Talk me out of the Fischer Hannibal by recommending a better 95-100mm touring ski

[Cosmic Suncloud]

From 2009

not really. yes tip some tip rocker is helpful in most situations where you'd use a 95. but for steep skiing in hard or variable conditions (which is what most people would use a 95 for), the general approach in 2017 is still to have a flat, or near flat tail, with some (but not excessive) tip rocker.

if you want a "lighter" ski to use for powder because its easier on the way up, i'd suggest staying wide but going shorter.

[CaliBrit]

not really. yes tip some tip rocker is helpful in most situations where you'd use a 95. but for steep skiing in hard or variable conditions (which is what most people would use a 95 for), the general approach in 2017 is still to have a flat, or near flat tail, with some (but not excessive) tip rocker.

if you want a "lighter" ski to use for powder because its easier on the way up, i'd suggest staying wide but going shorter.

A 95-100 with nice tip rocker will ski powder and junky power just fine.

[Cosmic Suncloud]

A 95-100 with nice tip rocker will ski powder and junky power just fine.

agreed - there are just so many damn good skis out there today. pretty awesome compared to a decade ago.

[I've seen black diamonds!]

I'm the "everything is fun in powder" camp. But subtle tip and tail rocker can make a big difference in wet or grabby snow.

[grinch]

Also in punchy spring snow, runnels, sun cups , buried stream depressions. Quiet often a mixed bag when these skis come out

[telelebowski]

Was it just the one pair?

Unfortunately, yes. I bought them off a guy who bought them on closeout at Teton Mountaineering last season and never mounted them. I have absolutely no need for them whatsoever. Time to invent some glacier slog mission.

[doebedoe]

Praxis yeti skis well in any condition and will last much longer . I Miss that ski. Guessing there'll be a pre season sale

Praxis yeti all the way. Tried many in this category and hated them all. Most are too light and unstable. Yeti is light enough and will ski anything well, not just make it down like many skis in this category.

3rd on the Yeti. Its so damn versatile. It's light enough, and at 94mm waist, skis boot-top powder better than many 10-somethings I've been on. Any day I'm not sure I'll be skiing mostly deep powder, they are easy to pull out and just ski.

[anotherVTskibum]

After skiing the Sego Bighorn 96 at a demo last June, I'm hoping to buy a pair this winter as a variable/hard-snow side-and-bc ski, especially for spring/summer couloir chasing. My Dynafit Huascarans are great in good snow and weigh virtually nothing, but they don't hold up very well to runnels or hard snow...which means I ended up spending a fair bit of time this summer hauling around a much heavier setup (Lhasas mounted w/STH14s). I skied the Bighorn 96 back-to-back with the Lhasas on a relatively firm day, and the Bighorns seemed just as stable despite being nominally a bit shorter, and 96 vs 117 underfoot was much better on firm snow.

[Climber Joe]

After skiing the Sego Bighorn 96 at a demo last June, I'm hoping to buy a pair this winter as a variable/hard-snow side-and-bc ski, especially for spring/summer couloir chasing. My Dynafit Huascarans are great in good snow and weigh virtually nothing, but they don't hold up very well to runnels or hard snow...which means I ended up spending a fair bit of time this summer hauling around a much heavier setup (Lhasas mounted w/STH14s). I skied the Bighorn 96 back-to-back with the Lhasas on a relatively firm day, and the Bighorns seemed just as stable despite being nominally a bit shorter, and 96 vs 117 underfoot was much better on firm snow.

I have the Big Horn 106 as an everyday resort ski, don't really think they would make a good touring rig. Sego makes a good touring ski though. They have a full composite core and ski much like the La Sportivas.

[ma95a0]

I'm in a similar situation, looking for something for multiple laps or long days, but have solid edge hold, and handle firm, icy conditions. Thinking <1600g, and 95-105 waist. Right now i'm on JJ2.0s with Rad 2.0s, amazing ski, just too heavy for multilap. I'm leary of the Atomics only because i tried the new Bent Chelter 100s and wasn't impressed - weak edge hold, and nothing special on powder.

I've narrowed it down to the following:
1. Fischer Hannibal
2. Blizzard Zero G95
3. Atomic BL 95
4. Atomic BL 107 (somehow they got these down to 1530/182!)

If anyone has experience with any of these i'd love to hear your thoughts.

Climber Joe?
CallBrit?

Thanks!

[Climber Joe]

I'm in a similar situation, looking for something for multiple laps or long days, but have solid edge hold, and handle firm, icy conditions. Thinking <1600g, and 95-105 waist. Right now i'm on JJ2.0s with Rad 2.0s, amazing ski, just too heavy for multilap. I'm leary of the Atomics only because i tried the new Bent Chelter 100s and wasn't impressed - weak edge hold, and nothing special on powder.

I've narrowed it down to the following:
1. Fischer Hannibal
2. Blizzard Zero G95
3. Atomic BL 95
4. Atomic BL 107 (somehow they got these down to 1530/182!)

If anyone has experience with any of these i'd love to hear your thoughts.

Climber Joe?
CaliBrit?

Thanks!

So I ended up getting Movement Alp Tracks LT 94s. They aren't the best on ice, but they do just fine. I think the best hard snow ski in that weight category is actually the Salomon MTN Explore 88/95. They are great.

[1000-oaks]

Atomic BL 107 (somehow they got these down to 1530/182!)

Was going to get VTA 108, but looking hard at these BL107's, on paper they tic all the boxes.

[406]

I'm also looking at the Atomic BL 95...would be using for spring conditions in Sierra and SoCal. Been on the dynafit 191 stokes for the last few years.