or Connect
EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › Ski Gear Discussion › Nordica Patron vs. Head cyclic 115. Any comparison
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Nordica Patron vs. Head cyclic 115. Any comparison

post #1 of 37
Thread Starter 

I am thinking for the deep days in Lake Tahoe area (yes.. the one which are rarely occurred).

So, I guess anything above 115+ is simply not needed at Lake Tahoe;

 

So, I think there are 2 interesting skis which I could use:

 

  • Nordica Patron in 185
  • Head Cyclic 115 in 181 (unfortunately, Head is making either 180+ and 190+, but not in between)

 

I am 6' and 200lb advanced-intermediate skier and looking for something wider than my everyday bonafieds (which means I would probably use powder ski about 2-3 times per season, if lucky).

 

I could demo Patron at Squaw (they have demo) but nobody has Cyclic for demo in Lake Tahoe (as far as I know).

 

Could anybody gives me a comparison between these two?

 

Thank you,

 

Oleg

 

P.S. my current ski are in size 180 and it feels great, would it make sense to go longer with "powder" ski, like Patron 193 (I've heard the formula: user height + 10 cm for powder)?

post #2 of 37

O, I'm just guessing a bit here without knowing you offline, but if you like the Bonafide in 180, I would think that 185 in the Patron would be just great and easier to manage all around.  That seems like the right size analog.  193 seems a bit much, unless you are regularly riding helicopters instead of chairlifts.

post #3 of 37
Thread Starter 

Thank you for an answer. The purpose of these skis are resort powder days (if any in Tahoe) only.

No heli in near feature (but I think that 113 underfoot is enough even for a heli/cat days)

Yes, I think 185 is sufficient size, especially if I want some maneuverability in tight spots on not march speed.

The only question I have, how is Patron comparable to Cyclic (the are both have similar dimensions).

Since nobody offers Cyclic for demo, I won't be able to try, but I've heard a lot of good words about Head and wondering if I should consider it or even buy it without demo.

 

I really want this future ski to work great in the crud/chopped snow as well, by planning skiing in the resort, finding untouched pure soft powder is challenging (and also consider that in Sierra, powder is in most cases is wet heavy snow). 

So, the question is between both skis: Patron and Cyclic, which one would be better... 

 

P.S. either ski, I am planning to mount regular alpine binding... no AT or touring 

post #4 of 37

Interestingly, I was researching both of these skis for potential demo out west.  I have NOT skied these personally, so take what I say as "research info", not my own.

 

As I understand, the Patron is more nimble and maneuverable, suited to a lighter-to-mid weight skier.  The Cyclic is less nimble/maneuverable, is more of a "charger" by comparison (not like the Bodacious though, obviously) and perhaps a bit better suited to larger guys.

 

That's my big oversimplification.  I suspect the Ski Jedi Master @Philpug can comment more definitively, particularly for Tahoe suitability between the two models.


 

post #5 of 37
Thread Starter 

also, I could not determine visually, does Head Cyclic has an early taper?

I know that Nordica Patron is traditional.

post #6 of 37
Thread Starter 

Another question, could someone compare these 2 skis:

 

Nordica Patron 186 vs. Armada JJ 185 (not a new 2.0)

 

I am trying to see what they are, and which one is least like Rossignol Super/S7, which I tried and as far it is a good ski, but not really soft snow + crud ski, and more like just a soft snow ski.

I am hoping that either or both Nordica and Armada are better in crud then Rossi.

post #7 of 37

I have both pair but in 193 and 191 lengths.

 

I have been riding the Cyclics all season, so that is two dumps of CO cold smoke POW, hardpack and corn, these are hands down a very versatile and all-around, single-quiver axes. And with Mojo 12s, very light compared to the Patrons.

 

Damp and the tapered tail releases well in POW and bumps, yes bumps!

 

I just spent last week in Vail riding on the daily softening corn with my buddy who rides the 181 (?) and both lengths performed well. The shorter version hammered the hardpack as my bro flashed past me several times, so they held well.

 

The two dumps, the first being the Vail Dec. 14/15, the BIG ONE, they were flawless. Also hit the Breck dump, 12+, this past Friday.

