I just bought a pair of these based on this review. Glad I did. I've been on enforcer 94 for a couple of years. I like the enforcer, but its a do-all ski tilted in the direction I like the least. Powder on bumps or in trees is my fav, followed by bumps, then trees, and finally groomers if I have no other choice. Hardpack and ice I don't ski. The enforcer will do all that, but is a lot of work in bumps and trees. Surprisingly good in powder, and of course it shines in groomers. Its a lot of work in bumps and trees because its full of metal (see "shines on groomers"), and wants to carve all the time, which is a problem because in bumps and trees I need some smear. Its also heavy (see "full of metal") and requires deliberate moves to get the tails out of the snow over a bump, and has to be set back down in the snow exactly right or it refuses to smear and carves out from under me. Blaze seems to be a do-all ski tilted towards my preference. It is shockingly light. First ride up the chair lift swinging my feet as I endured the Riblett fixed grip slow mo, I was amazed at how quickly my feet were swinging. Twisting the skis side to side was even more amazing. On the snow first run the positive effect of low MOI on quickness and effort was really apparent. The tails come out of the snow effortlessly, and switch direction seemingly twice as fast as the enforcers. You can put them back down in the snow just about anywhere and push them where you need them if you screw up. At first I thought they were too wimpy and could only smear, but found that as you ramp up the edge angle they will bite very aggressively and return the effort in a nice predictable pop. They will carve, but require precision. You have to be exactly in the center of the ski, and you have to put the edge in the snow much earlier than the enforcers. They will carve at high speed, but its not a fun ride. if I need to ski in that mode I'll break out the enforcers or probably just go home. I haven't tried the blaze in deep snow yet, but they seemed as good or better than the enforcer in the 8 inches I had on my first day. I've skied some light skis before, Hexcel Sundancers for example, that chattered so bad they rattled your teeth. The blaze, although light and kind of stiff, don't chatter at all. Probably the rubber in the layup (just like Head 360s, yes I am old). Thanks to ski essentials for the review. Few ski shops recommend the blaze, and don't really understand why an old guy would want to ski moguls and trees in the first place. I'd never had found these if I hadn't read your review.
We have 2 skiers in our group that have the Blaze 94 and 94W in their quiver. The 94 W is set up with a Shift so she can skin up in the resort in the morning and ski the chair the rest of the day. She is a very good technical skier, lots of short radius turns and loves the ski.The Blaze 94 is set up,with a Griffin. He is an old school NE ski the side of the trail skier that makes lots of turns in the fall line. He really likes the ski. I am impressed with what they do on the Blaze 94👍👍⛷⛷
I was finally able to get on my blaze ninety four s. Soft early season day in NY. I really enjoyed these. Conditions were kind of spring like. I purchased these to replace my q s t ninety two. (Previous generation) QSts are a great soft snow ski, but I wanted something a little lighter with a little more tail rocker. This is what I wanted. So far very happy. Really quick edge to edge for something this wide. They are a bit surfy. And the terms were pretty round and smooth. I tried to keep my expectations low for on trail performance. But I thought they did pretty well. Can't wait to get more laps in on these !!🤩🤩
You guys seem very responsive to questions, so here goes. Advanced skier, started around age 7, New England breed, that is just getting back into it, long hiatus away from skiing, straight ski skier all my life, but it really is like 'riding a bike.' Just spent a week in Utah, was on the blacks first day no issues. Rented some Atomic Redline, not sure what model, but wow new tech is insane vs. my last pair of 210cm Fischer whatever they were. The Redline did not feel the best in the powder and kind of heavy, pretty decent in the bumps, but really excelled on the groomers, great turns, both quick/tight Slalom style and long, fast massive GS style. I'm older, in my 50's, good fitness and ~170cm tall at ~150lbs and looking at reviews, reading about the Blaze 94 [and mindful of the 86, which might be a small step down?] these skis seem like what I am after: groomers, really love the bumps and powder is fun, especially with a better powder ski. Not hip to all the new tech advancements, etc. in looking at these would I go with 165 or 172. As a rookie to the "new world ski order" 7 cm does not seem like all that big of a difference, so any insights: go longer or shorter or go with the 86, $100 does not seem like deal breaker to grab the 94. I tend to ski aggressively, which right now my hips are informing me...cheers.
