Review: Volkl Blaze 106, 179cm

[Shorty_J]

I’m a huge fan of Volkl’s current camber/rocker profiles. The low camber really lets the ski bend underfoot and arc out when wanted but also lets the tips and tails slip around easily despite that the rocker rise isn’t very high. Probably not as loose as something with a huge rocker profile, but it’s a nice combo of different qualities.

Totally agree on loving volkl shapes/profiles, but I actually think the blaze at +2cm skis almost full reverse loose... though perhaps not in very deep powder... haven't got them in more than about 8" so far.

I've just skied the katana on Friday and think I liked it slightly better at +1 than +1.5 which makes me want to try the blaze back a bit more again... but it's slated to become my touring ski so we will see if I have time to do this test before I take the demos off.

[Shorty_J]

Just pulled the demo bindings off these to mount touring bindings. I decided to weigh them because the weight listed on the volkl page is more than what blister had listed.

Mine are 1747 and 1748 grams... which is in line with what blister posted for last year's model, and amazingly tight tolerances from ski to ski.

I played around with the mount point again last week and found that when I went back to +1cm, the skis wanted you to drive the tips to engage the short radius part of the sidecut, but at +1.5 and +2cm, you just lean them over and the radius tightens up. I prefer a more neutral stance while skiing so plan to mount my g3 zed at +1.5cm.

I own and have skied 2 days on the katana 108 this year as well, and these skis really are the katana light. Remarkably similat feel and still can be driven through chop but not quite as quiet as the katana. If you like how the katana skis but don't want to haul that weight uphill, consider the blaze for touring.

[ticketchecker]

Shorty, thanks for making me feel good about my +1.5 mount. Your reviews are spot on, I suck at gear reviews.

I’ll try better, promise

And I’m considering the Blaze 94 to replace my w99 pure that I mostly use for resort skinning because they pretty much blow for resort skiing in the East.



Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

[Shorty_J]

Shorty, thanks for making me feel good about my +1.5 mount. Your reviews are spot on, I suck at gear reviews.

I’ll try better, promise

And I’m considering the Blaze 94 to replace my w99 pure that I mostly use for resort skinning because they pretty much blow for resort skiing in the East.



Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

I am also considering a blaze 94 as a noodle around and bumps ski. The light weight seems like it would be a real benefit for that use.

But I don't need it badly so I'll way to see what kind of sales show up in the spring.

[Benneke10]

Mine are 1747 and 1748 grams... which is in line with what blister posted for last year's model, and amazingly tight tolerances from ski to ski.

Volkl's marketing copy says they are extra selective with the wood cores they get from their supplier compared to other companies and I'm inclined to believe them

[Hopeless Sinner]

I had considered these for myself last year but jumped on the MFree 108 bandwagon instead, but I bought the Blaze just now for my daughter for Christmas. Thanks for the info, always appreciated. Now all we need is snow.

[Shorty_J]

Volkl's marketing copy says they are extra selective with the wood cores they get from their supplier compared to other companies and I'm inclined to believe them

Yeah that makes sense.

I love the idea of indy brands, and I'm sure some of them are better than others, but the final product from volkl was ready to go, whereas I'm usually giving my new skis from indy brands a tune before I ski them.

The volkl quality control seems very good.

[VTskibum]

Bumping this back up after getting some decently legit conditions during the latest storm cycle a few groomer days before that.

8" heavy wet storm was lots of fun on these, skied like my 2011ish Katanas but much lighter and easier to maneuver. Was looking for mellower than Katana and less sidecut my Rustler 9s which are my daily driver. Surfy and playful, made for a great tree ski and worked great in later afternoon soft bumps over bulletproof icepack. Glad I picked them up and may not need my Katanas anymore as a result.

[Shorty_J]

^^^ agree with a lot of what you've said there but I actually went the other way... the blaze was so good in design I convinced myself I can handle the katana as well.

So far I don't regret it at all... moved the blaze to touring duty and have the katana for in bounds.

They ski very similar, but as you say, there is a noticeable weight difference.

[VTskibum]

Right on, hard to go wrong w Katanas. Have skied mine for 10 years just about any day it’s warranted, which isn’t too often living in PA, but with trips north or west have gotten plenty. These will be a good compromise and be more useful for our anthills and skiing w my kids I think. Nothing quite rails left over in bounds pow like the Katanas.

