EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › Member Gear Reviews › 2009 skis 86mm and under Part II: 4x4, Progressor 9+, Progressor 8+, WC RC, AC50, Lord, Explorer, Mach 3 Power, 82ti, 78ti,
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

2009 skis 86mm and under Part II: 4x4, Progressor 9+, Progressor 8+, WC RC, AC50, Lord, Explorer,...  

post #1 of 30
Thread Starter 
2009 ski reviews: 85mm and narrower skis, part 2

Skis reviewed:

Fischer Cold Heat 170cm
Fischer Progressor 9+ 175cm
Fischer Progressor 9+ 170cm
Fischer WC RC 175cm
Fischer Progressor 8+ 170cm
Elan Magfire 82ti 176cm
Elan Magfire 78ti 176cm
Nordica Mach 3 Power 170cm
Volkl AC50 170cm
K2 Explorer 177cm
Salomon Lord 175cm
Dynastar 4x4 178cm
Dynastar 4x4 172cm

I skied these over a period of 2 days. Conditions were the same as the others: crusty snow, with around 4” new on top the second day. Skied primarily on groomers, except where noted. I did take several off-piste.

About me: 5 foot 9 (176cm), 152lbs (70kg) and dropping fast (cycling season is here!), ski 40-50 days/year, improving skill-wise, can typically ski the whole mountain, like to ski fairly fast where applicable. I have had success on most width skis, and tend to ski models between around 78-90mm for the conditions these skis were tested in.



Disclaimer: I do sell many of these brands, but not all. I try to be impartial, so don't think that I give high marks to certain skis just because I sell them. In fact, the opposite is probably true. As I am the buyer here at Village Bike and Ski, I am "the Deciderer" (sorry, had to say it!) of what we sell, and obviously, I feel more comfortable selling skis that I feel to be good skis (as opposed to well-marketed skis) and therefore tend to like most, but not all, of the skis that we carry. I am not afraid to pan a ski that I sell but don't like: if I think it sucks, I will say so, and if it sucks, then you may not see it here at the shop. And, I often give props to skis which I don't carry but wouldn't mind owning or like them for whatever reason. There are a lot of good skis out there, and just because I don't like your ski doesn't say anything about you or your choice; all it means is that I don't care for that ski, for whatever reason. That is why there are 200 ski models on the market: everyone has their individual needs and preferences. A bit on my preferences; I tend to like traditional-feeling skis, powerful, somewhat energetic, somewhat damp, high-end, very stable.


Fischer Cold Heat 170cm: new for 2009 is the Railflex instead of the Flowflex binding, but the ski itself is unchanged.

Review: I own a pair, and these felt a bit lighter, a little more forgiving, and not quite as stout or powerful. Pretty close to the current version, just a bit better for many skiers who may have found the 2008 version a bit too powerful. The 2008 version turns practically on it’s own, so this one is even slightly easier, with a softer flex around the binding, and bit larger sweet spot. Stability is almost the same, just not quite as burly of a feel. Great off-piste, smoothes over the rough, cruddy snow, very easy to turn. Likes speed, but does OK going slow as well. Needs a good skier who can stay centered. I really like this ski, although I am not sure that the 2009 changes are all that significant. The Flowflex adds what feels like a bit of stability without making the ski much burlier. This is also a great carver: it holds nearly as well as a race ski on hardpack. In fact, I prefer it in many cases for hard-snow carving, as it has a bigger sweet spot than many race skis. Also, I can take it off-piste if I so choose, something which is much harder to do with race carvers on. Great skis, very versatile, top-end performance!

Fischer Progressor 9+ 175cm: same ski as the 2008 Progressor, but with a new name, the 9+. 70mm underfoot, Flowflex binding, very stout ski. Similar in construction to the WC SC and RC.

Review: at my size, this ski is great at speed. It feels very GS-like, powerful, with no speed limit. I can turn it into any size arc, but it wants to go fast and feels most at home in GS arcs. The sweet spot is a bit larger than on the WC RC, not quite as stable, doesn’t feel as laterally aggressive at the tip, but still as strong of a non-race ski that is on the market. The 175cm isn’t nimble off-piste, but blows through crud, although the Cold Heat gets the edge in terms of forgiveness. For me, skiing this ski at head height is like skiing a slightly more versatile version of a GS race carver. This is a ski to be taken seriously, but offers top performance for the good skier. One could easily run Masters GS or City League on it: this ski is totally stable at race speeds. Great ski as well!

Fischer Progressor 9+ 170cm: same as the 175cm, except for the shorter length.

Review: 170cm is much different in feel than the 175. This ski will run straight, but also wants to turn more. It would be the length to choose as an any-radius carver for someone my size. In shorter turns, and off-piste, it is totally workable, but doesn’t lack stability. Not as stable as the 175, but not bad, and I can’t out-ski it speed wise. But, it doesn’t have that “go as fast as you can and still fall asleep” feel of the 175cm. In crud, it is much turnier, quicker edge-to-edge, and more nimble. Probably the ideal “instructors” length for skiing both fast and slow. Still more demanding than the Cold Heat, holds a wicked edge, but needs to be piloted effectively in tough conditions or can run away. A great all-mountain East Coast ski for primarily hard snow but the occasional soft-snow day. One of my personal favorites in the hard-snow category.

Fischer WC RC 175cm: same as the 2008 ski: 16m radius I believe, Flowflex plate, 66mm underfoot.

Review: this ski gives up a bit of versatility that exists in the 175cm Progressor for a bit more top-end power that the Progressor lacks. It feels pretty darn close to a real race ski, save for the huge sweet spot. At slow speeds, this ski is much balkier, and doesn’t want to do short, slow turns whatsoever. But, once up to a reasonable, normal skiing speed, it is so easy to turn, and holds like a crampon on ice. The edgehold and edge-to-edge quickness is noticeable over the Progressor, which is already stellar in that regard. The tip feels stiffer on the RC, which would explain why it has to be up to speed before starting to carve and feel effortless. Don’t bother taking this ski off-piste: it is for rocketing down groomers and running gates. Hard snow skis don’t get any better than this!

Fischer Progressor 8+ 170cm: 72mm underfoot, similar layup to the 9+, but without metal. Meant to be more forgiving off-piste, and for high-end skiers looking for a slightly less burly ski than the Progressor.

Review: this ski effectively replaces the RX8, which still will be available (as it has such a cult following) but the 8+ is clearly superior in terms of performance. Vertical sidewall, no metal, mid-stiffness flex. I skied this everywhere: crunchy off-piste snow, a bit of soft snow, a narrow chute, bumps, groomers, and it was really, really fun! Very easy compared to the 9+, especially off-piste, but didn’t give up much performance. Only at top speeds did I feel a bit more lightness and lack of stability, but it was probably less than a 5% loss. This ski still can be a powerhouse, a great carver, but is versatile and easy in any condition I tried it in. It turned almost on it’s own when skiing a narrow, crusty chute, and felt right at home. The 8+ stacks up well against the Speedwave 12 and standard Supershape, in terms of performance and versatility, and has the typical Fischer feel: damp, very powerful, very Austrian. This is a do-anything ski for the East Coast skier, as well as the Western skier who wants a no-new-snow day ski, similar to that of the Supershape Magnum. Bigger skiers should look at the 175, and I may have even liked that length for top-stability without an overpowering flex. For good skiers who want something a bit more versatile than the 9+, look at this ski. It blows away the RX8 in terms of performance, without asking much more of the skier.

Elan Magfire 82ti 176cm: new for 2009, much lighter ski, new internal construction, same dimensions and very similar to the naked eye. 17m radius.

Review: Elan has made some great strides for 2009. I liked last year’s Magfire 12, and this is the replacement. It was perhaps my favorite overall ski tested here. I could ski it at any speed, in any condition, and it just made things easy. On hardpack, the length and lateral stiffness combined to give me close to a race-ski feel, but the flex was perfect to get some energy out of the ski, and tons of forgiveness. In crud, the length was perfect, and the flex felt right at home for me. It had no practical speed limit. In narrow spaces, the ski again was super easy to pilot and willingly did what I asked of it. The overall feel is damp, but with more energy than the current Mag 12, and will remind people of the 666, yet with an easier feel off-piste and more stability in the given length. For me, it was a carver and all-mountain ski rolled into one. Smooth, stable, energetic, race-like on the groomers: I was very impressed. Elan will get some good reviews on this one. I ordered a pair of its big brother (the 82x) and they should be here next week. I will report back with my detailed impressions.

