All Things Volkl Thread

Good writeup. Connies were on my radar for a pow ski when i was shopping a few years ago but I was wanting something less similar to how my m102's skied so glades wouldn't be so taxing on deeper days. Blister said they would be really locked in on edge and that dissuaded me somewhat. Your experience speaks what I had assumed they were like. Someone who can really needs to AB them with the bodes, because a lot of folks here (myself included) think cons are diet versions of that ski, and I would like to know from other sources if the cons have their own unique strengths.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 1000-oaks

Interesting, for some reason I thought those had a progressive mount and ignored them. Will keep an eye on Craigslist.

---

Didn't 1st yr Confessions have delam issues?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tuco

Didn't 1st yr Confessions have delam issues?

---

Heard that (other models those years did as well), was it fixed by 2nd year?

This combo works.

Attachment 417360

Attachment 417754

Couldn't resist grabbing these old Snow Ranger's from the "mall" at our transfer station. They are like 9.5 out of 10 condition, maybe used just a few days??

Attachment 417756

I was looking for a boot center mount point line but this is all they give you. I may remount a little more forward.

Nice score on the Rangers.
Snow Ranger possibly best ski name ever.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fred Pabst

Attachment 417754

Couldn't resist grabbing these old Snow Ranger's from the "mall" at our transfer station. They are like 9.5 out of 10 condition, maybe used just a few days??

Attachment 417756

I was looking for a boot center mount point line but this is all they give you. I may remount a little more forward.

---

Schuhspitz is boot toe line.
1/2 your boot sole back from that line if you want/need to go from boot center line

Great comparison Sylvan!

Agree with the Conf's being calm and composed, if just a wee bit carbony pingy ... Have not been on the K108, therefore in my book as of yet, OG Bodes are class leader in suspension and feel on snow.

My first year Conf's have not been skied enough to see any delam issues, crossing fingers it won't happen.

Just to add to the above, fwiw, the Confessions has its titanal placed where the K108 has its cutout. Slight reduction in torsional rigidity I suppose?

I skied these about half my days this past season, and in anything soft, from a couple inches up to full on deep, chewed up crud they were fantastic - love em!

Attachment 418030

Snagged a few summers ago for $40 from a guy who was emptying out his storage shed. Aside from the nasty delam they were in pretty good condition. Mounted some new bindings, and "fixed" the topsheet with sanding and black Shoe Goo. ( LoL! ) And a little more sanding once set. Holding up pretty good so far.

Attachment 418031

I have that ski. The OG Gotama is the most legit ski of my entire life. It has recently been replaced by the M102, which I consider to be the Gotama 2. And it was only replaced because the M102 was cheap to me. The M102 is better in every way. Metal. Carbon. Rocker. 3D sidecut. But sometimes I wish it didn't have carbon, or the metal. Just the wood, fiberglass, and the rocker profile/shape of the M102 would be enough. I think that's the Blaze 106.

It's funny that I just bought some old, cherry FKS 155s with the intention of putting them on my M102s. But now I'm thinking I should just put them on my Gotamas, sell my M102s, and start over for that genre while I still can. Nobody is going to buy my Gotamas, and they ski nearly the same... minus the rip-ability of the M102. Those do shred.

The OG Gotama and the new M102 are these strange Jack of All Trades, Masters of None that they don't really fit into quivers anymore. Amazing at everything, but hard to pigeon-hole. They're also hard to sell, because I want to keep them. I know they work at everything and I'll have them forever. Both would be best fitted with a Pivot/Cast. That's a lifetime rig right there.

But then you're forced to ski the same ski forever. And buying new skis is fun.

Let's simplify your life. If you want a one-ski quiver for the next 20 years, you should buy an OG Gotama, an M102, or a Blaze 106 and Pivot/Cast it. Done.

I've wanted a ~90mm longer-radius volkl touring ski for daily use (fast weekday tours usually in good Utah snow) and steeper objectives. I recently got a BMT 90 177 here that I was excited to use, but I also happened to just come across another discontinued Volkl touring ski, a Rise High 88 in 170 (VTA 88 Lite shape with damper construction). The skis have pretty similar sidecut, but the Rise High 88 has much more camber and a longer effective edge than the longer BMT.

