Picked up a pair the first year they came out...by virtue of your recommendation. Phenomenal ski, agile, quick, stable at speed...nothing they can't handle. Love them...props to you guys!
I love the Atomic Maverick 95Ti. Got a new pair of last year model on sale at the skiessential site and finally took it out this last weekend in Mammoth. Some context, I am an advance snowboarder that started learning how to ski about 3 years ago, pretty serious about it and been taking lessons every season. I would say I am a mid level intermediate at the moment. Home mountain is Mammoth but been to all the Utah, CO, Jackson, and Japan resorts. Averaging about 20+ days per season. Condition I skied this Maverick in was about 6in of fresh light snow (rare for Mammoth...its usually the Sierra cement) along with some packed poweder. I am 5'6 and about 180lbs, ski length is 164 (or 165 I cant remember exactly but its basically the Maverick 95Ti in the mid 160s cm range). The skis were very easy to turn (Ive been skiing on a pair of Rossi Exp 84), I havent put them on scale yet but they seem to be lighter than my Rossi 84 exp 160cm. Crazy light. Was able to get them on edge very easy while turning, and skid turn also was very easy. The entire time I felt like the ski was very easy and quick to control, as I didnt have to fight it at all. Sadly Mammoth this year havent gottem deep powder yet so I only had about 6" of fresh snow to play with but it seems great, stay on top of that no problem. Curious how it will be in 12"+ of powder. Very stable skis, went through chunders and bums etc easy and didnt really put a lot of work on my legs. In short I love them. But Ive only been on about 4-5 dif pair of skis/brands my whole life so my data points are limited. Borrowing from my experience with snowboarding thought (been on a lot of boards) I know how it should feel when what you have under your feet is working with you instead of fighting you and how it suppose to feel at speed on a stable platform. In short ...I love the Atomic Mav 95Ti and I trust it. Unless you are like a very advance skier that can haul *ss like the Olympics and can really bent the skis while high edge angle carving, I doubt you will find the limit of this skis. Highly recommend these bad boys. Personally I love the red/black color combo from last year more though thats why I picked last year model since there isnt much of difference in construction to this newer version.
The Maverick is consistently stiffer from tip to tail. The Ripstick is more flexible and maneuverable in the shovel but feels about the same from the mid body through the tail. I prefer the Ripstick's overall feel mainly because I like the carbon powered feeling of the rods through the ski. The Elan is more intuitive--you can ski it run one and feel like it's been a part of you this whole time. Since the Atomic is on the light side for having two sheets of metal, it's not the most stable ski out there--the Elan surprisingly holds up quite well in this realm. On a daily basis, I'd prefer to ski the Elan.
It's tough to get all conditions in one video, unfortunately. In terms of powder performance, I'd say that they're middle of the road--pretty stiff to be floaty and playful, but totally manageable especially for how well they do in an on-piste format.
Hello! Taking a shot in the dark on these skis. I demo'd a pair of Volkl Mantra m6's and they were great but they were a bit heavy and damp. These seem like a good alternative giving up a bit of stability in exchange for a much lighter and more agile ski. I would appreciate some input on ski length. I am 6'2" and pretty athletic. I am currently over 250 but actively loosing weight. My goal is to be back under 230 by the time ski season hits, hopefully closer to 200. I don't make a ton of money currently so I need these to be my all mountain 85%+ of days skis hopefully for a couple of seasons or more and I'll be skiing in the Rockies (Montana, Wyoming, Colorado). I would currently describe myself as an advanced intermediate skier but I was once an expert and it is my goal to get back to that level this coming ski season. I like to ski most all of the mountain but I would not say I am a very aggressive skier (I generally avoid doing things that have a higher likelihood of putting me in a hospital). I picked up a pair of 180's when they were on sale last month but I am concerned they will be too short and that I should size up to the 188's. Ideally I'd go for something in the middle but that's not an option. What are your thoughts? Thank you!
The 188 in the Maverick 95 is a lot of ski, even with your stats and application. I'm 6/2 225 and found the 188 to be quite a handful this past year. If you're looking to make more controlled carved turns and have better mobility in variable conditions and terrain, I'd go with the 180. It's a sturdy ski on its own--there's no real need to upsize to access performance.
Good for an east coast groomer skier who gets in the trees when conditions allow and would like to get into the trees and a little backside when out west? How would you compare to a ripstick 96?
Yup! There's more power and grip here with the Maverick when compared to the Ripstick. If mobility and agility are a big part of what you're looking for, the Elan is fantastic, but the Maverick is a stronger carver on groomers here in the east, and it's pretty darn light for having multiple sheets of metal, which makes it not too clunky in the trees.