Elan Magfire 78ti: 78mm underfoot, similar layup as the 82, 1 sheet of metal. There is no 78x, only a 78ti and a standard (no metal) 78. Somewhere around a 17m radius.

Review: very similar to the 82ti. If you want something a bit quicker edge-to-edge, get this ski. It wasn’t as capable in the crud (amazing what 4mm underfoot does for float in crusty snow) but it was as close to a vice-like grip as I found from any midfat. This is a GS-feeling carver and moderate off-piste condition ski, which holds well, pulls you into the turn, and really performs on the groomers. I dare say it was more laterally stiff than the 82ti, although it could have been the tune. Off-piste, it was confident, provided I didn’t need tons of float, and very quick edge-to-edge. Same feel as the 82ti: smooth, damp, nice powerful energetic feel that Elan is known for. Since there is no Speedwave series coming to the US next year, this will be the obvious hard-snow choice for Elan. Speedwave is still available, but the US distributor saw sales falling in this category, so they developed the 777 and the Magfire 78 and 78ti for the US market. This will go up against the Nitrous, Top Fuel, AC30, and iM78/78 Chip as the all-mountain or 50/50 ski of choice in the US. Or, as the SkiPress puts it “Freeride, East Coast” category.

Volkl AC50 170cm: 85mm underfoot, similar construction to the AC40, but feels a bit different. Toned down w/regards to lateral stiffness, larger turn radius (16.8m?)

Review: I didn’t care for the AC40 one bit the last time I skied it, and was therefore pleasantly surprised by the AC50. It was very forgiving, easy to ski, exciting, and well-rounded. I would give it top marks in terms of forgiveness especially. It was laterally stiffer than many in this category, which meant that it was definitely biased toward groomers, but not so much that it was too much work in variable snow. On groomers, it was exciting and much more fun than the Grizzly. Off-piste, it was very easy to ski, but you had to watch it at higher speeds. This could have been due partly to the length: 170cm is a bit short in crud at speed. The plus was super-easy turn initiation: think, and this ski turns. It still has the light, laterally stiff feel of the AC40, and feels much lighter and different than the typical wood-core ski. I could ski it at any speed, slow or fast. In crud, I would put the stability a notch below the Cold Heat and 82ti, but ease of use was probably above either of those two. Edgehold wasn’t quite what the 82ti was giving me, but close, and a fun groomer ski. It was light, fairly energetic, and moderately smooth. Overall, I prefer the damper, more traditional wood-core ski to the AC-series construction, but this the best one I have tried, and I wouldn’t mind owning a pair. I would say that it is targeted slightly more towards the weekend warrior/resort skier crowd than some of the others I tried. It matches up against the K2 Explorer, but with a completely different feel. I liked it!

K2 Explorer 177cm: new ski for 2009, 84mm underfoot, somewhere around a 17m radius.

Review: this will be the new do-everything for K2 in the coming year. The Recon is still around, but the Explorer is likely the better choice for the Western skier, as the Outlaw grows to 92mm underfoot and gets the Coomba tip, which to me, lessened the Outlaw’s versatility. At 84mm underfoot, this ski is great for most conditions we see around here. This ski was a nice ski, and very versatile. Trademark K2: damp and smooth, not tops in stability or high-end performance, but that is to be expected. It was easy, stayed on top of the crud, was easy to ski until I started to hit really fast speeds . This ski was also great on the groomers at moderate speed: hooked up easily, held relatively well, was fairly stable, and smooth as silk. Not the last word in energy or power, but it should suit many lower-energy skiers. Probably a better choice than the current Outlaw as well for many people, especially since I see Outlaws all the time around here being skiing on groomers. This is a much better groomer ski and almost as good off-piste. It was perhaps the easiest ski to turn of all the skis tested, and so forgiving that a snowboarder could ski it. I can see this being a big hit with many skiers who like the K2 feel but are looking to update their Recon or Axis XP.

Salomon Lord 175cm? New ski for 2009, replaces the Foil. It is 85mm underfoot and very light. Was mounted with a jibber binding with DIN up to 12 (no lift).

Review: Not sure if this was 175cm or something else, but it was close to that length. This ski felt like a light foam-core ski, not a big-mountain ride. To be frank, I wasn’t impressed. No stability in the crud, very grabby, not much of a carver, and not much float. The Sandstorm is a much better all-around ski. This one was so light that it was easily tossed at speed. It was relatively easy to turn at slow speeds, and fairly forgiving, but not for an aggressive skier looking for an all-mountain ride. I don’t do much in the way of park/pipe, so I can’t comment on it’s performance in that arena. But, as I was told by the Sollie rep to try it out as an high-performance all-mountain ride and that it was to be marketed as such, I don’t feel that it is out of place to be reviewed here.

Nordica Mach 3 Power 170cm: new XBI interface for 2009, otherwise unchanged. Has metal, the step down (Mach 3 Carbon) does not.

Review: When I skied this 2 years ago, this ski kicked my ass, plain and simple. I must have improved along the way, as this ski was now extremely enjoyable. It is stiff, and doesn’t really do much at slow speeds, but no surprise there. Let it flow, arc to arc, and you will be a happy camper. I couldn’t generate much energy from it, but as long as I was accurate and balanced (my best skiing of the day was on this ski, the whole pedal turn that Eric D. was working with us was foremost in my mind) it ripped the groomers, held a great edge, and was incredibly stable for a 170cm. Stout ski, no doubt, and I wouldn’t venture too far off the groomers with it, but this is a very exciting ski at speed. It pulled me in predictably to the new arc, and was neither grabby or slow to engage. The lateral stiffness felt just about right, the ski was damp without being dead, and very muscular. The perfect blend of race-ski performance and freeskiing sweet spot. This is a great ski!

Dynastar 4x4 178cm and 172cm: new ski for 2009, 75mm underfoot, middle-of-the-road turn radius.

Review 178cm: I tried both the 178 and 172. The 178 felt like a GS race carver: big and stable, not much energy. Just put it on edge and let ‘er rip. I took it off-piste, and it was quite stable. This length was skiiable for myself, but not a ton of fun. Nice edgehold, very solid at speed. The 178cm doesn’t make much sense for myself, though. Onto the 172cm….

Review 172cm: This one felt much better. Stouter than any Dynastar I can remember skiing (save for the LP), smooth, damp, but more muscular than the typical Autodrive Dynastar ski. This one is full vertical sidewall. It feels a bit smoother and softer than, say a Head or Nordica, but very powerful underfoot. Edgehold was as good as any ski here: I would say it felt narrower than 75mm underfoot. Off-piste, the extra float was welcome. It was a relatively stiff carver, and more demanding in off-piste conditions than say more of a moderate flex, more forgiving all-mountain ski like the iM78. But, it was workable in off-piste conditions, provided they weren’t bumps. It stayed up on top of the snow quite well, considering what it was meant to do. And, on groomers, this ski is money. It was arguably the best groomer ski of the day, save for the WC RC from Fischer, and the RC doesn’t have anywhere this level of versatility. Edgehold, stability, overall power and feel are up there with the best of them. I would concur with what Sierra Jim said, which was essentially this “the 4x4 is a groomer ski first and foremost, not an all-mountain ride, but is workable in variable conditions” (correct me if I am misquoting you, SJ!). The 4x4 is a superb ski for sure. I have a feeling that bigger, more aggressive skiers may prefer either the Progressor or Mach 3 Power, as big guys rarely like the same skis as myself, but I could find no fault with the 4x4, considering it’s intended purpose. It is on my short list for next season.