Which ski should I mount? Obviously the BMT 90 is a better shape for me, as I prefer a more rockered ski but they weigh 1400g per ski compared to 1070g for the Rise High 88. If I didn't already have skis I like a lot I'd go with the BMT, but I already have Dynafit Beast 108 which ski almost as good as BMTs and weigh 1500g per ski, and let me use skimo race bindings which are would be somewhat questionable on the BMTs considering their H-pattern mount situation. If someone wants to buy the BMTs send me a message...

Attachment 430042 Attachment 430043

i would 100% mount up the BMTs unless the main criterion is weight, at the cost of survival skiing going down. I would rather go heavier on the ski - while still light - and save weight on the bindings, so they are still capable. Those 300grs and the damper construction should make for a helluva difference - both going up and going down.

I would also mount whatever binding you want on the BMTs. In fact - I would be much more trusting of mounting anything on them than either the 88s depicted or VTAs. I would not be terribly surprised if the 88s core is made up of the same material that is outside of the H on BMTs, or perhaps more realistically - if their cores are not terribly dissimilar. There is a reason that BMT costs a lot more than 88s/VTAs, and that reason is six layers of carbon (and thicker edges/bases) - not a fancy wood core. BMTs are plenty sturdy.

I am not saying that the 88 is not a great ski for its use - I am guessing that they are - but few touring skis rival any BMT ski in its segment for performance imho. BMT fanboy for sure, but they are great skis.

(I think it is kinda funny that most of the lighter skis so in vogue now are really kinda what the BMT was along, even if BMTs make it there through a fancy layup and not just by a lighter everything.)

Too bad that Covid made carbon so expensive. I firmly believe more people should be on BMTs as they make you a better skier, but they are just soooo expensive nowadays.

And while the BMT90 is great, BMT94s are freaking fantastic. Just saying :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Benneke10

... BMTs considering their H-pattern mount situation.

---

H zone is Marker marketing bullshit. There is no structural difference in that area. Even within the H zone you may find the voids in the core. Mount whatever you want on those and use good glue with upside-down cure.

Attachment 430050

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kid-kapow

BMT94s are freaking fantastic. Just saying :)

---

Yep, amazing skis. Top five fave ever fo sho

A bit more background is that my touring quiver right now (all mounted with Trab Vario race style) is made up of Beast 108s (1700g with bindings), custom Wovn lightweight BC Solis clones (1450g with bindings), and Voile Objectives (1250g with bindings). The Wovns are a perfect touring shape as far as I'm concerned (almost exact same shape as the Solis, around 175cm long and 97mm underfoot), the only issue is that they were custom built for my friend who weighs 40lbs more than me so they're a bit stiff for me. The Beast is pretty close to a perfect shape as well. The Objectives are not ideal for me - too much camber and sidecut, but for a ~1kg ski they are better than most because they have a lot of rocker and aren't wildly stiff (I'm only 145lbs).

I've spent a lot of time on BMT 94s and have skied the 109s for a few runs and they are both pretty much perfect skis with amazing construction. Unfortunately due to my own bad decisions I don't own BMT 94 or 109 right now. The Beasts fill the 109 quiver slot at a lighter weight and I'm fine with that. The Wovns are perfect in good snow and are very solid on scary terrain in firm snow, but I can't ski them as aggressively as I'd like to in firm snow because of their stiffness. I also kind of like having a little (tiny) bit of camber for skinning traction, so the Solis and Beast rocker profiles work very well for me, but I can manage skinning a BMT94. My dream ski is a Solis with a BMT construction, or a lighter V-Werks Mantra.

I do a fair amount of skiing with guys on ~1kg skis who are at least as fit as I am so I need to have a ski in that weight class that is manageable, and I think the Rise 88 will be an improvement on the Objective. I guess despite their similar dimensions the BMT and Rise occupy different quiver slots, with the Rise being a fast weekday/long mission ski and the BMT being a fun, reliable ski for more casual or dangerous objectives that aren't as fast paced.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Benneke10

A bit more background is that my touring quiver right now (all mounted with Trab Vario race style) is made up of Beast 108s (1700g with bindings), custom Wovn lightweight BC Solis clones (1450g with bindings), and Voile Objectives (1250g with bindings). The Wovns are a perfect touring shape as far as I'm concerned (almost exact same shape as the Solis, around 175cm long and 97mm underfoot), the only issue is that they were custom built for my friend who weighs 40lbs more than me so they're a bit stiff for me. The Beast is pretty close to a perfect shape as well. The Objectives are not ideal for me - too much camber and sidecut, but for a ~1kg ski they are better than most because they have a lot of rocker and aren't wildly stiff (I'm only 145lbs).

I've spent a lot of time on BMT 94s and have skied the 109s for a few runs and they are both pretty much perfect skis with amazing construction. Unfortunately due to my own bad decisions I don't own BMT 94 or 109 right now. The Beasts fill the 109 quiver slot at a lighter weight and I'm fine with that. The Wovns are perfect in good snow and are very solid on scary terrain in firm snow, but I can't ski them as aggressively as I'd like to in firm snow because of their stiffness. I also kind of like having a little (tiny) bit of camber for skinning traction, so the Solis and Beast rocker profiles work very well for me, but I can manage skinning a BMT94. My dream ski is a Solis with a BMT construction, or a lighter V-Werks Mantra.

I do a fair amount of skiing with guys on ~1kg skis who are at least as fit as I am so I need to have a ski in that weight class that is manageable, and I think the Rise 88 will be an improvement on the Objective. I guess despite their similar dimensions the BMT and Rise occupy different quiver slots, with the Rise being a fast weekday/long mission ski and the BMT being a fun, reliable ski for more casual or dangerous objectives that aren't as fast paced.

---

yeah, that sounds like a pretty well thought out quiver / plan. It sounds like you know what you want to get out of the addition - and the BMT90 is not it. That is fine - 88s should be killer skis too.

If you are able to keep both for a while, then perhaps give the 88s a try and move them on if they are not for you. If you need to sell a pair, then finding another pair of BMT90s is not going to be impossible down the road as they are still in production. Also, as much as I love BMT90s, I would choose a pair of 94s over them any day of the week - so perhaps you luck out and are able to find a pair of 94s while you try the 88s.

88s with super light weight bindings will be a dream on the up, if a bit more challenging going fast downhill in all but perfect snow. You guys get a lot of dry snow though, so the shape / construction should still be super versatile - much more so than in coastal snow where 1000gr skis just simply do not have enough mass. If the 88s do not pan out then selling them with a decent binding shouldn't be impossible - there are a lot of weight weenies out there that should be frothing at just such a setup :)

I have concluded that the various BMTs are as good touring skis as I will ever need and fit my selection criteria perfectly. They are just sooooo fun and ride so well, while having just the right weight. I still want to buy other touring skis though, like all the time, but have managed to refrain this off season. There are just so many interesting skis out there, but nothing quite like BMTs. I kinda wonder how much longer they will be produced. Their current price level can't help sales - they have gotten just so expensive.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Norseman

H zone is Marker marketing bullshit. There is no structural difference in that area. Even within the H zone you may find the voids in the core. Mount whatever you want on those and use good glue with upside-down cure.

Attachment 430050

---

I regret passing on BMT 94's a few years back because of that BS. You're right, the consensus is that that was pure marketing, pretty sure I heard people were still drilling into the voids while mounting markers.

I wouldn't let it stop me from mounting whatever binding I want on it now.

Last season I picked up some Blaze's as a 50/50 ski, and drilled into 1 or 2 voids while mounting them. Whatever. Used a bit more epoxy in those holes, flipped to cure and pretty much forgot about it.

I picked up some 186cm Blaze 106 to be mounted with ATK FR14 as a dedicated touring setup. Wondering where I should mount these? Recommended is at -11.9cm, which is pretty far back and I'm curious if I should go +1 or +2cm? I would really love to only mount these once. :wink: I have the 184 V-Werks Katana w/G3 Ions and originally mounted them at recommended (-13.9cm).......didn't care for them mounted that far back and moved them up +2cm. MUCH better there......quicker, easier to pivot and I feel like I didn't lose any float or stability. I'm a pretty 'traditional' skier.....I ski the front of the boot and drive my tips. I'm currently leaning towards +1cm on the Blaze. Thanks!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cmsummit

I picked up some 186cm Blaze 106 to be mounted with ATK FR14 as a dedicated touring setup. Wondering where I should mount these? Recommended is at -11.9cm, which is pretty far back and I'm curious if I should go +1 or +2cm? I would really love to only mount these once. :wink: I have the 184 V-Werks Katana w/G3 Ions and originally mounted them at recommended (-13.9cm).......didn't care for them mounted that far back and moved them up +2cm. MUCH better there......quicker, easier to pivot and I feel like I didn't lose any float or stability. I'm a pretty 'traditional' skier.....I ski the front of the boot and drive my tips. I'm currently leaning towards +1cm on the Blaze. Thanks!

