New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Hot Rod Top Fuel Info

post #1 of 19
Thread Starter 
I'm looking at the Noridca Hot Rod Top Fuel. I was wondering how stiff it was and if you can relax on it at all. I know they make the nitrous too which doesn't have as much metal in it but I think I'll overpower it, and i heard it is geared more toward intermediates. The top fuel looks awesome, I just want to know if I will be able to relax on them or do I always have to be on top of it.

Thanks
post #2 of 19
Tell us more about yourself:
Weight, height, ability...
post #3 of 19
Thread Starter 
I'm 5' 7" 170 pounds can ski basically anything in the east. Spend most of my time on groomers becuase I live in the east, I want something that blasts through crud too. I also want something good on ice and stable. When I go out west I bring my pocket rockets. I also have a pair of volkl race stock race tigers for a small hill quick turning ski. Would the top fuel be a good addition to my quiver. And can I relax at all on it?
post #4 of 19
The Nitrous is NOT an intermediate ski...............

SJ
post #5 of 19
Thread Starter 
sierrajim i tried sending you another pm but you pm box was filled
post #6 of 19
Quote:
Originally Posted by skierecs7
sierrajim i tried sending you another pm but you pm box was filled
Oooooops....................

The epic deal has kept me jumpin'.........just fixed it...........

SJ
post #7 of 19
The TF is not impossible to relax on. It is not as stiff in beam flex as some think, but it is very stiff torsionally and is fairly heavy. The TF is a ski that prefers bigger turns and requires some solid input from the skier for short turns. Give it a little edge angle though and it bends nicely and comes around smoothly. As a comparison, I just spent the better part of two days on the Head iM 77. It is stiffer than the TF and requires more speed power or weight to turn in deeper snow than the TF. That factor is why I think the TF is so good. It will flex and turn at speeds where a stiffer ski might not.

SJ
post #8 of 19
Thread Starter 
thanks for the info jim, that really helped
post #9 of 19
I have been skiing the TF since late last Spring and I still love them. I am a big, old guy (225 & 66) level 7-8 skier. I ski the TF at 170 cm. Except for very short radius turns, the TF's excel. I find them very relaxing to ski because they are so stable at speed and they have a huge "sweet spot" (that X Plate really does work). They are great on Eastern hardpack and ice. They also handle crud and powder really well. Overall, they are a huge confidence builder. Usually, by this time in the season, I am already looking around for another ski to try. But, until someone comes up with something better, the TF's will be my one-quiver ski. (Might try to pick up a pair of used Metron B5's for really short turns )
patprof
post #10 of 19
Quote:
Originally Posted by SierraJim
The TF is not impossible to relax on. It is not as stiff in beam flex as some think, but it is very stiff torsionally and is fairly heavy. The TF is a ski that prefers bigger turns and requires some solid input from the skier for short turns. Give it a little edge angle though and it bends nicely and comes around smoothly. As a comparison, I just spent the better part of two days on the Head iM 77. It is stiffer than the TF and requires more speed power or weight to turn in deeper snow than the TF. That factor is why I think the TF is so good. It will flex and turn at speeds where a stiffer ski might not.

SJ
Jim

Were you on the flat or chip railflex version if the im77?

Does your shop carry the flat version?

BTW, thanks for the comparison of the 77 to the TF. I'm considering both of these skis. If I go TF I'll want a 178 and if I go 77, I'll want a 177.
post #11 of 19
The Top Fuel isn't that demanding, but it really feels like a big ski. At 160 lbs, my 178 Top Fuels feel bigger than my 184 Volkl Mantras believe it or not. I highly recommend demoing two sizes before deciding. Also, as others have said, the Nitrous is definitely not an intermediate ski. Both of these skis are more GS than slalom, although they can make any turn shape. Most of the Hot Rods competitors are much more slalom like, so make sure that's what you want.

