EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › Ski Gear Discussion › Fischer RX8 versus Dynastar Contact 9
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Fischer RX8 versus Dynastar Contact 9

post #1 of 24
Thread Starter 
Just joined this forum and would love some help in choosing between these skis. I am looking at the 2007 models in each of them. This will be a replacement for my eastern ski. Primarily ski Vermont (Killington) and am replacing Volkl Carver Motions. 5'10", 175-180 lbs.. Advanced (not expert) skier. Looking for something that will allow me to handle the changing conditions at Killington. Hardpack, windblown ice, crud in the trees, bumps, manmade snow, etc. We do mainly groomer trails, but venture into the trees and try to do some bumps on Bear Mountain as well. While I would like something with as much versatility and grip as possible, I only get out a hnadful of days per year and don't want to feel completely beat up at the end of the day, so forgiveness is also key for the lazy/dumb last runs! If there is a suggestion outside of the RX8 and Contact 9, let me know, but I don't think I can make a bad decision with one of those 2.
post #2 of 24
Am roughly your size and ability, ski K a lot, have owned the RX8 and Contact 11, haven't skied the 9. What I can say is that the RX8 is the best hard snow recreational carver I've ever used. It has a few minor weaknesses - tends to be a bit nervous in crud and the tails are a bit stiff for being great in bumps - but far outweighed by how gracefully RX's carve any shape you ask on anything from light pow to sheet ice. I've heard good things about the 9; I'd guess it's a touch quicker and they say it rocks in bumps, which I believe. I doubt that it's as secure or smooth in the carve, though, and I'd assume a lower speed limit. Both great skis, but the RX8 is one of the all timers. Get it.
post #3 of 24
Quote:
Originally Posted by beyond View Post
the RX8 is one of the all timers. Get it.
Good advice! Follow it.
post #4 of 24
If you were comparing the C-11 and the RX 8 then it would be a tough call, but the C-9 is not in the same league, get the RX-8.

SJ
post #5 of 24
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by SierraJim View Post
If you were comparing the C-11 and the RX 8 then it would be a tough call, but the C-9 is not in the same league, get the RX-8.

SJ
Not as familiar with the Contact 11, nor with the 10. I had heard the 9's versatility and forgiveness were true winners if you are not pushing it to its speed limit. What's the forgiveness level of the C-11 and RX8? I am not going to push any of the skis to their absolute limits on speed.
post #6 of 24
Thread Starter 
Thanks for the input from all who responded. What length would you recommend in each ski? I was originally looking at around 170, but several folks who weigh more than me have told me they ski the RX8 in 165. The Contact 9 is also available in 165 or 172. Any length recommendations from folks who know these skis?
post #7 of 24
I'm 165 and skied the RX8 in 170; wish now I had bought the 165. So for you, the 165 would be fine, especially good in tight spaces, short-medium radius and bumps, while the 170 would be equally fine, lose a bit in the bumps, gain a bit for medium-long radius and at speed. There are endless threads about this, no one can agree. It's a call more about your style than the "correct" length.

The Contact 9 is a softer ski, so you'd want to err on the longer side.
post #8 of 24
I'm 165 to 170 lbs (depending on how much turkey I eat at Thanksgiving Dinner). I found the RX8 in 170 a perfect length for mostly on-piste skiing. The skis I finally bought after my search for a modern ski, Fischer WC SCs are a little stiffer so I got them in a 165, but I also have other longer skis to complement them.
post #9 of 24

Rx

I think choosing a length is somewhat dependent on how you like to ski.

For myself, I turn them a lot and I like doing bumps and stuff. I rarely just go GS the groomers. For me I have the 160 length and I'm 5'9" and 165lbs.

I think it's usually better to go as short as you are comfortable. A longer ski helps a little for real high speeds, but that's not what this ski is about.

A shorter ski is more versitile, better in bumps, turns easier, and is generally easier to ski and have fun with. If I were you there's no way I would go above 170 and I would seriously consider the 160.

Either way, the RX8 is the best all around ski I've ever used. Even on powder days I find I prefer it to my wider skis. I ski them in bumps, crud, groomed, pow, or whatever, and I've yet to find any real weaknesses.

P.S. I saw the new RX 8 Fire FTI did not get such a good review in the latest skipress ski test. Does anyone know if the've made any major changes to the ski? If so, I may want to find another set from last year.
post #10 of 24
Realskiers.com gave the new RX8 one of the best overall scores ever...

Here is the free 30 second review...

