New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Rx8 165

post #1 of 28
Thread Starter 
After reading most of the reviews in here I demoed the RX8 165cm on Saturday. Conclusion: WOW what a fun ski!!

I skied it in the 165 and 170. I found the 165 superior to the 170 in edge hold on ice. When I cranked the speed up I thought that both were equally as stable at high speed. The 165 seemed more willing to make a variety of different turn shapes. This ski is so user friendly it rips hard while not punishing you for laziness at the end of the day when legs are jello.

Is the only difference between the RX8 and RX9 stiffness? Does the 9 ski like the 8 only with more power and responsiveness?
post #2 of 28
I have not skied the RX8, but do have a pair of 9's. The RX9 should be skied in the same length as the RX8 but has less sidecut and is designed to excell at medium to long radius turns at speed -----Which it DOES. What a smooth skiing ski.

Head to the "Fischer RX8, after further review" thread here in the Gear Review forum..........there is a ton of info there.
post #3 of 28
powderhound24, the RX9 is not more powerful, nor more responsive than the RX8. It is simply a longer-radius version of the RX8. The only real difference is sidecut. As a result, they both ski with similar power, energy, and responsiveness, but they tend to prefer slightly different turn radii. It is a skier's personal preference which turn shape they prefer to be the "natural" radius of the ski. Given that you prefered the 165, I would be willing to wager that you'll prefer the RX8 over the RX9 (since the RX8 170 has a slightly longer turn radius than the 165).
post #4 of 28
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by ssh
powderhound24, the RX9 is not more powerful, nor more responsive than the RX8. It is simply a longer-radius version of the RX8. The only real difference is sidecut. As a result, they both ski with similar power, energy, and responsiveness, but they tend to prefer slightly different turn radii. It is a skier's personal preference which turn shape they prefer to be the "natural" radius of the ski. Given that you prefered the 165, I would be willing to wager that you'll prefer the RX8 over the RX9 (since the RX8 170 has a slightly longer turn radius than the 165).

Thanks, I did not realize that the dimensions of the two skis were different!
post #5 of 28
The dimensions of the RX8s (115 - 66 - 98) (and RX9s:109 - 69- 96) are all the same. Hence, when the length gets longer, the radius does, too. The 170cm RX8 is 14m. The 165 is 13m (these are rounded to the nearest meter, of course).
post #6 of 28
I'm 125lbs, 5'3, advance skier.
I skied mostly Head IC 160 at 156cm length. I love the IC 160, was looking to replace it for higher speed and better carving ski.
Now i tried 160cm RX8, it seem too long for me, it doesn't seem as quick when switching from edge to edge as my IC 160.

Maybe the RX8 is too much of a ski for me at my skill level. I wonder if the 155cm RX8 would make that much of a different.
Or it is too stiff of a ski for me.

Would moving the binding forward to +15 make that much of a different?

Or maybe i'm not use it yet, and need to ski abit more to understand the ski to really enjoy it.
post #7 of 28
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by spongebob
I'm 125lbs, 5'3, advance skier.
I skied mostly Head IC 160 at 156cm length. I love the IC 160, was looking to replace it for higher speed and better carving ski.
Now i tried 160cm RX8, it seem too long for me, it doesn't seem as quick when switching from edge to edge as my IC 160.

Maybe the RX8 is too much of a ski for me at my skill level. I wonder if the 155cm RX8 would make that much of a different.
Or it is too stiff of a ski for me.

Would moving the binding forward to +15 make that much of a different?

Or maybe i'm not use it yet, and need to ski abit more to understand the ski to really enjoy it.
As I mentioned above I skied the 170 and 165 and liked them both ALOT, but I preffered the 165cm. FYI, I am 5'10" 260lbs advanced/expert agressive skier. It is alot of ski but you might try the shorter length before deciding it is to much.

I found them to be very quick edge to edge.

BTW, thanks for all the responses on this ski. I pulled the trigger today and bought a pair from dawgcatching.
post #8 of 28
Quote:
Originally Posted by spongebob
I'm 125lbs, 5'3, advance skier.

Maybe the RX8 is too much of a ski for me at my skill level. I wonder if the 155cm RX8 would make that much of a different.
At your weight, I think that the 155 would definitely be a better choice for you. It may still be too much ski, though, so do make sure you try it first!
post #9 of 28
You are right, don't think the 155 will make much of a different.

Does stiffness contribute to the quickness of the edge?

Ok, I think might need to go lower ski

Rx6, xrc 800, elas s8, sx9n
, ic180. Again around 155cm is good?

Any recommendation between these

Thanks
post #10 of 28
Another possibility would be a Jr. or women's high-performance/race ski... Have you considered that?

