2018 Elan Ripstick 96 Skis 2018 Elan Ripstick 96 Skis

2018 Elan Ripstick 96 Skis

Elan has a whole slew of new skis for 2018 with the Ripstick 96 sitting smack dab in the middle of their freeride line in terms of the range of widths. These skis are based on Elan’s new Amphibio tech that uses specifically shaped core profiles for the left and right ski. Essentially the inside edge of the ski uses a more cambered shape to ensure edge grip and stability while a more rockered outer edge allows for quick adjustments and seamless turn initiation. The construction of the ski is designed to be both lightweight and stable thanks to a wood core with partial vapor tip inserts. The result is a ski that screams versatility, especially considering its 96 mm waist width. We were excited to find out what our testers thought of these new skis and are happy to report they received some high praise. Each of testers skied the 181 cm length.

Mike Anglin found them to be incredibly quick and playful, scoring the Ripstick 96 5 out of 5 for quickness, playfulness, as well as versatility. He described it as a “super playful medium to short turn ripper.” He also found the Ripstick 96 really adapted well to different snow conditions. On our test days we saw some firm, frozen snow up top with softer, spring-like snow at the bottom. Mike thought the ski “loved the different snow conditions from top to bottom,” and felt that “advanced intermediates to experts will love it.” Left and right specific skis are somewhat rare, but Mike thought the “Amphibio tech really felt normal,” and that it “will put a smile on your face.”

Joe Cutts found that it felt “extremely light and skiddy” when he first got on it. He admitted that he “thought I was gonna find it too wimpy after the first couple turns, but found that I could actually trust it to hold an edge and swing me back across the hill.” Joe thought it had excellent “soft snow float and ultra-nimble quickness” in addition to its ability to hold an edge. Joe found it was “surprisingly easy to control and steer and allows you to skid off speed in an instant.”

Mike Thomas was another tester that was very impressed by the new Ripstick 96 from Elan. Mike gave the ski high scores with 5 out of 5 for flotation, quickness, playfulness, forgiveness, and versatility. Those attributes seem to be what Elan was focused on achieving by giving the ski a relatively lightweight core and this ultra-maneuverable asymmetrical shape. Mike described it as “fun, quick, and lively.” He thought it did great in softer snow, and although we didn’t have any powder to ski, Mike thought it “handled the lower mountain slush beautifully.” The Ripstick 96 is going to be a great choice for skiers that like to ski tight terrain that requires a lot of quick adjustments and sliding turns. Mike definitely felt this too, commenting that it was “easy to pivot, would be really fun in the trees.” Mike thinks the ski is going to be best described as an “all mountain off-piste ski with plenty of versatility.”

We think Mike Thomas described the Ripstick 96 really well and we agree with him that it’s going to be a blast to ski in the trees. The asymmetrical rocker profile is super interesting and definitely achieves what it was designed to do. As Joe Cutts commented, it’s so maneuverable that its level of edge grip is somewhat surprising, but when you lock that inside edge into the snow it definitely holds. While super aggressive speed demons may want something with more metal for their all mountain ski, not much matches the Ripstick’s versatility across a variety of terrain and conditions.

Testers

Mike Anglin Ski Tester Headshot Image

Mike Anglin

Age: 39Height: 6'"Weight: 190 lbs.

Ski Style: All mountain freeride with a racing background

Steve Sulin Ski Tester Profile Photo

Steve Sulin

Age: 42Height: 5'10"Weight: 235 lbs.

Ski Style: Smooth, precise GS turns

Bob St. Pierre Ski Tester Headshot Image

Bob St. Pierre

Age: 39Height: 6'2"Weight: 215 lbs.

Ski Style: Adaptable, versatile, ex-competitive mogul skier.

Joe Cutts Ski Tester Headshot Image

Joe Cutts

Age: 54Height: 6'3"Weight: 225 lbs.

Ski Style: Heavy-footed, a little reckless, bumps, trees, beer league

Justin Perry Ski Tester Headshot Image

Justin Perry

Age: 27Height: 5'9"Weight: 170 lbs.

Ski Style: Aggressive All Mountain Freeride

Mike Thomas Ski Tester Headshot Image

Mike Thomas

Age: 48Height: 6'3"Weight: 225 lbs.

