EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › Ski Gear Discussion › Head Cyclic 115 191cm too big for me?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Head Cyclic 115 191cm too big for me?

post #1 of 11
Thread Starter 

I just got an excellent deal on a pair of Head Cyclic 115's @ 191cm but I'm concerned they might be a little long for me. I've read every review I could find about them but there seems to be conflicting info. Most reviews say the 181 cm Cyclic's are stiff and not good at tight turns but they are easy to turn and finesse and slide and the 181's ski a little short. If all of that is true, I think my good technique and 170 pounds should be able to power up the 191's.

 

I've been skiing the original Rossi S7's @ 188cm and they are very easy but occasionally they don't have enough float. I'll definitely prefer the Cyclic's better rebound. I miss powder rebound! The longer turn radius and less rocker will be good too. Sometimes I suspect the rocker and sidecut of the old S7's create too much drag. I am not a Big Mt style powder skier. I can do that but I prefer to savor freshies with consistent fall line turns through well spaced trees or open slopes. It looks like the 191 Cyclics might have significantly more surface area than my old S7's.

 

Me:  170 lbs. 5'10"

Been a serious carver since the 70's. I love to trench groomers.

Ski Tahoe almost daily: Alpine Meadows and Northstar.

The Cyclics will be for fresh snow from 8" deep to bottomless plus groomer run outs.

For shallower fresh snow I have Salomon Sentinels (94mm waist) and Head Monster 88's.

 

I'll probably get a chance to try these Cyclic's the end of next week but in the meantime, I'm dying of curiosity. Will I like these 191's or not???

 

Some recommend mounting the bindings on powder skis 1.0 to 1.5 cm back. If they feel a little long, I would think mounting them center or a little forward would help that. What do you think? The skis are coming with Attack 13 demo bindings so adjusting boot position will be easy. I usually mount my carving skis 1 cm forward and powder skis on center.

 

Thanks in advance for any comments!

post #2 of 11
If it helps, I know an ex US skier cross team member who is probably 5 lbs lighter than you who skis the 181 and swears by it. Mount it +2 from the back mounting point for directional skiing, but since you'll have the demo binding, you'll have plenty of time to fiddle. The 191 will probably like a bit more forward for your mass. It isn't an S7.smile.gif
post #3 of 11
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by markojp View Post

If it helps, I know an ex US skier cross team member who is probably 5 lbs lighter than you who skis the 181 and swears by it. Mount it +2 from the back mounting point for directional skiing, but since you'll have the demo binding, you'll have plenty of time to fiddle. The 191 will probably like a bit more forward for your mass. It isn't an S7.smile.gif

Thank you, markojp! That does help.I think I will start at 1.5cm forward and bring a screwdriver with me. It will be interesting to see how far forward I can get without risking pearling or being too forward to hamper sink/smearing the tails. 

 

I reread my notes taken from the Cyclic reviews and it seems Cyclics are stable, floaty, easy to turn but not quick turning. I suspect the tips and tails are soft but the middle is semi-stiff. Mounting the 191's forward should make them quicker turning and they should be floaty enough to work well mounted forward. I'll find out the hard way and report back. 

 

Worst case I'll only prefer these skis in snow deeper than 16" but since I only paid $360 for the kit, and they only have a few runs on them, they would still be worth it just for extra deep pow days. If I really like them but they seem a little big I might add a pair of 181's to my quiver for lesser powder days. With these skis I will learn a lot about what I like and don't like.

post #4 of 11
Thread Starter 

My 191's Cyclics arrived and they surprise me in a couple of ways.  The biggest surprise to me is how serious and powerful they look. The S7's with the burning birdhouse graphics look like toys next to these weapons. Also, they are stiffer than I was expecting. Lets hope I can turn them well enough to survive long enough to soften them up a tad. Maybe the first few days I ski them I should wear a backpack with a big heavy anvil in it. They might be fine but I hope they are at least good for real deep fresh snow.

post #5 of 11
what's powder rebound?
post #6 of 11
Thread Starter 

They're Great! I love these skis. Today I skied them in about 7" of heavy wind affected snow and they worked well. I skied with three other strong skiers who were on skis with waists in the 90's and my friends were barely surviving. I suspect my old S7 noodles would have been ok but not as good and fun as these Cyclics.