All 2013's on sale right now at Dawgcatching.com.  Get an extra 10% off with off10fb2013 which is valid only for epicski members.

post #2 of 30
Nicely done, dawg, as usual! Sounds like the Elans are worth a try for me, as well...
post #3 of 30
Scott,

Thanks for the review. How are the 82ti and 82x different?
post #4 of 30
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Magnus_CA View Post
Scott,

Thanks for the review. How are the 82ti and 82x different?
82x has more metal, 82ti has only a little metal. They both are lighter than the current Mag 12, and the Fusion system is lighter by 30%. I skied both, and the 82ti is more flickable and easier at slower speeds, but still plenty of ski. The 82x was a little better at really fast speeds in crud, but still easy to ski. They are much more similar than different. It is the same thing that Nordica does with the Afterburner and Jet Fuel, although the performance difference on the 82x and 82ti is not that different, whereas it is pretty large on the Afterburner and Jet Fuel.

All 2013's on sale right now at Dawgcatching.com.  Get an extra 10% off with off10fb2013 which is valid only for epicski members.

post #5 of 30
HI Scott,

Great reviews as always. How does the 172cm 4X4 compare to the 175cm Progressor 9+ in turn shape, stability and forgiveness? The 178cm 4X4 feels beefier than the 175cm Progressor by a good margin, is the 172cm just right?

Michael
post #6 of 30
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by barrettscv View Post
HI Scott,

Great reviews as always. How does the 172cm 4X4 compare to the 175cm Progressor 9+ in turn shape, stability and forgiveness? The 178cm 4X4 feels beefier than the 175cm Progressor by a good margin, is the 172cm just right?

Michael
The 178 felt a bit beefier than the 175 to me, but the 172 felt close to the 170 Progressor. I skied them almost back-to-back. Maybe the 172 has a little more beef, but not much. The 4x4 was a tad more forgiving, a bit earlier to initiate (maybe the wider tip?) and a little more stable in 172 over the 170 Progressor. The Progressor was a bit more powerful and muscular. The 175 Progressor was more stable than the 172 4x4.

All 2013's on sale right now at Dawgcatching.com.  Get an extra 10% off with off10fb2013 which is valid only for epicski members.

post #7 of 30
How do the Progressor 9+ and the RC4 RC compare to my beloved Rip Sticks? Are either comparable? I really enjoy the edge hold and the quickness of the Rip Stick. I am still trying to figure out my next ski. Edge hold is imperative here in the East.
post #8 of 30
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dauntless View Post
How do the Progressor 9+ and the RC4 RC compare to my beloved Rip Sticks? Are either comparable? I really enjoy the edge hold and the quickness of the Rip Stick. I am still trying to figure out my next ski. Edge hold is imperative here in the East.
Progressor is similar to the RIPstick, the RC is more powerful, racier, and less forgiving. The RIPstick is just as good as the Progressor, but has a bit softer flex and more energy. Personally, it would be a tough call between the two: the RIPstick is awfully good. Stability is on par in the same length. The RIPstick is still available as the GSX Fusion Pro, although the Pro is slightly stiffer. They are the same otherwise.

All 2013's on sale right now at Dawgcatching.com.  Get an extra 10% off with off10fb2013 which is valid only for epicski members.

post #9 of 30
Very nice review Scott.

So I take it that the 82x and 82ti are replacing the Mag 14 and Mag 12, respectively, in the lineup? Any reason Elan tweaked these skis after only one year? I thought the Mag 14 was too much beefcake for such a wide ski, and I am curious if the 82x has toned that down a bit.

If you had to make a head to head comparison between the Cold Heat and Mag 82x/ti, what would you say? I keep thinking that one of these skis could be a one ski quiver for me, but inevitably I have wanted narrower skis for hard snow and wider/softer/lighter skis for soft snow, so the wide+stiff formula still seems oddball. Sometimes it seems like they are trying too hard to do everything with these burly mid-fats.
post #10 of 30
Quote:
Originally Posted by dawgcatching View Post
Progressor is similar to the RIPstick, the RC is more powerful, racier, and less forgiving. The RIPstick is just as good as the Progressor, but has a bit softer flex and more energy. Personally, it would be a tough call between the two: the RIPstick is awfully good. Stability is on par in the same length. The RIPstick is still available as the GSX Fusion Pro, although the Pro is slightly stiffer. They are the same otherwise.
Thanks Dawgcatching. I always enjoy your reviews and appreciate your input.
post #11 of 30
Dawg, how does the new Elan 78ti compare to the Nordica Top Fuel? I demoed the Top Fuel this weekend, and was very impressed. Has to be the best midfat I have ever skied for hardpack conditions here in the East. Found it to also be very nimble in the trees, much better in short turns than I would have guessed. I was all set to buy a pair, but now you've got me curious about the new Elan's. How do they stack up?
Thanks,
Mac
post #12 of 30
You've got to be kidding....the Elan's I've skied make some of the dampest skis feel lively by comparison. Dawg, do you have race background???....reading your reviews you sound like an ex-racer who really likes to go fast. I do, however, agree with your review of the Xplorer, which by the way, will be the SOY I'm sure. It turns as easy as the Recon and is way more versatile. I as skied on the ski at Snowbasin and never once got the sense that it wasn't super stable. K2 took the piston out of the binding and it now has much more snap and feel. I've never bought into the whole Marker Piston control thing and think just about any ski feel better without.
post #13 of 30
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by cruddog View Post
You've got to be kidding....the Elan's I've skied make some of the dampest skis feel lively by comparison. Dawg, do you have race background???....reading your reviews you sound like an ex-racer who really likes to go fast. I do, however, agree with your review of the Xplorer, which by the way, will be the SOY I'm sure. It turns as easy as the Recon and is way more versatile. I as skied on the ski at Snowbasin and never once got the sense that it wasn't super stable. K2 took the piston out of the binding and it now has much more snap and feel. I've never bought into the whole Marker Piston control thing and think just about any ski feel better without.
For me, Elans have a bit of energy, especially the RIPstick. It is a springy ski, with a moderate flex. The SLX is also a very energetic ski, as is the old 666. I don't race, but I do like to ski fast and keep the skis on edge, more or less (one of the criticism's on my MA thread).

All 2013's on sale right now at Dawgcatching.com.  Get an extra 10% off with off10fb2013 which is valid only for epicski members.

post #14 of 30
Quote:
Originally Posted by dawgcatching View Post
.............Sierra Jim said, which was essentially this “the 4x4 is a groomer ski first and foremost, not an all-mountain ride, but is workable in variable conditions” (correct me if I am misquoting you, SJ!).

Close enough...................

FWIW I think most of the 75-85mm skis that are stiff torsionally, are simply variations on the theme of "wide carver" I get a pretty high number of skiers that identify themselves as 90/10 folks that don't have much appetite for deeper snow, but classify themselves as advanced+ skiers. (I call this the EZ expert) For those folks, I will be starting my wall @ ~~ 75mm. (the exception being one of the Progressors)

The important thing (to me anyhoooo) is the that width is no longer the decider, it's the build of the ski. Comparing the AC-50 to Fischer Watea 84 for example points out to me that the flatter softer, Fischer is a better off trail ski than the marginally wider Volkl. Why??....good question, but my take is that the torsionally stiffer skis surrender some of the nimbleness and easy going feel that a good majority of folks want when they are in the goo.

I skied a number of flat, all mountain skis in the 78(ish) range that were better in mixed and broken snow than some burly 84-85mm skis. The build, and thus, the blend of torsion and beam flex simply overrides the width. So...to put a point on it, the Legend 8K, Elan 777, Watea 78, and Rossi Phantom 80 were all much easier, better, more fun in totally mixed (mostly bad) conditions than the AC-50, Afterburner, Cold Heat, Zenith -15, etc.

BTW...I skied the Lord @ the January dealer intro @ Snowbasin and later at Mammoth both times in 185. I felt that it was a superb ski given the fact that it's a twip and has at least some faux rocker at the tip.

Tune???....

BBTW.....Agree on the AC-50....it's at least close to what the 40 always shoulda been but never quite was.

