Results 1 to 25 of 25
  1. #1
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    21

    Volkl: BMT 109 vs v-werks Katana

    Curious what folks prefer?

    Looking for a slackcountry rig. Leaning more toward lift served but still able to backcountry well.

    Seems like, for a similar length, the Katana is heavier which might be better for resort conditions?

    Also, 191 seems like a big ski while the length of the BMT 109 pegs at 186 which seems pretty optimal. Although, I'm a 100 kilo+ skier...

    Which are going to hang in there better on high speed groomers?

    Never owned a Volkl, but, I've always coveted.

    If you had a choice of one v the other, what would you pick?

    Any advice appreciated!

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Swiss alps -> Bozone,MT
    Posts
    671
    Only have experience with the 184 VW Katana, but it is nails. I use it for touring with a lightweight binding, but I've considered buying a second one and mounting with a shift. Definitely capable enough for inbounds. Don't know if I'd say the same about the BMT, seems more like a dedicated touring rig to me.
    191 is a no brainer if you are 100+ kg. I weigh 68 kg and ski the 184...

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    665
    Have skied the BMT94, not the 109 or Katana. The 94 does surprisingly well on groomers, But, there's not quite enough sidecut in the tip for quick turn initiation, you kind of have to get them edge and be patient but then the carve great big arcs, the sidecut is like 27m. The upside of this is the lack of hookiness in the tip.

    I think the big difference is the Katana has a little more sidecut in the tip which would stat a turn little quicker than the 109. From others posts on here, it doesn't sound like it is enough to make the Katana tip hooky.

    The other difference is the Katana has more layers of carbon than the 109. This makes the kKatana a little stiffer torsionally and longitudinally. The BMTs are far from a noodle though.

    I bought a BMT109 that is still unmounted. But my choice was more touring oriented, I think for what you are looking for the Katana wins.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Squamish BC.
    Posts
    707

    Volkl: BMT 109 vs v-werks Katana

    I have all three. I first demoed the 184 Katana at a demo day event in Whistler in the spring of 2016, I think. I had hoped for a 191 as I’m 6’3” 195lb, but they only had the 184. It was the first ski I tried and came back with a big smile on my face and said I don’t need try anything else. It ripped all conditions all over the mountain from ice to heavy spring crud. It’s a powerful, but very approachable ski and relatively light so it doesn’t drain as much energy skiing it hard. 184 was fine.

    Right after, I demoed the 186 BMT 109 and while it was a little more relaxed it rocked all the same conditions. I was equally impressed.

    I bought the Katana in a 184 as that was the only length I could find late season. It was fine everywhere except deep powder where I felt a 191 would have given me more stability. I traded out for a 191 and was right. They’re better in pow and I don’t really feel the difference anywhere else. Mine are mounted with King Pins and feel totally confidence inspiring at the resort.

    Later I got a smoking two for one deal on clearance 109’s and 94’s. The 94’s went to Norway for 10 days of Spring touring and were perfect. The 109’s are a great PNW touring rig and the 94’s a long range and Spring touring option, both with Dynafit Rad 2’s.

    I would say Katana for the Resort definitely or 50/50 and 109/94 for more dedicated backcountry touring, though have skied all three at the resort and in the back country with no complaints. They all rock.

    I bought a pair of 122’s last year, but have not skied them yet. My buddy loves his and put me to shame in skiing my DPS Wailer 112’s in Japan pow. That inspired me to get a pair based on my love of the other Volkls I own. Looking forward to trying them.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    21
    Quote Originally Posted by Wetdog View Post
    I would say Katana for the Resort definitely or 50/50 and 109/94 for more dedicated backcountry touring, though have skied all three at the resort and in the back country with no complaints. They all rock.
    Great info...thanks!

    Shamed on Wailer 112's in the Ja-pow...interesting. How do you think your narrower Volkls would have faired? You feel like the BMT 109's are a bit short for the deep?

    You can't have enough skis...!

    Thanks for the report!

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Whistler, BC
    Posts
    1,495
    I own both. You want a Katana.


    Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    SoCal
    Posts
    6,749

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Squamish BC.
    Posts
    707
    Quote Originally Posted by Brian in SLC View Post
    Great info...thanks!

    Shamed on Wailer 112's in the Ja-pow...interesting. How do you think your narrower Volkls would have faired? You feel like the BMT 109's are a bit short for the deep?

    You can't have enough skis...!

