or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Fischer RX8/RX9

post #1 of 21
Thread Starter 
Hi all!
Just looking at some rx8/9 in the end of season sale. Read a few forum posts and other reviews and from what i've read it seems the RX8 are more suited to me (I'm more about turning and prefer shorter turns than just smashing it down and throwing in a couple of long turns).
But if anyone thinks otherwise based on the info I give please do say!
I am not sure what length would suit me best?
These would be the first pair of skis I've bought.
I have only rented in the past and the last few times I have had rossignol b2's. These were good but I found them a little soft, little bit too flexable and they didnt seem to have the right amount of grip when really leaning over for carving it up.

Im male, 6''2' , approx 100 kg / 240 pounds (this is almost all muscle, im not fat at all, just go to the gym loads?!)
Id say im level 8, I ski mostly groomed runs (a tiny bit off piste but nothing deep). I spend most of my time on reds sking more often lots of short turns but sometimes longer turns (always try to ski on edges, I only skid on really steep/icy stuff/blacks when I get scared). All of my skiing is done in the alps (last two trips were to kitzbuhel and meribel, loved both).
I got some boots at the start of this season, had them fitted/blown out 3 times, salomon xwave 8.

Any advice about lengths/alternative skis would be greatly appreciated.
post #2 of 21
I am very close to your size and ski RX-8 165's. I also have RX-8 170's but they are not as playful a ski, and don't give me as much rebound.
post #3 of 21
Thread Starter 
I was edging toward the 165's but was a bit concerned about their stability due to my not inconsiderate weight.
post #4 of 21
RX8. At your weight, I would go at least 170. Also consider Fischer WC SC; it's often on sale, a bit beefier, and just as easy to ski.
post #5 of 21
I have you by about 10 pounds +-, and last year was over 280. NP on the short length and stability.
post #6 of 21
Thread Starter 
Both the RX8 and RX9 are the same price, so this isn't an issue. (the rx9 are originally more expensive).
Is it a case of the rx9 being a better ski and hence better for me to improve with or are they both just good ski's but for different styles (the latter is the impression I have picked up)?
Really want to demo the 165/170 but dont think it will be possible :/
Will the 165's turn better but be a little less stable at high speed, or are these skis stable enough that I shouldn't notice much stability difference between either size. I really don't know very much about choosing ski length (when renting I just choose whichever is near my chin/nose!?)
Tempted to play it safe and go 170.

Thanks for the help guys.
post #7 of 21
I'm 170 and I ski the 170. I would think you want to go at least that long. they're my favorite groomer ski.

I would not go to the SC, which is a step closer to a true slalom ski. Having skied them, I prefer the RX 8, and given that you're less experienced I would avoid the increased stiffness which would probably be a detriment to your skill improvement.

The RX9 has less sidecut. I have skied them in a 180, which would be about right for you but the RX8 suited my needs more.
post #8 of 21
Originally Posted by Harry_Morgan View Post
I'm 170 and I ski the 170. I would think you want to go at least that long. they're my favorite groomer ski.
I've have to agree with Harry, I'm 6'2 175-180 (depending on the time of day ), and I ski the 170. It can easily make short radius carves, and even though I can't compare it to the 165 because I never demoed it, I would think that the extra stability at speed and through crud that you get from the extra 5cm and with your size, the 170 is the shortest I'd go.

Just trying to help, good luck on your choice!
post #9 of 21
At 5'9 1/2 I've skied the 165's a lot, the 170's and now the 175's.

I actually love the 175's. I think the 170 would be the best all around length for you. At my weight the 165's are fun, but get unstable at speed.
post #10 of 21
The Fischer product guide specs 170cm or 175cm RX-8 for your height, and since you are heavy for your height, I would go with 175cm. I am on the 180cm (size no longer available) myself, and chose this length when I weighed 225lb a few years back. Now down to 185lb, and the 180cm still feel great to me, but I would probably go 175cm next time (definitely no shorter than that). I am 6'1".