I'm always surprised at how well the 94 handles groomers, and I'm 225 pounds so that's saying something. It does have the metal laminate underfoot which the 86 does not, so it is a bit of a step up when it comes to higher end performance. While you'll see a nice uptick in the powder, tree, and overall versatile performance, it's not going to carve like the Atomics, so there's a trade off here. I'd say that if you're still used to a longer ski, the 172 won't feel too long, and I do think you'll get more out of the 94 than the 86. Have fun!
Hi, i’m an intermediate skier. 5’10 tall and weight 187 pounds. I’m between the blaze 94 and the maverick 95 ti. I ski 80% in groomers and 20% in backcountry, trees, etc
The Blaze continually impresses me with its versatility and agility. The Maverick has a higher performance ceiling when it comes to stability and power at speed, but if you're not skiing that fast that much of the time, the Blaze has more to offer. I'd go Blaze in the 179.
Hello! I'm struggling a bit with determining the length of these skis. I ski in Vermont, 178cm tall, 185 lbs, intermediate/advanced. Plan to pair with Marker Dukes and ski 50/50 touring/resort. I am also looking to improve my tree skiing this season. Any feedback would be great. And would you ever consider pairing these skis with a more robust tech binding with DIN for a dedicated touring kit?
I'd go 179 in that ski for length because they are on the lighter side. Still quite mobile for tree skiing here in VT. I think the binding question is interesting because you could literally put anything on these skis and it'd make sense. Blaze 94 works as a touring only ski as well as a resort/lift served ski equally as well.
Hello! Thanks for the insight. Two scenarios I am hoping you can help with for skiing in VT: 1) 50/50 touring/resort - what would be some appropriate bindings with safety release for this ski when paired with Atomic Hawx Prime XTD 120 GW boots while trying to keep weight lower. 2) 70/30 touring/resort or mostly touring, what would be some ideal tech binding with safety release and some touring boots if the Hawx Prime are too burly. Thanks a bunch!
I am debating between the Blaze 94 vs Kendo 88. I am an average skier and typically ski in groomed areas but occasionally would like to ski on some fresh snow. I am worried about the Blaze 94 being too light while worry the Kendo 88 is not as forgiving.
Maybe there's a middle ground here? Something like the Armada Declivity 92 or the Black Crows Serpo? Nice mix of on and off-trail capabilities with these two. Mainly, though, if you're still stuck between Blaze and Kendo, I do think the Blaze is more fun and easier to use.
As a New England skier, I am particularly concerned with its performance on ice. Does a long rocker necessarily mean a less effective edge and therefore less grip on ice? It could be my imagination just by looking at the shape.
The 3D Radius does a nice job balancing the long rocker in these skis. It allows for more consistent edge grip on firmer snow. If ice and hardpack are big concerns, the move to a ski with more metal in it, and at a narrower shape is worth research. The Mantra 88/Kendo 88 is narrower and has more metal, as well as having that longer rocker profile and they grip just fine!
Bought Blaze 94’s 3 years ago thanks to your reviews. Love them for everything but early morning east coast icy. Can you suggest an all-mountain ski that can handle those conditions. Looking at the Maverick 88/95 ti, Stance 84/90? But I’m open to suggestions. I’m 5’10 215lbs. Thanks
I personally prefer the snow feel of the Stance 90 to the Maverick 88, as those two jump out at me as your two best options based on shape and style. The Stance just feels more connected to the snow in a carved turn and is smoother and more consistent from tip to tail. I'd go with a similar size to the Blaze--176 would be my guess?
I got these 3 years ago as a telemark ski and struggled with carving them on groomed trails. They were great in anything soft, but I could not get the rear ski flexing properly on packed snow. These season I put some Voile TSS bindings on them and moved the mount point quite a bit further forward. This has made a big difference in harder snow. I always liked how well they carved parallel turns on groomers, but now I can pull telemark turns as well when I feel like it. I ended up with telemark boot center roughly on the most forward groove on the ski. Do you do anything special when mounting alpine bindings on these skis?
