EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › Ski Gear Discussion › 2008 Fischer RX 8 vs Blizzard CMX Pro IQ
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

2008 Fischer RX 8 vs Blizzard CMX Pro IQ

post #1 of 12
Thread Starter 
About me: 5'8'', 150lbs
Advanced and improving skier, especially since move out West.
Currently ski 163 Head Monster 77's and miss the feel of carving more narrow waisted skis that made me love skiing in the first place. With wider waisted skis, it seems that I am missing out on the quickness and energy that seem to describe narrow waisted skis with greater sidecuts.

I already posted another thread about this but have narrowed my choice with excellent advice from this forum and am posing a new question. Forgive my persistence but if I don't grab these skis in the next day or so, they will likely be gone.

My skiing style/What I call FUN! - Some of the best aspects of skiing can be summed up for me in one run at Beaver Creek last winter. Staring down the long expanse of Rose Bowl with the perfectly groomed snow in front of me, I am free to build up speed and arc clean lines until my hearts content. At the bottom of the bowl I look up and say "wow!"

I don't ski fast at all times but like to when I have fully warmed up and shaken off the cobwebs. I have seen good reviews for both of these skis, less for the Blizzards since they seem less available. Anyone have experience on these skis(comparable skis) that can shed some light on this for me? What size ski would be best?
post #2 of 12
I can't comment on the Blizzard having never skied it. Over the past two seasons I put about 150 days on a pair of RX-8's and love the ski. It simply rips on the groomers. The edge hold is excellent and you can carve railroad tracks at speed. It is also relatively forgiving (a great plus for me).

From what you said in your post I would enthusiastically endorse that ski.

As to size. I'm 5' 10", 185 and skied it in a 165. I think I would recommend the same for you.

I have seen a problem with delamination at the tail of the RX-8, but Fischer made it right with a replacement.

Ken
post #3 of 12
I also love my RX-8's and highly recommend them.

I'm 6' and 190 and have the 170. I wish I had gone 175. You might want to consider the 170 over the 165 if you like to arc longer turns.

The RX-9 would also be a good choice if you can find a pair from a couple of years ago. I demoed them and they ski similarly to the RX-8 but with a longer turn radius.

Newer Progressors are another option, but I haven't skied them. Lots of reviews here from others who have.

Mike
post #4 of 12
Thread Starter 
I have heard and researched much about the differences between the RX9 and RX8, especially in this forum. It seems that all anyone ever talks about is the RX8 for short slalom like carving and the RX9 for long GS type turns. Is this accurate? Can't any ski be asked to ski a turn of any size or is that my own ignorance?

As I am only 150# I want to make sure that I get a ski that is stable at speed but not so stiff that I can't control it. The main reason that I am getting another ski in addition to me Head IM 77's @ 163 is that they are less energetic then I would like when trying to carve packed powder conditions at speed.

So my main question is, with the 165 Fischer RX 8, will I be able to open it up on the groomers when wanted and cruise at other times and have this ski be stable, energetic, and fun in both situations? If I bumped up to the Fischer RX 8 @ 170, would this be sacrificing quickness, energy and fun(especially at my weight) for a bit more in stability? Thanks!
post #5 of 12
You can definately do different turn shapes on the RX-8, but the sidecut and stiffness dictate the skis "preferred" turn shape. My 170's really like to do tight turns, they will do longer radius turns, but it takes more user input for these. If you just tip them over they want to turn short slalom type turns. That's why I said I wish I would have gone 175 (or 180 if they made that length).

I don't think you will have any trouble at all turning the 170 and you will gain more stability at speed and easier GS type turns. These skis are inherently light and playful, an extra 5cm isn't going to change that.

My 170s definately have a top end and that's another reason I wish I had gone longer. I won't even bother bringing them out west. I'll bring my longer and wider IM77's and Watea 94's.

Mike
post #6 of 12
I weight 165 lbs and demonstrated a pair of rx8 in 170 cm for a day. They were good, light, quick, but still had a reasonably high speed limit; I wasn't able to get above 50 mph on the hill I was on.

The thing about the longer turns is if you want to make a purely arced turn on edge, the longest turn radius you can carve without some slippage is given by the side cut radius of the ski. The RX9 will have a larger sidecut radius. It will also be stiffer, so if you want to arc a short turn with the RX9 you will have to be going faster and tip it to a bigger angle.
post #7 of 12
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ghost View Post
I weight 165 lbs and demonstrated a pair of rx8 in 170 cm for a day. They were good, light, quick, but still had a reasonably high speed limit; I wasn't able to get above 50 mph on the hill I was on.