One of the highest scoring skis we have seen and a player for Ski of the Year. Extremely quick, silky smooth, solid and stable and even forgiving. These sentiments appeared on a number of cards and tell the story: "Fun carver, nice light feel, refreshing change from over damp heavy carving skis. Simple, fun—I'm going to get a pair!" No need to lament the passing of the legendary RX8 . . .

I think that says it all...
post #11 of 24
Quote:
Originally Posted by srbarry View Post
I think choosing a length is somewhat dependent on how you like to ski.
Heartily agree!

Quote:
Originally Posted by srbarry View Post
I think it's usually better to go as short as you are comfortable. A longer ski helps a little for real high speeds, but that's not what this ski is about.

A shorter ski is more versitile, better in bumps, turns easier, and is generally easier to ski and have fun with. If I were you there's no way I would go above 170 and I would seriously consider the 160.
Disagree with this, though. Even at 170, the RX-8 loves to swing short radius turns. (I think it's a 13m radius @ 170 -- 12m @160). The extra length makes it a much different ski for higher speed carving. 170's are more stable, better edge hold, less twitchy for high speed runs.

I'm your height and weight and ski the RX-8 at 170. Did a swap-and-compare last year with some friends last year and had a chance to try the 165's against my 170's. Wouldn't dream of going shorter!


Quote:
Originally Posted by srbarry View Post
Either way, the RX8 is the best all around ski I've ever used. Even on powder days I find I prefer it to my wider skis. I ski them in bumps, crud, groomed, pow, or whatever, and I've yet to find any real weaknesses.
I've found 'em a bit twitchy in crud, but otherwise agree with the sentiment ... It's the best east coast ski I've ever skied!!
post #12 of 24
I've always been curious , what is the difference between western and eastern skies?
post #13 of 24
No such thing as a "Western" or "Eastern" Ski per se (I'm going to assume your asking about skis not skies), but Advanced/Expert skiers in the east and west will likely seek a different all-around ski for daily usage if they only have a one-ski quiver, based on general differences in terrain and snow.
For example, the best ski for me if I usually in tight trees, bumps and generally firm conditions will likely be different than a the ski I'd choose if I was looking to ski powder, softer snow and more wide open bowls and chutes.

Hope that helps.
post #14 of 24
Quote:
Originally Posted by giopailo View Post
I've always been curious , what is the difference between western and eastern skies?
They are talking about Eastern or Western North America. The skiing in the east generally has smaller hills, closer quarters, groomed runs, hard snow or ice. The skiing in the west has more deep soft snow, wide open spaces longer trails and steeper sustained grades. Most people would want a shorter radius and stiffer narrower ski for the East and a wider softer longer ski for the west.
If I could only have one ski for the East Coast it would likely be an SX12 or WC RC or GS race ski. If I could only have one ski for the west it would likely be a Dynastar Legend Pro or similar.
post #15 of 24
Thread Starter 
SierraJim - You had posted this comment in my thread. I bought a pair of last year's RX8's at a price so low I could easily resell them. I wanted to get more of your input on the Dynastar Contact 11 as an alternative. I have purchased a few gear items on your website and really enjoy your ski reviews. Any direct comparison/contrast you could provide between the RX-8 and C-11 would be really helpful.

Thanks!
Quote:
Originally Posted by SierraJim View Post
If you were comparing the C-11 and the RX 8 then it would be a tough call, but the C-9 is not in the same league, get the RX-8.

SJ
post #16 of 24
Yes, second that - those 2 skis are on my list too. What's their relative performance in variable conditions?
post #17 of 24
I woulda missed this without the last bump.

OK.....first, these are two really great skis, in basically the same category, but with different personalities.

The RX-8 is more of a classic carver with great edge grip tip to tail. Fischer manages to build this great grip without making the ski excessively stiff or harsh. This is a high energy ski with a strong finish from the tail. The RX-8 has somewhat better grip than the C-11 and more energy. On Eastern groomers, hardest snow, and rebound energy, I'd give the RX-8 the edge.

The C-11 has a much wider tip and a comparatively narrow tail. The C hooks up from the tip with a touch of your ankle but will require a little more active movement of your foot to maintain tail pressure to execute a clean finish. This may sound like a negative, but it isn't. The big taper allows the C-11 to break out of the arc a little more easily if/when you need to. The C-11 is a little more damp than the RX. I give the C-11 the nod in variable conditions or for someone who wants a little quieter carver ride.

It's a tough call because each one has some great virtues.

