New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

help pick new skis...

post #1 of 29
Thread Starter 
Choices started with IZOR 5.3, XRC 300, and HEAD C140. Skis mainly groomed trails, blue, greens; stuff likes that, moderate speed, nothing fast and or out of control.

Would like to stay with a ski that has an integrated binding system so he can install and set boot size. So if you have another ski please consider the binding system.

Which would be a good pick?

Thanks for any help or advice.
post #2 of 29
Quote:
Originally Posted by RedDog View Post
Choices started with IZOR 5.3, XRC 300, and HEAD C140. Skis mainly groomed trails, blue, greens; stuff likes that, moderate speed, nothing fast and or out of control.

Would like to stay with a ski that has an integrated binding system so he can install and set boot size. So if you have another ski please consider the binding system.

Which would be a good pick?

Thanks for any help or advice.
Tell us more: the persons size, age, where they ski...

These are skis that most skiers will outgrow quickly.

Cheers,

Michael
post #3 of 29
Thread Starter 
Choices have changed.

Now we are looking at IZOR 9:7 , HEAD XRC i 800, or Head C260i.
After going to a few ski shops we were told the same thing, that he would outgrow them very fast.
The skier is 40 years, about 5'7", an intermediate skier that skis mainly groomed trails, moderate speed, nothing fast and or out of control, the New England area, Maine, NH...Vermont

I want him to get an integrated binding system, I have them on my RX6 skis and they are a piece of cake to mount and adjust.

Thanks for the help!

Almost forgot about this another ski we are looking at, Atomic SX 9 158cm.
post #4 of 29
Quote:
Originally Posted by RedDog View Post
Choices have changed.

Now we are looking at IZOR 9:7 , HEAD XRC i 800, or Head C260i.
After going to a few ski shops we were told the same thing, that he would outgrow them very fast.
The skier is 40 years, about 5'7", an intermediate skier that skis mainly groomed trails, moderate speed, nothing fast and or out of control, the New England area, Maine, NH...Vermont

I want him to get an integrated binding system, I have them on my RX6 skis and they are a piece of cake to mount and adjust.

Thanks for the help!

Almost forgot about this another ski we are looking at, Atomic SX 9 158cm.
Except for the SX9 (too short...) they are all good choices. The Heads can easily be had with Railflex .

Also consider the RX6: .

Cheers,

Michael
post #5 of 29
Thread Starter 
Why is the SX9 too short. most all the skis are around the 156cm to 160cm size?
post #6 of 29
Quote:
Originally Posted by RedDog View Post
Why is the SX9 too short. most all the skis are around the 156cm to 160cm size?
I would go longer than 160cm for anyone 155 Lbs or more who skis with average velocity.

Michael
post #7 of 29
Thread Starter 
ok, great. That sound about right, thank you.
post #8 of 29
Yeah, definitely don't go under 160 cm, unless you are planning on making slalom turns all day (like me). I would recommend skis in the 165-170 cm range for general all-around skiing.

Also, why not RX6's?
post #9 of 29
Thread Starter 
Over the weekend while we were shopping for skis we were shown these Head Lightning skis.
They are suppose to be for woman but we are told that men are buy them due to the fact that they are exact copies of the Head Monster M72i or M70i (forgot which) The skis are a light blue color and I think they are 2005 models?

Is this true? Anyone know anything about this ski?

Thanks
post #10 of 29
I don't know if I would rec SX skis for a mild speed blue and green skier. Those skis only like two speeds: fastest and fastestest. They are also a very different ski than an Izor. Just my $0.02...
post #11 of 29
Quote:
Originally Posted by RedDog View Post
Choices have changed.

Now we are looking at IZOR 9:7 , HEAD XRC i 800, or Head C260i.
After going to a few ski shops we were told the same thing, that he would outgrow them very fast.
Whoever gave you that advice was right on. That was my first reaction to your list. Good decision.
post #12 of 29
Quote:
Originally Posted by RedDog View Post
Over the weekend while we were shopping for skis we were shown these Head Lightning skis.
They are suppose to be for woman but we are told that men are buy them due to the fact that they are exact copies of the Head Monster M72i or M70i (forgot which) The skis are a light blue color and I think they are 2005 models?

Is this true? Anyone know anything about this ski?

Thanks
It's a version of the M70i; not a bad ski for less than $200.

http://levelninesports.com/advanced_...eywords=318004
post #13 of 29
RX6, Head XRC800 or Monster 72, Izor 9.7 might be ok too. I would avoid the lightning.
post #14 of 29
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ghost View Post
RX6, Head XRC800 or Monster 72, Izor 9.7 might be ok too. I would avoid the lightning.
Could you explain why you would avoid the Lightning ski? :
post #15 of 29
Quote:
Originally Posted by RedDog View Post
Could you explain why you would avoid the Lightning ski? :
Only because Lightning is the female-specific line for head.
post #16 of 29
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ghost View Post
Only because Lightning is the female-specific line for head.
Right, I understand that.

I thought you knew some kind of a technical difference with or about these skis other than the female tag. Again as I stated before. I was told they are EXACTLY the same as the Head Monster line M70i ski for less than half the price. Other than the fact they are marketed for woman are there any reason a man could not ski this ski, I guess that is my question? The price I got on this ski w/bindings was less than $175 out the door. That is a killer deal!

I do not understand why more people are not talking about this ski?

http://levelninesports.com/head-2005-lightning-monster-skis-163cm-p-578.html?osCsid=d55ee5572e9a80d7fd125690deff903f
post #17 of 29
I think this is the ski my daughter (an intermediate) tried and found lacking in stability and performance. I am not however sure, as at the time I did not have as much knowledge of skis as I do now. I asked for a ski that would handle speed, but not as unforgiving as the "top" model ski. They told me this was on step below the top female model (which looking at reviews seems to be the lightning im70, below the lightning C R2, above the lightning IC SR2). She demoed it on the same day I demoed the RX8. She found the ski did not do what it was told and found it unstable on steeper pitches at a brisk pace. I thought that perhaps it was too advanced for her and that I had overestimated her abilities. She ended up on a Volkl Porsche that magically restored her skills; the skis did what they were told and she was able to keep up without drama.

All the reviews say it's fine though:, as is the Monster im70 according to the reviews. The reviews also say the 72 is much better than the 70 though. If you are only skiing slowly and don't care about skiing in "drag", you might be fine. I haven't skied the ski.
post #18 of 29
I would double check construction if possible, I believe this (and other Head female specific) are a foam core?
post #19 of 29
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ghost View Post
If you are only skiing slowly and don't care about skiing in "drag", you might be fine. I haven't skied the ski.


Got it! Thanks for your help!
post #20 of 29
You should demo the Head im72 skis before you decide. They really work for just about everyone and are forgiving of less than perfect technique as well.

I demoed the 70 and 72 and bought the 72. Good ski!
post #21 of 29
Thread Starter 
Okay, we have this down to 2 skis.

1. 2005 Head C140 163cm
2. 2005 Atomic C:9 160cm

This has come down to price, all the other skis mentioned above are out due to cost.

Both of these skis are very close in price and are the two we are considering now.
Which of these 2 type of skis would you choose for a Skier that skis mainly groomed trails, blue, greens; moderate speed, nothing fast and or out of control. Also would like a little room to grow.

Thank all!!
post #22 of 29
C9; more of an advanced carver. What price? (less than $200 with bindings I hope)

Cheers,

Michael
post #23 of 29
Thread Starter 
Atomic C9 is $280 w/bindings and mounted.
Head C140 is less at $230 w/bindings mounted unsure might be extra, lets say $250

Both are intergated bindings.
Are prices high, in your opinion?
post #24 of 29
Thread Starter 
Would like to make final pick by end of week, if possible. so any and all help much apreciated!!!
post #25 of 29
Consider this: http://cgi.ebay.com/06-Head-C-260i-S...QQcmdZViewItem

A lot more ski for a few more bucks.

Or these: http://cgi.ebay.com/06-Head-C210-Ski...QQcmdZViewItem

a better ski for less bucks



Michael
post #26 of 29
Thread Starter 
but that is a 156cm ski. I was told not to go under 160cm?
post #27 of 29
Quote:
Originally Posted by RedDog View Post
but that is a 156cm ski. I was told not to go under 160cm?
The 260 is a SL carver, so the shorter length is not bad at your size. 4cm = 1.6 inches.

This is a great ski that will continue to serve you well as your skill increases. The others will be outgrown quickly.

Cheers,

Michael
post #28 of 29
Thread Starter 
So shorter skis are ok for a carver?

What about a mid-fat, like the head monster m70 we were looking at? can that be in a shorter length?
post #29 of 29
Quote:
Originally Posted by RedDog View Post
So shorter skis are ok for a carver?

What about a mid-fat, like the head monster m70 we were looking at? can that be in a shorter length?
If you stay on smooth groomed runs at slow to moderate speeds, shorter is better. Shorter is easier to turn.

If you ski through variable snow or at higher speeds, longer is better. Longer skis are more stable.

Carvers with short turn radius (15m or less) are good at shorter lengths. These skis are meant to turn, not for speed. However avoid a cheaper ski, it will be unstable at any speed.

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