Fantastic review! I am trying to decide between this or the Rustler 9…I am an advanced/expert skier who loves trees and seeks glades, bowls, and mixed terrain when on the mountain. I am not interested in max speed, basically I like to get tight turns on a groomer while looking for the next great spot to drop into some glades or other fun semi-off piste areas. What would you recommend? Much appreciate it!
Sounds like you're looking for the Rustler 9. The Maverick will be a bit more composed on the groomers, but not much, and the highlight of the Rustler definitely lies more with what you prioritize in terms of trees and mixed terrain.
Hey SE! Just picked up a pair of 2023 Maverick 95 Ti's at 188cm in length. I'm a beginner to intermediate and have many days lined up in Colorado this season where I primarily ski on piste as I learn but want to venture towards powder as I get more creative. I'm 6'4 (193cm) and 175lbs (80kgs). What are your thoughts on ski selection and size?
New England skier, advanced intermediate looking to get better. Currently on the Navigator 85 on your high praise and looking to move up to a more versatile and advanced ski. I’m 95% frontside. Want something that carves well but that can also cruise. Looking at these or Ripstick 96 or Rustler 9. What’s your thoughts? Love the videos!
Your 95% frontside points more to the Maverick/Ripstick--you can probably take the Rustler 9 off the list as that ski has a lot more of an off-trail personality. Between the Atomic and the Elan, the Atomic has more energy and grip to it while the Ripstick is lighter and a bit more flexible. If frontside is where you want to be, I would say Maverick is the ski.
How stiff should be the boots on these type of skis? My daily skis are Redster X9s, but I'd like to try something more friendly with soft snow. Is Hawx 130 good combination with Maverick series?
I tested the 88ti and loved it super confidence infusing ski felt like I could do anything on them, wanted to know if they have that same feeling and also what your thoughts are on putting a Hybrid binding on this ski (im a ski instructor I travel quite a bit and can't justify 3 pairs of ski so I usually have one piste one all mountain id like to make that an all mountain touring ski) but it 90% inbounds 10% touring. im 5ft 9 ish wight 77-80kg currently ski the head kore 93 at 172. (its dying)
I think the hybrid application here is sound. The skis are pretty light and mobile, and adding that hybrid binding will make it pretty efficient on the climb without taking too much off the top end of the performance ceiling. I'd say the 95 is a bit more versatile, but the 88 is right there. I'd go with the 176 in the 88 if you loved that or the 172 in the 95.
Hello. Intermediate-advanced skier here. I'm 6'5 and 176lbs - skied only "real" touring skis so far (MTN EXPLORE 95 184cm, Helio 104 184cm). Looking for all mountain ski for mainly resort and a bit of touring (will be mounted with shifts). Would you recommend 188cm (I'm tall but not that heavy...bit afraid) or 180cm (could be a bit short?)? I wish there was a size in between...
Pretty similar overall application. The Atomic is stiffer and more responsive, especially in the tips. This makes them more consistent carvers but not nearly as amenable to softer snow as the Kastle. If you're on-trail more, then this could be seen as a positive. If you're looking for more soft snow capacity, then it's a bit of a downgrade. For a nice mix of on/off trail and firm/softer snow, I'd also check out the Stockli Stormrider 95, Kastle Paragon 93, or the Head Kore 93.
Maverick is stiffer and more stable while the Sick Day 94 is quicker, poppier, and more agile. I think if you're looking for a faster ski and stronger, the Maverick is the way to go.
I'm just about to buy a second pair of skiis, I have a pair of atomic redster q7 revoshock, that I'm insanely in love with. Quite the good skier that love pist skiing with hard carving wthis high angles and my butt almost touch the ground on apex. Though after pushing "race-style" half the day, the legs become quite soar. and after lunch the pist gets more and more soft- So I'm thinking of a second pair of skiis that I can change to over lunch, and just don't push it that hard in the afternoon, but more focusing on soft skiing. And try something more off pist. So, I have landed in a pair of mavericks, 180cm. The question is really 100 or 95 Ti. It there a big difference or just colour and graphics? Thanks for awesome reviews! /Johan
I think that putting more distance between the skis that you own makes sense, so the 100 is a smart play here. The build is the same, there's just more of it in the 100, so you're getting added stability and power as well as a boost in soft snow performance.
I'm 5'10" and 155 lbs.II use Scarpa Maestrales for my boots and have been skiing the Armada Tracer 98's for the past two years. I want to make the Armada's my dedicated backcountry ski and use the Atomic Maverick IT's as my lift, side country ski. I like to push hard, ski fairly fast and make all turn shapes. 180 cm or 172cm?
