Black Crows Solis Ski Reviews

[mall walker]

whatcha looking to get for them? I love my 180s but if the price is right….

[Pins and Skins]

whatcha looking to get for them? I love my 180s but if the price is right….

I would take $900 for the whole setup (skis, skins, tectons and phantom).

FYI, Powder7 quoted me $840 for the package but they won't pay out in cash, and I don't really need to buy anything from their store with the credit. Adding some extra on top to cover shipping. Thanks!

[kevino]

Finally picked up a pair. Couple quick laps on the local hill this afternoon they are course stable and easy to drive in the slush. More to come this weekend hopefully…

On a related note, I trimmed down the black crows skins i had for my Navis for this and holy cow they sucked in the wet snow. Just need more tension? Anyone else have any tricks?

[SoVT Joey]

Is anyone able to please speak to how 'long' these ski? Especially the 180? The weight (1950g), rocker profile, straight-ish shape, and apparent stiff tip to tail flex, is right up my alley as a spring touring ski, but was initially looking for something 185-189. Thanks.

I found it to ski true to length for the mount point and the non camber. I’m 5’11 and never felt like it was lacking in length, but I never skied it in any powder. It definitely likes hard snow though and ice. For spring snow it’s great. It’s edge is very effective but the ski still pivots well.

[Benneke10]

half off in 180 https://www.backcountry.com/black-cr...BoCIRsQAvD_BwE

[waveshello]

Bump to mention: I now have a pair of Down Countdown 104s (the heavy ones) in a 181 as well as the Solis in a 180. These skis are incredibly comparable:

Black Crows Solis 180cm: 126 x 100 x 108, ~1950g/ski, 25m radius. Tip rocker, flat tail

Down Countdown 104 181cm: 128 x 104 x 121, ~1800g/ski, 25m radius. Tip rocker, flat tail

Seems like maybe BC kinda copied the CD104 a bit. The main DIFFERENCES are: the Solis has a bit more camber, it has a couple cm lower tip rocker height, and a shorter length but slightly higher height tail rocker. It's also heavier. When I stand the skis on end next to one another, the recommended mounting line is identical. I'll take some pics at some point to compare, but they're remarkably similar skis. The CD104s are very stiff everywhere except the tip which is medium stuff. The Solis is I-beam stiff from tip to tail.

I like the CD104 tail a lot better, but the Solis tip a lot better. Despite the goofy amount of overlap I can honestly see keeping and skiing each of these. This is what I like lol. The CD104 has the same super smooth tail release that the other Down skis I've skied have had (CD102L, LD90) and it's the absolute perfect tail for steep skiing, in my opinion.

I'll throw another similar ski out there: The 2017 Armada Declivity. 128-98-118 in the 184cm length, 26m radius, 1970g. Tip rocker, flat tail. 2 sheets of metal, pretty stiff. Just a few mm of camber.

I actually just stumbled on the solis while looking for something similar to the Declivity. This biggest difference seems to be more taper on the solis... Maybe a little more versatile? I'm very interested in this ski!

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

[Karl_H]

In case anyone was wondering, I took measurements of the running surface and effective edge lengths for the 2022 Solis (173 cm).

I measured the cambered section / running surface length to be about 114 cm (or 66% of the total length). Note that the rocker is very gradual, so any amount of soft surface snow will dramatically increase the running surface length.

I measured the effective edge length to be about 146 cm.

[Pins and Skins]

Note for 2024, BC is adding a bit more camber to the Solis. Go to the BC section: https://www.evo.com/discover/ski/gear-preview

So if you like the minimal camber of the current model, time to stock up! If you wish for more camber, will til next season!

[Karl_H]

So, I was able to get the 173 Solis on snow for the first time today. I will share my initial thoughts and impressions for those that are intererested.

Preamble
I am 5’10” and 185 lbs. The skis are mounted with Fritchi Xenic bindings. I was wearing Scarpa Maestrale RS boots. My first runs were on firm crud and hard packed groomers at a resort. I haven’t gotten them on wild snow yet.

