What length Fischer RX8's ?

A snowHead

I am debating Rossi B2's in a 166, or following great acclaim on this site, Fischer RX8's.

They are both the same price.

I'm 168 lbs, athletic 53year old, about a level 5/6 (1 bulgarian black run so far - until 12 days time).

I think that B2 174's were too big for me - though many might disagree.

I am thinking either 165 or 160 RX8's.

I need some help with this, what are others of around my weight/ability happy on ?

Mike

A snowHead

I would suggest that something around the 174 mark would be correct size for you, especially if you decide to venture off piste. How tall are you?

How many weeks skiing have you done, and how many of those were with lessons?

I would also be a bit careful about extrapolating a Bulgarian black run into the Snow and Rock scale!

Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?

Kramer, I am reading posts here and elsewhere of heavier guys than me on 165's. RX8's don't come in a 174 are your getting mixed up ?

You need to Login to know who's really who.

mike.healy, they come in 175cm though, which is certainly around the 174 mark.

(But that's not relevant to your question).

Do you wish to ski moguls? Do you have particularly long legs?

Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.

mike.healy, the point that I'm trying to make, is that although it is personal preference as to what length of ski is best for you, it is very unlikely that the B2s in a 174 were too long for you, IMO. If you're buying skis, then you should be looking for something that you can grow into, and if you want to go off piste as well, then slightly longer is probably better than slightly shorter IMO.

You'll need to Register first of course.

Arno, you are 95kgs (against my 76) and you tried 165's - -did they seem the right length for you ?

Kramer, I wrote to the UK importers for Rossi and explained my details, 2 trainers and a brand manager there said I should be on a 166 B2 not 174.

At the moment I don't go off piste (down the side once) but I will try it, though I can't see it being more than an occassional thing for quite a while.

Then you can post your own questions or snow reports...

mike.healy,

The B2's are an allrounder ski designed for on and offpiste. There are much better piste skis (the RX8 being one of them according to the reviews - haven't been on the RX8's yet but have been on the XRC 1200 which were clearly a better piste ski than the B2) and much better wider skis for powder. The B2 is a love hate ski, some people love 'em some hate 'em. I'd advise you to try a pair of B2's before buying them.

RX8 reviews
http://www.ski-review.com/content/view/182/30/

As a very general rule the narrower the ski the better it is for piste and the reverse is true for off-piste. If you don't venture off the piste then I'd expect the RX8's would be better for you. If you are learning and improving your technique on the piste and a while away from off-piste I'd also point you in the direction of the RX8. When learning to ski powder I'd reccomend a wider powder ski than either the RX8 or B2. Some people go for an allrounder ski some people go for a quiver of two (i.e. a piste and a powder ski) and yes some people have more skis than tiger woods has golf clubs.

As for length if it's going to be a piste-only ski I'd go short ca 160-165 for your weight but longer (165-175) if you intend to use it in shallow powder as well.

After all it is free · Last edited by After all it is free on Sat 27-01-07 9:20; edited 1 time in total

mike.healy,
I've skied on both. They are both great, but very different.

The B2's are designed for a bit of everything, on and off piste, but are necessarily a compromise.

The RX8 is most definitely an on-piste ski and is very, very good at it. If you're a great skier they will probably go anywhere but, from my limited off piste experience, they do not help you much in deep off piste conditions.

In what area do you want to progress? For improving your carving on piste then the RX8's are absolutely bloody brilliant. If you want to go nuts off piste then there are lots of newer, fatter skis which would be much better than the B2. If you want something in-between then the B2 has been a top ski for a few years now. I don't think that the B2's are any longer the best of breed, but I've tried them and they are fine skis, however I've not tried any of their "all mountain" successors which are reported to be superior. I have tried skis fatter than the B2 and found them to be great in soft, new snow but crap in hard pack, icy, on-piste conditions.

In my view, most of us talk up our off piste exploits. The vast majority of recreational skiers spend the vast majority of their time on-piste. In my experience most days are not powder days, or maybe I'm just unlucky!

When I wanted to replace my old skis, I thought long and hard about what to buy. So last year I had a couple of trips where I hired skis and annoyed the hire shop by changing skis several times a week. I finished up buying RX8's, but might be inclined to leave them in the ski locker and hire something rather fatter than the B2 in the rare event of a major dump during a holiday.

btw, I'm the same weight as you, 5ft8ins tall and ski on 160 RX8's.