HI SE, just get into this sport last year and feel really into it. Really like your ski reviews! I mainly ski in PNW area, e.g.the Stevens or the Whistler-blackcomb. Currently I own a pair of K2 pinnacle 88 from my friends and I look forward to having my own pair of skis this year, and the Atomic Maverick 95 Ti caught my eye. My level should be intermediate, feeling comfortable on all the blues and groomed blacks. Style wise more leaning towards directional but I do want to practice in trees and moguls to get more experienced. Does owning this pair of Maverick 95TI make a difference at my level comparing to K2 pinnacle 88 170cm? If yes, should I go for the 172cm or 180cm (My height is 179cm)?
You're looking at a decent uptick in performance moving to the 95. The Pinnacle was awesome--loved all of those skis, but there was a lot of tip rocker to them. The Maverick is more traditional in that it will hook into the turn a lot easier and more precisely. Still, it's light enough to maneuver through the bumps, trees, and other tight spots, which I think is a huge bonus/benefit. I'd go with the 172 in that ski. More metal, more width, and slightly stiffer skis mean you don't have to size up to the 180 in order to access performance.
The Stance is more flexible and happier in more moderate speeds while the Maverick is pretty stiff and likes to be used at higher edge angles and higher speeds. Both accomplish very similar things, but the user interface and the input required is a bit different--Stance is friendlier in the 90.
I'm 5'10", 172 lbs, intermediate skier. Looking for all mountain ski (that can handle tight trees, off-piste and groomers). Would you recommend the 172cm or 180cm?
I would say the 172 is fine here--the skis are pretty stiff, so if you're not used to bending/flexing a stiffer ski, the 180 can feel pretty cumbersome.
I am 6'-2 and 240 LB intermediate/ advanced skier out west and seriously considering the Maverick 95 TI's . What length would you recommend? I ski 70% on piste/ 30% off. I in the past i have skied the advantage series. I do enjoy a ski with agility and quick yet stable at high speed. Would you recommend the 180's or the 188's?
I'd go with the 180 since the skis are sturdy in and of themselves. you don't have to reach to the 188's to gain stability in the 95. Also makes the 30% off-piste skiing more palatable when it comes to mobility and agility.
They're pretty different, even though they have similar waist widths. The Maverick is lighter, despite having two sheets of metal, while the QST is heavier with a thicker core profile. The QST is floatier, turnier, and more soft-snow oriented while the Maverick is happier in a carved turn and has a pretty stiff and flat tail for better on-trail performance.
Im planning to get this in next few days, need recommendations on the length. Im 173cm and 65kg. I have demoed 172 length but haven't tried 164 (they were not available). I'm lower advance skier that can carve blue runs but need to skid half of the turn in red runs. Should i go for 172 or 164? Mainly buying it for Japan ski trip. Going to stay on-piste for 70% of time. Or is there other skis better suit my needs?
I'd go with the 164 here. With two sheets of metal, the skis are sturdy. You will probably enjoy the carving capabilities and mobility of the shorter model.
Generally a ski with more weight, stiffness, material, etc. will be more powerful as it will perform at a higher level at higher speeds, and in most cases, regardless of snow conditions. Powerful skis can plow through crud and chop easier than lighter or more flexible skis. That said, they take more effort and strength to access this performance, so just because a ski is powerful doesn't mean it's a better choice for you and your skiing style.
@@SkiEssentials Exaclty my experience with top of the line Tecnicas and Volkl skis. The held an edge like a train on tracks and went through crud like it wasn't there but I had a hell of a time in moguls with them. Got to hold and talk about a pair of Atomic Mavericl 95 Ti's today. I think I want that ski but won't know until I ski on it.
Have ran the bent 100-172 for 2 years. Former hockey player, now ski 20+ days (5’8”, 178lb); felt like I was over powering bent towards the end of the season; don’t ski switch often, only straight air off jumps/drops (mostly in woods). If I switch to maverick should I stay at 172 or jump to 180?
The Serpo is a bit more eager to start and finish a turn while the Maverick is more sturdy in the mid-phase. I think the Serpo is also more versatile while the Maverick is happier on a groomed surface even though it's 95 mm underfoot. I personally prefer the energy, zest, and all-mountain performance of the Serpo.
Hi Guys / I'm planning to buy those in next couple days. Would really use your recommendation about the length. I'm 173cm (73kg) let's maybe say advanced skier, no tricks or such but generally tend to ski at high speeds on various condition on-pistes. Should I go 172 or 164? Boots are 130fl. Thanks very much for all that super helpful coverage overall.
Thanks for this concise update on the Maverick. I'm 6'/160, middle aged, advanced east coast skier, but doing more western trips. My happy place is energetic carving on steeper groomers, and mixing short and long radius turns, but I'm venturing more and more off piste and enjoying it. I'm on Vantage 90 Ti's, 176, about 5 years old, from your prior reviews I know the Maverick is a big improvement. I've been thinking Mavericks or Enforcer 94, leaning towards the Maverick 95 / 180. Should I even consider 88s? And, in either, should I be longer versus my current Vantage? Lastly, reviews point out the stiffer tail of the Maverick, is there an optimal binding mount point?