First Impressions
I was expecting the ski to be torsionally stiff, but I was still blown away by how torsionally stiff they felt underfoot on hard-pack. There is virtually no ski deflection under foot, when you put them on edge. Reminds me a bit of the M4 Mantra in that respect.

The feedback from skiing on hard-pack in pin bindings and stiff boots was relatively harsh. While the tip and shovel are not very stiff and provide some suspension, the minimal camber and stiff midsection will transfer most of the impact force to your bindings. I would definitely consider mounting these with bindings that can smooth out the ride a bit.

I felt like the 173cm length provided more than adequate fore and aft stability for me. I didn’t manage to find a speed limit on groomers, but I didn’t love the relatively short effective edge length for high speed carving either.

The 173 felt very easy to pivot and hop turn in tight spots. With the factory tune, I had no issues initiating turns or releasing the tails.

The tails have enough splay that I was able to ski backwards at low speeds without any issues.

[Pins and Skins]

Very interesting, thanks Karl.

I had a Solis fanboy moment and now own two pairs (both on sale at some point this season). 173cm in the black topsheet for touring use and 180cm in the white topsheet for resort use. I had a feeling, and you confirmed, that given the short effective edge of the 173cm, it wouldn't be great for high speed resort shredding, hence, sized up to the 180cm for inbounds. For spring/technical touring, I think the 173cm could be fantastic. I have them mounted with Oazos to keep the overall weight low-ish. Looking forward to taking both out later this month.

One thing I noticed when I have big brother/little brother next to each other is that the 173cm actually has more camber underneath than the 180cm (which was virtually flat, bordering on reverse). I wonder if this was a build error across the season or done intentionally.

[Karl_H]

Interesting that you got both sizes. I would be curious to know whether the 180 feels significantly different from the 173.

These skis feel incredibly dense. The nominal weight difference is 200g per ski, which seems like a big increase in weight for a 7cm increase in length.

As far as the camber is concerned, I have seen reports of the nominally flat Corvus being shipped from the factory with notable camber, so it seems like camber on BC skis can vary a lot. Probably prudent to check camber before buying, if you are particular about it. I don’t have calipers, I would estimate that my 173s have 2-3 mm of camber.

I am looking forward to trying the 173s out in softer snow. I want to see how they feel on slush, powder, breakable crust, and wind board. I don’t typically do much resort skiing, but groomers are nice for feeling out new skis.

[Benneke10]

New Solis is out: looks like its the same except a bit lighter (1800g in 180) and more expensive ($1,150) https://www.black-crows.com/us/en/p/...3-grey-vg.html

[Pins and Skins]

Bob Leisure already has them at a discount for anyone dying to buy the '24s: https://www.bobleisure.com/black-crows-solis

Looking at the base to base pics, it seems the new version does have more camber, as Evo had previewed earlier this year

And from last season, I can confirm the white topsheet 180s are solid on groomers. Rock solid under a variety of conditions, pivots nicely and can seriously charge. I never got the chance to tour with the 173s but am hoping to do so for this upcoming winter.

[Karl_H]

So, I ended up selling the 173 Solis after 2 days on the snow.

It narrowly missed the mark for me. It was a little bit wider than I prefer for hard snow and it felt a little bit too short and tapered for me in very soft snow.

I mounted my bindings at the recommended line. In bottomless facets, I found that the tails were sinking much faster than the tips. Maybe this isn’t an issue for people who are not wearing a pack or ski with a more traditional forward stance, but it was an issue for me.

Maybe I just needed more time to adjust to the ski taper, but I had to constantly rotate the skis to keep the rear edge engaged when sidehilling across slopes. While my legs were pointing across the fall line, I would have to rotate my feet, so my toes were pointing slightly outwards, or else the tails would start slipping. With my other less tapered skis, I can just keep my toes pointing in the direction of travel without worrying about the tails washing out.

