New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Fischer Progessor 900

post #1 of 7
Thread Starter 

I am thinking about getting a pair of Progessor 900 skis this season and would like some feedback from people here who have skied on them.


I already searched Epic and know what has been written about them in the archives.  I also read several reviews in other on-line sources.


I will be getting some model of Fischer skis because that is what I am being offered and am not looking for recommendations for other brands.  I like Fischer and am happy to be able to represent them because they build bad assed skis.


I already have a pair of 180 Motive95s and a pair of 186 Big Stix 110 from last year.


I will need to make a decision without the opportunity to demo. 


My specific questions are about length and versatility.  I would like to get a ski that is oriented toward shorter edgier turns to complement the skis I already have.  My concern is that I never really know what type of terrain I will be skiing when I head out of the locker room in the morning.  I mostly teach off-piste lessons to levels 7 & 8, but have had students jump into Corbets and teach a handful of lower level lessons including FDBs each season.  I have skied the 172 Dynastar Contact Limited (72mm) in a wide variety of off trail conditions and liked it.  I have a 165 Head WC Slalom ski that I enjoy on the groomers, but would not want to take off trail.  The Heads are real deal race skis that were built for Bode.  I don't believe that the Progessors will be as serious as the Heads are. 


My other question is about the length to ask for.  I think that 175 seems about right.  I am 5'10" and 175lbs and am a pretty strong skier.  I love the 180 Motive 95 and the 178 Rossignol E88 as solid all rounders.  I ski longer in powder skis like the 186 Big Stix, the 188 S7, and the 188 Soul7.  I'm thinking that a Slalom type front-side ski is meant to be skied a bit shorter, like 175.  I'm thinking about the 165 Heads that I have which I "could" probably ski longer, but wouldn't because I don't see a benefit.  Bode skied them in 165 and he is much stronger than I am:o.  I'm wondering if the Progressor would be good for me in a 170 even though I am fairly certain that it is not as burly as Bodes racing skis.


I'm going to talk with the Fischer Rep, my shop guy, and some of my friends who have some experience with the Progessors.  I would appreciate feedback from people here who also have experience with the Progessors.  Some of you may have skied with me and have insight to share.



Edited by tetonpwdrjunkie - 9/17/15 at 11:07am
post #2 of 7

Almost started a similar thread yesterday. When I read the first sentence I was thinking: wth I accidentally submitted my post? lol.


Well, I may not be able to help you since I'm seeking answers too. But I have been skiing a pair old 2010, 170 Progressor 9+ for 5 seasons, and am thinking to buy P900 as replacement.  In my opinion the 9+ doesn't very like short turns. Its 13~17 variable radius is more like 17m, not 13m. It can turn, but you have to push it into short turns, not like my friend's racetiger rc (similar year and length) which just swings automatically effortless. But I was told the P900 is softer than 9+, and this year's is even more softer. So things may be different. 


I also have a 188 S7 and 186 S3. I mostly ski Whistler and Vancouver local mountains. Have similar body as you, but definitely not as strong and skilled as you. ( I will not jump Corbets in my life. :))  With lack of snow these two years, at the end of day 9+ still is my favorite ski. I like its performance, stability, and versatility. It's a true all mountain ski, unless things go to too deep. And I feel a big part of its versatility comes from its stiffness. It just like a crudbuster can shred those PNW icy or slush crud well, and also not too stiff, can still handle some bumps decently.


So my question is whether should I go softer P900?  or stiffer WC RC. My only concern about P900 is alleged "soft than 9+" which I don't want. Would it be knocked around easily in heavy crud? So on a scale if I put 9+ at middle, one side is P900, another side is WC RC, which one would be more closer to 9+ in blind of performance and versatility? 


Not mean to hijack the thread. Well the questions are for same ski. Maybe it will be convenient to everybody to put together.:D

post #3 of 7

I have P900's. My opinion is great for groomers and hard snow at all turn shapes. Not so great for off piste.


It is difficult to figure out the characteristics of all the different models of Progessors over the few years. Since the bases on my P900's are gone and too thin for repair, I just bought a new pair of P950's (new old, good deal online) but haven't skied then yet.

post #4 of 7

Originally Posted by tetonpwdrjunkie View Post


 I like Fischer and am happy to be able to represent them because they build bad assed skis.


... for burly thighs!! :D 

post #5 of 7

I skied 10 days in New England on new Progressor 900's last season. If you did a search on 'P900s' and 'Progressor 900s' I'm sure you've read my posts about them. While not quite a race ski, at your height and weight, I'd say the 175s would feel like very quick GS skis and the 170's would feel like relaxed SL skis. The new model for this year is called, "Progressor F19," but I don't know what the difference might be.

post #6 of 7

The Progressor 9+ was more ski than anything that followed.  It was quite a serious, just-sub-race ski.  This year I've lost the handle on how they all fit together.  As a bigger guy (6'4" and 210lbs) the rep directed me to the RC4 Superior lineup in this year's demo days.


I enjoyed a day on the RC4 World Cup RC 180cm earlier this year.  That's a great ski.


Anyway, I digress.  Back to TPJ's original question.



post #7 of 7

Picked up my 175 new 14-15 P900 today. With such weak Canadian dollars, I paid almost equal full price after tax! :( 

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