New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Fischer AMC 76

post #1 of 7
Thread Starter 
This being my first post at Epic I figured I might as well make a (albeit small) contribution to the knowledge base. The following is my impressions from demoing a pair of AMC 76's this Saturday. Cannon got a surprising 10 inch dump on Friday night....we need more of those around here this season.

Skis: Fischer AMC 76 170 cm (Longest the shop had)
Where: Cannon Mt., NH

Conditions: 10 inches of very light powder over top of ice. Great day, at least when compared with the season we have had in NE thusfar.
Me: 6' 2" 215. 24 years old, skiing for 21 years. Consider myself pretty aggressive, ski most anything, some racing when I was in high school. Ski 10-15 days in a year NE and 7-15 days out West or in EU. Current skis are 1999 Rossi 9X 191cm, hold-overs from when I thought I would keep racing. I've grown very tired of these boards as they are not well suited for the skiing I do now, which is mostly free skiing, in the trees, off the backside when I'm out west. I didn't have the funds to replace them, but I have no choice now, since I blew out an edge a couple of weekends ago at Jay Peak.
Boots: 2002 Solomon X-Wave 10.0

All in all, I loved this ski. I had tried out the Volkl AC4 (184), Rossi Z9 (170), Nordica Nitrous (170), and the Head im72 (170) during a demo day in December at Sugarloaf (I'm going to post those impressions separately, since the conditions were so different), so my opinions are colored by my experience on those skis, as well as my time on my 9Xs.

These things ripped. They were so easy to turn it was almost telepathic. The powder had been separated into fluffy piles with sheets of ice in between, and the rest of the people I was skiing with kept commenting on how difficult the conditions were. I never got this feeling. They would glide with ease through the snow, then carve out on the ice. I almost didn't notice going from one to the other.

At the end of the day when things got choppy the skis got even better. They were stiff enough to bull though thick piles and nacent bumps, yet exceptionally quick with changes of direction, so I could avoid trouble spots that snuck up on me.

The one complaint was that they definitely had a speed limit. On the long cruisers I couldn't keep up with a friend of mine who I have been skiing with for a while, and have always gotten down the hill in front of. Still, they felt very stable at speed, and had great edgehold. You do have to ski them pretty hard, though. At the very end of the day I started to get lazy, and they started to slide around a lot. No fault of the ski. Actually, I think they delayed my inevitable fatigue with their ease of edge changes.

When I demoed the other skis I mentioned above I never felt quite comfortable. They were either too flimsey, or too slow to turn, or too heavy. I have felt the same way (uncomfortable) on the 9Xs for a while, as well. But when I got on these skis, I imediately felt great. From the start I was confident, balanced, in perfect control. I had a smile on my face all day.

So, I've almost settled on getting a pair. The question is, do I get them in a 176cm as is recommend by Fischer for my height and weight? Do I run the risk of loosing too much of the quickness I loved in the 170cm? This will be my only ski for a while, so they will have to handle any (hopefully) powder I will see in Jackson Hole and Park City (Third week of March, First week of April, respectively). Will I get a noticeable increase in float and top speed, and will it offset the loss in quickness?
Any and all advice all welcome.
post #2 of 7
Thanks, Iceberg! Welcome to EpicSki, and great first post!
post #3 of 7
I just skied my Level 2 exam successfully on 176 length AMC 76's. I am a little heavier than you, 275, same height. I don't have any problem with their quickness. Go for the right length, and you will get the design performance.
post #4 of 7
Yes welcome, great review!

170cm is definitely too short for your height and weight -- you probably would have loved a longer pair even more. Go at least 176cm and don't write off 182cm either. I am 6-1 225lb and ski comfortably on 180cm Fischer RX-8. In mid-fats, I am comfortable in the 185cm range and would probably be looking at 182cm AMC 76 myself. Someone who is tall, heavy, and skis fast can almost always go for the longest ski in any particular lineup. The only reason to go shorter would be for easier turns, but you will sacrifice edge hold and top end stability.

Edit: just looked a the Fischer sizing chart and they say >176cm for your size, so that confirms my thoughts about 182cm. Especially for ungroomed / off-piste skiing.
post #5 of 7
Thread Starter 
ssh, thanks for the welcome. It's good to finally add something to the boad.

FOG and Skier219, thanks for the advice. I will definitely go for at least the 176. I had a feeling that is what folks would say, but I just wanted to get confirmation.

As for the 182, I'm still a bit hesitant, for no other reason that the fact that I keep hearing from people here and in other circles that shorter is almost always better.

The skis felt soooo much better than my 191 9Xs, so maybe I am putting too much stock into the idea that the better experience came from the shorter length, and not from the different shape/design of the ski.
post #6 of 7
I spend at least 15 days a year testing and comparing skis and I like the AMC 76 quite a lot. I'd also suggest the 176 as a minimum and I agree that you could consider the 182. The 3 positions in binding placement that the RF2 system offers is a very nice feature. You can move the bindings over a 3 cm range while on the hill. It easily allows for some fine tuning of the ski.

post #7 of 7
Originally Posted by Iceberg
As for the 182, I'm still a bit hesitant, for no other reason that the fact that I keep hearing from people here and in other circles that shorter is almost always better.

That has been the popular trend, but I see a lot of people on skis that are too short, and as a result, the skis are not as capable in all conditions. The notion of going short is also somewhat specific to carver skis in my opinion -- it would most benefit people zooming turns on groomed snow.

Mid-fat, fat, and powder skis have been growing longer in the last 1-2 years (longer across the whole model line, so some of the short sizes have disappeared while long sizes have been added). Give it some thought and don't blindly follow the shorter is better fad -- I think we are outgrowing that as shape ski technology matures and we settle in to more reasonable guidelines and more realistic ski technologies.

BTW, Jim has some great sizing guidelines (and other info) here:
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Member Gear Reviews