or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Fischer AMC 76

post #1 of 16
Thread Starter 
Hi, I just found this site. Just awesome! I need your opinions! I am looking for a good all mountain ski. I have been off skis for about 8 years now, and am getting back into it full throttle. Too much work and no play! I was an agressive skier. I am 6'1" 220lbs and am athletic. Do you think the AMC 76 in a 182 are too long? I will be skiing about 20 days this year all over Alberta and B.C.! Thanks for your help.
post #2 of 16
Thread Starter 
Just to add a bit more info, I use to ski lots of steeps, single black, and some bumps. I plan on doing the same. I am looking for a fun ski, that is a bit forgiving to help compensate for my rusty technique from years away.

Thanks again for your help.
post #3 of 16
Good ski. That length should be good for you as well. Just don't expect it to perform really well in deeper snow.
post #4 of 16
Cant go wrong with that - its a great ski.
post #5 of 16
Quote:
Originally Posted by KrazyKanuck View Post
Hi, I just found this site. Just awesome! I need your opinions! I am looking for a good all mountain ski. I have been off skis for about 8 years now, and am getting back into it full throttle. Too much work and no play! I was an agressive skier. I am 6'1" 220lbs and am athletic. Do you think the AMC 76 in a 182 are too long? I will be skiing about 20 days this year all over Alberta and B.C.! Thanks for your help.
The ski may be a little long, depending on how much you like to do short carved turns, but the 182 will be more stable at speed. I'm 6' 3" and 220 lbs and ski at 175cm Head Supershape all over the mountain (with the exception of really deep pow). It's a 13m turn radius (vs AMC 76's 16m).

ExpertSkier.com had good things to say about the AMC 76:

"Comments on the 76 ranged all over the ski-scape. This is a good indication of the ski's versatility, not only in performance but in terms of technical style and skill level. The one caveat is that the ski does have a speed limit, but we judge it to be worth a test by most recreational skiers seeking that one all around ski.

carve:4
soft edge:4
rebound:4
stability:3straight run:4
quickness:5
lightness:4
forgiveness:4"

(Ratings are up to 5)

Rick
post #6 of 16
I owned the 76. Strong, lively, quick, excellent carving and in bumps. Big kick from the tail, so stay in the front seat. It's reasonably stiff, so while the 182 would work best at your size in open spaces and at speed, you could also try the 176 if you wanted quicker reactions in bumps at the cost of some stability at speed. Nice in boot top powder, but above that or in heavy chop, the stiff front tends to plough, rather than float. If you want a bit more soft snow aim, go for the 79, otherwise similar.
post #7 of 16
I'd go a tad shorter, something in the 176cm range. I'd only recommend 180-184cm range for a wider ski.

Also consider the Head iM76, 77, 78 (various years). I have tried Head, Elan, Fischer, and Volkl mid-fats and like the Heads best overall. I am selling a pair of iM77 right now (177cm length) that would be a great ski for you.

http://forums.epicski.com/showthread.php?t=76265
post #8 of 16
Agree with most of above. I'm 5'10" 195 and I have AMC 76 in a 176. It's a great allround ski for groomers, soft crud, up to a foot of powder but where I think it really shines is bumps and trees. I also agree that 182 is a little long. At that lenght I would either go wider or get a high performance carver.
post #9 of 16
Just for argument's sake: 182 cm is the longest length in the AMC76. The OP is 6'1" 220lbs and athletic, and skis Alberta and BC. For those who think the 182 is a little long for him - how big and strong should a skier be to ride the 182 in west coast conditions?

And for reference sake: I'm 170 lbs, 5'9" and skied the predecessor to the AMC76, the Big Stix 7.6, in 175 cm length. Found it fine in all conditions, especially bumps and trees. I know it's a slightly different ski (longer radius than the AMC 76 and flat, not railflex bindings) but perhaps a worthwhile comparison.
post #10 of 16
Quote:
Originally Posted by ts01 View Post
Just for argument's sake: 182 cm is the longest length in the AMC76. The OP is 6'1" 220lbs and athletic, and skis Alberta and BC. For those who think the 182 is a little long for him - how big and strong should a skier be to ride the 182 in west coast conditions?

And for reference sake: I'm 170 lbs, 5'9" and skied the predecessor to the AMC76, the Big Stix 7.6, in 175 cm length. Found it fine in all conditions, especially bumps and trees. I know it's a slightly different ski (longer radius than the AMC 76 and flat, not railflex bindings) but perhaps a worthwhile comparison.
I agree 182 is not to long for him, I'm just suggesting that that the best length for the 76 is 176. I would look at different skis if I were going longer. Fischer Cool Heat, Volkl AC 50, Norica Hot Rods or Solly Furys are some groomer oriented wider skis that I would look at for Western skiing if I were going longer.
post #11 of 16
This isn't a direct answer, but a big strong skier looking for a west coast ski would probably be looking to something wider than the AMC76 when toying with that ~182cm length range. At least that's my taste. I ski ~75mm mid-fats in the 175-180cm range, but prefer a wider ski as the length ramps up (182-184cm for ~84mm waist). I have skied longer ~75mm mid-fats and they didn't make as much sense. This is a departure from my tastes of just a few years back, when I would have suggested a longer mid-fat.
post #12 of 16
Thread Starter 
Thanks for all the great feedback. At this point I'm leaning towards the 182. My last ski was the Rossi 4s 204cm, so I know the new technology is going to blow me away. i do like quicker turns tho! Would I really notice a significant difference between 176 and 182, considering i haven't been on skis in 8 years? Should i be worried about out growing the smaller 176?

Thanks again for everyone's help!
post #13 of 16
You'll be OK with the 182.
post #14 of 16
I doubt you would outgrow the 176 in a way that the 182 would remedy. Having skied 184cm and 176cm Elan Mag12/M666 skis (very similar to the AMC76) I give the nod to the shorter 176cm as the more versatile, more ideal length for this class of mid-fat ski. If it was a wider ski I would say 182, but not for a 76mm waisted mid-fat that has "all-mtn" as it's mission. You will appreciate the shorter turns and not lose much in powder (because there's not much float in a 76mm waisted ski anyhow). The shorter ski should even be better in crud -- the AMC has a good solid construction.
post #15 of 16
Skier219 has a interesting point here. There are a number of skis that don't really offer that much more in their longest lengths compared to the maneuverability that you give up. IMO Mantras are a good example. So if OP thinks the 176 is too short, probably wrong model, maybe brand. Think about beefier skis like Head iM82, Nordica Jet Fuel, Atomic Crimson Nomad Ti, or Stockli XXL's in the mid-high 170's.
post #16 of 16
Thread Starter 
Thanks again for everyone's great input. It's got me even more pumped about the 176. I'm going out today to grab the 182. I'll let you know how they work out!
Cheers!
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Ski Gear Discussion