EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › Member Gear Reviews › Nordica Hot Rod Top Fuel
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Nordica Hot Rod Top Fuel

post #1 of 17
Thread Starter 
I rode this ski all day today. I am 165# and demoed the 170 Top Fuel. All I can say is if you are going to buy a ski next year give this one a ride. It was tough conditions: racecourse hard wind blown ice/hardpack. Never have I skied a ski so fast and felt so invincible. Only ski I would compare it to is a Stockli Storm Rider in 198cm in the fell like I can do anything and not die category. I can only imagine what this ski will do on real snow. I would have bought it on the spot if they would have let me. I was going to get an M 11 or a B5 in 172. Compared to the Top Fuel any other ski feels like a toy, this will be my ski for next season.
post #2 of 17
Very eager to try this ski! Sounds exactly like what I'm looking for. Probably won't get a chance to demo them, but am confident this is the ski for me. The only thing I'm not sure about is do I get it in 170 or 178. I'm 5'10" 185 and am very agressive. Faster the better! While I prefer going mach 3 on groomers, moguls just happen to go along with the territory. If anyone has demoed both lengths I would be interested on your take on it.
post #3 of 17
Mic,

Did you ride the Top Fuel in the bumps or off piste?
Thanks!
post #4 of 17
So, have you been on the b5? I am really looking forward to trying this ski and comparing it to the b5. The more I ski the b5, the more I fall in love with the ski. It really is tremendous. But, I still remember the feel of the old Kastlés, and so I'm really looking forward to trying the Top Fuels.

I'd love to hear a comparison from someone who skied the b5 enough to get them rippin' to see how they compare the Top Fuels...
post #5 of 17
It sounds like we're getting into a new generation of skis. The B:5's definitely raised the bar in '04/05 - a new experience in carving and angulation. Too good.

Somebody else also mentioned the Top Fuel as the ski to watch for '06. You've gotta love the name.

If these skis represent what's coming down the pike, perhaps we're in for another skiing transition (a la shaped skis in the 90's). It'll be interesting to see what Rossi and the others have waiting in the wings.

I'd also be like to hear comparisons between the B:5 and Top Fuel from somebody who's skied both, and is skilled enough to appreciate the performance potential of both.
post #6 of 17
Mic: As I'm sure you're aware, at 165 lbs, the 172 cm B:5 is considered waaay large for you - according to the Metron chart. Depending upon your skill level and turn preference, you'd likely be slated for a 152 or 162, max.

At 205 lbs, level 8/9 with medium arc preferences, I barely qualify for the 172 cm. Many my size ride the 162. 10 or 20 cm difference on a ski with the B:5's proportions equates to an enormous difference in surface area.

This doesn't mean that the Top Fuel isn't the better ski for you. You obviously loved it, and that's all you need to know. Go for it!

However, for an apples to apples comparison, sizing has a role - especially in light of newer ski geometries.
post #7 of 17
Quote:
Originally Posted by Squirel
Very eager to try this ski! Sounds exactly like what I'm looking for. Probably won't get a chance to demo them, but am confident this is the ski for me. The only thing I'm not sure about is do I get it in 170 or 178. I'm 5'10" 185 and am very agressive. Faster the better! While I prefer going mach 3 on groomers, moguls just happen to go along with the territory. If anyone has demoed both lengths I would be interested on your take on it.
The 178 is not for small guys, women, or anyone with a hint of sanity.

Those skis can kick your ass. I love em. I'd ride either the Top Fuel in the 170, or more likely the 178 Nitrous which is a lot more useable for mortals in the East.
post #8 of 17
Quote:
Originally Posted by Captain_Strato
Mic: As I'm sure you're aware, at 165 lbs, the 172 cm B:5 is considered waaay large for you - according to the Metron chart. Depending upon your skill level and turn preference, you'd likely be slated for a 152 or 162, max.

However, for an apples to apples comparison, sizing has a role - especially in light of newer ski geometries.
Have you skied on a 170 or 178 Top Fuel? They are certainly not less ski in any way than a B5.

I don't think I'd suggest the Top Fuel to anyone I hadn't personally seen kick my ass on skis. Its that much ski. A B5 is a lot of ski as well, but if this gentleman likes these bad boys, more power to him. People that really like a 178 Top Fuel aren't likely to like a shorter Metron, at least not for the same purpose.
post #9 of 17
Quote:
Originally Posted by skiingman
Have you skied on a 170 or 178 Top Fuel? They are certainly not less ski in any way than a B5.
Skiingman: I haven't skied them, and therefore would not suggest that they're a lessor ski than the B:5. Every mention of the Top Fuel on this site has been a rave, so I've no doubt they're phenom skis that could help usher a new era of skiing (as mentioned above).

However, I'm not familiar with the Top Fuel's sizing suggestions, or the ski's shape. Therefore I don't know what a 170 in this ski equates to in the B:5's.

