17 comments on “2019-2020 Salomon MTN Explore 95”

  1. Sounds very similar to the design and performance of the Kastle TX97 which I own and love. Suspect from the comments the Kastle is a bit more of a charger than the Salomon which would fit most peoples expectation. I find the 95-100mm range in a more traditional style the most versatile in mixed conditions and they ski pow just fine, are good in firm considtions and still tour very well. By European std’s more than 100mm in a touring ski is rare and while I love your guys reviews it’s great to see more sub 100mm skis which are the meat of the overall market making it to your review list.

  2. Thanks for the review, Paul. Cool site. I’m pretty sold on this ski as an all-arounder that I can use at the resort, but still light and versatile in the backcountry. I’m looking to use this as my middle ski in a quiver of 3 with an ultralight ski, for faster/longer efforts and a bigger powder board. I’m a little torn between the 177 and 184 length. I’m 6’2, 175, and I’d say I’m solidly intermediate, so having something a little shorter appeals for tighter couloirs/trees etc. Do you think 177 would be enough? I’m really into lightweight gear, and I’m still sort of intimidated by turning a longer ski in tight terrain, but I also know sizing is a little different with shapes of some of these modern rockered skis. Thanks!

  3. Similar question. Looking to use them mainly for touring, but occasional piste use. I’m 6ft1, 168lbs, intermediate skier. Have enjoyed skiing the synapse 92, but got very chattery on chopped up snow. I’ll probably look to get them mounted G3 ion 10s and have the tlt7 boots. Wondering between the 177cm or 184cm.


  4. What’s up with variation in camber between skis of the same model?

    You reviewed some nearly flat Blizzard Zero G 108s, and mine clearly have a decent amount of camber.

    I just picked up some MTN Explore 95s and mine have 17 mm of camber between skis when unweighted. 8.5 mm per ski. Way more than the 3 mm you list here. More than any backcountry ski I’ve seen in a long time.

    I enjoy the Zero G 108s. I don’t mind cambered skis, but this seems excessive. I’m worried they’ll be a more of a chore than necessary in crusty snow . Am I crazy?

  5. I’m skiing the volkl carbon Katanas. Love them on descents, but I find them challenging skinning steep corn, firm or not.

    Probably because of the width.

    How much would I be giving up with the Salomon in challenging snow conditions on the descent?

    Wind affected, crust, slush.

    The Katanas excel in these conditions.

    Than you

  6. Hi Folks
    I am looking at this ski for an east coast (US) backcountry and resort ski and am debating between the 177 and 184. I am 6’1 175 lbs intermediate/advanced (but not expert). Would like good manoeuvrability in moguls, trees, etc and be able to learn jump turns, but at the same time don’t want something that is too short/twitchy for me. Would you have any advice?

  7. Had about 20 days on these skis(almost touring&pow riding) last season and everything in the review was confirmed. The only downside, I mentioned is the flat tails design-if you have to go back in some steep and tight terrain it’s an inconvenience..thanks for the another precise review, folks!

    • Could you comment on the size and your height and weight? I am 1.81 m / 80 kg (5’11 / 176 lbs) and cannot decide between getting them in 177 or 184.

  8. Thanks for the review, super useful as always. Any idea how these compare to the Black Diamond Helio 95s? I know there’s a review of the Helio 106s on here but couldn’t find anything on the 95s. I imagine they ski pretty similarly, with the MTNs perhaps being a bit better on the down at the cost of slightly more weight?

    • I haven’t skied these but just looking at them it seems the Camox is a little more soft snow oriented and the MTN will be a little better in firm and mixed conditions.

Leave a Comment