Year to year Sumo differences?

[1000-oaks]

Having owned three different Sumos now, I thought I'd update the info on this thread.

2006 Volkl Sumo (brown leather topsheet)
Published dimensions: 175cm = 145-125-142
Actual dimensions: 178.4cm (tape measure straight from tip to tail)=149.1-124.8-142.5 (wider than published), 64mm high tip (12mm higher than the 2008), 23mm high tail (lower and shorter twin than the 2008)
Weight: 2,280g
Notes: Found this on an old thread: "While the sumo is not rockered, the tips are huge and have a long rise on them. Two different generations of sumos exist. the brown (first) ones measure about a 180-182, but have a smaller contact area from the freaking huge tips. The new generation measures a true 175 and the tips are more subdued. The twin on the tail is relatively small."

2007 Volkl Sumo (black leather topsheet)
Published dimensions: 190cm=150-125-142 and 175cm=150-125-142
Notes: Volkl added the 190cm length and shortened the 175cm.

2008 Volkl Sumo (black with Sumo wrestler graphic)
Published dimensions: 190cm=150-125-142 and 175cm=150-125-142
Actual dimensions: 190cm=187.3 tip-to-tip, 52mm high tip, 29mm high tail and 175cm=172.5 tip-to-tip
Weights: 190=2,440g and 175=2,170g
Notes: 190cm length measures about 14.2mm thick at waist, 175cm length measures about 13mm thick at waist, typical glossy topsheet, lighter wood core (tips & tails CNC honeycombed) than earlier versions, clear sidewalls.


Factory boot center mark on 2008 190cm is about 1.25cm forward of traditional alpine mount and about 1.7cm behind the center of the sidecut. Boot center mark on 175 is 5cm forward of traditional alpine mount (possibly placed forward for female skiers) and is at center of sidecut.

(For reference my 183 Bro Fats measure exactly 181cm using the above tip-to-tail method.)

[MarnMan]

I have skied all of them, and i did not notice any change in flex. I was just chatting with ptex1 the other day and he got in some of 07/08 sumos. So if anyone is interested in them hit him up. cheers

[Bandit Man]

Whatever you do, get the 190's. Like a Gotama, they ski shorter than the length indicates (do have a twin), are easier to ski than you think, and more versatile then you think.

I've always thought that if Volkl would have (a) lost the leather topsheet and (b) sold them at a more reasonable price, a lot more people would be using them as their powder ski of choice.

[1000-oaks]

According to the big weight chart on the forum the Sumos appear light for their size, quite a bit lighter than Pontoons for weight/surface area.

Wonder how they'd be for a sidecountry touring ski with Barons? I hesitate to put Barons on my 'Toons, though some guys say 'Toons tour fine in fresh snow.

[grskier]

My 190 Sumos are pretty light considering how huge they are...

tour OK with the Dukes on them, but haven't had much reason to tour them yet.

[1000-oaks]

Just received a pair of 175cm '08 wrestler graphics, damn they look short compared to my 179cm Seth Vicious, wish Volkl kept them at 180cm. Pretty light though. The clear sidewalls and sections of base are unique. At 5'9", 160 lbs, ex-high school ski racer (but not all that good) and in fair shape I didn't think I have the horsepower to drive 190s.

I ski mostly tight trees (& sometimes end up in brush) hunting for powder, so I don't go very fast and don't have the knees or balls to huck. I know most guys say get 190's here, but that seems like a lot of ski for my size & what I do...guess I need to decide before I drill these though.

[SiSt]

I fondled a pair of the leather 190´s the other day, and when I pressed the bases together,(they don´t have much camber to start with either) they looked to have about 30-35cms of (very slight) rocker. Anyone care to comment?

[1000-oaks]

Just tried that with the '08 175's and there's no rocker. Tips and tails are a fair amount longer than Seth Vicious, but I wouldn't begin to call it rocker. Were the leather 190's used or new?

[SiSt]

Brand new.

And long tips might be a better description than rocker.

They looked like they would be very pivotable though.

[grskier]

190s ski short, I have the 08s..

a little longer tips, nothing huge though.

very, very little rocker.

[Timmy Two Planks]

just something to get you excited: 190's

[mountain_man]

Digin the pic man, got a higher res one?

[1000-oaks]

Sweet pic! Thinking I may stay with the 175, read a few mini-reviews where guys 25 lbs bigger than me said the 190's are a handful if you're not hauling ass, especially in tight trees. For jumping and open terrain I'm sure the 190's are money.

[1000-oaks]

Skied the 175's yesterday in 24" of unusually light Sierra powder, GREAT tight tree skis for someone my size. (5'9", 160 lbs) I wished they were 180cm, but mounted at -5 (ball of foot 2cm behind center of running length) the float and ease of turning was awesome. The -5 mount is a bit far back for the groomers, but if you prefer a traditional alpine mount and longer GS type turns it's fine. I just couldn't mount them on the boot center mark - just not enough ski in front for the deep stuff IMHO.

[1000-oaks]

Dredging this thread back up, just got a pair of the 2006 vintage and measured them to update the above info. Looks like a fun ski, glad to see the 2006 really is 6cm longer than the 2008 175cm model and just as fat!

For the record I really liked the 2008 "175", but at 172.5cm they were just too short so I sold them and bought the 190. But then found the 190 too long and stiff for my weight/skills in tight trees at low speeds (in fast, open alpine terrain the 190 would be great, but I'm always bushwhacking in the trees for leftover pow), so I've been on the hunt for something in between the 2008 175 and the 190. Looks like the brown 2006 "180" might just be the thing.

[SgtSkidmark]

Nice thread revival. I love my 2007 190 Sumos in tight trees, but that's because I weigh 70 pounds more than you (assuming you haven't ballooned since you stated your weight in '08). Too bad they didn't make a 183ish...

[1000-oaks]

Those 2008 175's were hands-down the quickest turning skis in mid-thigh deep powder I've ever been on, just think about turning and they came around on a dime, springing you into the next turn like a diving board. But that also made them a little too turny at speed in the deep...probably a bit too soft for my weight and they were flexed into an arc all the time. Or maybe that's how they're supposed to be and I'm just always on skis that are too stiff...lol.