If you're shopping for a ski in the mid-90's, which is a great place to be, I don't think the 88 is really worth a look--that opens up a lot of other 88's out there and may set you back. The 95 offers a lot of on-trail carving performance for the width for sure and some skiers simply prefer more of a platform to stand on. I'd go 180 in the 95 and not even look back. For mount point, the line is best.
Been renting skis for a few years now and looking to buy my first pair, looking at the maverick 95 or the head kore 93. Im 215 pounds Mostly like to go fast down the hill and trees. Wich one do you guys like better?
Personally, I own a Kore 93, and at 225 pounds, I really enjoy how I can get the stiff ski to bend. The Maverick is great, uses metal rather than carbon to power the ski, so there's a bit damper of a feel.
What’s the main difference between the 88 and 95 ti? I’m 178cm tall and 80kg, experienced skier. Iv been riding a freestyle ski and I don’t do tricks anymore. Want an all mountain ski that can rip the piste, hard and fast - but be fun off piste when conditions allow it (which is like 20% of the time) Thanks
@@henryhebron5319There's sizing differences, and the width, but the build is the same. Your application sounds more like an 88 would work better given the 80/20 split of on and off-piste. The 88 is pretty versatile and a good soft snow performer. I'd go 176 in that ski.
One more question. In your last years ski review, you said you own a pair of Armada Declivity 92ti. I’m stuck on this ski and the Maverick 88ti. What made you choose the Declivity over any others? How do they compare on and off trail? And what size did you go for? I’m 5,11 experienced skier but will 180cm be to much? Be nice to ski switch on the odd occasion but ripping frontside is more important. I am playful but not a park rat anymore. They seam pretty similar, I’m almost thinking I’d make a superficial decision at this point but would love to hear a comparison on these skis. Many thanks.
I think there's more upside to the Maverick if you spend more time on trail and in a carved turn. For trees and powder and more playful skiing, there's more benefits to the Rustler, but for most skiers, most of the time, it seems like the Maverick is a better overall fit when it comes to mixing groomer carving and other skiing.
Just went skiing for the first time in 20 years. Im definitely getting back into, but my boots are too small, and Im not sure if new boots would fit my old Atomic Beta Ride 10.20s. Are these Mavericks a lot better than my old skis?
They are very different. I would advise to put your money into new boots first and then try out some different skis, if you haven't gone that route already.
@SkiEssentials I'm going that route and will be buying from you guys. Unfortunately, I don't live in a place where one can demo various skis (Las Vegas, Lee Canyon).
❤loving your review, keep it going❤ I really like the specs of the maverick. I'm 185cm and 70kg (and 25y.o + 20y skiing) Still thinking about 86c and 95ti. Any suggestions? And what is the most important difference between maverick 86 c and 95 ti?
They're pretty different in terms of the high end of the ceiling. The 95 Ti operates on a considerably higher plane of existence when it comes to top end performance. The 86C is agile, shifty, and very quick but it doesn't hold up well to longer turns and faster speeds. The 95 is a lot more comfortable in this realm with excellent edge grip and a predictable turn from tip to tail. Since the 95 uses metal, you'd think it's a lot heavier, but it's actually pretty similar in weight, especially for the performance differences.
Picked up a pair the first year they came out...by virtue of your recommendation.
Phenomenal ski, agile, quick, stable at speed...nothing they can't handle. Love them...props to you guys!
Awesome! Glad you like them!
I love the Atomic Maverick 95Ti. Got a new pair of last year model on sale at the skiessential site and finally took it out this last weekend in Mammoth.
Some context, I am an advance snowboarder that started learning how to ski about 3 years ago, pretty serious about it and been taking lessons every season. I would say I am a mid level intermediate at the moment. Home mountain is Mammoth but been to all the Utah, CO, Jackson, and Japan resorts. Averaging about 20+ days per season.
Condition I skied this Maverick in was about 6in of fresh light snow (rare for Mammoth...its usually the Sierra cement) along with some packed poweder. I am 5'6 and about 180lbs, ski length is 164 (or 165 I cant remember exactly but its basically the Maverick 95Ti in the mid 160s cm range).
The skis were very easy to turn (Ive been skiing on a pair of Rossi Exp 84), I havent put them on scale yet but they seem to be lighter than my Rossi 84 exp 160cm. Crazy light. Was able to get them on edge very easy while turning, and skid turn also was very easy. The entire time I felt like the ski was very easy and quick to control, as I didnt have to fight it at all.
