or Connect
EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › Ski Gear Discussion › Fischer Ski Recommendation
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Fischer Ski Recommendation

post #1 of 28
Thread Starter 
Greetings -

Considering investing in a new pair of Fischer Progressors, but in reading all of the reviews I'm unsure which model to choose. I've been skiing for over 40 years, travel out West once or twice per year. Currently on a pair of 170cm 2005 Fischer RX8s, which I am very happy with. 

Any thoughts on the Progressor 8 versus the 9? I'd also be curious to hear a recommended length. I am 6'0" and weight 175-lbs.

Thanks as always for your advice and feedback. 

Gear mentioned in this thread:

post #2 of 28
 Hi Telekon.  I like you skied RX8's for a few years.  I have skied 165, 170 and 175 models.  

I ski in the East mostly with a 2 week trip to Colorado every year.

I demo'd both the 9+ and 8+ and decided to buy the 8's.  Have not skied on them since the demos yet.

It depends on what you like to do and want to do.  I would liken the 9's more to the RX9's, longer turns stiffer ski.  They have metal in them.  The 8's have no metal and thus seem like they will be better in bumps and off-piste and more short turn oriented, but like the RX8's handle longer radius turns as well.

Neither of course is a "western" ski, but both will do well in soft snow.

So if you prefer to cruise and make longer turns at higher speeds the 9's would be the better choice, if you want more versatility but don't ski at Mach 10, the 8's probably would be.

Sierra Jim has compared the 8's to the RX8's before, saying that they are better in most ways, but similar.

I hope this helps.
Edited by SkiMangoJazz - 10/8/09 at 4:40am
post #3 of 28
Thread Starter 
SkiMangoJazz -

Thank you for your detailed reply. I believe the Progressor 8 will be the better choice for me, and ski-depot.com has very attractive pricing right now on the 2009 models.

A ski that is "similar to the RX8 but better in most ways" sure sound like the one for me.
post #4 of 28
 I bought mine from ski-depot as well, late March.  The bindings are from 2008 I think and a slightly different color, but I'm sure they're fine.

Easy to install and setup yourself, but of course, it never hurts to have a shop do it, or at least check the DIN setting and forward pressure adjustment.

Have fun on them.  When I demo'd them I was really impressed with how they could not only carve beautifully, but if I tried to do things like flat 360's or ski them with a (bad) pivoting style they could handle it.  Other skis didn't like that as much.

They also at 170 made really good short turns, but still felt great on a straighter line, which again some skis really didn't like.

Less then 2 months to go until we can use 'em!
post #5 of 28
 Oh and I'd go with the 170's based on my experiences with the RX8's.  The 175's were a lot of fun, but didn't make short turns as well.  The 165's were great at short turns, but chattered at high speeds.  They really skied very differently, the 170's seem to be the perfect comporomise.

I did love the 175's on long fast cruisers at Vail I must say though.
post #6 of 28
Thread Starter 
I confess I'm having a hard time deciding what length to buy (165cm vs.170cm). At 175-lbs. and more of a short-radius skier than a high-speed skier, I wonder if 165cm isn't the better choice. You mentioned the various lengths "ski very differently" - meaning the decision is even more critical!
post #7 of 28
 Since you go out West twice a year I'd think the 170 would be more versatile.  When you're cruising down a long wide groomer and picking up speed the extra stability will be very nice.  Plus since the 8+ doesn't have metal in it I think the 170 will make those short turns you (and I) love.

I weighed around 190 last year (have lost weight since) not that much more then 175lbs.   The 165's are a great ski, but almost like a slalom ski.  I really don't think you could go wrong with a 170.

One of my main mentors, a Full Cert at Copper, who I'm sure doesn't weigh any more then you, swears by the 170 length for all his skis.
post #8 of 28
 ps  I demo'd the 8+ in the 170 length and very much focused on short turns and they were fantastic.  (Again I did weigh a bit more then you, but they love to turn.)  

You've been skiing 170 RX8's so you should have a good idea of the turn shape.
post #9 of 28
Thread Starter 
I can't thank you enough for the feedback. This is a perfect example of why forums like this one are so valuable.

170cm it is. Off to ski-depot.com now. I'll PM once I get them out for their first big day.
post #10 of 28
Glad to be able to give back.   I first came to this site looking for advice 5 years ago and continually am grateful for all of the help I've gotten here.  It's an amazing group of people - and yes the format is awesome.  I've saved myself an incredible amount of time and hassle by asking questions on numerous other forums as well.

Stick around, I'm sure you've got lots you could teach us as well!




post #11 of 28

If you like short turns, over long high speed turns why are you looking at the  Progressor 8, and 9. They are out of Fischer gs race line. If you like short turns look at Fischer RC4 SC.

post #12 of 28
 Why do you say that?  GS skis turn radii are in the 20 meter range.  The Progressor's "dual" radius specs at 170 are 12m and 16m.  Neither approaching a GS turn size.
post #13 of 28
The ski is from Fischer GS set up. It will do any turn, but it's nature is to do long GS turns.
post #14 of 28
 Then why is it's stated radius so short?  And why is it compared to the RX8 so often?

What are you basing the statement on btw?  Are you in the industry?  Did you read this somewhere?

What's your source?

post #15 of 28
 telekon, sorry about the Twins losing, I was watching and rooting for them.  

As to the skis, I've been PM'ing with backroom and I still think you chose the right ski.  I think if you really want to make short turns and nothing else, he'd be right.  Get a true Slalom ski.  

