5'8 160lbs - Advanced I bought these (2024 editions) based on reviews which stated it was a good ski for lighter skiers who were looking for something to take into the bumps and trees. After 4 days of skiing bumps and trees in Tremblant I can say that these are a fantastic option. You can also use these on groomers and are very serviceable - which is another feature I wanted. If you're skiing 75% in the bumps and trees with 25% on groomers these are a great option for you. If you're looking for 75% groomers you may wish to consider the 89Ti to stiffen things up a bit. My "main" skis are the K2 Disruption MTI so I was not at all concerned with having a carving ski to go fast and hard with. The Mindbender 90C does get a little floppy at high speed - but it's not what they are meant for. Looking forward to getting a few seasons of fun on these sticks!
Hi great video as always! I am 5"5 tall 58kg Intermediate skier who ski mostly on piste, groomers and some moguls. My legs aren't as strong as before as I am getting older so I am looking for more forgiving skis that are easier to turn and handle moguls as well. How are these skis compared to K2 mindbender 85/89ti, Atomic Bent 85/90 or Atomic Maverick 86c/88ti ? Which one would suit me better? Thanks for the suggestion.
If you're looking for something a bit more forgiving and maneuverable for moguls, the Mindbender 85 makes a lot of sense and it's a great value. it has a lot of energy due to the camber, and it has a surprisingly high performance ceiling. I'd lean that route. Have fun! SE
Hi there, I'm 56, quite expert skier who likes one quiver for most terrains/situations. I'm 178 and I weight 69 kg and I got a pair of these in 177cm size. Well, sometimes, I feel like the size it's a bit too long and demanding that keeps some of the fun away, example while in the trees etc. Would you recommend to go for the 170cm? Or what about going straight toward the new 172cm 96C? Thanks a lot for your point of view.
Do you ever feel like the 90 isn't enough width? The fear is that if you are a one ski person, the 96 may feel wide for the non-soft times. If you like the overall character of the 90, just that it's a bit long and unwieldy at that length, then I support a move to the 170 rather than going wider if you don't think you need the width.
great video. looking for a new set this season. eyeing the K2 mindbender 90C vs Rossi Experience 86 basalt that you also reviewed. I would consider myself an intermediate to advance on groomed trails with family on weekends. which one would you recommend? TiA!
I'd say the Experience 86 Basalt offers a better turning experience on groomed intermediate trails. The K2 is a bit flexible in the shovel and isn't quite as groomer-focused as the Experience, which also has some versatility to it.
Hello, I am interested in this ski but I'm hesitant about the size. I'm 173cm (5'8") , 67 kg (150 lbs) intermediate skier in Central Europe (so the conditions we have are pretty similar to yours East Coast I presume). I want to use it mainly to master short turns in the steeps. I won't take it off-piste much, if ever it will be more like tight trees around the groomers and bumps. Thus I'm considering this ski in 163, which I know is on the short side for an all-mountain ski, but seems to match my needs. Am I correct, or should I go for 170, as most people advise generally? (I tried to ask the question on your website, but somehow it did not work, so just in case sorry for double posting). Thanks for the great work, cheers! Piotr
Hey guys, back again for some advice. I'm looking to add a ski to my quiver this season specifically for trees and bumps. I'm a strong intermediate skier, 6'3, 235 lbs and 49 years old. I'm not a particularly good bump skier, and don't have much tree skier experience.. I have ranger 92tis in 185, which will be my primary skis, but I think they're gonna be a lot to handle on tight bumps and trees. I'm open to any suggestions, specifically in terms of length. I feel like I should drop down into the high 170s with a laminate, and stick with something longer in a non metal ski, just because of my weight. Have skied the 90TI a few times and liked it but leaning toward a non metal ski , for this application. Particularly know Bob is monster in the bumps and he seems to like the more springy carbon type skis for those applications. Can't tell you how much the ski world appreciates you guys!
Thanks, Scott! I'm a huge fan of the Atomic Bent 90 for bumps and trees. I feel that the K2 90C is another good choice, but is more directional in nature, so isn't quite as good in the woods as the Bent. I ski that in a 184 at 6/2 225 and it is awesome. One that caught my eye these past few years is the Black Crows Captis--same 90 mm underfoot width, and a bit more active than the Bent. If you want a shorter ski for this application, I'm not going to stop you, but I do think you could handle the longer lengths in these skis. That will effectively take the 90C off your list since it tops out at 177. Hope that helps! SE/bob
@@SkiEssentials I greatly appreciate that Bob answered me in particular.. That's what makes S.E. the best in the business. Thanks for the reply Bob, and for confirming that the 177 Is probably a poor choice. I will start looking for a set of Bents.. Hope you all have a great Christmans and a fun ski season.