The weight reduction to the Solis seems likely to be for the better. I felt like the the skis could easily shave off some weight from the thick metal plate under foot without compromising ski performance.

I would be curious to know whether the new version has the same tapered shape as the previous version, as I personally prefer less tapered ski shapes. On the old 173 version, the tail is nominally 17 mm narrower than the tip, which seemed a little excessive to me, especially when combined with the long rocker and taper of the tail.

[nyskirat]

PSA STP has 173 on steep discount

https://www.sierra.com/black-crows-s...alpine-skis%2F

[SoVT Joey]

So, I ended up selling the 173 Solis after 2 days on the snow.

It narrowly missed the mark for me. It was a little bit wider than I prefer for hard snow and it felt a little bit too short and tapered for me in very soft snow.

I mounted my bindings at the recommended line. In bottomless facets, I found that the tails were sinking much faster than the tips. Maybe this isn’t an issue for people who are not wearing a pack or ski with a more traditional forward stance, but it was an issue for me.

Maybe I just needed more time to adjust to the ski taper, but I had to constantly rotate the skis to keep the rear edge engaged when sidehilling across slopes. While my legs were pointing across the fall line, I would have to rotate my feet, so my toes were pointing slightly outwards, or else the tails would start slipping. With my other less tapered skis, I can just keep my toes pointing in the direction of travel without worrying about the tails washing out.

The weight reduction to the Solis seems likely to be for the better. I felt like the the skis could easily shave off some weight from the thick metal plate under foot without compromising ski performance.

I would be curious to know whether the new version has the same tapered shape as the previous version, as I personally prefer less tapered ski shapes. On the old 173 version, the tail is nominally 17 mm narrower than the tip, which seemed a little excessive to me, especially when combined with the long rocker and taper of the tail.

with out knowing how tall or big you are i would go out on a limb to say the 173 was probably too short for you. The 180 skied short for me. There is a lot of tip rocker and its so deep, it was definitely very strange to track side hill with unless you were pressuring just the downhill ski very heavily. I did like the way it skied but it was built very charger like and not so touring like. I guess it does make sense for its designed purpose, very steep mountaineering in super tight chutes

[Karl_H]

I am 5’10” 180 lbs. I thought that the the 173 length was plenty stable on firm snow or soft snow over a firm base. The 173 only felt really unstable to me in bottomless facets. No tip dive, but the tails would sink very fast.

I think the 180 would be a better all-around performer for someone my size, but the 173 was really nice and nimble for me at slow speeds in tight spots.

[SoVT Joey]

I am 5’10” 180 lbs. I thought that the the 173 length was plenty stable on firm snow or soft snow over a firm base. The 173 only felt really unstable to me in bottomless facets. No tip dive, but the tails would sink very fast.

I think the 180 would be a better all-around performer for someone my size, but the 173 was really nice and nimble for me at slow speeds in tight spots.

Ya i agree with the 180. I’m the same size. Little taller. I wonder if the tail sinking would change if you bumped the mount forward, but then again the line is pretty progressive as it is.

[Pins and Skins]

I still have both sizes and am itching to tour on the 173s this season. I'm only 5'8" 150lbs so suspect the shorty version should be perfect for my spring/steep touring needs. The 180s ski almost perfectly for me in resort, they float and pivot ridiculously well for the shape and width, almost reverse camber-esque (they are pretty much flat when base to base)

[Robik]

I still have both sizes and am itching to tour on the 173s this season. I'm only 5'8" 150lbs so suspect the shorty version should be perfect for my spring/steep touring needs. The 180s ski almost perfectly for me in resort, they float and pivot ridiculously well for the shape and width, almost reverse camber-esque (they are pretty much flat when base to base)

Any chance that you still have a pair in 180 that you'd part ways with?

Sent from my Pixel 7 Pro using Tapatalk

[Pins and Skins]

No unfort, got rid of the 180 in a quiver reshuffle sadly