or Connect
EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › Ski Gear Discussion › Best width for all mountain hard snow?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Best width for all mountain hard snow? - Page 2

post #31 of 55
Thread Starter 

Well the FireArrows are looking better and better.  The only thing I am wondering about is the width and radius at 17-18m.  84 seems pretty wide for a hard snow ski, would I not benefit more from a mid-upper 70's cm and 15ish radius ski?

post #32 of 55

Don't fret over the width or the radius.    At this stage of the game it's more about flex. 

 

    Check your original self evaluation - if you still feel its accurate then no worries.    If there's any part of it you've overstated (I don't have any reason to think you have) then by all means look for the little brother 76.

post #33 of 55

The Fire Arrow's width i.e. edge-to-edge transition,  doesn't really make much difference given the radius - it doesn't want to make quick snappy turns, so the question for the OP is: are you leaning more towards GS or SL turns?

post #34 of 55
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Paul Lutes View Post
 

The Fire Arrow's width i.e. edge-to-edge transition,  doesn't really make much difference given the radius - it doesn't want to make quick snappy turns, so the question for the OP is: are you leaning more towards GS or SL turns?


Is in the middle an option?  That is an area where I think I would be willing to compromise on both if I had the option to do both relatively well. I probably do more gs style turns now but I would like to improve my sl turn technique.

post #35 of 55

The search function is your friend. 

 

From Dawgcatching:

 

...As far as a breakdown of all 3 of these (I have owned all 3):

 

Blizzard 800s: as noted, skis a touch short.  Medium to medium stiff.  Playful, feels more like a 15m ski than an 18m ski.  Nice SL-GS turn variable shape if you know what you are doing. Easy to load. Good edge grip.  Above average energy, average forgiveness, a bit softer than your typical Blizzard, which are often a handful for guys like me to bend.  Still a groomer ski, not really good in bumps, kind of a weird flex pattern there.

 

Kastle MX78: edge grip is just a little better, laterally stiffer.  In the longer length, 176, it feels like a legit 176.  Friendliness is around the same as the 800s, top end is even higher. Most people won't see a speed limit on the 800s, almost nobody will on the MX78.  Versatile for what it is, easy to ski, but yeah, the ultimate versatile but no compromise hard snow ski.  More versatile than the 800s. Not quite as lively, as a pure mid-turn carver, the 800s has the edge. 

 

i-supershape Rally: a great ski as well, more forgiving than the other 2, more of an 8/10ths ski.  I can find the top end on this ski more quickly than the others, but I ski fast.  This is definitely a go-to for the bit lower energy skier.  It isn't going to have the top end power of the other 2, but keeping it under 30mph, it will be a great choice. I like this ski a lot.  It has a lot of life, initiates well, smooth, easy to ski. 

 

Out of the 3, as a pure carver for performance; 800s.  For a wicked hard snow ski that is versatile, MX78.  Friendlier groomer and off-piste performance, Rally.

 

http://www.epicski.com/t/129152/head-i-supershape-rally-vs-kastle-mx78-and-sizing#post_1771016

post #36 of 55

Just a few added thoughts about the Rally...  I weigh in at 175lbs, and I spent a decent number of days on the Head Rally last season in New England.  It's a very versatile ski -- light powder, bumps, groomers, it worked well in all of them.

 

I was skiing the Rally in the 170cm length, which works well for me because I like shorter turns and I ski at fairly moderate speeds most of the time.

 

That said, I was probably on the upper-end of the weight range for the 170cm length ski.  The OP weighs in at 190 as stated in his first post.  That would be putting him on the 177cm length (IMHO)...  I've seen it stated on these forums before that the 170cm and 177cm versions of the Rally don't really ski the same way.

 

I have no experience with the 177cm length Rally or the Nordica Firearrow series...

post #37 of 55
I ski a 177 Titan and wouldn't ski shorter at my size. If the FA 84 is even 2/3rds of the FA 84 EDT, it should be great for the Midwest. The FA84 EDT makes my 'best of class' award for non race carving skis. Just a mind bending ride... Let me swoon some more for a moment...







