2018 K2 Pinnacle 95 2018 K2 Pinnacle 95

2018 K2 Pinnacle 95 Skis

The K2 Pinnacle 95 is a versatile all mountain ski that was first introduced for the 2016 season. It uses K2’s Konic technology, which sees light materials used in the center of the ski with stiffer, denser materials and metal laminates along the edges. The Pinnacle 95 has tip and tail rocker with subtle early taper as well. Since its introduction a couple years ago it’s become known as a relatively easy-going, forgiving all mountain ski that can really handle a wide range of conditions. For 2018 K2 has updated their Konic technology to include more metal, which in turn should give the ski a little bit more power. Luckily most of our testers who skied the Pinnacle 95 had skied the previous version and were able to compare and contrast. All four of the following testers skied the 184 cm length.

Joe Cutts is one of those people. He scored the Pinnacle 95 5 out of 5 for quickness, playfulness, and forgiveness, but did comment on the new strength of the updated ski. “This year’s Pinnacle 95 feels like it has exactly the extra oomph that it needs. It’s still supremely easy and fun-loving. It will never overpower you or get locked on edge, but it has a new gutsiness underfoot that gives it confidence-inspiring, speed-loving feel without sacrificing forgiveness.” Joe thinks it’s still overall a relatively “relaxed” ski and thinks it still “smears turns in soft snow” well, but really appreciated the extra stability and power that comes along with this new Konic construction.

The conditions during our ski test were somewhat variable from top to bottom with firmer, somewhat icy terrain at the top and softer, spring-like snow at the bottom. Mike Thomas thought the Pinnacle 95 did great. “Perfect ski for the conditions today. It didn’t mind being skidded when visibility was challenging and I wanted speed control, but made short/mid radius carving turns through the corn and felt great arcing GS turns down low.” Mike gave the ski similar scores to Joe and it’s clear the ski has retained its forgiveness, however Mike also commented that it “can be skied hard or relax and take it easy.”

Bob St. Pierre referred to the Pinnacle 95 as a “higher end” ski and gave it the highest scored for playfulness and versatility, again going back to the fact that the Pinnacle 95 is relatively easy to ski (Bob also gave it 4 out of 5 for forgiveness). He described it as having “lots of rocker in the tip, but still hooks up well and edge to edge quickness is very good.” Bob commented that the Pinnacle 95 “seems well suited for an eastern every day ski. It’s very forgiving for such a high end ski.”

Mike Anglin, although still giving the ski high scores for playfulness and forgiveness, was impressed by the new construction of the Pinnacle 95 and the power it has. He commented that in his opinion the Pinnacle 95 is “truly top of the list.” He thought it “played well in all the snow conditions it faced.” While Mike thinks the new Pinnacle 95 “may be a bit much for intermediates,” he did say that it’s a “great balanced ski” that “loves all turn shapes.”

While K2 certainly made the Pinnacle 95 a little stiffer, a little more powerful, and a little burlier in general, we think it’s still a very accessible ski. Only Mike Anglin commented that it might be a little much for intermediates. We generally agree with Mike on everything, but we do think an athletic intermediate skier would have no trouble on the Pinnacle 95 and would appreciate its forgiveness and ease-of-use and its ability to make more aggressive turns when you want to.


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

Mike Thomas Ski Tester Headshot Image

Mike Thomas

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

Ski Style: Upright, fluid nimble, powerful

Caroline Kessler Ski Tester Headshot Image

Caroline Kessler

Age: 22Height: 5'9"Weight: 160 lbs.

Ski Style: Fast and aggressive, yet playful

Mike Anglin Ski Tester Headshot Image

Mike Anglin

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

Ski Style: All mountain freeride with a racing background

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.

Steve Sulin Ski Tester Profile Photo

Steve Sulin

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

Ski Style: Smooth, precise GS turns

Justin Perry Ski Tester Headshot Image

Justin Perry

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

Ski Style: Aggressive All Mountain Freeride

62 Comments on the “2018 K2 Pinnacle 95 Skis”

  1. Although boot flex rating between different types of ski boots and different manufacturers could be taken with a grain of salt, what flex would you recommend to go with that ski?

    I am an experienced skier (20 years+ with 7-20 full ski days per year), but my technicals and pose while skiing is far from perfect (Stiff racing skis like Fischer WC RC4 get me off balance easy).

    I have skied with boots ranging from 90 to 110 flex so far, but I feel I could step up if needed. I can’t really figure out if I should go for 120/130 to “learn” and “grow” them, or I should stick to softer skis.