They killed it on my 8th day in a row, skiing with Captain Powder and Carvin Marvin, they slashed through all that Peak 6 & 7 could dish out, even after the upper lifts were closed due to wind.

 

While the Patrons love soft snow and can get you back to the lifts at a resort, the one thing I don't like in a ski is when the tips wander on the flats or runouts, and they have tip flap which is due to a lack of damping.

 

At 6'2" AND 200+ LBS. the Cyclics still feel and look short, probably because the tips are "sawed off".

 

The Patrons will probably be relegated to Snowcat and Heli-skiing, or sold with my Schizos, but they have the crazy Patron cowboy graphics which are kewl.

 

FYI I am suppose to need a knee in 2-3 years, but for some reason it feels the best it has in years after a long ski trip. Wondering how 

      much the ski may have to do with this.

 

Also, both my buddy and I seen on the Cyclics had/have Head Mojo 94s which have a very similar feel.

 

You can demo these in Vail at the shop directly behind Garfinkel's.....well next fall. ;-)

Created by ImageGear, AccuSoft Corp.

post #8 of 37
Thread Starter 

Unfortunately, this season Tahoe had almost no snow... and testing pow ski at no snow conditions was not fun (I guess). Two days when it dumped 6" and 12" were enough for my 98 mm ski.So, I guess, best hopes for next season.

Honestly, if the snow situation will be that bad next year, may be I should invest in nice mountain bike or golf clubs instead of pow ski (joke).:cool

post #9 of 37
Quote:
Originally Posted by Oleg S View Post
 

Unfortunately, this season Tahoe had almost no snow... and testing pow ski at no snow conditions was not fun (I guess). Two days when it dumped 6" and 12" were enough for my 98 mm ski.So, I guess, best hopes for next season.

Honestly, if the snow situation will be that bad next year, may be I should invest in nice mountain bike or golf clubs instead of pow ski (joke).:cool


FWIW, I spent the last 6 day's at Okemo VT skiing my 119mm waist skis. I'm 5'11" 195-200lbs. Great fun in the Spring time crud. Day time temps in the 60's lots of sun. Don't understand why you don't go wider.

post #10 of 37
For slush and spring time crud IMO, the technique is a way more important thing then how wide you go .
post #11 of 37

I have a pair of Patrons that I finally had a chance to use again a couple weeks ago at Mammoth, when we got 20 inches overnight.  They were superb in the soft stuff and covered up bumps as you might expect.  Lots of float, surfy over untouched stretches and nicely maneuverable.  They get you back to the lift over the groomers just fine and I find that they carve pretty well.  They do have a lot of chatter at higher speeds.  I got them going down an empty groomer was screaming around a bend praying for my dear life from all the chatter.

 

Then two days after the storm I was on my Kastle mx88s and it was very noticeable how much faster and smoother the Kastles were across groomed snow.  Mammoth has an app that tracks runs, distance, vert, and top speed.  I don't know how accurate the "top speed" thing is on the app but I was somewhat amazed by how much faster the Kastles were, relative to the amount of chatter I felt (almost none on the Kastles).  The app said I was going quite a bit faster, but it didn't feel that much faster.

 

Obviously these skis are made for different conditions but swapping one ski for the other makes for quite a different experience.  Love 'em both, but especially love those powder days when I need the Patrons.

post #12 of 37
Thread Starter 

Here is the deal with Fat skis (at lest from my point of view). For the last 2+ season, the snow is not something what we could brag at Lake Tahoe (unfortunately). So having something in 110+ could be used, may be, 2-4 times per season. Which brings to the point to call 110+ ski - travel ski outside California, but how big is the chance that when you come to Colorado, Utah, Whistler, etc that you will get a 2' dump over night, and due to airlines restrictions, you are probably are traveling with 1 pair of skis. So, what are you going to take: 100 mm or 120 mm or something in between?

Meanwhile, I still want a FAT ski, just for that ONE day when we got 2' over 1 day (which happened once per season), silly.:drool

post #13 of 37

FWIW I got both my Patrons and MX88 on eBay for a third to half of the price if it was new.  Makes it easier me to justify building a quiver.

post #14 of 37

Oleg:

Your post deserves its own thread as that subject of "travel-ski" is always on my brain !

post #15 of 37
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bogatyr View Post

For slush and spring time crud IMO, the technique is a way more important thing then how wide you go .