SJ

Bringing World Cup caliber ski equipment and service to all skiers - from pro ski racers to everyday all mountain skiers and into the...

post #15 of 30
Anyone compared the fischer rc4 wc rc to other brands? I hated it when comparing to my atomic gs12
post #16 of 30
Quote:
Originally Posted by cruddog View Post
You've got to be kidding....the Elan's I've skied make some of the dampest skis feel lively by comparison. Dawg, do you have race background???....reading your reviews you sound like an ex-racer who really likes to go fast. I do, however, agree with your review of the Xplorer, which by the way, will be the SOY I'm sure. It turns as easy as the Recon and is way more versatile. I as skied on the ski at Snowbasin and never once got the sense that it wasn't super stable. K2 took the piston out of the binding and it now has much more snap and feel. I've never bought into the whole Marker Piston control thing and think just about any ski feel better without.
I suspect that much of the difference that you have experienced has to do with technique and approach. Especially given what you're saying about the Recon.

For most folks that I have demo'd with, the Elans are lively and powerful, the Recon quite damp. We tend to ski more similarly than differently, however, and perhaps that's where the difference comes in.
post #17 of 30
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by SierraJim View Post

BTW...I skied the Lord @ the January dealer intro @ Snowbasin and later at Mammoth both times in 185. I felt that it was a superb ski given the fact that it's a twip and has at least some faux rocker at the tip.

Tune???....

BBTW.....Agree on the AC-50....it's at least close to what the 40 always shoulda been but never quite was.

SJ
Yeah, could have been the tune. See my note about the Blizzard Cronus: I was on a pair that was bent, just found that out today. All I knew was that I couldn't wait to get them off of my feet. The Lord felt very railed and unforgiving.

All 2013's on sale right now at Dawgcatching.com.  Get an extra 10% off with off10fb2013 which is valid only for epicski members.

post #18 of 30
Quote:
Originally Posted by dawgcatching View Post
Yeah, could have been the tune. See my note about the Blizzard Cronus: I was on a pair that was bent, just found that out today. All I knew was that I couldn't wait to get them off of my feet. The Lord felt very railed and unforgiving.
How did you find out they were bent?

When I lock my brakes together on my fischer rc4 wc rc, the edges doesn't match, but I guess that's just because my brakes are bent..?
post #19 of 30
Quote:
Originally Posted by dawgcatching View Post
2009 ski reviews: 85mm and narrower skis, part 2

Skis reviewed:

Fischer Cold Heat 170cm
Fischer Progressor 9+ 175cm
Fischer Progressor 9+ 170cm
Fischer WC RC 175cm
Fischer Progressor 8+ 170cm
Elan Magfire 82ti 176cm
Elan Magfire 78ti 176cm
Nordica Mach 3 Power 170cm
Volkl AC50 170cm
K2 Explorer 177cm
Salomon Lord 175cm
Dynastar 4x4 178cm
Dynastar 4x4 172cm

I skied these over a period of 2 days. Conditions were the same as the others: crusty snow, with around 4” new on top the second day. Skied primarily on groomers, except where noted. I did take several off-piste.

About me: 5 foot 9 (176cm), 152lbs (70kg) and dropping fast (cycling season is here!), ski 40-50 days/year, improving skill-wise, can typically ski the whole mountain, like to ski fairly fast where applicable. I have had success on most width skis, and tend to ski models between around 78-90mm for the conditions these skis were tested in.



Disclaimer: I do sell many of these brands, but not all. I try to be impartial, so don't think that I give high marks to certain skis just because I sell them. In fact, the opposite is probably true. As I am the buyer here at Village Bike and Ski, I am "the Deciderer" (sorry, had to say it!) of what we sell, and obviously, I feel more comfortable selling skis that I feel to be good skis (as opposed to well-marketed skis) and therefore tend to like most, but not all, of the skis that we carry. I am not afraid to pan a ski that I sell but don't like: if I think it sucks, I will say so, and if it sucks, then you may not see it here at the shop. And, I often give props to skis which I don't carry but wouldn't mind owning or like them for whatever reason. There are a lot of good skis out there, and just because I don't like your ski doesn't say anything about you or your choice; all it means is that I don't care for that ski, for whatever reason. That is why there are 200 ski models on the market: everyone has their individual needs and preferences. A bit on my preferences; I tend to like traditional-feeling skis, powerful, somewhat energetic, somewhat damp, high-end, very stable.


Fischer Cold Heat 170cm: new for 2009 is the Railflex instead of the Flowflex binding, but the ski itself is unchanged.

Review: I own a pair, and these felt a bit lighter, a little more forgiving, and not quite as stout or powerful. Pretty close to the current version, just a bit better for many skiers who may have found the 2008 version a bit too powerful. The 2008 version turns practically on it’s own, so this one is even slightly easier, with a softer flex around the binding, and bit larger sweet spot. Stability is almost the same, just not quite as burly of a feel. Great off-piste, smoothes over the rough, cruddy snow, very easy to turn. Likes speed, but does OK going slow as well. Needs a good skier who can stay centered. I really like this ski, although I am not sure that the 2009 changes are all that significant. The Flowflex adds what feels like a bit of stability without making the ski much burlier. This is also a great carver: it holds nearly as well as a race ski on hardpack. In fact, I prefer it in many cases for hard-snow carving, as it has a bigger sweet spot than many race skis. Also, I can take it off-piste if I so choose, something which is much harder to do with race carvers on. Great skis, very versatile, top-end performance!

Fischer Progressor 9+ 175cm: same ski as the 2008 Progressor, but with a new name, the 9+. 70mm underfoot, Flowflex binding, very stout ski. Similar in construction to the WC SC and RC.

Review: at my size, this ski is great at speed. It feels very GS-like, powerful, with no speed limit. I can turn it into any size arc, but it wants to go fast and feels most at home in GS arcs. The sweet spot is a bit larger than on the WC RC, not quite as stable, doesn’t feel as laterally aggressive at the tip, but still as strong of a non-race ski that is on the market. The 175cm isn’t nimble off-piste, but blows through crud, although the Cold Heat gets the edge in terms of forgiveness. For me, skiing this ski at head height is like skiing a slightly more versatile version of a GS race carver. This is a ski to be taken seriously, but offers top performance for the good skier. One could easily run Masters GS or City League on it: this ski is totally stable at race speeds. Great ski as well!

Fischer Progressor 9+ 170cm: same as the 175cm, except for the shorter length.

Review: 170cm is much different in feel than the 175. This ski will run straight, but also wants to turn more. It would be the length to choose as an any-radius carver for someone my size. In shorter turns, and off-piste, it is totally workable, but doesn’t lack stability. Not as stable as the 175, but not bad, and I can’t out-ski it speed wise. But, it doesn’t have that “go as fast as you can and still fall asleep” feel of the 175cm. In crud, it is much turnier, quicker edge-to-edge, and more nimble. Probably the ideal “instructors” length for skiing both fast and slow. Still more demanding than the Cold Heat, holds a wicked edge, but needs to be piloted effectively in tough conditions or can run away. A great all-mountain East Coast ski for primarily hard snow but the occasional soft-snow day. One of my personal favorites in the hard-snow category.

Fischer WC RC 175cm: same as the 2008 ski: 16m radius I believe, Flowflex plate, 66mm underfoot.

Review: this ski gives up a bit of versatility that exists in the 175cm Progressor for a bit more top-end power that the Progressor lacks. It feels pretty darn close to a real race ski, save for the huge sweet spot. At slow speeds, this ski is much balkier, and doesn’t want to do short, slow turns whatsoever. But, once up to a reasonable, normal skiing speed, it is so easy to turn, and holds like a crampon on ice. The edgehold and edge-to-edge quickness is noticeable over the Progressor, which is already stellar in that regard. The tip feels stiffer on the RC, which would explain why it has to be up to speed before starting to carve and feel effortless. Don’t bother taking this ski off-piste: it is for rocketing down groomers and running gates. Hard snow skis don’t get any better than this!

Fischer Progressor 8+ 170cm: 72mm underfoot, similar layup to the 9+, but without metal. Meant to be more forgiving off-piste, and for high-end skiers looking for a slightly less burly ski than the Progressor.

