or Connect
EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › Ski Gear Discussion › Fisher Progressor 900s for an intermediate? [in MN, over 50]
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Fisher Progressor 900s for an intermediate? [in MN, over 50]

post #1 of 33
Thread Starter 

Yesterday, I demoed a couple of different skis, and ended up with some questions I'm hoping someone can help with.

 

The three skis I ended up in a position to compare:

 

-  2012 Atomic Blackeye Ti, 174  (these I own)

 

- 2015 Head i.Supershape Magnum, 177

 

- 2015 Fischer Progressor 900, 170 (longest they had)

 

Me:  220 lbs without all the gear, 5' 11", groomer skier with aspirations beyond that but limited opportunities, age 55, adult beginner a few years back.   Level, dunno, but I can ski Whitefish blues offensively rather than defensively, whereas the black runs tend to call the shots, not me (but I can make turns down them).  Mostly I like to pay attention while skiing, but technique (and nerve) fall off at the end of the day.

 

The snow was firm but not icy, easy to get an edge in, softening a little over the day, no significant slop or bumps. It was also my first day back on the snow, which may have colored things, though by the end of the day it really did feel like I had my balance back.

 

Of the three skis, the Blackeyes were the easiest:  slow to hook up in a turn, easy to throw sideways, and not too picky about balance, though the tails tended to wash out if I was standing on the outside ski and got back a little.   Probably too short as I ski faster---I do start to notice some stability issues, even at my relatively modest top speed.

 

The Heads were the opposite:  very quick to start a turn, didn't really want to slide sideways (though you could make them do it), and I had to be careful not to get sloppy about changing from one edge to the other, or getting too far back.  Fast, stable, obviously a ski that I wasn't close to pushing, though I could ski fast enough to get it to wake up a little.

 

The surprise for me was the Fischers:   I really liked those skis.    Faster to turn than the blackeyes, stable at speed for their length (again, not that fast), felt lighter than the Blackeyes, too.  But they weren't nearly as picky as the Heads, so a lot more comfortable to ride.  Better at lower speeds, too.  But then I go and read up on them on the net, including some comments here on epic.  The general story seems to be that these are advanced-to-expert skis (not me, remotely), that you really need to be on.  Not my experience at all.   No doubt that the skis are capable of a lot more than I'll ever push them to, but they had much more patience with my numerous lapses of technique than the Heads did.

 

What I'm looking for is a quick, turny hard-snow ski for small, icy Midwestern hills, that will push me to keep improving.   Stable over surface irregularities like groomer ridges and piles of stuff pushed up by side-scrapers (on boards or skis) is important, and it would be nice if the ski was not going to try to kill me when I start taking lessons on skiing bumps, but that's optional.    At this point, the Fischers look pretty good for most of this (not at all sure about the bumps, with which I have very little experience).

 

So, finally, the questions:

 

- Is this in fact a ski that I should be having trouble with, where the rep maybe hadn't really tuned up the edges?  Or might it be because the skis were short?  I wouldn't expect that to change how grabby the edges are, though.

 

- Is it possible that the 2015 Fischers have been softened up or in some other way made more forgiving?  This one's important, because while I like the skis, I'd much rather pay < $500 for last year's model (which is still available, or was last night), than $800 - $1000 for this year's.

 

- Length:  At my size, I'd be looking at either 175 or 180, neither of which they had available to try.   Previous discussions on epic (about predecessors to the 900s) have gone both ways:  get the biggest, vs. there's absolutely no reason to if you're not racing on them, or near as doesn't matter.

 

 - If the 900's are in fact going to be a problem in a length I should be on, what about stepping down to the 800's?

 

Thanks for reading, if you made it this far, and thanks for any light that you can shed.

post #2 of 33

Don't worry about the new Progressor 900 being "too much ski".  This latest iteration has a very large performance envelope.  It has plenty of "forgiveness" for an intermediate skier, with lots of high end that you wouldn't likely grow out of.  Really a very good ski,  IMO, you won't be disappointed with the P900.   Given your size and weight, I would pick the P900 over the P800, because of the metal in the construction, it makes the ski more stable at speed, and will give it more "bite" on hard snow.

