EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › Ski Gear Discussion › Head Icon 80 TT 165 vs 170 Length
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Head Icon 80 TT 165 vs 170 Length

post #1 of 13
Thread Starter 

First time post at Epicski - i have found it very useful since I joined.


I am considering Head icon 80 TT's  2011 edition and was curious if anyone has any experience of using them?


I am roughly an intermediate who enjoys mostly on piste challenging red/blacks with tight turns and carving and some nice piste wide turns and I am wondering whether a 165 or 170 80 tt ski length would suit me better?


I have always tended to ski 170 but suspect the steep turns/slalom courses may be easier on 165s?

I am 180cm (5'11) and 77-80kilos in weight depending on how well the diet is going...


Thanks in advance.




Gear mentioned in this thread:

post #2 of 13



There is another internet forum where the Icon TT 80 is a popular ski. I'll send you the URL for the other forum via a private message  (epicski terms of use would consider posting it here to be unauthorized advertising.)


I know at least 4 other epic skiers have experience on the Icon 80; hopefully some of them will chime in.  My only experience is on the 170.  It's a lot of fun but requires more fore-aft control than some similar skis, so the 165 might be more what you're looking for.


post #3 of 13

Stevett welcome to Epic. I also weigh 175lbs and have skied Geoffda's Icon TT80 in the 170cm length. I really enjoyed the ski and am looking to purchase a pair for myself at a fair price. You could go with either size. The 170 will be slightly more stable at higher speeds, the 164 slightly quicker turning. The cure for the challenge with fore-aft balance on these skis seems to be to simply move the boot center point forward 1.5 cm using the easy to adjust binding settings.

post #4 of 13

Where can you find the Icon 80 in the US?

post #5 of 13

Hi Steve,


I'm 171cm and 75kg and have skied the Icon TT 80 in 170cm.  It skis similarly to the pre-KERS SuperShapes, and making turns of varying radius isn't a problem.


I prefer the 170cm length in this type of ski, because I sometimes ski with friends who don't really turn much and spend a lot of time going straight down the hill, and the extra length helps the skis wander less when I do that.  For your described use, I think the 165cm version will be great and easier to turn.


These skis will really come alive with a good tune on them, so make sure you get one and go have fun!

post #6 of 13
Thread Starter 

Thanks for all the useful feedback and warm welcome to EpiSki.


Just one more question, what difference can I expect on the steep icy pitches beween a 165 and 170 high end ski like the Head Icon where you need to punch in a fair number of turns quickly and precisely?


Wondering if extra stability from 170 would help on the steep stuff or if 165 would be enough?


Being in the UK, it isn't practical to demo the ski's so I want to make the right decision :)





post #7 of 13

I'm about your size, owned both the 165 and 170 i Supershape and demo'd the Icon in a 170. Would agree that the Icon and Supershape ski about the same. Sold the 165 because at higher speeds it was wobbly, so my vote would be get the 170's. I agree with the comments that when skiing with others, the ability to ski at higher speeds becomes more important.


Both the 165 and 170 are narrow waisted carvers with tight turning radii. Not much difference turning on steep slopes and this would not be a concern at all. If you wanted to do some fine tuning, get the Head/Tyrolia Power Rail binding which permits moving the binding ahead if you want increased turning or behind if you want more speed.


post #8 of 13



Depends a lot on where you ski and who you ski with.  If you are on a big mountain go with teh 170 and if a small mountain the 165 may be more fun.


Also you might also want to try the Supershape Magnum and Titan if you like Head skis with small turning radius and good edge hold.  At your size you may find the Icon 80 a bit soft and if so try the slightly stiffer Supershape skis.  All of the above excel at quick turns on groomed slopes. 


I am taller and heavier than you and prefer a 163 cm ski over 170 basically because I do most of my skiing on shorter hills so do more turning.  The 163 holds very well.  Very strong skiers typically prefer the 170 length if they like to go fast.  Both lengths will do short turns when necessary.


If find Icon a bit narrow in the waist try Magnum which is marginally wider or Titan which is wider again.  Otherwise remember that Icon is similar dimensions to a slalom cut and that slalom skis are usually 165cm for men and 155 for ladies.


Hope this is of some help



post #9 of 13

I haven't tried the Icon 80s, but have skied various SS skis and other "carving" skis in various lengths.

The 170 will be more fun and versatile on the whole, but the 165 would make a better learning tool.   The 5 cm won't prevent you from doing anything either way, but the longer ski will feel better at speed or on variable terrain.  What do you value more, game improvement or ease of use?

post #10 of 13
Thread Starter 

Given I am in the UK and moving near to an indoor snowdome (200-250m slopes) I think I will spend a few hours most weeks in it, but I do try and get a couple of solid weeks in Alps/big mountains so ideally I would like one ski to do all of this and remain suitable as I get better (from inter to advanced)  since I would like to get better on steeper and more challenging slopes.


I am tempted by Icon 80 tt 170 and as JMD suggested move the binding forward by 1.5cm for improved balance.


Hopefully this will be a reasonable compromise as long as I can throw in lots of turns on steeps/short slopes which it sounds as if the 170 with a slim slalom shape (the Icon 80 tt) should be able to do.


I assume turn radius isn't that different between a 165 and 170, having noted 170 turn at 13.4m which is quite short already?


Thanks, Steve

post #11 of 13
Thread Starter 

I have just been to the local shop and spoke to the technician about lengths. Wearing low sports shoes, the 170 was just on bridge of my nose whereas 165 was just below my on my nose. 170 just seemed a little higher and I got impression 165 would be a little more reactive on steep stuff.


Only slight problem is he only had one pair of 165's which had two scratches on the skis which I could feel when i ran my finger over them. He recon'd the shop could remove them without a major  problem so I left it with him to try and get them out, but after the work one scratch is still visible and the main warehouse is out of stock of 165s.


I could happily get a set of 170s (he had lots of sets in stock) so I am tempted to just to go with 170s and have a more all-round ski.





post #12 of 13
Thread Starter 

I had a think about it and having looked at the 170 I decide it was actually a good size for my height measuring mid nose when I had ski aganst me. I decided I only wanted one ski and everyone here seems convinced it will do tight turns no problem but also offer stability on the faster runs. I noticed 165's has a 12.6 radius compared to 13.4 for 170 which surprised me but both 165/170s seemed quite compliant.


I am getting them tuned and try out in an indoor snowdome next weekend - will let you know how it goes.


Any advise before I start out on new skis waxed for first time?


Thanks, Steve

post #13 of 13
Originally Posted by stevett View Post

Any advise before I start out on new skis waxed for first time?



Simply to put a big smile on your face before starting your first run.  You're in for a sweet ride.  Enjoy!

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Ski Gear Discussion

Gear mentioned in this thread:

EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › Ski Gear Discussion › Head Icon 80 TT 165 vs 170 Length