Sorry, not true. It's like cheating, fat skis are easy to ski in that stuff. I got mine last year for $270 shipped. They were new in the wrapper 2011/2012 skis. Like most I couldn't see paying a lot for skis I'll only use a few day's a season. Good technique just makes it that much easier.

post #16 of 37
Quote:
Originally Posted by Oleg S View Post
 

<>So having something in 110+ could be used, may be, 2-4 times per season. <>

Meanwhile, I still want a FAT ski, just for that ONE day when we got 2' over 1 day (which happened once per season), silly.:drool

I don't understand why you are looking for a fat ski?

 

My rule of thumb is: anyone who says "I only ski powder a couple of times in a good year, and only for a few runs" is 100% correct. Others that own and love fatter skis, that spend time and effort to be at the hill on days with new snow (any new snow) and feel like they can find stashes well after others and like skiing wider skis in spring conditions... also 100% correct. It's a matter of what you experience, some find soft snow, others don't.

post #17 of 37
Quote:
Originally Posted by Max Capacity View Post

Sorry, not true. It's like cheating, fat skis are easy to ski in that stuff. I got mine last year for $270 shipped. They were new in the wrapper 2011/2012 skis. Like most I couldn't see paying a lot for skis I'll only use a few day's a season. Good technique just makes it that much easier.
Sure you can buy fat ski for cheap , what you can't buy is a good technique for cheap .
post #18 of 37
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bogatyr View Post


Sure you can buy fat ski for cheap , what you can't buy is a good technique for cheap .

Yes, you absolutely can. Become a full-time ski instructor at a larger ski area, train a lot and ski a ton. You'll develop good technique and get paid (incredibly cheaply) while you develop that technique.

post #19 of 37
Thread Starter 
I didn't say it is not possible to ski powder on 100 mm ski, I said it is much harder to enjoy it:D
If anyone would say that you are able to ski fresh 2 feet over-night and enjoy it all day (6+ hours) on 100 mm or less - I admire you!
(Staying in-line for demo, while hills been ski-out - sucks, that is why I want fat ones, which probably won't be used much if we would get seasons like last)
Edited by Oleg S - 4/22/15 at 11:11am
post #20 of 37
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bogatyr View Post


Sure you can buy fat ski for cheap , what you can't buy is a good technique for cheap .

Correct, it took me a few years to get this good. I have been doing the season pass thing for 19 years now.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Whiteroom View Post
 

Yes, you absolutely can. Become a full-time ski instructor at a larger ski area, train a lot and ski a ton. You'll develop good technique and get paid (incredibly cheaply) while you develop that technique.

I believe KevinF is someone who got good rather quickly. I remember talking to him when we skied with Mike Rogan for a EPICSKI event at Stowe in 2004. I can still hear Mike's words in my head, when I get it wrong. It just takes the "desire", if you want it, it will happen.

post #21 of 37

Fatties float better, don't fight it, go with it. Once I started going wider, first pair were 90 wide, and they felt wide compared to even my Snow Rangers from '95, there was no going back.

 

Second pair were Mojo 94s, I would still have if I hadn't mounted Railflex bindings on them, they wobble after a few years.

 

Obsetheds and Hellbents for a while, the Seths were great at 105 but a stiff tail that doesn't release well in bottomless, but did everything else well except bumps. The Bents were just to wide for anything but powder.

 

The real fine points of a wider ski like the Patron or Cyclic are the differences like damping and tail width and flex and how your ski style fits the board.

 

The boys I was skiing with at Breck last Friday love Nordica and were on 161 & 176 Enforcers which are 98 wide I believe. Marvin also has the 185 for carving when it is not a powder day.

 

My daily drivers are all 113 or 115, but I have gone to a 110 flex Lange which seems to have helped my geometry over my last pair of canted and shimmed Salomons that were a 130 flex.

post #22 of 37

snokat, I wonder if your on to something with the softer boots. I have the bottom screw removed from my Lange RX120's, making them 6% softer.

