New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

MX88 Length?

post #1 of 14
Thread Starter 

Based on all the rave reviews and my personal bias towards on piste skiing, I am strongly considering taking the plunge and purchasing an MX88 this year.  I am a little on the fence about length, and unfortunately there is nowhere to demo this ski here in Alaska.

 

I am 5'9, 180, and an advanced skier, but no expert.  I tend to ski on piste and like fast carving, but need a ski that can handle soft snow too since Alyeska doesn't groom their slopes very often, and it tends to dump snow in Alaska.

 

Do you recommend the 168 or 178?  I'm a little worried that the 178 might be too much ski, but I don't want to go too short either.

 

 

For the record, the MX83 is too close to the ski I already have (Head Titan @ 170), so I'd like the extra width of the 88.

 

Thanks for any inputs :)

post #2 of 14

The 178, If you are skiing more "on piste" as you say, at Alyaska or even Alpenglow, you have plenty of room to let them run. 

post #3 of 14

178 for AK. That's what I ski out west frequently, and I'm 15 lbs lighter than you, although a bit taller. OTOH, unclear why you're getting a ski only 10 mm wider than a good one you already have, given that both carve well, both are strong in variable snow, and both have a high speed limit. th_dunno-1[1].gif If I had a Titan, and planned to keep it, my Kastle plunge would be for the BMX108, or if you like something more for sidecountry, the FX104. Just sayin'...

post #4 of 14
Thread Starter 

Sounds like 178 is the way to go.  Does anyone know if these are ever available below retail at all?

 

So far I can only find a couple vendors, and the price is always $1199 flat plus bindings.  Is that what people really have to pay?

 

I missed the Clymb offering by a couple hours unfortunately.  Thanks.

post #5 of 14

I'm a little late to this discussion, but I just purchased the MX88 168cm.  I'm 6' and weigh 155 and I've skied LOTS :) I'm in Colorado. I know I was supposed to buy the 178, but I simply like a shorter turning radius.  And, since I'm not heavy, the added stiffness of a longer ski doesn't appeal to me.  Although I'm addicted to carving the groomers, I spend lots of time in the tight trees, chutes and moguls.  I don't "figure 11" the chutes and I've skied lots of sub-170cm skies that carve like crazy!  Last year, I skied a 158cm Rossignol gate ski and thought I'd found heaven on a relatively soft snow day at Snow Basin, Utah.   

 

Seems that most people are advised to get the longest ski they can handle, but I don't get it.  Heavy guys, racers, big-air jumpers, true big-mountain skiers, etc. may actually need longer skis.  For the rest of us, what's wrong with having awesome maneuverability in a ski that can still pace all but my most daring sprints down the corduroy?  I've had the opportunity to ski a lot of different skis in a 164-174 length and I've found them to be perfectly adequate.  And, many of them weren't as aggressive and stiff as the MX88.

post #6 of 14
Quote:
Originally Posted by Flyboy22 View Post

Sounds like 178 is the way to go.  Does anyone know if these are ever available below retail at all?

 

So far I can only find a couple vendors, and the price is always $1199 flat plus bindings.  Is that what people really have to pay?

 

I missed the Clymb offering by a couple hours unfortunately.  Thanks.

I looked all over and could only find my MX88s at full retail.  However, because I paid full retail for the skis, I got a great deal on my bindings and on poles.

post #7 of 14
Quote:
Originally Posted by ishaw333 View Post

I looked all over and could only find my MX88s at full retail.  However, because I paid full retail for the skis, I got a great deal on my bindings and on poles.

We still have 2012's left over that we are selling for $850. I think only a couple of pair though are left.  

post #8 of 14
Quote:
Originally Posted by ishaw333 View Post

I'm a little late to this discussion, but I just purchased the MX88 168cm.  I'm 6' and weigh 155 and I've skied LOTS :) I'm in Colorado. I know I was supposed to buy the 178, but I simply like a shorter turning radius.  And, since I'm not heavy, the added stiffness of a longer ski doesn't appeal to me.  Although I'm addicted to carving the groomers, I spend lots of time in the tight trees, chutes and moguls.  I don't "figure 11" the chutes and I've skied lots of sub-170cm skies that carve like crazy!  Last year, I skied a 158cm Rossignol gate ski and thought I'd found heaven on a relatively soft snow day at Snow Basin, Utah.   

 

Seems that most people are advised to get the longest ski they can handle, but I don't get it.  Heavy guys, racers, big-air jumpers, true big-mountain skiers, etc. may actually need longer skis.  For the rest of us, what's wrong with having awesome maneuverability in a ski that can still pace all but my most daring sprints down the corduroy?  I've had the opportunity to ski a lot of different skis in a 164-174 length and I've found them to be perfectly adequate.  And, many of them weren't as aggressive and stiff as the MX88.

