Best ski reviews online bar none! I live out east and snagged the Ripstick 96 a couple years ago. It RIPS!! Roll to roll is superb and carves like a beast (for me). Ok to about 6-8” of fresh but beyond that I find myself dreaming of my old Soul7s. What would be a good soft-snow freeride compliment to the Ripstick? QST or Liberty Origin? Atomic Bent? Won’t give up the Ripsticks but struggling to find a deeper snow companion for my yearly west coast trip. You guys rock!!
A more playful Ripstick? For up to 8 inches of snow, keeping it in the similar range, yes the QST 98 jumps to mind, as does the Blizzard Rustler 9 or 10 if you don't mind going up to 102 underfoot. Bent and Origin fall to the flexible side, which is fine, but if you want to keep some of the performance of the Ripsticks at least in the back of your mind, they might not hold up as well.
Enjoyed this review! You guys doing an amazing job describing, and the attention to detail is fantastic! On that note, I’m 5-10 200 pounds, I consider myself an intermediate skier, ski mostly on groomers, comfortable on blacks, double blacks I do very cautiously, and on rare occasions I’ll go off piste. I just came off the Volkl mantras M6 @ 177 cm and they kicked my butt. Not to mention my legs were done at the end of the day, I did enjoy them and they were great, but it was a bit too much. I prefer maneuverability and control over speed. I know many will say that the 172 CM for my stats is a short ski, I really don’t want to go up to the 180cm. Hence the reason why I would like to go with the black edition for more stability considering the two extra rods that I’ve been inserted into the ski, Will the 172 CM be able to sustain my height and weight and still be able to enjoy the mountain? I’m hesitant going with The regular Ripstick 96 as I feel that with my height and weight I may end up getting a lot of instability and chattering across the board. Most of my skiing is done out west, California, Utah. I’m not an aggressive skier, at 46 I am more cautious and alert, considering I’m coming off two rotator cuff surgeries, but I do like to come down bowls and get the occasional speed if the opportunity present itself. Thanks!
Thanks! I think the 172 in the Black Edition makes good sense. You're not gaining a whole lot of weight here, and the added security based on your size with the extra carbon is a good thing.
last year i was skiing a low 80’s underfoot rossignol ski which i found too stiff and would throw me around while skiing anything off of a groomer. I’ve been settling in to the advanced level and i’m exploring more glades and off-piste so i’m looking for an all-mountain ski that is maneuverable for quick turns and smears off piste and in the trees but can rip on a groomer. I was looking at the Ripstick 96 (but i’m unsure about it’s off piste capability) and the QST 92 (but i’m unsure about it’s performance on hard pack)
The Ripstick 96 is excellent in off-piste conditions - it's best in those conditions, in fact. It can also carve OK on groomers. That's why I got a pair. Most versatile ski I've ever used. I love mine.
Solid review! Curious on 2 comparisons / opinions: What is the Elan Ripstick Black version providing? 2) how does the Ripstick 96 compare to the Nordics Unleashed 98? The two seem similar in design characteristics excepting the assimetric carbon rods (also forcing a left and right ski). I'm guessing the Ripstick has a heavier ski feel?
Versus the green Ripstick 96, the Black Edition has two extra carbon rods in the middle of the forebody and one in the aft section behind the bindings. In addition, it has a longer and wider carbon laminate than the green. This gives it a bit more stiffness and a more stable feel. Compared to the Unleashed, it's a pretty different feel. The Nordica's twin tip brings more creativity and playfulness into the mix, but the metal laminate of the Unleashed makes it incredibly smooth and damp. The Unleashed feels and is heavier than the Ripstick--it's a very solid and stable twin tip with a long effective edge.
Awesome reviews. Thanks!!! I'm considering these or the Black Crows Serpo. I spend approx 50% off piste mostly in spring conditions (ice mornings). I don't get a lot of deep power opportunity. When I'm on the groomers, I like to lay them over. And stability at speed through chop also is desirable, but also keen for a light-ish option. Open to any other recommendation. I'm 165lb and would consider my level advanced.