The 155 may make a difference, since it's designed for lighter skiers. It's not just shortened, the whole design is smaller, it that makes sense.
post #11 of 28
that's not a bad idea, what would you recommend?

Is it much different from the Men version?
post #12 of 28
The challenge with the women's version is that most designed-from-the-bottom women's skis have different mount points, etc. to address the different CoM that most women have. However, a Jr. Race ski or even the Fischer RXj may be suitable. (See http://www.fischerskis.com/en/alpine/ and select "Junior".)
post #13 of 28
how about going with the rx6?

would that be a good idea? Should feels the same?

What length, they have 150cm and 160cm.

thanks
post #14 of 28
Check out the K2 Burnin Luv in 153cm. That may suit you well-top end performance for a lighter skier.
post #15 of 28
dawg, aren't there "women-specific" design elements in the Burnin' Luv that may actually make them not as nice for a guy to ride?
post #16 of 28
the color?
post #17 of 28
well, tried it again, this time with the binding move +15 forward, what a different it makes, alot easier to handle.

If i ski this way for awhile would it do any damage to my ski ability?
post #18 of 28
Thread Starter 

RX8 Binding Adjustments

ssh,

have you messed around with the binding adjustments? I just got my new RX8's (165) from dawgcatching and plan on skiing the next couple days. As I previously stated I demoed them an loved the skis, the bindings were set at center. What kind of change in performance pro/con can I expect to see by changing the bindings to the forward and back settings? Just curious.
post #19 of 28
Quote:
Originally Posted by spongebob
I'm 125lbs, 5'3, advance skier.
I skied mostly Head IC 160 at 156cm length. I love the IC 160, was looking to replace it for higher speed and better carving ski.
Now i tried 160cm RX8, it seem too long for me, it doesn't seem as quick when switching from edge to edge as my IC 160.

Maybe the RX8 is too much of a ski for me at my skill level. I wonder if the 155cm RX8 would make that much of a different.
Or it is too stiff of a ski for me.

Would moving the binding forward to +15 make that much of a different?

Or maybe i'm not use it yet, and need to ski abit more to understand the ski to really enjoy it.
You might also want to try a Solomon Equipe 10 SC; it is a lot softer and more forgiving. As to quickness, the rx8 is plenty quick if you just concentrate on rotating them about their longitudinal axis.
post #20 of 28
Spongebob:

I have an iC160 and iM77 and ski both of them in the +15 position. I can't believe the difference in the way the skis feel in the forward position. Peter Keelty over on RealSkiers has documented that Austrian skis (Atomic, Head, Fishcer, Elan) have more rearward mounting positions than French skis, and recommends the more forward position as a better balanced position.

For me, the forward position allows better control by just tipping the ski rather than as lots of pressure on the tongue of the boot.

FWIW, my opinion
post #21 of 28
Quote:
Originally Posted by powderhound24
ssh,

have you messed around with the binding adjustments? I just got my new RX8's (165) from dawgcatching and plan on skiing the next couple days. As I previously stated I demoed them an loved the skis, the bindings were set at center. What kind of change in performance pro/con can I expect to see by changing the bindings to the forward and back settings? Just curious.
They get a bit quicker to initiate (as you'd expect) in the forward position. I like them better there. I feel like I'm more balanced on the ski.
post #22 of 28
Quote:
Originally Posted by spongebob
well, tried it again, this time with the binding move +15 forward, what a different it makes, alot easier to handle.

If i ski this way for awhile would it do any damage to my ski ability?
No damage at all! Just a bit easier to balance over the center, I think.
post #23 of 28
Gandalf, can you point me to the document?

I will keep the binding in the forward position then.

Btw, does anyone knows if the Elan Fusion binding can be moved forward?
post #24 of 28
spongebob, yes, the Fusion binding can be moved. It's the same Tyrolia binding, basically.
post #25 of 28
Ssh, I was playing with it tonight, but couldn't adjust it to forward position.

With the intergrated binding it's not the same as the FX12
Where you can just unscrew the binding from the rail and move it forward.
post #26 of 28
Quote:
Originally Posted by spongebob
Ssh, I was playing with it tonight, but couldn't adjust it to forward position.

With the intergrated binding it's not the same as the FX12
Where you can just unscrew the binding from the rail and move it forward.
Right. Sorry. You need to use the mounting teeth in the Fusion core, and do a one-for-one move of the binding forward and back. If you mounted them yourself, you'll know what I mean.

BTW, some of the new Elan line is on the European Elan sites.
post #27 of 28
ok that's better.

How do you remove the binding to do that?
post #28 of 28
spongebob, I'm afraid I can't help you; I've seen it done, but it was last November, and I don't have a pair to look at (hence my visit to the Elan site!). Hopefully, someone else will come to your rescue. Gonz?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Member Gear Reviews