Two Notes
(1) As I mentioned before, I would like to try the 190cm Experience 100, and I think that it would likely improve the ski’s performance both in powder and soft chop. As a bigger skier (6’5”, 180lbs.) the 190cm might be a more appropriate size for me for skiing off-piste.
(2) Although I didn’t get to spend much time skiing the Experience 100 in firm, off-piste conditions (don’t feel too sorry for me), Jonathan thoroughly discussed its firm-snow performance in his review.
Bottom Line / Who’s It For?
As Jonathan said, the Experience 100 isn’t especially forgiving, and performs best when skied athletically and dynamically. I agree with Jonathan’s suggestions as to what type of skier would like this ski, and would add a few more of my own:
I think this ski is best suited for expert skiers that, in order of importance:
1) Want a powerful ski with excellent edge hold that rewards athletic skiing and high edge angles on groomers. (If this is what you’re primarily looking for, this ski is outstanding.)
2) Are satisfied with a ski that is very capable of making short to medium radius turns at moderate speeds in soft, choppy snow, and are okay sacrificing a bit of stability when pushing a ski hard and fast in choppy snow.
3) Want a ski that still arcs through powder, and are willing to adapt a just-back-of-center stance to keep its tips floating.
Next: Rocker Profile Pics
The E100 and the Q-Lab sound pretty similar; powerful tail and softer shovel, not as damp as something with stronger shovels (like the Belafonte) in crud. Are there notable differences between the E100 and the Q-Lab?
I haven’t had a chance to put any time on the Q-Labs, so I can’t speak too specifically. Having read Jonathan’s review of the Q-Lab it sounds like you’re right about the similar flex pattern, but with its wider width and longer sidecut radius I’d imagine there are some key performance differences. Jonathan Ellsworth has reviewed both, so he’d be able to provide a more detailed answer. If you comment on his review I think he’ll be more likely to respond soon. Cheers
This question pertains to the mount point of the ski. I have already commented on the Cham 107 and 117 skis being alternatively mounted at -2cm, and I wonder if the Experience series would benefit from the same mount position? These skis are not a 5 point dimensions design and have a shape that is conventional and traditional, so why did Rossi choose to place the recommended mount so forward and central on the ski? I also have the EXP 88 mounted at the rec. line and I find the ski to be very responsive and super easy to carve and hold an edge on the groomers and flatter- harder snow in general but slightly squirrelly in chop and crud especially if you really pressure the front of the ski. In a previous test on the EXP 98 you tried the ski at -1 cm behind the rec line and found that the ski responded more favorably at this position. Balance and positioning is paramount for optimum ski control so please comment on this technical query and try the EXP 100 at -2cm so that a comparison could be made.
That’s a good question David. Unfortunately I haven’t played around with the E100’s mount point, and as far as I know Jonathan hasn’t either. There’s a decent chance that moving the mount point back 1-2cm would improve the E100’s performance in chop and pow, but I can’t say for sure. If we do ever get the chance to ski these mounted further back, we’ll be sure to let you know.
I’ve skied the 182, mounted -2cm from centre line for over 20 days in variable Australian conditions. Just amazing: carves, smears, blasts, rocks edges. All the above comments about too stiff a tail and tails that hang up are gone! I have mounted my Soul 7s, 180s -2cm as well. Skied them all season in Red last year, just great. Fantastic skies, both of them! I passed up demoing the new Mantras, 177cm with full stiff rocker in the tail all the way up to under the boot, no thanks. Cheers
I think David Jensen has a really good point and am bummed you guys didn’t mess with the mount point, especially considering your experience with the E98 being better mounted back. This seems like something that should definitely be done. How does the mounting point compare to where the Mantra and Line were mounted? Mounting point seems to be really critical to how a ski performs these days.
I owned and sold a pair of Exp 98’s. Nice every day groomer ski when you want to be lazy. Not a powder ski. All i can say is that if you think any ski of this type carves with the power and dynamic energy of a race ski you haven’t been on a true race room GS race ski like my 188 Heads @ 28m radius. Something like the difference between a Subaru and a Ferrari.
Richard, sorry if there was a bit of a misunderstanding in terms of the E100’s carving performance. When I said that the E100 carves better than any ski I’ve been on since my racing days I was trying to communicate that it is not on par with a true race ski, but that it carves very well for a ski in its class. I doubt a ~100-waist all mountain ski will ever have the carving performance of your Head GS skis, but relative to comparable skis I found the E100 to be very stable, energetic, and fun on groomers. Using the car analogy, maybe more like the difference between an Audi and Ferrari?
I would like to hear how the 190 performs. Seems like that might give you the extra stability in soft chop.
I agree, I’ll let you know if I get the chance to ride a pair.