or Connect
EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › Ski Gear Discussion › Fischer RX8 - Good on Ice and Hardpack?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Fischer RX8 - Good on Ice and Hardpack?

post #1 of 33
Thread Starter 
I am interested in getting a narrower waisted ski for the groomers and icey days. I wanted something that can make short to medium turns but also hit some bumpy patches or variable conditions later in the day.

I already have Atomic Metron XIs(76 waist) for general cruising and Salomon 1080s(80 waist) for bumps and other fun. I want a ski in the mid 60s.

I haven't had a chance to demo RX8s but I have demoed Fischer Worldcup SCs which were a blast but I think I will get tired of driving them all day. I like skis such as the Head XRC 1200s, Elan Ripstick, and the Atomic SX11 but I want something alittle more relaxed with a varied turn shape, but still has good edgehold.

The main selling point of the RX8 is it hasn't changed in the past 3 seasons except for the graphics. Can I find these cheap and does the railflex vs. railflex 2 make any difference?

Any thoughts on the RX8s or any other suggestions?
post #2 of 33
Personally, I think the RX 8 would fit you great for what you describe. Great edge hold and very stable at speed, yet not overly demanding.

I've skied mine for 2 seasons and have a new pair in the plastic for when the current pair gives out. It's definitely my favorite ski on the hardpack and I love the fact that it performs well when I'm pushing it hard or just making a relaxing run.

My local shop has them for $350 (for the flat version) if you can't find them cheaper elsewhere.
post #3 of 33
Scalce,

The RX8 is excellent on hard snow, but its not a one trick pony either. I find it works just fine in crud and powder as long as its not too deep or too dense. When you get tired of making short turns on the groomed, you can relax and make some nice big lazy arcs instead.

I don't know about cheap, I haven't seen them discounted much. There don't seem to be a lot of leftovers from previous seasons.

I've had RX8's flat and with Railflex. I like the Railflex pair better, but that may be because the flat pair was accidently mounted a little too far forward.

Jim
post #4 of 33
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scalce
I already have Atomic Metron XIs(76 waist) for general cruising and Salomon 1080s(80 waist) for bumps and other fun. I want a ski in the mid 60s.

I haven't had a chance to demo RX8s but I have demoed Fischer Worldcup SCs which were a blast but I think I will get tired of driving them all day. I like skis such as the Head XRC 1200s, Elan Ripstick, and the Atomic SX11 but I want something alittle more relaxed with a varied turn shape, but still has good edgehold.
This is why I skied both the RX8 and the M:b5 last year. I wanted a ski that was narrower and held well on hardpack. In all honestly, I found myself skiing the Metron more and more as the season progresses, and leaving the RX8 at home.

But, even so, the RX8 is always fun... And, as JimL says, skis most conditions amazingly well.
post #5 of 33
Thread Starter 
The Metron XI is totally different on ice then the B5.

I demoed the B5 in icey conditions last year and was amazed at how different they feel compared to the XIs. They are so torsionally stiff you can rip small turns on rock hard conditions.

I am not sure how much I could relax on the B5s, they are heavier then the RX8s, and the dimensions are pretty much the same as my current Metrons.
post #6 of 33
You might also consider the Elan S12 fusion. It is versatile, has good edgehold, is a bit more relaxed than the RipStick. It is available right now from Cupolo's for $419 with bindings (if you want either 160 or 176).
post #7 of 33
I demoed a 170cm pair of RX8s. On rock-hard glare ice the RX8 gives up a little maximum grip to skis in the race-ski categorie. That's one of the reasons I opted for the Fischer Worldcup SC (I wanted just a tiny bit more ski than the RX8 on ice), but the RX8s are better at gripping the ice than most skis in their categorie (Rossi 9S and 9X, Atomic SX10, Solomon Crossmax 10, Equipe 10 SC..Elan. ?). They just felt like too light and insubstantial a weapon to be scraping along on the ice. The flex was just a little too soft to get full force out to the tips where I wanted it. Maybe I was asking for too much. I demoed them after spending a day on my Kästle SG racing skis, so maybe that had something to do with it. Compared to other skis in the sub-race category, these skis have the beef and, kept sharp, the grip to go with it.

They will certainly give you a good range of turn shapes and will feel good over a broad range of speeds as well. They rip on hardpack, and feel fantastic on softer snow. I was very impressed with these skis, they truly do everything well, and do a great job at short to medium turns at all speeds from 1 to 50 mph on snow from hardpack to soft snow. My SGs don't start to feel like good skis until I'm going about 30mph; the RX8s feel like good skis at any speed. In terms of feel the SX11 feels a little damper and more composed at speed, while the RX8 feels a little more lively. The vibration never got out of control, the frequency tuning really works. The Biggest factor is that RX8 blows the SX11 out of the water in short turns. You could make short turns with the SX11, but you wouldn't want to; you would rather make long ones with it. You will WANT to make short turns with the RX8, and won't mind making longer ones with it either.

The RX8 will handle any terrain you can throw at it and feel like it was made for whatever you happen to be skiing at the moment. I also found the RX8 very easy and undemanding to ski. You couldn't quite fall asleep on them and they are not quite as forgiving as the Solomons i've demoed, but you didn't have to concentrate on your skiing all the time either.
post #8 of 33

RX 8's

Hi Scalce:

The RX 8 is a great all round ski. I have a pair in 165 ( 6', 212lbs) and they perform very well. Amazing ability to cut through unevensnow, rip the groomed and do it all. Very surprising for a 65mm waist is their ability to handle slush; Last spring I used 'em in Spring soft conditions and was anazed at their performance on a 60 degree day at Sugarbush (My B5 were out of commission).
I love their ability to turn at will, rip a straight line and vary turn size.
I think Ghost is right on with his assement of the only weak point: On New England Powder ( Glare Ice) the are not stiff enough to use the edge as the weapons you need. For instance that is the only thing my Volkl 6*'s do better than the Fischers. I still am getting rid of the 6 * and keeping the RX8, because they are so much better on everything else.

Try www.Ski-depot.com , thay have last years on closeout for 499 w/ binders!

I suggest 160 for you as I'm on 165 @ 210 and they are suoer staable at all speeds.

Also Dawcatching on this Board has good deals at his shop in Oregon. ( I got mine from him last year.)

Enjoy!!
post #9 of 33
I realize this is an oft covered topic...but since a new rx8 thread,

My local shop has a pair of the 2 year old rx8's (rail flex, I believe) sitting on the shelf and available for 475 with binding. I'd pull the trigger on it but I have a few hesitations

1. It's a two year old model..I'm told it's exactly the same as last season's though-
2. It's a 170cm, I've 5' 10" and 165..seems to me most folks on this forum like 'em shorter. I want it as a thinner, quicker, easier east coast ski. Is it too long?
3. I'm also shopping an Atomic sx 10-another local shop has 'em at a good price in a 160cm...any love or comparisons for this ski?

Thanks.

Liam
post #10 of 33
Thread Starter 
Thanks for the link Gotama and all others who posted.

I have read all the old threads on the RX8 but I wanted some newer opinions because of the newer skis like the B5s.

I am 5'7", 170# and I probably like a level 7-8 working on more angulation, fluidity, and steeper bumps. So you think a 160 is the ticket?
post #11 of 33
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scalce
So you think a 160 is the ticket?
I think 160 is the way to go at your size.
post #12 of 33
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scalce
Thanks for the link Gotama and all others who posted.

I have read all the old threads on the RX8 but I wanted some newer opinions because of the newer skis like the B5s.

I am 5'7", 170# and I probably like a level 7-8 working on more angulation, fluidity, and steeper bumps. So you think a 160 is the ticket?
That old RX8 thread was at the same time I was skiing my b5s, so hopefully that helped.

I'm 6' and skied at about 175-180 on 165cm RX8s. The prior year I was on 170s. Not a lot of difference, but the 165s do carve a noticeably shorter turn.
post #13 of 33
Quote:
Originally Posted by Liam
I realize this is an oft covered topic...but since a new rx8 thread,

My local shop has a pair of the 2 year old rx8's (rail flex, I believe) sitting on the shelf and available for 475 with binding. I'd pull the trigger on it but I have a few hesitations

1. It's a two year old model..I'm told it's exactly the same as last season's though-
2. It's a 170cm, I've 5' 10" and 165..seems to me most folks on this forum like 'em shorter. I want it as a thinner, quicker, easier east coast ski. Is it too long?
3. I'm also shopping an Atomic sx 10-another local shop has 'em at a good price in a 160cm...any love or comparisons for this ski?
Liam, the shop is right; the ski is exactly the same (slight differences in the binding, but nothing to change your decision). The price seems a bit on the high side for two-year-old skis, though. Also, at your weight, they may be a little long (I'm 6', 175-180 and dropped from the 170 to 165 last season).

I'll let others comment on the SX:10. I was on it quite a while ago, and only for a couple of demo runs.
post #14 of 33
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by ssh
That old RX8 thread was at the same time I was skiing my b5s, so hopefully that helped.

I'm 6' and skied at about 175-180 on 165cm RX8s. The prior year I was on 170s. Not a lot of difference, but the 165s do carve a noticeably shorter turn.
I will go as short as possible so a 160 sounds good in the RX8.

I read your other thread and it sounds like you are swaying towards the B5 being better all around.

I had a blast on the B5s last year during a demo but I am not sure if I could ski them all day, ski them in bumps, and the demo binding was heavy so it gave me a bad swing weight estimate.

Plus I will have to get rid of my XIs since they are the same dimensions.

What is the going price for the 05/06 B5s with the lighter Neox?
post #15 of 33
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gotama
I have a pair in 165 ( 6', 212lbs) and they perform very well.
The RX8s are on my short list to test this year. I'm 220lbs and I planned on testing the 170s and 175s, with the expectation that I would need the 175s. I never considered 165. Is 165 and 170 really an option without losing stability?
post #16 of 33

Rx 8

Scalce and Youngsman:

RX8's are described as All Mountain Slalom skis. Go short for edge to edge quickness.

SSH can fill you in on the length issue as well. Reading his review is what turned me on to the RX8 in the first place!!

