EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › Ski Gear Discussion › East-Coast ski: Fischer Progressor 10+ Cline versus Dynastar Speed Course
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

East-Coast ski: Fischer Progressor 10+ Cline versus Dynastar Speed Course

post #1 of 16
Thread Starter 

Can get a great deal on both these skis (2011 models):

 

- Dynastar Speed Course 172cm

- Fischer Progressors 10+ C-Line 170 or 175 cm

 

How would they compare in:

 

- edge hold on icy east coast conditions ?

- some playfulnes in bumps ?

- variety of radius (especially short radius) ?

- speed limit ?

- forgiveness ?

- weight ?

- overall "one-quiverness" ?

 

Me: Advanced/expert East-Coast skier, 6ft1, 170 lbs, 80/20 on /off piste, currently on Head's XRC1200's (170cm).

Thx !

post #2 of 16
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pieter View Post

Can get a great deal on both these skis (2011 models):

 

- Dynastar Speed Course 172cm

- Fischer Progressors 10+ C-Line 170 or 175 cm

 

How would they compare in:

 

- edge hold on icy east coast conditions ?

- some playfulnes in bumps ?

- variety of radius (especially short radius) ?

- speed limit ?

- forgiveness ?

- weight ?

- overall "one-quiverness" ?

 

Me: Advanced/expert East-Coast skier, 6ft1, 170 lbs, 80/20 on /off piste, currently on Head's XRC1200's (170cm).

Thx !

 

Have not skied the Progressor 10. I did try the Course Ti last year and liked them very much, but I am significantly smaller than you at 5' 7" 135lbs, and felt like the 172cm was a good size and flex for me. So I'm thinking that length might be too short for you (??) unless you are specifically looking for a turnier, shorter-length cheater GS ski and are not planning to go all out on it.

post #3 of 16
Quote:
Originally Posted by qcanoe View Post

 

Have not skied the Progressor 10. I did try the Course Ti last year and liked them very much, but I am significantly smaller than you at 5' 7" 135lbs, and felt like the 172cm was a good size and flex for me. So I'm thinking that length might be too short for you (??) unless you are specifically looking for a turnier, shorter-length cheater GS ski and are not planning to go all out on it.

The C-line 1000 is more ski than the Course Ti. The Course Ti feels almost like a freeski carver, very fun, not too stiff, you don't have to do a zillion mph to get it to arc.  The 1000 is quite a bit more ski, 2 sheets of .8mm metal. It is basically a wider version of the WC RC, which is really a Master's GS ski, not an awesome freeski unless you can bend it.  If you are a big guy, the 1000 makes sense. If you are lighter, the Course TI is better, or the 950 from Fischer. That is no slouch either, skis with more raw power and stability than the Course Ti. Course Ti is also softer than the 950, snappier and more playful. 

post #4 of 16
Thread Starter 

Thx for the comments !

 

Just to be clear: I thought the 2011-2012 Progessor 10+ had 0.5mm titanal sheets (instead of the 0.7mm of the current model), which seemed to make it a bit easier to bend it.

Would the Fischers and Dynastar have comparable grip on ice ?

 

Thx

post #5 of 16
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pieter View Post

Thx for the comments !

 

Just to be clear: I thought the 2011-2012 Progessor 10+ had 0.5mm titanal sheets (instead of the 0.7mm of the current model), which seemed to make it a bit easier to bend it.

Would the Fischers and Dynastar have comparable grip on ice ?

 

Thx

Hi,

 

Last year's 1000+ was 2 sheets of .8mm metal.  Not sure about the 10+; aren't they the same ski? 

As far as ice grip, I would go with the Fischer.


Edited by dawgcatching - 11/27/12 at 9:33am
post #6 of 16

Interesting! I'm actually picking between the same two skiis right now for my west coast hard-snow days ski... similar size at 6'4", 185

 

The more I dig in, the more I've gotten myself confused between the 10+, 1000, 9+ and 900 Progressors.... I'm beginning to think the "2011-2012" 10+ models may just be holdovers from the previous year. All the reviews I can find reference the 2010 year for the 10+, and 2011 year for the 1000... so not the same ski? I could be completely wrong, FWIW.

post #7 of 16
Quote:
Originally Posted by doctorscholz View Post

Interesting! I'm actually picking between the same two skiis right now for my west coast hard-snow days ski... similar size at 6'4", 185

 

The more I dig in, the more I've gotten myself confused between the 10+, 1000, 9+ and 900 Progressors.... I'm beginning to think the "2011-2012" 10+ models may just be holdovers from the previous year. All the reviews I can find reference the 2010 year for the 10+, and 2011 year for the 1000... so not the same ski? I could be completely wrong, FWIW.