Cheers

Sorry mike.healy, I'm getting both your recent posts confused. For some reason from the other post, I thought that you were very keen to go off piste, but looking more closely at it, this would seem not to be the case.

I have B2s in the 174, and although I found them to be fine for me on the piste, off piste I feel that they are far too short for all 103kgs of me! I bought them when I was at a stage a little ahead of you, when I was already skiing black runs (in non Bulgaria resorts) with confidence, and was advised to choose between the 174s and the next size up, I chose the smaller size as I felt that they would be easier to turn, which they were, however the downside being that I outgrew them very rapidly afterwards, and I now wish that I'd bought the slightly longer pair, as I feel that I would have been able to grow into them. As rjwagstaff points out, I no longer think that the B2 is up there with the best, not because it's a bad ski, but more because the competition has moved on so much in the last year or two. I would disagree with his contention that skis fatter than the B2 are automatically no good on icy hard pack on piste conditions, this is certainly not the case with either the Volkl Karmas (87mm underfoot) that I tested recently, neither with the Scott Santiago Missions (90mm) that I and others from this site have bought this year. The game has moved on significantly in the past year, and I believe that we are in the midst of a paradigm shift towards fatter skis, in much the same way that we moved towards carvers ten or so years ago.

Also like rjwagstaff I do think that there's very little point in buying an all mountain ski unless you have plans to go off piste, and for many skiers they do seem to be somewhat of a vanity purchase. Having said that, I also believe that going off piste is not just about powder days, and almost as much fun can be had in breakable or variable conditions.

Looking at what you've written about your skiing ability, I would advise a note of caution, although I've never skied in Bulgaria, one thing that I have heard about their resorts is that the terrain is very much of a standard for a low intermediate, and so a black run in Bulgaria is probably equivalent to an easy red, or possibly even blue in some of the gnarlier Western European resorts. Although when buying it is important to choose a ski that you can grow into, it is also important not to buy one that overwhelms you.

*Ski* the Net with snowHeads

Thanks for all your input so far.

I went into Ellis Brigham who sell the RX8 and the B2 and he said the RX8 would be too advanced for me and the B2 was too slanted towards off piste. he said I should look at the Nordica Overdrive.

I was also very surprised at the weight of an RX9 with the FX12 binding, I'm assuming the RX8 will be similar - they are much heavier than the B2 / Axial2.

Is the FS11 binding lighter (by much) than the FX12 ?

snowHeads are a friendly bunch.

mike.healy, Rx9 is heavier than the RX8. Have you felt the weight of some Atomics ?

snow reports

mike.healy, I would think that the Ellis Brigham guys are giving you reasonable advice. It's probably worth asking someone experienced who's seen you ski as well.

Weight of skis and bindings is only really an issue when you're carrying them around, their on your feet you don't tend to notice it quite so much, although it can be a bit of a problem if you're doing stem christie turns.

Frosty the Snowman, are they heavier still ?

Kramer, What is a stem christie turn ?

You know it makes sense.

mike.healy, On the subject of the B2s, I would stick with the Rossi guys advice. I am a reasonable piste/off-piste skier, and about midway between you and Kramer in weight. I ski about 174-175 on my atomic R11 20s and my 1080s, but skied the B2s on a few days touring the week before last on a 170cm length, and that was fine. Adjusting downwards for your weight and ability 166 sounds about right unless you really just want to go fast on-piste doing GS turns, in which case they might not be the right ski for you in any case.

I agree with Kramer about binding weight.

Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:

mike.healy, IMHO the RX8 is not a heavy ski, no matter what the bindings. As Kramer, says weight is not really an issue as all you are trying to do is tip them on their side. Atomics an the other hand can be a beast to carry Very Happy

A snowHead

Frosty the Snowman, They certainly feel it, but my stiff 175 atomics with plates and bindings weigh 6.7Kg and my similar length 1080s with lighter looking bindings weigh 5.8kg. Do stiffer narrower skis feel disproportionately heavier when you carry them?

