EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › Ski Gear Discussion › Allmountain ski for Lighter, aggressive skier (Head iXRC 1100, Head iSupershape Magnum, Fisher Prog9)
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Allmountain ski for Lighter, aggressive skier (Head iXRC 1100, Head iSupershape Magnum, Fisher Prog9)

post #1 of 18
Thread Starter 

Hi,

 

            I would love to get some suggestions for choosing the ski for me, because I do not want to travel too far to demo skies, those, I am interested in, are not available to demo in our area in correct sizes or at all). I am a female, 34, aggressive skier (ex-racer, started to ski last year again - after 15 years), who loves speed and carving, not so much moguls, 140 lb, 168cm (5f6i), but ski in West Montana = a lot of great powder.  I am looking for all in one ski (that is why I am not buying Supershape Speed skis that would probably suit me well). However, I do not want to compromise on the carving side.

 

I narrowed the choices to 2009,

Head I Supershape Magnum …165 cm

Head iXRC 1100   ……          163 cm

Fisher Progressor 9…..            165 cm

 

I am guessing the S Magnum might be the best since heavier skiers said it is a little softer ski.

I will appreciate any advice

Thanks a lot

Alena

post #2 of 18

I think you have narrowed it down to skis that are not very popular out west, and for powder out west, so I don't have anything to say about a ski I don't ride or see out there very much.

post #3 of 18

Hi, Alena.

 

The SS Magnum is actually 163cm rather than 165cm and I think that's an outstanding ski for what you're describing.  It is amazingly versatile, especially if you're someone who doesn't need water skis underfoot to ski powder/crud.  I use it as my everyday ski here at Jackson Hole.

 

I think it's a fair bit more versatile than the 1100.  Sorry, but I can't help you in comparing to the Progressor 9 because I haven't been able to ski it.

 

Here's a link to a couple of reviews on the Magnum:

 

http://www.epicski.com/products/head-supershape-magnum-skis

 

Good luck with the search.

 

 

 

 

post #4 of 18
Thread Starter 

Hi Bob,

thanks for your input! It looks like the Magnum would be the best ski for me (163 cm). Actually I have red those reviews before! All others I red were from heavier skiers skiing at least 170 cm, so I was wondering if any lighter skier have great experience with them.

Thanks again, I think I will go for them - I skied last year exceptional powder on 68 mm underfoot as well as crud with no problems, "only" 71 mm" of Magnum should be just fine.

Thanks again

Alena

post #5 of 18

I have skied on both the Head Magnum and Progressor 9.  The Magnum is definitely a softer, more forgiving ski.  In my opinion, neither ski is great off-piste (obviously a lot has to do with the pilot) in anything more than a few cm's of fresh snow. 

 

The Progressor 9 is an absolutely stable speed machine with very little flex - excellent for hardpack/groomers. I would not recommend it for any type of powder skiing. I consider the Progressor 9 a highly skilled weekend warriors race ski.  Helluv a lot of fun to rip the groomers at high speed.

 

I'd suggest the Volkl Mantra. 96mm underfoot so it won't carve like a turkey knife but it's remarkably impressive at holding an edge. It's a rather stiff ski so it's quite stable at higher than normal speeds and can be taken in to the POW.  It's what I ski when there's fresh tracks.

 

Good luck with your search!

post #6 of 18

I'm a big Head fan, and agree that the Magnum is the best choice of those three. No contest. 

 

BUT: Seems to me there are other, slightly wider skis out there that will give you the carving and speed you crave but do better in western powder. Suspect you'd really like the Head iM78 or 82, and the Contact 4x4 would also give you significantly more soft snow performance without losing much carving. In fact, on real hardpack, I'd take the 82 or the 4x4 over the Magnum for grip and stability, and the 4x4 would come close in quickness. The Blizzard Supersonic would also be one to think about; amazing grip but floats up in pow better than the Magnum, likes longer radius turns, light and lively but smooth under pressure. 

post #7 of 18
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alena View Post

 

 

...loves speed and carving, not so much moguls, 140 lb, 168cm (5f6i), but ski in West Montana = a lot of great powder.  I am looking for all in one ski...

I'm close to your weight and height, level 8/9, and ski in Colorado (not an ex-racer though).  To me the carving prowess of wider skis have gotten to the point where "all in one" would mean something with a waist from the high 70's to close to 90mm.  If you want something versatile, not too powerful for a lightweight, but still good at carving consider something like the Fischer Watea 78's, Head iM78's or Nordica Nitrous (all in the high 70's), or the Atomic Crimsons or Salomon Fury's (mid 80's).  A number of these also come in a women's-specific version, if that matters to you. 