I did some research: the 10+ is a 2011 ski, it was also sold last year.  Last year's P900 or P950 (can't remember what they called it) was essentially the prior year's 10+.  The 1000 is a stiffer ski w/more metal. 

post #8 of 16
Quote:
Originally Posted by dawgcatching View Post

I did some research: the 10+ is a 2011 ski, it was also sold last year.  Last year's P900 or P950 (can't remember what they called it) was essentially the prior year's 10+.  The 1000 is a stiffer ski w/more metal. 

That's strange. When I bought my 10's several years ago, the 9 was supposed to be the stiffer ski with more metal.

post #9 of 16

You didn't mention if the Speed Course was a Ti ski or not.

 

However, I'm about the same wt and ht  and I'm on the 176 Speed Course FIS And LOVE IT yahoo.gif yahoo.gifthis thing eats ice and crud, but it can bite you if you get lazy.

 

This ski definitely a thumbs up.

post #10 of 16

I'll answer your questions for the Speed Course Ti (which I think is different from the Speed Course via metal) from a 155lb 5'10" 172cm:

 

- edge hold on icy east coast conditions ?  Fairly amazing.  Vast difference between these and my same brand, same length Legend Sultan 85s (not a fair comparison, just a point of reference) 

- some playfulnes in bumps ? Some yes, optimal no.  I use them for bumps because I don't have a ski caddy and they work just fine to a point.  Zippers on modest size/steepness/hardness are fine.  When things start getting big, steep, hard and/or erratic, not so much.  Prefer if they were softer for bumps.

- variety of radius (especially short radius) ?  Sure, but don't expect the quickness of an SL/SC.

- speed limit ?  Haven't found it.

- forgiveness ?

- weight ? Don't really give this much thought.

- overall "one-quiverness" ? One-quiver on piste - pretty good.  They even handle up to a 3 or 4" of fresh better than you'd expect.  You wouldn't catch me in the woods with these.  For one, I wouldn't want to damage the edges as I bought mine for downhill ice skating.  There are just much better skis out there for off piste (that won't even come close to these for edge grip).

post #11 of 16
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bill Miles View Post

That's strange. When I bought my 10's several years ago, the 9 was supposed to be the stiffer ski with more metal.

 

Yes, there were several version of that ski.  My understanding is last year's 10+ is 73mm with 2 sheets of .5mm metal. The P950 is the same ski w/different plate, 1000 has 2 sheets of .8mm metal, in last year's models. 

 

2010 had the 9+, which was 70mm waist w/2 sheets of .5mm metal.  

post #12 of 16

Just snagged a pair of  Progressor 10+ with bindings, new on ebay, for $500. Will post some comments one I've had a chance to rail on them :)

post #13 of 16
Quote:
Originally Posted by goldsbar View Post

I'll answer your questions for the Speed Course Ti (which I think is different from the Speed Course via metal) from a 155lb 5'10" 172cm:

 

- edge hold on icy east coast conditions ?  Fairly amazing.  Vast difference between these and my same brand, same length Legend Sultan 85s (not a fair comparison, just a point of reference) 

- some playfulnes in bumps ? Some yes, optimal no.  I use them for bumps because I don't have a ski caddy and they work just fine to a point.  Zippers on modest size/steepness/hardness are fine.  When things start getting big, steep, hard and/or erratic, not so much.  Prefer if they were softer for bumps.

- variety of radius (especially short radius) ?  Sure, but don't expect the quickness of an SL/SC.

- speed limit ?  Haven't found it.

- forgiveness ?

- weight ? Don't really give this much thought.

- overall "one-quiverness" ? One-quiver on piste - pretty good.  They even handle up to a 3 or 4" of fresh better than you'd expect.  You wouldn't catch me in the woods with these.  For one, I wouldn't want to damage the edges as I bought mine for downhill ice skating.  There are just much better skis out there for off piste (that won't even come close to these for edge grip).

Not much different in assessment on FIS version. FIS has longer radius and more responsive/less forgiving.  Recently I read the term Glolam used to describe the Ti version.

 

I suspect that either version makes a good choice for the right skier.  As a FIS race ski, no comment as I'm not a FIS racer biggrin.gif

post #14 of 16

I have a pair of the 2012 Fischer 10+ w/bindings, brand new, 170cm, that I am selling for $475.  Not sure if there is any interest at that price, but figured this thread would be the right place to post them. Special order from a customer who decided to ante up for RX12's instead. I would mount them for myself if I didn't already have more skis than I knew what to do with!

post #15 of 16

Wouldn't the 900 be a better ski for the occasional venture into soft stuff w/ a 75 cm underfoot? Does the 950 share the footprint w/ the 900 or the 1000?

post #16 of 16
Quote:
Originally Posted by dawgcatching View Post
 

Special order from a customer who decided to ante up for RX12's instead. 

 

Now that's a serious ski.  I demoed a pair six weeks back and had to wait for the slope to clear so I'd have the space to give them a proper workout.

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Ski Gear Discussion
EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › Ski Gear Discussion › East-Coast ski: Fischer Progressor 10+ Cline versus Dynastar Speed Course