Great concise review as always. 👍 Looking at the Blaze 94 as a replacement for my Head Kore 93. My Heads are 180 but I’m thinking of sizing down to get something a little easier for the bumps and trees. I’m 5’10” and 150 pounds. I really like how the Heads carve on harder snow and don’t want to give up that performance. It seems that the Volkls would be very similar. Nordica Speedmachine boots, Look SPX 12 bindings. Do you feel the 172 is a good choice? Thank you
I think you're pretty close, however the Blaze is not quite the carver that the Kore 93 is. The logic is sound, though, as the Blaze is easier and more fun in the bumps and trees for sure. Just a bit of a dip in the carving. There's not a whole lot that slides in between those skis, but check out the Atomic Maverick 95 Ti for a lighter ski that has good damping properties due to the metal laminates. I'd say 172 is a good length.
I just got Blaze 94 (186 size). Can you recommend versile bindings for this versile model? I am thinking about Marker Griffon 13 id (size 100). Is it a good choice? Or maybe you have something better in your mind? Thanks
thankyou for another great review. i was close to buying some black crows camox to compliment my kendo 88 but now thinking these would be a better compliment. i would be using them for developing my off piste and moguls adventures. i am c 6ft and similar weight to Bob. which one would you choose?
The Blaze is lighter and more mobile than the Camox, so it is more different than the Kendo, which it sounds like what you're looking for. The only thing really keeping you in Camox world is the twin tip, so if you're looking to get into any type of creative or freestyle skiing, then that's a good Camox argument, but if you're keeping it more directional, I'd go with the Blaze.
I think you might stay on the 106! I'm a huge 94 fan here in Vermont--great in the bumps, trees, and groomers. We skied the 114 last year in some decent snow and really enjoyed it! I fear you'll either lose love for the 106 or never get out on the 94/114! But, I'm not here to talk you out of a good time or buying more skis.
I would like to demo this. I am on a 178 X-Wing Tornado. 5'&" 155 lbs. What length would you recommend. I ski 50/50 on/off piste in the NM/CO. The QST 92 was ok. Faction Prodigy was decent. What others would you recommend? You guys rock.
Is the Blaze 94 much different than the older 90eight? I have been skiing the 90eight for years and really enjoy how light and versatile it is. I did purchase that ski a little long for stability at higher speeds on groomers but have been thinking of sizing down with the Blaze 94 to have better and quicker maneuverability in the bumps and trees but hopefully still have the stability at speed on the groomers. I am 5' 10" and 175lbs. My 90eight is 184 length. I'm thinking of getting the 179 with the Blaze.
I think it's pretty different, but have really enjoyed both skis for slightly different reasons. The 90Eight was smoother and more powerful while the Blaze is lighter and more agile. Blaze also opens up more of a versatile range when it comes to the touring aspect of the ski, while 90Eight didn't really have that in its bag. If you're looking for a shorter ski, then 179 by all means.
Hi, i am a east coast intermediate skier who skis mainly groomers but want to try moguls and trees. Would this be suitable for me ? i have my eyes on the blaze 94, the blizzard rustler 9, head kore 93, and maybe a ripstick. I want a ski that can excel in most conditions. Thank you for your time i think you guys are great 🙂
Thanks! Sorry for the delay in correspondence. I love the Blaze 94, even as a larger and more aggressive skier. I think this is one of the more rewarding skis out there. The Kore can feel a bit stiff if you're not willing to get the thing up on edge, and while it's light enough for trees and bumps, the stiffness can make it feel kinda rough. Rustler 9 has a lot going for it in terms of versatility, but again, it's got a decent amount of metal in it that can be disruptive to a progressing intermediate. No issues with Ripstick--I put that right there with the Blaze in terms of being easy, fun, and with a high level of performance. I'd narrow focus to those two, with the Blaze being a bit more consistent in flex from tip to tail.