I just bought these in 170cm, how well will it perform on ice? I’m coming from an Elan Wingman 78 Carbon ski, which was simply ok on ice, but terrible in pow and trees, which was why I upgraded to these, as I appreciate lightweight and playful skis (I ski in Quebec primarily). Should I expect similar, better, or worse edge holds on ice than my previous pair? Thanks!
@@SkiEssentials I honestly felt that the wingman had a similar edge hold to the various rental skis I learned on, which I wasn’t expecting. My edges were razor sharp as well!
Thanks for sharing. I've got a very good price here in France for that model. As it has no metal plate and is in the same width range, would you say it's close to the Salomon QST92 which is my benchmark pair for all mountain days ? And does the ski likes to vary turn radius on groomed snow ? Thank you so much.
Yes they are very similar in terms of behavior and application. You will get a bit more energy out of the QST as it has more stiffness to it, so there's a higher performance ceiling here. Both are very versatile, but the QST takes that to the next level when it comes to changing turn shape and style mid-run.
I'd say Bent 90. There's more fun to be had on that ski in terms of quickness, agility, and playfulness. Great in the bumps and trees, and a pretty darn good floater for a 90 mm underfoot ski. Have fun! SE
Personally, I think the QST has a lot more to offer, but I'm 6/2 225 and I'm sized out of the K2. The Maverick is quick, agile, and responsive, but not as fun-loving as the QST.
5'8 160lbs - Advanced
I bought these (2024 editions) based on reviews which stated it was a good ski for lighter skiers who were looking for something to take into the bumps and trees. After 4 days of skiing bumps and trees in Tremblant I can say that these are a fantastic option. You can also use these on groomers and are very serviceable - which is another feature I wanted. If you're skiing 75% in the bumps and trees with 25% on groomers these are a great option for you.
If you're looking for 75% groomers you may wish to consider the 89Ti to stiffen things up a bit. My "main" skis are the K2 Disruption MTI so I was not at all concerned with having a carving ski to go fast and hard with. The Mindbender 90C does get a little floppy at high speed - but it's not what they are meant for.
Looking forward to getting a few seasons of fun on these sticks!
Great feedback, thanks for sharing!
Hi great video as always! I am 5"5 tall 58kg Intermediate skier who ski mostly on piste, groomers and some moguls. My legs aren't as strong as before as I am getting older so I am looking for more forgiving skis that are easier to turn and handle moguls as well. How are these skis compared to K2 mindbender 85/89ti, Atomic Bent 85/90 or Atomic Maverick 86c/88ti ? Which one would suit me better? Thanks for the suggestion.
If you're looking for something a bit more forgiving and maneuverable for moguls, the Mindbender 85 makes a lot of sense and it's a great value. it has a lot of energy due to the camber, and it has a surprisingly high performance ceiling. I'd lean that route. Have fun!
SE
Hi there, I'm 56, quite expert skier who likes one quiver for most terrains/situations. I'm 178 and I weight 69 kg and I got a pair of these in 177cm size. Well, sometimes, I feel like the size it's a bit too long and demanding that keeps some of the fun away, example while in the trees etc. Would you recommend to go for the 170cm? Or what about going straight toward the new 172cm 96C? Thanks a lot for your point of view.
Do you ever feel like the 90 isn't enough width? The fear is that if you are a one ski person, the 96 may feel wide for the non-soft times. If you like the overall character of the 90, just that it's a bit long and unwieldy at that length, then I support a move to the 170 rather than going wider if you don't think you need the width.
great video. looking for a new set this season. eyeing the K2 mindbender 90C vs Rossi Experience 86 basalt that you also reviewed. I would consider myself an intermediate to advance on groomed trails with family on weekends. which one would you recommend? TiA!
I'd say the Experience 86 Basalt offers a better turning experience on groomed intermediate trails. The K2 is a bit flexible in the shovel and isn't quite as groomer-focused as the Experience, which also has some versatility to it.
