# Ski Review



## wa-loaf (Mar 18, 2011)

Skied some 2012 skis today so I'll put up a quick review. I don't have all the exact stats for widths and lengths. I lost my log sheet so I'm only going by memory.

Head Titan: Nice stiff groomer ski, did pretty good in the soft cord. Would like to try them again on solid snow.






Fischer Progressor 1000: These were a fun ski 78 mm waist. 178 I think. Meant to be a groomer ski, but has kind of a power switch system on the binding. It was very lively and quick a lot of fun in the crud and bumps.





Rossi S7: Totally the wrong skis for the conditions. And way too much rocker for my tastes. Once I got a hang of the center point it was ok, but there is no driving the tips on this thing. Would love to give them a try in a foot or so of powder.





Rossi Experience 98: 98 waist. This was a pretty burly ski and blasted through crud like I was skiing on some nicely groomed corduroy.





Nordica Fire Arrow 80 178: This is a stiff carvey ski. Really kind of sunk right down in the crud looking for something solid to grab. It did get hooked in a little on the crud so you had to be on your toes. Would love to rip it up on some hard pack, but WTF is up with Nordica and their graphics?





Volkl Gotama 178: Another powder ski, but this one is so much stiffer than the S7 that is skied pretty competently in this stuff and was pretty fun in the bumps.





Atomic Theory 186 95mm: This was my favorite ski of the day. It just had the right combo of rocker, stiffness and it was very light. It danced around in the crud and bumps and stayed stable in the big GS turns through the chop. If I had to buy any one of these skis this would be the one.





Head Peak 90 180ish: This is the successor to the Monsters and the 2011 model (88) was horrible in it's appearance and performance. They made some tweak to it this year and performed nicely in the conditions cruising through the crud with a lively feel.


----------



## gmcunni (Mar 18, 2011)

great review, thanks for sharing the info with us.  where were you skiing?


----------



## wa-loaf (Mar 18, 2011)

Mt Wachusett http://forums.alpinezone.com/showthread.php?t=92626


----------



## deadheadskier (Mar 18, 2011)

wa-loaf said:


> Nordica Fire Arrow 80 178: This is a stiff carvey ski. Really kind of sunk right down in the crud looking for something solid to grab. It did get hooked in a little on the crud so you had to be on your toes. Would love to rip it up on some hard pack, but WTF is up with Nordica and their graphics?




Agreed on the Nordica graphics.  They get the ugly ski award for the past 3 seasons.  Honestly, I can't even think of another brand that comes close.

Echo Gary in excellent gear review.  Your review of the Rossi Experience 98 was pretty much verbatim how the owner of Fire on the Mountain ski shop in Dover, NH described the ski to me.

So, if I understand correctly, Fischer is taking the Progessor series a bit more all mountain from race cheater with the 1000?


----------



## Sky (Mar 18, 2011)

Nice pics and review Wa Loaf....glad you got to hit this again this year.  How many folks participaed?


----------



## wa-loaf (Mar 18, 2011)

deadheadskier said:


> So, if I understand correctly, Fischer is taking the Progessor series a bit more all mountain from race cheater with the 1000?



Well they have the 800 and 900 too. The 1000 is the widest with a 78mm waist the 900 is 75 (up from 70 on my 9). Just expanding the line I guess.


----------



## wa-loaf (Mar 18, 2011)

Sky said:


> How many folks participaed?



Felt like a smaller crowd than in the past, but that might just be because they had to reschedule it.


----------



## deadheadskier (Mar 18, 2011)

wa-loaf said:


> Well they have the 800 and 900 too. The 1000 is the widest with a 78mm waist the 900 is 75 (up from 70 on my 9). Just expanding the line I guess.



just going off what I know of the last two years line.....

