Feedback: Black Crows Camox Freebird vs Salomon MTN 95 explorer

[admx]

So looking to replace my current ski mountaineering rig. Looking for something near 95-100 underfoot that handles pretty much anything one could run into on long ski mountaineering tours (e.g. soft snow, crud, crust etc...) while I know most skis won't handle this all really well my current rig is so light (6lbs with bindings) that it just deflects off of anything that isn't either firm or soft. Skis around 7 lbs I think would be best as I'm not super heavy (165 in a 6'2 frame) and plan on mounting G3 ions.

The two skis I seem to think fit the bill are the Camox Freebird and the new Salomon MTN 95. Having skied the MTN it does seem to be a good "jack of all trades ski" but the profile of the Camox also seems like it would be a great ski as well. Not looking for a straight-line ripper but something that is solid and fun on the way down. My other concern is that the limited info on the Camox some seem to think the ski is super soft.

I also road the DPS 99 tour recently and while it was fun; wasn't my fav and for the $.

Are there any other skis the collective feels might fit the bill?

Thanks in advance.

[gregL]

Salomon MTN Explore 95 is awesome and matches your requirements perfectly. Also Fischer Hannibal 100, Dynastar Mythic and Armada KUFO would be good choices. Haven't skied any of the Freebird skis.

[alpinevibes]

FWIW: my wife just got a pair of the new Navis Freebird (102mm). One thing of note: from last year to this year with the Freebird is that they lightened the skis ~200g. With that in mind, we forked over the $600 for the new ones.

She likes stiff skis (old Head Monster 88 is her DD; Fatypus D-Sender is her pow ski). She was interested in the Tour1, but along with price was unsure about getting on a ski that light. The Freebird was a nice in-between (I couldn't get her interested in Voile or Fisher Hannibal options). The ski is not particularily stiff, but has an even flex and is predictable for its layup/weight. It's an adjustment for her, but she likes that its quick and responsive; should be great for touring in all conditions.

[femurboy]

bump on this old thread. I'm deciding between the same two skis, current versions tho. Planning to mount g3 ions. Downhill performance is more important to me than uphill weight. This is to complement my BD Boundary 115's with tectons that I use for pow days when I don't mind lugging them around.

I'm 5'6", 135 lb, but aggressive skier and usually have quite a bit in my 35L airbag pack, so skiing weight is more like 150-155. My resort skis are usually in the low 180's, as have been my touring skis, but would like to stay in the 178 models for some weight savings and uphill kick turns and downhill jump turns ease. So I'm also interested to know if these two skis ski short or long for their length. If that makes sense.

And are there other skis I should be considering? The blizzard zeroG 95 for instance?

Thanks,

Mark

[gregL]

The blizzard zeroG 95 for instance?

Absolutely consider it, almost everyone I know owns one, but it's a very lightweight 95.

It sounds like you might be more in the market for the Volkl V-Werks Mantra, Line Vision 99, or Head KORE 99 if you are prioritizing downhill performance and are willing to carry a little more weight. All are "alpine" skis that are light enough for most people to consider as touring skis.

PS I've since skied on the Camox Freebird and it's a fine ski.

[gregL]

Armada Tracer 98 might also be a contender . . .

[femurboy]

Thanks for those suggestions. I should be more specific - I'm not as concerned about weight when comparing those two skis - I still want to keep it around or below 3000 grams. So the Head and Armada are heavier than I'd like to go. Volkl too expensive. But the Line looks interesting, I'll definitely add that to my short list.

[Lord Thomas]

Others you might look at are Volkl VTA 98's. Only limited experience with them but they were shockingly good on bulletproof. Very confidence inspiring and don't get nearly the press they deserve. Tragic that Volkl quit producing the BMT 94

[cravenmorhead]

I haven't skied the Salomon, but I have a few days on the Camox Freebird and I really like the ski. I wanted a light do-it-all ski that I expect to be on every touring day that isn't on deep powder or October/November rocks. The Camox, particularly the newer, lightened model, seems to fit the bill well. Enough width to float, enough sidecut and traditional camber underfoot to encourage confidence in steep terrain and/or bad snow. Though I'll note that I'm not coming from a background of really stiff skis. The Camox feels stiffer than the Volkl Nanuqs that I'm coming from, but that wasn't a particularly stiff ski.