I'm seriously thinking about trading my 178 TFs for 170's or getting 178 Nitrous just because I feel my 178's are overkill for primarily on-piste work. The TF has stability to spare. It seriously is like a race stock GS ski. If anyone wants a deal on some 178's in pristine condition, send me a PM.
post #12 of 19
Matter, I would agree that 170s would be better for you at 160 lbs. Post your TFs on the swap forum; you'll sell 'em.
post #13 of 19
Thread Starter 
im 5' 6" about 165lbs what size top fuel would you reccomend.
post #14 of 19
170, skierecs7.
post #15 of 19
Thread Starter 
Thanks ssh thats what i was thinking too. Just makiing sure!
post #16 of 19
Quote:
Originally Posted by Matter
Also, as others have said, the Nitrous is definitely not an intermediate ski. Both of these skis are more GS than slalom, although they can make any turn shape.

Most of the Hot Rods competitors are much more slalom like, so make sure that's what you want.
So what skis would you say compete with the Top Fule. It sounds a tad bit too GS like and stiff for an old boy. I am skiing on the Volkl 724 pro in a 177 and I like the way it skis, generally. Some have suggested that I would be stepping down if I went to the Nirtous. Your thoughts?

I am looking at TF in a 170. I ski plenty of bumps and ice and love to grab what powder I can, here in the East.
post #17 of 19
coach:

I am not a Head dealer yet but am considering it. I carry 8 lines already, so a new brand has to offer something I need.

The iM77 that I tried was the chipRF in 177. While I liked it personally, I usually don't buy stuff for me. I feel that it is too much ski for most civilian skiers. (including many that use the "E" word to describe themselves)

Tip offs.........compared to my personal M-ex 175

Slow-Moderate speeds on flat groomers the ski would not hook up with simple akle rolls. My M-ex did.

Medium speed GS turns on medium groomers, I needed to move the outside foot through the turn to sustain the bend. On the M-ex I could set it and forget it.

Medium-High speeds in broken wind pack and loose crud on a moderate off trail pitch @ Squaw (North Bowl off Headwall): Short turns took quite a bit of effort, medium turns OK but the ski did not flex well so it took additional input from me to finish the turn, long turns, they were great but I felt most skiers would not be going that fast. The M-ex was easier/better up to the long turn/highest speed stage where the 77 really kicked in.

This does not discount the excellence of the ski. It may simply be too much for most non cape wearing folks. I intend to try the chip in 170 and the non chip as well.

SJ
post #18 of 19
Quote:
Originally Posted by SierraJim
The Nitrous is NOT an intermediate ski...............

SJ
Nordica doesn't think so either!

The sticker I removed from the base of my HotRod's today reads:

Skill Level = Professional = Modified/TopFuel
Skill Level = Expert = Eliminator/Nitrous
post #19 of 19
Quote:
Originally Posted by freeskinow
So what skis would you say compete with the Top Fule. It sounds a tad bit too GS like and stiff for an old boy. I am skiing on the Volkl 724 pro in a 177 and I like the way it skis, generally. Some have suggested that I would be stepping down if I went to the Nirtous. Your thoughts?

I am looking at TF in a 170. I ski plenty of bumps and ice and love to grab what powder I can, here in the East.
I had two pairs of 177 Volkl 724 Pros over the last two years and the 178 Top Fuel feels bigger than the Pro. The Hot Rod is torsionally stiffer and is more stable. It has a heavier feel on the snow. Because the TFs have more shape they carve a little tighter, but both skis prefer GS style turns (but can make any turn shape). The bigger tips on the TFs give them a noticeable edge in crud and deeper snow. Neither of them is a powder ski by any means (too stiff), but they're better than some narrow 70mm carver ski.

The only reason I'm thinking about switching from 178 to 170 in the TF is I'm only using them for on-piste skiing. I have the Mantras out for any kind of fresh or soft snow and the TFs are for hard groomers, bumps, and skied out conditions. I just think 170's would be fine for those kind of conditions. If you're planning on using the TFs for deeper snow, I'd try both the 170's and 178's to see if the 170's give you the float you want.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Ski Gear Discussion