.... Ok. Carry on. smile.gif
post #38 of 55

A few comments.  The Head Rally is a great suggestion.  I demoed them last year and really liked them.  There are essentially NO 2014s out there, so you are limited to the new 2015s.  I note you dropped the Fischer Progressor from your list.  I owned a pair for several years and disagree with the comment that they are a race ski.  They are an all-mountain hard-snow performance ski, and you may be able to find a pair of leftover 900s at a good price.  The Progressor 800 might also work.  Also note that there are quite a few Fischer race skis and the names are confusing.  The Superiors are more forgiving and versatile than the ones labeled RC4 WC.  There is the Superior RC and the Superior SC with the SC having a smaller turn radius than the RC.  I demoed the Superior RC last season on the same day I demoed the Rally.  I liked it, but liked the Head Rally a bit more.  Very similar skis.

post #39 of 55
Quote:
Originally Posted by nickwin View Post
 


Is in the middle an option?  That is an area where I think I would be willing to compromise on both if I had the option to do both relatively well. I probably do more gs style turns now but I would like to improve my sl turn technique.

 

Sure, but then you won't experience the thrill of the far end of the performance curve in either condition/category ;)  (see markojp above)

 

By all means, compromise if you need to for financial reasons, but if you can swing it, having one of each will reward you handsomely!

post #40 of 55
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by JimH View Post
 

A few comments.  The Head Rally is a great suggestion.  I demoed them last year and really liked them.  There are essentially NO 2014s out there, so you are limited to the new 2015s.  I note you dropped the Fischer Progressor from your list.  I owned a pair for several years and disagree with the comment that they are a race ski.  They are an all-mountain hard-snow performance ski, and you may be able to find a pair of leftover 900s at a good price.  The Progressor 800 might also work.  Also note that there are quite a few Fischer race skis and the names are confusing.  The Superiors are more forgiving and versatile than the ones labeled RC4 WC.  There is the Superior RC and the Superior SC with the SC having a smaller turn radius than the RC.  I demoed the Superior RC last season on the same day I demoed the Rally.  I liked it, but liked the Head Rally a bit more.  Very similar skis.


I am kind of leaning towards the RC4s, but the Progessor 900s are still on my list.  Last years don't seem to be any cheaper than the RC4 Superior Pro RCs, so Im wondering if there is any benefit in getting those over the RC4s.  It looks like you have skied both, how did they compare?  Are the 900s a little more forgiving and less demanding than the RC4s?  

 

The RC4 I was looking at are the RC4 Superior Pro Racetrack (to many RC4s!), how do those fit in with the RC4 Sup RC and SC?  I thought it was going to be the other way around but the fischer web site says the RC and SC are 90%-10% on piste-off and level 7-9 while the Pro Racetracks are 100% on piste and level 8-9.  Odd because the RC and SC look more like race skis.

 

Did you find that the Superior RCs required more effort to ski than the Rallys?

post #41 of 55
This is my monthly plea not to use "RC4" as though it meant anything. Fischer must have a dozen skis in any given model year that say RC4 on them, going back forever. See you next month.
post #42 of 55

In 2014, Fischer Line up

Long radius racing ski RC4 Worldcup GS WCP

Long radius one-step down from racing ski RC4 Worldcup RC Pro

Long radius two steps down from racing ski RC4 Superior RC (with "on-piste rocker")

 

Short radius racing ski RC4 Worldcup SL WCP

Short radius one-step down from racing ski RC4 Worldcup SC Pro

Short radius two-steps down from racing ski RC4 Superior SC (with "on-piste rocker")

 

Medium radius one and a half steps down from racing ski (imho), RC4 Superior Pro.

 

Yeah, Fischer likes to change the names up every other year, or change the turn radius without changing the name.  In previous years the ski with "RACE" in the name was less racy than the ski that didn't say "RACE",  Why?  Who knows?:dunno.   The only thing that was fairly constant was GS and SL were the long and short radius race skis and RC and SC were the long and short radius one-step-down model (then they went and put two of each in the line up just to make the consumer give up and buy whatever the shop needed to get rid of:rolleyes  (not not anyone here's shop)).

