|Originally posted by Mac:
(I) Just recently bought a pair of the Head IC 180's...In Head's 2003-2004 brochure, they claim that these skis are a hybrid design that bridges the gap between a slalom carver and a midfat freeride ski...I've been the midfat route, but found that they're just not as much fun on the boilerplate that we ski on most of the time in the East. Slalom shortes are a lot of fun, but they are not ideal for trips out West or for spring conditions... I had originally planned on buying a pair of wider skis in the 75mm. waist category for the deeper days, but I've since decided to hold off until I get a chance to try the IC 180's in some really deep stuff. They give me the performance that I was looking for on the groomed, but they seem to hold their own in the rough stuff, too...
I'm 210 lbs, and as some of you know, I've fallen completely in love with my 184 IC200's (aka xp100), and use them as my everyday eastern ski. I do so for exactly the reasons you gave: It holds superbly on ice, has an nice short radius sidecut (~15 m) so it can really turn, but simultaneously, it has the stability of a freight train in those turns, and you can move along at a really good clip on them. I didn't go shorter because I have a pr of 170 9.16's that I use when I know I'm going to be in tight quarters.
Like you, I had hoped the xp100's would do well in soft snow. In practice, they do quite well up to about 6 inches. However, much more than that (especially if it is cut up), and they are too twitchy and turny. With their huge (123 mm) tip, and a tail (107 mm) wider than many skis tips, they undoubtedly do better in such conditions than most slaloms or midfats, but they clearly are out of their element in the reall deep soft stuff.
One day this season, in about 2.5 feet of soft, heavy, cut-up chowder, I had the chance to compare them on back to back sequential runs to my 184 10ex's and my 190 Explosivs. The Explosives were stunningly good, the 10ex's did fine, but I couldn't wait to get the xp100's off my feet in these conditions.
So, with respect to you considering a 75 mm ski as your next purchase, my guess is that it probably won't make enough of a change from your IC180's to make it worth it. My suggestion is to go right to something in the 88 - 95 mm range, and don't even bother stopping at the 75 mm range.
Tom / PM[ April 27, 2003, 02:36 AM: Message edited by: PhysicsMan ]