Ski choice and length-Fischer Skis

Question
QUESTION: Hi Ron,

I had a couple questions if you could please,

I was interested in buying either the Fischer RX8 or the FIscher Race SC ski.(Please note this is the the world cup version, but the model between the world cup and RX8.

If your familiar with them, can you give me the real difference between the those skis?  Ive tried the rx8 which I really liked, but then someone suggested I would be better on the race sc.  Im worried it might be stiffer and too aggressive than the RX8.

Lastly Im having a tough time deciding on ski length.  I have demoed the rx8 only in a 175.  I knew that was too long except big turns.  There are no Race sc models in my area to try.  

Im thinking of either the 160 centimeter or 165 centimeter.  I currently ski the K2 mach S from 2001. its 157 centimeter length, 12 meter turn radius, 110-63-94.  The only real time I found the K2 too short was on a steep pitch on soft spring snow.  I
actually bit it falling forward.  never happened before.  


I should give you some details on my abilities perhaps as well.  I just entered the advanced ski levels as last year I was able to consistantly carve short slalom turns on blue, green and easy black runs minus the softer snow or solid ice of course.  

my goals this year are two increase my slalom skills mostly in varried conditions with the ocasional recreational gs turn.  


Any help you could provide would be wonderful.  Thanks so much!

Toby

ANSWER: Hi Toby,

I'm a big fan of Fischer skis, so this is a good question for me. The situation you describe on your K2's is not uncommon- slalom skis typically have a stiff forebody (Fischers Worldcup slalom is REALLY stiff). In powder and soft snow, they can often submarine, since the tip does not seek to rise like, for instance, an all mountain ski will. Instead, snow presses downward on the tops, and we go in head first. Here in Utah, we try to just roll with it and land on our feet again... but we also ski with our heels tight.

Both skis you are looking at are pretty narrow underfoot, making soft snow a further problem, because they'll flex from right underfoot, and it feels like they are breaking through. That narrowness also makes soft snow a problem because you "boot-out" easier than you would on a wider ski. Fischer has an additional problem in their radial sidewall design, because you lose the support of the sidewall in soft snow- a detail that seems slight, but you can really feel when you go from a vertical sidewall to a radial sidewall. However, both choices are wood core, which means they'll feel secure and powerful in all conditions.

Given that both skis you are considering have identical measurements and cores, the real distinction is going to come from the flex pattern. The traditional flex pattern of the Race is going to teach you discipline, but at a cost- if you get leveraged (too far forward or back) the ski is not going to re-center you, it's going to toss you. Get it under control and you'll be the master of short turns and tip-n-rip on all slopes- but you need to be willing to take a few hard landings in the process. I had a pair of Dynastar Omeglass 64's that were like that. While my Nordica World Cup Sl's are more uniform flex.

Now, I have not skied the RX8- I skied several other 2008 Fischer models at the end of last season, and feel comfortable making some assumptions. I really liked the AMC 73, and the Cold Heat, which was more powerful, but a bit sluggish (as a for-instance). In reviewing the specs, I feel strongly that the RX8 is going to be the more versatile solution for your needs than the Race. A continuous flex is not going to have a negative effect on your overall skiing- the ski will reward you for having a centered stance, and remind you to be there- I'm all for that.
As for length, unless you are particularly tall or short, I'm inclined to recommend a 165. It will perform all of the slalom turns you want, while still being (fairly) stable at speed. Any shorter, and you'll chatter on ice, any longer and you'll find yourself letting go of the edge instead of arcing. Also, find the right tune for you ( I ski a .5 base, and 2 degree side)- this can make a huge difference in your slalom turns.

That's my take on it- feel free to ask a follow-up but please include your height and weight for reference.

Ron

---------- FOLLOW-UP ----------

QUESTION: HI Ron,

Thanks very much.\r

I had a few more questions if you'd be willing.

 
To start here are my body specifics.  Sorry I thought I had included that.  I am 40 years old,  5' 7" tall, approx 170lbs.  
Again I just entered the begginings of advanced skiing.  


1: Have you had any experience on the K2 mach S I currently ski?  If so, how would the Fischer RX8 in a 160 centimeter length compare to the 157 centimeter K2?  Do you think the RX8 would have more edge hold and stability?  

2: Do you think the Fischer RX8 in the 165 centimeter would be as quick and sharp turning as the K2?  The reason I ask is because even though tthe K2 in a 157 centimeter lenght is a 12 meter radious and the fischer rx8 in 165 lenght is a 13 meter turn radious, I found the rx8s so much easier to turn.  The RX8 was the first ski that pulled me into the next turn even when the tips were still pointed to the oposite direction.  I noticed that right off  in the 175 meter length.  I can only imagine it woujld be more pronounced in the 160 or 165 centimeter length.    What are your opinions?