Sadly Mammoth this year havent gottem deep powder yet so I only had about 6" of fresh snow to play with but it seems great, stay on top of that no problem. Curious how it will be in 12"+ of powder.
Very stable skis, went through chunders and bums etc easy and didnt really put a lot of work on my legs.
In short I love them. But Ive only been on about 4-5 dif pair of skis/brands my whole life so my data points are limited.
Borrowing from my experience with snowboarding thought (been on a lot of boards) I know how it should feel when what you have under your feet is working with you instead of fighting you and how it suppose to feel at speed on a stable platform.
In short ...I love the Atomic Mav 95Ti and I trust it. Unless you are like a very advance skier that can haul *ss like the Olympics and can really bent the skis while high edge angle carving, I doubt you will find the limit of this skis.
Highly recommend these bad boys. Personally I love the red/black color combo from last year more though thats why I picked last year model since there isnt much of difference in construction to this newer version.
Very thorough review. What month did they go on sale?
@@philh1826 I bought in the beginning of May 2023
Any thoughts on how the Maverick 95 compares to Ripstick black 96? Trade-offs? Thx.
This is what I’d like to know as well
The Maverick is consistently stiffer from tip to tail. The Ripstick is more flexible and maneuverable in the shovel but feels about the same from the mid body through the tail. I prefer the Ripstick's overall feel mainly because I like the carbon powered feeling of the rods through the ski. The Elan is more intuitive--you can ski it run one and feel like it's been a part of you this whole time. Since the Atomic is on the light side for having two sheets of metal, it's not the most stable ski out there--the Elan surprisingly holds up quite well in this realm. On a daily basis, I'd prefer to ski the Elan.
Why no video in the pow?
It's tough to get all conditions in one video, unfortunately. In terms of powder performance, I'd say that they're middle of the road--pretty stiff to be floaty and playful, but totally manageable especially for how well they do in an on-piste format.
Hello! Taking a shot in the dark on these skis. I demo'd a pair of Volkl Mantra m6's and they were great but they were a bit heavy and damp. These seem like a good alternative giving up a bit of stability in exchange for a much lighter and more agile ski.
I would appreciate some input on ski length. I am 6'2" and pretty athletic. I am currently over 250 but actively loosing weight. My goal is to be back under 230 by the time ski season hits, hopefully closer to 200. I don't make a ton of money currently so I need these to be my all mountain 85%+ of days skis hopefully for a couple of seasons or more and I'll be skiing in the Rockies (Montana, Wyoming, Colorado). I would currently describe myself as an advanced intermediate skier but I was once an expert and it is my goal to get back to that level this coming ski season. I like to ski most all of the mountain but I would not say I am a very aggressive skier (I generally avoid doing things that have a higher likelihood of putting me in a hospital).
I picked up a pair of 180's when they were on sale last month but I am concerned they will be too short and that I should size up to the 188's. Ideally I'd go for something in the middle but that's not an option. What are your thoughts?
Thank you!
The 188 in the Maverick 95 is a lot of ski, even with your stats and application. I'm 6/2 225 and found the 188 to be quite a handful this past year. If you're looking to make more controlled carved turns and have better mobility in variable conditions and terrain, I'd go with the 180. It's a sturdy ski on its own--there's no real need to upsize to access performance.
@@SkiEssentials thank you!
Good for an east coast groomer skier who gets in the trees when conditions allow and would like to get into the trees and a little backside when out west? How would you compare to a ripstick 96?
Yup! There's more power and grip here with the Maverick when compared to the Ripstick. If mobility and agility are a big part of what you're looking for, the Elan is fantastic, but the Maverick is a stronger carver on groomers here in the east, and it's pretty darn light for having multiple sheets of metal, which makes it not too clunky in the trees.
Fantastic review! I am trying to decide between this or the Rustler 9…I am an advanced/expert skier who loves trees and seeks glades, bowls, and mixed terrain when on the mountain. I am not interested in max speed, basically I like to get tight turns on a groomer while looking for the next great spot to drop into some glades or other fun semi-off piste areas. What would you recommend? Much appreciate it!
Sounds like you're looking for the Rustler 9. The Maverick will be a bit more composed on the groomers, but not much, and the highlight of the Rustler definitely lies more with what you prioritize in terms of trees and mixed terrain.
Thank you!
Hey SE! Just picked up a pair of 2023 Maverick 95 Ti's at 188cm in length. I'm a beginner to intermediate and have many days lined up in Colorado this season where I primarily ski on piste as I learn but want to venture towards powder as I get more creative. I'm 6'4 (193cm) and 175lbs (80kgs). What are your thoughts on ski selection and size?
I think the ski might be on the demanding side for your stats, but if you're athletic and are looking to improve, it shouldn't be a huge issue.
