EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › Ski Gear Discussion › X-Wing Tornado's vs. Fury's
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

X-Wing Tornado's vs. Fury's

post #1 of 12
Thread Starter 
Heya everybody,


This is my first post here. I'm looking for some opinions on the differences between the X-Wing Tornado's and the Fury's, and I was also wondering if anybody has skiied both the 162 and 170 sized Tornado's and what they thought the differences were.

For a little background, I grew up skiing in Michigan and I'm just wrapping up my first season in Utah. I've got a pair of Fischer RC4's that are great back home, but a bit short out here (155cm). I've also got a pair of Solomon Teneighty Guns that are 164cm that I love, but I've found they get deflected in crud and softer snow pretty easily. I'm looking for something that would generally be an all mountain ski, but that would do better cutting through soft snow/crud and have some more edge grip on the hard pack than the Guns have. As a reference I'm 5'10" and about 155 lbs. I think the Guns would do a little bit better in softer snow if I could put on a few pounds, but alas I'm kind of a small guy and I've never been able to bulk up.

I demoed some Tornado's the other day and loved them, though they were probably a tiny bit too long for me at 170cm. I also jumped on some Atomic Nomad's of some sort at 165cm and while they were a little easier to turn, they were not as stable as the Tornado's.

So can anybody explain to me the differences between the Fury's and the Tornado's? I like maneuverability (which is why I love the guns so much), but I'm thinking I'm going to have to give some of that up if I want to have more stability in the softer snow.

Thanks for any input!
post #2 of 12
welcome to epic

you can find various comparison by searching on tornado and fury
here are a few:

http://forums.epicski.com/showthread...t=tornado+fury

http://forums.epicski.com/showthread...t=tornado+fury

I *suspect* the more you ski in Utah your skis will get fatter and longer.
The lengths you are describing do not strike me as "too long"

i found the x-wings turn very easily underfoot, so i'd get the fatter ones, the fury

brad

ps - where did you learn to ski? I teach at Alpine Valley MI
post #3 of 12
Thread Starter 
I imagine you're right in that the longer I'm here (which is going to be a long, long time at the rate I'm going) I'll end up with fatter and longer ski's. When I was back in Michigan, my 155's were more than enough to hold onto the ice that we had up north, but with any amount of powder (even an inch or two) they're useless.

I grew up in the thumb and learned to ski up at Boyne. I went to Western and did a little bit of skiing over there at Timber Ridge. I miss the folks in the midwest, but you can't beat the skiing out here

EDIT: I see you're living in Ann Arbor, I used to spend a lot of time there! My fiance went to Michigan and she's now an instructor out here. That degree in Anthropology really paid off eh
post #4 of 12

Fury's at



Here I am at Snowbird in Jan 08 with the Fury's. I am 5'8" 168. I was on a 170 and wished I had more ski (longer) in this stuff. However, they were still very fun. They handled powder nicely and at 170 were a good compromise for their performance in tight trees and moguls. They were nimble enough to handle most tight spots but I don't think I would have lost much performance with the 178 or longer.

They are very forgiving and have a nice balanced sweet spot. They handled crud pretty well but perferred going over top rather through which is my perferred method. On the groomed slopes they carved nicely edge to edge and had a nice super G side cut.

However, as some of the steeper stuff got scraped off and it got really hard they did not like going real fast. But they did vary their turn shape nicely in "scarves". All in all if I had to ride these everyday in Utah I could live with them.

Ed
post #5 of 12
A couple of weeks ago my buddy rented a pair of Tornados 178 cm when he was in Vail. He's 6'4" 220 lbs. He didn't like the ski at all on any run outs or cat tracks. He claimed they were very squirelly unless on edge. I thought this was pretty odd. At the end of the day he took another route to the bottom because he hated to flat run on the run out after Tourist Trap going to Golden Peak.
post #6 of 12
If you plan on staying in UT you are going to have to give up on finding one ski that does it all. You will eventually want 2 pairs of skis. Something a little bit longer (170-180) and a lot fatter(95-110 waist) - Mantra, Gotama, EHP, Goliath Sluff, Line Elizabeth, or Line Sir Francis Bacon. Something 78-85 in the waist similar to the length you are skiing now (160-170) - Movement Spark or Yaka Jam, Head iM78, Apache Explorer, or Line Blend.

For reference I am 5' 9", 180 lbs., and live in CO. My quiver consists of powder skis that range from 185-192 cm 99 + in the waist and carving skis ranging from 165-170 cm that are 78 + underfoot. 2"+ and I am skiing on my fat skis. Pretty much everybody (30-45 age group) I ski with use fat skis (100+) 24/7.

Tuff call on the Tornado vs. Fury. The Tornado is easier to ski and a lot of fun on groomer days but its pretty skinny for UT. The Fury is a much more demanding ski but makes a little more sense for a do it all mid-fat UT ski. I personally like both on-piste and dislike both off-piste.

Many of the skis in Salomon's line have a funky transition from tip to sidecut - Gun, Foil, Tornado, Fury, etc.. This makes them hook up and carve well on groomers but can make them feel very grabby and un-stable in variable snow conditions. Some love it and some hate it. De-tuning helps a little but it is always there.

My final bits of advice - make do with what you got for now - surf this and the TGR website and educate yourself - be patient - avoid the impulse buy - try before you buy!
post #7 of 12
Quote:
Originally Posted by roundturns View Post
A couple of weeks ago my buddy rented a pair of Tornados 178 cm when he was in Vail. He's 6'4" 220 lbs. He didn't like the ski at all on any run outs or cat tracks. He claimed they were very squirelly unless on edge. I thought this was pretty odd. At the end of the day he took another route to the bottom because he hated to flat run on the run out after Tourist Trap going to Golden Peak.

I have the tornadoes, I agree- turn fast on hardpak, but very squirrley at high speeds. I would think they are pretty good in powder as they are pretty fat, but don't know.

I am getting different skis for the eastern hardpack, as I ski fast.
post #8 of 12
Thread Starter 
Well I tried out the Fury's today up at Brighton. There were some pockets of a few inches of fresh on top of mostly crusty conditions.

Overall, they're way too stiff for me. I skiied the 163's and thought they were unwieldy at best, which I thought was surprising with how short they were. I also jumped on a pair of B83's again (my 2nd or 3rd time this season) and I thought they were mediocre. I'll hand it to the Fury's, they hold on the hard pack much better than the Tornado's did, but that's not exactly what I'm looking for.

As somebody said, I need to develop an entire quiver, and that's what I'm trying to do. I've got my Guns for the deep days and my RC4's if I want to race, so now I'm looking for a ski that I can take out a few days after a dump. After hopping on a bunch of different ski's this season I'm in love with the Tornado's, and I'll be snagging the 170cm sized ones when I can find a good deal on them.

Thanks for the input everybody, this seems like a decent skiing forums. Maybe I'll stick around here
post #9 of 12
Thread Starter 
BTW Does anybody know if you can use your own bindings on the X-Wing series, or do you need to use the bindings with the Solomon "system."

Thanks!
post #10 of 12
Quote:
Originally Posted by jtrain609 View Post
BTW Does anybody know if you can use your own bindings on the X-Wing series, or do you need to use the bindings with the Solomon "system."

Thanks!
Either way. You can buy the Tornado as a flat ski, (any binding) or as a Smartrac System (Sollie binding exclusively)

SJ
post #11 of 12
Have a look here: http://forums.epicski.com/showthread.php?t=64336

I did a demo of both the Furies and Tornadoes and the above is a thread with my thoughts.

Paraphrased:
The Tornadoes are pointless, get Rossi Z9s instead, neither are they really an all-rounder of a ski, not wide enough in my opinion.
The Furies though were okay, probably not my pick, but offer a bit more ski under the foot at the waist, for softer snow, and felt quite similar to the Tornadoes on groomers.
post #12 of 12
This season I've tried the Fury's in 170 and the Tornado in 163 & 170. I thought the Fury's outperformed both lengths of Tornado in ALL conditions, even the groomers. For some reason the Tornado's just did not seem to have the rebound energy and quickness of the Fury. I think maybe the reason is because they weren't as stiff. All I know is that the Fury is a great ski, excellent in powder, good in crud and bumps and quick, nimble and stable on-piste.
My favorite ski this year and I've tried most of the Atomic, volkl and Rossi "all-terrain" models.
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 › X-Wing Tornado's vs. Fury's