---

FWIW I mounted my 186cm Blaze 94's at +1. After a day or two of eyeballing it, standing on the ski's barefoot, moving my binding and boots around on the ski, +1 looked best to me as far as the rocker & camber were concerned.

I like to drive the front of the boots and ski too, and have always favored directional skis w/ traditional mounts like many of Volkl's free ride skis. I'm happy with how they ski at +1 and will be leaving them there.

ETA: Mine are mounted for telemark. I would have mounted at the same spot for alpine.

I have 4-5 mounts on my BMTs without issues.

Sent from my Pixel 5 using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by chicken feathers

FWIW I mounted my 186cm Blaze 94's at +1. After a day or two of eyeballing it, standing on the ski's barefoot, moving my binding and boots around on the ski, +1 looked best to me as far as the rocker & camber were concerned.

I like to drive the front of the boots and ski too, and have always favored directional skis w/ traditional mounts like many of Volkl's free ride skis. I'm happy with how they ski at +1 and will be leaving them there.

ETA: Mine are mounted for telemark. I would have mounted at the same spot for alpine.

---

Cool....thanks. Further validating my original thoughts.

Thanks for the encouragement about mounting BMTs. I know that people have been using non-marker bindings with them since they were released but I've been a bit nervous about using a relatively narrow-mount skimo race binding with them. I'd love to use an ATK SL World Cup on them since they're pretty cheap from Europe right now to compensate for their heavier weight (relative to other skinny touring skis).

Just bought my wife a set of Secret 102’s with Bindings for $400 shipped from Corbetts. She has primarily only had powder skis for the last few years so I’m curious to see what she thinks of these. Went with a 163 compared to her more normal 168-169cm setups.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cmsummit

I picked up some 186cm Blaze 106 to be mounted with ATK FR14 as a dedicated touring setup. Wondering where I should mount these? Recommended is at -11.9cm, which is pretty far back and I'm curious if I should go +1 or +2cm? I would really love to only mount these once. :wink: I have the 184 V-Werks Katana w/G3 Ions and originally mounted them at recommended (-13.9cm).......didn't care for them mounted that far back and moved them up +2cm. MUCH better there......quicker, easier to pivot and I feel like I didn't lose any float or stability. I'm a pretty 'traditional' skier.....I ski the front of the boot and drive my tips. I'm currently leaning towards +1cm on the Blaze. Thanks!

---

I like +1.5 to +2cm on my pair in a 179 and I had demo bindings on to play around with that before I mounted touring bindings at +1.5.

I didn't like +1. I felt like they could be driven from there but also needed to be... Needed more attention and felt less intuitive. Further forward they felt more intuitive for me.

Sent from my SM-A536W using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tailwind

Just bought my wife a set of Secret 102’s with Bindings for $400 shipped from Corbetts. She has primarily only had powder skis for the last few years so I’m curious to see what she thinks of these. Went with a 163 compared to her more normal 168-169cm setups.

---

Bought the same skis for my intermediate level wife after she skied my 177 K108 for a day and didn't have a single issue with them.

I went with the 170... Maybe a little long for her? But I'll borrow them too so that's good for me. [emoji38]

Edit to add: my wife's new secret 102 are noticably stiffer that my Katana 108... Like more than a little.

I hope this was a good choice.
Sent from my SM-A536W using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Benneke10

Thanks for the encouragement about mounting BMTs.

---

I've mounted Tectons/Vipecs (90,94,109x2,122x2), Pivots (BMT122s), Shifts (122), MTN/Backlands (94,109, 122) and soon Crests (90 and possibly 109, and/or 94s if I can source some) on various BMTs, zero issues across all of them. Admittedly none of the listed bindings have super narrow footprints, so perhaps not the correct medicine for not overthinking it.

I would not be hesitant to mount any type of binding on BMTs though - including tele. I would not mount tele on VTAs.

eh, I've never thought about it before, but re the list above - I think I can say that I've never had as many skis from series of skis as from the BMT line. I should get some kind of BMT accolade for being such a dedicated BMT fanboi/idiot. )All have been bought with steep discounts though) :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shorty_J

I like +1.5 to +2cm on my pair in a 179 and I had demo bindings on to play around with that before I mounted touring bindings at +1.5.

