Atomic Maverick 95 TI Skis
The Atomic Maverick 95 Ti is just a ripping good time. We talk a lot here at SkiEssentials.com about how the mid-90's width is really that perfect middle ground for skiers who want to only have one pair. If you're travelling to ski, bring these, and you'll be all set. From hard snow to soft snow and all snows in between, the Atomic Maverick 95 Ti skis are going to be the perfect tool for any job. Built with a poplar wood core and two sheets of metal, the Maverick 95 Ti loves to be pushed to the edge. These skis have a very high speed limit due to this build, but that's only one side of the story. Despite the fact that it does have metal, it's still remarkably light, coming in at 1800 grams per ski in the 180. This makes it very quick for a 95 with two metal laminates, and we could not be happier about that. In the moguls and trees and other tight spots where you need to get from one turn to the next, the quickness and responsiveness really stands out. A lot of it has to do with the shape, but let's not forget about the shovels. Atomic uses their HRZN tip shape to get the flotation and playfulness out of the ski, and it works really well in these 95's as it introduces a good amount of fun and maneuverability to the ski, as well as increasing the powder performance. For advanced and expert skiers who are looking to maximize their fun and versatility out there on the hill, the Atomic Maverick 95 Ti skis are an awesome selection.
- Sidecut: 129/95/113 mm at 180 cm length
- Turn Radius: 19.3 meters at 180 cm length
- Weight: 1800 grams per ski at 180 cm length
- Poplar Wood Core
- Dual Metal Laminate with Fiberglass
- Tip and Tail Rocker
- HRZN Tips
- Ability Level: Advanced and Expert Skiers
All-Mountain • Groomers
Thanks for your inquiry-
Both skis are very comparable from a performance perspective in the low-mid 90's all-mountain category. They both contain a fair of amount of metal in them which provide dampness, precision, and stability at speeds as well as solid edge grip. You will get a bit more float and soft snow performance with the Armada due to its wider tip and more overall rocker profile and will be slightly softer in flex but still has plenty of rigidity. The Atomic will give you a stiffer flex, with a bit more hard snow grip and a damper feel coming from their trickle-down race proven technology. Both skis are pretty light considering how much metal they have in them.
For all-around New England versatility and especially if you prefer a stiffer ski, go with the Atomic. A true quiver of one ski, especially for New England.
Hope this helps and think snow!
You'll be very impressed with the stability, grip, and energy of the Mavericks, even at a lighter weight. You'll notice a big difference in the power between that and the QST, but since they're on the lighter side, it's not too demanding of a ski. I'd say the 180 would be a good length for your size and application. have fun!
Rustler 9 jumps out at me on that list. The Mantra and the Maverick are better on-trail and carving options, but the Rustler does it all quite well. It has metal that's full-width underfoot so it does hold a strong edge, but is considerably more fun and manageable in the bumps and woods and off-piste situations including powder. I'd go with the Rustler in the 172. Have fun!
I’m currently on Atomic Vantage 90ti’s (176cm) and love ‘em out west but they tend to be not so grippy on the eastern hard pack. Would the Mavericks be a better option? I’m an advanced skier, front side mostly, some bumps, trees, 5’11”, 155lb wet. Love making lots ‘o turns. Thx!
We've found the Maverick to be a pretty nice upgrade from the Vantage series, and the 95 is an awesome ski for both on and off-trail skiing. They're light but still strong and stable. I think the 180 is good for your height, but maybe 172 for your weight? I'd choose length based on preference, but leaning to 172. Have fun!
We find the Maverick to be a very intriguing ski for this application. Smooth, solid, and stable, but also light enough for the tour. Enforcer is pretty heavy, and I wouldn't really want to tour, while the Unlimited skews a bit the other way. I think the Maverick is a very nice mix of the two. Elan Ripstick 96 also comes to mind as a solid player in this department. Have fun!
More flotation in the 100 for sure. It's not only the width, but also the rocker profile. The 100 just floats better while the 95 definitely has more tail to it for completing carved turn. If you're out west and encounter softer snow and prefer a slightly more playful feel, I'd go with the 100. If you're looking for a lighter, wider carving ski, the 95 is superior. have fun!
I'm a 55 year old 6' 195 (but should be 185) lb male advanced skier who now spends most of my ski days on the groomed slopes around the Tahoe region. The runs are usually on heavy or packed powder (Sierra Cement) with an occassional jaunt into the woods or really snowy days, but never ever voluntarily down moguls (knees hate those suckers).
I'm looking to replace my old K2 Kung Fujas 169s with something a bit more stable without feeling like I need to be 'on' 100% of the time. I previously asked about a Volkl Deacon 84 but I think that's a bit too unforgiving so I started to look at skis in the mid 90's and came up with a trio to ask about: the Volkl Mantra M6, The Nordica Enforcer 94 and the Atomic Mavrick 95 (or 88) Ti.
Since I have no real reference other than your reviews I'm going to ask for your opinion as a direction through this mental mess. So, if someone walks up to you and says, "Hey, your wife will only let you get one pair of new skis without her going on a revenge shopping spree" which pair would you choose....and if you absolutely love some other pair other than the three I mentioned please put it out there. I'm throwing darts with a blindfold.
There really is a lot of information and options out there, we totally get it. At the end of the day, if you're in the right zone, which you are, then you've already made it--anything on your list will be a good choice. If I were to play your shopping spree hypothetical, I'd go with the Stockli Stormrider 95. It's a bit more manageable than the three on your list while being the most quiet, stable, and composed. That's what you get for the extra $. I do think, though, that the Enforcer 94 offers the most in terms of versatility and performance--any turn, any time, any condition, but a fantastic groomer ski as well. So for extra money, go Stockli, but the Enforcer 94 will get you everything you need.
This is a hard one, both skis are similar like you're saying. The Maverick I would say has a little more carving performance than the M-pro since its slightly narrower and has a stiffer tail. I think the deciding factor here is going to be what you spend your time doing. If you prefer to ski groomers and hardpack over woods and bumps I would say go with the Maverick. If its the other way around and you just want to hit the woods and mogul field all day the M-pro will be the way to go.
Both of these skis are great hardpack carving skis. The Mavericks are a little more versatile across the whole mountain and are easier to maneuver in bumps and trees. The Stance is going to provide strong and fast GS turns on hardpack and groomers but less off-piste versatility compared to the Maverick.
It sounds like the maverick 95s may compromise some of these strengths being lighter. But in exchange I should be able to carve more on the groomers which is an improvement I am seeking. What are your thoughts? For an advanced 200lb 5'11 skier in the Canadian Rockies would you suggest the 180cms or the 188s? Thank you for responding!
I think the Maverick 95 Ti is a sleeper hit of a ski that not enough people are on. Its at that perfect mid 90's all mountain width and extremely light for a dual metal laminate ski. What makes the Maverick line so special is the HRZN tip and just a little bit more tip and tail rocker than your average all-mountain frontside ski. All of this combined makes for one of the most fun and playful carving oriented skis money can buy. I think you'll find the carving performance you're looking for and a lot more.
Thanks for reaching out. I don't think you could go wrong with either size. If you're worried about slightly shorter than you're used to affecting your speed the mid-90's width combined with them being very light & responsive should make up for whatever difference you may experience. Feel free to reach back out with any further questions and/or check out our very own test results where you can find some more insight here: