New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Fischer World Cup SC

post #1 of 15
Thread Starter 
The Fischer World Cup SC had a monster 123-66-102mm sidecut for the 02/03 & 03/04 season. The newer, 04/05 & 05/06 Fischer World Cup SC uses a more conventional 118-66-99mm sidecut.

Are both models equal in terms of fall line recreational skiing ability?

It would seem that the 123-66-102mm sidecut might work better in longer sizes, and the 118-66-99mm sidecut be more appropriate in shorter lengths.

Any experience or thoughts on this model?

Barrettscv
post #2 of 15
I demoed this year's model in NH and everyone who was on it really enjoyed it.

My wife and I have different skiing styles and we both loved it.

It's not a rough SL ski to handle for everyday skiing.
post #3 of 15
I got the 118-66-99 in a 165 for a 13m turn radius. I considered the shape, radius, and flex pattern and feel in the store when I bought it. I haven't been on it yet, and will report back when the snow flies.

I would imagine the older one would have a tighter radius, and perhaps limit carving larger turns. The older wider tip would certainly make turn initiation more immidiate and effortless, and would make it more likely to follow terrain irregularities. I suppose you would have to see if flexibility of tip and tail has changed too, before you could really say how the turn developes and releases.

Just guessing the older one more of a hair trigger on the turns, but the newer ones more firm once the turn is started (and still starting pretty quick; compared to a straight ski).
post #4 of 15
I skied this ski into the ground...like 120 days on snow & still could not kill it.. I actually just sold them b/c I had too many skis.

I found you could ski it all day....but (03 model) was best in the am. & w/ shorter turns. Funny thing about people skiing this ski...if you are a level 9-10 skier you will love them b/c of the stiff flex & strong torsional control..think mini gs turns..
If you are a level 7 skier you will like it b/c it has a tone of side cut, but it will be too much ski.
Levels 8s will hate 'em. they tend to try to harness all the ski's power, but will fail from lack of skill. These are the folks that end up getting tossed HUGE.

fyi: me 140lbs, expert/all (big) mtn skier, ex racer, 5'9" on the 160 cm model
post #5 of 15
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by iriponsnow
I found you could ski it all day....but (03 model) was best in the am. & w/ shorter turns. Funny thing about people skiing this ski...if you are a level 9-10 skier you will love them b/c of the stiff flex & strong torsional control..think mini gs turns..
If you are a level 7 skier you will like it b/c it has a tone of side cut, but it will be too much ski.
Levels 8s will hate 'em. they tend to try to harness all the ski's power, but will fail from lack of skill. These are the folks that end up getting tossed HUGE.

fyi: me 140lbs, expert/all (big) mtn skier, ex racer, 5'9" on the 160 cm model
I would be buying the ski for my 16 year old son who just outgrew his 160cm Atomic SL:9's. He can be a skilled, high energy skier, but he can also "just wanna have fun" and the SL:9 was forgiving enough for him.

I'm considering the Fischer WC SC since my son is now 6' and 200 Lbs. I'm considering a 170 or 175cm. Is this too much ski? should I avoid the older 123mm tipped ski, or could this be better in this length?

Barrettscv
post #6 of 15
Why not get him an Atomic SL11 in a 165?

What the point of a slalom ski in a 170-175?
post #7 of 15
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scalce
Why not get him an Atomic SL11 in a 165?

What the point of a slalom ski in a 170-175?
I want to avoid a FIS sidecut ski. They don't have the short turn radius of the Atomic recreational SL ski that he enjoyed. We both want a recreational SL ski for our trips to Vermont. They provide good hard snow performance and are agile in short and medium turns.



At his size, he needs a beefier version of the SL:9, and Fischer’s tend to fit the description.



Barrettscv
post #8 of 15
What about the Atomic ST11?

