EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › Ski Gear Discussion › Fischer RC4 SL Race Stock - 161 vs 166?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Fischer RC4 SL Race Stock - 161 vs 166?

post #1 of 8
Thread Starter 
I have a line on a pair of 04-05 Fischer RC4 SL race stock, quoted as 166 cm, but with the slalom tips. I believe from what I have read previously that these are actually a 161 cm running length, and there is also a 166 cm without a tip with a longer running length.

Who has skied both and can describe the difference? FYI, I am a 6 ft 200 lb ex-racer that still pushes it hard on the hill, but all free-skiing, no gates. I do make mostly SL-size turns on SL skis (as I take out the GS boards when the hill is less crowded), but I like to be able to open the radius up to 16-17 m as terrain dictates.

I skied Volkl P60 SL race stock 165 last year, until I bent one , but I loved the way those free skied until then.
post #2 of 8
Any ski of is going to have a shorter runing length as compared to it's overall length. Some are measured as cord lengh and some are measured along the running surface. These two ways to measure a ski will make a CM or two difference in overall length. I am sure you know this but I'm not sure I understood your question.

If you want a slalom ski you should stick with the 165 +- size. That is what all men use in racing these days for slalom.

You might think about what ski I just bought. I too am an ex-racer and love the race turns. It is a Fischer WC RC in 180 cm. The ski has a 17m radius so it is right between a SL (13m) and a GS (21m). It is truely an amazing ski. Same construction as the full on race ski. It tracks at high SG type speeds great and will do slalom turns also. I love it. It is awesome. I test drove it and the Blizzard Super care 19m radius and I like the Fischer with the 17M radius better. The new Fishers have the Flow flex plate system which seems to work great. When you get old and fat like me a 21m gs ski doesn't hook up as well as the faster radius skis when you get a little late in a GS turn. You can be going like 50 mph and crank the skis and they will rocket you in the other direction. Lots of fun. I think a skis radius is often misunderstood on how it will affect how a ski turns.

All good race ski manufacturers make a cheater race ski like the ones I bought. I like fischer though. My son races big time and he is on Fischer and loves them. This is the first full race type ski I have bought for myself in decades. Man do they turn, insane. They have the torsional damping down also, you float over all the wierd inperfections in the snow.
post #3 of 8
Chances are, these are probably 161cm, but I've also seen 166cm with the delfector tips at the end (my friend has a pair that he bought new last year). The 161cm is geared towards lighter racers who still need to ski a 165 + ski. Either skis are very nice, but the 166cm is an absolute brute and not a joy to freeski.
post #4 of 8
Thread Starter 
Thanks for input guys. Definitely looking for a race stock slalom ski, will (hopefully) soon be picking up a pair of 177 cm AC4s to round out my east coast quiver (with my Racetiger GS's), those will do for me what Flame discussed...tried a few cheaters last season including Fischer, not quite the juice I am looking for while I am still young(ish) and strong...

Any other specific experience on 166 vs 161 Fischer race stock?
post #5 of 8
Just to clarify a little something, when I said that the 166 are not a joy to freeski, I meant it. If the conditions aren't hard and icy, they will be a pain in the butt since they are ridiculously stiff, unforgiving and need to be driven at high speed (higher speed than many can ski ona slalom course) by an heavy skier in order to come alive. But boy ho boy to they come alive. They were too much ski for me, but I'm a lot lighter and went for the girls' version.

If you don't plan on running gates, the 161 should offer plenty of fun while remaining user friendly. My friend who bought it new last year (the 05-06 model wich is essentially the same ski construction wise) is now switching to the 161 and that guy is about your weight and has won a few junior provincial races in Ontario a few years back so he's no slouch.
post #6 of 8
The good thing is the 166s with the tip and the contact length of a 161 still say 166, so you can still feel like a man lol.

I don't know which ones you should take. A 200 lbs. you should be able to bend 166s, but it depends on your style, too. I would also look into Atomic, another good big guy ski.

The truth is you can't go wrong.
post #7 of 8
I have a pair of 04-05 RC4 WC SLs in 166 with the toenails. I have tried a friend's 166 w/out toenails. For me, the difference was negligible, none really. I'm not running gates, just skiing the crap out of them. If you end up with the 161s (166 w/toenails), you'll love 'em. They're a lot of ski, everything an SL race stock should be.

I'm 6'1", 200 lbs., former racer, and 75+ days/year skier.

I complement them with 05-06 RC4 WC GS race stock, plus a bunch of crappy all-mountain skis, which have their use.

If you have GS skis and AC4s, then just grab the SLs. You aren't looking for the one-ski-quiver ultimate freeride/frontside/all-radius turner ski. I wouldn't worry about 5cm or toenails (I'm not even sure if the difference in contact length between the two really is 5cm--the ones w/out toenails seemed to have a shallower, more gradual curve to the tip, as opposed to the abrupt upturn required by the tip protectors. Maybe someone knows more about that.). You will ride the hell out of the Fischer SLs and love 'em.

post #8 of 8
Thread Starter 
Ahh, great input, thanks to all for the thoughts, I won't worry 161 vs 166 for Fischer. It isn't manhood to me anyway, I know we all lost our manhood when we started skiing on boards shorter than 200 cm...it can't be salvaged by 166 vs 161
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 › Fischer RC4 SL Race Stock - 161 vs 166?