or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Head Cyber iC200

post #1 of 23
Thread Starter 
I am looking for a pair of new skis for the 04 ski season. I need a pair of skis that can do both GS and SL for racing and also have the ability to be skied normally. This ski is more slalom based, but would it work out in a longer length for GS? I am on the light side, I am 5,6 and weigh 130lb, so I am not sure if 163cm or 170cm would be the best way to go. I am also considering the Rossi 9x oversize, but that is probally to stiff.

Thanks
post #2 of 23
Take a look at what has already been written on EpicSki about the xp100 / ic200. For example:

Thread 1 - Feb 2002 Review

Thread 2 - April 2002 Review

And, most importantly, (since I started the thread - grin): Thread 3 - PM's review

I love my pair of 184 xp100's to death, but there is a huge difference in our weights - I'm 210 lbs. My guess is that for you at 130 lbs, they will weigh too much and be too stiff for you. Of course, you'll certainly be able to turn them, but when you compare them to something more appropriate for your wt, the difference should be obvious. OTOH, YMMV.

The best of luck,

Tom / PM

PS - I seem to remember that in one of the threads I referred to above, probably Thread #3, somebody (maybe TomB????) commented that they skied them in a length more like what you are interested in. If this person happens to around your weight, you'll have a much more relevant data point.

[ April 24, 2003, 10:10 PM: Message edited by: PhysicsMan ]
post #3 of 23
If you like the idea of the Oversize 9X, but are concerned about the stiffness, check out the RPM 100 and RPM 90. I am told that they are the same shape, but softer. A few guys here fell in love with them this spring. Also, I don't know much about the ski, but how about the Dynastar Omecarve 10? Looks like a winner to me.
post #4 of 23
You may also want to check out the new Head i.SL Chip.
post #5 of 23
Thread Starter 
Wouldn't the iSL be stiffer? Also is ski less stiff than the Rossignol 9S WC?

Thanks
post #6 of 23
I can't give you a comparison to the Rossi 9S WC as I have not demoed the Rossi. The i.SL Chip is extreamly versatile for a slalom ski. The flex starts off softer then stiffens with harder snow or faster speed. I skied it in a 170 cm. In comparison I tried the Atomic OmniCarve 10 a week earlier in a 162 cm. It was excellent as a slalom but too short for the versatility that I was looking for. (It would have been more interesting had I been able to try the 172 cm. - I'm 6'0", 175 lbs.) Between the two, although its unfair because of the differences in length, I prefer the Head. (I have also skied the new Head iM 75 Chip in 177 cm which seems to react the same way and is also amazing).

[ April 25, 2003, 02:00 PM: Message edited by: Skier ]
post #7 of 23
Thread Starter 
Would the Head Cyber iC200 in a 163cm be any good for GS? Would the smaller length really effect the top speed?

Is the iC200 less stiff the the iSL?
post #8 of 23
Quote:
Originally posted by Need BB:
Would the Head Cyber iC200 in a 163cm be any good for GS?
I doubt it would be good for true GS. The sidecut radius is much too short compared to real GS skis, and I doubt it will have the stability you would like.

> Would the smaller length really effect the top speed?

Not per se, but you will constantly be making steering corrections to keep it in a long R turn, and that will slow it down compared to a real GS ski (as well as not exactly inspire confidence).

> Is the iC200 less stiff the the iSL?

Dunno.

Tom / PM
post #9 of 23
Thread Starter 
The other Gs skis I was looking at had a sidecut of about 17m. Would this be any better?
post #10 of 23
Thread Starter 
I read that the ski is very stable, is this true?
post #11 of 23
> The other Gs skis I was looking at had a sidecut of about 17m.
> Would this be any better?

My 184 xp100 has a measured sidecut of 123-68-107 giving an average sidecut radius of 13.9 m. I don't know the measurements of the 163 and 170 ic200's, but to give you an idea, if the dimensions remained exactly the same, then a 163 xp100 would have an average sidecut radius of only 10.9 meters. Since the dimensions probably change a bit, the actual number for the 163 is probably somewhere between 11 and 14 meters.

So, a 17 m. ski is definitely a step in the right direction for GS. BTW, FWIW, I thought most true GS skis were in the 19-22 m range, but my info could be a couple of years old. There are a bunch of people on Epic who are knowledgable racers, and might hopefully chime in on this.

> ...I read that the ski is very stable, is this true?

If you are referring to the xp100 / ic200, they are indeed extremely stable. This is because of their high swing weigh, stiffness, and damping. This was discussed at length in the threads I cited above.

There is an optimum level of stability for each person and their skiing preferences/abilities. If you go too far on either side of this optimum, you will hate the ski. There is a good chance a 130 lb'er might find these skis overly stable - ie, a real handful. To calibrate you, in one of the threads I mentioned above, somebody commented that he thought a person would need nothing short of tree-trunk legs and world-cup status to enjoy the 184. I assure you that I have neither, but his comment should at least give you an idea that this is not your average ski. You either should demo it before you buy, or realize that there is a good chance you won't like it and will take a loss when you have to resell it.

Before you plunk down any cash, I *really* encourage you to read all three threads I mentioned above and realize that weight is a very important factor in picking the optimum ski for yourself.