    1. Hi Alex!
      If you’re giving something like the RC4 a stiffness score of 9/10, I’d say the K2 is somewhere in the 5 range in the shovel, 6-7 underfoot, and 7 in the tail. It’s harder with skis, especially all-mountain/freeride skis as they are able to vary the flex in different portions of the ski to create a performance characteristic. The softer shovels of the K2 makes it a better floater while the stiffer tail allows for proper finish to a carved turn. Hope that helps!

  2. I’ve been skiing Blizzard Bonafides for the last four years as intermediate to advanced skier, who the result of being heavy and out of shape of late, has been skiing more like a type II. Demo’d a pair of Pinnacle 95s yesterday afternoon after a morning on my Bonafides. Felt like going from driving a sports car that demands attention to a self driving Tesla. The K2s held an edge on icy black diamond slopes and were playful and quick. I’d recommend them to any on piste skier who no longer wants to kill themselves. Although, when pushed hard the K2s did not fail. I’ll be buying a pair for my quiver. Even my 14 year old who is a better skier than myself tried them and loved them.

  3. I’m 5’9″, 170lbs, 56, race MTB. Just sold my 2016 Pinnacle 95s, 170 cm. Was my re-entry ski, now back to skiing level 7+. Is the new 95 really that much closer to an Enforcer 93 or Kastle FX95? Mainly ski 15 to 20 days in Tahoe. Looking for a 70/30 ski and length recommendations.

    1. Hi Richard!
      I’d say closer, yes, but not quite there. From a construction standpoint, the Pinnacle is a lot stiffer and more alike those models, but the rocker profile gives it a much more soft-snow personality. The tip rocker is long, so if you get on firm snow, they can be a bit floaty/chatty until the edge hooks up. But in soft and fresh snow, for a 95mm underfoot ski, they perform awesomely. They float and smear like much wider skis. If you were comfortable on the 170 cm length, I’d stick to that general sizing. Have fun!

  4. I’ve narrowed it down to the Pinnacle 92, QST 92, and Rustler 9. Advanced intermediate Tahoe skier, 79/30 on piste/off. 6-1, 180 lbs. Any recommendations? thanks

    1. Hi Dan!

      It really should come down to how aggressive you are. Those are all great skis, but the QST 92 is going to feel the lightest, quickest, and most playful. The Rustler 9 is going to have the most stability at speed, and the Pinnacle 95 (there is no 92) essentially falls in between them. That’s the easiest way I can describe the differences in these skis.


  5. Hi guys! Finally upgrading my (very) old Volkls and trying to navigate the myriad of options out there. Looking for some help please!

    The requisite info: 5’9″, 155. Ex-college racer, but have been primarily on tele for the past 15+ years, generally 20-25 days per season. Ski the east coast. All over the mountain. Like to rip the groomers, but prefer to chase whatever pockets of fluff I can find in the trees or even trail borders. Looking at four different skis: Enforcer 93, Enforcer 100, K2 Pinnacle 95s (’18 model), and Rustler 10. Any thoughts or recommendations?

    BTW – thanks for running a great site with awesome informational videos!!

    1. Hi Michael!

      It’s always nice when someone asks a question who happens to be the exact same size as I am. Out of the skis you listed, you’re going to get the most versatility out of the Enforcer 93, especially considering you’re an east coast skier. If you value groomer performance, in my opinion you can rule out the Rustler 10. It doesn’t quite have the edge grip you’re likely looking for. Between the Enforcer 93 and 100, 93 is arguably a more appropriate east coast ski just because it’s slightly quicker edge to edge and has a little bit stronger torsional stiffness, so will hold an edge a little bit better. The Pinnacle 95 doesn’t quite have the high speed performance of the Enforcers, so considering your race background, I think you can rule that one out too. So, in my opinion it’s between the Enforcer 93 and 100, and to me the 93 feels more appropriate.

      Hope that helps!

      SE (Jeff)

  6. I demoed the 2016 Pinnacle 95 while visiting Squaw/Alpine a few years back, and fell in love with them. I almost bought them at the end of the week, but decided to wait and see what else was out there. Two seasons later, having tried numerous other brands/models without the same level of satisfaction, and having read about the improved power & stability, I’ve decided to grab the 2018 model.