I didn't like +1. I felt like they could be driven from there but also needed to be... Needed more attention and felt less intuitive. Further forward they felt more intuitive for me.

Sent from my SM-A536W using Tapatalk

---

Thanks, decided to go +1.5cm.

I bought a pair of 186 bmt 90 cheap last year as my low tide ski. definitely hit a lot of Vermont rocks before I bought them but held up well and edges too. Small crack at tip put a couple pieces of glass and gflex patch on top. Bit long for me touring. Put some marker alpinist bindings on them. Bought mid season and primary touring skis zero g 105 were grabbed. Pretty stoked to ski them hearing how well the design has aged

Onlyshortcoming I saw was being tricky in spots like that

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cat in january

Only shortcoming I saw was being tricky in spots like that

---

The BMTs are fantastic on icy traverses due to their straight sidecut and elite construction. Check out this video my friend made of skiing the Success Couloir on Rainier on BMT 109 with a heinously exposed icy traverse at the top https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UnK_qPrO_Zo

Thanks for the correction. I was looking and thinking the reverse camber was leading to less edge. Good to know and really looking forward to giving them a spin

^ that's some real survival shit. Big line, bad snow. Oof/props. Good gawd I hate those fucking poles.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Norseman

^ that's some real survival shit. Big line, bad snow. Oof/props. Good gawd I hate those fucking poles.

---

Was just thinking the same thing about those poles. They look clumsy AF! I blame Cody.

Cool video though. Class 5+ sort of fun.

Yeah it's rad as hell. I've been looking at that line for years.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tailwind

Just bought my wife a set of Secret 102’s with Bindings for $400 shipped from Corbetts. She has primarily only had powder skis for the last few years so I’m curious to see what she thinks of these. Went with a 163 compared to her more normal 168-169cm setups.

---

So you've hand flexed them and that makes sense to put your wife on? Not being an asshole, but there is a reason that Secret 96's and 102's are always leftover. Heck, the Mantra 102's are always leftover. Because the Secret 102 is a Mantra 102, and in the case of the 163 just shorter, so it flexes even stiffer. If your wife has raced gates in the past or has demanded this ski, then carry on.

The M102 would never enter my mind to put an intermediate or lighter skier on.

Yep, if doing this so skier can grow into them, definitely skew shorter to make them less of a dead, un-fun plank at low speeds.

I’ve never flexed them… but I’m also not doing the ‘buy your lady sendy skis and hope she sends move”.

I’m honestly viewing this as ‘gathering data’ and hopefully she likes them. She hasn’t had a pair of frontside skis in…. years and nothing like this. I think she’ll get 8-10 days on them and if needed we’ll sell them for a couple hundred bucks. This is ski 5 in the quiver so only some resorts and snow conditions.

No race background but skis 60ish days per year. I think this is season 8-9 and she doesn’t have a problem skiing the fall line on hard terrain (with the exception being shitty snow). She 5’5” and maybe like 125lbs.

I think the main application I hope these do well at are a week after it’s snowed making frontside runs a bit more fun. They’re a lot lighter than some of her other skis and she’s skied stuff with a longer radius and liked them… I think they’ll be a solid addition but we’ll see if she gets bounced by the flex.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FlimFlamvanHam

So you've hand flexed them and that makes sense to put your wife on? Not being an asshole, but there is a reason that Secret 96's and 102's are always leftover. Heck, the Mantra 102's are always leftover. Because the Secret 102 is a Mantra 102, and in the case of the 163 just shorter, so it flexes even stiffer. If your wife has raced gates in the past or has demanded this ski, then carry on.

The M102 would never enter my mind to put an intermediate or lighter skier on.

---

https://www.kijiji.ca/v-ski/ottawa/2...ngs/1628423046

That line is sick. But those poles. Jesus. The snow is even worse then the poles though that’s for sure. Well done.

Just formed a pair of Mantra 102's in the 191. Hope it's not too much.

:smoking:

Stoke level 11.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Djongo Unchained

Just formed a pair of Mantra 102's in the 191. Hope it's not too much.

:smoking:

Stoke level 11.

---

Strong move. Like many have shared in the M102 thread, consider going forward of the rear (recommended) line on the 191, unless you are a big guy.