Hey! Love your videos. I have been doing so much research. Reading your blogs, and watching you and Bob’s videos. I am intermediate to advanced skier. I prefer going into trees and moguls over doing fast carving. But I also like to go fast at times. I really like hitting little jumps on side of trail and very easy beginner park jumps. Nothing extreme. I live in the Canadian Rockies. (Banff / Lake Louise are my go to hills) I’m 5’11 - 160. Currently my only ski is Rossi soul 7 / 180CM. I’ve been looking at skis that are better in trees but also better for carving without chatter. My Rossi soul 7 have lots of chatter in big tips. Looking at Atomic Maverick 95ti Rossi Escaper 94 Armada ARV 96 I think I have removed the Maverick from line up due to reading your reviews and saying it is less playful/forgiving. I prefer trees and feel I would have trouble with a less forgiving ski with the metal. For The ARV 96 I ski switch sometimes but probably 5% of the time and I don’t do any turns in switch. I have heard that the ARV is a great all mountain option even for skiers who aren’t so park oriented. I don’t know if I should go for a ski that is more designed for park riding tho… Do you think this would work for a skier who will do very little park - more so in trees, moguls and groomers? Looking for any guidance or tips. There is so many choices lol. Thanks for putting out so much quality content.
It's hard work, but it's fun work! If you like energy and snap out of your ski, the Escaper is one of the top picks from our testers this past year. The ARV certainly has more of a park/twin feel to it, but is pretty darn versatile as well. I think the 5% switch is another strong argument for the Escaper, as you're able to jump and do fun stuff on that ski as well. If you're really looking to get into park over the next few years, sure, the ARV is a better choice, but for most all-mountain skiing and directional applications, I'd go with the Escaper. I'd look to the high 170's to low 180's in either model, but lean to the Rossignol.
Hi, Im advanced skier looking for playful versatile all mountain ski to practice my carving on non-pow days. Im 6’-1” and 185lbs so which length would you recommend? Also, which skis replaced the escaper now from rossignol?
They now make the Sender 94 Ti, which is the same footprint as the Escaper, but with a metal beam underfoot. It's a bit heavier, but more stable and downhill-oriented. The Escaper got a bit lost in their "Freetouring" line, when it was really an all-mountain ski in reality. I'd go 178.
I bought the blizzard rustler 9s instead of these do you think I may have made a mistake? (Can still exchange) The r9s were longer but im just getting back into skiing. I ski east coast groomers (stowe) and dont like to go super fast.
I don't think you necessarily made a mistake, no. Lots of people ski the Rustler 9 at Stowe and love it, certainly a very appropriate ski for our terrain. It's heavier than the Escaper, yes, but the increased tail rocker in the Rustler gives it some forgiveness too. Would you enjoy the Escaper? I'm sure you would. Is it worth exchanging the Rustler? I'm not as convinced. Hard to know which you'd prefer without seeing you ski or knowing more about you, and realistically they are both great skis.
Hey Kirk! I think for most skiers, the Escaper is going to be a better all around ski due to its shape and also its construction. It's a more directional ski, which works better for most skiers. Most skiers don't really need the ability to ski backwards or switch, so having a directional ski makes more sense. The Escaper is also a little lighter and snappier in its performance. Doesn't require as much speed to come alive, which again I think is valuable for most skiers. On the other hand, for a more aggressive skier and/or someone who likes a slightly wider ski or a twin tip, the Holyshred is an excellent all-mountain ski.
Hello :) How would you compare this ski towards the Mantra M6? What I am looking for is a little bit lighter "Mantra ski" than the M6. Not much, since I appriciate some weight downhill when touring. The purpose is Telemark and I like a big radius for this type of skiing. The Kendo 88 I felt was a litte to turn-willing and aggressive for my style. Would you reccomend this Escaper as an option for me? I am 183cm/80kg, would the 178 be the best choice? Thanks for great videos :)
Hi Raymond! I think this could be an excellent choice! The Escaper is quite a bit lighter than the Mantra, but a similar shape overall. I think 178 cm is probably the best length for you, yes. 186 just seems like overkill and would somewhat negate the whole goal of getting a lighter, easier ski.
Looked at both the escaper and the sender not sure what one to go with I’m a intermediate skier looking to go away from groomers this season I’ve got some skis that fit groomers perfectly but looking to up my game any recommendations?
