EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › Ski Gear Discussion › ?Head i.XRC 1200 SW=i.SuperShape SPEED??
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

?Head i.XRC 1200 SW=i.SuperShape SPEED??

post #1 of 26
Thread Starter 
True?

http://stores.channeladvisor.com/ski...20-%20163%20cm

There is so much to say about this ski! After searching the world for the best ski set-up with the best value, we think we've finally found it. If you do any google searches on the i.XRC 1200 SW, you're not going to get the real scoop, so I'm going to have to talk these up a bit.


Here's the inside inside news... This particular i.XRC 1200 disappeared in the 2006/2007 line-up, only becuase it has a new name and homebase. For 2006/2007, the i.SuperShape SPEED is the exact same ski as this 2005/2006 i.XRC 1200, only 1 mm narrower and is found in the World Cup line, not the XRC line. We all know that 1 mm can't possibly justify a $950.00 retail price tag, especially when in 2007/2008 Head plans to unveil the all-new "i.SuperShape SPEED". What is this you ask? Well, you guessed it - the exact same ski again, only with yet another new topsheet graphic. In the ski industry, making new ski models is an expensive process. Manufacturers try to stretch out the life span of a model by switching up the names and colors to try confuse the consumer in order to get their cost effectivness out of each new design. So, that's the i.XRC 1200 in an nutshell. Virtually the same ski that will be on next year's retail shelf for nearly $1,000.00. Now this is powerful information!
post #2 of 26
That's a great ski for someone who weighs 130 lbs.
post #3 of 26
Quote:
Originally Posted by MEfree30 View Post
True?


the i.SuperShape SPEED is the exact same ski as this 2005/2006 i.XRC 1200, only 1 mm narrower
Dumb statement, the 1mm difference is comparing a 170cm ski to a 177cm ski. They aren't 1mm different, they are the same. That's a tremendous deal on a great ski... in a tough to sell length.
post #4 of 26

A pictorial guide to the most convoluted ski name ever

This is probably the most confusing ski naming history out there, which is unfortunate, because they're phenomenal skis.

I'll do my best to explain all the permutations this ski has gone through.
It started in the 04/05 season as the i.XRC 1100SW (referred to as the RD in some places), and looked like this:

note: this is distinct from the i.XRC 1100 (not SW), which was a cap ski with different dimensions, and skied very differently.

Then, in 05/06, it got "LiquidMetal" added to it, and the name was changed to the i.XRC 1200 SW, but remained essentially the same ski:


06/07 is where it gets really confusing. What was the 1200 SW became the i.SuperShape Speed - different name and appearance, same ski:

Additionally, Head introduced an all new XRC lineup, which included the i.XRC 1200 SW, which was an entirely new and different ski from past 1200SWs - slightly wider, a little tighter turning, and less stiff:


This past season (07/08), those two models remained the same, with minor topsheet changes.

Finally, for next season (08/09), there's a bit of an overhaul. The original 1200/Speed is being discontinued, and a new one is in its place - slightly wider - from 112-66-98 with a radius of 15.4 @170cm to 116-68-100 15.0 radius @170cm, with some minor cosmetic changes:


The "new" i.XRC 1200 SW is called the iXRC 1100, and is getting a cosmetic overhaul:

Note: I can't confirm it's identical to the other 1200SW, but all the specs are the same, so I don't have any reason to believe anything has changed.

I hope this helps people sort this out. The original 1200SW/Speed is one of my favourite carving skis ever, and it's a great choice for someone who likes a powerful carver that rewards some skill.
post #5 of 26
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ghost View Post
That's a great ski for someone who weighs 130 lbs.
Perfect, I'm down to 185...only another 55 lbs to go.
post #6 of 26
I had this one - it was a great ski, but I got it a bit too short.

post #7 of 26

Thanks.

thanks for the great post, Canuckinstructor.
It appears you are confirming what ski universe is claiming.

At $177, I bought the skis.
I'm currently skiing "museum pieces" at 205 cm and it was time to join in the fun.

I'm a New England hardpack "carver" and these should give me a nice transition from slalom skis from the 80s.

I'm keeping my old Lang boots, as they are finally breaking in.