I think 50/50 is more in the Ripstick's wheelhouse. The Serpo would be a better 70/30 option as that ski has more energy, grip, and power on groomers but is slightly less versatile.
I seem right between sizes on the Ripstick 96 Black. I am 5' 10" and 165lbs. I am torn between the 172 and the 180 sizing. I have been skiing about 5 seasons and can comfortably ski blacks in my local resort, albeit with not always the best technique and sometimes find myself in the back seat in difficult conditions (moguls, chop, etc). I suppose that puts my skill between intermediate and advanced. My application is 80/20 resort/backcountry ski. My local resort conditions, although in Idaho, are generally 3" less of powder, if not chopped up moguls and/or ice at times. I would like to have it closer to 50% backcountry and more powder, but for now it's somewhere in between
Consider this: Ripstick skis measure about 1.5 cm shorter than stated, so that 180 is more like a 178.5 while the 172 is really a 170.5. I think this puts you more in line with the 180 vs. the 172 based on your stats and application. They're pretty light and agile so you don't really have to size down to access maneuverability.
@@SkiEssentials I’m also 5’ 10’’ but a bit heavier, around 175 lbs. I’m an advanced to expert skier skiing in the alps, should I go for the 172 or 180 on the Armada Declivity 92ti?
@@SkiEssentials Appreciate your help and love the videos! May I ask what the biggest difference in performance is between the ripstick 96 black and the Declivity 92ti? I’m really torn between the two.
Hi, enjoyed the review.... I'm 5'9", 165lbs advanced to expert skier that skis the northeast typically (Tremblant) and love the glades and moguls when available .....im looking at the Ripstick 96 black 180.... should I consider another Elan ski?
The Ripstick 88 is the only other one I'd look at as it serves as a slightly narrower option to the 96 and works great in bumps and trees and groomers. You'll miss out a bit on flotation, but how often do you find yourself in very deep snow?
How would this ski compare to the 2024 Blizzard Rustler 9? I am looking to replace an old pair of Volkl AC3 and have these two skis as well as the Armada Declivity 92 Ti as well as the Black Edition of this ski on my short list. Does the two more carbon rods make a difference in the Black Edition? Looking for a one ski that can do all skiing Wildcat in Mt Washington Valley with hopefully a trip to Stowe in March.
Ripstick vs. Rustler, the Rustler has a more rounded turn shape and more playful style. The Ripstick feels more directional/trail-oriented in nature while the Rustler has that versatile freeride feel to it. The Black Edition takes the dampness and stability to the next level, but it's not like it's a much higher-performing ski. The additional rods do make a difference. It doesn't sound like you're particularly looking for a freeride ski, so I'd lean more to the Elan skis. I love the Black Edition, if that helps your lean at all.
It's okay to size up on these skis if you're aggressive and skilled. Also of note, they do measure about 1.5 cm short, so that 188 is really more like a 186.5 and the 180 is a 178.5. Generally I think that tips the scale to the longer in the Ripstick skis.
6'4, 200 lbs skiing mostly blue and black groomers in the Sierras. Strong intermediate, definitely not a hard charger. Considering these in 188 vs Mindbender 96C in 184. Am I on the the right track? Noticeable difference between the two?
The energy is the biggest difference that I notice--the Ripstick has more pep and zest than the K2 which is more meandering in nature. If you like that type of rebound and pop, the Elan is the way to go. For a smearier and driftier feel, with slightly more silence and smoothness, the K2 is a lot of fun. Both lengths sound appropriate.
You can certainly tour with this ski due to the lighter weight. They also make Ripstick Tour skis that are even lighter, so it kind of depends on how you want to use the product, and if you're looking to have one AT setup and one resort, or one hybrid that can do both. I'd put the Ripstick in pretty much all three.
