Pretty disappointed to read this review – I was really liking the look of the El Capo if it had been pretty much a Cochise with camber. Any opinion on the Vagabond (same as the El Capo but no metal and lighter core)? Could make a good soft snow touring option.
I hear you, Lorne, and I’m with you. Change the flex pattern, and I could see this becoming one of my favorite skis. Having said that, there are lots of people who like the flex pattern of the Patron / Helldorado, and I bet those folks like this ski.
As for the Vagabond, I haven’t skied it yet, but would like to. I do know a couple of other people who have, and who have said it skis well. My 100% pure speculation: if the Vagabond is roughly the same (softer) flex pattern in the tips and tails as the El Capo, but a bit less stiff underfoot as the El Capo (given the lack of metal), seems like the Vagabond might feel like it has a less abrupt flex pattern, and in turn, a larger sweet spot. I.e., it might have a more uniform flex pattern than the El Capo? I don’t know, but I’d really like to find out.
It seems like it just needs a stiffer tail. would going up to the 193 help some of the speed and crud issues? I know sometimes companies up the stiffness as the size goes up, and the extra ski couldn’t hurt in busting through the chop.
Hey, Ryan – personally, I’d prefer to see the El Capo’s stiffness underfoot go less soft, less abruptly, through the tail and tips. But again, Nordica created a pretty similar flex pattern with the Helldorado, so they are clearly going for a particular feel here (read: not pure charger). If you read my Helldorado review, in that instance, I note that I’d personally stick with the 185 over the 193, because I didn’t feel like the extra length of that ski accomplished what you’re proposing with the El Capo. (I.e., the flex patterns of the 185 and 193 felt very similar.) So I think you’re right to some degree, but if the 193 keeps the same flex pattern / the same transitions, the longer El Capo won’t be a traditional charger, either.
After demoing the ski (193, I’m 6’0 160lbs) I would agree with the review totally, really stiff underfoot and weird everywhere else. I usually like twin-shaped chargy skis, but not this one. I love to ski moguls but I am the back-seat-funk type and I just never felt supported enough on this ski, and not enough stability to freeski as I like. I could bump bump’s faster on my Blizzard zeus 185 (severely underrated ski). It carves pretty good though, switch as well. The base also seems really soft to me,I scored a rock coming down and it ripped to the core about a foot long, but that is a demo ski that has been ground down.
Really disappointed to hear that the Enforcer replacement has a soft tail. One of the things that made it such a great ski was it’s big stiff tail. I don’t understand the direction Nordica is going with skis that can’t help you out if you get knocked into the back seat.
I did a full day demo on the 185 cm El Capo’s today at Whitefish MTN resort, I think your review was right on. I enjoyed them on the groomers, they lay down nice predictable turns-frankly felt like a nice intermediate level groomer ski. I had a lot of trouble getting them through soft chop and slightly skied out pow runs… I just kept thinking I needed more ski-stiffer tips and tails. It felt like the ski didn’t want to finish the turn. I’m used to flexing (driving) my skis at the bottom of the turn and using that flex to pop me into the next turn and I really couldn’t do that very well or predictably on these skis. I went back to my 2011/2012 Nordica Hot Rod’s and was back in my happy place.
I was under the impression that the 2014-15 El Capo had changed significantly from 2013-14. The new model has a full length titanium layer and a second one that just goes under the camber. The old one only had titanium under the camber. This is from talking to the Nordica Europe reps at the end of last winter having just demoed the 14-15 prototype and liking it lots for skiing hard in a variety of snow types. I have never ridden the 13-14 model.
Would someone be able to confirm whether I’m mistaken here? I am probably going to buy the El Capo based on what I found when I tested the prototype last winter, but I’d reconsider this if they had changed it to a ski that is only titanium underfoot. Has anyone handled this year’s production models? Thanks.
Interestingly, if you want to make a ski more docile, and you have too much tail, it works better, at least for me, to move the bindings BACK. This way the ski’s center is farther ahead of you, and you can ski it more forward, on the ball of your foot, also allowing some ankle action to take up some of the shock.
The farther forward on the ski, the more you have to sit back to ski on the center, which puts you on your heels and beats up your knees. I firmly believe that the popularity of back seat skiing is the best thing that ever happened for knee replacement surgeons. It started with ski racing, where some jetting off the tails helps increase speed through the gates.