New England skier, advanced intermediate looking to get better. Currently on the Navigator 85 on your high praise and looking to move up to a more versatile and advanced ski. I’m 95% frontside. Want something that carves well but that can also cruise. Looking at these or Ripstick 96 or Rustler 9. What’s your thoughts? Love the videos!
Your 95% frontside points more to the Maverick/Ripstick--you can probably take the Rustler 9 off the list as that ski has a lot more of an off-trail personality. Between the Atomic and the Elan, the Atomic has more energy and grip to it while the Ripstick is lighter and a bit more flexible. If frontside is where you want to be, I would say Maverick is the ski.
How stiff should be the boots on these type of skis? My daily skis are Redster X9s, but I'd like to try something more friendly with soft snow. Is Hawx 130 good combination with Maverick series?
Generally skiers who are getting the most out of the Maverick 95 will be on boots that have between a 110 and 130 flex depending on a few factors.
I tested the 88ti and loved it super confidence infusing ski felt like I could do anything on them, wanted to know if they have that same feeling and also what your thoughts are on putting a Hybrid binding on this ski (im a ski instructor I travel quite a bit and can't justify 3 pairs of ski so I usually have one piste one all mountain id like to make that an all mountain touring ski) but it 90% inbounds 10% touring.
im 5ft 9 ish wight 77-80kg currently ski the head kore 93 at 172. (its dying)
I think the hybrid application here is sound. The skis are pretty light and mobile, and adding that hybrid binding will make it pretty efficient on the climb without taking too much off the top end of the performance ceiling. I'd say the 95 is a bit more versatile, but the 88 is right there. I'd go with the 176 in the 88 if you loved that or the 172 in the 95.
Hello. Intermediate-advanced skier here. I'm 6'5 and 176lbs - skied only "real" touring skis so far (MTN EXPLORE 95 184cm, Helio 104 184cm). Looking for all mountain ski for mainly resort and a bit of touring (will be mounted with shifts). Would you recommend 188cm (I'm tall but not that heavy...bit afraid) or 180cm (could be a bit short?)? I wish there was a size in between...
I think your height puts you in the 188. It's fine because its light and maneuverable.
My daily 2019 Kastle FX95 non HP will be retired this year. These seem like good replacements. How do these compare? Is there a better option?
Pretty similar overall application. The Atomic is stiffer and more responsive, especially in the tips. This makes them more consistent carvers but not nearly as amenable to softer snow as the Kastle. If you're on-trail more, then this could be seen as a positive. If you're looking for more soft snow capacity, then it's a bit of a downgrade. For a nice mix of on/off trail and firm/softer snow, I'd also check out the Stockli Stormrider 95, Kastle Paragon 93, or the Head Kore 93.
@@SkiEssentials 🙏 Thanks for the PRO recommendation
Would these be good for intermediate male 6’ 225 lb skier for piste/frontside groomers and occasional light powder?
Yup, great skis! I'd say the 180 is a good size here.
Looks like a great ski, how would this 95ti compare to Sick Day 94's?
Maverick is stiffer and more stable while the Sick Day 94 is quicker, poppier, and more agile. I think if you're looking for a faster ski and stronger, the Maverick is the way to go.
I'm just about to buy a second pair of skiis, I have a pair of atomic redster q7 revoshock, that I'm insanely in love with. Quite the good skier that love pist skiing with hard carving wthis high angles and my butt almost touch the ground on apex. Though after pushing "race-style" half the day, the legs become quite soar. and after lunch the pist gets more and more soft- So I'm thinking of a second pair of skiis that I can change to over lunch, and just don't push it that hard in the afternoon, but more focusing on soft skiing. And try something more off pist. So, I have landed in a pair of mavericks, 180cm. The question is really 100 or 95 Ti. It there a big difference or just colour and graphics? Thanks for awesome reviews! /Johan
I think that putting more distance between the skis that you own makes sense, so the 100 is a smart play here. The build is the same, there's just more of it in the 100, so you're getting added stability and power as well as a boost in soft snow performance.
I'm 5'10" and 155 lbs.II use Scarpa Maestrales for my boots and have been skiing the Armada Tracer 98's for the past two years. I want to make the Armada's my dedicated backcountry ski and use the Atomic Maverick IT's as my lift, side country ski. I like to push hard, ski fairly fast and make all turn shapes. 180 cm or 172cm?
I forgot to add the Tracers are a180cm and don't feel at all long.
I'd keep the 180 size consistent. The Maverick isn't too heavy so it's not overly demanding. Have fun!