    So like most everyone else, I’d appreciate your feedback on length. Intermediate / Advanced skill level, splitting time on/off piste. I’m 5’8″ and 150-155 lb. The sizing rule of thumb (~eye height) and my relatively low weight points me to 170 cm, but I wonder if the 177 cm would make more sense considering the rocker, and that I don’t mind getting off trail / into variable conditions. I saw “Mark” above was a very similar size and went with 177 cm, but he also said he’s been skiing for 40 years (and I’m much closer to 40 days!). Thoughts?

    Really appreciate all your detailed reviews and feedback on all these comments!

    1. Hey Ben!
      It’s tough getting caught in the middle of a size break! I think you could certainly handle the 177, the question is whether you want to. If you spend the majority of your time on-piste, you should feel more confident sizing up. If you’re in the moguls, trees, and other tight areas, perhaps the 170 is better for you. You’ll certainly get more stability with the 177, and maybe with skill progression, you’ll learn to maneuver them better in the more technical areas. What size did you demo? Sounds like you liked that model, so I’d ultimately recommend you get that one! Happy skiing!

  7. Just discovered your web site, thank you for your reviews, theyre very helpful. I ski almost exclusively groomed trails, I live on east coast. I want to start doing some backcountry skiing (we have a few areas, Stowe, Jay Peak, Sutton (canada). I have Rossignol Hero and a pair of Elan Ripstick 106 (for the Uber rare occasion when we get a massive dump!)
    I would like to have something in the middle and Im interested in either the Dynastars legend 96 or the K2 pinnacle 95. I weight 145lbs soaking wet and would consider myself an advanced+ skier on groomed. We dont have wide open spaces here so skiing between trees is quite the norm, I need something agile and responsive and somewhat stable for when i might want to try them on groomed trails.
    Any suggestions or comments would be very welcome.

    Regards from Montreal,

    1. Hi Marc!
      We’re here in Stowe, so I know exactly what you’re getting at! The Pinnacle 95 is a great ski for this Northern VT/Sounthern Canada region, especially as a “filler” ski for your quiver. The rocker in the tip makes them float like a wider ski, but the camber underfoot and the firm tail makes them carve like a narrower ski. As a result, you get that all-mountain feel that is super-important around here. The Dynastar is another good option, but doesn’t quite have the liveliness that the K2 has. Another, albeit narrower, option is the Nordica Navigator 90. These have the same “all-mountain” feel that the K2 has, with a wider shovel and a stiffer tail–they’re super-maneuverable and great carving skis. Neither has two sheets of metal, so that shouldn’t be too much work for all of your 145 pounds. Let me know what you think!

    2. Thk you so much for your insights, knowing your in Stowe makes them even more valuable to me.
      Would the Navigator be just as good as the Pinnacle in let’s say, calves deep snow?
      And one last item, would the Head Kore 93 fare well too? Or should I stick to those 2 options?


      1. Kindred spirits, Marc!
        Nope, the Pinnacle 95 will outperform the Navigator 90 in fresh snow. The shovel is wider and the rocker is low and long, so you get fantastic fresh snow performance for the waist width. I’d personally take the Pinnacle 95 over the Kore 93 simply because I like the dampness of the K2. I felt like the Kore was a bit choppy and bouncy, especially in firmer snow conditions. I’m 6’2 220, so I tend to prefer skis with better damping properties. Hope that helps!

  8. Hi – what a great ski review section guys. I am just under 6′ and weigh around 175 lbs, reasonably advanced skier, 40/60 balance on/off piste skiing (when conditions allow). I am looking for a pair of single “all mountain skis” for travelling within NZ with travel to Europe, USA, British Columbia and hopefully Japan in the next three years. Hoping to find some powder!

    A few weeks back I got to demo the 2018 Pinnacle 95 TI’s @ 177cm, here on NZ Mt Ruapehu and I absolutely LOVED THEM!

    Nice conditions – hard packed on-piste softer conditions off-piste with heavier (but not slushy) snow. Being NZ North Island, no powder to try : (
    As an “all mountain ski”, please comment on how you think the Pinnacle 95s would serve in fresh powder conditions, specifically:

    Say knee high powder?

    Say hip high powder?

    Rocker would help float the ski in powder – but should I stay with 177cm or go longer for more lift in the powder?



    1. Hi Rob!

      The Pinnacle 95 does quite well in powder. It’s not super wide, obviously there are wider skis out there, but its shape is great for soft snow.

      Knee deep? No worries at all. Enough float that you won’t feel like your tips are diving all the time, and even if they do the ski still performs well. Won’t get bogged down.