Hi, thanks for the reviews. What would you recommend for 170 tall, 65kg skiing in Austria, Italy, Swiss off the piste mainly. Looking for agility, playfulness. My thoughts are Blaze 94 - 165 or Sender 94ti - 164. Want to move from Quatro rs 76 which fits me on the piste but not off. Cheers
Sender takes the stability to the next level over Blaze but isn't quite as quick or agile. If agility and playfulness are at the top of your list, then the Blaze is the way to go.
Is there a difference between the 2022, 2023 and 2024 models apart from the cover sheet? Which length would you recommend for me (182 cm, 84 kg)? I am undecided between the 179 and the 186 version. I would use the skis for touring as well as on the slopes.
Hey, I am quite new to backcountry skiing. I am not sure if I want to buy the volkl blaze 94 for 640 dollars or the Kästle TX93 21/22 for 500 dollars? Love the channel 👍
Looking forward to getting a 23 version on sale. Would you recommend the 165, I’m 176cm 180lbs. Will probably pair with atk raider and zero g pro tour. Do US resorts allow touring bindings for alpine skiing as long as they’re braked/ leashed?
Hi, how stiff ist the middle of the ski, where the binding retention plate is placed? I’m playing with the idea to mount a light weight tech binding without heel elastic travel - ATK Haute Route on this ski, but I’m not sure if it is the right ski for that binding. Thanks.
With the metal, it's pretty stiff underfoot. While it's more meant for something more hybrid-like, I don't think this minimalistic binding is necessarily bad.
I think pretty darn good. If you look at the rocker profile for a lot of these Blaze series of skis, they're pretty flat camber with a lot of long and low rocker. This makes for a decent floater for the width for sure.
I know you like stiffer skis with carbon.. With this ski what makes up for the carbon? The other thing about this particular waist width, how can there not be camber? I thought it was the camber that carves the turns..
Camber provides energy and grip, the sidecut generates the turn. There is camber, it's just slight, and for the width, the rocker is on the long side of the spectrum. Nothing in the build makes up for the lack of carbon--if the Blaze had carbon like the Kore, it'd be so much stiffer and more responsive.
Hi! Any chance you could compare the main advantages/disadvantage between the Blaze 94 and Blizzard Hustle 9. Both in a 172. I'm 66kg, advance skier but not aggressive. Would be used for a 60 backcountry 40 resort. Mounted with a tech binding such as the ATK Freeraider. Thank-you!
I like the Blaze when it comes to longer turns and carving while the Hustle 9 is a lot quicker and more mobile. I'd put the Hustle in the more dedicated touring category while the Blaze is more well-rounded. I'm personally more fond of the Blaze.
Hi! I am looking forward to buy me a Blaze but I don't know which size. I'm 174cm and I would like to use the it as a touring ski. Of course preferring the downhill. Know I was wondering if I should take it whit 172cm or 179cm?
I've personally had more success on the Blaze vs. the Unlimited overall. Maybe for a touring-specific ski, I'd take the Unlmitied but I really enjoy the Blaze.
Hey guys, would you recommend the 165 or 172? I’m an intermediate skier, 168cm tall, 190lbs and have skied the bent chetler 100 in a 172 in the past and dynastar x96 in a 166cm. The dynastar felt short but it had more rocker than the blaze.
I'd say the 172 will be a bit better for your stats and application, especially if you're cool with the Bent in the 172 and found the Dynastar to be short. It does have a lot of rocker, but it's a burlier ski, so that kind of offsets/balances.
I just bought a pair of these based on this review. Glad I did. I've been on enforcer 94 for a couple of years. I like the enforcer, but its a do-all ski tilted in the direction I like the least. Powder on bumps or in trees is my fav, followed by bumps, then trees, and finally groomers if I have no other choice. Hardpack and ice I don't ski. The enforcer will do all that, but is a lot of work in bumps and trees. Surprisingly good in powder, and of course it shines in groomers. Its a lot of work in bumps and trees because its full of metal (see "shines on groomers"), and wants to carve all the time, which is a problem because in bumps and trees I need some smear. Its also heavy (see "full of metal") and requires deliberate moves to get the tails out of the snow over a bump, and has to be set back down in the snow exactly right or it refuses to smear and carves out from under me.