In general, I think the Escaper is more appropriate for an intermediate skier, especially one just starting to get off groomers. The Sender could work, it's just not as easy to ski. I'd say for someone in that situation, if you choose the Sender, you should be a comfortable intermediate and maybe getting closer to advanced.
can you put this against the new kore. To me, these 2 skis are quite similar - all mountain skier looking for a very light, manoeuvrable, playful to go a bit off the side of the piste/trees (deeper, more rough, softer snow) - i don't care about speed. Carving the front side isn't what i enjoy doing. - 90 underfoot is great for me
I think when you take out speed and carving, I'd go with the Escaper. It's going to feel more playful and more maneuverable IMO. The Kores are light and quick, but very stiff, which from the sounds of it might not be the best characteristic for you.
I just purchased the 2021 version of these (the red ones). I am an intermediate skier. I only weigh 160 lb. I am only 5' 7'. I don't like to go tooooo fast. I've heard from a few people that you should buy a slightly longer ski when you have a very early shovel/big rocker profile in the tip like these Rossignols have. I bought a 164. Did I mess up? I have only been skiing with rentals at 160 so these will already be the longest ski I would have ridden. Should I have gone even longer? With that said, I always watch your videos. I am a huge fan. Your uploads are getting me excited for the season! Be safe guys and thanks for all your great content.
Hi Michael! Did you mess up? No, I don't think so at all. 164 cm will be about eye-height for you, which feels perfectly reasonable for the Escaper for an intermediate level skier. The alternative would be 172, which is a couple cm taller than you, and feels excessive for your level. As you progress, you may find that someday down the road, you want a longer ski, but for now, I think a 164 cm Escaper is a great choice for you.
Would these suit for a 6’6” 225lb inter/advanced skier? I mainly ski groomers but want the ability of more all mountain ski to play around on. I ski moderately fast in my style, would go for the longer model obviously for my height.
Hi guys, how would you compare these to the Atomic Maverick? Which one is better for a lighter skiier (140 lbs) in a mix of resort frontside and backside?
So the closest ski in width would be the Maverick 95 Ti. That ski feels a little stronger. More edge grip on firm snow and more stability at speed. The Escaper, on the other hand, is easier to ski and easier to maneuver in tricky terrain, just doesn't have as much carving performance or overall stability. Either would work for a skiers of your weight, just a matter of which one matches what you're looking for more closely. In other words, if you're super aggressive, Maverick might be better. If you're more casual or prefer more moderate speeds, Escaper is likely better.
How would this compare to the new Line Blade Optic 92 for 50/50 on/off piste? Mostly soft snow but usually not deep and also occasional hardpack? Intermediate skier looking to advance into more off piste, especially tree skiing. 160lb 6ft1 - thanks in advance!
I think the tail is the big difference. The Escaper (now Sender 94Ti) has a flatter and more directional tail that make it more on-trail oriented. The Blade Optic 92 has more of a playful shape and style, and is a better choice for off-trail use, especially in the trees. I'd lean to the Line if you're looking for off-piste and glades. I'd think the 175 would be a good size for you in this ski. Have fun! SE
I ski in the Northeast and have a pair of Experience 94 ti and 88 ti, which are both fun carving skis. I don't feel that I need a wider carving ski than the 88 and am looking to swap my bindings from the 94s to something more off piste oriented, with decent ability carving on groomers as well. How would the Blackops Escaper and Volkl Blaze 94 compare to the Experience 94 ti? I find the Experience 94 a bit too stiff in the tail to be fun in the bumps/trees, at least for my ability.
HI Matt! Skied the Blaze 94 today so it's fresh in my mind. What a fun ski! Nothing wrong with it whatsoever. It's got more of a sturdy feel to it than the Escaper, but the Escaper might have more energy at the rebound of the turn. Either way you go, you're in a great spot in the mid-90's for all-mountain skis. SE
Hey! Love your videos. I have been doing so much research. Reading your blogs, and watching you and Bob’s videos.
I am intermediate to advanced skier. I prefer going into trees and moguls over doing fast carving. But I also like to go fast at times. I really like hitting little jumps on side of trail and very easy beginner park jumps. Nothing extreme. I live in the Canadian Rockies. (Banff / Lake Louise are my go to hills)
I’m 5’11 - 160. Currently my only ski is Rossi soul 7 / 180CM.