Ski Style: Upright, fluid nimble, powerful

52 Comments on the “2018 Elan Ripstick 96 Skis”

  1. Hey! Deciding between Ripstick 96 and Line Vision (new) or Supernatural 94. Had a blast a few years ago on Supernaturals. One quiver use. Mid-Atlantic East Coast is home, but 50% use in CO/UT. 6’3″, 190-195lbs. Mostly off-piste in West and hard pack, groomers in East. Skiing Brahma 188 currently – too heavy and stiff/not playful enough, though decent on hard and ice. No real jumps or park use. I Like quick, tight turns – trees, bumps, narrow chutes – things I had occasional challenges with on the Brahmas. I’m not a speed demon – will go fast on groomers, but off-piste far more measured.

    2 questions: a) which ski(s) match best, and 2) length – stick with 188 or drop to 181?

    Thanks!

    1. Hi Paul!
      I’d say the Vision is on the soft side, and if you liked the Supernatural, I wouldn’t talk you out of it. The Ripstick is a great ski with a modern feel for sure. Loves being on edge, but is still playful and super quick. I loved how light they were, but still stable. They also make the 96 in a “Black” edition which comes with an extra sheet of carbon for stiffness. I’d say the 188 is still they way to go. Hope that helps!
      SE

  2. Could you tell me the difference in the ride of the ripstick 96 black and the ripstick 96 regular?

    1. Hi Ben!
      The black has extra carbon, so is stiffer and more responsive–certainly a higher-performing ski especially on groomers at high speeds. Have fun!
      SE

  3. Hello SE,

    Thanks for the great article and review of the Elan 96 Ripstick. I am comparing this ski to the Nordica Enforcer 93 and need some advise as I am still not sure that the 96 Ripstick will hold on ice.

    I am 5’10, 160 lbs. in my early 60’s (but you would not know it), mid-east coast skier that goes out west occasionally. Have been skiing since a kid. Some early racing dna in my background so the majority of my skis have been GS racing skis. I don’t have the legs I once had that could force a slalom turn on a GS ski and need something else and at this age. I have a 2 year old pair of Volkl Code S skis now and love carving these nice wonderful short turns on steep groomer slopes but that’s all they are good for other than possibly hitting some racing gates on a SL course. As a kid I skied moguls and now miss that. The Volkl Code S will not ski in the moguls. I demoed a pair of Elan 86 Ripsticks last weekend. So much fun in the moguls, so light and easy to throw around and floats extremely well in the powder too but on a long groomer runs all one can do is skid turns. Turn, turn, turn one million short skidding turns to the bottom of a long groomer. This is good for a workout but I’m there to carve it up and have fun!

    I did like the Elan Amphibio tech. It does what it’s suppose to do. The ski is very light, easy to unweight, liked that also. But the skidding is not my style, I ski mostly on packed snow and ice. Power if I’m lucky. I am thinking about 2 skis that would meet my needs. The Elan 96 Ripstick (maybe the Black edition if recommended) and the Nordica Enforcer 93. I would love a ski that can carve short, (mostly) medium, and long radius turns but I would like a ski that I can take into the bumps, floats on powder when the opportunity is there and have some fun there also. I know I’m asking a lot from a ski. What do you recommend?

    1. Hi Mark!
      If you’re looking for performance on ice in an all-mountain format, the Enforcer 93 is a better choice than the Ripstick (Black edition is the same as regular, just different graphic). Any ski with metal will ultimately hold better on ice than a non-metal ski. I think you’ll love the E93, it’s incredibly versatile and a strong performer on hard groomers. Have fun!
      SE

  4. I’m 6’1″ and around 180lbs, I’m intermediate to advanced skier and have been skiing for nearly 35 years, but really heavy the last 5 years. I mostly ski east coast on piste but am looking for something to be more playful in the powder and off piste. I currently am skiing the rossignol experience 78 174cm which is way too heavy but good for carving on groomers and icy days. I want a lighter and wider more playful ski for powder days, groomers and even the park but also want to be able to hold a good edge when necessary. Would you recommend the ripstick 96 for this type of skiing or something like volkl revolt 95 ski? I’m thinking 181 for either ski.