Thanks again for the great info.
post #8 of 26
Ive heard this ever since the SS Speed came out, but I really like the SS graphics and always disliked those of the XRC line, so I just bough some 08' SS Speeds. Though that new iXRC 1100 looks pretty good.
post #9 of 26
I have the iXRC1100SW (RD) 2004/05. Excellent ski. I dream of being 130lb. I dream of being 170lb. I'd be happy to get back down below 190lb!
post #10 of 26
Quote:
Originally Posted by MEfree30 View Post
Perfect, I'm down to 185...only another 55 lbs to go.
It might be easier to find a longer SW.
post #11 of 26
Quote:
Originally Posted by Richie-Rich View Post
Ive heard this ever since the SS Speed came out, but I really like the SS graphics and always disliked those of the XRC line, so I just bough some 08' SS Speeds. Though that new iXRC 1100 looks pretty good.
I do agree about the graphics.
At $177 I can live with ├╝gly" though.
When I was skiing with the K2 612s children were looking at me like i was from a distant planet.
post #12 of 26
I've skied that (05/06 1200) ski in 163cm at 190lbs,* and it's perfect for the MidAtlantic at that size. I was worried about the slush, not a problem. I was worried about the icing, never a murmur. Bumps - no trouble. Could easily make a good teaching ski.



*telerod15 was there to witness, I did slightly prefer the 163cm 1400 in slush.
post #13 of 26
hello all. im new around here and this site has some awesome advise, info and reviews so

I am considering getting one of these skis, especially the xrc 1100. Im upper level intermediate (sorry, unfamiliar with your 1-10 system, im from australia) with a high preference for the groomers on what i think you guys call red runs and black. Im keen for something <70mm underfoot. I am a light 140lb and 6' so something on the softer range is required probably in a 160-165 length. how would the xrc1100 compare to the fischer rc4 race sc and head ss? what are your thoughts and what would you recommend?

thanks heaps!
post #14 of 26
Quote:
Originally Posted by CanuckInstructor View Post
This is probably the most confusing ski naming history out there, which is unfortunate, because they're phenomenal skis.

I'll do my best to explain all the permutations this ski has gone through.
It started in the 04/05 season as the i.XRC 1100SW (referred to as the RD in some places), and looked like this:

note: this is distinct from the i.XRC 1100 (not SW), which was a cap ski with different dimensions, and skied very differently.

Then, in 05/06, it got "LiquidMetal" added to it, and the name was changed to the i.XRC 1200 SW, but remained essentially the same ski:


06/07 is where it gets really confusing. What was the 1200 SW became the i.SuperShape Speed - different name and appearance, same ski:

Additionally, Head introduced an all new XRC lineup, which included the i.XRC 1200 SW, which was an entirely new and different ski from past 1200SWs - slightly wider, a little tighter turning, and less stiff:


This past season (07/08), those two models remained the same, with minor topsheet changes.

Finally, for next season (08/09), there's a bit of an overhaul. The original 1200/Speed is being discontinued, and a new one is in its place - slightly wider - from 112-66-98 with a radius of 15.4 @170cm to 116-68-100 15.0 radius @170cm, with some minor cosmetic changes:


The "new" i.XRC 1200 SW is called the iXRC 1100, and is getting a cosmetic overhaul:

Note: I can't confirm it's identical to the other 1200SW, but all the specs are the same, so I don't have any reason to believe anything has changed.

I hope this helps people sort this out. The original 1200SW/Speed is one of my favourite carving skis ever, and it's a great choice for someone who likes a powerful carver that rewards some skill.
Perfectly accurate! Canuck, thanks for the great synopsis. I've tried them in their different year labelings and graphical changes--same ski- and good ones at that.
post #15 of 26
Quote:
Originally Posted by Robscapes View Post
Perfectly accurate! Canuck, thanks for the great synopsis. I've tried them in their different year labelings and graphical changes--same ski- and good ones at that.
Are skis of this quality often found for under $200?
Seems like the average price is around $500.
I can live with the orange for the low price.
i won't be getting any matching ski jackets or pants though!
post #16 of 26
Quote:
Originally Posted by dpa10 View Post
Are skis of this quality often found for under $200?
3+ years old in an 'odd' size? Yes.
post #17 of 26
Quote:
Originally Posted by Whiteroom View Post
3+ years old in an 'odd' size? Yes.
170 mm is an odd size?
What am I missing here?
I'm 6'1" 200 plus.
post #18 of 26
The link at the start was for a 163cm ski, there was no options for size that I noticed. 163cm is short for that ski. 170cm would be a key size, not odd at all.
post #19 of 26
Quote:
Originally Posted by auskier View Post
hello all. im new around here and this site has some awesome advise, info and reviews so

I am considering getting one of these skis, especially the xrc 1100. Im upper level intermediate (sorry, unfamiliar with your 1-10 system, im from australia) with a high preference for the groomers on what i think you guys call red runs and black. Im keen for something <70mm underfoot. I am a light 140lb and 6' so something on the softer range is required probably in a 160-165 length. how would the xrc1100 compare to the fischer rc4 race sc and head ss? what are your thoughts and what would you recommend?

thanks heaps!
I'm about 165 lbs, and have not tried the race sc, but have tried the RX8 in 170 cm which is similar. I also own the WC SC in 165cm, and have skied the SS Speed in 176, and the SS in a 15? length.