Blaze seems to be a do-all ski tilted towards my preference. It is shockingly light. First ride up the chair lift swinging my feet as I endured the Riblett fixed grip slow mo, I was amazed at how quickly my feet were swinging. Twisting the skis side to side was even more amazing. On the snow first run the positive effect of low MOI on quickness and effort was really apparent. The tails come out of the snow effortlessly, and switch direction seemingly twice as fast as the enforcers. You can put them back down in the snow just about anywhere and push them where you need them if you screw up.
At first I thought they were too wimpy and could only smear, but found that as you ramp up the edge angle they will bite very aggressively and return the effort in a nice predictable pop. They will carve, but require precision. You have to be exactly in the center of the ski, and you have to put the edge in the snow much earlier than the enforcers. They will carve at high speed, but its not a fun ride. if I need to ski in that mode I'll break out the enforcers or probably just go home. I haven't tried the blaze in deep snow yet, but they seemed as good or better than the enforcer in the 8 inches I had on my first day.
I've skied some light skis before, Hexcel Sundancers for example, that chattered so bad they rattled your teeth. The blaze, although light and kind of stiff, don't chatter at all. Probably the rubber in the layup (just like Head 360s, yes I am old).
Thanks to ski essentials for the review. Few ski shops recommend the blaze, and don't really understand why an old guy would want to ski moguls and trees in the first place. I'd never had found these if I hadn't read your review.
Awesome! Especially when it's normally put up against a Mantra as a mid-90's ski from Volkl! Very different products for very different skiers!
We have 2 skiers in our group that have the Blaze 94 and 94W in their quiver. The 94 W is set up with a Shift so she can skin up in the resort in the morning and ski the chair the rest of the day. She is a very good technical skier, lots of short radius turns and loves the ski.The Blaze 94 is set up,with a Griffin. He is an old school NE ski the side of the trail skier that makes lots of turns in the fall line. He really likes the ski. I am impressed with what they do on the Blaze 94👍👍⛷⛷
I've been impressed with the Blaze 94 every single time I've skied it. At 225 pounds, I think that says a lot for the capabilities of that ski.
I was finally able to get on my blaze ninety four s. Soft early season day in NY. I really enjoyed these. Conditions were kind of spring like. I purchased these to replace my q s t ninety two. (Previous generation) QSts are a great soft snow ski, but I wanted something a little lighter with a little more tail rocker. This is what I wanted. So far very happy. Really quick edge to edge for something this wide. They are a bit surfy. And the terms were pretty round and smooth. I tried to keep my expectations low for on trail performance. But I thought they did pretty well. Can't wait to get more laps in on these !!🤩🤩
You guys seem very responsive to questions, so here goes. Advanced skier, started around age 7, New England breed, that is just getting back into it, long hiatus away from skiing, straight ski skier all my life, but it really is like 'riding a bike.' Just spent a week in Utah, was on the blacks first day no issues. Rented some Atomic Redline, not sure what model, but wow new tech is insane vs. my last pair of 210cm Fischer whatever they were. The Redline did not feel the best in the powder and kind of heavy, pretty decent in the bumps, but really excelled on the groomers, great turns, both quick/tight Slalom style and long, fast massive GS style. I'm older, in my 50's, good fitness and ~170cm tall at ~150lbs and looking at reviews, reading about the Blaze 94 [and mindful of the 86, which might be a small step down?] these skis seem like what I am after: groomers, really love the bumps and powder is fun, especially with a better powder ski. Not hip to all the new tech advancements, etc. in looking at these would I go with 165 or 172. As a rookie to the "new world ski order" 7 cm does not seem like all that big of a difference, so any insights: go longer or shorter or go with the 86, $100 does not seem like deal breaker to grab the 94. I tend to ski aggressively, which right now my hips are informing me...cheers.
I'm always surprised at how well the 94 handles groomers, and I'm 225 pounds so that's saying something. It does have the metal laminate underfoot which the 86 does not, so it is a bit of a step up when it comes to higher end performance. While you'll see a nice uptick in the powder, tree, and overall versatile performance, it's not going to carve like the Atomics, so there's a trade off here. I'd say that if you're still used to a longer ski, the 172 won't feel too long, and I do think you'll get more out of the 94 than the 86. Have fun!