I’ve been looking at skis that are better in trees but also better for carving without chatter. My Rossi soul 7 have lots of chatter in big tips.
Looking at
Atomic Maverick 95ti
Rossi Escaper 94
Armada ARV 96
I think I have removed the Maverick from line up due to reading your reviews and saying it is less playful/forgiving. I prefer trees and feel I would have trouble with a less forgiving ski with the metal.
For The ARV 96 I ski switch sometimes but probably 5% of the time and I don’t do any turns in switch. I have heard that the ARV is a great all mountain option even for skiers who aren’t so park oriented. I don’t know if I should go for a ski that is more designed for park riding tho… Do you think this would work for a skier who will do very little park - more so in trees, moguls and groomers?
Looking for any guidance or tips. There is so many choices lol.
Thanks for putting out so much quality content.
It's hard work, but it's fun work!
If you like energy and snap out of your ski, the Escaper is one of the top picks from our testers this past year. The ARV certainly has more of a park/twin feel to it, but is pretty darn versatile as well. I think the 5% switch is another strong argument for the Escaper, as you're able to jump and do fun stuff on that ski as well. If you're really looking to get into park over the next few years, sure, the ARV is a better choice, but for most all-mountain skiing and directional applications, I'd go with the Escaper. I'd look to the high 170's to low 180's in either model, but lean to the Rossignol.
Hi,
Im advanced skier looking for playful versatile all mountain ski to practice my carving on non-pow days. Im 6’-1” and 185lbs so which length would you recommend? Also, which skis replaced the escaper now from rossignol?
They now make the Sender 94 Ti, which is the same footprint as the Escaper, but with a metal beam underfoot. It's a bit heavier, but more stable and downhill-oriented. The Escaper got a bit lost in their "Freetouring" line, when it was really an all-mountain ski in reality. I'd go 178.
I bought the blizzard rustler 9s instead of these do you think I may have made a mistake? (Can still exchange) The r9s were longer but im just getting back into skiing. I ski east coast groomers (stowe) and dont like to go super fast.
I don't think you necessarily made a mistake, no. Lots of people ski the Rustler 9 at Stowe and love it, certainly a very appropriate ski for our terrain. It's heavier than the Escaper, yes, but the increased tail rocker in the Rustler gives it some forgiveness too. Would you enjoy the Escaper? I'm sure you would. Is it worth exchanging the Rustler? I'm not as convinced. Hard to know which you'd prefer without seeing you ski or knowing more about you, and realistically they are both great skis.
@@SkiEssentials and between rustler 9 vs Volkl blaze 94? thank you
Which would you say is a better all around...this Escaper or the Holy Shred?
Hey Kirk! I think for most skiers, the Escaper is going to be a better all around ski due to its shape and also its construction. It's a more directional ski, which works better for most skiers. Most skiers don't really need the ability to ski backwards or switch, so having a directional ski makes more sense. The Escaper is also a little lighter and snappier in its performance. Doesn't require as much speed to come alive, which again I think is valuable for most skiers. On the other hand, for a more aggressive skier and/or someone who likes a slightly wider ski or a twin tip, the Holyshred is an excellent all-mountain ski.
Hello :) How would you compare this ski towards the Mantra M6? What I am looking for is a little bit lighter "Mantra ski" than the M6. Not much, since I appriciate some weight downhill when touring. The purpose is Telemark and I like a big radius for this type of skiing. The Kendo 88 I felt was a litte to turn-willing and aggressive for my style. Would you reccomend this Escaper as an option for me? I am 183cm/80kg, would the 178 be the best choice?
Thanks for great videos :)
Hi Raymond! I think this could be an excellent choice! The Escaper is quite a bit lighter than the Mantra, but a similar shape overall. I think 178 cm is probably the best length for you, yes. 186 just seems like overkill and would somewhat negate the whole goal of getting a lighter, easier ski.
How much did these retail for new? Because I am seeing them “on sale” everywhere from 370-500, saying they were originally $700
Retail for that ski in 2022 was $599.95.
I want to learn how to nose butter are these good for that?
If buttering is a priority, Escaper is not great. Line Blend, Line Chronic 94, and Head Oblivion 94 are all better choices.
