or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Ski Size (Fischer RX6)

post #1 of 10
Thread Starter 
I could use some advice on ski size for Fischer RX6's that I plan to buy. I'm 41, 155 lbs, 5'6", around level 5-6. I was planning to buy 160's. Should I consider 165's? Any downside to 160's vs. 165? Thanks.
post #2 of 10
Either would work for you, if you can try them out you'd know better.

It depends on the style of skiing you prefer. Based on your level you probably do longer turns with better technique, to that extent the shorter ski might help you in getting more comfortable carving short turns.

The longer ski will feel a bit more stable as you go faster.

My progression (with RX8's) was from a 165 for 2 years as I developed better technique up to a 175. I am taller and heavier than you and was progressing from level 7 to level 8 during that time (5' 9 1/2" - 185-190lbs.)
post #3 of 10
I'd ski the RX-6 in a longer length than an RX-8. For me that means my favorite RX-8 is 165 (I also have the 170) but my RX-6 is 175. I am around 6'2", 250 lbs, but ski relatively shorter skis than others my size (unless I am looking for some float) as a preference. I find that as I get better I have preferred shorter skis for the groomed. At your weight either 160 or 165 would work. I would favor the shorter ski, but that is a matter of taste. I think shorter skis are easier to ccarve, and if you have a good initiation to your turns, will give you all the length you need.
post #4 of 10
here is a good deal on the 165sm rx6

http://cgi.ebay.com/Fischer-Ski-Fisc... cmdZViewItem
post #5 of 10
Thread Starter 
Thanks all for your good advice. I had been leaning towards the 160 because I thought it would be a little easier to ski and further develop my carving skills. On the other hand, I can get the 165 for $100 less than the 160 (simply due to remaining inventory), and maybe the difference in length isn't that significant? If that's the case, I'd go with the 165. If it is going to impede me in any way, I'd rather get the right length ski at the outset, even if it costs me more, since I plan on getting a lot of use out of them. I've seen that some people on the forum who are taller and heavier than me ski the RX in a 165, though some of them are on the RX8, which I realize is a different story. Any further thoughts would be appreciated.
post #6 of 10
I think the 165 would be fine at your weight, the rx6 is not very stiff.
post #7 of 10
Go ahead and get the 165. 160 might be a tiny bit better, but it's not going to make that much difference.
post #8 of 10
Thread Starter 
Thanks again everyone for your replies. They've been very helpful. Now if only there was still some snow around here . . .
post #9 of 10
Thread Starter 
Richardmb, thanks for the link to the ebay auction. Didn't end up buying from there but got a deal almost as good.
post #10 of 10
schumi1, did you wind up with 160's or 165's? I'm ~1 inch shorter and ~15lbs lighter than you, and I ski 165's (2005-2006 model). Although I like them very much at this length, but I had the opportunity to demo 2006-2007 170's and find them even more versatile, although it may be because they changed the dimensions of the ski this year and all lengths of the ski have a little more sidecut...
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Ski Gear Discussion