Just my $0.02,

Tom / PM
post #12 of 23
Thread Starter 
I think that it is best to look for another pair of skis. The IC200 wieghts 2200g which is too much for me, unless there is a very light binding that I can mount. I believe you can only mount Tyrolia's. Is this true?
post #13 of 23
>...The IC200 wieghts 2200g which is too much for me...

Its even worse than that one number would indicate. Because of the extremely wide tip and tail (ie, at 107 mm, the tail is wider than the tips of many skis), much of that 2.2 kg is located at the ends of the ski. This makes for a very high polar moment of inertia or "swing-weight", and makes pivoting moves even more difficult. This ski is a carver with surprisingly good skidding manners, but is definitely not a twist-em' & turn-em' ski. OTOH, that same high swing weight makes the ski resistant to random inputs from irregular snow.

WRT bindings, since Tyrolias are one of the brands I like, I've got Tyrolias on mine and didn't investigate any other options.

Tom / PM

[ April 26, 2003, 11:17 AM: Message edited by: PhysicsMan ]
post #14 of 23
If it has the Railflex plate, then only Tyrolias will do. If not, you can mount any binding you like.

[ April 26, 2003, 10:54 AM: Message edited by: oboe ]
post #15 of 23
Thread Starter 
It has the 13mm Tyrolia SL plate. I was thinking that I could mount the cheap SL100 bindings and then the overall packing would be about 3000g which is normal. Is the SL100 a binding that would work?
post #16 of 23
Thread Starter 
The big question is how stiff they are. The reviews said they are stiff, but how stiff? I am on a Rossignol racing ski and they are too stiff and want to know if the IC200 would be less stiff.

Thanks
post #17 of 23
I'll compare their stiffness (by hand flexing) to a bunch of other skis I have or have access to. Don't, however, even begin to think that if their flex is similar to the comparison ski, they will ski anything it.

They are not as stiff as a 188 g4, 198 Stockli StormRider or 193 SCX Monoblock (the ultra-stiff red version, not the usual rental or low intermediate noodle SCX's).

They are a bit stiffer than a 184 10ex (aka, Rex) by hand flexing, maybe about the same as a 188 p40f1.

The center 170 cm of the xp100 is MUCH stiffer than a 170cm 9.16. They are also much stiffer than a 173 k2 Enemy.

I don't know the Rossi lineup, so I can't offer you any comparisons with them.

What's up? I thought you had decided against the xp100?

HTH,

Tom
post #18 of 23
Thread Starter 
Well I decided that they would be better than my race stock skis for cruising the mountain and with the $40 SL100 bindings they would be a normal weight (3000g). Also I like the fact of having a large tip for the out west trips.
post #19 of 23
That's cool. Good luck with them.

Tom / PM
post #20 of 23
[quote]Originally posted by PhysicsMan:
I love my pair of 184 xp100's to death, but there is a huge difference in our weights - I'm 210 lbs. My guess is that for you at 130 lbs, they will weigh too much and be too stiff for you. Of course, you'll certainly be able to turn them, but when you compare them to something more appropriate for your wt, the difference should be obvious. OTOH, YMMV.
[quote]

PM, good point about the weight issue. I happen to be about the same height and weight as BB (140 lbs) and have a pair of Head iM85's (172cm). The im85 is a pretty stiff ski for my weight and I find that I have a hard time flexing it at lower speeds. It only seems to come alive for me at high speeds. For a comparison, I skied the part of the day with a pack which is about 30 lbs. The ski felt quite different with the extra 30 lbs. It was a lot more lively and easier to handle without having to go mach 1 all the time.

So BB can go to the gym and bulk up or stuff a backpack with some 30-40 lbs of weights and still have fun on the ic200's?
post #21 of 23
I demoed all the head ski of last year and the IM75 of this year. I was looking for that kind of ski too. I chose the ic180. It carve medium and long radius turn and short radius if you really work at it. It is stable at speed. It is also more nimble than the IC200. I weigth 155 lbs for 5'7" and I am an agressive skier, I got the 170cm. It perform pretty well all around the mountain but the waist sink a little in powder. I would think that the i.SL would be a good choice also, since it is a slalom that is very stable at speed. The iM 75 is quite fast edge to edge give it size and weight, it would be a good choice in the west but a little heavier than the previous choices.

Good luck.
post #22 of 23
I've been having this discussion with Rusty Guy via pm's. Weight matters, no question about it, and your experience on the 85's both with and without a pack illustrates that. I believe that sidecut alone is not enough, and flex - both longitudinal and tortional - make a huge difference. Flex matters.

On the other hand, ski length matters, and binding placement matters a LOT. If you have quite a range of binding placement adjustments, you can have three or even four skis in one. I formerly pooh-poohed this idea, but I have found that the forward binding placement on the Railflex set-up on my Head Monster i.M 70X skis makes them much more friendly, with no bad side affects. In fact, I plan to play around with it further (in a non-standard way I won't discuss here) just to see what happens.
post #23 of 23
Just a note of caution - one can obviously go overboard in the forward direction. Years ago, I had a bad mounting job where the bindings were accidentally maybe 2" forward of where they should have been. I was a lot younger and didn't know as much about equipment. I knew that this pair just "skied wrong", but I didn't know exactly why. I only put two and two together when I realized that I was consistently leaning back on just this one pair of skis.

Tom / PM
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Ski Gear Discussion