    1. Hi Mike!
      I personally like the Revolt 95 for all-mountain playfulness. The Ripstick 96 is light, fun, easy to ski, and loves being on edge. If you’re looking for a wider carving ski, then this is a great choice, but if you’re looking for a ski that can do it all, the Revolt is pretty slick. Yes you’ll give up some hard-snow performance, but that’s what you have the other skis for, right? Hope that helps!
      SE

  5. I’m considering the Elan Ripstick 96(ok, dead set on them) as I currently own a pair of Elan’s 14 TI’s 172 cm. I’m 5’10”, (178 cm), about 200Lbs, advanced to expert and pretty much ski all terrains with most of the season skiing in the East. Speed and turns with blue groomers all being fun and throwing in the steep experts as well. I’ll be out West next month and would like to use a wider ski and wanting to still be able to use it in the east. So that is why I’m not considering the 106’s. Right now the suggested length for myself is 181 cm but where I am looking they only have 174 cm or 188 cm…soo the million dollar question is which size, go up to 188 or down to 174…I like fast but love to make great carving turns as well…I said fast right…help…

  6. Hi,

    I’ve pretty much decided on the Ripstick 96 but am torn between 174 vs 167 length. I’m 48 yrs old, 177cm, 170lbs, ski mostly coastal mountains out west, and consider myself an advanced skier. My previous skis are 170 all mountain skis and are heavy with bindings that don’t have vertical release on the front section(which is partly why I’m buying new skis). I partially tore my ACL and LCL last spring and look forward to get back into skiing and to reduce risk, have decided to stay away from more challenging runs and jumps. I plan on mostly skiing with my young kids on easier runs. The ski shop recommends 174 (they claim these ripsticks handle like shorter skis due to the long rocker) but I’m still leaning towards 167. I enjoy skis that have a snappy feel coming out of turns and like to make lots of short turns on-piste at moderate speeds. I and am not much into high speeds any longer and only plan on occasionally heading off piste and would like a ski that can still offer some decent floatation in fresh snow. Would the 167 be to short for my weight / height? Would it offer the snappiness I like and yet offer enough floatation in fresh snow? Or do you to think the 174 would be a better fit for me?

    Thanks,

    Kent

    1. Hi Kent!
      On the surface, I’d recommend the 174, but because of your history and the fact that you sound tentative about the longer length, you should probably get the shorter length. You’ll have more confidence, and although I agree with the shop that they ski short, they’re still pretty stable, so I think you’ll appreciate the lighter weight and increased maneuverability of the shorter length. You’ll lose a bit on the flotation, but everything’s a compromise, right? Have fun!
      SE

  7. Hi, I am not sure whether I am too late with the comment here, but would appreciate your input if possible

    I am 75kg and 178cm in height. I currently have the 163cm 2012 ace of spades by Nordica ( I’m not a great park skier but managed to get a very good deal on these so I went for them)

    I don’t feel currently that they are very short, I would say I am a mid intermediate and I enjoy the fact that with the shorter length comes better manoeuvrability.

    I found a good deal on these Ripstick 96 (174cm) and was wondering whether you think these will be too long for me? I spend most of the time on the groomers but would like to venture into the soft stuff more. Do you think I’ll find these too hard to turn?

    Thank you in advance
    Pav

    1. Hi Pav!
      I think you’ll be just fine. They’re quite light and maneuverable, so they tend to ski a bit short. Have fun!
      SE

  8. Hi
    I’m 177cm/74kg, good skier trying to figure out, which length of the Ripstick 96 I should choose using it as a all season touring/free touring ski. For the skiing I tend to 181cm – but given my rather short legs I’m a bit worried about climbing/kick turning in difficult terrain with skis so long (coming from a 172cm ski). What’s your recommendation?

    1. Hi DiP!
      I’d go with the 174. They’re pretty stable for how light they are, so you’ll love the performance of the 174 as well as the maneuverability. Have fun!
      SE

  9. Hi
    I’m really interested in the Ripstick 96 as all-season touring/free-touring ski. I’m 177cm/74kg, good skier. I would actually go for the 181 lenght (which according to some test is shorter than indicated) for the skiing. But I’m uncertain for the climbing part with kick turns in difficult terrain. I’m coming from a 172 cm Dynastar Cham High Mountain, with I can handle well with my rather short legs. What’s your lenght recommendation for this ski when used for climbing as well?

    1. Hi DiP!

      Yeah, I’d go 181 cm. In my opinion, that length isn’t going to be too challenging for kick turns or when you need to make other tight maneuvers when touring. The Ripstick 96 also uses quite a lot of tip rocker, which makes the longer lengths feel a little more maneuverable and more forgiving as well. I think you’ll be just fine on the 181 cm.

