 Poster: A snowHead
|
As the title really. I had a pair of the WC RC Pro's a couple of years ago that I absolutely loved but unfortunately I trashed them pretty soon afterwards. I'm now looking to replace them and have noticed that as well as the standard model there's the c-line as well which has some sort of carbon layer according to the Fischer site.
Unfortunately what the Fischer site doesn't add is what effect this has on the ski.
Has anyone got any experience of these?
Anyone ski'd both back to back and able to advise how they compare (long-shot I know)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
The only way to really estimate the difference short of skiing both models is to contact the company in Reid, Austria and ask them exactly what the differences between the two models are. Looking at the descriptions on the website both the RC4 WC RC Pro and the RC4 WC RC C-line have a double .8 titanal shell, both employ carbon fiber and both use ABS sidewall construction. Both appear to have the same binding and plate set up. I’m guessing that they both use identical P-Tex bases, steel edges, and epoxy etc., although this may not necessarily be the case.
The only differences I've found are:
1. The C-Line version is noted as having a poplar wood core while the RC4 WC RC Pro has poplar/beech wood core. Poplar is valued for its lightness and stiffness. Beech is valued for its durability although it weighs more.
2. The C-line version sports a “Full Carbon Jacket” while the RC4 WC RC Pro uses "Air Carbon" layers. Presumably “Full Carbon Jacket” means that a torsion box construction method is employed. This involves fully encapsulating the core with carbon fiber as opposed to adding layers of Carbon fiber on top and below the core.
3. The C-line version also sports a notch in the tail.
All things being exactly equal (and that may be a large assumption) the “Full Carbon Jacket” will produce a ski that is somewhat stiffer ski both torsionally and longitudinally than will a sandwich of wood and “Air Carbon” fiber. Any such additional torsional strength might be difficult or impossible to feel because of the already substantial titanal shells which appear to be identical in both models.
Putting quality-grading issues aside, carbon fiber is usually measured in number of fibers per unit size and in cloth thickness. Carbon fiber can also be unidirectional backed with paper, or woven into biaxial or triaxial weaves as is commonly done with fiberglass.
Without knowing the details regarding the grade and measurements of either the “Full Carbon Jacket” or the “Air Carbon” layers it is not possible to determine any differences in the performance of each ski model attributable to the use of carbon fiber. This is to say, for example, that a triaxial weave containing more fibers per unit in a sandwich construction will likely impart greater torsional strength than a unidirectional paper backed application containing fewer fibers per unit despite a torsion box construction.
The .8 double titanal shells used in both models will provide all the torsional stiffness required with or without any carbon fiber being used. However, carbon fiber has greater strength to weight properties than fiberglass which would likely otherwise be used in its place in either a sandwich or torsion box construction method.
My best guess is that owing to the wholly poplar core and the use of carbon fiber (and to a very modest degree the notch in the tail) that the C-Line ski will be the somewhat lighter ski but not by much, maybe half a pound per ski or so and will be most noticeable when your legs are dangling from the ski lift. In race skis, weight in the right places is often viewed as a positive. It really comes down to a matter of personal preference. Fischer makes very high quality skis so either model will likely prove an excellent choice if you are looking for a high performance non-FIS GS race ski.
Good luck with whatever you decide.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
|
I admit I didn't ski neither, Worldcup RC pro nor Worldcup RC c-line (I'm using WC stock version of Fischer skis, which means Worldcup GS and Worldcup SL), but seeing those skis (and some other stuff from Fischer c-line), I have feeling there's no difference except "coolness effect". Nowadays everything with carbon look is cool, so why not paint skis with carbon pattern on top, and price them 200eur higher 
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
Phew, for a few days there guys the silence was deafening and I was beginning to fear I had found a question the snowheads couldn't answer. Lostboy, and primoz, have protected the reputation 😃
Lostboy, I hadn't even thought of asking Fischer directly, how bloody stupid of me. I'll ping them an e-mail and let you all know if I get a response and what they say.
primoz, yeah, that's seems a fair point. The thing is the c-line's I've found are a couple of seasons old stock (unused) and don't have the pretty carbon pattern....... however they are the same price as the pro's 😃
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
So despite a message via their website which was ignored and a message on their Facebook page which was "answered" with some marketing speak with no substance I still can't get a straight answer to what the comparitive weight of each model is.
A bit surprised in them to be fair because in both messages I've explained that I'm about to buy a pair, you would have thought they'd be falling over themselves to assist me in my decision if only to make sure I didn't start looking at other brands while I waited. Poor show Fischer. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
That is too bad. Fischer should be able to share information on the weight difference between the two ski models, at least. Ski manufacturers (as do the boot and binding manufacturers) provide this information for the Japan market where consumers expect it. It is published there each season in the various ski magazine buyer's guides. Perhaps if you contact Fischer's UK distributor they may be able to connect with the right people in Reid, Austria and get you that information.
Fischer does make very good skis with a reputation for quality and durability, but its marketing and sales operations apparently can stand some improvement. In the end, it is your money and you should be able to get a responsive answer to your inquiry from a company that you are thinking of doing business with.
All things being otherwise exactly equal, carbon fiber is superior to fiberglass in its weight to strength ratio. Carbon fiber has good compression strength which helps protect ski cores from compression damage (read core shots). It is pricey stuff though. Although not as torsionally stiff as titanal or with as high compression strength, carbon fiber is lighter which is a reason why it now often shows up in all-mountain and powder skis whose surface area has grown quite a bit in recent years. Fiberglass is still ubiquitous in ski manufacturing because it bonds well, has a high breaking point (even higher than carbon fiber) and is inexpensive.
I hope you meet with greater success the next time with either Fischer or another company.
Good luck.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lostboy, it's all true what you wrote about carbon. Only problem is, that in real world, carbon is at the moment big hype, which manufacturers are using quite a bit to sell stuff, but when you actually look at the product, you notice, that they didn't even use carbon, but fiberglass, or in best case, instead of for example 5 layers of carbon, they put 2 or 3 layers of fiberglass and top 2 layers of carbon, so product gives carbon look. And it's not just in ski industry, I would say even more present is this thing in other sports, like cycling or ice hockey where everything is from carbon, but it has really weird weights (way too high for carbon), but when you cut it on half, you actually notice carbon is just top layer which is used for cosmetic stuff.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This ^
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