A snowHead

stoatsbrother, I hired som Atomics i 05, dont know what model. Green, blue, and orange with a snakeskin textured topsheet. Not fat skis at all. I am a big bloke but after 30m carrying both upright in one hand my arm just about dropped off. They were sooooo heavy.

Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?

If you're looking to improve technique (I assume this is a high priority) I'd say the RX8s are ideal. I wouldn't worry about them being too advanced, they're pretty versatile. They should prove to be much more rewarding on-piste than your B2s, but don't expect them to make you a better skier. Only you can do that Smile

As for length, I'd go for the shorter ones at your weight ie 160. What is a longer ski going to achieve? Perhaps a little better off-piste, but these are not really off-piste skis so I wouldn't bother. The shorter ones will be quicker turning and better in bumps and narrow tracks etc. Longer would be more stable at higher speeds, but I think 160 should be fine at your weight and ability level.

You need to Login to know who's really who.

i would recomend the fischers i ski on rc4 sc as most holiday skiers only get 1or2 days powder a year if your lucky, saying that i find fischers really easy at low speed to tootling around with my girlfriend also fine in the odd powder day as they have a fat tip and tail, i have tried many top end gs and sc skis and rate fischers as my fave, my rc4 sc are 170 length and i am 6ft, also have skied bulgarian black the wall in pamporovo and it is one of the steepest runs you are likley to come across, as steep as outer limits in killington or gamelsliten in obeurtuan austria anyway

Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.

Does anyone think the 160 could be too short for me, 168lbs, 6' 0" level 5/6 but improving, 53yrs old ?

You'll need to Register first of course.

mike.healy, I previously described my "dimensions. At the PSB in Les Deux Alpes I skied some 170 and they wew fine. If you like short turns go 160, if you like speed go 165. If you can, then try out both lengths.

Then you can post your own questions or snow reports...

mike.healy, Yeah , i think 160 is too short for you but who am i to say. I'm 5'10" and ski 174 but thats what i'm used too

After all it is free

I'm 5'11" and ski 183. I think that a lot is to do with personall preference, so as Frosty the Snowman says, try and demo before you buy.

I'm 5' 10" I like skis in the 175 - 178 range. Currently on 178s. Absolutely agree with try before you buy.

*Ski* the Net with snowHeads

But on the other hand Ssh who is an Instructor of XXXX years standing Twisted Evil

skis the RX8.

Have a look here for his suggestions:
http://snowheads.com/ski-forum/viewtopic.php?t=22041&highlight=

Perhaps his most pertinant comment: I'm 6' and 175 lbs and skied the RX8 in a 170 and a 165. The latter was snappier, but the former was a bit more stable at the high end of the speed range (50mph or so).
Perhaps the 160 would be fine!

snowHeads are a friendly bunch.

I'd be interested to know how robertv1979 got on with his new skis (looking at that thread linked by FTS, above).

snow reports

mistermouse, As you are quoting 174 I wonder if you have experience of the RX8 specifically (it doesn't come in 174)

Frosty the Snowman, so far I've talked myself down to a 165, 160 sounds very low but I'm still contemplating. Haven't got time to demo as I want to order them from Ski-Bilek for trip in 12 days time.

I think the fastest I've been so far is 62KPH which is just under 40mph so I suppose 50 isn't out of the question when I get more confident.

You know it makes sense.

Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:

A snowHead

uktrailmonster, Kramer, You are not wrong Kramer, I will try some off piste, I read elsewhere that these skis would handle a little off piste.

We are going to Val D'isere in 12 days and I have read about the Valley Perdu, is that an ungroomed valley?

Would i just sink to the bottom on say a 165 ?

Mike

A snowHead

mike.healy I think that there are two main issues with your choice of ski, both make and model, and with length.

Firstly is to make sure that you are choosing a ski that's appropriate to your level of skiing, and then secondly is to choose one that will work best for your type of skiing (off-piste, on-piste, park etc). Length of ski will also be dependent on your level of skiing, and where you want to go with it.

Putting the snow and rock scale to one side for one minute, how many weeks have you skied, and how many lessons have you had? Very Happy

Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?

Kramer, 4 weeks snow skiing, 3 x 3hr dry slope lessons, 10 x 4hr large group snow lessons, 3 x 4 hour snow lessons for 2 of us. I am told that I am quite advanced for 4 weeks.