Pretty disappointed to read this review – I was really liking the look of the El Capo if it had been pretty much a Cochise with camber. Any opinion on the Vagabond (same as the El Capo but no metal and lighter core)? Could make a good soft snow touring option.
I hear you, Lorne, and I’m with you. Change the flex pattern, and I could see this becoming one of my favorite skis. Having said that, there are lots of people who like the flex pattern of the Patron / Helldorado, and I bet those folks like this ski.
As for the Vagabond, I haven’t skied it yet, but would like to. I do know a couple of other people who have, and who have said it skis well. My 100% pure speculation: if the Vagabond is roughly the same (softer) flex pattern in the tips and tails as the El Capo, but a bit less stiff underfoot as the El Capo (given the lack of metal), seems like the Vagabond might feel like it has a less abrupt flex pattern, and in turn, a larger sweet spot. I.e., it might have a more uniform flex pattern than the El Capo? I don’t know, but I’d really like to find out.
It seems like it just needs a stiffer tail. would going up to the 193 help some of the speed and crud issues? I know sometimes companies up the stiffness as the size goes up, and the extra ski couldn’t hurt in busting through the chop.
Hey, Ryan – personally, I’d prefer to see the El Capo’s stiffness underfoot go less soft, less abruptly, through the tail and tips. But again, Nordica created a pretty similar flex pattern with the Helldorado, so they are clearly going for a particular feel here (read: not pure charger). If you read my Helldorado review, in that instance, I note that I’d personally stick with the 185 over the 193, because I didn’t feel like the extra length of that ski accomplished what you’re proposing with the El Capo. (I.e., the flex patterns of the 185 and 193 felt very similar.) So I think you’re right to some degree, but if the 193 keeps the same flex pattern / the same transitions, the longer El Capo won’t be a traditional charger, either.
After demoing the ski (193, I’m 6’0 160lbs) I would agree with the review totally, really stiff underfoot and weird everywhere else. I usually like twin-shaped chargy skis, but not this one. I love to ski moguls but I am the back-seat-funk type and I just never felt supported enough on this ski, and not enough stability to freeski as I like. I could bump bump’s faster on my Blizzard zeus 185 (severely underrated ski). It carves pretty good though, switch as well. The base also seems really soft to me,I scored a rock coming down and it ripped to the core about a foot long, but that is a demo ski that has been ground down.
Really disappointed to hear that the Enforcer replacement has a soft tail. One of the things that made it such a great ski was it’s big stiff tail. I don’t understand the direction Nordica is going with skis that can’t help you out if you get knocked into the back seat.
I did a full day demo on the 185 cm El Capo’s today at Whitefish MTN resort, I think your review was right on. I enjoyed them on the groomers, they lay down nice predictable turns-frankly felt like a nice intermediate level groomer ski. I had a lot of trouble getting them through soft chop and slightly skied out pow runs… I just kept thinking I needed more ski-stiffer tips and tails. It felt like the ski didn’t want to finish the turn. I’m used to flexing (driving) my skis at the bottom of the turn and using that flex to pop me into the next turn and I really couldn’t do that very well or predictably on these skis. I went back to my 2011/2012 Nordica Hot Rod’s and was back in my happy place.
I was under the impression that the 2014-15 El Capo had changed significantly from 2013-14. The new model has a full length titanium layer and a second one that just goes under the camber. The old one only had titanium under the camber. This is from talking to the Nordica Europe reps at the end of last winter having just demoed the 14-15 prototype and liking it lots for skiing hard in a variety of snow types. I have never ridden the 13-14 model.
Would someone be able to confirm whether I’m mistaken here? I am probably going to buy the El Capo based on what I found when I tested the prototype last winter, but I’d reconsider this if they had changed it to a ski that is only titanium underfoot. Has anyone handled this year’s production models? Thanks.
Interestingly, if you want to make a ski more docile, and you have too much tail, it works better, at least for me, to move the bindings BACK. This way the ski’s center is farther ahead of you, and you can ski it more forward, on the ball of your foot, also allowing some ankle action to take up some of the shock.
The farther forward on the ski, the more you have to sit back to ski on the center, which puts you on your heels and beats up your knees. I firmly believe that the popularity of back seat skiing is the best thing that ever happened for knee replacement surgeons. It started with ski racing, where some jetting off the tails helps increase speed through the gates.