Hi, i’m an intermediate skier. 5’10 tall and weight 187 pounds. I’m between the blaze 94 and the maverick 95 ti. I ski 80% in groomers and 20% in backcountry, trees, etc
The Blaze continually impresses me with its versatility and agility. The Maverick has a higher performance ceiling when it comes to stability and power at speed, but if you're not skiing that fast that much of the time, the Blaze has more to offer. I'd go Blaze in the 179.
My next ski for all mountain
Hello! I'm struggling a bit with determining the length of these skis. I ski in Vermont, 178cm tall, 185 lbs, intermediate/advanced. Plan to pair with Marker Dukes and ski 50/50 touring/resort. I am also looking to improve my tree skiing this season. Any feedback would be great. And would you ever consider pairing these skis with a more robust tech binding with DIN for a dedicated touring kit?
I'd go 179 in that ski for length because they are on the lighter side. Still quite mobile for tree skiing here in VT. I think the binding question is interesting because you could literally put anything on these skis and it'd make sense. Blaze 94 works as a touring only ski as well as a resort/lift served ski equally as well.
Hello! Thanks for the insight.
Two scenarios I am hoping you can help with for skiing in VT:
1) 50/50 touring/resort - what would be some appropriate bindings with safety release for this ski when paired with Atomic Hawx Prime XTD 120 GW boots while trying to keep weight lower.
2) 70/30 touring/resort or mostly touring, what would be some ideal tech binding with safety release and some touring boots if the Hawx Prime are too burly.
Thanks a bunch!
I am debating between the Blaze 94 vs Kendo 88. I am an average skier and typically ski in groomed areas but occasionally would like to ski on some fresh snow. I am worried about the Blaze 94 being too light while worry the Kendo 88 is not as forgiving.
Maybe there's a middle ground here? Something like the Armada Declivity 92 or the Black Crows Serpo? Nice mix of on and off-trail capabilities with these two. Mainly, though, if you're still stuck between Blaze and Kendo, I do think the Blaze is more fun and easier to use.
As a New England skier, I am particularly concerned with its performance on ice. Does a long rocker necessarily mean a less effective edge and therefore less grip on ice? It could be my imagination just by looking at the shape.
The 3D Radius does a nice job balancing the long rocker in these skis. It allows for more consistent edge grip on firmer snow. If ice and hardpack are big concerns, the move to a ski with more metal in it, and at a narrower shape is worth research. The Mantra 88/Kendo 88 is narrower and has more metal, as well as having that longer rocker profile and they grip just fine!
Bought Blaze 94’s 3 years ago thanks to your reviews. Love them for everything but early morning east coast icy.
Can you suggest an all-mountain ski that can handle those conditions. Looking at the Maverick 88/95 ti, Stance 84/90? But I’m open to suggestions. I’m 5’10 215lbs. Thanks
I personally prefer the snow feel of the Stance 90 to the Maverick 88, as those two jump out at me as your two best options based on shape and style. The Stance just feels more connected to the snow in a carved turn and is smoother and more consistent from tip to tail. I'd go with a similar size to the Blaze--176 would be my guess?
I got these 3 years ago as a telemark ski and struggled with carving them on groomed trails. They were great in anything soft, but I could not get the rear ski flexing properly on packed snow. These season I put some Voile TSS bindings on them and moved the mount point quite a bit further forward. This has made a big difference in harder snow. I always liked how well they carved parallel turns on groomers, but now I can pull telemark turns as well when I feel like it. I ended up with telemark boot center roughly on the most forward groove on the ski. Do you do anything special when mounting alpine bindings on these skis?
Nothing special. We've found they work just fine mounted on the line.
Great concise review as always. 👍
Looking at the Blaze 94 as a replacement for my Head Kore 93. My Heads are 180 but I’m thinking of sizing down to get something a little easier for the bumps and trees. I’m 5’10” and 150 pounds. I really like how the Heads carve on harder snow and don’t want to give up that performance. It seems that the Volkls would be very similar.
