Ski Review

[Edd]

that's what i have in my head as what i want.. wide but short radius

This isn't super tight but the Dynastar Sultan 94 has a radius of 18 in a 178 length...17 in a 172.

My K2 Hardsides with a 98 waist have a 21 radius in a 174 length and are pretty easy to whip around with moderate speed. Good in trees. While heading back to base on a crowded flat green the turns become a chore, though.

 

[Warp Daddy]

I don't know about you guys....but I still drool over dimensions of 36-24-36...what a winning hand....She's a brickhouse!

Yeah well balanced both fore and aft , able to handle both the hardpack and bumps without getting squirrelly.

This unit is built to handle Both Comfort and Speed

 

[snowmonster]

Thanks for the review, wa-loaf. I'm an unrepentant S7 fan and I was happy to see the new model. I hope they just changed the graphics. As for your observations, I'd say you were spot on. While it'll handle the hardpack and groomers, they are not its strong points. It's really a deep snow tool and will do best in glades with natural snow cover. I used to be concerned about the tip flopping around. However, I tend to drive the front of my skis and the floppy tip has not been a problem. I'm hoping to bring my pair to the AZ Summit.

It's surprising to see Rossi demo-ing that ski in the East. In the first few seasons of the S7, none of the reps carried them. Said it was not made for our conditions. I guess fat skis and rocker have really entered the mainstram.

 

[wa-loaf]

Thanks for the review, wa-loaf. I'm an unrepentant S7 fan and I was happy to see the new model. I hope they just changed the graphics. As for your observations, I'd say you were spot on. While it'll handle the hardpack and groomers, they are not its strong points. It's really a deep snow tool and will do best in glades with natural snow cover. I used to be concerned about the tip flopping around. However, I tend to drive the front of my skis and the floppy tip has not been a problem. I'm hoping to bring my pair to the AZ Summit.

It's surprising to see Rossi demo-ing that ski in the East. In the first few seasons of the S7, none of the reps carried them. Said it was not made for our conditions. I guess fat skis and rocker have really entered the mainstram.

Only took out the S7 because the ski I wanted was out. The rep ask if I wanted to try them in the mean time.

 

[eastcoastpowderhound]

They still have the non world cup RC4's so maybe they thought the Progressor was cutting in on the race stuff too much. Where's EastCoastPowderHound? He could explain it to us.

But I think a lot of the companies are putting out wider skis with some serious race construction. That Rossi experience is solid as a rock at 98mm and has a 14-15m turn radius.

Hey, long time no AZ. The new Progressors reflect the evolution of race inspired all mountain skis...same bomber construction, slightly wider waist widths. They're still designed for hard snow frontside skiing and dominating the beer league. The 1000 with a 78mm waist also has a full carbon jacket and two sheets of .8mm titanal (the same metal used in our WC race skis vs .5mm used in the 900/9)...it is a burly rocketship not for the faint of heart...but damn does that ski like to rip! The 900 replaces the 9 and goes from 70mm to 75mm...it's just as smooth and solid on the hard
snow but it's become much more versatile. The 8 becomes the 800 gets 2mm wider under foot and even better edge grip thanks to the new 3D shape (perimeter edge weighting) that's on all the new progressors. Now that race skis like the Wc rc are up to 71mm it just makes sense to fatten up the progressors and improve their all mtn cred in the process. In the past i'd only use the P9 for beer league and would ski on something else for the avg day...but I've been having a blast on the new 900. Of course I'm still more partial to the motive series and wateas...but thats another story for another post

 

[wa-loaf]

The 1000 with a 78mm waist also has a full carbon jacket and two sheets of .8mm titanal (the same metal used in our WC race skis vs .5mm used in the 900/9)...it is a burly rocketship not for the faint of heart...but damn does that ski like to rip!

I didn't really think they were that tough to ski. It was definitely a very fun ski. Conditions were soft so I didn't really get to rip them on a groomer.

 

[deadheadskier]

Looking at what you describe for the 900, is Fischer trying to offer something similar to the Dynastar Contact 4X4 with that ski? Is the 900 sold Flat or will it be a system ski?

 

[eastcoastpowderhound]

I didn't really think they were that tough to ski. It was definitely a very fun ski. Conditions were soft so I didn't really get to rip them on a groomer.

It's not exactly what I'd call a forgiving ski.

 

[eastcoastpowderhound]

Looking at what you describe for the 900, is Fischer trying to offer something similar to the Dynastar Contact 4X4 with that ski? Is the 900 sold Flat or will it be a system ski?

It's just a logical evolution of the progressor 9, what dynastar is making had no bearing on our decisions. It's a system with the z12 flowflex binding and plate. The plate was updated last year, glass fiber composite vs the original aluminum...saved a pound per pair and made the ski more versatile.

 

[wa-loaf]

It's not exactly what I'd call a forgiving ski.

I'm 200+ so I like a lot of metal in my skis.

 

[gmcunni]

if you find your notes i'd be interested to know which ones it was. i tried googling all the skis you reviewed but some are so new there isn't any data on them.

It was one of the earlier skis I rode on so I'm going to go out on a limb and say it was the Progressors.

I'll try to do a better job with the stats next years. :dunce:

just a reminder to take good notes ;-)

 

[St. Bear]

Wa-Loaf: Do you remember anything about the Head i.Peak 90? As I said in your other thread, I'm looking to upgrade my skis, and those really have caught my eye.

 

[wa-loaf]

just a reminder to take good notes ;-)

I'll see what I can do ...

Wa-Loaf: Do you remember anything about the Head i.Peak 90? As I said in your other thread, I'm looking to upgrade my skis, and those really have caught my eye.

They are ok, didn't blow me away and from what I understand are a weak replacement for the Monsters.

 

[Puck it]

I'll see what I can do ...



They are ok, didn't blow me away and from what I understand are a weak replacement for the Monsters.

Peak line sucks now. They ruined it. Look at these. I have a pair and they fly. They ski like my old Monter 88's if not better. And price is right.


http://www.levelninesports.com/Palmer-P01-All-Mountain-Twin-Plus-Skis

 

[St. Bear]

Peak line sucks now. They ruined it. Look at these. I have a pair and they fly. They ski like my old Monter 88's if not better. And price is right.


http://www.levelninesports.com/Palmer-P01-All-Mountain-Twin-Plus-Skis

Too many choices. Not enough money or time.

 

[Puck it]

Too many choices. Not enough money or time.

$299 for these skis is a steal (179cm). You will not be disappointed in them.

 

[St. Bear]

$299 for these skis is a steal (179cm). You will not be disappointed in them.

Pulled the trigger. Free 3 day shipping means I'll get them in time for my Whiteface trip next weekend.

 

[Puck it]

Pulled the trigger. Free 3 day shipping means I'll get them in time for my Whiteface trip next weekend.

What did put on them for bindings? I think you will like them.

 

[St. Bear]

What did put on them for bindings? I think you will like them.

Head Mojo 12 for $109. I read the reviews of the different ones they offered. I didn't want to cheap out on the bindings, but at the same time I'm not hucking cliffs or doing anything in the park.

 

[Puck it]

Head Mojo 12 for $109. I read the reviews of the different ones they offered. I didn't want to cheap out on the bindings, but at the same time I'm not hucking cliffs or doing anything in the park.

Not a bad choice. 12's do have more plastic. My son snapped his heel piece off a few weeks ago. Upgraded him to 15's.