 

The 2015 model has what Fischer calls "Piste Rocker", but looking at them and skiing them, it may be just marketing rocker.  The new model also has the Fischer Racetrack Plate - which flattens the ramp angle of the binding, a nice change.  But, even with these minor changes, if you find a deal on the older P900, you might pull the trigger, because the older models perform very similarly to the new one.  

 

Length?  Don't be afraid to go short.  The 170's will be very quick and agile, but surprisingly stable.  The 175's are the "money" length for an all-mountain groomer ski - quick enough for bumps and slalom arcs, but definitely stable in faster GS style turns.  The 180's become much more long turn oriented -  very GS like - but becomes a less versatile ski.

post #3 of 33
Quote:
Originally Posted by coolhand View Postnew one.  

 

Length?  Don't be afraid to go short.  The 170's will be very quick and agile, but surprisingly stable.  The 175's are the "money" length for an all-mountain groomer ski - quick enough for bumps and slalom arcs, but definitely stable in faster GS style turns.  The 180's become much more long turn oriented -  very GS like - but becomes a less versatile ski.

 

^This.     I think you experienced the analogous diminishment of versatility when you tested the longer Head.

post #4 of 33
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by cantunamunch View Post
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by coolhand View Postnew one.  

 

Length?  Don't be afraid to go short.  The 170's will be very quick and agile, but surprisingly stable.  The 175's are the "money" length for an all-mountain groomer ski - quick enough for bumps and slalom arcs, but definitely stable in faster GS style turns.  The 180's become much more long turn oriented -  very GS like - but becomes a less versatile ski.

 

^This.     I think you experienced the analogous diminishment of versatility when you tested the longer Head.


So, does that mean that you would expect the Head and the Fischer in a similar length to behave similarly?   Or just, as you say, there's an analogous loss of versatility.   It's going to take a lot of demo-ing to try all the plausible skis in all the reasonable lengths...

post #5 of 33
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlowObstacle View Post
 

The three skis I ended up in a position to compare:

 

-  2012 Atomic Blackeye Ti, 174  (these I own)

 

- 2015 Head i.Supershape Magnum, 177

 

- 2015 Fischer Progressor 900, 170 (longest they had)

 

 

Thanks for reading, if you made it this far, and thanks for any light that you can shed.

 

 

You have an orange and two apples here. The Blackeye is meant to be more of a groomer-biased all-mountain ski. The other two are more like tamed race skis. Plus your Blackeyes may not have as good a tune as the brand new skis you demo'd, unless you are religious about that aspect of things. So I'd say that you can toss out that result as "Not Applicable."

 

 not and is not meant to be the kind of carve-

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by SlowObstacle View Post
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by cantunamunch View Post
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by coolhand View Postnew one.  

 

Length?  Don't be afraid to go short.  The 170's will be very quick and agile, but surprisingly stable.  The 175's are the "money" length for an all-mountain groomer ski - quick enough for bumps and slalom arcs, but definitely stable in faster GS style turns.  The 180's become much more long turn oriented -  very GS like - but becomes a less versatile ski.

 

^This.     I think you experienced the analogous diminishment of versatility when you tested the longer Head.


So, does that mean that you would expect the Head and the Fischer in a similar length to behave similarly?   Or just, as you say, there's an analogous loss of versatility.   It's going to take a lot of demo-ing to try all the plausible skis in all the reasonable lengths...

 
Cool and tuna have already said what I was thinking when I read your post earlier in the day: The preference you felt for the Head over the Fischer may very will have been a preference for a  170 over a 177 in that type of ski, your 220lbs notwithstanding. Honor that. Don't get too derailed but what you "should" like. Especially for "small, icy Midwestern hills".
 
It's also worth noting that the Head comes in 5 or 6 sizes and the 177 is the longest one. In other words, it's designed to be skied short. Meanwhile the Progressor 900 is made in 5 sizes from 160 to 180. You were on the middle size in that model. Trying the 175 might be fun if that is an option, just to see.
 
No matter what you end up with, keeping up the tune will go a long way to making the honeymoon last. :)
post #6 of 33

Go ahead and get the Fischer 900s.   They are not ONLY for advanced to experts; they just won't let the advanced to expert skiers down.  You skied them; you liked them; they are not the unforgiving must-be-on-your-game skis some people make them out to be.  However, at your weight you should be getting a longer length, maybe just step up one size since you liked the the 170s (i.e. the 175, not the 180) and you will be skiing mostly on smaller icier hills. 

post #7 of 33
Thread Starter 

 

Coolhand, cantunamuch, and qcanoe, thanks for the advice.  It sounds like I should be looking for the next-to-the-longest in the kind of carvers represented by the Head and Fischer I demoed, and not to be afraid of a "detuned race ski."

 

With respect to two of qcanoe's points:

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by qcanoe View Post
 
You have an orange and two apples here. The Blackeye is meant to be more of a groomer-biased all-mountain ski. The other two are more like tamed race skis. Plus your Blackeyes may not have as good a tune as the brand new skis you demo'd, unless you are religious about that aspect of things. So I'd say that you can toss out that result as "Not Applicable."

 

I probably wasn't clear enough:  the Blackeyes are what I've got, and the other two are what I was looking at as a move towards what I want.  The differences between them are a clear indication of a move in the right direction, where I didn't have enough experience to know what I'd get.   This is probably a case of doing too much thinking "out loud," when the actual questions only concerned the Heads and the Fischers.

 

Regarding the tune, I do that myself, for the most part.  The Blackeyes definitely had better glide than either of the others.  But that doesn't mean I necessarily know how to put a really good edge on them (it feels sharp...).

post #8 of 33
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ghost View Post
 

Go ahead and get the Fischer 900s.   They are not ONLY for advanced to experts; they just won't let the advanced to expert skiers down.  You skied them; you liked them; they are not the unforgiving must-be-on-your-game skis some people make them out to be.  However, at your weight you should be getting a longer length, maybe just step up one size since you liked the the 170s (i.e. the 175, not the 180) and you will be skiing mostly on smaller icier hills. 


Thanks, Ghost.   Now the trick is going to be finding them at the kind of price I'd rather pay...

post #9 of 33

You'd probably be alright finding a 2014 model if you're worried about cost as I think the main difference between it and the 2015 is the topsheet graphics (someone correct me if I'm wrong). I got mine (175 2014s) from the Gear Swap page here near the end of last season for $345 US in like new condition (thanks, mogsie!) so deals can definitely be found on them.

post #10 of 33

Of the 3 I would also choose the 900... I've owned it in 175 and you will be fine with it...

post #11 of 33
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by mogsie View Post
 

Of the 3 I would also choose the 900... I've owned it in 175 and you will be fine with it...


Thanks, mogsie.  Of course, the pair you owned you sold to dwanjr last spring, so both of you talking about how great it is, is kinda rubbing salt in the wound...

 

(Yes, I'm kidding.  But if you've got another pair of the same to part with for under $400 I'm definitely interested...)

post #12 of 33

The Progressor series skis work very well for our icy MN snow.  I've got a few friends who run the older 9 version for beer league racing and I've got a set of the 10+ version in a 180 length that I've been very happy with.   I'd say that the Progressors are very forgiving and don't require you to be an expert skier, but are capable of being a very fast beer league race ski.

post #13 of 33
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by oldjeep View Post
 

The Progressor series skis work very well for our icy MN snow.  I've got a few friends who run the older 9 version for beer league racing and I've got a set of the 10+ version in a 180 length that I've been very happy with.   I'd say that the Progressors are very forgiving and don't require you to be an expert skier, but are capable of being a very fast beer league race ski.


So, the older models are forgiving enough to look a bit further back?  There are still some 9's on sale out there.   I had the impression that they had retooled this year's model to be a little more forgiving, which at my level is probably a good thing.  But if the older ones aren't going to buck me off, there's a broader set to choose from.

post #14 of 33
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlowObstacle View Post
 


So, the older models are forgiving enough to look a bit further back?  There are still some 9's on sale out there.   I had the impression that they had retooled this year's model to be a little more forgiving, which at my level is probably a good thing.  But if the older ones aren't going to buck me off, there's a broader set to choose from.

 

I don't think any of the progressors are going to "buck you off"  the ones I've used have been the kind of ski that give back what you put into them.  My Progressor 10+ are 2011 models and for me have been some of the most forgiving/versatile skis I've ever owned. 

post #15 of 33

I haven't skied the Progressors, but have heard they retain the Fischer carver quality of rewarding a good input without punishing a bad one. My old RX's sure had that quality. Great skis to get better on. 

post #16 of 33

I skied the 900 last spring (2015 version) and was very impressed.  A carver, but a frontside all-mountain type of carver. Versatile in bumps. I was on the short for me 170, it was easy and fun to ski. I skied those long bump runs on the west side of Copper, totally manageable.  

 

As a full-on close to race ski carver, it isn't.  More like a modern RX8 as noted elsewhere.  Great ski for the improving intermediate who is looking to fully build skills, but not get beat up.

 

I think if you ski this head height, you may find it more ski. Skied at -5cm head height, it is a forgiving ride.  

 

I have ordered a couple of pair for customers, but have yet to see either.  Was told they are still in stock.  

post #17 of 33
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlowObstacle View Post
 


So, the older models are forgiving enough to look a bit further back?  There are still some 9's on sale out there.   I had the impression that they had retooled this year's model to be a little more forgiving, which at my level is probably a good thing.  But if the older ones aren't going to buck me off, there's a broader set to choose from.

 

The first generation of Progressor 9/9+/10 (I think they were all the same ski) seemed beefier.  2 sheets of .5mm titanium.  Beefy wood core. Not that much different than a blend of the WC RC and SC, slightly softer, not much.  They were powerful skis.  The current skis are softer; people aren't really looking for a near race ski, otherwise they buy a near race ski.  Most people like me want 95% of that hard snow performance, but quite a bit of versatility.  Hence the skis such as the Head Rally, P900, Blizzard Power 800s, Kastle MX78.  I want to be able to ski 70% groomers and 30% bumps on these skis, and go off piste and not get pushed around. 

post #18 of 33
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by dawgcatching View Post
 

I skied the 900 last spring (2015 version) and was very impressed.  A carver, but a frontside all-mountain type of carver. Versatile in bumps. I was on the short for me 170, it was easy and fun to ski. I skied those long bump runs on the west side of Copper, totally manageable.  

 

As a full-on close to race ski carver, it isn't.  More like a modern RX8 as noted elsewhere.  Great ski for the improving intermediate who is looking to fully build skills, but not get beat up.

 

I think if you ski this head height, you may find it more ski. Skied at -5cm head height, it is a forgiving ride.  

 

I have ordered a couple of pair for customers, but have yet to see either.  Was told they are still in stock.  

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by dawgcatching View Post
 

 

The first generation of Progressor 9/9+/10 (I think they were all the same ski) seemed beefier.  2 sheets of .5mm titanium.  Beefy wood core. Not that much different than a blend of the WC RC and SC, slightly softer, not much.  They were powerful skis.  The current skis are softer; people aren't really looking for a near race ski, otherwise they buy a near race ski.  Most people like me want 95% of that hard snow performance, but quite a bit of versatility.  Hence the skis such as the Head Rally, P900, Blizzard Power 800s, Kastle MX78.  I want to be able to ski 70% groomers and 30% bumps on these skis, and go off piste and not get pushed around. 

 

Thanks for the detailed information.  I had read your review, which provides a lot of useful detail.

 

Sounds like I'm looking for the Progressor 900 in 175, then.  Or something similar---but these I've actually been on.   At least on a little cursory looking around, they're not that common in North America, though.

post #19 of 33
Not cheap, but apparently available. Good shop. I trust them, fwiw.

https://www.ski-depot.com/products/2015/fischer-progressor-900-wbindings-skis-2015
post #20 of 33
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by qcanoe View Post

Not cheap, but apparently available. Good shop. I trust them, fwiw.

https://www.ski-depot.com/products/2015/fischer-progressor-900-wbindings-skis-2015


Thanks for the pointer, and for the endorsement (which is definitely worth something, BTW).   As you seem to be implying, by "common," I think I meant "in sufficient supply for there to be a realistic chance of their eventually getting marked down," which doesn't seem to be guaranteed for these.   But they really were fun to ski...

post #21 of 33

Skiing my brand new 2015 Progressor 900's tomorrow for the first time - report at 11!

post #22 of 33
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tominator View Post
 

Skiing my brand new 2015 Progressor 900's tomorrow for the first time - report at 11!


Yes, please.