10+ the eilite groomer ripper of the group for this season - narrowest

9+ the ski you own, which was the elite groomer/ripper of last year - pretty narrow

8+ the advanced intermediate ski of the series  - 80ish

7 intermediate board2- 80ish but soft

just seems like the ski is getting away from a race heritage based upon the dimensions you now list for the too ski in the series


----------



## BenedictGomez (Mar 18, 2011)

That Nordica Fire Arrow looks like Disney's entire animation department vomited on them.


----------



## wa-loaf (Mar 19, 2011)

deadheadskier said:


> just going off what I know of the last two years line.....
> 
> 10+ the eilite groomer ripper of the group for this season - narrowest
> 
> ...



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.


----------



## bigbog (Mar 19, 2011)

Ditto....nice pics & reviews wa-loaf!  Also ditto on the topskin art @Nordica and Blizzard(not as bad, well...not _quite_ as bad)


----------



## thetrailboss (Mar 19, 2011)

wa-loaf said:


> Fischer Progressor 1000: These were a fun ski 78 mm waist. 178 I think. Meant to be


 
Dude, those Salomon straight skis on the left look pretty hot to me!  :wink:


----------



## deadheadskier (Mar 19, 2011)

wa-loaf said:


> 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.



It's impressive that they are putting out skis so wide with such a short turning radius as well.  The folks at Fire on the Mountain love the Experience line, especially the 98.  

My only issue with superwide all mountain skis is mogul performance.  The tips on those Experiences are huge, so it would mess up your stance in the bumps.


----------



## gmcunni (Mar 19, 2011)

deadheadskier said:


> It's impressive that they are putting out skis so wide with such a short turning radius as well.  The folks at Fire on the Mountain love the Experience line, especially the 98.



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


----------



## gmcunni (Mar 19, 2011)

um, just googled the rossi. says - 
DIMENSIONS:
139-98-128
Radius 19.9m @ 180


----------



## wa-loaf (Mar 19, 2011)

gmcunni said:


> um, just googled the rossi. says -
> DIMENSIONS:
> 139-98-128
> Radius 19.9m @ 180



One of the wider skis had the 14-15m radius, thought it was the Rossi. I lost my notes so I might have mixed that up.


----------



## gmcunni (Mar 19, 2011)

wa-loaf said:


> One of the wider skis had the 14-15m radius, thought it was the Rossi. I lost my notes so I might have mixed that up.



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.


----------



## riverc0il (Mar 20, 2011)

gmcunni said:


> um, just googled the rossi. says -
> DIMENSIONS:
> 139-98-128
> Radius 19.9m @ 180


Nice dimensions. I don't know if I could ever get over my Rossi hang up to try a pair though. I know they use different construction now than ten years ago when a foam pair snapped on me.


----------



## marcski (Mar 20, 2011)

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!


----------



## wa-loaf (Mar 20, 2011)

gmcunni said:


> 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:


----------



## Edd (Mar 20, 2011)

gmcunni said:


> 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 (Mar 20, 2011)

marcski said:


> 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 (Mar 20, 2011)

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 (Mar 21, 2011)

snowmonster said:


> 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 (Mar 22, 2011)

wa-loaf said:


> 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 (Mar 22, 2011)

eastcoastpowderhound said:


> 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 (Mar 22, 2011)

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 (Mar 23, 2011)

wa-loaf said:


> 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 (Mar 23, 2011)

deadheadskier said:


> 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 (Mar 24, 2011)

eastcoastpowderhound said:


> 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 (Feb 27, 2012)

gmcunni said:


> 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.





wa-loaf said:


> 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 (Feb 27, 2012)

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 (Feb 27, 2012)

gmcunni said:


> just a reminder to take good notes ;-)



I'll see what I can do ...



St. Bear said:


> 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 (Feb 27, 2012)

wa-loaf said:


> 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 (Feb 28, 2012)

Puck it said:


> 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 (Feb 28, 2012)

St. Bear said:


> 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 (Mar 3, 2012)

Puck it said:


> $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 (Mar 4, 2012)

St. Bear said:


> 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 (Mar 4, 2012)

Puck it said:


> 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 (Mar 4, 2012)

St. Bear said:


> 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.


----------