As we have discussed here in many threads, the notion of going short was a trend that has moderated somewhat. Don't be afraid to go with a more reasonable length -- you will benefit from more stability and better all-mountain capability.
post #11 of 21
I'm 5'9" and 170. Probably a level 7 skier. I'm looking at the RX8. Would the 165 or 170 length be better suited for me?
post #12 of 21
Originally Posted by skinnydog View Post
I'm 5'9" and 170. Probably a level 7 skier. I'm looking at the RX8. Would the 165 or 170 length be better suited for me?
I am 5'8" 175lbs ski the fischer rx6 in a 165 and really like that length.

if you ski in notheast or mostly groomed trails.

Short Turns - 165

Longer Turns more speed - 170
post #13 of 21
Originally Posted by skinnydog View Post
I'm 5'9" and 170. Probably a level 7 skier. I'm looking at the RX8. Would the 165 or 170 length be better suited for me?
Fischer recommends 165, 170, or 175cm for your height. You could choose among that range based on the kind of skiing you want to do. 165 would be fun and very turny, but less stable at speed. 175 seems like it would be too long for you; not sure why that even comes up as an option (though it would give the most stability in long fast turns). I would say to go with the 165 if you want short snappy turns on groomed snow, or 170 if you want more versatility and more stability at speed. What are your goals for the RX-8?
post #14 of 21
I'm 6'-0", 205#, level 7-8 and just got the RX8s in 170... Personally love them and think they are perfect for my size ability.

If you are a gym rat at your size, you should go at least with the 170s if not 175s. RX8s will definitely be better for whipping some short turns as opposed to the RX9s.
post #15 of 21
I'll be your contrarian. As a western skier, I like the RX9 in a 175 for its long GS turn capability and off-piste adaptability. The RX9 can be cranked to a shorter turn shape, but is stable in the higher speed cruise mode. I realize this is everything you are NOT looking for, so, go with the RX8 and get your smile on.
post #16 of 21
Thanks for the input (I'm not the original poster who is 240lbs, I'm 5'9", 170). I ski in the East (New Hampshire) and mostly on piste. I'm looking for short snappy turns and will go with RX* in 165. I am courious though about whether the RC4 Race SC (not the world cup) would be too much ski for me.
post #17 of 21
Just for reference sake, I'm 165 lbs, loved the RX8 in a 170 cm for the smaller hills we have in Ontario Canada, and ski a WC SC in a 165. The 170 RX8 would be the better ski for me at speeds under about 25 mph. It's a toss up between the two between 25 and 50 mph. When cranking out hard turns or higher speeds than that, the WC takes the prize. I don't think you need worry about the RACE SC being too much ski. With a 1 degree base bevel, imho, all of these skis are very forgiving. It just takes a little more speed to bend the WC.

With small hills, the RX8/WC SC and tighter turns is the better choice; with large hills it's the RX9/WC RC.
post #18 of 21
I agree with all the above posts. The Race SC would not be too much ski for you, I think it's actually very similar to the RX8. I skied the 165 RX8 for over a year weighing a bit more than you, now down to 185 and have skied the 170's and bought the 175's. To me the 170 would be the pick of the litter, but the 165 is a lot of fun too. I just like having a little more in front and behind me when the going gets tough (ice, steeps, crud, etc.)
post #19 of 21
just to throw another thought re the subject - just got back from Austria and my instructor was on the RX9's - they were superstable at speed and we skied a variety of terrain - one day powder, carved long and short etc. They seemed a great ski . the big inducement is though that Intersport are selling them at a reduced price of 220 euros incl bindings , thats £160 british pounds or $310 US dollars.At that price they are a steal - you could have another ski trip to Kitzbuhel on the price savings !
post #20 of 21
Thread Starter 
That info would have been good a couple of days ago
Picked up some rx8's in 170 on saturday. Thought that 165's would be a bit short but I think I do prefer a shorter ski so went for the 170 over 175.

They are sat in my room staring at me, I need to hide them. Luckily I will get to give them a whirl in less than 2 weeks
post #21 of 21
I was on my RX8s in 170s today for the first full day that I've skied them. They did not overpower me and actually skied more smoothly, consistently and turned better than my 165cm Crossmax...
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Ski Gear Discussion