      Hip deep? Skiing hip deep snow sounds like an absolute blast no matter what skis you’re on! Realistically, however, that’s a little deep for a ski in this width range. You’d have to go pretty fast and ski pretty steep terrain to not get bogged down, but honestly you can say that about basically anything narrower than 110 mm underfoot or so. Takes a lot of surface area to float in that depth powder.

      Since you demoed the 177 cm and liked it, I would go with that length. Realistically an extra 7 cm isn’t going to do much in terms of float and overall performance in powder, so stick to the length you know you like. Down the road someday you could maybe add a wide, longer, more rockered powder ski to your quiver, especially if you’re skiing waist deep powder relatively often.

      Hope that helps!


      1. Very helpful thanks – mostly common sense I guess, but so good to have your expert views. Waist high powder is specifically with Japan in mind – sounds like we may have to hire! Cheers.

  9. Hi,
    One more length question:
    I am 6”5, 175 lbs. I prefer a playful, surfy, pivot-y ski. I ski a lot of moguls and trees, at slow speeds, with a bases flat, pivoting style, not zipper lining and launching of them at full speed. I have the K2 Marksman in 184 cm (longest length) and it’s great for that, but at my height, it doesn’t provide much support when hitting chopped up snow or landing jumps.
    I know you have been suggesting sizing up, and I am sure I could ski them perfectly in open terrain but at the same time 191 cm is a lot of ski to fit through the moguls and between the trees.

    1. Hi Slim!

      Are you thinking of picking up the Pinnacle 95 to compliment your Marksman? Just want to make sure I’m understanding your situation correctly.

      At your height I do think you could ski the 191 cm Pinnacle 95. Especially if you’re going to be keeping your Marksman. Then you’d have a shorter, super maneuverable, playful ski, and a much more stable, more powerful ski too. At your height 191 cm is still shorter than you, which isn’t an unreasonable length by any means. Still should be maneuverable through moguls for you, and if you’re planning on skiing mostly moguls and trees you could always just take the Marksman.

      Does that make sense?


      1. Thanks,
        Due to (air)travel, I think that I would prefer to have just one pair, so just using the Pinnacle. So the Question is, would the 184 Pinnacle offer up an improvement in stability over the Marksman(Due to the longer front) ? Or conversely, what are your (taller) skiers thoughts on the 191 Pinnacle in tight spots?

      2. Hi again Sim,

        That makes sense to me. Yes, the 184 cm Pinnacle will definitely provide more stability than the Marksman. Even just the shape of the ski with less tail rocker will help a lot, and then the metal in the ski helps even more. Really it’s a whole different level of stability and vibration damping compared to the Marksman.

        I’ve been thinking about the length quite a bit and just talked to one of my coworkers, Bob, who is 6’2″ and 215 lbs. He skied the 191 cm Pinnacle 105 quite a bit last year, and we both agree that at your lighter weight the 184 cm Pinnacle 95 is probably the way to go for you. I don’t think you’d need the extra stability of the 191 cm, and it does become more challenging in tight spot because of the increased length and heavier swing weight.

        Does that make sense? Let me know what you think.


  10. Hi from the UK.
    Thanks for the great reviews.
    I’m an intermediate skier looking to buy my first pair of skis that can stay with me while I progress and improve my skills and ability.
    I like the versatility offered by the Pinnacle 95s and am seriously considering these but I’m unsure as to the length given the above review and some of the subsequent comments.
    I was looking at 170cm but after reading think these may be on the short side and 177cm may be better given my build and current skill level. I’d appreciate your thoughts.
    Age 55, 5’10”, 196lbs, improving intermediate skill-set.

    1. Hi David!

      The Pinnacle 95 is a great ski, and definitely very versatile! It’s a good ski for an intermediate level skier. Its shape and overall flex pattern helps someone like yourself continue to progress, and as you get more aggressive you’ll start to “unlock” more performance of the ski.

      At your size and ability level I think you’ll be just fine on the 177 cm length. The Pinnacle series uses quite a bit of long tip rocker, which makes them ski on the short side so to speak, and also makes them a little more approachable and user friendly in the longer lengths. I would worry that 170 cm would feel a little unstable for your weight as you start to improve and ski faster.

      Hope that helps!


