I agree on all points. If you move the mount forward by 1-2cm you can definitely feel the tail a bit more, it’s all really just personal preference.
Good review!
I wish I could have spent more than a morning on em at Breck this year. It was 5 deg F and Peak 10 was icy as hell. They absolutely hated that stuff. I bailed on em after 3 runs and went back to the Line Opus. I expect that when I moved over to the softer stuff they would have woken up and been a blast. Can’t say enough about the company though. I mentioned I wanted to demo and within 3 hours they had a pair over from the factory for me to ride.
Hey Garrett,
I had a couple questions regarding the 2013 model of this ski.
1. Did they change anything from the 2012?
2 I am 5’8″ and 155 and was wondering if the 185 would be long enough for me? I know you said you had conflicting views about the overall length of the ski. Is it that there is a large amount of rocker? And do you know the actual Tip-to-Tail length?
Great review and thanks!!!
Patrick,
I checked in with RMU, and yes, they’ve made a few minor changes (aside from graphics) to the 13/14 model. They’ve added additional dampening, while slightly increasing the overall stiffness (~5%). They’ve also added 165 and 195cm lengths to the size run. Additionally, they changed the mounting position on the core and the mounting marks from 12/13. The new weight is coming in at 7.8lbs in 175, which is about 4 oz heavier then carbon competitors.
The true tape measurement from tip to tip is on the 4’s, so the 195cm is a true 194, and the 185 is a true 184. My concern with the length being a bit short on the 185 was due to both the narrow profile at the tip, combined with the tip rocker. While this is pretty standard for five-point dimensions, I find the front 20cm of the ski fails to provide an effective edge when carving hard pack. If you’re 5′ 8″ and an aggressive skier who finds yourself charging off-piste conditions, I’d recommend the 195. If you you’re looking more for agility to take advantage of inbounds terrain and features, I’d go with the 185.
Hi Garret,
I’m 6’3″ and have been enjoying this ski for the past three years. It seems to work in everything for me, except for a few off days in Granite Canyon at Jackson hole. Will it still be as versatile in 195? I love the ski and am thinking about getting the new one due to core shots etc, but if there is something else out there that you think would be better I’ll give it a try.
TJ,
Given your height, I’d suggest going with the 195cm. There may be a slight reduction in versatility since you’ll be working with a bit more effective edge underfoot, but you’ll likely find the ski to perform better in chop and on groomers. I’d also suspect the longer ski would provide more stability at speed so I’d make the decision based on your ability as a skier. If you ski confidently and aggressively at times, go long.
From another ski review on this site-anyone have experience mounting it up for tele?
Is the 2016/17 version still unchanged?
How about a comparison too the Soul 7 or Line Bacon?
Hi Tjaard,
on the first part of your question: the 16/17 Version is still the same shape, yet with a slightly stiffer tip and tail. So you should read the review in a sense that the ski handles even better with that “soft-tail-issue” being mostly eliminated.
As you can see from ISPO and SIA Pictures, for 17/18 the Apostle 105 will get the shape of the Apostle 98 (i.e. less taper, more effective edge, more splay in the tip and more subtle – shorter and lower – tail rocker) and will get 1mm more in the waist and will return as the Apostle 106. In addition to the existing carbon and wood versions there will be a version with a metal sheet. I think the Apostle 106 – especially with the metal sheet – will be the better resort allrounder. However, I do not think that with the new shape it will shine as much as the current version in soft conditions.
I am not the biggest overall-fan of 5 point shapes, but I have spent several weeks on the current Apostle 105 shape (13/14 version – black & white with red rmu print) and it is the most fun ski with this shape I have ever been on and I yet have to ski a 185cm long and 105 waisted ski that does better in soft and deep conditions (it is only mounted at -6,5 behind the line, but never had any tip dive issues). I would call it the best 105 waisted soft snow ski I have been on so far (yet you should read the Blister Review on the liberty origin 106, which I have not been on, but which might even outshine the Apostle 105 in the soft and deep). If you look for a nimble, durable and energetic allmountain soft snow ski that is not too wide and floats extremely well for its width, this could be the ticket. If you are looking for a one ski quiver that handles variable snow better, but is still nimble, it might be worth waiting until next season’s Apostle 106 in the metal version or look at already existing options like the Moment PB&J or Black Crows Atris (there are many others).
Just picking your brains here. I destroyed my Apostles last season and just scooped some J Ski Metals. The Metal is more charger than the Apostle but less beefy than say the Supernatural 108…is that about right?
as a 5’10” dude at like 140, would you say to roll with a 185? I’m on a 179 right now.
If you’ve been on a 179cm, have you been totally content? If so, then don’t change. If you find yourself wanting to ski faster, make larger radius turns, or float more in soft snow, then 185cm is your solution. Given you’re height, I’d go 185cm they ski relatively short to begin with. Then again, I’m biased toward longer boards.
Any chance you had a chance to ski the apostle 106 w metal? If so would love to hear your thoughts on it. Thanks.