Looked at both the escaper and the sender not sure what one to go with I’m a intermediate skier looking to go away from groomers this season I’ve got some skis that fit groomers perfectly but looking to up my game any recommendations?
In general, I think the Escaper is more appropriate for an intermediate skier, especially one just starting to get off groomers. The Sender could work, it's just not as easy to ski. I'd say for someone in that situation, if you choose the Sender, you should be a comfortable intermediate and maybe getting closer to advanced.
I'm looking at these as an intermediate skier, 5'7" 140lbs, by all accounts the 164 seems like it would be the best bet for me. Thoughts?
Yup, you are right on! Nice and light and surprisingly powerful, too!
SE
can you put this against the new kore. To me, these 2 skis are quite similar
- all mountain skier looking for a very light, manoeuvrable, playful to go a bit off the side of the piste/trees (deeper, more rough, softer snow)
- i don't care about speed. Carving the front side isn't what i enjoy doing.
- 90 underfoot is great for me
I think when you take out speed and carving, I'd go with the Escaper. It's going to feel more playful and more maneuverable IMO. The Kores are light and quick, but very stiff, which from the sounds of it might not be the best characteristic for you.
I just purchased the 2021 version of these (the red ones). I am an intermediate skier. I only weigh 160 lb. I am only 5' 7'. I don't like to go tooooo fast. I've heard from a few people that you should buy a slightly longer ski when you have a very early shovel/big rocker profile in the tip like these Rossignols have. I bought a 164. Did I mess up? I have only been skiing with rentals at 160 so these will already be the longest ski I would have ridden. Should I have gone even longer?
With that said, I always watch your videos. I am a huge fan. Your uploads are getting me excited for the season! Be safe guys and thanks for all your great content.
Hi Michael! Did you mess up? No, I don't think so at all. 164 cm will be about eye-height for you, which feels perfectly reasonable for the Escaper for an intermediate level skier. The alternative would be 172, which is a couple cm taller than you, and feels excessive for your level. As you progress, you may find that someday down the road, you want a longer ski, but for now, I think a 164 cm Escaper is a great choice for you.
Would these suit for a 6’6” 225lb inter/advanced skier? I mainly ski groomers but want the ability of more all mountain ski to play around on. I ski moderately fast in my style, would go for the longer model obviously for my height.
Hi guys, how would you compare these to the Atomic Maverick? Which one is better for a lighter skiier (140 lbs) in a mix of resort frontside and backside?
So the closest ski in width would be the Maverick 95 Ti. That ski feels a little stronger. More edge grip on firm snow and more stability at speed. The Escaper, on the other hand, is easier to ski and easier to maneuver in tricky terrain, just doesn't have as much carving performance or overall stability. Either would work for a skiers of your weight, just a matter of which one matches what you're looking for more closely. In other words, if you're super aggressive, Maverick might be better. If you're more casual or prefer more moderate speeds, Escaper is likely better.
How would this compare to the new Line Blade Optic 92 for 50/50 on/off piste? Mostly soft snow but usually not deep and also occasional hardpack? Intermediate skier looking to advance into more off piste, especially tree skiing. 160lb 6ft1 - thanks in advance!
I think the tail is the big difference. The Escaper (now Sender 94Ti) has a flatter and more directional tail that make it more on-trail oriented. The Blade Optic 92 has more of a playful shape and style, and is a better choice for off-trail use, especially in the trees. I'd lean to the Line if you're looking for off-piste and glades. I'd think the 175 would be a good size for you in this ski. Have fun!
SE
I ski in the Northeast and have a pair of Experience 94 ti and 88 ti, which are both fun carving skis. I don't feel that I need a wider carving ski than the 88 and am looking to swap my bindings from the 94s to something more off piste oriented, with decent ability carving on groomers as well. How would the Blackops Escaper and Volkl Blaze 94 compare to the Experience 94 ti? I find the Experience 94 a bit too stiff in the tail to be fun in the bumps/trees, at least for my ability.
HI Matt!
Skied the Blaze 94 today so it's fresh in my mind. What a fun ski! Nothing wrong with it whatsoever. It's got more of a sturdy feel to it than the Escaper, but the Escaper might have more energy at the rebound of the turn. Either way you go, you're in a great spot in the mid-90's for all-mountain skis.
SE
Hi guys. Where have you got these mounted in your video?
Right on the line works best for us.