Edit to add: Decent, short review of Blaze that matches my experience; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9KBdX-XiwfM

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[slcdawg]

Finally got a couple of days on these and really enjoying them. I set them up as a dedicated touring setup with ATK c-raiders at +1.5 (per @shorty_J 's suggestion). They were plenty surfy in the pow and a lot of fun to ski. They were fairly stable in variable snow. One thing that really stands out is how light they are. These are replacing 10 year old K2 Coombacks with DF Vertical's and the new Blaze rig is 1.5lbs lighter. Very noticeable on the up and feels close to a resort setup on the down. There are lighter touring skis but for my purposes, very pleased with the weight and performance!

[TheK12]

@slcdawg - what size did you go with? what's your height and weight? still looking at this ski to replace my current touring ski, which is 2019 Tracer 98 188cm. Nothing wrong with Tracer, just looking for a little bit more float and to go a bit lighter and maybe a tad shorter to make it easier to tour with. Looking at Volkl Blaze 106 179cm or 186cm, Black Diamond Helio Recon 105 in 185cm, and intrigued by Nordica 104Unlimited and Elan Tour 104. All of these skis would be around the 1700 gram range, which is what I'm shooting for.

Interested in seeing if the 179 Volkl Blaze skis true to size or skis short?

[slcdawg]

I'm 5'9", 160 lbs and went with the 179 and pretty happy with the length. For reference, I don't usually size up - most of my skis are around 180.

[TheK12]

^^^cool. thanks for the data point!!!

[Eluder]

5’7” have some 179’s with MTNs. They ski longer than my 180 rustler 9’s, which is a good thing, but I would I say the blaze skis fairly true to length.

[Shorty_J]

I would say that for me personally, they ski true to length (or a touch long) in powder but definitely ski long (relative to my other classic tapered and rockered skis in my quiver) on firmer snow. In a good way.

[TheK12]

I’m 5’11” 215 and for reference, thought my gold Buddha gotamas in 183 were perfect for me. So… thinking 179 may ski too short?


Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

[Shorty_J]

I’m 5’11” 215 and for reference, thought my gold Buddha gotamas in 183 were perfect for me. So… thinking 179 may ski too short?


Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

I would say likely yes, but depends what kind of terrain you're skiing.

I'm on the 179cm at 5'7" and 170 pounds.

[dub_xion]

From reading everything people have to say about them and the prices available, this seems to be the sleeper ski of the century.

Edit- I take that back. It’s a sleeper Völkl ski following in the tradition of the Nunataq.
Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

[VTskibum]

5’7” have some 179’s with MTNs. They ski longer than my 180 rustler 9’s, which is a good thing, but I would I say the blaze skis fairly true to length.

5'11 @160lbs, also ski 180 Rustler 9s and agree completely with this.

[Climbers Right]

Definitely a sleeper ski. I'm on the 172 94 (mounted +2) with some 200g binders at 5'5 130 and it skis a little long in the good way. Stable on edge but pivots like a near full reverse camber. I'm digging the rocker profile on this line. Skied the 179 106 over the weekend with resort bindings and wouldn't go shorter. They feel like a lighter touring version of the Corvus IMO.

[mff353]

What size K108 do you have? do they ski longer? shorter?

I would say that for me personally, they ski true to length (or a touch long) in powder but definitely ski long (relative to my other classic tapered and rockered skis in my quiver) on firmer snow. In a good way.

[Shorty_J]

What size K108 do you have? do they ski longer? shorter?

177cm K108 and they ski almost exactly the same with 2 exceptions:

The 179cm blaze is a tiny bit more loose (and as a result ski just a hair shorter than the katana for me), and the blaze is less damp. The katana feels like a Cadillac and the blaze is more active, but not overly active.

But the turn initiation is pretty much identical, with the radius of the katana feeling a touch shorter (which makes sense from the dimentions) and in soft snow only, I don't think you'd notice a difference between the two. The effective edge is exactly the same to my eye and whe running lazy long radius turns they feel the same.

Ok maybe 3 exceptions... you can flick the blaze around easier... weight differences and all.

Hope that helps.

[Mountain Relish]

Can anybody give a direct comparison between the Blaze skis, and the old 100Eight and 90Eight? I really like the balance of weight vs stability in those older models, and I just wondered whether the lighter Blaze skis give up a bit of stability, especially for the 106 as the longest length is a bit shorter as well.

Thanks.

[VTskibum]

Bumping this back up a bit to again praise Blaze 106, especially for tight EC trees in deep snow this weekend at Stowe. I've been a big reverse camber fan for a long time for these conditions, but the light weight Blaze make this even easier probably due to low swing weight & slightly softer flex. My OG Katanas handle variable and chop better, especially at speed, but it's pretty minor difference w/o doing back to back comparison.