Nice video! What ski would you recommend me? I need a new pair of skis for touring and freeriding. I am very advanced on the slope, intermediate in deep snow. Have been touring for 2 years now with very old, heavy and thin skis that I got for 150€ in total (ski binding and skin included). I am a woman, 170cm tall. I have been looking into the Ripstick 96 and some other skis. I want to have fun in powder snow, worse conditions and while going up the hill (normally between 800-1500 metres in hight). Would love to hear your opinion! Would the Blizzard Hustle 10 be a good alternative for me?
I think the Hustle 10 is great--it's a bit more playful and floaty than the Ripstick, so if you find yourself in softer snow, trees, or other creative areas, I think that's a great option.
@@SkiEssentials I hope I am not annoying..But if you don't mind, I have one last question. What do you think of the K2 Wayback 98 vs the Blizzard Hustle 10?
Hey Ski Essentials, do you think a set of 177 cm Ripstick 94 Womens be suitable for a smaller guy to ride? Im about 5'9 and 150lbs but am worried theyll be too soft for me. Intermediate to advanced rider. Thanks for your excellent reviews.
6’2 175lbs. Intermediate skier. Skied 170 cm last season and loved them but worried I’m missing out by not going a little longer. Any thoughts appreciated!
For the weight, it's pretty good whereas the Kore, for the weight, is phenomenal. You're taking the carving performance on firm snow a bit back with the Ripstick, but opening up friendliness and accessibility. Kore can feel challenging because it's very stiff from tip to tail. The Elan is more flexible in the shovel, so it's a lot easier and more amenable to initiating turns.
The shorter the ski the more maneuverable it will be, so to maximize maneuverability, as you put it, no the ski will not be too short. I suspect, though, that you're looking for more of a balance, so keep this fact in mind: the Ripsticks measure about 2 cm shorter than stated, so that 180 is really more like a 178, and the longer 188 is more like a 186. Still, if you're looking to lean more to the maneuverable side of the spectrum, I do not think the 180 is going to be too short.
Hi - I'm 5'11 and 180lbs. For a touring setup, would the 180 be alright? I ski an old Vantage 86TI front side in a 181, so I fear the 172 is too short. I'd also consider a ripstick black in 172, but if that's really a 170 that seems pretty short.
@@SkiEssentials Thank you! You were spot on, my pair of 180s measured 177. Weighs a bit more than advertised. Had a great day at the resort -- they have a speed limit and you get some chatter when pushed really hard or fast, but dial it back from 11 to 9 and they are so much fun. Can't wait to get them into the backcountry.
I know this isn't the ski for someone who just became intermediate, who also did some blue in black runs as well, but considering I'm about 5'10 and 155lbs, which size would you get 172cm or 180? Thank you in advance.
I think your stats and slight hesitancy point to the 172 in this ski--this way you'll have more control, and since the ski is pretty sturdy, I don't think you'll find any lack of performance or stability here.
@@SkiEssentials thank you. I was told this ski is not very forgiving, and doesn’t maneuver like the qst 98 and 106. Where does this excel where the qst doesn’t?
There's quite a bit more power and stability in the Enforcer, especially from a carving and on-trail perspective. If you want similar off-piste performance and versatility, the Enforcer can be sized down to gain and access mobility. Ripstick is a better floater due to the wider shovel and lighter weight.
Love my 2022 Ripsticks 96 I bought from you guys last year! Can't ask for a better ski for me....except another new pair! Ha!
Awesome! So good to hear, and we love that ski every time we get on it.
Best ski reviews online bar none! I live out east and snagged the Ripstick 96 a couple years ago. It RIPS!! Roll to roll is superb and carves like a beast (for me). Ok to about 6-8” of fresh but beyond that I find myself dreaming of my old Soul7s. What would be a good soft-snow freeride compliment to the Ripstick? QST or Liberty Origin? Atomic Bent? Won’t give up the Ripsticks but struggling to find a deeper snow companion for my yearly west coast trip. You guys rock!!
