From your original post, I couldn't tell exactly what you really hope to get out of your new ski, other than have it be slightly wider than your 9.20 and have a plate.
The xp100 and ic200 won't just be a better version of your 9.20 - rather, they will be vastly different from your 9.20 - night & day different.
Anyway, here's a few thoughts on it in no particular order.
1) Just a few days ago, I bought a pair of last season 184 xp100's at a good price, so I have a pair in my possession, but I haven't skied them yet. I bought them to be stiff fairly long-arcing carvers that won't get thrown around in crud but are also excellent on hardpack & ice (if a bit ponderous).
2) They are very heavy, and a lot of this weight seems to be out at the tip and tail (ie, a large "swing weight" or polar moment of inertia). If you are thinking about doing any swiveling (eg, in moguls) with these, you are really going to be slowed down with these unless you go short.
3) When you think about width, you shouldn't just think about waist width, but the tip and tail widths as well. Don't forget that when you edge a ski, you put the tip and tail up on edge as well, so these widths are really important in determining the overall feel of the ski.
At 124 mm, the tip of the xp100 is wider than that of many powder skis (eg, Volkl Explosiv = 118.5). Its tail (107) is the same width as that of the Atomic 10ex. It is a seriously wide ski.
OTOH, your 9.20 (104/62/93) has an average width of 80 mm (tip/4 +waist/2 + tail/4). The average width of the xp100 is 92 mm. This is even more than the average width of a typical 108/70/98 "midfat" like the Axis X Pro, 86.5 mm.
Thus, between their weight and width, the Head skis are going to feel like burly mid-fats, not like your current lively GS stick.
4) The Head skis are among the stiffer skis around. Add this parameter to their weight and width, and they should be excellent for high speeds in crud of all types. Even the more negative of the two reviews I quoted above compliments them on their crud manners.
5) If you have ever skied the old, first generation, very stiff, red SCX monoblocks (ie, not the SCX noodles in the rental fleet), you will have some idea of how the Heads will handle. The Heads have the same forebody sidecut (ie, tip minus waist) and but thankfully a bit less aft sidecut (tail minus waist). The Heads are actually slightly softer than the old SCX's, so they will carve even deeper. With their added mass and width, this adds in a lot more terrain and snow condition versatility over the SCX's. Since the old SCX's absolutely sucked in bumps because of their stiffness, you aren't losing anything in this regard with the Heads. In fact, one of the reviews that I've read actually thought that the xp100 wasn't too bad in the bumps, but he probably went short and carved rather than swiveled his turns in the bumps.
6) With respect to the length issue, you should carefully think about what type of snow you want them for, and what type of turns you want them to make. Unless you want these (as I do) for crud & soft snow manners, there's little reason to go as long as I did (184). What I'll give up by going long is fairly obvious, but I have a 170 9.16 for darting around.
7) To calibrate my comments, I weigh 210 + clothes + boots, so a bit more than you. I'm in my mid-fifties, but have skied for a long time.
Hope this gives you a bit more insight into these skis.
Tom / PM
[ August 24, 2002, 11:49 AM: Message edited by: PhysicsMan ]