 

If your local hills are, as has been alluded to, vertically challenged, you should stick with a 15 m or smaller radius; you get more turns per $.

post #43 of 55
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ghost View Post
 

In 2014, Fischer Line up

Long radius racing ski RC4 Worldcup GS WCP

Long radius one-step down from racing ski RC4 Worldcup RC Pro

Long radius two steps down from racing ski RC4 Superior RC (with "on-piste rocker")

 

Short radius racing ski RC4 Worldcup SL WCP

Short radius one-step down from racing ski RC4 Worldcup SC Pro

Short radius two-steps down from racing ski RC4 Superior SC (with "on-piste rocker")

 

Medium radius one and a half steps down from racing ski (imho), RC4 Superior Pro.

 

Yeah, Fischer likes to change the names up every other year, or change the turn radius without changing the name.  In previous years the ski with "RACE" in the name was less racy than the ski that didn't say "RACE",  Why?  Who knows?:dunno.   The only thing that was fairly constant was GS and SL were the long and short radius race skis and RC and SC were the long and short radius one-step-down model (then they went and put two of each in the line up just to make the consumer give up and buy whatever the shop needed to get rid of:rolleyes  (not not anyone here's shop)).

 

If your local hills are, as has been alluded to, vertically challenged, you should stick with a 15 or smaller radius; you get more turns per $.


Awesome break down thanks.  I never would have figured this out lol.  

 

Has anyone had the chance to try the Superior RC (or SC for that matter) AND Superior Pro?  Is there any substance to the fact that Fischer says the RC and SC are more all mtn friendly than the wider Superior Pro Racetrack?

post #44 of 55
This is on the RC4 RC 180/18m which is a great ski but sold - no point for a stiff ski this radius for me. Used it to pass a course though, as a cheater smile.gif i believe it was RC Pro.

Tried an SC many years ago and didn't like it. I have an WC SL now and my old RX8 (now Progressor 800) both highly recommended. I do like the Heads more, but do not discount the progressors. The 800 is shorter radius.
post #45 of 55
Quote:
Originally Posted by qcanoe View Post

This is my monthly plea not to use "RC4" as though it meant anything. Fischer must have a dozen skis in any given model year that say RC4 on them, going back forever. See you next month.

 

only half forever.   Before that it was C4 :P

post #46 of 55

Good thread.  Usually when someone asks "what ski" they start with five models in mind and end up with suggestions for about twenty.

 

Head Supershape of choice

Fischer Progressor of choice (or various steps down from pure race skis in the RC4 family)

MX70 or MX78

Contact Cross [edit - or the 178cm Speed Cross for sale on the Gear Swap board]

FireArrow 84

 

Any of those would be a great choice.  

 

My $0.02?  You're after a fun hard snow carving ski, so buy a great ski for the 80% part of your day.  Don't compromise too far towards a hard snow biased all mountain ski.  You'll still be able to handle the 20% of your day on a pure carver.  I'd also err on side of the shorter ski if you're in between sizes.  Carvers have the heft to deal with your size and the shorter skis will likely be more fun on smaller hills.

 

Best of luck.


Edited by sinbad7 - 10/31/14 at 5:43pm
post #47 of 55
Quote:
Originally Posted by razie View Post

This is on the RC4 RC 180/18m which is a great ski but sold - no point for a stiff ski this radius for me. Used it to pass a course though, as a cheater smile.gif i believe it was RC Pro.

Tried an SC many years ago and didn't like it. I have an WC SL now and my old RX8 (now Progressor 800) both highly recommended. I do like the Heads more, but do not discount the progressors. The 800 is shorter radius.


Way back around 2003 or so, the SC had a much shorter radius, too short.  Around 2004 or 2005 they increased it to 13 m. (for 165 cm - 118 mm shovel down from 123mm).

Speaking of old skis if you can find an old RX8 or Race SC only skied by a little old lady on Sundays after church buy it (but don't buy one that is all worn out and noodly),

post #48 of 55
Quote:
Originally Posted by nickwin View Post
 


I am kind of leaning towards the RC4s, but the Progessor 900s are still on my list.  Last years don't seem to be any cheaper than the RC4 Superior Pro RCs, so Im wondering if there is any benefit in getting those over the RC4s.  It looks like you have skied both, how did they compare?  Are the 900s a little more forgiving and less demanding than the RC4s?  