      SE

  10. As an aggressive, but older skier (73) who is 5’6″ and 165 lbs, I enjoy skiing a ski that is about 169 or 170 cm. I loved demo the ripstick 96 but thought the 174 cm was a bit long but am worried that the 167 is going to be too short. I’m looking for an all mountain wide ski that can handle the groomers and moderate bumps but also powder up to about 14-16 “. I like tree skiing through the glades when there is enough snow at Deer Valley. thoughts?

    1. Hi Peter!

      If you’ve been enjoying skiing a 169 cm length, 167 cm really isn’t far off that at all. 2 cm really doesn’t make a huge difference. Remember, that’s only 1 cm in front of you and 1 cm behind you. The Ripstick is really a great ski for you. We already know you like the feel of it after your demo, and I really don’t expect 167 cm is going to feel too short for you.

      What do you think? Have you tried any other skis?

      SE

  11. I am looking at the Ripstick Black. I am 5’6 and 145 lbs. What length would you suggest. The shop suggested the 181 but I think that would be too long and from the website it looks like the 174 would be a better fit. I prefer quick and agile skis in general and head for the trees whenever I can. Any thoughts on ski length for a smaller aggressive skier? Thanks

    1. I agree, 181 cm feels long. I think the 174 cm length is more appropriate for your size. It shouldn’t lack any stability or power for you. I would worry the 181 cm would be challenging to maneuver, but I wouldn’t worry about a lack of stability in the 174 cm at all.

      Hope that helps!

      SE

  12. Curious as to what you might think of these as a telemark ski. Love the turn and usually ski in Midwest so needs to be able to handle hard snow, Also make it out west to Targhee and steamboat each year and dig the trees. 6’2″ and 215# ski patrol. Currently skiing older G3 Rapid Transits which are asymmetrical using NTN binding system. Thanks for any insight.

    1. Hi Jeff!

      I think it would be a fun tele ski. It has a nice even flex pattern from tip to tail. Not stiff, but can hold an edge well when you want it to. Definitely really fun in western terrain, but will be reasonably back in the Midwest too. You could probably even justify getting the longest length, the 188 cm. It uses a fair amount of rocker and early taper, so skis a little short. 181 cm could work too if you prefer shorter skis.

      Hope that helps!

      SE

  13. Hi,

    I’m really interested in the Ripstick 96. I don’t know if I should buy the 181 or the 188. I’d consider myself a strong intermediate skier. I’m 6’1” and 200 lbs.
    I’d like to be able to use them all over the mountain, including the bumps. I’m worried if I go with the 188 that they are going to be too long, but I also worry that since the general consensus is that these skis ski short the 181’s won’t be right?
    Which length should I go with and what’s the risk of going with the 181s or the 188s?

    1. Hi Jon!

      So, you probably already know the benefits of each length. The 188 cm is going to feel a little more stable at speed, the 181 cm is going to feel a little more maneuverable. Which is right for you? In my opinion it comes down to how aggressive you are. Do you like to ski fast and down the fall line? Or do you typically ski at more moderate speeds and make more turns? Of course, it might not be so cut and dry, but think about your own skiing. Do you ski so aggressively that you would benefit from the extra stability of the 188 cm? That length is going to be a few cm taller than you, which can feel like a bit much in tight terrain sometimes, so if you don’t feel like you need the extra stability, I’d go with the 181 cm. That’s only about 4 cm shorter than you, so not exceptionally short by any means.

      Hope that helps! Let me know what you think.

      SE

  14. *****
    I had old atomic that weighed a ton. I tried demos last year of different skis. Nothing I really like. I read tons of reviews and landed on this ski. Bought the 2 days ago. Skied them all day yesterday. Pre-opening at Breckenridge.

    These skis are so amazing. They will give a spectacular ride no matter where you are on the mountain. I did a couple of runs just testing them. and then Bam. I feel like Superman. Definitely kicked my skiing ability up.

    Depending on the edge you give them they will cut big s curve or more edge and they are quick turning. I would swear if I just thought about turning they turned. Very intuitive. I thought they would chatter but didn’t really. Could see the tips bounce and the ski was solid, but it didn’t effect the ride at all. It was a mix of early conditions crud, ice, groomers Unfortunately no great powder. I can’t wait to get them in powder.

    I love them and highly recommend

  15. Thank you for these helpful reviews and advice! After reading this, I’m torn between the 163cm Ripstick 94W and the Head Great Joy. I consider myself a strong intermediate-early advanced skiier on west coast all-mountain terrain (5’6″ 150lbs). I loved the Rossi Soul 7 HD but want something a little more versatile for a single-ski quiver. I also demoed the Great Joys last winter and enjoyed them on the powder. Haven’t tried the Ripstick, but like how light and nimble they sound. How would you say they compare? (I tend to pick my way through the soft/deep stuff and blast straight down groomers, if that helps any)

    Anything will be an upgrade from my current, heavy Nordica Olympia Victories. Thanks for the advice!