 

I can't personally tell you what to pick (I prefer a less-carving oriented ski), though I see little reason for you to bother with the hardpack-specific skis you've listed.  Go Wider

post #8 of 18

P.S. There's some very positive posts on this forum praising the carving prowess of the Rossi CX 80's (an 80mm waist ski)....

post #9 of 18
Quote:
Originally Posted by ski-ra View Post

 

P.S. There's some very positive posts on this forum praising the carving prowess of the Rossi CX 80's (an 80mm waist ski)....


 

At your size and weight I would also consider the Fischer Watea 84 in 167.  That would be a fantastic all around ski for you out west.  As others have said, you don't really need a dedicated carving ski where you live.  The 84 carves nicely and would have plenty of float at your size in softer snow.  It's a fun, light, and lively ski and will cover a wide variety of conditons.

 

If you wanted a stiffer ski than the Watea 84, I would go with the Head IM78. 

post #10 of 18

I have skied both the XRC and SS Magnum in 163.  the Magnum is more versatile and feels lighter and more responsive with rebound ...

 

My wife has chosen a SS Magnum 163 as her next ski because she likes Sandwich and the rebound, etc...

 

My daughter who just finished racing likes the Magnum but still craves a slalom ski.  Anything wider offends her racing sensibilities because of quickness edge to edge and the look for ski rebound.  Of course she is skiing Race Dept SL skis so to her SS and SS Magnum are very wide.

 

I have skied Monster 78 and Peak 78.  Nice skis for both carving on piste and skiing thru crud.  A great compromise do everything ski.  Comment I hear about it from other skiers is that is skis well but is very heavy.

 

I dont ski other brands often so I cannot speak much about them.

 

The main consideration in my mind is where will you be skiing most often?  If it is off piste in woods or powder then you want a radically different ski than if you spend most of your time on groomed trails.  If you are 90% of time on groomed trails then buy a technical ski.  You are a racer so you have the skills to ski the other 10% of the terrain on just about any ski....

 

Mike

 

post #11 of 18

You might send a PM to Bob Peters and ask what he thinks of a Head Monster 78 for you, probably 171 cm (one size up from shortest, two down from longest, which is where the 163 Magnum ranks).  Either is a great ski, with the Magnum having the edge on the pack and the M78 the edge off piste.

post #12 of 18
Quote:
Originally Posted by MikeC View Post

  

At your size and weight I would also consider the Fischer Watea 84 in 167.  That would be a fantastic all around ski for you out west.  As others have said, you don't really need a dedicated carving ski where you live.  The 84 carves nicely and would have plenty of float at your size in softer snow.  It's a fun, light, and lively ski and will cover a wide variety of conditons.

 

If you wanted a stiffer ski than the Watea 84, I would go with the Head IM78. 


 

The Watea 84 is my "all mountain" ski and, even though I love it, I chose not to recommend it in my post because it is bit too much this side of soft-snow oriented - that's why I picked some of the skis that are known to be a bit more carver oriented.  Who knows, if the OP can get past her need for a technical ski then the W84 might be perfect, but for now the Fischer that sounds better for her might be the Cold Heat.

 

As posted by mikehoyt, if we heard more from Alena about where she's really gonna use the ski (i.e., "all around" groomers vs. truly "all mountain" with some off-piste) we can make some better recommendations.

post #13 of 18
Quote:
Originally Posted by ski-ra View Post

 


 

The Watea 84 is my "all mountain" ski and, even though I love it, I chose not to recommend it in my post because it is bit too much this side of soft-snow oriented - that's why I picked some of the skis that are known to be a bit more carver oriented.  Who knows, if the OP can get past her need for a technical ski then the W84 might be perfect, but for now the Fischer that sounds better for her might be the Cold Heat.

 

 


 

I agree it isn't as grippy as the other skis mentioned, but for someone 140lbs the ski should grip just fine and will be much better in soft snow than the carvers.

 

Did you mean the Cool Heat?  Cold Heat is a very stiff burly ski that I would think a 140 pounder would have a hard time bending.

post #14 of 18
Quote:
Originally Posted by MikeC View Post

 

I agree it isn't as grippy as the other skis mentioned, but for someone 140lbs the ski should grip just fine and will be much better in soft snow than the carvers.

 

Did you mean the Cool Heat?  Cold Heat is a very stiff burly ski that I would think a 140 pounder would have a hard time bending.


 

Not to partake in any silly "point-counterpoint", but the W84's under me (130lbs) doesn't seem to be grippy/carvy enough for what the OP's looking for (that's why I like em).  Heck I'm just trying to convince her to go wider.  If she's able to try the W84's and likes 'em then I stand corrected.

 

Yeah I meant to say the Cold Heat (Dawgcatching raves about the ski and he's 150#), though I wouldn't know them from a hole in a wall otherwise.  The Cool Heat also sounds like a possibility which I didn't list since I was trying to suggest skis that were closer to 80mm underfoot (the Cool Heat is 76 - I know what's a few mm...?).

