Which Head ski for wife

[otijeff]

Thank you all for your help picking out the Head iXRC 800 for my new skis. I really like them. Now we would like to get a new Head ski for my wife. She's 45; intermediate, old school style, likes Blue runs. Doesn't ski overly fast or aggressive and doesn't really carve her turns. We ski the midwest, mostly Wisconsin - so edge grip is very important (lots of ice). We plan on getting the PMTS books and videos and taking lessons.

I was thinking of the following - c220i (do I have the number letter combo right?) or the cool thang. Also considering the K2 Sweet Luv. Any feedback would be appreciated.

I forgot to add 5' 7" 130 lbs. Was thinking of going with 156 cm length to shorten turn radius and help with turning.

[Gary]

JAA..
Three choices that come time mind (and after checking Peters reviews)

In order that I like them:

Head Fast Thang 114-62-99

K2 Burnin' Luv 115-68-99

Elan Speed Magic 116-69-105

These are all female specific skis, great ice rippers, great carvers, awesome for a broad selection of skiing abilities...check out the reviews. What I like about these skis is that they all have great turning raduii.....makes it so much easier for the intermediate to get the skis around on hard pack and in tight situations.

I think they could give your little lady lots of room to grow as well. Determinng the ski length is another important factor to consider.

Best,
Gary

[nevils]

Last season my wife (55 yrs. young, 5'3", 130 lbs, advanced intermediate skier) bought the 163 cm. Head Wild Thang 116/72/101 R14 skis with the railfex Tyrolia bindings. She absolutely loves her skis.

[otijeff]

The 156 cm length should come to her nose. Since she isn't really carving now, has to learn the new shaped ski technigue, hasn't skied much in the last ten years (just getting back into it with our kids), and ski short, most blue runs in Wisconsin, she thought the 156 might be an easier length to learn to carve. Also, she would like to keep the ski waist width 68 or under.

[jbotti]

JAA, I'm not a female, and I have never been on any female specific skis. I will tell you that the XRC 800 in a 156cm or 163 cm length is a wonderful ski for your wife as well. My wife has been on the Head IC 160 for the past 4 years which is not a female specific ski. It's a wonderful carving ski and she is now an advanced intermediate who is carving turns more and more. These skis still hold up great. The XRC 800 is very similar. It's soft enough for women to ski, and at the shorter lengths, it has a very tight turn radius.

I'm sure the female specific skis that Gary mentioned are great, but many of the softer flexing skis work fine for intermediate females.

[jim-ratliff]

I would agree with JBotti.  I recommended the iC140 for a friend (a few years back) and she really loves the ski but only skis about 3 times per year and her main goal is not falling.  I normally really wouldn't recommend anything less than the C260 (equivalent to the older iC160) or, as John says, the XRC800.  I see both of these as similar level skis in the Head family.  I don't know enough about some other brands to recommend equivalent skis there.

You're wife would probably still like the skis one level lower (XRC500 or C240) but at some point in the future she might be really surprised at the fact that her skiing has really improved on the XRC800 level ski (without her even trying).

[otijeff]

If the XRC 800 is flexible enough for my wife how is it stiff enough for me when I'm 50+ lbs heavier?

[jim-ratliff]

Different lengths.  Skis are stiffer as they get longer because the people that ski a longer ski are typically heavier.
There are exceptions, such as slalom or high-end experts skis that are stiff in all lengths, but varying stiffness by length is common.

[otijeff]

The local ski shop has the XRC 800 in 163. But if that's right for her, did I get mine too short at 170. I'm 5'10 190lbs. Also, I'm wondering if I should have gone for more ski as I now think I'm probably more on the edge of Intermediate/advanced than the intermediate that I first posted.

[jim-ratliff]

I think you are fine at 170, but I would feel more comfortable with 156 for your wife than 163 (unless your wife can demo the 163 and decide if she likes the feel).  Of course, remember that this isn't really based on personal experience. 

The friend I mentioned is 5'6 (120) and she got 156's (and likes them just fine).

[otijeff]

Since we prefer to buy local rather than over the internet, here are our choices (within our budget) at 2 local shops:

K2 Sweet Luv? 153cm 2006 model

Head Cool Thang 156 cm? not sure model year 2006 or 2007

Head XRC 500 153 cm? 2007

Fishcer RX6 150 cm? 2006? (Looks very short, but says 150cm on it. Way below wife's chin).

K2 Tru Luv 160 cm (Looks very long, but says 160 cm on it, Well above wife's head).

Please rank 1, 2, & 3 if not too much trouble. Only one left of each. Some may be gone when we go back.

No possibility to demo where we live. Sorry to bother everybody, but this would be a real help.

[Perry]

Just based on your descriptions, I would rule out anything above head or below chin. 

1)Head XRC 500
2)Don't honestly know much about the other skis so wouldn't comment except that if you look at Peter's ratings the RX6 would be tempting at an appropriate length. Perhaps someone more knowledgeable will tell you that it is ok to ski short.

Perry

[jim-ratliff]

No ability to put them in order, but I would consider a group of the Head XRC500 153, Head Cool Thang 156, Fischer RX6 at 150.  I think all of these are probably pretty similar in ability, the RX6 may actually be closer to the XRC800 (but I don't know much about the RX6).  I guess if all are available, then pick the Cool Thang because it is a woman specific design, but I would doubt that your wife would notice much difference in skiing them.

Purely based on the RX6 review, 150 is probably the right size for the RX6.  The reviews for the RX6 list 160 as the tested size, so it is likely that it was designed to be skied a little bit shorter.

10cm difference in length should only be about 4 inches, not well above head to well below the chin (TruLuv - RX6)   I think Gary once told me that the difference in sizes has to do with the style of measuring.  Some manufacturers measure the total length of the ski, others measure the length that touches the snow?

[otijeff]

jim - that was my guess also - that some were measuring ski length and others snow surface length. For example the really long K2 160 cm has very rolled tip and tail. I'll go to the Fischer website and see if they have a ski selector feature. Sometimes those will also advise length. I know we can get the Head Cool Thang in 156 because the store is having two of them sent over from another store. It sounds like a pretty soft ski, but also sounds like one of the better ones (along with the RX 6) for edge hold on ice. Thanks for the input so far everyone. You've got me thinking through some things like checking the RX6 size recommendation and I can try to do the same on K2 sites for the K2.