What I know is that with the B:5's shape and huge surface area, a 165 lb. person would need Superman quads to power the 172's. It's the largest B:5 size made, and is usually the choice of experts weighing over 200 lbs.
post #10 of 17
Top Fuels in a 178 are about a 16 meter ski with a 78mm waist. They are also metal laminate with vertical sidewalls and pretty much no compromises. Built like a race ski, but much wider and therefore beefier. This isn't necessarily a great thing. Like I said, the Nitrous is a lot more usable. (same shape, somewhat less beefy)

I would agree that most 165 pounders shouldn't be on a B5 that long, but comparing a long B5 to a long Top Fuel is more apples to apples than most B5/other ski comparos. So if the guy likes a Top Fuel or B5 that long, he clearly isn't your average bloke. The ski is only available AFAIK in 170 and 178. If I had to pick one, I'd likely defer to reason and get the 170. I'm 205 pounds and 6'0".
post #11 of 17
SkiingMan: Thanks for the info. This is obviously one to watch for next season.

For those of us in the west, and without a racing background, it may be that the Nitrous you mentioned would be a more suitable fit. Can't wait to try 'em.

It sounds like we're in for a wild ride with next year's designs. I look forward to more detailed reviews.
post #12 of 17
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by AZ777
Mic,

Did you ride the Top Fuel in the bumps or off piste?
Thanks!
The Bumps were frozen and patrol had them closed. It was 55 degrees on Monday and 9 degress when I skied them on Wednesday. Frozen razor sharp crud and skis that the guy told me not to ruin. So needless to say I stayed off the bumps and out of the woods. (I really wanted to try them in both spots but it was not going to happen.) For such a powerful ski I was surprised how relaxed I was on them. I can only coment on what I think they would do and what the shop guy told me in the bumps and trees. His words were "Unbelivable" he was right about what he said to expect from them in the conditions I skied so I will have to take his word for it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ssh
So, have you been on the b5? I am really looking forward to trying this ski and comparing it to the b5. The more I ski the b5, the more I fall in love with the ski. It really is tremendous. But, I still remember the feel of the old Kastlés, and so I'm really looking forward to trying the Top Fuels.

I'd love to hear a comparison from someone who skied the b5 enough to get them rippin' to see how they compare the Top Fuels...

I have spent a few days on the M11 in 162 and 172. I like them both but not as rock solid as I am looking for in my next ski. I have been on the b5 SX in a 17?s and it is an impresive ski at speed, very stable. I would guess the metron B5 in a 172 would be more of what I am looking for in a ski but have not been on a B5 metron yet.



I would get the Top Fuel for its performance on Mach 5 grommers alone. I loved the Turn shape and how they railed two footed and left trenches in snow that others skiers/skis could barly edge in.
post #13 of 17
Mic: It sounds like the Top Fuels are major weapons for '06. Nice summary and responses!

If you ever had an interest in trying the B:5's, I'd suggest the 162's, unless you're a downhill racer.

The M:11's are substantially softer than the B:5's, and lack the B:5's killer bite. Those beta bars running fore and aft are what give B:5's the beef - not found on the M:11's.

Do you feel the Top Fuels are more of an "eastern ski". Or, are they designed as an all-round ski (a la M:5's)? Based upon your description, it sounds like they may have emerged from a race hertitage. I'm wondering if the B:5's and Top Fuels are the same category of ski.

Top Fuels and Nitrious are officially on the radar for '06. Thanks!
post #14 of 17

2006 Top Fuel in hand

well,
I just received my 178cm top fuels and they look great . I will try and get on them soon . I wanted to wait for next years superspeeds but the top fuels should do the trick .
post #15 of 17
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Captain_Strato
Do you feel the Top Fuels are more of an "eastern ski". Or, are they designed as an all-round ski (a la M:5's)? Based upon your description, it sounds like they may have emerged from a race hertitage. Top Fuels and Nitrious are officially on the radar for '06. Thanks!
The Top Fuel looks and feals like a Race Stock ski. (Something you would be proud to own) I would bet with its huge shovel it will do well on softer Western Snow. Word of advise. These things are made to go fast I did not ski them slow as they were to much fun going way to fast and I could not bring myself to slow down all that often on them. But what I did note was going from huge GS turns at super speed into tight fall line turns was a none issue they just do what they are supose to do no mater what you ask of them. Truth is I did not make a mistake while these bords where on my feet. I tried 2 runs with my other skis just to see if it was me and not the skis that where working so well that day. I was not as sure footed as with the Top Fuels and actually lost an edge in a spot that the Top Fuels did not miss a beat in.
post #16 of 17
What is the sidecut and dimensions of this ski?

I answered my own question:
123-78-108
170 cm (R15,8m)
178 cm (R16,6m)
post #17 of 17
Mic: Thanks for the reply. The Hot Rods sound awesome. I just bought a pair of 2006 M:5's, so I'm not ready for more planks.

But, I'll demo the Top Fuels asap.

They sound like an exciting, powerful ski with versatility needed for the west.

I love it that skis are getting this good.

The wide shovel is a big factor. Only recently could mfgrs make shovels and sidecuts this large, and still maintain good torsional hold (which the Top Fuels clearly have).

The biggest kick I get on the M:5's is the way the shovels bite and the turn grabs immediately. A rush!

It sounds like the Hot Rods have similar bite, and at least a much power. Can't wait to jump on 'em.

Thanks for a great summary!
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Member Gear Reviews
EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › Member Gear Reviews › Nordica Hot Rod Top Fuel