New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

length of Fischer RX8

post #1 of 25
Thread Starter 
Level 6 skier, 185 lbs, pretty athletic. Skiing in VT and NY. I want to use these skis to learn how to ski in trees and bumps. Some suggest 160 while others up to 170. What length shall I buy?
post #2 of 25
Quote:
Originally Posted by jacpol View Post
Level 6 skier, 185 lbs, pretty athletic. Skiing in VT and NY. I want to use these skis to learn how to ski in trees and bumps. Some suggest 160 while others up to 170. What length shall I buy?
A 170cm is best, more stability than a shorter ski. The RX8 is light & lively, the 170 won't feel ponderous.

Michael
post #3 of 25
I agree. At 170cm the Fischer RX-8will offer its most all-around performance for your size. If you only want to do tight slalom turns on the groomed a 165cm or even 160cm will work.
post #4 of 25

agree = 170

I am same specs as you and have the same opinion as lostboy. I own the 170 and also have ski'd the 165 extensively. Both are nice but the 165 had a huge speed limit and was much more turny. The difference amazed me. The 170 is one sweet steed The 165 would be a low speed slalom carver for you. 170 will rip it up...see thread with my comments listed herewith.

http://forums.epicski.com/showthread.php?t=36234&referrerid=8500

RX 8 comparisons re length start with post 27


For trees and bumps I think there are better ski's, but you didn't ask that.....:
post #5 of 25
As another enthusiastic RX-8 owner, I'll second (or third) the comments posted so far ...

The 170's should be a better length for you given your stats.

What you're not saying is whether the RX-8 is going to be your main ride or another ski in your quiver. If you're looking for that one ski that will serve you well in most East Coast conditions ... hold an edge on ice, rip up the groomers, swing sweet short radius turns down a narrow trail and provide a steady ride when you let 'em run ... the RX-8 is your ride.

The ski will let you work the bumps and the trees, but as hrstrat alludes to there are better dedicated bump and tree skis. You might want to expand a bit on what you've been skiing and whether you'll be skiing the RX-8 as your main or a second ride. I'd hate to talk you out of the RX-8 ... but there might be a better ski for your needs.

Good luck!

(P.S. Hey HR! Any snow down in Yawgoo? Looks like it'll be a while before wa wa opens )
post #6 of 25
Thread Starter 

length of RX8/

Currently I ski Rossi Cobra 178. Yes I look for a ski to "serve me well in most East Coast conditions " I am just scared that 170 may be over my head since it's a ski for Level 7-9 while I am Level 6. I don't want to use this ski for bumps and trees only, but be able to ski bumps and trees on my way down.
If I get the other comments right, some suggest that 165 will not run smoothly in a foot of fresh snow.
post #7 of 25
Quote:
Originally Posted by jacpol View Post
Currently I ski Rossi Cobra 178. Yes I look for a ski to "serve me well in most East Coast conditions " I am just scared that 170 may be over my head since it's a ski for Level 7-9 while I am Level 6. I don't want to use this ski for bumps and trees only, but be able to ski bumps and trees on my way down.
If I get the other comments right, some suggest that 165 will not run smoothly in a foot of fresh snow.
Because the 170cm has more surface area, it will be easier to manage in one foot of powder than a 165cm or 160cm RX-8. At 170cm it will also be easier to manage in variable conditions than a shorter length RX-8 model. The RX-8 is at its best as a frontside carver in both short and medium radius turns.
post #8 of 25
Quote:
Originally Posted by jacpol View Post
Currently I ski Rossi Cobra 178. Yes I look for a ski to "serve me well in most East Coast conditions " I am just scared that 170 may be over my head since it's a ski for Level 7-9 while I am Level 6. I don't want to use this ski for bumps and trees only, but be able to ski bumps and trees on my way down.
If I get the other comments right, some suggest that 165 will not run smoothly in a foot of fresh snow.
I owned a Cobra X (106-68-96) and the RX8 is equally demanding (not very).

The 170cm RX8 will feel much quicker with higher edge grip than the Cobra, but will not be more demanding.