    Thanks for the report!
    Nope, BMT 109’s are great in the deep. So were the 112’s, but the 122’s floated higher, charged harder and held an edge better on hard pack than the 112’s. Coming back through the resort groomers in Niseko, my Wailers tips were flapping away at high speed and my friend cruised by on his 122’s in a high speed GS turn. Rock solid, just the same as in the powder.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Mar 2017
    Location
    FR&CH
    Posts
    354
    I own the BMT 109 176 and the Katana VW 184. The Katana VW is more stable, better on hard snow, better carver even though it’s wider. Float is a bit better but not much, the BMT float really well for its size. Traction uphill is better because it’s flat and not a true reverse like the BMT 109. The only downside is that it’s heavier.

    This season I’m selling my BMT 109, replacing the shifts with sth on my Katana VW #1, mounting ATK R12 2020 on my Katana VW #2.

    Basically, yeah, the BMT is better for « real » touring and the Katana for side country.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Jan 2018
    Posts
    648
    VW Katana has like 10 sheets of carbon wrap, where the BMTs have like four. I believe... Had the VW Katanas... one of the most stable lightweight skis I've ever ridden.

    Sent from my Pixel 4 XL using TGR Forums mobile app

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Squaw valley
    Posts
    4,639
    Yeah, i tour with the 184 Katanas in all conditions, including spring corn

    Great ski.

    The bmt is less stiff torsionally so i believe it wouldn't be as good on firm

    Sent from my Armor_3 using Tapatalk

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Winthrop, WA.
    Posts
    1,592
    I'm 5'11" and right at 100 kilos. Own the 109's for a touring daily driver and have skied the Katanas. What you are describing is the Katanas. The other option that all too often gets overlooked is the 100Eight. Great ski in that very category and only weighs about 100 grams per ski more than the Katana

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Mar 2017
    Location
    FR&CH
    Posts
    354
    I had the 100Eight for 1.5 season before it delaminated and I switched to the Katana. I prefer the Katana everywhere and especially in pow.

    Another beefier option with its titanal plate is the new flat camber black crows Corvus.

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Winthrop, WA.
    Posts
    1,592
    Volkl changed the construction of the 100eights (and the BMT's if I'm not mistaken) between 16/17 and 17/18 because of that delam problem....although they said it was to make them stronger carving or some such marketing line.

    Was talking to Bird Shaffer this past weekend about the Corvus. I REALLY want to try a pair, sound like they are right up my alley

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    livin the dream
    Posts
    5,761
    Bump. Any larger guys on BMT 109s?

    Looking at it as a touring 1 ski quiver. I’m 6’2” - 205lbs. The 186 would be the shortest ski I have been on since HS.


    Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums
    Best Skier on the Mountain
    Self-Certified
    1992 - 2012
    Squaw Valley, USA

  16. #16
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Winthrop, WA.
    Posts
    1,592
    [QUOTE=nickwm21;5834308]Bump. Any larger guys on BMT 109s?

    Looking at it as a touring 1 ski quiver. I’m 6’2” - 205lbs. The 186 would be the shortest ski I have been on since HS.

    Yup,

    I'm 5"11" and 220lb of spring steel and rawhide, covered with insulating layers of baby fat and hair. A 109 in 186cm is my daily touring driver. (also have a pair of 94's that kick ass when it's not tooooo deep) 109 is a nice daily driver but I think the Katana would be the better bet if you really want to get after it and ski in more open areas. Katana still isn't that difficult in tight spots. I went with the 109's because they are quite a bit lighter. My 109's average 1,657 grams per ski, flat. Old fat guys like me appreciate that half pound per foot weight savings.

    Personally, I think the 186 length is just right. My first touring skis were Lahsa 196's and kick turns in tight spots SUCKED

  17. #17
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    livin the dream
    Posts
    5,761
    Thanks. Now trying to find a decent used pair. $1G for a pair of skis is steeeeeeeep


    Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums
    Best Skier on the Mountain
    Self-Certified
    1992 - 2012
    Squaw Valley, USA

  18. #18
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    In a parallel universe
    Posts
    4,755
    Quote Originally Posted by nickwm21 View Post
    Bump. Any larger guys on BMT 109s?
    Does 6' - 190 count?

  19. #19
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    PNW -> MSO
    Posts
    7,889
    6'2" 185lbs and can bend a ski. Not a clyde but not a pussy.

    I'd be looking for the 191 V-Werks Katana if I were 15 pounds heavier. But the 109 suits me pretty damn well as a winter all-rounder touring ski here in the marine pack.

    nickwm21, you're welcome to try mine if your BSL is about 305mm.

