V-Hull

[Gary]

I was at our local Pro Deal ski show last night...always great to see my ski buds and speak to the reps.

Stopping at the Fischer tent I was talking to the rep about their pow skis. He told me the V-Hull is going away next season. They feel with rocker it's not necessary and it adds additional weight. He also commented that with the Fischer Progressor series, the 800 series will probably only be available up to 170 in length. Intersting stuff I thought.

I did get a chance to FONDLE some of Ski Logics gear....the Chariot is a beautiful piece of woodwork. It felt like it had great energy and they're saying, you get to pick your own top sheet design....sweet!

Met the Kastle rep and one of their newly signed pro's. Great guys and looking at their BMX series...they are burly skis indeed. Just trying to figure out where they'd be best suited and for what type of skier.

Overall, it was fun to see so much product out there and a good size crowd as well. Just bringing the reality of winter is that much closer. Heading up to the Toronto Ski show with Svend and Terryl Oct 14th....always a great time.  G

[Liam]

Too bad about the V-Hull, I thought it was a pretty good design...kind of a mini-shaman effect.

The stiffer progressors are beasts over 170cm, we have a pair of prog 9's in a 175cm at the shop I work at from time to time that have sat for years--to much ski for the frontside carver crowd and not the sort of ski the crud busters want anymore. 

[jim-ratliff]

Hey Liam.  If you work at a shop (even part time) you get a different group assignment so that others will know that you MIGHT be more knowledgeable that the random guy who has a ski opinion.

(similar is true of people working as instructors or coaches).

[jbotti]

I own a Fischer Progressor 9+ in a 175cm length. I would not calll the ski a stiff beast in any way. The tail is on the stiff side but it skies pretty well off piste as long as you don't want to ride the tails. The tips are very bendable and you can tighten the arc nicely on these skis and they will carve very tight turns. Personally I think it's a shame that Fischer is walking away from a ski like this. I guess it's just further evidence that high level carving is becoming a lost art. Too bad.

[Gary]

As I understand it...Fischer has put alot into the Progressor 800 900 and 1000 series.

I've skied the Progressor 9 in the 175 length and found it to be fun rippin ski....not sure how it differs or if it differs in performance to the 900 series.

The rep touted the carveability of the Progessor series as well as the added versatility....time will tell.

g

[Liam]

Yeah, for a pure carving machine the Prog 9+ was great..agreed, but, for most folks coming in to the shop...it's a lot of ski--and beast is a relative term.  The guys who want real high speed performance on groomers and firm surfaces get prosumer race skis (which, Fischer has for years made some of the best..the RC series were wonderful), others still want a ski that can handle moguls as well as groomer and the Prog 8+ was better in that category (although, again, that ski proved hard to move..and I recommended it to most skiers who came in looking for an east coast ski biased towards groomer with some dabbling in bumps),

And still others liked the idea of a wider use power carver, but ultimately opted for something wider (our shop moved quite a few Rossi CX80's and the ensuing Strato 80's over the last two seasons--great skis that Rossi won't make anymore).

I heard great things about the Fischer Motive series...Is fischer expanding/ continuing that line?

The shop I work at is only stocking (actually pre-ordering) race stock competition skis from fischer.  We do fischer and Rossi race race products-skis only for fischer..no boots) this season, for one reason or another, fischer stuff has been hard to move, and not because of quality as I think they are still among the top tier of ski manufacturers.

Oh, as for my labeling---I neither want nor deserve any extra bump or group designation.  There are plenty of guys who work in shops full-time and know nothing about skiing, who knows, I could be one of them.  Seriously, I'm happy just to be one of the gang-folks can read my comments and decide for themselves if they hold any water or if they are just hot air.  And there is a lot to what Max and JBotti have said here and elsewhere, ski reviews don't mean much unless you know the ability style and testing parameters of the reviewer in question.

[Svend]

I agree with jbotti. I don't consider the 175cm Progressor 9+ to be a beast of a ski. I had no problems with it on and off piste.

I'll jump in on the side of John, Gary and Max.  I also own a Progressor 9+ in a 175, and find it to be one of the most versatile front side skis I've ever been on.  I did own (for one season) the original RC4 Progressor, which later became the P-9.  The RC4 was significantly stiffer than the P-9, but mostly in the shovel.  If you didn't really drive that ski with a lot of energy and speed all the time, then it could be a beast.  No relaxing and lazy meandering.  Otherwise, it's an awesome ski.