      1. Hi,

        Many thanks for the quick response, it’s much appreciated. I’m new to the concepts and discussions around profiles, camber and rocker but understand what you mean about skis operating on the ‘short side’ and that was what I’d picked up from the review and other comments, so you’ve consolidated my understanding for which I’m very grateful.
        Selecting the right skis for the terrain and one’s ability looks, from a newbie’s perspective, to be a bit of a minefield so it’s great to have such a fantastic source of information, knowledge and product reviews available.
        Thanks again,

  11. Hi from the UK! Hoping you can give me some advice!! I’m thinking of getting my husband some Pinnacle 95s (I love my old fulluvit 98s) but don’t know what length – 177 or 184. I’m tending towards longer but he is not sure. He is 182cm but 234 lbs and plans use them 50:50 piste and off. He is advanced but not expert and likes to go fast on piste when not playing in European powder. I am worried he won’t have enough float or stability on the 177 even if he loses a few pounds. He is worried he will find the 184 too long in bumps or in the trees, particularly when the snow is not so fresh. Any thoughts gratefully received!

    1. Hi Claire!
      Great question! Given height and weight, I’d recommend the 184. In regards to the fear of them being too long, they do have a long tip rocker that makes them feel a bit shorter than the actual length indicates. As a result, they are very maneuverable and will handle the moguls and trees with no problem. Due to the rocker profile, I’d say the 177 would be too short. Hope that helps!

  12. Hi from Down Under. Having just kicked off the winter season in Oz, I’m thinking about upgrading my current skis. For the last three years I’ve been riding on 172cm Rossi Experience 88s. I’m 5’11, weigh 200 lbs & consider myself advanced intermediate. I blew a knee a couple of seasons ago & elected to forego surgery in favour of a brace (not that I’m afraid of going under the knife but the rehab would have kept me off work for too many months). As such, I now avoid anything with lumps & bumps because I’m worried my knee won’t hold up.

    Whilst my Experience 88s have been a great carving ski on the groomers, I’ve found them to be a bit underwhelming in other situations. I also go Stateside every year & ski in Utah (mainly Park City & Brighton), & tried going off trail a bit for my first time back in Feb of this year. As soon as I found some powder, it just seemed like it was harder work than it should have been. Which is why the K2 Pinnacle range interests me, as I’m hearing great things about this ski & would like to try something more freeride in design & feel. My only concern is whether 95mm underfoot is the way to go, or if I should just stick with 88mm (seeing as I’m already comfortable with that width). I guess I’m concerned that the 2019 model is supposedly beefed up from earlier versions – & whilst I acknowledge that 95mm is no doubt better suited to west coast snow, I don’t want to bite off more ski than I can chew. Most of the online reviews say the 88mm is for advanced intermediate upwards, whereas the new 2019 95mm is definitely an advanced to expert level ski. I just want something that doesn’t require too much effort & can also be used back home in Oz where our snow is basically hardpack like east coast US & powder is somewhat of a myth. Either way, I’m thinking 177cm length.


    1. Hi Brad!

      Good questions. You’re definitely on the right track here. I think the Pinnacle shape will work better for you than the Experience 88. It smears and pivots turns more easily in both widths compared to your current skis and just generally feels smoother through variable snow conditions. For skiers with knee problems, that is a really beneficial performance characteristic. So, that being said, I think you’re probably best off going with the 95.

      They’re both great skis, but 95 mm is going to be that much more capable in soft snow conditions and you’re really not losing much on groomers. It doesn’t have a drastically different feel compared to the 88 in terms of edge to edge quickness, so it should be an easy transition for you from 88 to 95. K2 did beef up the Pinnacle series a bit, but overall they’re still pretty forgiving skis considering their performance. Just as a result of shape alone, compared to your Experience 88 it’s going to feel like a world of difference. That 95 mm will be a blast if you happen to hit some snow in Utah, but it will feel perfectly appropriate at home too. It’s a little more fun in softer, spring-like snow too.

      Hope that helps!! Have a great season.


  13. Hi Ski Essentials, I’m loving your site which has tons of information and reviews! I’m a first time ski buyer but sit around the advanced skiing level. I’ve been looking at the K2 Pinnacle 95, Rossignol Sky 7 HD, Blizzard Brahmas, and the Nordica Enforcer 93.

    I’m from New Zealand where our unpredictable seasons can mean we get a lot more harder packed snow and longer lengths between fresh snow days. I want something that’s more of all mountain ski and comfortable going off-piste and into some harder / icier conditions while still being fun on groomers and having enough float, manoeuvrability for the lucky days we get fresh snow.

    Any feedback would be appreciated!

