or Connect
EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › Ski Gear Discussion › Head XP100 v. Metron, etc.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Head XP100 v. Metron, etc.

post #1 of 10
Thread Starter 
Just picked up a pair of Head XP100's - 177 cm - from an offer I could not refuse on my local Craigslist. I searched here and found posts from a few years back with strong, and strongly diverging, opinions. Some loved 'em, some hated 'em ("butt-ugly ... look like evil clown shoes .... you whip around like some sort of demented carnival ride"). But even the negatives acknowledged great carving and crud-busting.

Anyway, I was wondering if anyone who's skied the XP100s could compare them to current skis with comparable sidecuts, such as Atomic Metrons or others.

The XP100 is 122/67/107 with 13m radius.

Similar current skis:
Atomic Metron B5 / M:11 - 127/76/114 (11m)
Metron M9 - 122/74/108 (13.5m)
Fischer RX8 - 115/66/98 (14m)
Salomon Equipe 10SC 125/66/104 (12m)
Head - looks like they gave up last year on the successor to XP100 (the i.c. 200 - 121/66/106).

FWIW - of these I've skied the M9 - probably with a bad tune and didn't love it - and the Equipe 10SC - really loved it.
post #2 of 10
At 177cm, those skis will generally ride the skier, rather than the other way around. I think you need to be really good or really heavy to manage them. Bumps are probably out of the question. I never skied them, but I think PhysicsMan has a pair.

There is a reason why the Metrons are best in very short lengths.
post #3 of 10
Thread Starter 
I'm not much of a bump skier anyway - so now I can blame the equipment. Excellent! Seriously, at 175 lbs I doubt I have the size or strength to handle these things and if that proves true next December (damn that's a long way off), I may end up passing them on to a bigger friend.

My question really is, assuming they're sized correctly, how would the XP100 compare to a current vintage super-sidecut all mountain ski like the Metron or others mentioned above? Really just idle curiosity at this point - wondering how design and materials have evolved.
post #4 of 10
The key to the design of the newer skis--especially the Metron series--is the engineering of structural components that allow for independent tuning of longitudinal and tortional flex characteristics. Furthermore, the engineering of tortional flex to handle the extreme tortional forces generated by the combination of a wide tip/tail and a (relatively) narrow waist.

Given the comments here about the Head, my hypothesis would be that they needed to stiffen the longitudinal flex considerably to get the tortional resistence that they needed for the sidecut. This is likely what makes them a real challenge to ride.
post #5 of 10
ts01:

I don't know what it'll tell you, but I have a pair of 177cm Head I.C. 200's. My understanding is that the IC 200 is essentially the same ski as the the CP100. I do outweigh you by 20#, so I don't know exactly how that would change the dynamic.

All I can say is that I love the 200's. I've never ever thought of them as difficult or demanding, but they are extremely responsive. Quick turning, very good on hard snow, and easy to shape a turn with. I like them in anything less than maybe knee-deep powder/crud. They're the skis I use when it's not a serious powder day and I don't know exactly what kind of conditions I'll run into. For me, anyway, they do nearly everything very well.

FWIW, I've skied the B-5 (in a 172) and I didn't like it as much as the 200. Maybe it was the tune, but I just didn't feel the B-5 was as smooth or easy to initiate a turn with as the Heads are. Other peoples' mileage obviously varies. :

Bob
post #6 of 10
Bob, you know you need to try the 162s. And I know you don't mind the looks when you're wearing the shorties!
post #7 of 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by ssh
Bob, you know you need to try the 162s. And I know you don't mind the looks when you're wearing the shorties!
Hee, hee.

Sentence 1: You might be right.

Maybe next year when the bindings don't outweigh my car.

Sentence 2: You're definitely right.

Bob
post #8 of 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by ssh
...Given the comments here about the Head, my hypothesis would be that they needed to stiffen the longitudinal flex considerably to get the tortional resistence that they needed for the sidecut. This is likely what makes them a real challenge to ride.
Hi Steve - I don't think that my IC-200's are any stiffer than b5's. While I (unfortunately) haven't yet had a chance to ski on a pr of b5's, another instructor at Whitetail has a pair, and I have flexed his skis and mine side by side on several different occasions. While one can make errors doing this, their flex and weight feels very, very similar to me. If you line up them up, one edge at a time (ie, so that the different widths doesn't enter the picture), their sidecut is almost identical.

Other than float and swing weight considerations, I would expect them to ski quite similarly, but obviously, this is only a guess since I haven't yet actually skied the b5's (my colleague has a different boot size).

I used the Head xp100 as my main teaching ski two seasons ago, and this past season used the Head IC-200. These two are essentially identical skis, just one year apart in Head's product line.

I agree completely with BobPeters assesment of the handling / performance of these skis - - I don't think that either the xp100 or the IC-200 are particularly difficult to ski, at least IMHO. I disagree completely with that early poster, who, 2 or 3 years ago, described these skis as being so incredibly burly and difficult to handle. OTOH, they clearly are not mogul skis.

Sorry I couldn't give ts01 the direct comparison he was seeking. I would be interested in the answer to his question myself.

Cheers,

Tom / PM
post #9 of 10
I'm not familier with the xp100, but if it is indeed the same as the ic200, you picked up a great ride.

FWIW, the ic200 is the only ski that I loved when I demoed it but didn't buy it later on. I couldn't find them anywhere.:
post #10 of 10
Thread Starter 
Thanks everyone. Clearly it's time to start eating my Wheaties. I know I'm not at the skill or experience level of many of the instructors who've responded above but this is encouraging.

One thing I could do if they actually work out for me is replace the heavy-looking Tyrolia demo bindings with a lighter set - Salomon 810ti - that are sitting unused in the basement. Anyone know if that's doable on the XP100 plate? Anyone think it would have an appreciable affect, given overall weight of the ski?
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 XP100 v. Metron, etc.