2024 Elan Playmaker 91 Ski Review

Way back in early February, we introduced and gave our thoughts on the new Elan Playmaker 101. If you haven’t read that article or watched the video, I would encourage you to do so before going too much further here as I think it’s important to view this Playmaker 91 through the lens of, or with the knowledge of, the Playmaker 101. In summary, the Playmaker 101 marks a new attitude for Elan, or at least a different attitude than we’ve felt in the last decade or so. It’s fun, it’s super playful, it’s designed for a younger audience, and it has a distinctly modern, progressive vibe. It’s cool. Ripsticks are incredible skis, but are they cool? Yes and no. At least, that’s how I think of them. Cool in what they accomplish on snow, but not “drool-over-a-cool-shot-in-a-magazine cool.”

Is the 91 equally as cool? I’d say it is. The white and pink of the 101 might look a bit cooler, but that’s getting fairly superficial. Equally as cool, yes, but also different. This part is particularly interesting to me. I tested the Playmaker 101 and 91 basically alongside the Armada ARV 100 and 94. The ARV skis feel quite similar overall, but there’s something about the extra 4 mm in width difference between the Playmakers that creates a more substantial difference, at least for me. Before we get into those differences, let’s talk about the similarities in both construction and shape.

At a Glance:

2024 Elan Playmaker 91

Construction

Come to think of it, it’s quite impressive how different these skis can feel considering their similarities. Construction is identical. It starts with Elan’s Tubelite wood core which is then supported by two Carbon Rods underfoot and towards the edges of the ski. The Rods are significantly shorter than what we see in Ripstick models, which takes away a bit of strength and allows for soft flexing and lightweight extremities. 360 Degree Sidewalls bring it all together. Visually, the way Elan finishes the sidewalls is very eye-catching, but there’s a performance element to it as well. This construction is intended to provide a more lively, energetic feel, while also reducing overall weight. The skis have a very clean, well-engineered look to them. We get the same beveling in the 91 as in the 101 too. Along the edges, the topsheet of the ski is beveled towards the edges. This falls under what Elan calls “Dual Float Technology.” The other half of that refers to tip and tail rocker, but Elan is basically citing that beveling as further reducing weight. I’m going to take it a step further and make a claim that it’s also improving edge durability. It feels like it would help dissipate the force from a direct impact on an edge, like landing on a rail. I don’t really have anything to back that up, aside from the fact that these skis are light (1630 g at 180 cm), the sidewalls is quite thin, and I’ve slid hundreds of rails on them already without any noticeable damage. That’s certainly noteworthy and commendable, and I have to give some credit to that trapezoidal shaping of the core. Again, I could be wrong, but I think there’s something there.

Shape

Like construction, shape is basically identical between the 91 and 101 Playmakers, aside from the difference in width, of course. We get long, low rise rocker in both the tip and tail, some smooth early taper, and tips and tails that are finished in a relatively blunt, squared off manner. Turn radius is identical across length options, although we do get a 156 cm length in the 91 where the 101 ends at 164. The 180 cm length has an 18.1 m radius. Interestingly, there’s a 10 mm difference in tip and tail dimensions in the 101 and only a 6 mm difference in tip and tail dimensions in the 91. Just leaning on my reasonably successful high school and college math career, I don’t understand how it’s possible to retain the same turn radii with a change to dimensions like that, I can only assume there’s some trickery going on with contact points that I can’t quite pick up with the human eye. So, not quite identical, but very close.

Performance

Then we get to performance, which is where the conversation starts to change. For both Bob and myself, the 91 feels a touch stiffer when you ski it. Stiffer, a bit more responsive, and more precise. The 101 has a distinctly surfy feel, and it’s interesting how much you lose that looseness just going 10 mm narrower. Don’t get me wrong, the 91 is still a highly playful, highly maneuverable ski, it just does so differently. On groomers, I practically never felt the need to carve on the 91 as it’s so bouncy and energetic. I found myself constantly looking for things to jump off. Side hits, rollers, park jumps, mogul gaps, I always wanted to be in the air on the 91. The 101 has some of that too, but it feels so much more smeary and slarvy, almost like it wants to stay planted on the ground when the 91 feels more eager to break free and bounce around. It can carve, too, it’s just not its highlight. That’s more similar to the 101 than the rest of its performance, in my opinion. It can hold an edge just fine under most circumstances, you just can’t initiate from the tip too much or you’ll fold it a little bit. Stay more centered and balanced, however, and it will make some nice clean round turns.

Edge release is just as easy as the Playmaker 101, but what happens next is a little different. There’s more responsiveness, precision, and torsional stiffness in the 91, which gives it a more eager personality. It wants to bounce you back into the next turn, rather than the continuous slarvy, smeary turns you can make on the 101. It creates more of a rhythmic skiing experience, and with a quicker tempo than on a ski like the 101. That helps a bit in moguls and low-snow trees as the ski reacts more efficiently to skier input. It’s not catchy, it’s just that you can generate more edge to edge quickness and more of a snappy feel out of the 91 compared to the 101. I think it’s fair to say the 101 is objectively a better off-piste ski for most situations, just because it can handle softer snow conditions more easily with its wider footprint, but the 91 is certainly no slouch. Here on the east, the 91 is arguably more beneficial from a day to day perspective than the 101. That probably changes for a western skier, or someone who just prefers a wider ski, but it’s nice having the choice between them.

Park

In the park, the 91 is a dream. The furthest forward recommended mount point is 3 cm back from true center. That’s where I put the bindings on my personal pair. While it’s not as close to true center as a lot of park skis, it’s close enough, and I never felt unbalanced on the Playmaker. The differences between 91 and 101 that you feel as all-mountain skis carries through to the park. The 91 is quicker, more energetic, and even a touch stronger and more stable. While I thoroughly enjoyed skiing the 101 in the park, the 91 feels like the superior park ski just based on that quickness and the confident feeling on landings. I felt like I washed out landings more on the 101 than I did on the 91, which is very similar to how it feels when you’re making smeared, skidded turns on steep terrain. The 91 kicks back more, the 101 smears. Same is true in the park. Hands-down, it’s an excellent park ski. Light, quick, agile, but strong enough to feels supportive. I found myself reaching for the Playmaker 91 a lot throughout the spring whether I was free skiing solo, coaching, or filming other skiers. With a lot of options at my disposal, the Playmaker 91 always just looked so easy and so appealing to me.

Who should choose the 91? For some reason, I feel like the Playmaker 101 probably has a more broad appeal. I can see a directional skier choosing the 101 as their soft snow, almost powder ski, which I think is going to result in Elan selling more of the 101. The 91, however, shouldn’t be overlooked. It’s an interesting situation, as your die-hard park skier might not consider it because Elan’s not exactly a “trendy” park brand. On the other hand, your directional all-mountain skier might brush it off due to its progressive looks and lightweight feel. What’s a little disappointing is that, realistically, both of those skiers should have the Playmaker on their radar. It’s the type of ski that a lot of skiers are looking for. What remains to be seen is whether skiers will realize it’s what they’re looking for, or whether they’ll skip right over it in favor of an Atomic Bent 90.