Review: this ski effectively replaces the RX8, which still will be available (as it has such a cult following) but the 8+ is clearly superior in terms of performance. Vertical sidewall, no metal, mid-stiffness flex. I skied this everywhere: crunchy off-piste snow, a bit of soft snow, a narrow chute, bumps, groomers, and it was really, really fun! Very easy compared to the 9+, especially off-piste, but didn’t give up much performance. Only at top speeds did I feel a bit more lightness and lack of stability, but it was probably less than a 5% loss. This ski still can be a powerhouse, a great carver, but is versatile and easy in any condition I tried it in. It turned almost on it’s own when skiing a narrow, crusty chute, and felt right at home. The 8+ stacks up well against the Speedwave 12 and standard Supershape, in terms of performance and versatility, and has the typical Fischer feel: damp, very powerful, very Austrian. This is a do-anything ski for the East Coast skier, as well as the Western skier who wants a no-new-snow day ski, similar to that of the Supershape Magnum. Bigger skiers should look at the 175, and I may have even liked that length for top-stability without an overpowering flex. For good skiers who want something a bit more versatile than the 9+, look at this ski. It blows away the RX8 in terms of performance, without asking much more of the skier.

Elan Magfire 82ti 176cm: new for 2009, much lighter ski, new internal construction, same dimensions and very similar to the naked eye. 17m radius.

Review: Elan has made some great strides for 2009. I liked last year’s Magfire 12, and this is the replacement. It was perhaps my favorite overall ski tested here. I could ski it at any speed, in any condition, and it just made things easy. On hardpack, the length and lateral stiffness combined to give me close to a race-ski feel, but the flex was perfect to get some energy out of the ski, and tons of forgiveness. In crud, the length was perfect, and the flex felt right at home for me. It had no practical speed limit. In narrow spaces, the ski again was super easy to pilot and willingly did what I asked of it. The overall feel is damp, but with more energy than the current Mag 12, and will remind people of the 666, yet with an easier feel off-piste and more stability in the given length. For me, it was a carver and all-mountain ski rolled into one. Smooth, stable, energetic, race-like on the groomers: I was very impressed. Elan will get some good reviews on this one. I ordered a pair of its big brother (the 82x) and they should be here next week. I will report back with my detailed impressions.

Elan Magfire 78ti: 78mm underfoot, similar layup as the 82, 1 sheet of metal. There is no 78x, only a 78ti and a standard (no metal) 78. Somewhere around a 17m radius.

Review: very similar to the 82ti. If you want something a bit quicker edge-to-edge, get this ski. It wasn’t as capable in the crud (amazing what 4mm underfoot does for float in crusty snow) but it was as close to a vice-like grip as I found from any midfat. This is a GS-feeling carver and moderate off-piste condition ski, which holds well, pulls you into the turn, and really performs on the groomers. I dare say it was more laterally stiff than the 82ti, although it could have been the tune. Off-piste, it was confident, provided I didn’t need tons of float, and very quick edge-to-edge. Same feel as the 82ti: smooth, damp, nice powerful energetic feel that Elan is known for. Since there is no Speedwave series coming to the US next year, this will be the obvious hard-snow choice for Elan. Speedwave is still available, but the US distributor saw sales falling in this category, so they developed the 777 and the Magfire 78 and 78ti for the US market. This will go up against the Nitrous, Top Fuel, AC30, and iM78/78 Chip as the all-mountain or 50/50 ski of choice in the US. Or, as the SkiPress puts it “Freeride, East Coast” category.

Volkl AC50 170cm: 85mm underfoot, similar construction to the AC40, but feels a bit different. Toned down w/regards to lateral stiffness, larger turn radius (16.8m?)

Review: I didn’t care for the AC40 one bit the last time I skied it, and was therefore pleasantly surprised by the AC50. It was very forgiving, easy to ski, exciting, and well-rounded. I would give it top marks in terms of forgiveness especially. It was laterally stiffer than many in this category, which meant that it was definitely biased toward groomers, but not so much that it was too much work in variable snow. On groomers, it was exciting and much more fun than the Grizzly. Off-piste, it was very easy to ski, but you had to watch it at higher speeds. This could have been due partly to the length: 170cm is a bit short in crud at speed. The plus was super-easy turn initiation: think, and this ski turns. It still has the light, laterally stiff feel of the AC40, and feels much lighter and different than the typical wood-core ski. I could ski it at any speed, slow or fast. In crud, I would put the stability a notch below the Cold Heat and 82ti, but ease of use was probably above either of those two. Edgehold wasn’t quite what the 82ti was giving me, but close, and a fun groomer ski. It was light, fairly energetic, and moderately smooth. Overall, I prefer the damper, more traditional wood-core ski to the AC-series construction, but this the best one I have tried, and I wouldn’t mind owning a pair. I would say that it is targeted slightly more towards the weekend warrior/resort skier crowd than some of the others I tried. It matches up against the K2 Explorer, but with a completely different feel. I liked it!

K2 Explorer 177cm: new ski for 2009, 84mm underfoot, somewhere around a 17m radius.

Review: this will be the new do-everything for K2 in the coming year. The Recon is still around, but the Explorer is likely the better choice for the Western skier, as the Outlaw grows to 92mm underfoot and gets the Coomba tip, which to me, lessened the Outlaw’s versatility. At 84mm underfoot, this ski is great for most conditions we see around here. This ski was a nice ski, and very versatile. Trademark K2: damp and smooth, not tops in stability or high-end performance, but that is to be expected. It was easy, stayed on top of the crud, was easy to ski until I started to hit really fast speeds . This ski was also great on the groomers at moderate speed: hooked up easily, held relatively well, was fairly stable, and smooth as silk. Not the last word in energy or power, but it should suit many lower-energy skiers. Probably a better choice than the current Outlaw as well for many people, especially since I see Outlaws all the time around here being skiing on groomers. This is a much better groomer ski and almost as good off-piste. It was perhaps the easiest ski to turn of all the skis tested, and so forgiving that a snowboarder could ski it. I can see this being a big hit with many skiers who like the K2 feel but are looking to update their Recon or Axis XP.

Salomon Lord 175cm? New ski for 2009, replaces the Foil. It is 85mm underfoot and very light. Was mounted with a jibber binding with DIN up to 12 (no lift).

Review: Not sure if this was 175cm or something else, but it was close to that length. This ski felt like a light foam-core ski, not a big-mountain ride. To be frank, I wasn’t impressed. No stability in the crud, very grabby, not much of a carver, and not much float. The Sandstorm is a much better all-around ski. This one was so light that it was easily tossed at speed. It was relatively easy to turn at slow speeds, and fairly forgiving, but not for an aggressive skier looking for an all-mountain ride. I don’t do much in the way of park/pipe, so I can’t comment on it’s performance in that arena. But, as I was told by the Sollie rep to try it out as an high-performance all-mountain ride and that it was to be marketed as such, I don’t feel that it is out of place to be reviewed here.

Nordica Mach 3 Power 170cm: new XBI interface for 2009, otherwise unchanged. Has metal, the step down (Mach 3 Carbon) does not.

Review: When I skied this 2 years ago, this ski kicked my ass, plain and simple. I must have improved along the way, as this ski was now extremely enjoyable. It is stiff, and doesn’t really do much at slow speeds, but no surprise there. Let it flow, arc to arc, and you will be a happy camper. I couldn’t generate much energy from it, but as long as I was accurate and balanced (my best skiing of the day was on this ski, the whole pedal turn that Eric D. was working with us was foremost in my mind) it ripped the groomers, held a great edge, and was incredibly stable for a 170cm. Stout ski, no doubt, and I wouldn’t venture too far off the groomers with it, but this is a very exciting ski at speed. It pulled me in predictably to the new arc, and was neither grabby or slow to engage. The lateral stiffness felt just about right, the ski was damp without being dead, and very muscular. The perfect blend of race-ski performance and freeskiing sweet spot. This is a great ski!

