EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › Ski Gear Discussion › questions on fisher rx9
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

questions on fisher rx9

post #1 of 20
Thread Starter 
im a new member and i just had a few questions about the fischer rx9. i am 6'1" and about 190 lbs. i am currently skiing on salomon streetracer 8's they are 185 cm. i am selling these skis to my brother and i am looking in to some fischers, i was wondering if a 180 (the biggest size of rx9) would suit me ok. i was also wondering what you guys think of the rx9, I would be using it for all mountain skiing and i am an expert skier. thanks for your help
-chris
post #2 of 20
Sounds long to me (and the SR sound *really* long) -- what kind of skiing do you want to do?
post #3 of 20
I just got RX8's. I am 5'8" 175 lbs and will be on 165s. I would think 170s or 175s would be better.
post #4 of 20
I guess it depends on your "all mountain skiing", and on the snow conditions.
If by "all-mountain" you mean blasting long radius turns at super high speeds, then I think you will be happy with those RX9s.

However, I am a little unsure of your intended use. I was not impressed with the streetracers semi-highspeed performance on hardpack, and could not imagine anyone wanting to take them to extreme speeds. The speeds that I would be reaching on a streetracer 8, would be more suited to turns I would want to make on an RX8 or solomon Equipe 10 SC.

My experience was on hard snow, maybe they (the SR8s) perform differently on soft snow.
post #5 of 20
I'm 5' 10" and about 195 (hopefully more like 190 by the time the season gets going, hehe) and ski RX8s in 165. If I could do it again, I'd probably go up to 170, but the 165s are a blast on groomers and hardpack. If you like skiing long, I'd say 175 is probably the way to go for the RX9s, 180 is very long on that ski...

-Craig
post #6 of 20
FWIW, I'm 5' 11" 180 lbs., and have a pair of RX-9's at 170cm. That works for me. If I were you and buying the RX-9 I'd stay 170-175cms. They are great skis.
post #7 of 20
I'm 6'2" and weigh in at 210 lbs. My RX9's are 175 and they are a great ski. I would have to agree - stay with the 170 or 175 - nothing longer.
post #8 of 20
Streetracer,

Welcome to Epicski.

First I need to disclose that I am a ski area pro ambassador for Fischer, so I have an obvious bias.

The RX9 is an excellent ski that works very well in a variety of conditions. Holds well on the hard pack, great cruiser on groomed cord, good crud blaster, fun to ski in powder. I also like it in bumps because it has a relatively moderate sidecut and is not excessively wide. It handles speed very well. The ski is towards the GS end of the spectrum and is great fun for carving high speed arcs. I weigh in at 165 lb, am 5'10" and I ski the RX9 in a 170cm. A friend who is about your size and weight demoed my skis and gave them rave reviews. I think that you'd like sking them in either 170 or 175. I wouldn't recommend going longer than that. If you ski a lot of powder you might like the 175 for better floatation.

Jim
post #9 of 20
I demo'd the RX9 @180 Last year, I really liked them, I ended up with the Atomic SX11 (Big price diff) I liked the RX9 more, it is more managable than the SX11 @ the 180 length. It has nice manners when taking it easy but stays with you when you start leaning into them.
post #10 of 20
Thread Starter 
thanks for the input and ive also been looking into the sx11's so that comment helped out a bit......thanks for the help
-chris
post #11 of 20
Here is another data point. I weigh 172 and have Fischer WC RC size 175cm. I tried the RX9 and it was very similar. I like the 175's on firm but not hard snow on weekdays. They suck in powder.

For softer and harder snow I prefer my Fischer WC SC skis that are 165cm. It is easier to control speed on ice and the wider tips are better in soft snow like corn.

dt
post #12 of 20
All you Fischer guys -

I am trying to decide b/w the RX9 and the Volkl Allstar. I have not had a chance to try the RX9 yet, but from just reading about it, it seems a little limited -- good for blasting long arcs at speed, less suited for everything else. The Allstatr is probably more verstatile.

Thoughts?
post #13 of 20
Quote:
Originally Posted by JimL
Streetracer,

Welcome to Epicski.

First I need to disclose that I am a ski area pro ambassador for Fischer, so I have an obvious bias.