A more playful Ripstick? For up to 8 inches of snow, keeping it in the similar range, yes the QST 98 jumps to mind, as does the Blizzard Rustler 9 or 10 if you don't mind going up to 102 underfoot. Bent and Origin fall to the flexible side, which is fine, but if you want to keep some of the performance of the Ripsticks at least in the back of your mind, they might not hold up as well.
Enjoyed this review! You guys doing an amazing job describing, and the attention to detail is fantastic!
On that note, I’m 5-10 200 pounds, I consider myself an intermediate skier, ski mostly on groomers, comfortable on blacks, double blacks I do very cautiously, and on rare occasions I’ll go off piste. I just came off the Volkl mantras M6 @ 177 cm and they kicked my butt. Not to mention my legs were done at the end of the day, I did enjoy them and they were great, but it was a bit too much. I prefer maneuverability and control over speed. I know many will say that the 172 CM for my stats is a short ski, I really don’t want to go up to the 180cm. Hence the reason why I would like to go with the black edition for more stability considering the two extra rods that I’ve been inserted into the ski, Will the 172 CM be able to sustain my height and weight and still be able to enjoy the mountain? I’m hesitant going with The regular Ripstick 96 as I feel that with my height and weight I may end up getting a lot of instability and chattering across the board. Most of my skiing is done out west, California, Utah. I’m not an aggressive skier, at 46 I am more cautious and alert, considering I’m coming off two rotator cuff surgeries, but I do like to come down bowls and get the occasional speed if the opportunity present itself. Thanks!
Thanks!
I think the 172 in the Black Edition makes good sense. You're not gaining a whole lot of weight here, and the added security based on your size with the extra carbon is a good thing.
last year i was skiing a low 80’s underfoot rossignol ski which i found too stiff and would throw me around while skiing anything off of a groomer. I’ve been settling in to the advanced level and i’m exploring more glades and off-piste so i’m looking for an all-mountain ski that is maneuverable for quick turns and smears off piste and in the trees but can rip on a groomer. I was looking at the Ripstick 96 (but i’m unsure about it’s off piste capability) and the QST 92 (but i’m unsure about it’s performance on hard pack)
The Ripstick 96 is excellent in off-piste conditions - it's best in those conditions, in fact. It can also carve OK on groomers. That's why I got a pair. Most versatile ski I've ever used. I love mine.
Solid review! Curious on 2 comparisons / opinions:
What is the Elan Ripstick Black version providing? 2) how does the Ripstick 96 compare to the Nordics Unleashed 98? The two seem similar in design characteristics excepting the assimetric carbon rods (also forcing a left and right ski). I'm guessing the Ripstick has a heavier ski feel?
Versus the green Ripstick 96, the Black Edition has two extra carbon rods in the middle of the forebody and one in the aft section behind the bindings. In addition, it has a longer and wider carbon laminate than the green. This gives it a bit more stiffness and a more stable feel. Compared to the Unleashed, it's a pretty different feel. The Nordica's twin tip brings more creativity and playfulness into the mix, but the metal laminate of the Unleashed makes it incredibly smooth and damp. The Unleashed feels and is heavier than the Ripstick--it's a very solid and stable twin tip with a long effective edge.
Awesome reviews. Thanks!!! I'm considering these or the Black Crows Serpo. I spend approx 50% off piste mostly in spring conditions (ice mornings). I don't get a lot of deep power opportunity. When I'm on the groomers, I like to lay them over. And stability at speed through chop also is desirable, but also keen for a light-ish option. Open to any other recommendation. I'm 165lb and would consider my level advanced.
I think 50/50 is more in the Ripstick's wheelhouse. The Serpo would be a better 70/30 option as that ski has more energy, grip, and power on groomers but is slightly less versatile.
Thanks!@@SkiEssentials
I seem right between sizes on the Ripstick 96 Black. I am 5' 10" and 165lbs. I am torn between the 172 and the 180 sizing.
I have been skiing about 5 seasons and can comfortably ski blacks in my local resort, albeit with not always the best technique and sometimes find myself in the back seat in difficult conditions (moguls, chop, etc). I suppose that puts my skill between intermediate and advanced. My application is 80/20 resort/backcountry ski. My local resort conditions, although in Idaho, are generally 3" less of powder, if not chopped up moguls and/or ice at times. I would like to have it closer to 50% backcountry and more powder, but for now it's somewhere in between
Consider this: Ripstick skis measure about 1.5 cm shorter than stated, so that 180 is more like a 178.5 while the 172 is really a 170.5. I think this puts you more in line with the 180 vs. the 172 based on your stats and application. They're pretty light and agile so you don't really have to size down to access maneuverability.
@@SkiEssentials I’m also 5’ 10’’ but a bit heavier, around 175 lbs. I’m an advanced to expert skier skiing in the alps, should I go for the 172 or 180 on the Armada Declivity 92ti?
I'd think the 172 in the Armada would be a good choice. @@taziokastelic_films
@@SkiEssentials Appreciate your help and love the videos! May I ask what the biggest difference in performance is between the ripstick 96 black and the Declivity 92ti? I’m really torn between the two.
Hi, enjoyed the review.... I'm 5'9", 165lbs advanced to expert skier that skis the northeast typically (Tremblant) and love the glades and moguls when available .....im looking at the Ripstick 96 black 180.... should I consider another Elan ski?
The Ripstick 88 is the only other one I'd look at as it serves as a slightly narrower option to the 96 and works great in bumps and trees and groomers. You'll miss out a bit on flotation, but how often do you find yourself in very deep snow?
How would this ski compare to the 2024 Blizzard Rustler 9? I am looking to replace an old pair of Volkl AC3 and have these two skis as well as the Armada Declivity 92 Ti as well as the Black Edition of this ski on my short list.
Does the two more carbon rods make a difference in the Black Edition?
Looking for a one ski that can do all skiing Wildcat in Mt Washington Valley with hopefully a trip to Stowe in March.
Ripstick vs. Rustler, the Rustler has a more rounded turn shape and more playful style. The Ripstick feels more directional/trail-oriented in nature while the Rustler has that versatile freeride feel to it. The Black Edition takes the dampness and stability to the next level, but it's not like it's a much higher-performing ski. The additional rods do make a difference. It doesn't sound like you're particularly looking for a freeride ski, so I'd lean more to the Elan skis. I love the Black Edition, if that helps your lean at all.
I’m 6,1” 185 lb expert skier in his late 50s who enjoys groomers, some bumps and glades. I like to ski aggressively 60% of the time. Btwn 188 and 180?
It's okay to size up on these skis if you're aggressive and skilled. Also of note, they do measure about 1.5 cm short, so that 188 is really more like a 186.5 and the 180 is a 178.5. Generally I think that tips the scale to the longer in the Ripstick skis.
6'4, 200 lbs skiing mostly blue and black groomers in the Sierras. Strong intermediate, definitely not a hard charger. Considering these in 188 vs Mindbender 96C in 184. Am I on the the right track? Noticeable difference between the two?
The energy is the biggest difference that I notice--the Ripstick has more pep and zest than the K2 which is more meandering in nature. If you like that type of rebound and pop, the Elan is the way to go. For a smearier and driftier feel, with slightly more silence and smoothness, the K2 is a lot of fun. Both lengths sound appropriate.
I’ve heard you can tour with this ski, for more of a downhill oriented backcountry set up. Thoughts?
You can certainly tour with this ski due to the lighter weight. They also make Ripstick Tour skis that are even lighter, so it kind of depends on how you want to use the product, and if you're looking to have one AT setup and one resort, or one hybrid that can do both. I'd put the Ripstick in pretty much all three.
Nice video! What ski would you recommend me? I need a new pair of skis for touring and freeriding. I am very advanced on the slope, intermediate in deep snow. Have been touring for 2 years now with very old, heavy and thin skis that I got for 150€ in total (ski binding and skin included). I am a woman, 170cm tall. I have been looking into the Ripstick 96 and some other skis. I want to have fun in powder snow, worse conditions and while going up the hill (normally between 800-1500 metres in hight). Would love to hear your opinion! Would the Blizzard Hustle 10 be a good alternative for me?