Cheers,

Michael
post #9 of 25
jacpol,

P.S. If you are intent on getting better the Fischer RX-8 will not likely be way over your head. If you will be able to ski only occasionally, you might want to look at the RX-6 in the Fischer line. Almost every manufacturer also makes good skis intended for intermediate, occasional skiers.
post #10 of 25
I've owned the RX8 in both 165 and 170 lengths. I weigh 165 lb. I like the 170 length much better. More stable at speed, and better tracking through heavy powder, crud, and wind packed snow I don't think that you'll have a problem with the 170cm ski at your level.
post #11 of 25
Quote:
Originally Posted by jacpol View Post
Currently I ski Rossi Cobra 178. Yes I look for a ski to "serve me well in most East Coast conditions " I am just scared that 170 may be over my head since it's a ski for Level 7-9 while I am Level 6. I don't want to use this ski for bumps and trees only, but be able to ski bumps and trees on my way down.
If I get the other comments right, some suggest that 165 will not run smoothly in a foot of fresh snow.
Fret not young man! Just go buy the 170's

After 10 years of on-again/off-again skiing, I became a "born again" skier a couple of years back and decided to really focus on upgrading my skills .. as well as my equipment.

The RX-8 was my first shaped ski and my first short-turner. I'd been skiing on mid-90's Rossi 7xk's for 10 years and needed to unlearn a few bad habits with these new-fangled shaped skis. I found that the RX-8 was very tolerant of some stemming, skidding and back seat driving, but it really sang when I got centered and started skiing 'em how they were meant to be skied. I tried a few other skis of the same caliber that simply smacked you upside the head and threw you off the trail if you didn't ski 'em "just so", but the RX-8 will forgive the odd mistake.

The longer length will help with a foot of fresh pow ... but when's the last time we saw that in the east :. The shorter length favors shorter radius turns, but has a speed limit. The 170's are just all around better suited to most of the skiing and conditions you're likely to find in the east.

I'll disagree with LostBoy about looking at the RX-6. You describe yourself as athletic and clearly have an interest in some new challenges on skis. I see no reason you shouldn't be able to handle the RX-8 at 170. It's really pretty forgiving for an "advanced" carving ski, but will serve you much better as your skills improve.
post #12 of 25
I like the RX-8's better shorter. I prefer my 165's and let my son ski the 170's If you want a more versatile ski then go with the AMC 76. If you are going to get the RX-8 the really cool ride is the short arc from the shorter length skis. oddly enough there is no problem doing longer arcs, but you jsut won't want to. Surgeon General's Warning: Short radius skis have been known to lead to much greater numbers of turns and greatly fatigued legs. Such turns have also been correlated with higher rates of facial muscle fatigue from excessive smiling.
post #13 of 25
How tall are you jacpol?

I am 185lb, 6'1", level 8-9, and am on 180cm RX-8 (formerly I was 225lb when I bought the skis). If I was going to buy another pair for my new lighter weight, I would probably go down to 175cm but definitely no shorter than that. The shorter you go in the RX-8 the more it becomes a one-trick pony for carving.

That said, as a level 6 skier the RX-8 is probably not for you. They can be demanding in my experience, if you really want to appreciate the ski and what it has to offer. You may want to check out the RX-6 as noted. And if I was goint to ski trees and bumps, I would not even be skiing the RX-6 or RX-8 -- there are other better choices for that. All the RX skis are geared towards groomed snow.
post #14 of 25
I didn't post my weight, but it is in the neighborhood of 245, way down from last year. I reread your post about trees and bumps, and would like to reiterate my recommendation for the AMC 76, as a much better ski for trees and steeps. I ski that in a 176, but at your lighter weight I would go down to 170. The RX-6 is a good ski, and I have a pair, I think 175's, maybe 170's. It is late in the after noon and I have a few pairs of skis. the RX's, as poited out above, are meant for groomers. They are ok in bumps, but a really soft bump on a short radius ski like the RX-8 can be an interesting experience. You WILL know if you are out of balance to the rear, because you will point directly uphill if you should try to ski a bump from the back seat. The RX-6 is more forgivng, but neither one wil give you much float. You'll be happeir skiing tres and bumps with the AMC 76, maybe even the AMC 79, if you ski really soft stuff and relatively few groomers.
post #15 of 25
170 cm is the length to get.
post #16 of 25
Thread Starter 
How tall are you jacpol?

5'10, 32 years old, being active since 8 years old, voleyball, tennis, biking.
post #17 of 25
Quote:
Originally Posted by OldEasternSkier View Post
As another enthusiastic RX-8 owner, I'll second (or third) the comments posted so far ...

The 170's should be a better length for you given your stats.

What you're not saying is whether the RX-8 is going to be your main ride or another ski in your quiver. If you're looking for that one ski that will serve you well in most East Coast conditions ... hold an edge on ice, rip up the groomers, swing sweet short radius turns down a narrow trail and provide a steady ride when you let 'em run ... the RX-8 is your ride.

The ski will let you work the bumps and the trees, but as hrstrat alludes to there are better dedicated bump and tree skis. You might want to expand a bit on what you've been skiing and whether you'll be skiing the RX-8 as your main or a second ride. I'd hate to talk you out of the RX-8 ... but there might be a better ski for your needs.