    1. Hi Ollie!

      I think either the Pinnacle 95 or Enforcer 93 would be best for you. Both those skis have a nice blend of performance for on and off piste conditions. The Pinnacle 95 is a little more forgiving than the Enforcer 93, but overall they’re relatively similar. Both hold an edge well on firm snow, both have enough float for softer snow conditions, etc. The Pinnacle 95 uses a little bit less metal, so is a little lighter weight. You could argue the Enforcer 93 also has slightly better vibration damping because of the more metal. That’s essentially the difference in my opinion. I don’t think the Brahma would have the off-piste performance you’re looking for and the opposite is probably true for the Sky 7 HD; not quite enough firm snow performance.


  14. Hello Ski Essentials! Thanks for your great analyses and reviews — very helpful in choosing the right skis. I am trying to decide on a second pair of skis to complement my 180 cm Rossi Soul 7 HDs. I love the Soul 7s for powder, of course, and for variable conditions, but want something else something for the hardpack days. I weigh 195 lbs and am 6′ tall. I live in Colorado and love skiing powder, crud, trees when there’s fresh snow, but look for steeper runs and bumps when everything is skied out. Am looking at the K2 Pinnacle 88 or 95, and not sure whether to go 177 or 184. Any advice? Thanks, Jack

    1. Hi Jack!

      I probably wouldn’t go longer than your Soul 7s. Both the Pinnacle 88 and 95 use a little bit less rocker, so have a slightly longer effective edge. Unless you’re really looking to boost stability at speed I don’t think you need to go 184 cm. Both the 88 and 95 could work as a complimenting ski to your Souls, it’s really just a matter of how wide you want to go. I would say the 95 probably makes a little bit more sense if you’re spending time off groomers on days when things are skied out. It handles choppy snow a little better and I think it would be a lot of fun for Colorado terrain in general on those non-powder days.

      Hope that helps!


  15. I’m interested in the K2 Pinnacle 95.
    I have a pair of Head ISL 160 cm, but I need something more floaty for the spring time skiing.
    I weight 100 kg and is 186 cm tall, 55 years old.

    I am technically advanced, but don’t have the speed and the stamina I once had.

    What would you say would be a good length for me?

    1. Hi Anders!

      You probably don’t need to go too long as you say you’re not skiing exceptionally fast anymore. What do you think about 177 cm? That seems like the way to go in my opinion. I don’t think you need the 184 cm, that’s almost as tall as you and quite a lot of ski. On the other hand, 170 cm seems a little bit short for your height and weight, and considering you’re going to use them for softer, spring conditions I think you’ll appreciate having and benefit from the extra surface area of the 177 cm.

      What do you think?


  16. Hi, really enjoy your site, very informational! Live in VA now but still consider Killington my home slope. Almost 60, 5’7”, 160. Only get to Ski about 10 days a year now but hope for more going forward. Ski 5 year old K2 Rictors (167) and love them still. Would say I am an advanced skier but not expert. Have Skied most everything at Killington but really only do the double blacks when conditions are right and weak in the bumps. Looking to get a 2nd ski a bit wider but still all mountain that I could use all the time, but would be more ready for when we luck in to some powder and maybe take on trips to the West. Can ski aggressively but again only when conditions are right, more interested in a Ski that I will enjoy and will take me anywhere. Was thinking K2 Pinnacle 95, Head Core 93 or Nordica Enforcer 93 or Navigator 90. Would appreciate your thoughts. Thanks, Tom

    1. Hey Tom!

      So, it’s somewhat interesting you left your comment on the Pinnacle 95 page, despite listing three other skis as well, because I actually think the Pinnacle 95 would be a great ski for you. It’s a ski that can handle aggressive skiing, but is also perfectly happy to relax a little bit and cruise when the conditions aren’t ideal. It also has a nice cross over of performance between hard snow and soft snow. That metal that runs along the edges gives it great edge grip and some nice vibration damping, but it’s light enough that it’s not exceptionally challenging or fatiguing to maneuver, especially with its abundant tip rocker. Those other three skis you listed are great too, but from your description of your skiing the Pinnacle 95 really seems like a great choice.

      Hope that helps!


      1. Thanks so much, it sure does help. Yea I guess I posted on the K2 page since I really like my current Rictors and was leaning to the Pinnacles. So 2 last questions – 1. when I posted the question I did not even realize there was a Pinnacle 88. Being as I am mostly an east coast skier would you think I should lean to the 88 instead of the 95? 2. If I just decide I want to go other than K2, does the Head Core 93 have the same qualities you outline on the Pinnacle (ie. can handle aggressive but happy to relax) or is it more of an aggressive Ski? Thanks again, think we may have to take a day trip to visit you guys next time we are up in VT! Tom

      2. Hi again Tom!

        I don’t think you need to go to the 88 just because you’re here on the east coast. A lot of us are on skis that wide just about every day. Still quick enough edge to edge on firm snow and they give you that much more ability in soft snow. I do think the Kore 93 is somewhat similar to the Pinnacle 95, but it’s not quite as smooth. It’s a little more energetic and responsive, while the Pinnacle 95 is really a smooth, calm, quiet ski with good stability and vibration damping.


