Results 1 to 23 of 23
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Location
    Seattle, WA
    Posts
    2,184

    MTN Explore 88 vs 95

    If anyone has been on both, do they ski pretty much the same except for float? I've seen a lot of info about the 95's, but not much about the 88. The weight savings are not insignificant.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    WA
    Posts
    1,128

    MTN Explore 88 vs 95

    Paging Lee. The 88s area around super cheap, so this is pressing . How good are the 88s in nonpow, as in firm or corn?

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Winthrop, WA.
    Posts
    1,592
    The wife and I both took a single run on next year's 95's (topsheet change only) at the recent dealer demon and were pretty shocked by how poorly the edges held on bulletproof, especially compared to other similar offerings including: Hannibals, VTA 98, Backland 95, Zero G 95........ We tested a bunch of touring boards and they were at the bottom of the heap with respect to grip on firm. Would really give me pause on a scratchy entrance. May have simply been the tune, or lack of tune, but we both experienced the same thing on the 77's and 84's we tried. On conditions other than really hard and scraped off the 95's are excellent. The best ski that Salomon makes in my opinion. I would have gotten on the 88's but they didn't even have any available for demo. From what I've read the 88's are similar to the 95's with a touch less rocker and a slightly more splayed tail. Doesn't really answer your questions but it's all I got. I've been looking hard at the 88's myself.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    North Vancouver/Whistler
    Posts
    13,985
    Quote Originally Posted by Andyski View Post
    Paging Lee. The 88s area around super cheap, so this is pressing . How good are the 88s in nonpow, as in firm or corn?
    They're fine. Good edgehold on old icy bedsurface and manky couloir entrances

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Eburg
    Posts
    13,243
    Quote Originally Posted by Lord Thomas View Post
    The wife and I both took a single run on next year's 95's (topsheet change only) at the recent dealer demon and were pretty shocked by how poorly the edges held on bulletproof, especially compared to other similar offerings including: Hannibals, VTA 98, Backland 95, Zero G 95........
    Oh shit, I had narrowed to 95s and Hannibal, then decided on the 95 and found a deal, but this gets me rethinking. Was it a bad tune? Anybody?

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Winthrop, WA.
    Posts
    1,592
    I've skied 95's in soft conditions and thought they were great. Was thinking about getting a pair for my wife (who absolutely lovers her Hannibal 100's) but this really gave us pause. I am perfectly willing, and actually hopeful, that someone else will have had good experience with them on hard surfaces. I really want to like this ski for a spring touring option. It's shocking how often reps show up to demos with shitty tunes on their skis and this may have been a good example. I would encourage you to get observations from others and consider our experience as one of many.

    That said, I can say that we were both duly impressed with several others in these conditions. With respect to grip on icy we would rank them from best to least as: Zero G 95, VTA 98, Hannibal = Backland 95 = VTA 108, all being pretty close, then G3's new Synapse 101 replacement (can't remember the name),..........and then Mtn Explore 95. Given the construction it's hard to understand why we experience such poor edge grip. In fact, my wife tried the first and I saw, but didn't fully believe, what she was experiencing, which is what led me to try them myself with the same results. I'm really interested to hear what others have experienced. Both the 95's and 88's should be kick ass spring skis.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Eburg
    Posts
    13,243
    Quote Originally Posted by Lord Thomas View Post
    Both the 95's and 88's should be kick ass spring skis.
    That's my intended purpose, along with boot top or less pow. 95s sound great, super versatile, but your comments re edge hold spook me cuz I'd use them for stratovolcanoes and other tours where I'm likely to encounter firm up high. I tried Zero G 95s, not for me.

    Anybody help re LT and Mrs. LT were victims of a bad tune?

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Winthrop, WA.
    Posts
    1,592
    Below is a quote from the Blister 17/18 Buyers guide regarding the Explore 95. Their experience doesn't jibe with ours so I inclined to think at least part of what we experienced was poor tune. Lee's response above also supports the idea that they are good on ice. It however gives me pause in that we saw the same thing on two pair of 95's.

    "The MTN Explore 95 is a very good choice for long touring days with lots of vert, especially if you’re likely to encounter a variety of snow conditions and consequential, no-fall terrain. For its weight and width, this ski inspires a lot of confidence, and has a very predictable feel. In tight couloirs, it is light, balanced, and provides solid edge hold even on hard, windblown snow."

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Eburg
    Posts
    13,243
    Yeah, I saw the blister review. I'm still leaning towards the 95. If I get it and don't like the edge hold, I can try a more aggressive edge angle

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Location
    Seattle, WA
    Posts
    2,184
    I'm still trying to figure out whether it's worth the weight savings to go for the 88. Steve, what bindings would you be putting on the 95?