Dynastar 4x4 178cm and 172cm: new ski for 2009, 75mm underfoot, middle-of-the-road turn radius.

Review 178cm: I tried both the 178 and 172. The 178 felt like a GS race carver: big and stable, not much energy. Just put it on edge and let ‘er rip. I took it off-piste, and it was quite stable. This length was skiiable for myself, but not a ton of fun. Nice edgehold, very solid at speed. The 178cm doesn’t make much sense for myself, though. Onto the 172cm….

Review 172cm: This one felt much better. Stouter than any Dynastar I can remember skiing (save for the LP), smooth, damp, but more muscular than the typical Autodrive Dynastar ski. This one is full vertical sidewall. It feels a bit smoother and softer than, say a Head or Nordica, but very powerful underfoot. Edgehold was as good as any ski here: I would say it felt narrower than 75mm underfoot. Off-piste, the extra float was welcome. It was a relatively stiff carver, and more demanding in off-piste conditions than say more of a moderate flex, more forgiving all-mountain ski like the iM78. But, it was workable in off-piste conditions, provided they weren’t bumps. It stayed up on top of the snow quite well, considering what it was meant to do. And, on groomers, this ski is money. It was arguably the best groomer ski of the day, save for the WC RC from Fischer, and the RC doesn’t have anywhere this level of versatility. Edgehold, stability, overall power and feel are up there with the best of them. I would concur with what Sierra Jim said, which was essentially this “the 4x4 is a groomer ski first and foremost, not an all-mountain ride, but is workable in variable conditions” (correct me if I am misquoting you, SJ!). The 4x4 is a superb ski for sure. I have a feeling that bigger, more aggressive skiers may prefer either the Progressor or Mach 3 Power, as big guys rarely like the same skis as myself, but I could find no fault with the 4x4, considering it’s intended purpose. It is on my short list for next season.
How does the Cool Heat Fit into this in terms of foregiveness, performance, and on off piste?
post #20 of 30

for high-end skiers looking for a slightly less burly ski than the Progressor

How do you compare Progressor 8+ vs 9+ in stability and edgr grip wise ?
post #21 of 30
Very nice reviews, i wish I had an oppertunity to demo next years skis (or demo at all...), anyways, I'll be looking forward to the new progressors.
post #22 of 30
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by GrooK View Post
How did you find out they were bent?

When I lock my brakes together on my fischer rc4 wc rc, the edges doesn't match, but I guess that's just because my brakes are bent..?
Rep said so, when I told him of my experience. Ask Micheal Barrett: he skied them too, and would probably agree that their was something horribly wrong with them. Not to mention that I always like Blizzards: until then, I had never skied a pair that I didn't think was a very good ski.

All 2013's on sale right now at Dawgcatching.com.  Get an extra 10% off with off10fb2013 which is valid only for epicski members.

post #23 of 30
Quote:
Originally Posted by SierraJim View Post
Close enough...................

FWIW I think most of the 75-85mm skis that are stiff torsionally, are simply variations on the theme of "wide carver" I get a pretty high number of skiers that identify themselves as 90/10 folks that don't have much appetite for deeper snow, but classify themselves as advanced+ skiers. (I call this the EZ expert) For those folks, I will be starting my wall @ ~~ 75mm. (the exception being one of the Progressors)

The important thing (to me anyhoooo) is the that width is no longer the decider, it's the build of the ski. Comparing the AC-50 to Fischer Watea 84 for example points out to me that the flatter softer, Fischer is a better off trail ski than the marginally wider Volkl. Why??....good question, but my take is that the torsionally stiffer skis surrender some of the nimbleness and easy going feel that a good majority of folks want when they are in the goo.

I skied a number of flat, all mountain skis in the 78(ish) range that were better in mixed and broken snow than some burly 84-85mm skis. The build, and thus, the blend of torsion and beam flex simply overrides the width. So...to put a point on it, the Legend 8K, Elan 777, Watea 78, and Rossi Phantom 80 were all much easier, better, more fun in totally mixed (mostly bad) conditions than the AC-50, Afterburner, Cold Heat, Zenith -15, etc.

BTW...I skied the Lord @ the January dealer intro @ Snowbasin and later at Mammoth both times in 185. I felt that it was a superb ski given the fact that it's a twip and has at least some faux rocker at the tip.

Tune???....

BBTW.....Agree on the AC-50....it's at least close to what the 40 always shoulda been but never quite was.

SJ
So, what should I complement my Gotama with for my narrower all mountain ski for Tahoe? If there's 2+ inches of snow, it snowed in the last 2 days, the Gots are going out. So we want a "hard" snow ski that handles off-trail well, with the variable conditions that come up. You, SierraJim, have picked the Dynastar Mythic Rider, but I think I'd like to go narrower, maybe 78-84. UNLESS the MR simply doesn't have the planky feeling of a 90mm ski underfoot like my Pocket rockets, but I don't see how that can be.
Thinking of: Dynastar 8000, Watea 84, etc., not the "wide carvers". Where do the Heads fit in (78 and 82)? Wide carver or powerful all-mountain?
post #24 of 30
Sam:

The MR is a pretty potent ski and is not as nimble as some others. This has more to do with the flex than the width. I like it a lot b/c it is a superior crud basher (maybe the best I've skied) but it's just another ski in my rather extended fleet. It would be the one I would pick if I had to just have one.

But of course...I don't....

Yesterday was a perfect example, I was able to sneak in a few hours @ SB and conditions were as you described. I had the MR, 84, and 8K with me and all were very good but the MR was more work and it's attributes were not needed. I had more fun on the 84, and 8K. Between those two, both are good with the 84 being softer and a little easier while the 8K has a little more power. Even compared to the '09's, I think the 8K is still as good as any ~~80mm ski ever built when a wide range of conditions are considered.

The Sollie Fury, Atomic Crimson and Blackeye are others in this group worth considering.

I did not ski the Heads this year so I can only speak to last years skis. To me they skied more on the power rather than the nimble side of the spectrum. They were somewhat akin to a Nordie or a Volkl.

SJ

Bringing World Cup caliber ski equipment and service to all skiers - from pro ski racers to everyday all mountain skiers and into the...

post #25 of 30
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by squawbomber View Post
So, what should I complement my Gotama with for my narrower all mountain ski for Tahoe? If there's 2+ inches of snow, it snowed in the last 2 days, the Gots are going out. So we want a "hard" snow ski that handles off-trail well, with the variable conditions that come up. You, SierraJim, have picked the Dynastar Mythic Rider, but I think I'd like to go narrower, maybe 78-84. UNLESS the MR simply doesn't have the planky feeling of a 90mm ski underfoot like my Pocket rockets, but I don't see how that can be.
Thinking of: Dynastar 8000, Watea 84, etc., not the "wide carvers". Where do the Heads fit in (78 and 82)? Wide carver or powerful all-mountain?
The 78 is more all-mountain than wide carver. They have a big sweet spot and are excellent in crud, as is the 82. The Heat series is a little stiffer and racier, and I love my Cold Heats in any condition of 8" of snow or less. Elan Magfire 12 is a great choice as well: very versatile, not too burly, not too soft. Legend 8000's are smoother, easier, a bit more versatile, not as stable; Watea 84 is somewhat in the same boat. And, the Fury is nice, great on groomers; and the Blackeye stuff is very versatile and easy. Any of these could be considered either "all-mountain" or "wide-carver" depending on who is using them.

It really depends on what speed you ski. The more aggressive skier, the more ski that that said skier will want. I don't consider the Cold Heat a wider carver: it has almost the same dimensions and a turn radius (17m) that is more of like that of any other midfat 82-84mm ski underfoot. The difference is that it is a strong, stout ski, that needs to be skied rather aggressively and balanced. It carves well, but skis off-piste equally as well. It is truly a 50/50 ski. The only 80mm plus ski that I have been on that was really a wide carver, IMO, was the AC40: more carving performance and less off-piste performance on that ski. All the others were very good in moderate crud. Most of these skis have a 80-85mm waist, 16-19m radius, and relatively large sweet spot. As the skis get stiffer, edgehold tends to become greater, required input also greater, and the ski becomes a higher performer at the top-end of the speed range.