 

The RC4 I was looking at are the RC4 Superior Pro Racetrack (to many RC4s!), how do those fit in with the RC4 Sup RC and SC?  I thought it was going to be the other way around but the fischer web site says the RC and SC are 90%-10% on piste-off and level 7-9 while the Pro Racetracks are 100% on piste and level 8-9.  Odd because the RC and SC look more like race skis.

 

Did you find that the Superior RCs required more effort to ski than the Rallys?


Ghost did a great job of summarizing the Fischer race ski lineup so I won't go over that ground again.  I didn't have the Progressor 900 but had the Progressor 8+ (and before that the RX8). The P8+ has been replaced by the P800.  Note that the Progressors are wider and more versatile than the Fischer race skis.  That said they have plenty of hard snow grip and are still fun in bumps and a bit of fresh snow.

 

To answer your last question, I did not find the RC any harder to ski than the Rally.  Similar skis as I noted, but I just liked the feel of the Rally better and it seemed more versatile.  

post #49 of 55
Thread Starter 
Thank for all the input guys, I think I'm pretty much narrowed down to the superior pro racetrack 175cm, I.supershape rally 177cm or firearrow pro 176 cm. I'm sure I would be happy with any of those and it will probably just come down to how much money I want to spend.

Am I correct in thinking that all three of these skis have a fairy similar stiffness and will require roughly the same amount of muscle to ski properly?
post #50 of 55

Firearrow is stiffest.  Don't know the Superior.  Go with the Rally!

post #51 of 55

No doubt you can guess my advice for 80% on piste groomer skiing on not so big hills + desire to become better at carving turns.

 

Fischer RC4 Pro Racetrack 72 mm waist, comes in 175 cm (15 m radius at 170) - The one to get, mostly because of the lack of tip rocker, turn radius, and width in that order.

Head Supershape Rally 76 mm wasit comes in 177 (13.4 m radius at 170) some tip rocker  -2nd choice - same criteria

Fire Arrow Pro 84 mm waist 18 m turn radius at 176 cm some tip rocker - last choice -  same criteria

 

And no, if it were for me I would be suggesting a higher level of performance.

Sure if you put an edge in wrong in set up snow in the trees it will take you where you might not want to go, but on hard snow it is very forgiving.  As for as performance/ease of use goes, it's biggest flaw is that for a 150 lb person the 165 length requires some effort/speed/intensity to get it to bend, whereas an all mountain ski like the old Volkl AC30 just bends itself into a turn. 

post #52 of 55
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ghost View Post
 

165 cm Fischer WC SC Pro is what you want for 80% groomers.  I find my older version a little on the stiff side for moguls when I weigh 150 lbs, but note that it is forgiving and easy to manage at that length.  It is very forgiving with the factory 1-3 tune.  Other skis designed for groomers and/or hard snow are the Kastle RX12 and Stockli Laser SX.

 

These are not all-mountain skis.  In deep snow at its design speed the SL sidecut of the WC SC will want to turn harder than the snow surface will permit, and it can be a handful to manage in 10" of fresh.  If you have 700+ feet of vertical the larger turn radius of the Laser SX and RX12 or a Fischer WC RC pro would likely be much easier to manage in that snow.

 

The rest all have some form of early rise or rocker which imo detract from the hard snow experience.  I realize I am in the minority with that viewpoint.

Quote:
Originally Posted by markojp View Post


Stop,with the race ski stuff. You're recommending skis for yourself again. And then the recommendations for skis north of $1000:rolleyes. There's nothing in Michigan with over 700' of vertical except perhaps mt. Bohemia (maybe Indian head?). Sure, I'd love an SL for MI. I'm from there so I get it, but they aren't a ski that most rec skiers are really going to enjoy even if you and I might. The OP already said he likes the progresser a lot. It'd be a great choice, and he already has his 90-something. A Head Rally, while not a race ski, is a great fun choice as well. We all need to move the 'I' and 'me' from the equation when recommending skis to others.

