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!