Alpina Discovery 102 Review

[Johnny]

Several years ago, I bought a pair of Alpina Cross-Terrains. Back then, I didn't like them much. They were my first pair of waxless skis, I thought they were useless compared to skins so I sold them after only a few days. I was young and stupid back then. I had several pairs of waxless after this, and I learned how to really use them efficiently. I was ready to give Alpina skis a try once again. So I bought a pair of their 2015 Discovery 102...

From what I recall, it's pretty much the same ski as the Cross-Terrain, with updated graphics. First of all, the most important thing about this ski is the sidecut: 102-64-87. Although Alpina don't mention the turning radius anywhere, it's without a doubt the XCD ski with the shortest radius on the market. I would say around 15-16m. Much more than any of the S-Bounds skis. The 102s were made to turn. If turning is your priority, this should be your #1 ski...!

With a Polyurethane core, the ski is still just a tad too heavy for my personal taste. About 250g more than the Epochs. The other main characteristic of the Discovery 102 is the ski stiffness. Boy, this is what I call a stiff ski! It's the stiffest ski I have. Even compared to my Rossignol 9S WC racing skis, the D-102 is still stiffer! It makes the 102 a ski made to dissect technical backcountry terrain more than a pure powder ski. Add a single camber to this and it's really almost a downhill ski... With fish scales.

They turn very quickly and they climb very well. Not my favorite ski for leather boots but for someone looking for a downhill-oriented BC ski with light plastic boots, they would be a wise choice. Yeah, it's basically what the Discovery 102 (and it's big sister the Discovery 110) is, a downhill ski with fish scales.

[MikeK]

I calc'd it out. That profile is roughly 16m radius in a 175cm length.

[connyro]

I've skied on my buddy's Alpina X-Terrains (old version of the Discovery 102's) and feel the same way as you do about these skis LJ. My buddy skis them with the Alico double leather boots. These skis are VERY curvy (sidecut), are on the heavy side, and are very stiff. They feel like DH skis with scales, just as LJ said. The scales allow the skier to climb like a goat (for scales): nearly as well as the Vector BCs, IME. I did not find them to be very good for deep powder due their scrawny 64mm underfoot and stiff flex. They turn great on dense or hardpack snow, like a DH ski. They come in lengths up to 179 cm. I think these are a good ski for beginner telemark (XCD) skiers who occasionally venture to the local ski hill for practicing hardpack turns.

[Nitram Tocrut]

Although the last post on this tread is 3 years ago I thought I would still add my experience of the last month with the Alpina Discovery. I do not have the retention to call it an extensive review, it's more like a resume of my hands on experience with them.

My first post on this Forum was to get an answer to this question : Are those skis too short for me? Well they are still as short (178) as they were when I first used them... At first I was not too happy with them but they really grew on me.

As previously said by Johnny, those are made to turn and are "downhill skis with scales". I have a limited experience in Telemark but I can confirm that they are easy to turn although they gain speed rapidly (I don't know if "less turner" skis gain speed as rapidly as my experience is very limited) and the next turn frequently become a challenge for me. But the fact that they are almost downhill skis allows me to easily switch to alpine turn that I can perform even with my leather boots (3 pins Alpina Alaska). I still have to bring them to a ski station but I would sure take them in the easier run

Where they really shine is in steep mountainous terrain as they do climb really well. The info I got from other post is that the Alpina's scales are really good and I can confirm that from my experience. This weekend I was skiing with friends that had Rossignol BC 110 (189) and it was easier for me to climb... or maybe I am just better at it . They are also really maneuverable in narrow trails both on the up and the down. I could manage to stay on my feet in some sections of the trail where I would have most certainly fall with my longer and narrower E99 (I know they are completely different ski... but they are the only one I have so far). I also happen to ski a lot in not so cleared forest and their short size is again a big advantage.

As mentionned by Johnny they are really stiff and I think, I might be wrong, that is an advantage to break trails in many conditions. Last week we had a devastating rain followed by about 6-8" of fresh snow. Although the tips won't easily rise because of the stiffness, they break the crust without problem and they are surprisingly fast on the fresh snow as the scales don't slow the skis as compared when I ski on harder snow. Just for fun I tried the E99 in the same conditions and as expected they performed quite poorly as they tended to sink at the first occasion and the soft tips would easily rise on the crust instead of breaking it.

Of course, if I can manage to maintain a good trail I will switch to my E99 or my skinny Salomon but the Alpina won't be too far if I need to repair the trail.

I must admit though that it would be a really good idea to make those skis longer as they are pretty slow, especially if you ski with a large group of friends and the trail is pretty groomed. But in my case, I almost always ski alone and that is not too much of an issue.

Oh well, that was my hands on report of the Alpina 102, they are far from perfect but they are surely not bad

[cloudimass]

Hey, super new here and hoping to find a set up that will climb really well. Would it be possible to put skins on the Alpina Discovery 102? I'm considering this with the contour hybrid 115 skins for when things get a bit steeper than the scales can manage. Is this unnecessary?

[jyw5]

Hey, super new here and hoping to find a set up that will climb really well. Would it be possible to put skins on the Alpina Discovery 102? I'm considering this with the contour hybrid 115 skins for when things get a bit steeper than the scales can manage. Is this unnecessary?