[whyturn]

The Camox is same profile and shape as my Corvus which is a great all mtn ski. I have not tried Camox yet but hope to this weekend and will let you know


Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

[femurboy]

I've pretty much settled on the Black Crows Camox freebird, but am struggling a bit to decide between the 177 and 183 - any feedback here? I'm an aggressive skier but small. Most of my skis are in the low to mid 180's. But I'd sure love the weight savings, uphill ease, and tight skiing versatility of the shorter length if it doesn't limit my ability to ski fast too much.

As for the other skis on the list - Checked out the Line Vision 98 which hand flexed like a noodle and had way too much tip and tail rocker for me. Volkls look interesting but are way more expensive than everything else. The salomon looks sweet and gets good reviews, but the rocker profile makes me think it will ski a little shorter in a given length than the camox. Also Salomon kind of screwed over my local favorite shop, saying that Vail, who as we all know bought Crested Butte mountain last year, has requested that they limit the amount of other shops in the area who carry Salomon skis. So if the Salomons and Black Crows are in the same ballpark I'd rather give my money to Black Crows.

[Falcon3]

I have Camox FB in 183. Had a pair of 178 pass through my hands as well. I think the 183 will be pretty money for me at 5-10” 190 and mine weigh 1560g/ski. Depends on your use. I bought mine for all around touring -longer multi lap days in winter then volcano skiing in the spring. If I were just doing corn harvest or mountaineering I’d go for 178

[cravenmorhead]

I'm smaller and lighter than Falcon (5'8" 175) and like the 178s. Femur, I expect you'd be fine on either.

[whyturn]

Camox FB is a feather on the up and solid down. Makes medium radius carves and can slide out if needed. Skied on groomer in shade with somewhat steep section and handled it surprisingly well. Never reached Mach but don’t want to on pins. Very versatile and carves like Corvus. I’m impressed with my 183 and will go again soon


Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

[whyturn]

Update for slushy pow tour yesterday. Slid well to get down sketchy sections. Also was somewhat floaty in foot of N facing leftovers. Continue to impressed with versatility


Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

[tomh79]

One year later...I'm asking myself the same question. (6'4" - 177) - will use it for mountaineering, occasional groomer lap - have a BD helio 105 for deeper days. I'm not an expert skier---rather medium I would say. Would appreciate any help because I cannot test the skis. Also interested in the Zero G ...

[kc_7777]

Atomic Backland 100? New this year so no reviews but should ski similar to Backland 107.

[alpinevibes]

One year later...I'm asking myself the same question. (6'4" - 177) - will use it for mountaineering, occasional groomer lap - have a BD helio 105 for deeper days. I'm not an expert skier---rather medium I would say. Would appreciate any help because I cannot test the skis. Also interested in the Zero G ...

The MTN 95 is heavier than the Helio 105 and Camox only slightly lighter. I’m not a weight weenie and I know that the Camox and MYN 95 have excellent ski feel/capability, but you’re still ending up with a bit of overlap. You will get a bit more maneuverability from the skinnier skis with a shorter radius.

Can’t speak to the ZG85 or 95 personally, but I skied the ZG108 for a long time a liked it. Sounds like they’ve improved things all around and the ZG85 and 95 have nice weights as well.

If you want a dedicated mountaineering ski, I’d drop to a 85-90mm ski and have a more diverse quiver. I ski the Ova Freebird in a 180 with Helio 200 and have been very happy with the weight/performance blend for the price.


Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

[whyturn]

Camox is not soft. Works well on groomers and spring slush. Is easy and intuitive as well as skis long due to large amount of camber. I have 183 and it is my go ski early and late season. In more than a foot I’m bringing voile V8 or wootest. I’m 6-3 190. Ski in Utah.

Can’t speak to Solomon or zero g but never gelled with Salomon. Zero g is highly rated but in speaking with some mags I’ve met touring its not as versatile as my Camox.


Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

[tomh79]

Thanks!!!

[tomh79]

If you want a dedicated mountaineering ski, I’d drop to a 85-90mm ski and have a more diverse quiver. I ski the Ova Freebird in a 180 with Helio 200 and have been very happy with the weight/performance blend for the price.
Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

This is true of course - but then I bought the Helio 105 4 years ago (was a test ski) and I don't know how much life is left...of course buying 2 new skis would be great - then I would totally go for a 90 / 115 combination...

[CaliBrit]

Haven’t skied the MTN. But got to ski some groomers on my camox freebird’s 188’s. And damn. Finally a light ski that doesn’t ski like total crap. Really like them so far. Really do ski very well. Mounted with FR14’s.