  20. #20
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Posts
    394
    I've got the 184 Katanas for 50/50 w/ G3 Ions. They're great inbounds, even in the bumps after the pow has been heavily tracked out. Surprisingly easy to turn and still very stable at speed. I find that for most of my b/c excursions I don't really use them to their full potential, so I've been thinking of going to a 176 BMT 109 to save a little weight and make the kick-turns more manageable. I'm 5'8" 165lbs. The rounded, full steel wrap tail of the Katanas is a little bit of a pain as the tail clips seem to always slide off the sides, definitively not an issue with the 109's with notches in plastic tails. I guess I could also go with the 177 Katanas for my size. Side note: I do really prefer the Ions over the Kingpins after trying out both, and if I get some 109's, I'll probably go for the Zeds.

  21. #21
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Mexico 2.0
    Posts
    818
    Anyone skied the BMT 122s? Reasonable PNW touring DD or no? Also have 138s with Dynalook plates and ZeroG 85s, which share a pair of SSL 2.0s. Thinking about replacing my Huascarans with something a bit meatier.

  22. #22
    Join Date
    Oct 2017
    Posts
    2,282
    Quote Originally Posted by Toddball View Post
    Anyone skied the BMT 122s?
    I currently own three pairs (all bought at steep discounts though), as they have been discontinued - which kinda sums up my feelings about this ski. They are awesome.

    Blister's review sum em up nicely imho:
    https://blisterreview.com/gear-revie...-volkl-bmt-122

    All model years are identical other than coloring on the top sheet and die cut tip on the base. If you are based in Euroland Sport Bittl sell them at 50% off currently.

  23. #23
    Join Date
    Oct 2016
    Location
    tahoe de chingao
    Posts
    848
    Quote Originally Posted by Toddball View Post
    Anyone skied the BMT 122s? Reasonable PNW touring DD or no? Also have 138s with Dynalook plates and ZeroG 85s, which share a pair of SSL 2.0s. Thinking about replacing my Huascarans with something a bit meatier.
    Just picked up a pair - used w/ kingpins. This ski is the tits. I own the bmt 94's (full rocker version) and picked the 122 up to ski everything that is not spring corn. Damper than they should be for the weight, radius feels nice and long arcing pow turns, can drive the tips or ski neutral. They'll be my daily for the next 4 months for tahoe. Never toured on a pin binding with alpine heel, so not sure if it's that or the skis, but I am skiing harder in the bc than I ever have before (past soft snow touring skis were gpo's and ooold lotus 120's).

  24. #24
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Squamish BC.
    Posts
    707
    Quote Originally Posted by Brian in SLC View Post
    Great info...thanks!

    Shamed on Wailer 112's in the Ja-pow...interesting. How do you think your narrower Volkls would have faired? You feel like the BMT 109's are a bit short for the deep?

    You can't have enough skis...!

    Thanks for the report!
    Sorry, I didn't see this when you posted. If you put a 191 Katana and a 186 BMT 109 side by side, they are almost the same length! Definitely not a 5 cm difference. I've skied the BMT 94's in powder and they do surprisingly well, but wouldn't be my first choice, obviously. 109's and Katana's about the same float, but the Katanas are more stable at speed or in funky snow. I use the Katanas on and off the resort or anywhere I know I am going to be skiing wide open steep and
    fast. The 109's are better in the trees and mixed terrain looser and more forgiving. There is a lot of overlap though.

  25. #25
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Squamish BC.
    Posts
    707

    Volkl: BMT 109 vs v-werks Katana

    Quote Originally Posted by Toddball View Post
    Anyone skied the BMT 122s? Reasonable PNW touring DD or no? Also have 138s with Dynalook plates and ZeroG 85s, which share a pair of SSL 2.0s. Thinking about replacing my Huascarans with something a bit meatier.
    I have BMT 122’s, 109’s and 94’s. Increasing pronounced rocker with each width. My 122’s are slightly more buoyant than my 109’s, but I can feel the slight increase in weight while climbing, so there is a trade off. Generally, I reach for the 109’s as they strike the best balance. 94’s for Spring skiing and long traverses or big vert, 109’s mid winter every day and 122’s for big deep days, Japan trips etc. where the extra float makes the extra weight worth it.

    The 122’s are definitely fun and worth it if it’s deep and there is not huge distance or vert. Like the 109’s, they are loose and maneuverable and can slarve, but can carve too. They are surprisingly good on firmer snow and skied up run outs where traffic merges.

    I don’t have 138’s, but I do have Praxis powders, similar dimensions, 136 and continuous reverse rocker and reverse camber. The 122’s are not as loose and slarvey but strike a good balance between playfull and stable with reasonable weight for the size. For any serious powder touring, I’d prefer the 122’s as they are more versatile. They are different enough that it’s worth having both. Praxis mostly for inbounds, side country and cat/heli skiing, 122’s for dedicated pow touring.

    You can still buy them online. Definitely recommend them.


    Sent from my iPad using TGR Forums
    Last edited by Wetdog; 05-18-2021 at 04:04 PM.

Posting Permissions

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