Fischer RX8; after further review

I'm not sure I would describe a 16m ski as "long-turn biased". They feel like snowblades compared to my rc4 gs boards. That said, my own pair is 165, which i think is the best length as long as it's not gonna be your only ski. for off-piste there are any number of cheap ~85mm+ skis that kick the rx8's butt. the only ski i hate for soft snow more is my rc4s.

As I mentioned, during those years it was my only ski and I skied it in a 170. I appreciated the 165 for its snappiness, but it would be a little more squirrely at speed. I didn't like the 175 because it felt a bit more sluggish to me when I pushed it into very short arced turns. As with most things in life, YMMV. I still think that it's a really fun ski and works reasonably well as a one-ski quiver for those who are looking for such a thing.

Been skiing on the RX8 railflex 170 length, since 2004 (red & white on black), first shaped skiis for me. I moved from Dynastar G9 in a 200 length.
As you can tell from the length of time on RX8's, I have a one word discription "nice". I ski primarly midwest flatlands, but make a western trip almost every year. The last few years to Utah. The RX8 was always the one ski quiver I enjoyed. "took it every where" greens to blacks, corduroy to crud, ice to powder, wide open bowls to trees.
I'm 5'10" 180# more or less, and getting older, 66 last summer. This year in Utah we hit it right 42" in of utah light in 24 hrs, probably about 24" at nite on top of 18" the day before. Now I looking for a pair of wider ski's, the RX8's took alot of effort, they would float but would dive unexpectedly. One of my ski buddy's told me it's not only the skis but the person on top of them. That sounded like a challenge. And this years snow is coming, I have no problem early on, but come late winter and deep western powder, I want to be on a wider ski and we'll see who is on top. Is there a wider ski that I should be demoing, the problem is, "in the midwest no powder so the demo won't be in conditions that I want". Do you have a idea of a ski that will ski similar to the RX8 and float better?
 

That's easy, the Fisher Watea 94.

I also used the RX8 for a few years. Then I first rode the Watea 94 I thought "these are just like the RX8, only fatter". Like the RX8, the Watea is light feeling and snappy. The construction provides good edge-grip on the groomers and the soft flex helps the ski float in softer snow.

I also tried the Watea 101 and found it better in deep snow while still being easy to use. You might consider this ski in a 182cm size. Don't be afraid of the longer sizes. The turned-up tail helps the ski feel shorter than the size would indicate.

Check the reviews of these models.

Michael

I would recommend considering the Fischer Progressor 8+.  A bit wider and more versatile than the RX8 and some good deals now on leftover 08/09s. 

I fully agree with Wildcat ... if you like the RX-8, you'll like the Wateas.  I think the Watea 84, however, is closer in feel to the RX-8, while the 94 favors longer radius turns and does not have quite the grip or quickness of the 84 in harder snow conditions.

If you're looking to build a quiver with western trips in mind, the 94 (or 101!) would be the better choice with the RX-8 continuing to serve on mid-western hardpack or western groomers.

If you're looking to replace the RX-8, consider the Watea 84 if you want a soft-snow ski that has some versatility as a mid-western driver or consider the Progressor if you want hardpack performance that's a little more capable in soft conditions than the RX-8.

the watea 84 is nice, but take a look at the k2 extreme/pe, it skis pretty similar to the watea, but can be found cheaper. also, you need to go longer, 170 is way too short in powder even with a fat ski. you need some ski in front of you if you don't want the tips to dive.

 I am getting second thoughts about the RX8.

I want to buy my first and only pair. I'm mostly skiing on the piste, but I don't ski to aggresive all the time.
What would be the best fit for me?

The RX8 or the progressor 8 or 9?

I am about a level 7/10 skier, and I'm 6,1 and about 180 i weight.

Please help me.

Thank you!

 Or... Should I go with the Watea, if I like to relax and enjoy the skiing instead of skiing too agressive?

 The Watea would not be the go-to ski for on piste eastern skiing.  It's good on piste for a mid-fat, but stick to carving skis for your purposes.

Either the RX8 or a Progressor would be. 

Brienen: The Progressor 9 is alot of ski once it locks in. Based upon the relax and enjoy comment above I would say you should demo the 8 & 9 before you buy.

I agree with SkiMangoJazz about the Watea for eastern on-piste. Many better choices.

Look at Fischer Heat 76 for eastern on-piste. Bigger sweet spot then yhe Progressor 9

backroom,

What length would you recommend.
I am a 60 year old male, 155 cm tall and weigh about 135 pounds.
I was thinking I would order 150 cm length skis.
I ski on piste, North Carolina,West Virginia, and Maryland.
 

Wildcat says,
"I would go with a 160cm size. I have an adult child your size using a RX9 in a 160cm and the size is good.
150cm is right for 100 lbs skiers, IMO."

What do you think?

Thanks,
Jon

 

+1
Also consider Head SuperShape (regular or chip, but not magnum, not speed)

I demo'd the Blizzard Mag 7.6 at Sunday River and it was on of the best skis I'd ever been on. That's 76 under foot.

I had already ordered my Progressor 8+'s otherwise I would have bought it on the spot from the demo guy.  Skied it in 170.

If you are 155cm tall. than go with the 150cm. Ski lenght is a factor of your wieght, where you ski, how you ski, and type of snow

Thanks, backroom.

Jon