I am interested in hearing about the race ski stuff and why Ghost recommends them as a front side ski.

In general, what are your opinions on the advantages in FIS vs non FIS (SL) vs front side carver like Blizzard X Power 810, Fisher Progressor 900, Kastle MX 78?

post #53 of 55
post #54 of 55
Quote:
Originally Posted by nickwin View Post
 

I know these skis are all over the map, this is why I desperately need advice :)  I guess I am unsure if an all mountain ski is really what Im looking for.  For hard snow only, 80% groomers (maybe even 90%). 20% crudy trees and bumps would I just be better off with a frontside carver?  Again, I already have the Big Stix for soft snow, or when Im going to spend most of the day off piste.  Realistically my day on these would be 4+ hours of groomers and maybe 30 mins each of moguls and bumps.  I just don't want to kill myself if I end up in some crud or bumps.

 

Basically my priorities are,  in order of importance,  I want these to be FUN on hardback, I want something that will be as good as possible for developing proper technique on hard snow.  And, I don't want to feel like killing myself If I end up in a mogul field, but I am not buying these for moguls and trees.

 

Am I dreaming asking for a ski that carves as good or nearly as good as the RC4 on groomers but a LITTLE more nimble and forgiving on crud or in bumps?  

 

I felt very "locked in" with the RC4s compared to my Big Stix which are much looser (as you would expect).  That kind of through me off when I first got into some crud and trees on them but maybe I just need to learn how to ski that kind of ski.

 

The Blizzard 8.0s look pretty awesome.  Beyond that I'd say the RC4 and Volkl RTM81s are at the top of my list.

I don't know if you can demo but I'd at least take a look at the Blizzard Latigo and perhaps the Brahma. Search for Latigo on the epic and you'll find some threads. Google Latigo review. I demoed the Latigo and Brahma recently. Skied the Latigo at Stowe on a day when it was snowing fairly constantly so a real mix of conditions. I liked it enough to buy it. Quick edge to edge and good grip; it's not a race ski and won't rail like a race ski, but it's a very solid hard snow ski. Handled very well in 3-6" of cut up powder. Very snappy. I decided it was a very good option for the conditions I generally end up skiing. I liked the Brahma too but to me it was more of a plow through everything ski and less playful. The Brahma just seemed to ignore crud.

post #55 of 55
Quote:
Originally Posted by RISkier View Post
 

I don't know if you can demo but I'd at least take a look at the Blizzard Latigo and perhaps the Brahma. Search for Latigo on the epic and you'll find some threads. Google Latigo review. I demoed the Latigo and Brahma recently. Skied the Latigo at Stowe on a day when it was snowing fairly constantly so a real mix of conditions. I liked it enough to buy it. Quick edge to edge and good grip; it's not a race ski and won't rail like a race ski, but it's a very solid hard snow ski. Handled very well in 3-6" of cut up powder. Very snappy. I decided it was a very good option for the conditions I generally end up skiing. I liked the Brahma too but to me it was more of a plow through everything ski and less playful. The Brahma just seemed to ignore crud.


+1 on the Latigo.  It's my new DD this year and I've had out in a full range of conditions.  Super snappy and fun, great in 3 or 4 inches of chop, bumps, trees, negotiating piles of sugar etc...but also very very capable on the hard pack.  To me, they are classic flip cores and share some of the same traits as their bigger brothers Bones and Bhrama (only maybe not quite as pronounced).  A bit vague up front and in the tail...like to be driven centered, firm shovel etc...nothing you have not heard before.  They have that same Blizzard snow feel, someone on here called it "bright" and I thought that was an apt description.  Will not complain if they are pushed, at 5' 5" and 157 pounds I'm generally riding the sidecut on these things and can't find a speed limit in the 170..and I have tried.  I would suspect that people that live to rail groomers and love to work the front of the skis will probably not be blown away by these.  For those looking for a ski that will handle variable conditions and hard pack really well (particularly those in places that don't get a lot of real snow and that have tried the Bonafide or Bhrama and liked them), you would be remiss not to consider these skis.

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 › Best width for all mountain hard snow?