But this ski will turn fast, turn medium and handle all mountain type conditions better then a real short turning ski like the RC would.  The extra 7 mm under foot of the Progressor will make it better for a lot of things.  The RC would be better as a hard snow short turn carver.

Would you agree with this backroom?  What about the length?  Assuming telekon is better off with the Progressor, do you think I was wrong about the length?  Having skied the Progressor at 170 and having spent most of last season on a Blizzard WC Slalom ski (165) I still found the Progressor to be very quick turning.
post #16 of 28
Thread Starter 
While being a true Minnesota Twins fan, I also accept the Yankees just have too much horsepower for us to handle. We are 0-10 against them this year, so I'm afraid we are just a bump in the road as the Yankees forge ahead to the World Series. It is way cool how we won our division, however.

Back to the business of skis, based on many factors I do believe the Progressor 8+ is the right ski for me. The versatility of it is appealing. I wish I had the same conviction regarding the length. I still haven't pulled the trigger on a purchase, as I've had just as many folks tell me to go with the 165cm as the 170cm. It would be ideal to demo both, I imagine, but this is easier said. I don't want to wait too long and risk missing out on the 2009 close-out pricing I'm seeing online. 
post #17 of 28
 Well I haven't skied the 165's but have a lot of days on RX8 165's and do love them, even being a bit heavier then you.

All you'll sacrifice on them is stability at speed as well as a smaller sweet spot.  I don't know what your skill level is, but I do know that when I moved from the 165's to the 175's I found it easier to be centered fore/aft.  That of course was due to my skill, if I was perfectly centered it shouldn't have been an issue.

You could buy both. 
post #18 of 28
If you like shorter, slalom-type turns more than longer, GS-type turns, go with the 165 and vice versa.  The Progessor 9 is stiffer than the 8 and both are stiffer than RX8s and RX9s (I owned both and demoed the Progressor series and didn't go there because they are stiffer.)  I weigh the same as you.  K2 Recons are about the same stiffnerss as the old RX series, but a bit wider at 78 underfoot.  A bit more versatile as a result.  Most narrow-waisted skis today (under 70 at the waist) tend to be stiffer than the skis of a few years ago.
post #19 of 28
Why Progressors if you have and like the RX8....seems like a lot of overlap...

You might try a wider-waisted ski, like mike_m suggested, eg. Recons, which in the 170 length will be very versatile, especially in the West... beginning of a quiver, no? 

My $.02
post #20 of 28
Thread Starter 
In addition to the Fischer RX8s, I still have my 1992 Volkl Rentigers (205cm!) in the garage. Quiver?
post #21 of 28
Why order meatloaf when you can have filet mignon?  I have the RX8 in my quiver for 4 years and love them. I plan on getting a new pair and hope FIscher continues to produce the model. Regarding the Progressor line, I don't know if it's the tune, but every time I have demoed the line I did not care for the feel or the ride. They are not as quick, nimble, or light and have too much of a GS feel. In short, for me, they are not as much fun on the frontside and they have too much of an all-mountain feeel(OK at eveything, excel at nothing but going fast).  

If someone likes short slalom turns and skis the frontside why get a  ski like the progressor in 165? Just get a carver like the RX8.

I am old school I guess in the sense that I want a frontside ski I get a narrow waisted carver. If I want something for 'iffy' conditions or deeper snow I get a 80+ waisted ski . I really dislike the 'all-mountain' craze the manufacturers have engaged in.
post #22 of 28
I also suggest the Progressor 8.

I had the RX8 in a 175cm and then went to a rair of Progressors in a 175cm size. The Progressor 9+ is a beefy high-speed ski, not in any-way like the RX8. I like the quick and easy feel of the RX8, the Progressor 9+ is a much more demanding ski.

I sold the Progressors and have been using the Contact 4X4 in a 172cm size. It's a little more versatile and easier than the Progressor 9+ in a 175cm size.

post #23 of 28
I have the Progressor 8+ in 170 and love it.  Also had the RX-8 in the same size and liked it a lot except that they got nervous at speed.  No such issue with the 8+.  Great at speed and can do may types of turn shapes.  Way more versatile than the RX-8 which always wanted to do short turns.  Progressor can do short, medium, or long.

post #24 of 28
Hi, my 10 cents worth,

I have RX8s @165 (4 yrs) and the first yrs progressor (9+?) in a 170 (2yrs). I have and use both. Love short turns and when I want to have real fun, I play with my RX8's. When I want to ski seriously, push limits,learn a drill or show off at speed I'm on the Progressors. If I could choose now, I wouldn't change anything other than my ability :-)  This yr gonna be on Gotama's too, can't wait!! Where's the snow??!!

- Muja -


Edited by muja2 - 10/13/09 at 12:54pm
post #25 of 28
Thread Starter 
This has been an interesting thread to participate in and observe. I've read everything from "Progressor 8+ does everything the RX8 does, only better" to "Progressor is much more versatile" (I'm paraphrasing) to "why have meatloaf (Progressor 8+) when you can have filet mignon (RX8)".

So I've decided to not invest in a new pair of skis.

Instead, I'm going to go to Steamboat Springs for the first time and tear it up with the old RX8s.

Thanks to all for your input.
post #26 of 28
I must say the above post is the sanest thing I ever read on Epic!
post #27 of 28
Yep. Your decicion certainly makes sense to me! Enjoy the RX8s for another year... and at  Steamboat.
post #28 of 28
 Sure, why not?  The RX8 is a great ski and holding on to your money is a great skill!
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Ski Gear Discussion

Gear mentioned in this thread:

EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › Ski Gear Discussion › Fischer Ski Recommendation