I think the Hustle 10 is great--it's a bit more playful and floaty than the Ripstick, so if you find yourself in softer snow, trees, or other creative areas, I think that's a great option.
@@SkiEssentials Thank you very much!!
@@SkiEssentials I hope I am not annoying..But if you don't mind, I have one last question. What do you think of the K2 Wayback 98 vs the Blizzard Hustle 10?
Hey Ski Essentials, do you think a set of 177 cm Ripstick 94 Womens be suitable for a smaller guy to ride? Im about 5'9 and 150lbs but am worried theyll be too soft for me. Intermediate to advanced rider.
Thanks for your excellent reviews.
Totally fine. Same build as the men's skis just a bit narrower.
6’2 175lbs. Intermediate skier. Skied 170 cm last season and loved them but worried I’m missing out by not going a little longer. Any thoughts appreciated!
I'd go longer this year. Probably the 180 in the Ripstick 96 would be right on the money for you.
Sounds like this would be comparable to maybe Head Kore 93 or 99? How does it handle ice/hard corduroy??
For the weight, it's pretty good whereas the Kore, for the weight, is phenomenal. You're taking the carving performance on firm snow a bit back with the Ripstick, but opening up friendliness and accessibility. Kore can feel challenging because it's very stiff from tip to tail. The Elan is more flexible in the shovel, so it's a lot easier and more amenable to initiating turns.
195lb 6’2”. Would like to maximize maneuverability with a shorter length. Is 180 too short in this?
The shorter the ski the more maneuverable it will be, so to maximize maneuverability, as you put it, no the ski will not be too short. I suspect, though, that you're looking for more of a balance, so keep this fact in mind: the Ripsticks measure about 2 cm shorter than stated, so that 180 is really more like a 178, and the longer 188 is more like a 186. Still, if you're looking to lean more to the maneuverable side of the spectrum, I do not think the 180 is going to be too short.
@@SkiEssentials Interesting! Always appreciate your knowledge. Thank you!
Does it matter if man choose women94 instead of men96? What’s the difference? Thanks
It does not matter. They are the same build, but the W version is a slightly narrower shape due to the smaller sizes.
Hi - I'm 5'11 and 180lbs. For a touring setup, would the 180 be alright? I ski an old Vantage 86TI front side in a 181, so I fear the 172 is too short. I'd also consider a ripstick black in 172, but if that's really a 170 that seems pretty short.
I would say the 180 is fine. the skis are very mobile and maneuverable so it's okay to go a bit longer than you may want.
@@SkiEssentials Thank you! You were spot on, my pair of 180s measured 177. Weighs a bit more than advertised. Had a great day at the resort -- they have a speed limit and you get some chatter when pushed really hard or fast, but dial it back from 11 to 9 and they are so much fun. Can't wait to get them into the backcountry.
I know this isn't the ski for someone who just became intermediate, who also did some blue in black runs as well, but considering I'm about 5'10 and 155lbs, which size would you get 172cm or 180? Thank you in advance.
I think your stats and slight hesitancy point to the 172 in this ski--this way you'll have more control, and since the ski is pretty sturdy, I don't think you'll find any lack of performance or stability here.
@@SkiEssentials thank you. I was told this ski is not very forgiving, and doesn’t maneuver like the qst 98 and 106. Where does this excel where the qst doesn’t?
@@OhDearBabajan This is a very forgiving ski!
How would these compare to nordica enforcer 94?
There's quite a bit more power and stability in the Enforcer, especially from a carving and on-trail perspective. If you want similar off-piste performance and versatility, the Enforcer can be sized down to gain and access mobility. Ripstick is a better floater due to the wider shovel and lighter weight.
That was bad skiing there tho 🫶🏽
Eh we've seen bad skiing and that was not bad skiing. Very representative and accurate of the Ripstick 96's target audience and market.