Nordica Speedmachine boots, Look SPX 12 bindings. Do you feel the 172 is a good choice?
Thank you
I think you're pretty close, however the Blaze is not quite the carver that the Kore 93 is. The logic is sound, though, as the Blaze is easier and more fun in the bumps and trees for sure. Just a bit of a dip in the carving. There's not a whole lot that slides in between those skis, but check out the Atomic Maverick 95 Ti for a lighter ski that has good damping properties due to the metal laminates. I'd say 172 is a good length.
I just got Blaze 94 (186 size). Can you recommend versile bindings for this versile model? I am thinking about Marker Griffon 13 id (size 100). Is it a good choice? Or maybe you have something better in your mind? Thanks
Nope, you're on the money with the Griffon in the 100 mm brake.
thankyou for another great review. i was close to buying some black crows camox to compliment my kendo 88 but now thinking these would be a better compliment. i would be using them for developing my off piste and moguls adventures. i am c 6ft and similar weight to Bob. which one would you choose?
The Blaze is lighter and more mobile than the Camox, so it is more different than the Kendo, which it sounds like what you're looking for. The only thing really keeping you in Camox world is the twin tip, so if you're looking to get into any type of creative or freestyle skiing, then that's a good Camox argument, but if you're keeping it more directional, I'd go with the Blaze.
I love my Blaze 106s.
Would Blaze 94 and Blaze 114 make a nice quiver? Would I still ever use the 106s, would the gaps be too small?
I think you might stay on the 106! I'm a huge 94 fan here in Vermont--great in the bumps, trees, and groomers. We skied the 114 last year in some decent snow and really enjoyed it! I fear you'll either lose love for the 106 or never get out on the 94/114! But, I'm not here to talk you out of a good time or buying more skis.
I would like to demo this. I am on a 178 X-Wing Tornado. 5'&" 155 lbs. What length would you recommend. I ski 50/50 on/off piste in the NM/CO. The QST 92 was ok. Faction Prodigy was decent. What others would you recommend? You guys rock.
Blaze is pretty poppy and light compared to the QST. I'd say the mid 170's is a good place to be for these skis.
Is the Blaze 94 much different than the older 90eight? I have been skiing the 90eight for years and really enjoy how light and versatile it is. I did purchase that ski a little long for stability at higher speeds on groomers but have been thinking of sizing down with the Blaze 94 to have better and quicker maneuverability in the bumps and trees but hopefully still have the stability at speed on the groomers. I am 5' 10" and 175lbs. My 90eight is 184 length. I'm thinking of getting the 179 with the Blaze.
I think it's pretty different, but have really enjoyed both skis for slightly different reasons. The 90Eight was smoother and more powerful while the Blaze is lighter and more agile. Blaze also opens up more of a versatile range when it comes to the touring aspect of the ski, while 90Eight didn't really have that in its bag. If you're looking for a shorter ski, then 179 by all means.
Hi, i am a east coast intermediate skier who skis mainly groomers but want to try moguls and trees. Would this be suitable for me ? i have my eyes on the blaze 94, the blizzard rustler 9, head kore 93, and maybe a ripstick. I want a ski that can excel in most conditions. Thank you for your time i think you guys are great 🙂
Thanks! Sorry for the delay in correspondence.
I love the Blaze 94, even as a larger and more aggressive skier. I think this is one of the more rewarding skis out there. The Kore can feel a bit stiff if you're not willing to get the thing up on edge, and while it's light enough for trees and bumps, the stiffness can make it feel kinda rough. Rustler 9 has a lot going for it in terms of versatility, but again, it's got a decent amount of metal in it that can be disruptive to a progressing intermediate. No issues with Ripstick--I put that right there with the Blaze in terms of being easy, fun, and with a high level of performance. I'd narrow focus to those two, with the Blaze being a bit more consistent in flex from tip to tail.
Hi, thanks for the reviews. What would you recommend for 170 tall, 65kg skiing in Austria, Italy, Swiss off the piste mainly. Looking for agility, playfulness. My thoughts are Blaze 94 - 165 or Sender 94ti - 164. Want to move from Quatro rs 76 which fits me on the piste but not off. Cheers
Sender takes the stability to the next level over Blaze but isn't quite as quick or agile. If agility and playfulness are at the top of your list, then the Blaze is the way to go.