Thanks for the quick response
One more question, Rossi 86 Vs 82?
Hello, I am interested in this ski but I'm hesitant about the size. I'm 173cm (5'8") , 67 kg (150 lbs) intermediate skier in Central Europe (so the conditions we have are pretty similar to yours East Coast I presume). I want to use it mainly to master short turns in the steeps. I won't take it off-piste much, if ever it will be more like tight trees around the groomers and bumps. Thus I'm considering this ski in 163, which I know is on the short side for an all-mountain ski, but seems to match my needs. Am I correct, or should I go for 170, as most people advise generally?
(I tried to ask the question on your website, but somehow it did not work, so just in case sorry for double posting).
Thanks for the great work, cheers!
Piotr
I'd say the 170 is the way to go based on your stats and application, but if you're still hesitant, there's nothing wrong with shorter skis.
Hey guys, back again for some advice. I'm looking to add a ski to my quiver this season specifically for trees and bumps. I'm a strong intermediate skier, 6'3, 235 lbs and 49 years old.
I'm not a particularly good bump skier, and don't have much tree skier experience..
I have ranger 92tis in 185, which will be my primary skis, but I think they're gonna be a lot to handle on tight bumps and trees.
I'm open to any suggestions, specifically in terms of length. I feel like I should drop down into the high 170s with a laminate, and stick with something longer in a non metal ski, just because of my weight.
Have skied the 90TI a few times and liked it but leaning toward a non metal ski , for this application. Particularly know Bob is monster in the bumps and he seems to like the more springy carbon type skis for those applications.
Can't tell you how much the ski world appreciates you guys!
Thanks, Scott!
I'm a huge fan of the Atomic Bent 90 for bumps and trees. I feel that the K2 90C is another good choice, but is more directional in nature, so isn't quite as good in the woods as the Bent. I ski that in a 184 at 6/2 225 and it is awesome. One that caught my eye these past few years is the Black Crows Captis--same 90 mm underfoot width, and a bit more active than the Bent. If you want a shorter ski for this application, I'm not going to stop you, but I do think you could handle the longer lengths in these skis. That will effectively take the 90C off your list since it tops out at 177. Hope that helps!
SE/bob
@@SkiEssentials
I greatly appreciate that Bob answered me in particular.. That's what makes S.E. the best in the business.
Thanks for the reply Bob, and for confirming that the 177 Is probably a poor choice.
I will start looking for a set of Bents..
Hope you all have a great Christmans and a fun ski season.
I just bought these in 170cm, how well will it perform on ice? I’m coming from an Elan Wingman 78 Carbon ski, which was simply ok on ice, but terrible in pow and trees, which was why I upgraded to these, as I appreciate lightweight and playful skis (I ski in Quebec primarily). Should I expect similar, better, or worse edge holds on ice than my previous pair? Thanks!
I'd say the edge hold is on the worse side versus the Wingman 78, but exceptionally better in all other departments.
@@SkiEssentials I honestly felt that the wingman had a similar edge hold to the various rental skis I learned on, which I wasn’t expecting. My edges were razor sharp as well!
Thanks for sharing. I've got a very good price here in France for that model. As it has no metal plate and is in the same width range, would you say it's close to the Salomon QST92 which is my benchmark pair for all mountain days ? And does the ski likes to vary turn radius on groomed snow ? Thank you so much.
Yes they are very similar in terms of behavior and application. You will get a bit more energy out of the QST as it has more stiffness to it, so there's a higher performance ceiling here. Both are very versatile, but the QST takes that to the next level when it comes to changing turn shape and style mid-run.
@@SkiEssentials Thanks a lot for taking time to answer. I don't want less stiffness, the QST is already on the soft end of the spectrum for me !
K2's or Atomic Bent 90's? Which do y'all prefer for all around playfulness, lightness, all-mountain out west skiing?
I'd say Bent 90. There's more fun to be had on that ski in terms of quickness, agility, and playfulness. Great in the bumps and trees, and a pretty darn good floater for a 90 mm underfoot ski. Have fun!
SE
Get these or atomic mavericks or Solomon qst
Personally, I think the QST has a lot more to offer, but I'm 6/2 225 and I'm sized out of the K2. The Maverick is quick, agile, and responsive, but not as fun-loving as the QST.