    1. Hi Jen C!
      Ha! Both of these skis will be a serious upgrade over the Olympia. You’ll love the light weight maneuverability of the new stuff. It’s amazing because even though they are lighter, they remain quite stable. The Ripsticks are cool because they are asymmetrical. There’s a right and a left ski that have different rocker on the inside and outside edges. In soft snow, the outside edges will slide along the surface creating a super-smooth effect. On hard snow, they inside edges hold perfectly. I’d give the Elan’s the edge as far as an all-mountain ski, while the Heads do an awesome job on-trail even given their width. As much as you liked the Great Joy in powder, my guess is that you’d like the Ripstick even more. Have fun!
      SE

  16. Hi, I’m looking at buying the womens version of the Ripstick for an all mountain ski. I currently use my Black Crows Atris’s pretty much everywhere and I’d like something a bit more versatile for the mediocre snow days! My question is do the Ripsticks ski short, given the rocker? I’m 5ft8 strong skier and am comfortable on my 178 length Atris’s, so I’m looking at the 177 Ripstick W and wondering whether they will feel similar in terms of length?

    Thanks 🙂

    1. Hi Jess!

      Yes, the Ripsticks do ski a little bit short because of the fairly long tip rocker and earlt taper. I definitely think the 177 cm is the way to go if you’re coming off a 178 cm Atris. Our women testers loved the Ripsticks, and again this season in the 2019 test if you want even more feedback. Overall, yes, they’ll feel similar in length to the Atris.

      http://www.skiessentials.com/2019-ski-test?category=brands/elan

      Let me know if you have any other questions!

      SE

  17. Hello,
    I am very curious how you would compare the Ripstuck 96 to the Volkl 90 eight. I am looking at these two and a bit tore.

    1. Hi Luke!

      They have a different feel overall. The Ripstick 96 has a softer flex throughout the ski. It allows for different turn shapes a little more easily, and just overall has a nice even, softer flex. The 90Eight feels very light, but also quite stiff due to the 3D.Ridge construction. Overall I would focus on which flex profile sounds right for you. How much do you weigh? Do you typically prefer softer or stiffer skis? Both are a lot of fun, both very capable all mountain skis, but in my opinion that’s where you’d feel the biggest difference.

      Hope that helps!

      SE

  18. Hi . I currently ride Kastle Fx 84 it’s time for a change . I’m thinking of FX 95. I’m 56 and slowing down a bit . I love the sweet spot in the 84s. I ski In Australia , Canada in our summer . Any suggestions ? So many great skis to choose from.

    1. Hi Brad!

      The FX 95 is awesome. Are you thinking about getting the HP version or the non-HP version (metal vs no metal)? Kastle did make some subtle changes to the FX line from your 94 to the current 95. Even smoother than ever before, easier turn initiation, still plenty of stability and power. That said, if you’re looking to slow down a bit, it might be worth considering the non-HP version of the FX 95. It’s lighter and a little softer flexing, so a little easier.

      The Ripstick 96, the page that you’re commenting on here, would also be a really good choice if you’re trying to slow down and get a slightly more forgiving ski. Lighter weight, a nice even flex pattern that doesn’t feel stiff, but still stays stable. It’s a great ski.

      Let us know if you have any other questions!

      SE

  19. I would like to know how you would compare the Ripstick to the bonafide? I’m super torn on which way to go here? The bonafide has such great reviews and I’m not seeing much on tip chatter and speed with the Ripstick. I really like to rip down the groomers on nice days. Thanks

    1. Hey Zach!
      It kind of all comes down to weight. The Ripstick is lighter and more maneuverable, while the Bonafide is heavier and more stable. If you’re truly spending more time ripping groomers all day, the Bonafide is a better choice of the two. If you are venturing off-trail or want a more playful ski, the Ripstick is a great tool. Surprisingly, for a light ski, the Ripstick doesn’t chatter a whole lot, save for really hard groomers/corduroy, but when it gets cut up even a bit, any chatter will subside. Hope that helps!
      SE

  20. I can’t decide between the 96 or 106. I live on the east coast but will be skiing in Colorado for a good 2 weeks in February. I consider myself an all mountain skier. I like to ski the trees and the groomers, and I try to ski the bumps. Just wondering if the 106’s aren’t as maneuverable as the 96’s? But I really like the color on the 106’s. lol Please help?

