I have been searching through your channel and haven't found a review of the K2 Wayback series (especially of the former 96, now from 2023/2024 update in 94 and 98 mm width versions). It would be nice to see a test or review of the new Wayback series, especially the 98 mm model.
Touring skis are tougher to review (and more specific to the skier) than alpine skis. K2 Wayback is a great option though for skiers who are looking for the stability of a partial metal laminate and the light weight use of carbon stringers. Most touring skiers are hung up only grams, so the lighter the better. It's easy to go by this measurement if your only requirement is uphill efficiency, but most skiers are looking for a balance. Wayback seems to be in the middle, with a slight lean towards uphill access.
Also coming from hannibal 96 which was serving me great almost in all conditions. Kind of torn between this and Atomic backland 100, which is lighter, but probably less stable on downhill? What would be your recommendation?
I do think the new build of the Fischer makes it a smoother and more stable performer than the lighter and snappier Backland 100. I do think the stability edge goes to the Fischer.
Hi, thanks for all your reviews & tips! How does this Fischer 98 CTi compare to a Blizzard Zero G 95 in terms of downhill performance? I'd assume the wider shovel & waist, more rocker and added Titanal combined produce a more solid, damp ride? Although the Blizzard is surprisingly sturdy for it's weight..
The Zero G always felt too light and pingy for downhill use. It's very efficient climbing, and in soft snow, it's fine, but when it gets cut up, I feel like it lacks stability. I hear what you're saying about sturdiness, but I've felt that it's too light/stiff. The Fischer can pass as a true alpine ski at a lighter weight--more stability and dampness for sure. It flexes nicely, so it acclimatizes to the terrain underfoot better than the Blizzard.
@@SkiEssentials thanks a ton!!!! Would you opt for 176 or 183 length given 90kg/183cm? 180 would be perfect, haha. I'd lean towards the shorter length - given it's meant for alpine touring, moderate speeds, maneuverability, technical terrain and less focus on (stability at) speed. But maybe 183 is fine too (previous 178 in Zero G, 186 in Rustler 10).
The Transalp has a smoother flex and I think this helps the soft snow performance quite a bit. Hannibal felt a bit jarring at times and the metal of the Transalp doesn't weigh it down a lot and really smooths things out, especially when the snow and terrain get more technical.
I have been searching through your channel and haven't found a review of the K2 Wayback series (especially of the former 96, now from 2023/2024 update in 94 and 98 mm width versions). It would be nice to see a test or review of the new Wayback series, especially the 98 mm model.
Touring skis are tougher to review (and more specific to the skier) than alpine skis. K2 Wayback is a great option though for skiers who are looking for the stability of a partial metal laminate and the light weight use of carbon stringers. Most touring skiers are hung up only grams, so the lighter the better. It's easy to go by this measurement if your only requirement is uphill efficiency, but most skiers are looking for a balance. Wayback seems to be in the middle, with a slight lean towards uphill access.
Also coming from hannibal 96 which was serving me great almost in all conditions. Kind of torn between this and Atomic backland 100, which is lighter, but probably less stable on downhill? What would be your recommendation?
I have the same question - Backland 100 vs Transalp 98 (or maybe 105?) - would love to hear the verdict
I do think the new build of the Fischer makes it a smoother and more stable performer than the lighter and snappier Backland 100. I do think the stability edge goes to the Fischer.
Hi, thanks for all your reviews & tips!
How does this Fischer 98 CTi compare to a Blizzard Zero G 95 in terms of downhill performance?
I'd assume the wider shovel & waist, more rocker and added Titanal combined produce a more solid, damp ride? Although the Blizzard is surprisingly sturdy for it's weight..
The Zero G always felt too light and pingy for downhill use. It's very efficient climbing, and in soft snow, it's fine, but when it gets cut up, I feel like it lacks stability. I hear what you're saying about sturdiness, but I've felt that it's too light/stiff. The Fischer can pass as a true alpine ski at a lighter weight--more stability and dampness for sure. It flexes nicely, so it acclimatizes to the terrain underfoot better than the Blizzard.
@@SkiEssentials thanks a ton!!!!
Would you opt for 176 or 183 length given 90kg/183cm? 180 would be perfect, haha.
I'd lean towards the shorter length - given it's meant for alpine touring, moderate speeds, maneuverability, technical terrain and less focus on (stability at) speed. But maybe 183 is fine too (previous 178 in Zero G, 186 in Rustler 10).
@@hel_dic I'd go 183 given your stats and application. This way you will not worry if you've left performance on the table.
How different is this from the Hannibal 96 in terms of ski performance?
The Transalp has a smoother flex and I think this helps the soft snow performance quite a bit. Hannibal felt a bit jarring at times and the metal of the Transalp doesn't weigh it down a lot and really smooths things out, especially when the snow and terrain get more technical.