The RX9 is an excellent ski that works very well in a variety of conditions. Holds well on the hard pack, great cruiser on groomed cord, good crud blaster, fun to ski in powder. I also like it in bumps because it has a relatively moderate sidecut and is not excessively wide. It handles speed very well. The ski is towards the GS end of the spectrum and is great fun for carving high speed arcs. I weigh in at 165 lb, am 5'10" and I ski the RX9 in a 170cm. A friend who is about your size and weight demoed my skis and gave them rave reviews. I think that you'd like sking them in either 170 or 175. I wouldn't recommend going longer than that. If you ski a lot of powder you might like the 175 for better floatation.

Jim
The Fischer RX-9 swept virtually all the magazine tests last season. It returns unchanged except for the graphics. You can probably still find the reviews by Ski Press, Skiing and Ski online. If you think you will do better with the Voelkl despite the above, its your decision and $'s. Good luck.
post #14 of 20
RX9's are great! I like them in a 170, and I am 5 foot 9, 150lbs.

What are you using them for? The RX9's are pretty versatile (moreso than most of the mag. reviews give them credit for). It is definitely more all-mountain than race ski: a fairly forgiving, do-it-all at any speed all-mountain carver.

If this sounds like what you are looking for, the RX9 is a great choice. If you want more beef (hard-snow, frontside, high-speed only) I would look at the Head iXRC 1200 SW, Elan Ripstick, Dynastar Speed Course, and Fischer WC RC: both are better in that application, IMO (Head and Elan being my 2 faves). Definitely more stable and have more of the "race ski with sidecut feel". Therefore, neither is as versatile as the RX9 (those Head's are alot of work in anything over 4" of new snow).
post #15 of 20
Thanks. I'll definitely try to give them a test drive.

I just got the impression from a lot of the reviews that the RX9 is somewhat of a one-trick pony, not particularly supple, manueverable at slow speeds/short turns.

http://www.skireviews.co.uk/en/fisch...reviews,2.html
post #16 of 20
I see what you mean from reading the review link that you posted. I think Jim L's and dawgcatching's comments round things out a bit more. There are also some other reviews posted at Epic from last season. I'm not a big fan of the ski mag reviews but when a ski scores at the top accross the various publications it usually says something about the ski.

I'm 5'11" 180lbs and I really like the RX-9 @ 170cm. As Jim L mentioned, the RX-9 has more of a GS type shape. The RX-8 is has more of a SL sidecut. Both have proven to be winners for Fischer. dawgcatching works for a ski shop in Oregon and has the opportunity to ski a lot of different makes and models. For myself I just happen to like Fischer skis.
post #17 of 20
I bet the RX9 reviews would be kinder to the 9's abilities at tighter turns if it were not for the RX8 stealing that spotlight. I ended up with Fischer WC SC, untested based on my experience with the RX8, other skis I had tried and info found here. If I had been looking for a high-speed blaster I probably would have gone with the SX11 as it was the best I tested in that regard (SX B5 not out then). However as I already have a high-speed long boards and was looking for short sticks for playing on the tighter turns I went with the SC. I probably would have sprung for the RX8s if I had gotten a good deal on them; it was very versatile and capable (search reviews).
post #18 of 20
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lostboy

I'm 5'11" 180lbs and I really like the RX-9 @ 170cm. As Jim L mentioned, the RX-9 has more of a GS type shape. The RX-8 is has more of a SL sidecut. Both have proven to be winners for Fischer. dawgcatching works for a ski shop in Oregon and has the opportunity to ski a lot of different makes and models. For myself I just happen to like Fischer skis.
Let me know if you need a pair of the RX9's in a 160/165/170. I have 3 pair left from last year at a great price ($495 with binding). Unfortunately, I don't have any RX8's from last year, but new ones will be here shortly.
post #19 of 20
dawg - any at 175?
post #20 of 20
Quote:
Originally Posted by Heels
dawg - any at 175?
I will dig around, but haven't found any so far. It looks like the only '05 skis I have left in that length that are on closeout and similiar would be the Head iXRC 1200 SW (RD) and i-Race GS from Head. If I find a 175, I will PM you.
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 › questions on fisher rx9