It has an 11m radius vs the SL11 14.5m.
post #9 of 15
Barrett, most FIS-legal SL skis actually have a very tight radius (i.e. 11-13m). There are actually no FIS restrictions on SL radius, just length (155 for women, 165 for men). The SL11:m (i.e. retail version) does have a 14m radius, but other than that, just about every slalom ski you can find (retail or "stock") will have a radius of about 11-13m. So don't worry about looking at high end race slaloms if you want something a little more powerful than a recreational slalom carver.
post #10 of 15
In either Fischer World Cup SC model, at 200 lb I wouldn't go any longer than 165cm. I weigh in at 165lb, and my '03/'04 SC's are plenty of ski for me at 160cm. These babies are designed to be skied short. The main difference between the current model Worldcup SC and the '03/'04 model is that the older model can be a little trickier in heavy crud and nasty windblown snow because of the wider tip. If you are sking the groomed cord or icy hardpack you won't notice this effect. In free sking, the short turn radius of either ski does not prevent you from still having fun carving some big fast arcs. The only time I wished for less sidecut and a longer ski was on an icy GS practice course.

Jim
post #11 of 15
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scalce

What the point of a slalom ski in a 170-175?

I would have to agree... a SL ski that long is not the way to go. If you want a crusier, I have a Dynastar 172 cm GS ski from last season that I'm itching to unload cheap!!!

Otherwise, I would look for a fischer RACE SC: same cut as the new WC SC, but a little tamer, try that isn a 165 or 170 cm.
post #12 of 15
don't ever take a slalom longer than 165, thats nearly too much.

The 03/04 was a great ski, it was really fun an quick. the 04/05 needs more energy to go down the same run. haven't skied the newest one. If you can get hold of a 160 or 165 03/04 Model it is a great ski. Many were disappointed with the newer one.

123 just bites and bites, on the other and it is hard to not turn it on the min radius. Great for recr. slalom races.

The Worldcup SL should be comparable, don't get a Race SC, its not the same quality
post #13 of 15
My take.

I only skied the older ski when it was to be launched. 160 or even 155cm, not sure anymore.
Very short-turn oriented ski. Wants to turn and turn. An "aerobic" ski so to say. Top contender and hot favorit in the "how-many-turns-on-a-dime" contest.
Which was, IMHO, both its strong point and weakness and the probable reason they changed the dimensions toward less extreme.

I wouldn´t recommend 175cm for the older ski. As said, it was a short turner to be skied short.

As to "slalom" skis in 170-175cm lengths there is, IMHO, a terminological issue, maybe trap.
There´s not a suitable and widely recognized term for a short-turning non-race ski.
Such skis have long been called "slaloms", meaning "recreational", "detuned" and the like. Some of them are simply skis designed for mostly short to medium radius turns. If skied in 170 or even 175cm they become versatile high-performance skis. A good example has been the Volkl Slalom Carver, still available up to 177cm. Salomon has the old 10 3V in 176cm, Scott has such a ski, Fischer Race SC is 175cm, Dynamic 173cm, etc.

"A 175cm slalom ski" is oxymoronic unless we know that the "slalom" label shouldn´t be taken literally.
post #14 of 15
Quote:
Originally Posted by checkracer
"A 175cm slalom ski" is oxymoronic unless we know that the "slalom" label shouldn´t be taken literally.
Agreed. A long slalom ski doesn't a skier-cross ski make!

Well it's probably not relavant, and all for naught now with the new equipment, but I did a little experiment last year, and as it's not snowing yet....

I skied an OLD 190cm slalom race ski (a straight Fischer RC4 SLS). My mistaken thinking was a longer slalom ski might be a nice compromise between the short radius of a slalom ski, and thus be a good all-rounder. As it turns out the ski was no such thing. It was imho very good at making really tight turns when worked really hard at a fairly good clip, just what you would expect of a ski designed for a slalom race course. As far as making other-sized turns, it was ok skidding them, and it was ok doing really long ones, but it was very tricky getting it to carve anything in between; it demanded a lot of force to bend, and then bent right into a tight turn.

I'm pretty confident that the shape of the new Fischer WC SC, will let you dial in any carve between 2 meters and the sidecut radius, without too much difficulty.
post #15 of 15
Thread Starter 
Thanks Bears,

I went with the RX8 in a 175cm . The right length and the right ski, everything considered.

Cheers,

Barrettscv
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Ski Gear Discussion