 

Wow, Snow Rangers, I rented a pair of them at Jay Peak back in the year they had 480" or so.

post #23 of 37
Quote:
Originally Posted by Oleg S View Post

Here is the deal with Fat skis (at lest from my point of view). For the last 2+ season, the snow is not something what we could brag at Lake Tahoe (unfortunately). So having something in 110+ could be used, may be, 2-4 times per season. Which brings to the point to call 110+ ski - travel ski outside California, but how big is the chance that when you come to Colorado, Utah, Whistler, etc that you will get a 2' dump over night, and due to airlines restrictions, you are probably are traveling with 1 pair of skis. So, what are you going to take: 100 mm or 120 mm or something in between?



Meanwhile, I still want a FAT ski, just for that ONE day when we got 2' over 1 day (which happened once per season), silly." src="/img/vbsmilies/smilies/drool.gif" />


 



FWIW - You can travel with 2 pairs of skis just as easily as 1. I do it all the time. That said if / when traveling with your significant other, 3 pair gets bit awkward (but do that a fair amount), and 4 pairs - we have only done that once.

I double bag and a single bag makes no difference to the airlines - they never look inside and think that the doulbe is just a really long, heavy snowboard.
post #24 of 37

I'm on the RS 110 and quite happy with that flex and the stance. Started going with a softer flex, even tried a 100 flex Lange which was too soft from a control standpoint.

 

Also have a 2-pair Dakine bag, just sayin' this time, this ski did it all for me. Head has made this ski as light and short as possible while maintaining a race-like ski I expect from Head.

 

If a 113/115 wide can't float you in 2' of bottomless you may need to lose weight, even the Hellbents were too fat IMO for this 200   lb.+ 6'2" slier and pack as a do-it-all, but a great dedicated ski.

 

The Cyclic sacrifices nothing and gives a whole lot back.


Edited by snokat - 4/22/15 at 9:00am
post #25 of 37

I weight 20lbs less and opted for the Collective 105.  REALLY love that ski.  Nice flex, great on groomers, very smooth.  Not for bottomless like the Cyclic, but suits me just fine.  I didn't get a chance to demo the Patron, but from holding it and flexing it, the Patron struck me as though it would be much more playful.  The Heads are a bit more serious business.........smooth and damp and heavier.  Not stiff though, and are still very easy to work in tight spaces.

post #26 of 37
Thread Starter 

I would love to go with Head Cyclic, but I am not sure if 180 or 181 is too little and 190 or 191 is too much and Head is not making 185-186. Without the demo it would be not easy to guess it right. So, I guess, even so I could get head for cheap, I won't get it.

post #27 of 37

Patrons are more lively than the Heads as @Gunnerbob correctly states. Patron is very nimble in trees and frankly its one of, if not the best groomer ski out there for a 113 ski. It rails! It is also pretty good in the bumps.  The Heads are fun but much damper feel. 

post #28 of 37

BTW- I was going to sell my 2013/14 Patrons in the fall but if interested, let me know. I can sell flat or with FKS 120. Ski's have about 8 days on them in excellent condition.  ski alone 300.00

post #29 of 37

I'm 6'2", 185 and found the 181 Collectives to be plenty meaty.  I suspect the even-wider Cyclics @ 181 should be fine, unless you're planning on dive bombing open bowls.  I think the 191 would be like a freight train.  Just my $0.02 worth. 

 

If you like more playful skis (Patron) rather than damp (Cyclic), you might wanna take Finndog up on his Patron offer instead?

post #30 of 37
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gunnerbob View Post
 

I'm 6'2", 185 and found the 181 Collectives to be plenty meaty.  I suspect the even-wider Cyclics @ 181 should be fine, unless you're planning on dive bombing open bowls.  I think the 191 would be like a freight train.  Just my $0.02 worth. 

 

If you like more playful skis (Patron) rather than damp (Cyclic), you might wanna take Finndog up on his Patron offer instead?

If I'll go with patron, I think I could do better... (may be)

 

I guess, I was just confused about that "rule of thumb" for powder ski: 

advanced: your height + 5 cm

expert: your height +10 cm

 

So, if I am 6' -> 183 cms + 5 > 181 Head Cyclic :dunno 

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 › Nordica Patron vs. Head cyclic 115. Any comparison