Scalce, I had Atomic sx10 last year and while its a nice ski, its more of a GS style turner. The RX8 is way more flexible in regards to turn size and ease of initiation.

At 212lbs I was amazed at the high speed stability my 165's are capable of. I could not find a speed limit. I expected instability due to the small indicated turn radius and I was amazed at the straight line stability.

My Metron B;5 are also very stable at speed, but on run outs they want to be on edge. Not so w/ the RX8.

You should demo 165-170, but rember short is the new long!!
post #17 of 33
Thread Starter 
Now to demo or not to demo?

Last year every demo day I went to had crappy conditions except for maybe Sunapee but even that was a mix of ice and crust.

hmmmmmmmmm

An all mountain slalom ski is what I am looking for.
post #18 of 33
Thread Starter 
I called www.Skidepot.com and they only have the RX8 fti plate version from a few years ago in a 160.

Some local shops have this year's already but they are like $850.
post #19 of 33
I take it then that you want the RailFlex version?

The one I'm skiing now is the old plate version mounted with Marker Comp 1400 bindings. My new pair is flat and I'm going to mount it with the RailFlex 2 bindings.
post #20 of 33

Rx 8

Quote:
Originally Posted by Scalce
I called www.Skidepot.com and they only have the RX8 fti plate version from a few years ago in a 160.

Some local shops have this year's already but they are like $850.
Hi Scalce:

Try Scott Gray (Dawgcatching) at Village Bike and Ski in Sunriver, Or (541-593-2453 shop).

Last year he sold me the 05 (then current) w/ Railflex for $550 plus 20 for shipping.

He is great to do business with.
post #21 of 33

Rx8

Sorry Scalce:

I just checked my credit card bill. Shipping was more like 30 as my total came to $595.00
Still a great deal.

Locally try Mike Gerardi at Buchikas in Salem, NH. I don't know what he can do 'em for but he is usually better that most.

Good Luck
post #22 of 33
Thread Starter 
Thanks,

I was in contact with Scott last year when I was interested in the Head XRC 1200s but I never pulled the trigger.
post #23 of 33
Thread Starter 
Is $499 a good price for last year's RX8 with the railflex FX 12 bindings?
post #24 of 33
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scalce
Is $499 a good price for last year's RX8 with the railflex FX 12 bindings?
I think that's a preety decent price based on the fact that about $325 is the best I've ever seen for an 04/05 RX 8 without bindings. Any RailFlex binding with a 3-12 din is going to run at least $150 plus and much more just off the shelf retail.
post #25 of 33

Deal?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Scalce
Is $499 a good price for last year's RX8 with the railflex FX 12 bindings?

Hi Scalce;

yeah, I think $499 would be a great deal; especially when you consider the only difference w/ the '06 is the graphics.

I have not seen the '06 in person yet, but it appears to be more silver w/ orange writing rather than the Orange/ with Black of the '05.

BTY does your source have any more in 165? I know my wife would want me to have a back up pair ;D
post #26 of 33
Thread Starter 
post #27 of 33
Quote:
Originally Posted by Liam
I realize this is an oft covered topic...but since a new rx8 thread,

My local shop has a pair of the 2 year old rx8's (rail flex, I believe) sitting on the shelf and available for 475 with binding. I'd pull the trigger on it but I have a few hesitations

1. It's a two year old model..I'm told it's exactly the same as last season's though-
2. It's a 170cm, I've 5' 10" and 165..seems to me most folks on this forum like 'em shorter. I want it as a thinner, quicker, easier east coast ski. Is it too long?
3. I'm also shopping an Atomic sx 10-another local shop has 'em at a good price in a 160cm...any love or comparisons for this ski?

Thanks.

Liam
Liam,
I demoed the RX8 in a 170cm length. I can not see any reason why I would want it any shorter. It could zig-zag through anything as quick as you please. I weigh 165 pounds and am about five foot nine.

The SX10 is an SX11 with a lower speed limit and not as much grip, but just as difficult to make short turns with and almost as hard to muscle through mistakes with. I demoed the two SX skis back to back. I was able to push the SX10 past it's limits on Blue Mountain Ontario (not exactly a hill that makes it easy to develope any real speed). The SX11 is not the best choice for short turns, though it can make short turns. It does inspire a lovely confidence at speed, at least any speed you can get to by doing your best to shush Blue Mountain runs. If I had been looking for a single quiver ski I might have bought an SX11. I would never buy an SX10.
post #28 of 33
$499 with the Railflex binding is a good deal. Not counting shipping, its about $40 less than the pro price was. Go for it!

Jim
post #29 of 33
I'm 6'1" and 225, and got my RX8's last year, and went with the 175's. I found the RX8's like to run at speed, and I liked the stability, with no sacrifice in quickness. Great skis, I also got mine from dawgcatching.
post #30 of 33

oops

Quote:
Originally Posted by Scalce
Hii Scalce:

That is the link I tried to give you before.

I accidentially left the hypen out and it became a completely different url.

Sorry about that.

You got the right one now!
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 › Fischer RX8 - Good on Ice and Hardpack?