3: Sorry wasnt sure, but have you skied the rc4 race SC?  Im not even sure if its a race ski.  I did get a chance to check out the world cup version but it was obvoiusly much too aggressive.  

4:  If you have skied the race SC, how do you think that would compare to the K2?  Again would it be close to the same in flex pattern and grip?  


5: I noticed that the Fischer RX8s did much better in softter snow than my k2s.  Do you think its because they are a softter flexing ski, or because they have wider tips or because they were longer?  My K2 has a 110 tip and the  rx8 has a 116 centimeter tip. Normallly I found the longer skis much harder to turn in soft snow, but this didnt seem so much the case with the fischers.

6: What are the general rules when choosing a ski for softter or mixed conditions?  Is it something longer and softer, or is it having more side cut or simply a wider ski?  Last year in Seattle the conditions were so horrid that I have thrown in the towel on always expecting firm snow.  I normally ski snoqaulmie pass and right up till the last few years its always been ice skiing.  Maybe not like back east(Iive never been there)  but we do get alot of melt freeze cycle throughout the winter with occassional blue ice.  I am thinking it may no longer be that way anymore.

7: Oh I do remember you mentioned that a slimmer waist would cause more problems with soft snow.  The Fischers are 2 mijllimeters wider than my current K2.  Do you think two millimeter woujld make any noticable differrence, or do you need to jump into say 5 or ten millimeters to see a difference?



8.  All of this brings me to ask this question.    I noticed that some skis have a larger side cut as in the vist pro SL(117/65/101) but larger turn radious(14.5 meter) than say a nordica dobermann SLR with a smaller side cut(1114/64/100 ) but a smaller turn radious(13M)  How can that be?



9:  being given this added information, do you think I would still be suited to the 165 centimeter length as apposed to the 160 centimeter length in the RX8?  If I did end up choosing the RC4 RACE SC, Would you recommend the same ski length, or would that change if the skis tend to be stiffer or more aggressive?

Thank you so much for your detailed responses.  I really appreciate it.  Its very difficult to find real answers to these questions.  

Toby from Seattle.  

Answer
Hi Toby- I wrote you this HUGE answer, and then somehow closed the window in the midst of it. Sorry for the delay in re-writing it.

The Mach S is a great ski- although I am not a huge torsion box supporter. Torsion box skis tend to lose their edge hold quicker than full-width core sandwiches do.

The 157 Mach S really will ski shorter than a 160 RX8, because Fischer (Nordica, Elan, Volkl) continue to expand the sidecut outward after the tip begins to rise- so that the ski feels longer on edge and draws the tip into the arc. This is what creates the sensation of the ski maintaining an arc while you've begun to cross-over.

Because the RX8 is more consumer directed, the binding position is likely to be a bit forward, making the ski feel easier to initiate turns, while also affecting where you need to stand for optimal grip. Traditional race skis mounting points grip best right around the ball of your foot, while consumer-directed skis are mounted to perform where most skiers stand: arch-heel.

I've skied the Race in an earlier version- I thought it was great but poorly tuned. I loved the world-cup- it's amog the best non-race stock race slaloms I've been on. The k2's I've only skied race-stock, and it's an entirely different ski than the retail version.

That said, however, the RX8 and the Race SC are not very different skis. According to a friend who skis for Fischer, the flex patterns are nearly identical, although the RX8 is more uniform, and the SC slightly stiffer in the forebody and tail- he says only the mounting position is different.

I'd say the first reason the rx8s did better in softer snow is the length, that mounting point makes longer skis ski shorter. Secondly is the flex pattern- the Mach S is pretty stiff, and the RX8 is more uniformly flexing, rather than having a slalom flex.

Overall on your length question, I feel pretty strongly that 157-160 is fun to ski, but not great for skill developing. Arc-to Arc happens easily, but we don't develop shaping and feathering skills like we do on longer skis. 157's really are prone to chatter on icy steeps too. I have a pair of Dobermann GS race in a 181 that are my best training aid- specifically because a 21 meter ski requires a more finesse to make slalom arcs than a 12 meter ski does. Since you want a ski that offers soft snow performance, enhanced skill development, and the occassional long radius arc, I'm still leaning towards the RX8 in a 165. I could just have easily said the SC- both have their merits- but ultimately I think you'll find a uniform flex is more adroit than a race flex for all day skiing.

Regarding the discrepancies in radius measuring, I'm often perplexed by the same information provided by ski manufacturers. Measuring the radius with the ski cambered, flat, decambered at a 15, 30, or 45 degree angle will all net a different radius. That, and the fact that many sidecuts do not describe a true segment of a circle but instead part of a concentric (at the tail) or ecentric (at the tip) arc (like the Fischer Progressor, for instance) it really depends upon the part of the ski you are considering, rather than the measurements at tip, waist, and tail.

I'm not sure this answers your questions, but I think it'll help you come closer to making your decision.

Ron