New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

RX8 Length Question

post #1 of 20
Thread Starter 
I'm interested in possibly picking up a closeout pair of 2007 Fischer RX8's but i'm unsure of what size to buy, no chance to demo. I've seen posts with 150 pounders sking on 175's and 250 pounders sking on 165's? I'm 5' 10", 215lbs, do some racing and like to ski fast. However this pair of ski's would be used more recreationaly, skiing at slower speeds with my 5 year old son. I want a ski that is easy and forgiving at slow speeds that will also rip when I get the chance! I'm considering either the 170cm or 175cm lengths, what are your thoughts?
post #2 of 20
Get the 170's.

I have both 165 and 175's, 5' 9 1/2 a little under 190lbs. I love both skis. The 165's are much better carvers with smaller radius turns, the 175's are better at speed. So if you're not going to have a 2 same-ski-quiver like me, I'd go for the 170's. They'll handle your weight fine, and will be more versatile.
post #3 of 20
I would vote for the 175. I am 230 lbs and they work well for me. Everything from short to long turns.

I ski with my kids, 10, 9, 7 and this year my 4 year old twins. I have no problem keeping up with them.
post #4 of 20

whatever is cheaper

I have both 170 and 175. I am 180 lbs....both are effortless to ski and quite forgiving. I might lean you more towards 175's...180's can be found at closeout prices at times, haven't ski'd 180 but expect I would like those as well. I believe skier219 has 180's, coach13 might ski those too.

I would recommend purchase whichever you can find at a lower price. Either 175 or 170 should work nicely for you.....I actually find the 175's easier to ski, 170 a bit more versatile.

There was a recent thread re RX 8 length where all the big guys who ski RX 8 chimed in might search for that as well....

My impressions of 3 lengths of RX 8 are included in the below thread as are the impressions of 2 other bears. Keep in mind of course you displace a bit more weight on the snow....

Bottom line? Fabulous product.

Good luck.
post #5 of 20
I think you'll be fine on 170 or 175. I'm 5'10" and 170lbs. I'm skiing RX8 at 175cms. Got 'em on a bargain. Great on groomers, a little bit of a horse in bumps, but that might be true in most lengths. I have no racing background and probably not as powerful a skier as you.
post #6 of 20
Thread Starter 


I could buy the 170's a little cheaper but not enough to be the deciding factor, I want which ever length is best for me. I would prefer the shorter 170's but feel that I would overpower them and I'm leaning more toward the 175's. I had the Head Supershapes in 170cm and found them squirrely at high speed and difficult to ski at slow speeds with my son. Some other ski's I own or have owned include the Fischer Worldcup RC's in both 175 and 180cm, Volkl 6 Stars in 175cm, Head XRC1200's in 177cm, Rossignol 9S oversize in 173cm, Rossignol 9X oversize in 181cm, Stockli Stormrider XL's in 174cm, Nordica 12X SUV in 170cm, Nordica Dobberman Pro RC in 176cm and the Rossignol Z9 in 170cm if that helps.
post #7 of 20
I'm 5' 9" 215# and ski the 170s. They hold nice doing all kinds of turns at speed on the steeps.

So we're about the same size, but I've never done any racing. You're most likely more aggressive (and better) than me. From what I've heard HR & SMJ say about the 175s, you'd probably do great on those.
post #8 of 20
You won't overpower the Fischer RX-8's @170 CM's at your height and weight. (which is why some heftier guys feel comfortable on the RX-8 @165 CM's). For skiing with your five year old son as well as ripping runs solo, the 170 CM's skis would be the best choice for all around versatility, IMHO.
post #9 of 20
Thread Starter 

RX8 Sizing

I'm still unsure of what size is best for me, I ended up buying a brand new pair of 2007 175's for $400. Heres the new dilemma, after buying the 175's I now have the chance to buy a pair of once used 2007 170's for $300! Midwestern skiing is pretty much done and I haven't yet recieved the 175's to test them. I don't really want to sit on two pairs of the same ski's (I've done that before!) and wait till next season to sort them out but i want to be sure.
post #10 of 20
Either size would be OK for you -- the 170cm might be fine based on your height, but the 175cm will be better for your weight. So stick with 175cm and don't worry about it! Trust me, these are great skis!

I ski on the 180cm (since 2004), and they are extremely fun and lively skis, and ski short even at that length. I was 225lb when I bought them, and am 185lb now (still 6'1"). Of all my skis, these have been the only ones that didn't feel long to me after the weight loss. No matter what size, the RX-8 is a short turning snappy ski.