    1. Hi Jeremy!

      I think the 96 is a more versatile ski if you’re looking for something to cross over between east cost skiing and western skiing. The 106 would be a little clunky in moguls, just a bit wide for that type of terrain, unless there’s a bunch of soft snow. The 96 will perform better on groomers too. Of course the 106 has the edge in powder, but I would go with the 96 if it’s your everyday all mountain ski. It’s not that the 106 isn’t maneuverable, it’s more that they’re just slower edge to edge and a bit wide for moguls.

      Graphics are important, but overall ski performance is too!

      SE

  21. HI,
    I am torn between these 2 so I would really be interested in how the Ripstik compares to the Fischer ranger T1 98.

    ML

    1. Hi Martin,

      The Ranger 98 Ti is a little bit more powerful and more stable at speed than the Ripstick 96, while the Ripstick feels a little bit lighter and a little quicker. The Ripstick is a little more forgiving too. Overall they’re similar skis, but that’s where I feel the biggest difference.

      SE

  22. Hello
    I’m currently skiing on the 2018 Titan & the 2015 Brahma, I really like the confidence both these skis provide! I’m looking to get into a wider ski and have demoed the origin 96 & pinnacle 95 but I’m not sold on either of these skis, do you have any thoughts for a ski that has the versatility with an edge?

    1. Hi Joe!

      The Ripstick 96 could work nicely. Blizzard has a new ski for 2019: the Rustler 9. I think that would work well, especially since you like the feel of your Brahma. If you wanted to go even wider you could even consider getting a Rustler 10. Most fans of Blizzard skis have really responded well to the Rustler 9. It’s actually available in limited quantities right now too. Something to consider…

      SE

      1. Hi,
        I just watched the review for the rustler 9 and was impressed with the review of soft snow performance which is exactly why I’m looking to add a wider ski to my quiver!! Would you be able to tell me what the side cut dimensions are for the 172 cm ? Also I spend all of my time on the mountains in Maine and consider myself to be very aggressive carving on groomer days, how well will the rustler 9 hold up at a high rate of speed on blue bird days?

      2. Hey Joe!

        I believe the 172 cm Rustler 9 shares the same dimensions with the 180 cm: 127.5/92/117 mm. We do have some 172 cm in stock, but they don’t list the dimensions on the ski, just waist width (unless I’m blind). The catalog only lists the dimensions for the 180 cm, but it also notes that the 180 and 172 cm are both 92 mm at the waist. Considering the turn radius changes slightly between those two lengths I’m guessing the dimensions stay exactly the same. If they do change, it’s extremely subtle.

        I think it would be a great ski for Maine! We tested it in Vermont and I’m very familiar with Maine conditions having grown up there. It has really good edge grip on firm snow, especially when you consider how versatile it is.

        Hope that helps!

        SE

  23. I’m looking at this ski as well as the Blizzard Rustler 10. I’m curious if you have a thought on the two. The rustler seems like more off the groomers but still is able to keep a nice edge of the trail, while the elan is maybe more for the groomers, but can handle the off the groomers and in trees and powder also. curious on your thoughts.

    1. Hey Aaron,

      I would say you hit the nail on the head in your assumptions of those two skis. The Rustler 10 is definitely more of a freeride-inspired shape, while the Ripstick 96 leans a little more towards firm snow performance. The Ripstick is perfectly appropriate for taking off the groomers into trees and powder, I would say the Rustler 10 is just a little bit better in those conditions. The Ripstick, however, is a little quicker edge to edge on groomers.

      Hope that helps!

      SE

  24. Diference between the Ripstick and the Nordica Enforcer?
    I know that Nordica is a little bit stiffer!
    Tryed the Ripstick….it is a great ski….allso in powder! But didn’t have the chance to try the Nordica Enforcer!

    1. Hey Oliver!

      Yup, Enforcer 100 is definitely a bit stiffer. It’s also heavier, a little bit more powerful, has better vibration damping and stability at high speeds, etc. The Ripstick 96 definitely is quicker, lighter, more maneuverable, etc.

      SE

    1. Hi Slim!

      In my opinion the Ripstick 96 feels a little quicker and more energetic while the Pinnacle 95 feels damper and smoother. You’re right, however, that they are pretty similar skis.

      SE

Comments are closed.