  17. Hi!
    I am thorn between the K2s Pinnacle 95 and the Fischer Ranger 98Ti. I don’t care so much about powder/deep snow performance (where both are not 10/10, but can handle), but for the grip on firm/icy groomers, as well as ease for turn initiation in slow speed and handling at a high speed.

    How would you compare and contrast both skis? As far as I saw online, they are both mid-soft in term of stiffness, both are very versatile, both have similar profiles….

    HELP !

    1. Hi Cuki!

      Overall they are quite similar. The Pinnacle 95 is a little easier to initiate at slower speeds, they feel similarly stable st higher speeds, both are quite versatile… The Ranger 98 Ti feels a little bit lighter on your feet and probably just a touch more maneuverable because of that. The Pinnacle 95 also has a very smooth feel, while the Ranger 98 Ti feels slightly more energetic.

      Hope that helps!


  18. Hi, today i’m using the old k2 coomback 102 in size 188 … i love it …. but i’d like to change with the new pinnacle 95.

    I’m looking for a ski to help me for going out from complex situation than a rocket !!! And the old coomback was a garantee.

    i’m 194cm x 90kg … i like to ski short turns quit and not too fast and big turns . I prefer to play in closed area between trees or
    humps and crowded snow …. when there isn’t powder or same square of powder to sign . On piste and on hard snow i like the vertical line changing edge in fast way.

    I can do it with my old coomba….good or not this is my style and what i do.

    the question is which is the right size for the new pinnacle 184 or 192?
    i’ve seen the coomba is only in 184 …. and the second question is … coomba 105 184 is too small for me?

    1. Hi Gianluca!

      Based on the description of your skiing (short, quick turns, down the fall line, etc) I think you might actually prefer the 184 cm length. It’s kind of a toss up, but it’s going to be a little quicker than the 192 cm. The 192 cm would come in handle if you like to ski fast and make big sweeping turns, but it doesn’t sound like that’s your ski style.

      A ski is only too short for you if it feels unstable or has other negative performance characteristics. Everyone is different, so I can’t necessarily say that the Coomba 105 in the 184 cm is too short for you. Sure, on paper your size might suggest going with a longer length, but it’s all about what you personally want out of a ski. If you want short and quick, get short and quick!


  19. I demoed the 2018 Pinnacle 95s but am looking at potentially buying the 2017 model. As an intermediate skier do you expect I’d noticemuch of a difference in the two?


    1. Hey Brendan!

      No, probably not. For the most part the 17 and 18 feel the same. You really only start to notice a difference when you’re really driving the ski aggressively in a carving turn. The 18 has a touch more power, but it’s also heavier. We’ve had some discussions about the idea that there are probably actually some skiers who would prefer the 17 model, and as an intermediate skier you could definitely fall into that category.

      Hope that helps!


  20. I bought the Pinnacle 95’s in October and have been waiting to get my first turns as we’ve had a dry year in Colorado so far. Was able to get out to Loveland after they got 11 inches of snow. I’m 54, 5’7” 155. Went with the 177s. Been skiing for 40 + years and I absolutely love these skis. Super quick and easy to turn and they handled all conditions with ease. These will be my everyday skis unless it’s dumping – I have a pair of Atomics 123 under foot for the deep days.

    1. Thanks for sharing your experience Mark! Glad you’re loving your Pinnacle 95s. Definitely a good every day ski for Colorado terrain, especially when you’ve got a 123 mm ski in the closet for those super deep days! 😉

      Have a great season! We hope it keeps snowing out there in Colorado!


  21. I’m getting seriousce about skiing I’m a beginner/intermediate and buying my first new set of skis.ive snowboarded for 5 years and had to upgrade my gear pretty early on because I out performed it. I don’t want to make the same mistake with skiing and would like a pair of skis I can evolve with not outgrow. I ski about 2 to 3 days a week for the whole winter as I live in a ski resort. I’m thinking about Nordica Enforcer 93 or K2 Pinnacle 95. I’m 6.2” and weigh 90 kg and ride 60% on piste and 40% off piste. What size do you rekommend in each ski?