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    S-E-A-T-O-W-N
    Posts
    1,792
    Anybody else wish manufacturers would quit naming all their skis and boots and bindings the same thing?
    that's all i can think of, but i'm sure there's something else...

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Eburg
    Posts
    13,243
    Quote Originally Posted by thejongiest View Post
    I'm still trying to figure out whether it's worth the weight savings to go for the 88. Steve, what bindings would you be putting on the 95?
    Speed Turn 2.0 w/ DIY comfort-style top plate/volcano. Boots will be TLT6M. Same combo I've used on other touring skis, some fatter. Works for me. The 95s or alternative (Hannibal?) will replace my old beat-to-shit clapped-out Vectors.

    88s would be my choice if I weighed <200 lbs. I haven't ruled them out. 88mm is a nice width for a spring/summer touring/skimo ski, although the 95's extra float will help hold up my fat ass when I hit the mush down low or later in the day.

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Not Brooklyn
    Posts
    8,319
    Quote Originally Posted by OldSteve View Post
    I tried Zero G 95s, not for me.
    Why?

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Eburg
    Posts
    13,243
    To be fair, I had limited exposure -- 2 runs and my boot was est. 1cm behind factory center, maybe not a big deal cuz I have a long boot (327) so my ball of foot was close to where it should be. Test runs had a mix of spring conditions, some firm, some corn, some mush. Anyway, they were fine on the firm and corn -- way better than my clapped out Vectors -- but I just didn't dig them down low in the soft and mush, where they seemed like much more effort to turn than my Vectors. I may well have enjoyed them in bigger boots, but I'm very satisfied with my TLT6Ms and looking for a ski to match them. FWIW, I'm getting old and more cautious, and like a more forgiving ski. I also like the (claimed by some) dampness of the MTN Explore 95 and 88.

    YMMV. Zero G 95s certainly have plenty o' fans.

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Not Brooklyn
    Posts
    8,319
    Quote Originally Posted by OldSteve View Post

    YMMV. Zero G 95s certainly have plenty o' fans.
    I'm one of them.

  16. #16
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    西 雅 圖
    Posts
    5,359
    I've skied the MTN Explore 95 in a variety of conditions and think it's a great ski - certainly it doesn't have the edgehold of the best in class (Zero G 95) but certainly not the worst (Wailer 99 Tour 1) but super versatile and pivots more easily into the fall line (and through it) on steeps and in funky snow than the Zero G (I am also a fan, but have detuned them a fair amount). I spent a few runs on icy groomers on the MTN Explore 88 (not Mission this year) and felt it was also fine.

  17. #17
    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Location
    Seattle, WA
    Posts
    2,184
    Quote Originally Posted by gregL View Post
    I've skied the MTN Explore 95 in a variety of conditions and think it's a great ski - certainly it doesn't have the edgehold of the best in class (Zero G 95) but certainly not the worst (Wailer 99 Tour 1) but super versatile and pivots more easily into the fall line (and through it) on steeps and in funky snow than the Zero G (I am also a fan, but have detuned them a fair amount). I spent a few runs on icy groomers on the MTN Explore 88 (not Mission this year) and felt it was also fine.
    Thanks for the beta.

    And Steve - figured as much about the bindings but wanted to double check. I'm planning on putting MTNs on these and I'm at least 50lbs lighter than you.

    Now I just gotta find some 88s at the same price I can find 95s!

  18. #18
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Eburg
    Posts
    13,243
    Thx for the input Greg. I'm about to pull the trigger

    ETA:
    Quote Originally Posted by thejongiest View Post
    Now I just gotta find some 88s at the same price I can find 95s!
    sending PM

  19. #19
    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Location
    Seattle, WA
    Posts
    2,184
    Looks like Steve and I both got what we wanted!

  20. #20
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    WA
    Posts
    1,128
    You bastards buy the last two at powder7?

  21. #21
    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Location
    Seattle, WA
    Posts
    2,184
    Quote Originally Posted by Andyski View Post
    You bastards buy the last two at powder7?
    Actually no, I paid more! But I got the 2018 model FWIW. I feel stupid not seeing them at Powder7, but hope you can snag 'em!

  22. #22
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    3,429
    You guys should try Tim (ptex) at skibootrx. I think his price (at least in the 95) beats powder7.

    Sent from my Pixel 2 using TGR Forums mobile app

  23. #23
    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Location
    Seattle, WA
    Posts
    2,184
    Quote Originally Posted by sethschmautz View Post
    You guys should try Tim (ptex) at skibootrx. I think his price (at least in the 95) beats powder7.

    Sent from my Pixel 2 using TGR Forums mobile app
    Steve got his pair from him

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •