or Connect
EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › Ski Gear Discussion › Fisher Progressor 900, Did I buy them to short?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Fisher Progressor 900, Did I buy them to short?

post #1 of 29
Thread Starter 

At 205lbs I have been skiing on several pairs of skis at 175 to 178. Today I skied my new Progressor 900s, 175 and my new Lange RS 130s. Expected the boots to be way to stiff but I danced all over our little 300 ft vertical hill until I was bored. We had pure ice, inches of man made snow and in all of it the 900 was flick-able, powerful, ice holding, GS speed fun, and rock solid stability.  I came off the mountain thinking I bought the ski to short. I have been studying this ski for two years and thought I nailed it. I still do not understand why I feel that way. None of my other skis feel short. Here are my new variables.

 

Went from 207 to 190 lbs.

Started weight training 3 months ago, leg press started at 50lbs and now 210 lbs.

New Lange RS 130s first time out feel like a dream and seem to make outrageously fast edge changes compared to my old Solomon X Max 130. With all the write ups on the stiffness of this boot I really thought I would have trouble bending it today but at 5 degrees no problem.

 

Modified the boot buy cutting the front of the shell for the Booster Strap to go around the inner boot which is the way I like it. The flex was beautifully progressive. 

post #2 of 29

Are they speed wobbling?    I'm betting not or you'd be really tired in your upper legs.

Are they washing out of turns at the speeds you're trying to use?    I'm betting not or you'd have noticed lack of grip on ice.

No, you didn't buy them too short.      You're just having an *on* day - and you're a lot stronger than you were so you're no longer a wreck after a ski day.      Seriously, 50lbs leg press is couch potato land.   You've left that land and you'd better not have a re-entry visa.

 

Do you still have a pair of >27m GS sticks?   You can always go to those for a workout...or try making a *lot* more turns with these skis and really completing them across the hill and back up.

post #3 of 29
Thread Starter 
No issues with the skis no I am thinking you are right.At 68 I could never go back! The weights changed my life.
Edited by levy1 - 1/19/16 at 1:21pm
post #4 of 29

I am about your size and ski Progessors in 175. I would have got 180's but they weren't available at the time.

 

My opinion is that it doesn't make much difference.

post #5 of 29

Well you said, "We had pure ice, inches of man made snow and in all of it the 900 was flick-able, powerful, ice holding, GS speed fun, and rock solid stability." That doesn't sound to me like they're too short.

 

I'm 67 and 5'7" and 165 pounds. I don't workout, but I walk a lot. I ski the P900's in 170. I'd describe them much like you did in the quote above. Mine feel like very quick GS skis with a touch more versatility and forgiveness. They seem to like being skied with forward pressure, but you can ease off just bit to lengthen the arc. I'm happy with the 170's, but I sort of wonder what the 165's would feel like.

 

Addendum: Mine are mounted on the factory-recommended line, and are now tuned at .5 and 3 (which I like).


Edited by Tominator - 1/19/16 at 4:37pm
post #6 of 29

Not too short for an icy 300' hill.   What you would find a longer ski better at is smoothing things (like bumps, snow consistancy, and other surface irregularities) out at speeds that cannot be reached until you are almost at the bottom of your 300' hill straight-lining it, and having the snow under the ski hold it instead of breaking away in a hard turn on less solid snow.  For ice, if you can manage it being more frenetic, shorter is better.

post #7 of 29
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tominator View Post

Well you said, "We had pure ice, inches of man made snow and in all of it the 900 was flick-able, powerful, ice holding, GS speed fun, and rock solid stability." That doesn't sound to me like they're too short.

I'm 67 and 5'7" and 165 pounds. I don't workout, but I walk a lot. I ski the P900's in 170. I'd describe them much like you did in the quote above. Mine feel like very quick GS skis with a touch more versatility and forgiveness. They seem to like being skied with forward pressure, but you can ease off just bit to lengthen the arc. I'm happy with the 170's, but I sort of wonder what the 165's would feel like.

Addendum: Mine are mounted on the factory-recommended line, and are now tuned at .5 and 3 (which I like).
Your description is perfect. Went to a 1 and 3 tune and I like that. So perfectly easy to ski I was kind of blown away
post #8 of 29

Skied them again yesterday (Loon - pretty good). FWIW, thinking about what was said above, I'm considering going back to 1 and 3 and/or moving the binding forward 1 notch on the mounting plate before next season ... but then again, maybe not!

post #9 of 29
Thread Starter 
I'm going back a notch and see how that feels when I get a chance
post #10 of 29

You think you might have wanted them longer, and I wonder if I might have wanted them shorter; so both mods make sense to try respectively - should be interesting to compare notes!

post #11 of 29

I was touching up my edges and putting on some fresh wax today, and I thought I might try to move the bindings forward a notch, but I chickened out. Both toe and heel have little locking levers, and in theory it seems incredibly simple, but I was afraid I'd screw something up - like foward pressure - so I bailed. Do I need to take them to a shop with my boots, or am I being overly cautious? I don't want to go skiing and have them releasing all over the place (or not releasing at all).

 

Side note: my old Atomics had system bindings with a 3-position adjustment: 'short turns' (front), 'all-around' (middle), and 'long turns' (back). I tried all 3 briefly - did make a difference - and then kept them in the middle. The distance from one position to the next was more than one notch on the RSX Z 13 RACETRACKs on the P900's.

post #12 of 29
Thread Starter 
I'm going back a notch and see how that feels when I get a chance. Moving 1 notch forward or backward still keeps my pressure lines correct. Look at the silver lines at the base of the heel.
post #13 of 29

Yes, I saw the markings. I just needed some reassurance. Thanks!

post #14 of 29

Skied them today on steep groomers: Concentrated on staying forward, hip angulation, and high edge angles - decided I'm not changing a thing!

post #15 of 29
Thread Starter 
Glad to see you have them where you want them
post #16 of 29

Hej,

 

sorry for bumping but I do have a question. 

 

I am looking to get Progressor 900. 

 

I am from Europe, from Slovenia, but studying in Stockholm, Sweden. I am a stregnth & conditioning student so I train a lot for physical performance. I am 179cm tall and weigh 82kg. I own Progressor 800 - 165cm from 2013-14 season I think. I like them a lot. I am intermediate I'd say, I have the U1 licence (in Slovenia or Europe it goes U1-2-3 and then 10 demos in the country). I was trying for U2 at my school, missed by a few points. So my level basically is Instructor Level 1 to 2. I didn't ski last season as I spent my winter in Spain.

 

I love the 800 but I would like one stiffer ski for some more speed and longer turns (I prefer them to shorter turns). I am choosing between:

 

Progressor 900 or F19 (they renamed it, it is the same model, right?) and what size should I look for. I own 800 165cm. Maybe go for 170 with those? I use 800 if I teach or for more technical, this one would be more for fun, speed, etc.

 

Fischer Progressor 900 2014 model I can get for 325€ - 170cm or other size?
 

or

 

Fischer 

RC4 Superior SC 2015-16 for 330€ - again 165 or 170cm? = this is more of a "slalom ski"?

 

Fischer RC4 Superior RC 2015-16 for 300€ - size? = more giant slalom due to a bit bigger radius?
 
 
Fischer RC4 Superior PRO 2015-16 for 380€ - length? = what is the point of this one?

Also found, but it's a competitve ski, maybe to stiff for me based some years I don't get to ski as I am away.
 
Völkl Skis Racetiger SCR + bindings Marker xMotion 11.0 D 2017 for 350€ (only 163, 168cm lengths left)
 
 
Some other alternatives from you? 
 

Thanks for your help.

 

Best,

Domen

post #17 of 29

New skis, new boots, new (maybe) Booster Strap.  From your description it sounds like you have it dialled.

 

When I demo skis I occasionally arrive at the bottom of the run with no impression of the ski whatsoever.  That's a good sign.

post #18 of 29

Thanks for your input. What do you mean by dialled and you meant that I need all of the things new? I actually bought new boots (Tecnica) 105 flex.

 

 

Yeah, but if I don't have the chance to demo - what are peoples impressions of the skies (if they tried or technically). 

post #19 of 29

Sorry, I was referring to the original post, which I now see is from the start of the year   :rolleyes 

post #20 of 29

Hi bemhi.  You probably would have been better to start a fresh thread, but here goes.

 

Had a pair of Progressor 8+ (predecessor to the 800) and currently have a pair of Superior SCs.  The P800 in 165 sounds short for you.  Yes the Superior SC is a SL race ski. but it's on the low end of the Fischer race lineup.  More of a race carver.  The Superior RC is a longer radius ski, but not really a true GS race ski.  Probably fine for a ski bum race course.  The Superior Pro is a bit higher performance than the SC and RC with a turning radius somewhere between them.  For what you are looking for, avoid the SC.  Any of the others should be fine.  I think I would go with the P900 if you can find one at a good price or the F19 which replaced it.  And yes, you need to step up in length. 

post #21 of 29
Quote:
Originally Posted by bremhi View Post
 

Hej,

 

sorry for bumping but I do have a question. 

 

I am looking to get Progressor 900. 

 

I am from Europe, from Slovenia, but studying in Stockholm, Sweden. I am a stregnth & conditioning student so I train a lot for physical performance. I am 179cm tall and weigh 82kg. I own Progressor 800 - 165cm from 2013-14 season I think. I like them a lot. I am intermediate I'd say, I have the U1 licence (in Slovenia or Europe it goes U1-2-3 and then 10 demos in the country). I was trying for U2 at my school, missed by a few points. So my level basically is Instructor Level 1 to 2. I didn't ski last season as I spent my winter in Spain.

 

I love the 800 but I would like one stiffer ski for some more speed and longer turns (I prefer them to shorter turns). I am choosing between:

 

Progressor 900 or F19 (they renamed it, it is the same model, right?) and what size should I look for. I own 800 165cm. Maybe go for 170 with those? I use 800 if I teach or for more technical, this one would be more for fun, speed, etc.

 

Fischer Progressor 900 2014 model I can get for 325€ - 170cm or other size?
 

or

 

Fischer 

RC4 Superior SC 2015-16 for 330€ - again 165 or 170cm? = this is more of a "slalom ski"?

 

Fischer RC4 Superior RC 2015-16 for 300€ - size? = more giant slalom due to a bit bigger radius?
 
 
Fischer RC4 Superior PRO 2015-16 for 380€ - length? = what is the point of this one?

Also found, but it's a competitve ski, maybe to stiff for me based some years I don't get to ski as I am away.
 
Völkl Skis Racetiger SCR + bindings Marker xMotion 11.0 D 2017 for 350€ (only 163, 168cm lengths left)
 
 
Some other alternatives from you? 
 

Thanks for your help.

 

Best,

Domen


Fischer does a good job of supplying confusing names so that their dealers can sell whatever they need to get rid of to an unsuspecting public. ;)

However if you follow for a few years you can catch on.   They add things like "race" or "Superior"  to indicate that the skis are inferior in that they are less like their race skis (RC4 WC SL, RC4 WC GS), than their excellent cheater race skis (The excellent RC4 WC SC for short turns and RC4 WC RC for longer turns).    IIRC, in addition to being a bit softer flexing the Superior line had some tip rocker to make the skis more forgiving and easier to ski,  at the expense of that always connected to the snow feel of the Regular RC4 WC SC or RC line.   They probably added some rocker to the old 900/F19 ski too.  

 

That being said, you may like rocker on your hard snow skis; I don't. 

 

SC is the SL radius ski.  RC is the cheater ( i.e. shorter than real GS radius) GS radius ski.  The Superior Pro is in between radii, if I recall correctly.

 

Sizewise 165 is fine for the short radius turns, but look at 180 cm for GS size turns at speed.

post #22 of 29

I have had three pairs of Prgressors (10+, 900 and 950) and am still confused about the differences between the various model numbers and model years.

post #23 of 29
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ghost View Post
 


Fischer does a good job of supplying confusing names so that their dealers can sell whatever they need to get rid of to an unsuspecting public. ;)

However if you follow for a few years you can catch on.   They add things like "race" or "Superior"  to indicate that the skis are inferior in that they are less like their race skis (RC4 WC SL, RC4 WC GS), than their excellent cheater race skis (The excellent RC4 WC SC for short turns and RC4 WC RC for longer turns).    IIRC, in addition to being a bit softer flexing the Superior line had some tip rocker to make the skis more forgiving and easier to ski,  at the expense of that always connected to the snow feel of the Regular RC4 WC SC or RC line.   They probably added some rocker to the old 900/F19 ski too.  

 

That being said, you may like rocker on your hard snow skis; I don't. 

 

SC is the SL radius ski.  RC is the cheater ( i.e. shorter than real GS radius) GS radius ski.  The Superior Pro is in between radii, if I recall correctly.

 

Sizewise 165 is fine for the short radius turns, but look at 180 cm for GS size turns at speed.

 

Thanks for your clarification. 

 

I should probably go for RC4 rather than Progressor 900 since I have the 800. As PRO is somewhat in between - which would mean if I want something a bit different to the 800 to take the RC4 and just decide wheter I want a SL ski - SC or RC for "cheater GS" ski. So first for shorter turns, second for longer turns with sped+stability. 

 

What would you take in my position?

post #24 of 29

@bremhi Fischer RC4 WC RC would be my choice, since you already have a short turning ski.

post #25 of 29

And to make things even more confusing, Fischer has completely revamped their 2016-17 race ski line.  The new model naming with Curv sprinkled thoughout without any pattern that makes sense really makes your head spin.  I think they list at least half a dozen slalom skis in the lineup!  

post #26 of 29
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ghost View Post
 

@bremhi Fischer RC4 WC RC would be my choice, since you already have a short turning ski.

 

RC4 WorldCup or the Superior (not as stiff as the WC) RC? As I think WC might be a bit too stiff for me at the moment, if at a later point manage to get 30+ ski days per season then that would be okay. Or you think differently?

 

Thanks again, very helpful.

post #27 of 29

I think you would find the RC too stiff for moguls, off-piste and powder, but perfect for groomers.  It is already on step softer than their GS ski. 

post #28 of 29

The SL skis are a fun but a bit exhausting.  All they want to do is turn and you need to drive them like a sport car ALL the time.  Though these are my daily drivers, I do NOT take them on pleasure trips.  Progressors used to be my fun skis in 178 (I think).  You will find these more forgiving and stable at speed. 

post #29 of 29

Thanks Pat for the input, always appreciated. Yeah, so based on the fact that I already own Progressor I should go with something else to have a different experience. Ideally, have them both when skiing and do some "trainig" with the SL and some "relaxation" with the Progressors.

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 900, Did I buy them to short?