Hey, super new here and hoping to find a set up that will climb really well. Would it be possible to put skins on the Alpina Discovery 102? I'm considering this with the contour hybrid 115 skins for when things get a bit steeper than the scales can manage. Is this unnecessary?

If you get these on sale then its worth it. You will be trimming off ALOT of skin. 102 is the tip max width. keep in mind its very narrow underfoot. you generally don't need wall to wall unless you are doing steep ascents in extreme conditions like icy conditions or fine dry bottomless snow. Full coverage wall to wall is generally 2mm exposed on each side (to expose the metal edges...with the exception of the rocker tip and tail where no coverage is really needed...only the middle 80% of the ski really needs coverage)

So with that in mind, get skins with widths around
(tip width - 10mm) for skis with lots of sidecut. But if you find one thats wider and cheaper then just buy those. Sometimes, I like straight skins too when the profile isnt so tapered. Like a straight 62mm skin works perfectly on a ski thats 64mm underfoot if you can find one with good attachments tip and tail. (no trimming needed!)

For these skis, you actually only need as little as 62mm of coverage to climb 90% of all mountains...after that ski crampons recommended on hard steep ice, or wall to wall coverage as described above. If you manage to find a thinner 80-85mm skins, trim those and you would most likely climb up just about any black to double black rated slope in almost all conditions (you most likely will have trouble skiing down if you find it difficult to get up).

Watch some videos on skins or search the thread to familiarize yourself with them before spending $150-250 on them and then realizing they arent right. (Yes, I have done that).

[cloudimass]

This is excellent feedback thank you! The straight skin option sounds ideal (if I can find...).
I suppose my biggest question was really "is it normal/common to put skins on a waxless base which already has a tread pattern intended for climbing? Will the skin hold to that base pattern?".
How well can a ski like the Alpina Discovery 102 climb without skins? I love the idea of putting on some boots like the Alpina Alaska BC and just setting off on some skis with NNNBC bindings, not worrying about the hassles of skins but I'm just not sure that's realistic with the grades in Squamish BC. I also realize I have no experience in this so I'd just love some perspective here. It sounds like everyone says these skis climb amazingly well but on what kind of slopes are we talking about? I'm likely just going to be wandering up FSRs which can vary between 7%-20% gradient. Is this completely attainable for a waxless ski like the Discovery 102 without skins? What grades would begin to push the limits of traction generally speaking? I know snow conditions play a big factor here but lets just pretend snow is good.
Again, thank you for any input/feedback:)

[jyw5]

This is excellent feedback thank you! The straight skin option sounds ideal (if I can find...).
I suppose my biggest question was really "is it normal/common to put skins on a waxless base which already has a tread pattern intended for climbing? Will the skin hold to that base pattern?".
How well can a ski like the Alpina Discovery 102 climb without skins? I love the idea of putting on some boots like the Alpina Alaska BC and just setting off on some skis with NNNBC bindings, not worrying about the hassles of skins but I'm just not sure that's realistic with the grades in Squamish BC. I also realize I have no experience in this so I'd just love some perspective here. It sounds like everyone says these skis climb amazingly well but on what kind of slopes are we talking about? I'm likely just going to be wandering up FSRs which can vary between 7%-20% gradient. Is this completely attainable for a waxless ski like the Discovery 102 without skins? What grades would begin to push the limits of traction generally speaking? I know snow conditions play a big factor here but lets just pretend snow is good.
Again, thank you for any input/feedback:)

Ive skiied in Whistler...and if Squamish (nearby) is anything like that... you need skins. I use skins in AK all the time. The scales are only good when its gentle terrain and good ideal snow....doesnt happen in the coastal PNW. My definition of steep and gentle is going to be different from someone elses, so I will quantify.

can't think in % tonight but here's what I know for a fact:

Scales are good for ratio of 1000 ft vertical, 1.5+ miles (one way)

anything steeper than that (i.e., if you are climbing 1000 ft vertical in less than 1.5miles), you need skins.

also, when conditions are icy or if the snow is bone dry unconsolidated and deep, you need skins on lower angles.

Skins stick to scales just fine. been doing that for years.

[cloudimass]

Skins stick to scales just fine. been doing that for years.

This is very helpful. Assuming your skis are comparable in width under foot to the Discovery 102, your example suggests scales alone have the potential to climb around 12% grade (in certain snow conditions) which is awesome. Also stoked to hear skins can be used on this type of ski when needed. I'm definitely excited to try it out.
I really appreciate the experience and perspective.

[Stephen]

Just another thing to find with Google…
Grade % Calculator:
https://www.inchcalculator.com/elevatio ... alculator/

Of course the rub is that most inclines are not of a uniform slope, so some could be lower % and some could be greater.
I have never been that aware of what % or angle is working for traction pattern — just what’s working or not.

Have just one short stint on Voile V6 BC (traction pattern — I was on skins with a group most of the day) and while the traction was ok, it was not great.
This on maritime snow (Mt hood, Oregon, around tree line, wind affected snow).

End of day was skiing down a groomed slope and I was really feeling the drag from the fish scales and wishing for flat bases.

Whoever invents a ski with a switch for real-time, on demand flat or traction is going to clean up!