Is there a difference between the 2022, 2023 and 2024 models apart from the cover sheet?
Which length would you recommend for me (182 cm, 84 kg)? I am undecided between the 179 and the 186 version. I would use the skis for touring as well as on the slopes.
Zero difference since inception other than graphics. I would say the 179 is better for you based on your stats and application. Have fun!
Hey, I am quite new to backcountry skiing. I am not sure if I want to buy the volkl blaze 94 for 640 dollars or the Kästle TX93 21/22 for 500 dollars? Love the channel 👍
Kastle.
Looking forward to getting a 23 version on sale. Would you recommend the 165, I’m 176cm 180lbs. Will probably pair with atk raider and zero g pro tour. Do US resorts allow touring bindings for alpine skiing as long as they’re braked/ leashed?
If you're looking to keep it light and fast, the 165 will be fine. You can use the bindings as long as there's a retention system of some kind.
Is this good for a park terrain ski? 90% groomers with a bit in the trees and park. 5’11” 190lbs. 179 good size?
It's not a twin tip, so it's not naturally a good park ski. They make a Revolt 96 which works great in the park.
Hi, how stiff ist the middle of the ski, where the binding retention plate is placed? I’m playing with the idea to mount a light weight tech binding without heel elastic travel - ATK Haute Route on this ski, but I’m not sure if it is the right ski for that binding. Thanks.
With the metal, it's pretty stiff underfoot. While it's more meant for something more hybrid-like, I don't think this minimalistic binding is necessarily bad.
How would this be for a one-ski-quiver in the Rockies? Does this perform okay on powder days?
I think pretty darn good. If you look at the rocker profile for a lot of these Blaze series of skis, they're pretty flat camber with a lot of long and low rocker. This makes for a decent floater for the width for sure.
I know you like stiffer skis with carbon.. With this ski what makes up for the carbon? The other thing about this particular waist width, how can there not be camber? I thought it was the camber that carves the turns..
Camber provides energy and grip, the sidecut generates the turn. There is camber, it's just slight, and for the width, the rocker is on the long side of the spectrum. Nothing in the build makes up for the lack of carbon--if the Blaze had carbon like the Kore, it'd be so much stiffer and more responsive.
Hi! Any chance you could compare the main advantages/disadvantage between the Blaze 94 and Blizzard Hustle 9. Both in a 172. I'm 66kg, advance skier but not aggressive. Would be used for a 60 backcountry 40 resort. Mounted with a tech binding such as the ATK Freeraider. Thank-you!
I like the Blaze when it comes to longer turns and carving while the Hustle 9 is a lot quicker and more mobile. I'd put the Hustle in the more dedicated touring category while the Blaze is more well-rounded. I'm personally more fond of the Blaze.
@@SkiEssentials thank-you for getting back to me. Your reviews are the best on the net.
Hi! I am looking forward to buy me a Blaze but I don't know which size. I'm 174cm and I would like to use the it as a touring ski. Of course preferring the downhill. Know I was wondering if I should take it whit 172cm or 179cm?
I'd go 172 in that ski--surprisingly stable and smooth for the weight!
How this compare with unlimited 94, soft snow, and hardpack.
Any reason to choose one over the other?
I've personally had more success on the Blaze vs. the Unlimited overall. Maybe for a touring-specific ski, I'd take the Unlmitied but I really enjoy the Blaze.
Hey guys, would you recommend the 165 or 172? I’m an intermediate skier, 168cm tall, 190lbs and have skied the bent chetler 100 in a 172 in the past and dynastar x96 in a 166cm. The dynastar felt short but it had more rocker than the blaze.
I'd say the 172 will be a bit better for your stats and application, especially if you're cool with the Bent in the 172 and found the Dynastar to be short. It does have a lot of rocker, but it's a burlier ski, so that kind of offsets/balances.
@@SkiEssentials I ended up ordering a QST92 in a 168. Which I know you guys are fond of.