 

I was afraid these skis would be too stiff for me but they were fine. I slid the demo bindings 1.5cm forward and they worked well. Turn initiation was easy enough and I could still slide them if I needed too. They are very stable and damp on groomers and they are much more fun than my old S7's anywhere I skied them. I plan to use them mostly in snow that is more than a foot deep but I haven't been able to try them in deeper snow yet but they should be fine since they worked well in challenging snow.  

 

Since I planned to use these skis in deeper snow I was also considering getting a pair of 181cm Cyclics for less snow and for trees but now I'm not sure I need them. Before I decide I should try these 191cm skis in trees in some better than average fresh snow. 

 

For CraigR, rebound is the spring back you get when you load and bend a ski during a turn. Hopefully you have felt it while skiing groomers. My old powder skis had lots of rocker and were soft so they didn't spring back much. It is nice to get some rebound bounce in powder because it adds a wonderful 3D liveliness called porpoising. 

post #7 of 11

Thread revive-

 

How are the Cyclic's for Tahoe now that you have had mileage on them? I am looking at them (look like great Squaw skis on paper) and do not see many reviews.

 

Also, are the 181's stiffer than the 191's? I'm not a bone crusher @168#.

post #8 of 11
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by sfo1 View Post

Thread revive-

How are the Cyclic's for Tahoe now that you have had mileage on them? I am looking at them (look like great Squaw skis on paper) and do not see many reviews.

Also, are the 181's stiffer than the 191's? I'm not a bone crusher @168#.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sfo1 View Post

Thread revive-

How are the Cyclic's for Tahoe now that you have had mileage on them? I am looking at them (look like great Squaw skis on paper) and do not see many reviews.

Also, are the 181's stiffer than the 191's? I'm not a bone crusher @168#.

The 181's are the best size for me most of the time and they are all I would use at Squaw unless it was 3 feet deep or deeper. Squaw is steep enough that you don't need big skis for float. I like the 191's for deep days at Northstar where better float is required when the snow is deep. The 191's feel stiffer much stiffer to me than the 181's. I weigh 175 lbs. If you don't carve turns or haven't skied much powder, you would probably prefer softer skis.
post #9 of 11
Quote:
Originally Posted by dtraub1 View Post



The 181's are the best size for me most of the time and they are all I would use at Squaw unless it was 3 feet deep or deeper. Squaw is steep enough that you don't need big skis for float. I like the 191's for deep days at Northstar where better float is required when the snow is deep. The 191's feel stiffer much stiffer to me than the 181's. I weigh 175 lbs. If you don't carve turns or haven't skied much powder, you would probably prefer softer skis.


I bought the 191's. The ski tech said he thought the 181 was stiffer, which would make sense. I have not skied them yet, but am / was slightly worried they will be softer than I am hoping for. At <$370 to my door with Attack 13's its a no brainer to try them.

post #10 of 11
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by sfo1 View Post
 


I bought the 191's. The ski tech said he thought the 181 was stiffer, which would make sense. I have not skied them yet, but am / was slightly worried they will be softer than I am hoping for. At <$370 to my door with Attack 13's its a no brainer to try them.

 

That is a great price!

 

I'll be amazed if the 191's are too soft for you. It has always been my experience that shorter skis are softer than longer skis and that makes sense to me because shorter skis are for lighter people. Why do you think longer skis would be softer? I just measured the thickness of the two skis at the Recommended mount line. The 181's are 14mm thick and the 191's are 16mm thick. 


Edited by dtraub1 - 2/2/17 at 11:17am
post #11 of 11
What year cyclic and what mount point did you use?
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 › Head Cyclic 115 191cm too big for me?