I agree on all points. If you move the mount forward by 1-2cm you can definitely feel the tail a bit more, it’s all really just personal preference.
Good review!
I wish I could have spent more than a morning on em at Breck this year. It was 5 deg F and Peak 10 was icy as hell. They absolutely hated that stuff. I bailed on em after 3 runs and went back to the Line Opus. I expect that when I moved over to the softer stuff they would have woken up and been a blast. Can’t say enough about the company though. I mentioned I wanted to demo and within 3 hours they had a pair over from the factory for me to ride.
Hey Garrett,
I had a couple questions regarding the 2013 model of this ski.
1. Did they change anything from the 2012?
2 I am 5’8″ and 155 and was wondering if the 185 would be long enough for me? I know you said you had conflicting views about the overall length of the ski. Is it that there is a large amount of rocker? And do you know the actual Tip-to-Tail length?
Great review and thanks!!!
Patrick,
I checked in with RMU, and yes, they’ve made a few minor changes (aside from graphics) to the 13/14 model. They’ve added additional dampening, while slightly increasing the overall stiffness (~5%). They’ve also added 165 and 195cm lengths to the size run. Additionally, they changed the mounting position on the core and the mounting marks from 12/13. The new weight is coming in at 7.8lbs in 175, which is about 4 oz heavier then carbon competitors.
The true tape measurement from tip to tip is on the 4’s, so the 195cm is a true 194, and the 185 is a true 184. My concern with the length being a bit short on the 185 was due to both the narrow profile at the tip, combined with the tip rocker. While this is pretty standard for five-point dimensions, I find the front 20cm of the ski fails to provide an effective edge when carving hard pack. If you’re 5′ 8″ and an aggressive skier who finds yourself charging off-piste conditions, I’d recommend the 195. If you you’re looking more for agility to take advantage of inbounds terrain and features, I’d go with the 185.
Hi Garret,
I’m 6’3″ and have been enjoying this ski for the past three years. It seems to work in everything for me, except for a few off days in Granite Canyon at Jackson hole. Will it still be as versatile in 195? I love the ski and am thinking about getting the new one due to core shots etc, but if there is something else out there that you think would be better I’ll give it a try.
TJ,
Given your height, I’d suggest going with the 195cm. There may be a slight reduction in versatility since you’ll be working with a bit more effective edge underfoot, but you’ll likely find the ski to perform better in chop and on groomers. I’d also suspect the longer ski would provide more stability at speed so I’d make the decision based on your ability as a skier. If you ski confidently and aggressively at times, go long.
From another ski review on this site-anyone have experience mounting it up for tele?
Is the 2016/17 version still unchanged?
How about a comparison too the Soul 7 or Line Bacon?
Hi Tjaard,
on the first part of your question: the 16/17 Version is still the same shape, yet with a slightly stiffer tip and tail. So you should read the review in a sense that the ski handles even better with that “soft-tail-issue” being mostly eliminated.
As you can see from ISPO and SIA Pictures, for 17/18 the Apostle 105 will get the shape of the Apostle 98 (i.e. less taper, more effective edge, more splay in the tip and more subtle – shorter and lower – tail rocker) and will get 1mm more in the waist and will return as the Apostle 106. In addition to the existing carbon and wood versions there will be a version with a metal sheet. I think the Apostle 106 – especially with the metal sheet – will be the better resort allrounder. However, I do not think that with the new shape it will shine as much as the current version in soft conditions.
I am not the biggest overall-fan of 5 point shapes, but I have spent several weeks on the current Apostle 105 shape (13/14 version – black & white with red rmu print) and it is the most fun ski with this shape I have ever been on and I yet have to ski a 185cm long and 105 waisted ski that does better in soft and deep conditions (it is only mounted at -6,5 behind the line, but never had any tip dive issues). I would call it the best 105 waisted soft snow ski I have been on so far (yet you should read the Blister Review on the liberty origin 106, which I have not been on, but which might even outshine the Apostle 105 in the soft and deep). If you look for a nimble, durable and energetic allmountain soft snow ski that is not too wide and floats extremely well for its width, this could be the ticket. If you are looking for a one ski quiver that handles variable snow better, but is still nimble, it might be worth waiting until next season’s Apostle 106 in the metal version or look at already existing options like the Moment PB&J or Black Crows Atris (there are many others).
Just picking your brains here. I destroyed my Apostles last season and just scooped some J Ski Metals. The Metal is more charger than the Apostle but less beefy than say the Supernatural 108…is that about right?
as a 5’10” dude at like 140, would you say to roll with a 185? I’m on a 179 right now.
If you’ve been on a 179cm, have you been totally content? If so, then don’t change. If you find yourself wanting to ski faster, make larger radius turns, or float more in soft snow, then 185cm is your solution. Given you’re height, I’d go 185cm they ski relatively short to begin with. Then again, I’m biased toward longer boards.
Any chance you had a chance to ski the apostle 106 w metal? If so would love to hear your thoughts on it. Thanks.