 

For myself, @mogsie convinced me to pay half of what it would cost to get a new P 900, for a Dynastar Speed Cross.  They appear to be very similar skis, and not just according to mogsie:  SierraJim's review of frontside skis put them in the same category of frontside carvers that are a bit more versatile than slightly-detuned race skis, which is also how dawgcatching described the P900.

 

Thanks to everybody who chimed in with advice.  It was very helpful in figuring out both what I wanted and what I would be getting.

post #23 of 33

I got a new pair of 2015 Progressor 900s in 170 a month ago. The dealer had to order them, but they were readily available from Fischer. Price was $899 with integrated bindings - seems to be the standard retail

 

I'll be 66 next month, 5'7", 165 pounds. Been skiing since 1960, exclusively in the Northeast. I'd realistically call myself advanced, but not quite expert. I'm great on smooth hardpack no matter how firm or steep, but a bit tentative in bumps and crud. Powder? Almost never see it, but when I do, I'm not very good. I only get to ski 5-10 times per season these days.

 

I'd been happily skiing on Atomic Beta Race 920's in 180 for the past 15 years. I've pretty much always skied on citizen GS skis. Last spring, I demoed Nordica NRG80 in 169, Blizzard Brahma in 173, Nordica Steadfast in 170, and Fischer Motive 86 in 175. I liked the Motives the best, I guess because they had the most GS-type feel on hard snow.

 

Since I was really looking for an 80/20 frontside carver, something that can do it all on firm smooth hardpack, capable of high performance in a variety of turn shapes at a variety of speeds but still reasonably forgiving, and yet not totally unmanageable in variable terrain and conditions, I got the P900s without demoing them.

 

I did get to ski on them today, but the available terrain didn't provide a platform for much of a review. The snow was good - loose, soft, machine-made packed powder - but there were only 4 trails open: 2 greens, 2 easy blues (greens, really), and they were all crowded. Fortunately, the lift ticket with the senior discount was only $23, so I was still glad be out on my new skis for a few hours. But all I can say is that they were pleasant to ski at relatively slow speeds on mild terrain. I didn't get to push them performance-wise at all. So, I'll have to report back when I can really ski on them.

post #24 of 33

The older Progressor 9+ and the Progressor 900 are different skis.  The 9+ was essentially a detuned GS race ski while the 900 is a versatile all-mountain ski built on race ski technology.  If you can find a pair of last years 900s in the right length, grab them.  Not a lot left.  And also consider the older 1000s if you come across a pair.  Similar ski.   

post #25 of 33

Let us know what you think of the Dynastar's, SlowObstacle, when you get them (and get to ski them, of course). Glad to hear you found a pair of skis!

post #26 of 33
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by dwanjr View Post
 

Let us know what you think of the Dynastar's, SlowObstacle, when you get them (and get to ski them, of course). Glad to hear you found a pair of skis!


Will do.   At this point, the skis are at home, and I'm not.  And it's looking like a serious thaw this weekend, so it may be a few days before I can actually get on them. :(

post #27 of 33
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlowObstacle View Post
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by dwanjr View Post
 

Let us know what you think of the Dynastar's, SlowObstacle, when you get them (and get to ski them, of course). Glad to hear you found a pair of skis!


Will do.   At this point, the skis are at home, and I'm not.  And it's looking like a serious thaw this weekend, so it may be a few days before I can actually get on them. :(


Ok, finally we get some decent snow!  Today was actually the second day that I had the Dynastars out, but the first time was in a couple of inches of heavy slush, which is, um, apparently not their strongest point.

 

Details:  2012 Dynastar Speed Cross, in 177 (longest in the range).  No metal.   Sold and shipped by @mogsie, who said they had 3 deg side, 0.7 deg base bevels (so far I've taken his word for that...).   He also said that the lack of metal meant that I'd be able to bend them at moderate speeds and on moderate slopes, despite them being at the top end of the range.  So far, seems like he was right about that.

 

Firm man-made snow, kind of surface a western skier would call ice, someone from Tremblant would call powder...  Ok, kidding a little, but a firm surface that is still easy to edge in---not boilerplate by any stretch.