The thing about the longer turns is if you want to make a purely arced turn on edge, the longest turn radius you can carve without some slippage is given by the side cut radius of the ski. The RX9 will have a larger sidecut radius. It will also be stiffer, so if you want to arc a short turn with the RX9 you will have to be going faster and tip it to a bigger angle.

I ski in Ontario on groomed and icy slopes most of the season. I demoed a lot of skis last year. I found the Progressor was a little too much for me (5 ' 10" - 170) in terms of flexibility, perhaps it needs a heavier skier to make it work. I also prefer shorter to medium turns over large arcs.

You may want to look at the Head SS since you already ski that make or the Elan Speedwave 12 as well. I found the SS to be pretty forgiving and had great edge grip, in fact maybe a litle too grabby, but that could have been the tune.

The Elan was more flexy, but edge grip was still very good due to the flexwave. In fact it may be my ski this year as I found it very versatile in terms of turn shape. I could ski full out on black diamonds, or monkey around with the kids on green and blues. I haven't skied any Blizzard skis, not too popular around here.
post #8 of 12

RX8 vs Speedwave 12

I have both the RX8 (170, orange and black model) and Speedwave 12 (167?)

The RX8 has a bigger sweet spot for a variety of things: bumps, short radius, carving etc.

The speedwave 12 has a higher speed limit but not as good in bumps due to the stiffer shovel.

Recreatational groomed: they are about the same.
High speed groomed, carves: edge to the speedwave.
Bumps: edge to the RX8

thats my $0.02
post #9 of 12
I've skiied both, and as an intermediate, the Blizzard CMX Pro was too much for me - way too fast. The RX8 I demoed, on the other hand, was great for ripping on the groomed. I own the Blizzard CMX 11, which I think skis similar to the RX8.
post #10 of 12
I am also 5'8" and 150 lbs and have skied on a pair of 165 cm RX-8s for the last 3 seasons. Absolutely love them, especially on the firm New England hardpack. The reviews I read when shopping for them rated them highly for medium radius turns, to they are not limited to only short turns. Not much fun in anything more than 6 inches of fresh snow however. Too narrow and stiff. If this is to be your only ski, I think you would want something wider and and more suited to softer snow since you are in Colorado.
post #11 of 12
Agree about the Head SS, but not your original question, and hard to find any deals on them.

Can only comment directly on the RX8. Live back east. Owned it, loved it on hardpack and ice, it will teach you to be a better carver. Many many reviews; go search. But that said, at speed or in crud, the RX's will start giving you more feedback than you might like. It wants to arc wonderful short to medium radius turns at easy to moderate speeds on fairly smooth surfaces, over and over. Thus the recs for the RX9 if you want serious speed and bigger arcs.

Have not skied this Blizzard, but from what I've heard and from my experience on other Blizz's, it will have a different feel (smoother on irregular surfaces, touch stiffer in front and touch softer in back), about the same grip (a lot), probably not as good in bumps (neither ski will be a great bumper because of stiffness and sidecut), but I bet Blizzard will have a significantly higher speed limit; more like a damper RX9. And like the RX9, will be a bit more demanding than the RX8. So you need to decide what your priorities are.
post #12 of 12
There is a reason Fischer has kept the RX8 in their lineup. IMO, it is one of the premier groomer skis for out East--IMO, on the list of the best recreational skis ever produced.

Easy to ski, quick, and fairly stable as long as you don't plan on taking them into a race venue. You can ski them all day without tiring out. The ski handles just as well at slow speeds as high. The RX8 will soft-edge and skid just as easily as it carves. They can handle Eastern icy moguls and light crud pretty well and they are suitable for a very wide skill level.

Heavy crud and high speeds are when things will start to fall apart on the RX8. Keeep in mind, however, that by high speeds I mean speed that 95% of skiers out there never reach and have no desire to reach. Most skis are better than most skiers and most skiers out there will never find the RX8 top end.

I have never met anyone who had anything bad to say about the ski -- on groomed terrain and within its performance envelope, of course.
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 › 2008 Fischer RX 8 vs Blizzard CMX Pro IQ