Most important for your ski selection is to get a ski that matches your weight, technical level, and skiing speed.

All 2013's on sale right now at Dawgcatching.com.  Get an extra 10% off with off10fb2013 which is valid only for epicski members.

post #26 of 30
Quote:
Originally Posted by dawgcatching View Post
2009 ski reviews: 85mm and narrower skis, part 2

Skis reviewed:

Fischer Cold Heat 170cm
Fischer Progressor 9+ 175cm
Fischer Progressor 9+ 170cm
Fischer WC RC 175cm
Fischer Progressor 8+ 170cm
Elan Magfire 82ti 176cm
Elan Magfire 78ti 176cm
Nordica Mach 3 Power 170cm

I skied these over a period of 2 days. Conditions were the same as the others: crusty snow, with around 4” new on top the second day. Skied primarily on groomers, except where noted. I did take several off-piste.

About me: 5 foot 9 (176cm), 152lbs (70kg) and dropping fast (cycling season is here!), ski 40-50 days/year, improving skill-wise, can typically ski the whole mountain, like to ski fairly fast where applicable. I have had success on most width skis, and tend to ski models between around 78-90mm for the conditions these skis were tested in.



Disclaimer: I do sell many of these brands, but not all. I try to be impartial, so don't think that I give high marks to certain skis just because I sell them. In fact, the opposite is probably true. As I am the buyer here at Village Bike and Ski, I am "the Deciderer" (sorry, had to say it!) of what we sell, and obviously, I feel more comfortable selling skis that I feel to be good skis (as opposed to well-marketed skis) and therefore tend to like most, but not all, of the skis that we carry. I am not afraid to pan a ski that I sell but don't like: if I think it sucks, I will say so, and if it sucks, then you may not see it here at the shop. And, I often give props to skis which I don't carry but wouldn't mind owning or like them for whatever reason. There are a lot of good skis out there, and just because I don't like your ski doesn't say anything about you or your choice; all it means is that I don't care for that ski, for whatever reason. That is why there are 200 ski models on the market: everyone has their individual needs and preferences. A bit on my preferences; I tend to like traditional-feeling skis, powerful, somewhat energetic, somewhat damp, high-end, very stable.


Fischer Cold Heat 170cm: new for 2009 is the Railflex instead of the Flowflex binding, but the ski itself is unchanged.

Review: I own a pair, and these felt a bit lighter, a little more forgiving, and not quite as stout or powerful. Pretty close to the current version, just a bit better for many skiers who may have found the 2008 version a bit too powerful. The 2008 version turns practically on it’s own, so this one is even slightly easier, with a softer flex around the binding, and bit larger sweet spot. Stability is almost the same, just not quite as burly of a feel. Great off-piste, smoothes over the rough, cruddy snow, very easy to turn. Likes speed, but does OK going slow as well. Needs a good skier who can stay centered. I really like this ski, although I am not sure that the 2009 changes are all that significant. The Flowflex adds what feels like a bit of stability without making the ski much burlier. This is also a great carver: it holds nearly as well as a race ski on hardpack. In fact, I prefer it in many cases for hard-snow carving, as it has a bigger sweet spot than many race skis. Also, I can take it off-piste if I so choose, something which is much harder to do with race carvers on. Great skis, very versatile, top-end performance!

Fischer Progressor 9+ 175cm: same ski as the 2008 Progressor, but with a new name, the 9+. 70mm underfoot, Flowflex binding, very stout ski. Similar in construction to the WC SC and RC.

Review: at my size, this ski is great at speed. It feels very GS-like, powerful, with no speed limit. I can turn it into any size arc, but it wants to go fast and feels most at home in GS arcs. The sweet spot is a bit larger than on the WC RC, not quite as stable, doesn’t feel as laterally aggressive at the tip, but still as strong of a non-race ski that is on the market. The 175cm isn’t nimble off-piste, but blows through crud, although the Cold Heat gets the edge in terms of forgiveness. For me, skiing this ski at head height is like skiing a slightly more versatile version of a GS race carver. This is a ski to be taken seriously, but offers top performance for the good skier. One could easily run Masters GS or City League on it: this ski is totally stable at race speeds. Great ski as well!

Fischer Progressor 9+ 170cm: same as the 175cm, except for the shorter length.

Review: 170cm is much different in feel than the 175. This ski will run straight, but also wants to turn more. It would be the length to choose as an any-radius carver for someone my size. In shorter turns, and off-piste, it is totally workable, but doesn’t lack stability. Not as stable as the 175, but not bad, and I can’t out-ski it speed wise. But, it doesn’t have that “go as fast as you can and still fall asleep” feel of the 175cm. In crud, it is much turnier, quicker edge-to-edge, and more nimble. Probably the ideal “instructors” length for skiing both fast and slow. Still more demanding than the Cold Heat, holds a wicked edge, but needs to be piloted effectively in tough conditions or can run away. A great all-mountain East Coast ski for primarily hard snow but the occasional soft-snow day. One of my personal favorites in the hard-snow category.

Fischer WC RC 175cm: same as the 2008 ski: 16m radius I believe, Flowflex plate, 66mm underfoot.

Review: this ski gives up a bit of versatility that exists in the 175cm Progressor for a bit more top-end power that the Progressor lacks. It feels pretty darn close to a real race ski, save for the huge sweet spot. At slow speeds, this ski is much balkier, and doesn’t want to do short, slow turns whatsoever. But, once up to a reasonable, normal skiing speed, it is so easy to turn, and holds like a crampon on ice. The edgehold and edge-to-edge quickness is noticeable over the Progressor, which is already stellar in that regard. The tip feels stiffer on the RC, which would explain why it has to be up to speed before starting to carve and feel effortless. Don’t bother taking this ski off-piste: it is for rocketing down groomers and running gates. Hard snow skis don’t get any better than this!

Fischer Progressor 8+ 170cm: 72mm underfoot, similar layup to the 9+, but without metal. Meant to be more forgiving off-piste, and for high-end skiers looking for a slightly less burly ski than the Progressor.

Review: this ski effectively replaces the RX8, which still will be available (as it has such a cult following) but the 8+ is clearly superior in terms of performance. Vertical sidewall, no metal, mid-stiffness flex. I skied this everywhere: crunchy off-piste snow, a bit of soft snow, a narrow chute, bumps, groomers, and it was really, really fun! Very easy compared to the 9+, especially off-piste, but didn’t give up much performance. Only at top speeds did I feel a bit more lightness and lack of stability, but it was probably less than a 5% loss. This ski still can be a powerhouse, a great carver, but is versatile and easy in any condition I tried it in. It turned almost on it’s own when skiing a narrow, crusty chute, and felt right at home. The 8+ stacks up well against the Speedwave 12 and standard Supershape, in terms of performance and versatility, and has the typical Fischer feel: damp, very powerful, very Austrian. This is a do-anything ski for the East Coast skier, as well as the Western skier who wants a no-new-snow day ski, similar to that of the Supershape Magnum. Bigger skiers should look at the 175, and I may have even liked that length for top-stability without an overpowering flex. For good skiers who want something a bit more versatile than the 9+, look at this ski. It blows away the RX8 in terms of performance, without asking much more of the skier.

Elan Magfire 82ti 176cm: new for 2009, much lighter ski, new internal construction, same dimensions and very similar to the naked eye. 17m radius.

Review: Elan has made some great strides for 2009. I liked last year’s Magfire 12, and this is the replacement. It was perhaps my favorite overall ski tested here. I could ski it at any speed, in any condition, and it just made things easy. On hardpack, the length and lateral stiffness combined to give me close to a race-ski feel, but the flex was perfect to get some energy out of the ski, and tons of forgiveness. In crud, the length was perfect, and the flex felt right at home for me. It had no practical speed limit. In narrow spaces, the ski again was super easy to pilot and willingly did what I asked of it. The overall feel is damp, but with more energy than the current Mag 12, and will remind people of the 666, yet with an easier feel off-piste and more stability in the given length. For me, it was a carver and all-mountain ski rolled into one. Smooth, stable, energetic, race-like on the groomers: I was very impressed. Elan will get some good reviews on this one. I ordered a pair of its big brother (the 82x) and they should be here next week. I will report back with my detailed impressions.