SJ
post #18 of 24
Thread Starter 
Thanks for the insight. Doesn't sound like one can go wrong with either ski. This may sound like an odd question, but will either ski be better for fatigue factor at the end of the day? Which will be better for the occasional mogul run?

Thanks again.
post #19 of 24
Quote:
Originally Posted by hobbes429 View Post
Thanks for the insight. Doesn't sound like one can go wrong with either ski. This may sound like an odd question, but will either ski be better for fatigue factor at the end of the day? Which will be better for the occasional mogul run?

Thanks again.
I'm not sure that I've ever thought about it in that way. I suppose that the C-11 is easier to do slippy slidey turns at the end of the day. The more precise nature of the RX might require a little more attention when your legs are fried.

Moguls?......Probably a tossup. The wider C-11 tip is a little cumbersome, but the tapered tail is more forgiving.

SJ
post #20 of 24
Hobbes, I see you go the same advice here too! You will be very happy with the 8, I still think you would be better with the 170 but that's fine for at least this season. Sierra Jim is right on. The 8 is going to be more precise and better edge hold over the C-11 (which I bought from Jim) I have skied the 8 and you are really getting the best east coast all arounder out there other than the Supershape. Which is a more advanced ski but not as good in the bumps.

Ron
post #21 of 24
Thread Starter 
Thanks to all! Can't wait to ski the RX8!
post #22 of 24
hobbes,

I've spent the last two ski days on a new pair of 2007 dynastar contact 9's-

Just saying, I know you've been steered away from these-but if possible-give them a try, I'm quite delighted with their performance. I had an opportunity to get them out in some of the recent Vermont snowfall (also mixed with copious snow-gun snow, groomers and moguls--what a december, huh?).

I've found them surprisingly stable in all kinds of snow, great carvers (of course-as that's what they're designed to be) and really, really "smooth" in most conditions (not damp, but smooth-it's a feel thing, if you try a pair of dynastars you'll get it).

I'd also tried the RX 8's last year and the contact 11-no complaints about either, everything that has been said about them is true--but some of the disparaging comments about the contact 9 are, from my experience, way off base. These skis have a lot of guts and a huge window of use for an adventurous intermediate.
post #23 of 24
Thread Starter 
Thanks for resurrecting this thread. I am a little confused about the Contact Line. What are the real differences between the 9, 10 and 11 from '07 or the same skis (9, 10 and Limited) from this year?
post #24 of 24
Quote:
Originally Posted by hobbes429 View Post
Thanks for resurrecting this thread. I am a little confused about the Contact Line. What are the real differences between the 9, 10 and 11 from '07 or the same skis (9, 10 and Limited) from this year?
The 11 and the 9 are pretty different skis-I think the simplest way to see it is that the 11 is based on a more gs platform and the 9 a slalom one-though, in all reality neither one doubles as an actual gs or slalom ski-and both, when paired to the right skier, make for great all-around east coast resort skis. The 10 tries to split the difference between the 9 and the 10 and, from what I understand, falls well short of both. The 10 is a more toothless version of the 11-and teeth are a good thing in the east!

As I said, I skied the 11 and liked it, but I was really looking for a quick carver with some guts-I should add, that I tried both in bumps (at Killington btw) and preferred the 9-but that has more to do with my bump approach (round-carve-ish turner)-but more aggressive bump skiers seem to have high praise for the 11 (It certainly was a capable ski in the bumps in my experience as well).

Another thing-I've heard a few folks dismiss the speed limit of the 9-in my brief experience so far-I haven't found it yet-you can go plenty fast and stable on these skis. I will say that the 9 does like to be on edge a lot more (and when you run them flat they feel a little squirrely-but very solid when on edge-even in soft, sticky snow)-I found the 11 more forgiving while noodling around the mountain (running them flat on busy green cruisers for instance). The caveat is, that the 9's are darn easy to put and keep on edge.


Oh-1'm 165 lbs, ski the 9 in a 165cm and demoed the 11 in the 172-both lengths felt (feel) dead on for me.

At any rate-it's worth it to demo the 11 and the 9-as they will give you a good sense of the two sorts of approaches you may want for a mostly in-bounds east coast ski (even if you decide to pursue those attributes in another manufacturers models)

Finally-I'd like to give a little plug for the auto-drive binding plate system and the px look bindings-I think dynastar has a good thing going there as well.

and the tip-caps on the dynastars look pretty darn cool too-fwiw.

Have fun-your initial instinct is right-you can't go wrong with any ski mentioned in this thread-especially given your stated preferences. Cost is a fair determinant of ski choice too!
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 RX8 versus Dynastar Contact 9