You need to Login to know who's really who.

mike.healy, I think you really need to listen to some of these guys - as over the multitude of threads that you have posted your desire for a ski length on, you seem unsure as to their real purpose ,and you really do not seem to want to hear some of what they are saying. I only write that as a call to get realistic about both ability and purpose as it will benefit you in the long run. I wasn't, learn from my mistakes.

I am the same age as you , only learnt 2+ years ago and have done at least x2-3 as much time and x4 as much lessons ... As a 4-5 weeker I enjoyed being told how good I was as well . I wasn't, I'm not ... at that stage you honestly don't know what you don't know - the rate of progress just seems good!

My sincere suggestion is to keep trying skis in resort for a few more weeks, keep doing the lessons .. the RX6 is ok, try it, you are very light. I must have tried 20 different skis ( in various sizes) before I bought my RX-8s, others will have tried a lot more. I also confess to having bought 3 pairs of skis in that time , but I'm stupid (and you seem to be on the same path with a bad iyo B2 purchase) .... and if you can afford to throw money around then you don't need to buy off the internet so buy in resort with some advice from those who can see your ability and understand your aspirations.

Trying to help although I appreciate I'm not answering your question in the way you want to hear it Embarassed

You really must try the RX-8 in various lengths alongside other skis before you buy them ... snowHead

Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.

mike.healy, Sorry for mis leading you , my skis a Stockli Stormriders in 174, my old skis were vokyl in 168 so thats the sort of lengh i've been used to. My brother is the same height as me and his 170 Nordicas are as near as damit the same length as my Stockli (less than the 4cm there should be).
I would just go for the 165, i dont think you would regret it, they are supposed to be a great ski and you would get used to whatever lengh they were

You'll need to Register first of course.

Ok, on the Fischer web site, they rate the RX8ftis as being from skill level 7-9/10, which may be a little beyond you as a four week skier even though I have no doubt that you are very advanced for your experience. It is hard to say exactly what ski would suit you without having seen you ski.

If you choose a ski which is too advanced for your abilities, then it'll make it harder for you. It'll be harder to carve, and less forgiving of mistakes. It is unlikely that you would be able to benefit from any extra performance that such a ski would give you. The trick is to choose a ski that is at the correct level, with maybe some performance for you to grow into. I do not feel that the RX8 is likely to be the correct ski for that.

At four weeks, for the foreseeable future, I suspect that most of your skiing is going to be on the piste, and so I would suggest that what you need is a mid level piste ski, if you plan on staying on piste almost all the time, or maybe a mid level piste orientated all rounder, if you're planning on pushing yourself to learn to ski off piste.

As has been alluded to in other threads, essentially with skis, you're generally (but not always) talking about a compromise between on and off piste performance. A longer, fatter ski will give better float off the piste, but at the expense of being harder (for a less experienced skier especially) to turn on the piste, by virtue of being harder to put on edge, and having a larger turn radius when it's there. A shorter thinner skier, will be better at turning on the piste, but at the cost of being harder off the piste due to less float.

What I would suggest is that you need an instructor, who has seen you ski recently to recommend some types of skis that they feel that you might like, and that would suit your ability and experience. Take advice from the ski shop as to what length to try, if they offer you the choice of two (they often do), choose the shorter one if you want it to be easier to turn and carve on the piste, the longer one if you want it to be slightly easier off the piste.

I hope this is helpful to you, and doesn't come across as patronising at all.

Very Happy

Then you can post your own questions or snow reports...

Oh and I forgot to mention, make sure that you try before you buy!

After all it is free

tecnica boy, I've skied on hired RSC4 SCs for two weeks in Austria and found them the easiest and greatest fun for my on piste enjoyment. At 53, about 6ft and 90kg and about 8/9 weeks experience, I went short at 160. We're off to France in March but Fischers are difficult to come by and I want to replicate the ski performance. Any ideas foe alternative skis?

Kramer, you are right and so are you Agenterre,

Ps i never tried before i bought, the shops in resorts never seem to have what i want to try and if they do someone else always has them out. to be honest i don't think there are many bad skis out there(ducks and waits for the assault) just need to chose a style and an honest level

*Ski* the Net with snowHeads

Help!!

What length Fischer RX8's ?

snowHeads Forum Index >>> Equipment Reviews/Questions