The biggest functional difference between the SS speed and the other skis is the turn radius. The Fischer SC and Head SS will be much quicker in terms of snapping into a sudden turn, while the SS speed will be more at home making larger turns, sort of the difference between an old Impala SS and a corvette. The Fischers will give you more snow feel and seem livlier. These heads will feel damper and more reassuring. If you want the Fischer feel in a longer radius consider the WC RC.
post #20 of 26
Quote:
Originally Posted by Whiteroom View Post
The link at the start was for a 163cm ski, there was no options for size that I noticed. 163cm is short for that ski. 170cm would be a key size, not odd at all.
Thanks for clarifying your comments.
This forum has been very helpful.
I will be mounting some Head LD 12 bindings on these skis.
My ancient Lange boots still fit and work well but have a bit of wear under the toe from walking on them. Not a lot, but will that become an issue when they try to mount the bindings?
Is there a limit to how much wear there is?
It is only a few mm and about an inch back.

I wouldn't mind getting new boots but have skied so few times since my daughter was born 10 years ago that I would prefer to keep the Lange Z T, vintage Mahre brothers. Mid 80s, yikes!

If I do get some new boots, I would choose something a little more forgiving and comfortable without sacrificing too much performance. I won't be racing but do like to crank tight turns on the edge of New England trails.

Any advice is appreciated.
Thanks again.
post #21 of 26

07 XRC 1000

More confusion: saw a pair of low priced Head i.XRC 1000 SW for sale, but didn't find any info on these skis.
http://www.levelninesports.com/head-...cm-p-3766.html
Anyone know where they would fit in the lineup ?

Thx

Pieter
post #22 of 26
Pieter, it looks to me that those are a custom run produced for one of the big sports retailer chains (SportChek is what I can think of off the top of my head, not sure what the US and Quebec ones are - don't think they have SportCheks in la belle province). Some manufacturers will do runs of skis that are similar/identical to their standard lines with some minor modifications (usually cosmetic) to sell to the big chains. Unfortunately it's hard if not impossible to get information on what these skis really are.

Based on the dimensions given and the graphics, I would guess that ski is very similar if not identical to the 06/07 XRC 1200 SW. That's my best guess, but it's really hard to say for sure without some inside information on the custom run and manufacturing. There may be construction differences (ie less metal to save costs, making it softer flexing), or it may just be the same ski rebadged.
Sorry I can't be more helpful.
post #23 of 26

XRC 1000 SW: does this make sense ?

Hi,

Here's the reply I got when asking the shop for some more info:

the 1000 SW are not quite as stiff as the 1400, but they are equally as heavy duty and expert-ish. The SW means its a sandwich ski, the sandwich construction is generally thought of as more durable, and more advantageous for experts as it usually makes the skier stiffer and heavier.
the dimensions and radius of the xrc 1000 are
Sidecut: 114-68-100mm
Turn Radius: 13.1m

which is probably pretty damn close to your xrc800. the difference between the 800 and this 1000 is that the 1000 is stiffer and heavier--so it has a higher top speed but it also takes more muscle and good form to ski it right. however--they are very similar skis to eachother. if you like the 800s but want something more, well then the 1000 is an excellent choice.


Does this mean it is an XRC 1200 SW, or still a different ski ?

THx
post #24 of 26
Pieter,
If I were betting I would lump all the head "SW" skis together in terms of performance level, and if I were looking for a 13 m radius ski, then that one would certainly be a candidate.
post #25 of 26
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pieter View Post
... as it usually makes the skier stiffer and heavier.
Ooh I woudn't want that

lol
post #26 of 26
Quote:
Originally Posted by Whiteroom View Post
The link at the start was for a 163cm ski, there was no options for size that I noticed. 163cm is short for that ski. 170cm would be a key size, not odd at all.
I do not mean to hijack this thread, but I have listed a new pair of 170s in plastic in the "Gear Swap - Buy And Sell Gear" section. I am only mentioning this because I would rather sell them here than on ebay.

-Joseph
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 › ?Head i.XRC 1200 SW=i.SuperShape SPEED??