 

Meanwhile it appears the OP is ignoring all of our banter and is probably already out there skiing on some new 70mm waisted ski.  It'd be nice to know what she's concluded - Alena? 

post #15 of 18
Quote:
Originally Posted by SoftSnowGuy View Post

 

You might send a PM to Bob Peters and ask what he thinks of a Head Monster 78 for you, probably 171 cm (one size up from shortest, two down from longest, which is where the 163 Magnum ranks).  Either is a great ski, with the Magnum having the edge on the pack and the M78 the edge off piste.

 

I think this is a great post.  I do like the Monster 78 a great deal.  I also recently skied the 2010 Peak 78 (next year's version) and I absolutely loved it.  The pair I was on just seemed super "alive" and responsive.

 

However, Alena very specifically said, "I do not want to compromise on the carving side."  That, coupled with the fact that she's got what sounds like a fairly serious racing background is what prompted me to suggest the SS Magnum. 

 

I still firmly believe that the Magnum will ski hardpack ALMOST as well as a pure race ski and it skis moderate powder and crud (let's say 12" and below) very, very well.  To me, it's the best combination of doing both of those - well - that I've come across.

 

http://www.north40realty.com/

http://www.paintercreeklodgeforsale.com

post #16 of 18

what Bob said ....

 

Seriously - I skied the Monster 78 and Peak 78 on back to back weekends - a truly versatile ski.  However my choice is the Magnum since I love its race style construction.

 

... and yes - I am a technical skier - very much so.

 

Mike

 

CSIA III / CSCF I

post #17 of 18
Thread Starter 

Hi guys,

Thank you so much for your suggestions! You are all awesome! Sorry for not checking the forum last week, got busy buying the skis and skiing J.

Hi hi, everybody (Brumos, Beyond, Ski-ra, Mike C) wants to see me (rightfully) on wider skis in Rockies. I did try some wider skies and they were fun (Ross. Z9, Z11, Ross Woodo, but then…..I tried the racing ski, even though they were too long for me (170 cm Atomic slalom ski) I loved the feeling….right underneath me, sharp, holding edge…just what I know. Thanks Ski-ra for suggesting Rossi CX 80 (they do have great reviews!), that was my choice until I red it is the best for heavy expert skiers - unfortunately only demo they have here is 170 cm and it would not give the justice to the ski if I tried it).

I think Bob and Mikehoyt did understand me really well…..I do want to have carving and very responsive ski even though there is a great chance I will be skiing a lot of deeper snow. This season (since I joined the local ski school) I skied mostly groomers 90%, but I do plan to ski good powder (I agree with Mike - any ski will do for me in deep and light powder, crud is OK) and learn to ski a decent way the moguls (for that I might need different legs more than different ski). Soft groomed is similar as powder for me….any ski works (even my current ski).

Therefore….I bought Head Magnum! They came yesterday…

..and ….bummer, there is something wrong with the heel/break of the binding, so I have to send them back…..I was so looking forward to trying them this weekend. Anyway, I will certainly let you know how I will do on these skis - as soon as I will get to ski them.

Thanks again to everybody

Alena

P. S. I do not recommend a female ski to any aggressive female skier or someone who wants to grow into one very soon….I have K2 Burning Luv (supposed to be a very good female ski) but all the experts I skied with said I over-bend them. Truth is they turn really well - too well, little unstable in higher speeds and I feel I push me off the balance often - this is not happening on any male ski I have tried.

 

 

post #18 of 18
Thread Starter 

Awesome for shorter turns!

 

I have skied on Magnum Supershape 163 cm for last 2 days. Groomed - ideal snow conditions - Friday, harder snow - Saturday. After a very long time I enjoyed short snappy turns greatly. They behaved surprisingly well in wind-blown powder and I did OK in moguls too (just OK is my problem). I am not too excited about carving longer turns on them, but overall I think I made a good decision buying SS Magnum. 

 

I will give them another shot for longer turns tomorrow (will try to leave my old fashion one legged skiing behind and be more "two footed"). So far my feeling is that they are pretty "easy going", not too soft, not too stiff.

 

Alena

 

Update: carving is finally getting great on Magnum!

spent a weekend at the ski clinic and learned a little bit more about modern carving - uff, the modern technique makes a huge difference with these skis! I am so happy I was getting it.

 

My conclusion is that SS Magnum is very versatile ski (with them I do not feel a need for fatter skis and feel less intimidated by steeps with big moguls). Excellent for shorter turns anywhere and little bit dictating and unforgiving in longer radius turns on harder snow. But...do not get me wrong, this non-forgiveness is pretty good for me! It will make me a better skier. I even tried a few gates (easy built slalom) this weekend and I felt pretty confident on these skis. Overall great! Thank you all!

 

Alena


Edited by Alena - 3/23/2009 at 07:40 pm
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 › Allmountain ski for Lighter, aggressive skier (Head iXRC 1100, Head iSupershape Magnum, Fisher Prog9)