HI SE, just get into this sport last year and feel really into it. Really like your ski reviews! I mainly ski in PNW area, e.g.the Stevens or the Whistler-blackcomb. Currently I own a pair of K2 pinnacle 88 from my friends and I look forward to having my own pair of skis this year, and the Atomic Maverick 95 Ti caught my eye. My level should be intermediate, feeling comfortable on all the blues and groomed blacks. Style wise more leaning towards directional but I do want to practice in trees and moguls to get more experienced. Does owning this pair of Maverick 95TI make a difference at my level comparing to K2 pinnacle 88 170cm? If yes, should I go for the 172cm or 180cm (My height is 179cm)?
You're looking at a decent uptick in performance moving to the 95. The Pinnacle was awesome--loved all of those skis, but there was a lot of tip rocker to them. The Maverick is more traditional in that it will hook into the turn a lot easier and more precisely. Still, it's light enough to maneuver through the bumps, trees, and other tight spots, which I think is a huge bonus/benefit. I'd go with the 172 in that ski. More metal, more width, and slightly stiffer skis mean you don't have to size up to the 180 in order to access performance.
Hi, what would you choose between these and the Salomon Stance 90? What is the difference?
The Stance is more flexible and happier in more moderate speeds while the Maverick is pretty stiff and likes to be used at higher edge angles and higher speeds. Both accomplish very similar things, but the user interface and the input required is a bit different--Stance is friendlier in the 90.
I'm 5'10", 172 lbs, intermediate skier. Looking for all mountain ski (that can handle tight trees, off-piste and groomers). Would you recommend the 172cm or 180cm?
I would say the 172 is fine here--the skis are pretty stiff, so if you're not used to bending/flexing a stiffer ski, the 180 can feel pretty cumbersome.
I am 6'-2 and 240 LB intermediate/ advanced skier out west and seriously considering the Maverick 95 TI's . What length would you recommend? I ski 70% on piste/ 30% off.
I in the past i have skied the advantage series. I do enjoy a ski with agility and quick yet stable at high speed. Would you recommend the 180's or the 188's?
I'd go with the 180 since the skis are sturdy in and of themselves. you don't have to reach to the 188's to gain stability in the 95. Also makes the 30% off-piste skiing more palatable when it comes to mobility and agility.
Hi! Atomic Maverick or Salomon qst 98. Are they similar? which one is better ? Regards Andrés
They're pretty different, even though they have similar waist widths. The Maverick is lighter, despite having two sheets of metal, while the QST is heavier with a thicker core profile. The QST is floatier, turnier, and more soft-snow oriented while the Maverick is happier in a carved turn and has a pretty stiff and flat tail for better on-trail performance.
Any construction differences between ‘22, ‘23, and ‘24?
Nope!
Im planning to get this in next few days, need recommendations on the length. Im 173cm and 65kg. I have demoed 172 length but haven't tried 164 (they were not available). I'm lower advance skier that can carve blue runs but need to skid half of the turn in red runs. Should i go for 172 or 164? Mainly buying it for Japan ski trip. Going to stay on-piste for 70% of time. Or is there other skis better suit my needs?
I'd go with the 164 here. With two sheets of metal, the skis are sturdy. You will probably enjoy the carving capabilities and mobility of the shorter model.
In terms of skis what does powerful mean?
Generally a ski with more weight, stiffness, material, etc. will be more powerful as it will perform at a higher level at higher speeds, and in most cases, regardless of snow conditions. Powerful skis can plow through crud and chop easier than lighter or more flexible skis. That said, they take more effort and strength to access this performance, so just because a ski is powerful doesn't mean it's a better choice for you and your skiing style.
@@SkiEssentials Exaclty my experience with top of the line Tecnicas and Volkl skis. The held an edge like a train on tracks and went through crud like it wasn't there but I had a hell of a time in moguls with them.
Got to hold and talk about a pair of Atomic Mavericl 95 Ti's today. I think I want that ski but won't know until I ski on it.
Have ran the bent 100-172 for 2 years. Former hockey player, now ski 20+ days (5’8”, 178lb); felt like I was over powering bent towards the end of the season; don’t ski switch often, only straight air off jumps/drops (mostly in woods). If I switch to maverick should I stay at 172 or jump to 180?
I'd stay in the 172. They're quite a bit stronger so I wouldn't want to double down in increases in performance and power.
@@SkiEssentials think it is a better to stay in bent and go up to 180 if I was pleased with other aspects of performance?
@@jonfields7944I'm not going to talk you out of getting longer skis if that's what you prefer!
Hey I’m 1,90 and weigh 90kg, which size would you recommend me?
I'd go 180 unless you know you prefer longer skis--the 188 is a lot to turn.
How it compares to serpo ?
The Serpo is a bit more eager to start and finish a turn while the Maverick is more sturdy in the mid-phase. I think the Serpo is also more versatile while the Maverick is happier on a groomed surface even though it's 95 mm underfoot. I personally prefer the energy, zest, and all-mountain performance of the Serpo.