Elan Magfire 78ti: 78mm underfoot, similar layup as the 82, 1 sheet of metal. There is no 78x, only a 78ti and a standard (no metal) 78. Somewhere around a 17m radius.

Review: very similar to the 82ti. If you want something a bit quicker edge-to-edge, get this ski. It wasn’t as capable in the crud (amazing what 4mm underfoot does for float in crusty snow) but it was as close to a vice-like grip as I found from any midfat. This is a GS-feeling carver and moderate off-piste condition ski, which holds well, pulls you into the turn, and really performs on the groomers. I dare say it was more laterally stiff than the 82ti, although it could have been the tune. Off-piste, it was confident, provided I didn’t need tons of float, and very quick edge-to-edge. Same feel as the 82ti: smooth, damp, nice powerful energetic feel that Elan is known for. Since there is no Speedwave series coming to the US next year, this will be the obvious hard-snow choice for Elan. Speedwave is still available, but the US distributor saw sales falling in this category, so they developed the 777 and the Magfire 78 and 78ti for the US market. This will go up against the Nitrous, Top Fuel, AC30, and iM78/78 Chip as the all-mountain or 50/50 ski of choice in the US. Or, as the SkiPress puts it “Freeride, East Coast” category.


Nordica Mach 3 Power 170cm: new XBI interface for 2009, otherwise unchanged. Has metal, the step down (Mach 3 Carbon) does not.

Review: When I skied this 2 years ago, this ski kicked my ass, plain and simple. I must have improved along the way, as this ski was now extremely enjoyable. It is stiff, and doesn’t really do much at slow speeds, but no surprise there. Let it flow, arc to arc, and you will be a happy camper. I couldn’t generate much energy from it, but as long as I was accurate and balanced (my best skiing of the day was on this ski, the whole pedal turn that Eric D. was working with us was foremost in my mind) it ripped the groomers, held a great edge, and was incredibly stable for a 170cm. Stout ski, no doubt, and I wouldn’t venture too far off the groomers with it, but this is a very exciting ski at speed. It pulled me in predictably to the new arc, and was neither grabby or slow to engage. The lateral stiffness felt just about right, the ski was damp without being dead, and very muscular. The perfect blend of race-ski performance and freeskiing sweet spot. This is a great ski!
I have some questions and want to get your comments.
First I am mostly East Coast hard pack- Nastar racing and Council events for Slalom and GS courses. Ski the Fischer Worldcup RC in a 175 cm (16 radius) that some days is a little hard for me to flex (175 pounds) unless at full speed. I have Volkl Racetiger 165 cm for the Slalom and a few of the Nastar courses nearby (many are on 13 meter to 15 meter side cut skis for this typical course.) I just skied a few runs on the Elan Speedwave 14 in a 168 that was a fun ski- impressive. Took a few turns to get used to the tips of these but loved the edge grip and stability for the length.

So what about the 78 Magfires compared to the Speedwaves? I would have like some day to try the Speedwave at 176 cm to see what that combo does for for a slightly higher radius and stability. The 78's were explained to me as adding the wave technology and slightly wider under foot, but matching up to the feel of the Speedwaves of this year. Do you agree with that?

As for the Fischers- what are the Progressor 9+ turning radius? Still a cheater GS I would assume like the Worldcup RC RC4 that has been so popular? As stiff as the Worldcup RC? You state the Progressor 8+ has less metal (therefore softer flex) but what about torsionally side to side- much noticable difference for a lighter weight skier?

Final question would be the Nordica Mach 3, what are the lengths on this ski going up in 5 cm increments? Turning radius on these? And would you classify them as a softer flex than the Fischer Progressor 9+?

Thanks for the snap shot of the 09 line up, looking forward to reading more on a few of these models.
post #27 of 30
Thanks guys. Great advice. I have a feeling any of these excellent skis will be powerful enough for me.
Here's the exact scenario: It hasn't snowed in a week, but temps have stayed down, but it's warming up today. So good snow with maybe some crud on the way. Plan: rip the groomer on Siberia at mach speed (3-4 turns), blaze down the bottom through the "bumps" to Headwall. Hit Northbowl, which, even though it hasn't snowed in a while, has nice windblown snow and moguls. Shred that with a combination of quick and longer turns. What next? KT or Granite Chief? In other words, a day at Squaw.
post #28 of 30
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by squawbomber View Post
Thanks guys. Great advice. I have a feeling any of these excellent skis will be powerful enough for me.
Here's the exact scenario: It hasn't snowed in a week, but temps have stayed down, but it's warming up today. So good snow with maybe some crud on the way. Plan: rip the groomer on Siberia at mach speed (3-4 turns), blaze down the bottom through the "bumps" to Headwall. Hit Northbowl, which, even though it hasn't snowed in a while, has nice windblown snow and moguls. Shred that with a combination of quick and longer turns. What next? KT or Granite Chief? In other words, a day at Squaw.
My personal ski for that would be the Cold Heat if I wanted a bit better carver, and the Watea 94 if I wanted better off-piste performance. Or, the new 82x from Elan if I had one. Or a Sollie Fury, or a Head iM78, or......

All 2013's on sale right now at Dawgcatching.com.  Get an extra 10% off with off10fb2013 which is valid only for epicski members.

post #29 of 30
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by RShea View Post
I have some questions and want to get your comments.
First I am mostly East Coast hard pack- Nastar racing and Council events for Slalom and GS courses. Ski the Fischer Worldcup RC in a 175 cm (16 radius) that some days is a little hard for me to flex (175 pounds) unless at full speed. I have Volkl Racetiger 165 cm for the Slalom and a few of the Nastar courses nearby (many are on 13 meter to 15 meter side cut skis for this typical course.) I just skied a few runs on the Elan Speedwave 14 in a 168 that was a fun ski- impressive. Took a few turns to get used to the tips of these but loved the edge grip and stability for the length.

So what about the 78 Magfires compared to the Speedwaves? I would have like some day to try the Speedwave at 176 cm to see what that combo does for for a slightly higher radius and stability. The 78's were explained to me as adding the wave technology and slightly wider under foot, but matching up to the feel of the Speedwaves of this year. Do you agree with that?

As for the Fischers- what are the Progressor 9+ turning radius? Still a cheater GS I would assume like the Worldcup RC RC4 that has been so popular? As stiff as the Worldcup RC? You state the Progressor 8+ has less metal (therefore softer flex) but what about torsionally side to side- much noticable difference for a lighter weight skier?

Final question would be the Nordica Mach 3, what are the lengths on this ski going up in 5 cm increments? Turning radius on these? And would you classify them as a softer flex than the Fischer Progressor 9+?

Thanks for the snap shot of the 09 line up, looking forward to reading more on a few of these models.
The Progressor 9+ is a bit more forgiving and free-skiing oriented than the RC. It isn't quite a cheater GS: more like a race-bred all-mountain carver. The 8+ is similar to a Speedwave 12, so a step down the performance ladder (more forgiving too). Nordica Mach 3 Power is like 15m at 170cm, and goes up in 8cm increments. Mag 78ti's are very powerful, but not as powerful as the speedwave. Still a great carver, better float off-piste, overally racy feel. SW14's in 176cm are a great high-speed hard snow ski as well. You can't go wrong with that one. I have those from last year at $399 w/binding, if you want a pair.

All 2013's on sale right now at Dawgcatching.com.  Get an extra 10% off with off10fb2013 which is valid only for epicski members.

post #30 of 30
Scott, do you have any tip/waist/tail dimensions for the new Elan 82 and 78ti? Any idea when they might be available FS?
Thanks
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Member Gear Reviews
This thread is locked  
EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › Member Gear Reviews › 2009 skis 86mm and under Part II: 4x4, Progressor 9+, Progressor 8+, WC RC, AC50, Lord, Explorer, Mach 3 Power, 82ti, 78ti,