Good luck!

(P.S. Hey HR! Any snow down in Yawgoo? Looks like it'll be a while before wa wa opens )

Once again a nicely written review of RX 8 by OES. Folks, OES did his homework and tried nearly everything as I recall him telling me when making his decision on RX 8. An amazing eastern ski.

See the thread I linked for you for our detailed comments and comparisons at the time we swopped ski's last year...my 168 Allstars of course were in the mix too...SMJ has 165 RX 8's and I bought a pair of 170's at the end of the year...again the diff between the 165 and 170 was astounding. I cannot emphasize this enuff....please read the other thread in detail.

OES,

No snow tho I just read on www.wachusett.com that they will open wednesday.....so OES let's tent plan on making some turns together on Sunday ok?

This Sunday I'll be tee'g em up again on the links:

See ya next weekend at wa!
post #18 of 25
Thread Starter 
Yes it will be main ride in NY and VT. I will keep my Rossi Cobra 178. I don't want to even think about another ski; I have spent last few weeks, reading and asking other skiers about my next skis. I went from considering Metron M11, M10, AMC 73 and now RX8. :


Quote:
Originally Posted by OldEasternSkier View Post
As another enthusiastic RX-8 owner, I'll second (or third) the comments posted so far ...

The 170's should be a better length for you given your stats.

What you're not saying is whether the RX-8 is going to be your main ride or another ski in your quiver. If you're looking for that one ski that will serve you well in most East Coast conditions ... hold an edge on ice, rip up the groomers, swing sweet short radius turns down a narrow trail and provide a steady ride when you let 'em run ... the RX-8 is your ride.

The ski will let you work the bumps and the trees, but as hrstrat alludes to there are better dedicated bump and tree skis. You might want to expand a bit on what you've been skiing and whether you'll be skiing the RX-8 as your main or a second ride. I'd hate to talk you out of the RX-8 ... but there might be a better ski for your needs.

Good luck!

(P.S. Hey HR! Any snow down in Yawgoo? Looks like it'll be a while before wa wa opens )
post #19 of 25
I'm 6'2" and 220 lbs - I've skied the RX8's in a 170 for two seasons and I would echo those that are saying that the 170's are the way to go.

I don't think that you can go wrong with the RX8's and especially in that length. You will have a great time on them!

I'll be back on mine tomorrow - 1st day out for this season.
post #20 of 25
I am continually amazed at how people go with shorter and shorter carving skis! If you look at the RX-8 sizing guidelines, anyone north of 6 ft and 200 lbs should be on the 180cm RX-8. I know the shorter skis are more maneuverable and easier to ski, but you're losing a whole ton of edge with the shorter skis. That would translate into a lot more grip on hard snow and more stability.
post #21 of 25
Thread Starter 
So, you suggest 170 for me? current weight of 185 probably +/- 10 lbs in next few years.
post #22 of 25

165s

I have the 165 RX8. I am 185 lbs and in decent shape. Level 7-8 skier. I have not tried the 170s so cannot give you the contrast, but I certainly have strong feelings about the 165 for your specs.

Buy them. I love my 165s. I purchased mine mid season last year and was a little concerned with going that short, but I wanted these for my East Coast carvers. I had made a conscious decision to compromise the stability of a longer ski for the short turn advantage of the 165. It was no compromise. My 165s are unshakable. I have skied faster on these skis than ever before. While I purchased them as a short radius ski, I was very impressed with the variability of these skis, particularly in the variety of turn shapes it could handle.

I bought these with high expectations, and my expectation were exceeded.

As noted, I have not skied the 170. If you are concerned about the 170 being too much ski, buy the 165 as you will not feel as if you have compromised anything with the shorter ski. At least that was my experience.
post #23 of 25
I am 165 lbs. I tried the 170. They were not too much ski. They were not ponderous at all. They were very light and maneuverable. They are not quite as forgiving as a Solomon Equipe SC, but they are no where near being an unforgiving race ski either. At times I forgot about them completely. They did everything I could ask of them. I cannot imagine any reason I or anyone more than 145 lbs would want a shorter RX8 than 170 cm.
post #24 of 25
I too will chime in for the 165's, although the 170's would be great too. I skied 165's all last year weight about 200lbs. (I've lost weight since then) 5'9 1/2 Level 8 skier.

I skied them east and west, even in powder, they do great everywhere.

When I demo'd the 170's they were better at speed, but the 165's are fine at speed, and I like the short turns on them better.
post #25 of 25
At 230lbs, I ski the 175s. Go for the 170s, you will love them.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Ski Gear Discussion