    1. Hi Karl!

      Psyched you’re picking up the sport! You’re going to have a blast. I like your strategy here and you picked two skis that are relatively approachable for less advanced skiers, but that will grow with you as your ability improves. The Pinnacle 95 is a touch easier to ski and a little more forgiving than the Enforcer 93 in my opinion. I do think either one would work for you, but the Pinnacle 95 might be that much easier to ski right away, which in my opinion would be beneficial and should help promote progression. Length is kind of a toss up. Part of me is leaning towards 177 cm, although once your ability starts improving you could easily justify the 184 cm Pinnacle 95 or 185 cm Enforcer 93; for an advanced skier of your size that’s likely what we would recommend. So, if you really want to get a ski that you will not be able to outgrow go with those longer lengths. Just be aware that it might slow progression a little bit. If you’re okay with that, go for it, otherwise stick to the 177 cm and just understand that someday you might want a longer length.

      Hope that helps!


  22. I’m an east coast skier who loves diving into the trees when conditions are right. Being on the east coast, this isn’t all the time (if only). Should I consider the Pinnacle 88 instead or will 95 give me what I want in a better way?

    1. Hi Andrew!

      I’d go with the Pinnacle 95 if I were you. On days when there’s soft snow you’ll appreciate having the extra width, and even when there’s not fresh snow the Pinnacle 95 has slightly increased stability compared to the 88, which is nice if you’re the type of skier who still goes in trees and off-piste terrain when there’s not fresh snow. The difference in performance on groomers is pretty marginal as well, so I think you’ll be happy with the 95.

      Hope that helps!


  23. Trying to decide between this ski (Pinnacle 95) and the Dynastar Legend X 96. Without the chance to demo, how do they compare? I’ve got a powder ski I love already (Rossi Super 7) so I need this for my everyday ski. I live in Utah and ski Snowbasin with the family and Snowbird/Alta with friends. I’m an expert on the heavier side of the spectrum (5’10” 225 lbs) and spend about 70% of my time off-piste but still want a great frontside experience. I’m coming from the Dynastar Cham 97 (1.0 version) which I find to be exceptional, but sometimes to burly to muscle around.

    Any insights would be very helpful!

    1. Hi Kurt!

      They’re both great skis, although if you like the feel of your Cham 97 it might make sense to stick with Dynastar. The Legend X 96 is a little bit more forgiving than the original Cham 97. It has a really natural flex throughout the whole ski that I think you would find is a little easier to throw around, while still retaining a similar overall feel. The Pinnacle 95 is also a great ski, and overall the design and the construction is relatively similar. Both could undoubtedly work for you, but I think there’s something to be said about sticking with a more familiar “feel.”

      What do you think?


  24. I am looking into skis for telemarketing and was looking at the k2 pinnacle as well as the k2 poacher and was wondering what your thoughts might be. I am also open to other suggestions.

    1. Hi Logan!

      I just bounced your question off of our resident expert telemark skier and we both agree we’d rather tele on the Pinnacle 95 or 105 over the Poacher, although the Poacher would be fun too. The relatively long, extended tip rocker of the Pinnacle and the shorter, lower tail rocker is a really nice shape for telemark skiing. It’s going to hold and finish a turn a lot better than the Poacher, although the Poacher would be very forgiving and very maneuverable in softer snow conditions, variable terrain, so it somewhat depends what kind of performance you’re looking for. Both are going to have smooth, easy turn initiation, the Pinnacle just has a little more “oomph” to it.

      Where do you ski predominantly? I think your terrain choices and level of aggressiveness will point you in the right direction between the Pinnacle series or the Poacher.

      Hope that helps!

      1. I ski predominantly in the montana and Idaho area. I am an experienced down hill skier but this will be my first year telemarketing. I will do most of my telemarking early season and in the spring. I am 5’ 11’ and weigh 170. Should I go with the 177 or 184. If there are any other telemarking skis that you would advise me looking into I would greatly appreciate your advice.

      2. Hi Logan!

        The Pinnacle 95 definitely makes a great telemark ski. We’ve talked about it quite a bit among our staff. Our resident tele expert, Bob, has been thinking about picking up a pair for himself. Considering it’s your first year telemarking it might make more sense for you to go with the 177 cm, just to make the learning curve a little easier on you. I’d say if you were an experienced, expert tele skier the 184 cm might be more appropriate, especially if you like skiing fast, but for now I do think the 177 cm is going to be plenty of ski and will help you improve your telemark technique.

        Hope that helps!


Comments are closed.