Hi Guys / I'm planning to buy those in next couple days. Would really use your recommendation about the length. I'm 173cm (73kg) let's maybe say advanced skier, no tricks or such but generally tend to ski at high speeds on various condition on-pistes. Should I go 172 or 164? Boots are 130fl. Thanks very much for all that super helpful coverage overall.
If speed is a thing you like, I'd go with the 172, especially if you're spending most of your time on-trail.
Thanks for this concise update on the Maverick. I'm 6'/160, middle aged, advanced east coast skier, but doing more western trips. My happy place is energetic carving on steeper groomers, and mixing short and long radius turns, but I'm venturing more and more off piste and enjoying it. I'm on Vantage 90 Ti's, 176, about 5 years old, from your prior reviews I know the Maverick is a big improvement. I've been thinking Mavericks or Enforcer 94, leaning towards the Maverick 95 / 180. Should I even consider 88s? And, in either, should I be longer versus my current Vantage? Lastly, reviews point out the stiffer tail of the Maverick, is there an optimal binding mount point?
If you're shopping for a ski in the mid-90's, which is a great place to be, I don't think the 88 is really worth a look--that opens up a lot of other 88's out there and may set you back. The 95 offers a lot of on-trail carving performance for the width for sure and some skiers simply prefer more of a platform to stand on. I'd go 180 in the 95 and not even look back. For mount point, the line is best.
Perfect. Thank you!
Hei guys, would a Marker Grifon 13 ID binding in 100 be ok for this ski? Thank you! Im 177cm tall and 78kg. Advanced skier.
Yup!
Been renting skis for a few years now and looking to buy my first pair, looking at the maverick 95 or the head kore 93. Im 215 pounds Mostly like to go fast down the hill and trees. Wich one do you guys like better?
Personally, I own a Kore 93, and at 225 pounds, I really enjoy how I can get the stiff ski to bend. The Maverick is great, uses metal rather than carbon to power the ski, so there's a bit damper of a feel.
What’s the main difference between the 88 and 95 ti? I’m 178cm tall and 80kg, experienced skier. Iv been riding a freestyle ski and I don’t do tricks anymore. Want an all mountain ski that can rip the piste, hard and fast - but be fun off piste when conditions allow it (which is like 20% of the time)
Thanks
@@henryhebron5319There's sizing differences, and the width, but the build is the same. Your application sounds more like an 88 would work better given the 80/20 split of on and off-piste. The 88 is pretty versatile and a good soft snow performer. I'd go 176 in that ski.
@@SkiEssentials love it, thanks for clarifying. Your videos literally helped he decide which ski to get this year. Thank you
One more question. In your last years ski review, you said you own a pair of Armada Declivity 92ti.
I’m stuck on this ski and the Maverick 88ti.
What made you choose the Declivity over any others?
How do they compare on and off trail?
And what size did you go for?
I’m 5,11 experienced skier but will 180cm be to much?
Be nice to ski switch on the odd occasion but ripping frontside is more important. I am playful but not a park rat anymore.
They seam pretty similar, I’m almost thinking I’d make a superficial decision at this point but would love to hear a comparison on these skis.
Many thanks.
This or the rustler 9 ?
I think there's more upside to the Maverick if you spend more time on trail and in a carved turn. For trees and powder and more playful skiing, there's more benefits to the Rustler, but for most skiers, most of the time, it seems like the Maverick is a better overall fit when it comes to mixing groomer carving and other skiing.
Just went skiing for the first time in 20 years. Im definitely getting back into, but my boots are too small, and Im not sure if new boots would fit my old Atomic Beta Ride 10.20s. Are these Mavericks a lot better than my old skis?
They are very different. I would advise to put your money into new boots first and then try out some different skis, if you haven't gone that route already.
@SkiEssentials I'm going that route and will be buying from you guys. Unfortunately, I don't live in a place where one can demo various skis (Las Vegas, Lee Canyon).
❤loving your review, keep it going❤
I really like the specs of the maverick. I'm 185cm and 70kg (and 25y.o + 20y skiing)
Still thinking about 86c and 95ti. Any suggestions? And what is the most important difference between maverick 86 c and 95 ti?
They're pretty different in terms of the high end of the ceiling. The 95 Ti operates on a considerably higher plane of existence when it comes to top end performance. The 86C is agile, shifty, and very quick but it doesn't hold up well to longer turns and faster speeds. The 95 is a lot more comfortable in this realm with excellent edge grip and a predictable turn from tip to tail. Since the 95 uses metal, you'd think it's a lot heavier, but it's actually pretty similar in weight, especially for the performance differences.
@@SkiEssentialsThanks for responding! Another question; any difference between 2024 95ti and years before?
@@tomdekker99So far, all Maverick 95 Ti's have been the same structurally.
❤👍