With 175cm, you will benefit with better stability and edge grip on ice with the extra 5cm underfoot, and not lose much fun or maneuverability. Quite honestly, I think people tend to go too short with these types of skis because they can do it without losing any low speed capability, and they gain skis that are easier to turn. But if you are a good carver, that's not a major issue, so you may as well go longer and get the benefits at high speed and on ice.

Good luck!
post #11 of 20
buy shorties. they ski just like longies, but turn better and "fit" better in the tights. still fast and stable. nice.

me. 6'0" 210lbs. 160's
post #12 of 20
I've been going back and forth recently between my 165's and 175's it's been very interesting. One day I like one better, the next the other. They're just different. I do like carving short turns on the 165's, but they don't "ski like the longies" to me. The 175's just feel more stable (not just at speed) and blast through the spring conditions better.

(5' 9 1/2" 187lbs.)

And I saw a guy on 185 skis going down the steep Lift Line trail, that was almost bare, wiggling down a white ribbon of snow just fine.
post #13 of 20
Thread Starter 
Now you know why I'm confused, everyone seems to have a different take on length! Our season in the Midwest is now over, i will have to wait until next winter to sort things out.
post #14 of 20
Originally Posted by Buckwild View Post
Now you know why I'm confused, everyone seems to have a different take on length! Our season in the Midwest is now over, i will have to wait until next winter to sort things out.
Seriously, many people go too short on this ski and many other carver skis. It has been somewhat of a fad/trend that is slowly settling out. They do this to get an easier turning fun ski, and the skis are stout enough to handle it for the most part. Where the performance drops off is on very hard snow and ice, or at high speed. This is a fact of life you can't cheat. A longer ski will always be better in these scenarios.

The Fischer product guide recommends 165, 170, or 175 for your height. Since you are heavy for your height, that points to the long end of the range, ie 175cm.
post #15 of 20
170 is good for me on small eastern hills (Ontario Canada), and I weigh 165 lbs. Go for the 175s.
post #16 of 20
Also is this going to be your only ski?? I am one of the 250lbers skiing them in a 165(love them) but these are my eastern small mountain ski. They never travel west with me. They are tad squirly at super high speed but not scary squirly they like to be on edge keep em there and they are fine. If this was my only ski I would have bought them bigger.

BTW-- skip these and go buy the progressor they are way better IMO
post #17 of 20
Thread Starter 
Hi Guys, I agree I've been down the short ski road and keep back to slightly longers ones. I ski small hills in the Midwest and would prefer a shorter ski but I also enjoy skiing fast and like the added stability. Everyone praises the head Supershape in 170cm, I had a pair and found them to be a scary ride at high speeds. Its hard to buy skis without the opportunity to demo first, I bought the 175's even though I really wanted the 170's.
post #18 of 20
Thread Starter 
This ski isn't my only ski, I have a rather large quiver that will be going up for sale very soon (all very similar). We don't have many demo opportunities in the Midwest, no trying before buying! If this were to be my only ski, the choice would be simple the 175's all the way. I currently own Fischer Worldcup RC's in 175 and 180cm, Head Supershape Speed in 177, Head XRC1200 (2007 version) in 177cm, Rossignol 9X Oversize in 181cm, Rossignol 9S Oversize in 173cm, Stockli Stormrider XL in 174cm. Most of my ski's are more GS oriented as I like to ski fast, thats kind of why I wanted something shorter and quicker but I just can't give up the high speed stability of a GS ski. I don't want to lose that GS stability but also want something thats easier skiing and works well at slower speeds when skiing with my 5 year old and with a smaller radius. The RX8 I beleive is the right ski for the job, its just a matter of what length.
post #19 of 20
The RX-8 will edge and turn easily at low speeds, such as when skiing with family/kids, but it takes more speed and energy to really carve the ski -- so also keep that in mind. While you will be able to get nice short turns out of the ski at low speed, it's not going to have a lot of energy or feel fun. The short turns will be fairly dead feeling. I actually get a lot more energy/fun out of my Public Enemy skis at low speed when doing greens with my family/friends. The RX-8 is a bit too high strung to really respond well in the same conditions. Not many skis can feel alive at low speeds when the input energy is low, unfortunately.
post #20 of 20
Thread Starter 
In other words, I should have bought the 170's instead of the 175's! I normally like a lively ski but for its intended use it might not be so bad. Thanks for the info, that is good to know.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Ski Gear Discussion