Well.....guess I need to come clean.  I had two full days on my new 168cm MX88's at Copper Mountain this weekend.  The snow was not icy, but hard and fast.  Wish I'd have had the 178's for those conditions.  Having said that....even the 168s are surprisingly fast and stable....and inexplicably fast edge to edge for 88mm under foot!

post #9 of 14

It seems like people are all over the place with length selection on these skis.

 

I didn't demo but just got MX88's in 168 and I am 5'4" and 150 lbs. 158 cm just seemed way to short. The only ski I have ever owned (as an adult) under a 165 was Volkl 6 Stars.

 

I'm surprised at some of the bigger guys on these skis at 168 cm.
 

post #10 of 14
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by ishaw333 View Post

Well.....guess I need to come clean.  I had two full days on my new 168cm MX88's at Copper Mountain this weekend.  The snow was not icy, but hard and fast.  Wish I'd have had the 178's for those conditions.  Having said that....even the 168s are surprisingly fast and stable....and inexplicably fast edge to edge for 88mm under foot!

 

I ended up getting the 178's, but I haven't gotten to try them out yet.  The Alaska weather gods haven't decided to give us any snow this year.  They definitely seem a bit softer and more flexible than my Titans, and the long radius and longer tail will be interesting too.  I 'm hoping they'll be a more forgiving, refined, and versatile ski.  You can definitely see the quality craftmanship just looking at them!  Now to find a second job....

post #11 of 14
Quote:
Originally Posted by Flyboy22 View Post

 

I ended up getting the 178's, but I haven't gotten to try them out yet.  The Alaska weather gods haven't decided to give us any snow this year.  They definitely seem a bit softer and more flexible than my Titans, and the long radius and longer tail will be interesting too.  I 'm hoping they'll be a more forgiving, refined, and versatile ski.  You can definitely see the quality craftmanship just looking at them!  Now to find a second job....

 

Second job!  Amen...damn those things are expensive!  I was actually relieved I couldn't go off-trail last weekend....at least that way I couldn't mess them up on my first trip out.  I'm famous for finding rocks....perhaps because I like to ski in places that are a little less conventional :)  I may need counseling the first time a core these suckers!

post #12 of 14
Thread Starter 

I just wanted to post back after my first day on the mountain with my new 178cm MX88's....

 

 

WOW!

 

 

They were awesome.  No other way to say it.  For a ski that I was worried would be too long for me, it was PERFECT.  Way faster than I thought was possible edge to edge for a ski like this, fantastic edge hold, unwavering stability, smooth, refined, forgiving, and FUN.

 

It was like skiing on butter.  The problem now is, how will I ski any other ski without wishing I was on my MX's??

post #13 of 14
Quote:
Originally Posted by ishaw333 View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by ishaw333 View Post

I'm a little late to this discussion, but I just purchased the MX88 168cm.  I'm 6' and weigh 155 and I've skied LOTS smile.gif I'm in Colorado. I know I was supposed to buy the 178, but I simply like a shorter turning radius.  And, since I'm not heavy, the added stiffness of a longer ski doesn't appeal to me.  Although I'm addicted to carving the groomers, I spend lots of time in the tight trees, chutes and moguls.  I don't "figure 11" the chutes and I've skied lots of sub-170cm skies that carve like crazy!  Last year, I skied a 158cm Rossignol gate ski and thought I'd found heaven on a relatively soft snow day at Snow Basin, Utah.   

Seems that most people are advised to get the longest ski they can handle, but I don't get it.  Heavy guys, racers, big-air jumpers, true big-mountain skiers, etc. may actually need longer skis.  For the rest of us, what's wrong with having awesome maneuverability in a ski that can still pace all but my most daring sprints down the corduroy?  I've had the opportunity to ski a lot of different skis in a 164-174 length and I've found them to be perfectly adequate.  And, many of them weren't as aggressive and stiff as the MX88.
Well.....guess I need to come clean.  I had two full days on my new 168cm MX88's at Copper Mountain this weekend.  The snow was not icy, but hard and fast.  Wish I'd have had the 178's for those conditions.  Having said that....even the 168s are surprisingly fast and stable....and inexplicably fast edge to edge for 88mm under foot!

Those 168s will be perfect for me. Put a few dings in them this season, then I'll buy them from you with all due depreciation. smile.gif
post #14 of 14
Quote:
Originally Posted by Flyboy22 View Post

I just wanted to post back after my first day on the mountain with my new 178cm MX88's....

 

 

WOW!

 

 

They were awesome.  No other way to say it.  For a ski that I was worried would be too long for me, it was PERFECT.  Way faster than I thought was possible edge to edge for a ski like this, fantastic edge hold, unwavering stability, smooth, refined, forgiving, and FUN.

 

It was like skiing on butter.  The problem now is, how will I ski any other ski without wishing I was on my MX's??

 

As much as I like my MX88's. I like my old model MX108's better in everything but least coast ice. Try 'em, then you'll really be in a quandry

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