days on 94's, but here are my thoughts so far. Good choice for what I was after, edgy and carvey when rolled over, easy to pivot and skid as needed. Surprisingly stable and damp on smooth hard groomers. Skied pretty fast and didn't worry about stability. Second day had some more variable conditions, could see ski getting bounced around in thicker crud at speed, but light was pretty flat and I'm 1/4 the skier I used to be in flat light, could have been me. Look forward to skiing them in the Wasatch, which may or may not happen this season
If I were to pick them up as a dedicated touring ski, I'd pick the 176 for ease of kick turns and pack humpage. I never ski as fast touring as I do at the resort.

Sorry for the long winded post, but these are a unique ski and others need some background as to why these are for me- the tits.

YMMV

Bought the BMT 94s in Dec mounted them w G3 IONs and have put them through every possible condition this season in the alps including fair bit of touring. These skis are the business, best I've ever had. Plenty light and easy on the skin up, super control, responsive, confident, and lots of fun on the way down. Excellent float for a 94 in pow, quick in trees, great edge grip on ice. Perfectly civilized on piste, but a ski this light will never be a piste ripper, not really what it is for. Banged them up a bit in trees and rocks and so far durability is good, but I always wonder about that with carbon - we'll see after a few seasons. I put a detailed review on Epic Ski. Also happy w the IONs. 94 width perfect for alps, US West and Canada BC might want the wider models.

Bump

Picked up a pair of 94s the other day, and a pair of Ions to go with them. Obviously, since this is TGR, I'm having a bit of trouble deciding where to mount the bindings......
The reason for this is that I demoed a pair of 94s with Kingpins last spring and was very impressed with both the skis and the bindings. But what dawned on me yesterday was that the Kingpins wasn't demobinders and had to be adjusted all the way back to fit my boots. In addition the Ions have a bit more delta than the Kingpins.
So, mount back 1cm?

What is the difference between the BMT and BMT Flat?

BMT: http://www.snowinn.com/ski-store/vol...?q=volkl%20bmt

BMT Flat: http://www.snowinn.com/ski-store/vol...?q=volkl%20bmt

Can anyone attest to the durability of these? I picked up a pair for general-purpose East Coast touring, and am uncertain if they can take the standard fare of rocks and roots that we get out here. Can anyone speak to that?

Don't know about the BMT 94, but my V-Werks Katana, which has a very similar construction, has been holding up superbly this season. The bases are quite hard (much more durable than my '12 Cochise) and unlike thick sidewall skis, the skin is very resistant to chipping and cuts from edges. You'd see often times Kastles and Blizzards with missing chunks and chipped sidewalls, but these V-Werks seem to be constructed in a way that resists this kind of damage. Can't attest to long term durability as I've had these only this season, but I don't see a reason to be concerned.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by neck beard

What is the difference between the BMT and BMT Flat?

BMT: http://www.snowinn.com/ski-store/vol...?q=volkl%20bmt

BMT Flat: http://www.snowinn.com/ski-store/vol...?q=volkl%20bmt

---

Anyone? The only place I can find mention of the "Flat" version is on EU websites, mostly not in English.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by neck beard

Anyone? The only place I can find mention of the "Flat" version is on EU websites, mostly not in English.

---

I think they are the same thing.
"Flat" is a term that I have seen ski manufactures apply to a ski model that doesn’t have bindings mounted to them.