 

Skis are smooth, stable, happy to go fast (for my limited definition of "fast").  Quick to initiate.  Fairly easy to smear or throw sideways, when I'm not worrying about catching an edge in a pile of crud.   Not as twitchy as feared with 0.7 deg base bevel.  Coming from the Blackeyes with their front rocker, the tip on these was really noticeable.  Felt like I had to press forward pretty hard to bend the tips into a shorter turn.  But given a firm surface, certainly doable.   Probably I'll try shifting the binding fwd 1cm or so just to see what effect that has, since the system binding makes that easy.

 

Overall, nice skis, same kind of fun as the Fischer Progressors, though not quite as turny.  Certainly a ski that can teach me things.

 

I'd still like to compare them head-to-head with the P900 in 175, and as it happens a pair went up on the forum for < $300 a few days ago.  But I'm not sure I could get away with buying yet another pair of skis just now...

post #28 of 33
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlowObstacle View Post
 


Ok, finally we get some decent snow!  Today was actually the second day that I had the Dynastars out, but the first time was in a couple of inches of heavy slush, which is, um, apparently not their strongest point.

 

Details:  2012 Dynastar Speed Cross, in 177 (longest in the range).  No metal.   Sold and shipped by @mogsie, who said they had 3 deg side, 0.7 deg base bevels (so far I've taken his word for that...).   He also said that the lack of metal meant that I'd be able to bend them at moderate speeds and on moderate slopes, despite them being at the top end of the range.  So far, seems like he was right about that.

 

Firm man-made snow, kind of surface a western skier would call ice, someone from Tremblant would call powder...  Ok, kidding a little, but a firm surface that is still easy to edge in---not boilerplate by any stretch.

 

Skis are smooth, stable, happy to go fast (for my limited definition of "fast").  Quick to initiate.  Fairly easy to smear or throw sideways, when I'm not worrying about catching an edge in a pile of crud.   Not as twitchy as feared with 0.7 deg base bevel.  Coming from the Blackeyes with their front rocker, the tip on these was really noticeable.  Felt like I had to press forward pretty hard to bend the tips into a shorter turn.  But given a firm surface, certainly doable.   Probably I'll try shifting the binding fwd 1cm or so just to see what effect that has, since the system binding makes that easy.

 

Overall, nice skis, same kind of fun as the Fischer Progressors, though not quite as turny.  Certainly a ski that can teach me things.

 

I'd still like to compare them head-to-head with the P900 in 175, and as it happens a pair went up on the forum for < $300 a few days ago.  But I'm not sure I could get away with buying yet another pair of skis just now...

If you buy the P900, we will have to invite you to our support group meeting... :-)

post #29 of 33

I guess I'll have to attend that meeting as well!

 

I finally got to ski on my new Progressor 900s today on decent trails with typical Eastern hardpack, and they were very enjoyable! High speeds, slow speeds, short turns, long turns - all good! Very wide performance envelope. Feel like hard charging? They're happy to oblige! Want to scale it back a notch or two? Sure, no problem! They seem to give you back just what you put into them. Lively and agile, but not skittish. Not demanding unless you are. Great edge grip, but they'll release if you tell them to. No problem in some mild bumps or busting through clumps of loose snow. The progressive sidecut feels pretty natural to me, too, but stay out of the back seat - just take the pressure off the tips if you want to lengthen the turn. I like 'em!

post #30 of 33
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tominator View Post
 

I guess I'll have to attend that meeting as well!

 

I finally got to ski on my new Progressor 900s today on decent trails with typical Eastern hardpack, and they were very enjoyable! High speeds, slow speeds, short turns, long turns - all good! Very wide performance envelope. Feel like hard charging? They're happy to oblige! Want to scale it back a notch or two? Sure, no problem! They seem to give you back just what you put into them. Lively and agile, but not skittish. Not demanding unless you are. Great edge grip, but they'll release if you tell them to. No problem in some mild bumps or busting through clumps of loose snow. The progressive sidecut feels pretty natural to me, too, but stay out of the back seat - just take the pressure off the tips if you want to lengthen the turn. I like 'em!

The P900 is a nice ski too! The only problem I had is that I had a deal on a 175 cm and I should have gone for the 180... But SlowObstacle fear not! The feeling is better on the P900 but the Speed cross has better grip and is more polyvalent... :-)

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 › Fisher Progressor 900s for an intermediate? [in MN, over 50]