The P-9, in my mind, is significantly more approachable, while losing (almost) none of the high speed performance and stability.  But softening the shovel slightly, made it just so much more manageable in crud, bumps, soft snow, spring snow.  Just an outstanding ski all-around.

That said, looking at the 2012 Progressor line, I am most impressed by what's on offer.  They have expanded this group to 7 models, which include a C-Line Progressor 1000 (78 underfoot!), P-900, and P-800.  They have kept the C-Line Progressor 10 (wasn't that Keelty's Ski of the Year, 2011?). 

The 78mm P-1000 looks REALLY interesting -- I wonder how it compares to the venerable iM78/Peak 78? Or even the MX78? 

And the Motive series continues, Liam -- there are 7 models in total, including the C-Line Motive 80 and 84.  You're right, these skis have had some great reviews, esp. the 84. 

Great to see that Fischer continues to be committed to high performance front side skis.  I'm a big fan.

[Gary]

Great post Svend....I think from my experience and comparison of the Fischer and Kastle skis I owned....the on snow performance is very similar but the Kastle seems to be able to keep vibration out of their boards with some kind of rubber layer in the laminate.
The tail on the Kastle is a smidgen stiffer but I think that's about it.

It's nice to see with the width of their ski foot print, I have not noticed any loss of edge hold on these skis. Technology is a beautiful thing.

G

[Liam]

Svend,

That's good info on the Fischer line (most of which I was largely ignorant of).  It also points to a trend that runs counter to some other claims made here.

I've heard a persistent lamentation that major ski companies aren't making enough true high-end, expert frontside skis anymore--and the lack of skis with waist widths under 78mm is often pointed to as the proof of this.

However, on the flip-side, my impression is that technology and production has reached a point where the major players are able to make really great skis with waist widths btw 75-85mm that absolutely rip on the frontside.  And I mean rip in the lay them over, carve a series of deep trenches at speed kind of rip.  The added bonus is, these skis do well in a host of other conditions as well-from over skied groomer crud, actually crud, corn, and light tree and bump use--all of which is part of a typical 'front-side' day of skiing (especially here in new england!).  Look at the celebrated Movement Jams and new Head Peak 84s (neither of which I've skied...but I heard a pretty good carver liked these).   Look at the new progressor series, or the kastle 78's, etc-it goes on and on.

I think the moving away from the 70mm waisted and lower high performance front side skis has happened because there are equally competent skis being made with more useful waist widths--this year's progressor line is a clear indication that positive trend.  I don't think it is because people have lost the ability to ski and don't appreciate those sort of narrower skis anymore, I think it's because there are better options, even for the true expert.

Besides the 66-70mm skis like the progressor, Icon TT, elan speedwave, or the much beloved Supershape were never the gold standard for front side expert rippers anyway (nor are they now).  For those who want that level of performance and are willing to sacrifice performance in other conditions there are still race skis and race-oriented skis like: the Head i sl, RD World Cup, Fischer still makes it's wonderful RC4 series, Elan has its GS, GSR, SLR series, Dynastar has the Course series, and on and on.  There are plenty of skis for the hard carving, hard snow purists.

And there are a host of new skis for the expert carving enthusiasts who want that kind of performance but also want more terrain versatility.

Honestly, I think it's the halcyon age of ski design (not to mention boot design!). 

[Liam]

Really???  I notice knee stress with really fat skis (in as much as 110mm waisted skis are Really fat) but not at 78mm.  But again, I accept that everyones physiology and anatomy are unique and what tweaks one guys knees might not tweak another's.  And that is irrespective of fitness.

[ToddW]

My ankles know the difference between skiing 66 and 78 underfoot for a day since I tip much harder on 78 (or wider)  to get the skis up on edge. 

After 2-3 days, my knees know the difference too.  If I get sloppy on a left turn and don't counteract enough on a wider ski, then my right knee knows it in minutes since that leg is pretty knock-kneed (2.0* canting) with some tibial varum to make the alignment even more finicky.

We're all built differently and have different responses to the additional stresses imposed by fatter skis.

[Svend]

We're all built differently and have different responses to the additional stresses imposed by fatter skis.

Interesting comment.  Makes me think back to April when I spent a day on the Sultan 94.  My knees really felt it at the end of the day, and it struck me as unusual, as I have never had knee pain on any ski, including 5 consecutive days in the Rockies on my Mythics (88mm).  At the time I thought it was due to the longer length (184 vs. the 178 that I am used to), and the terrain (a lot of broken snow, bumps, crud), and just not being used to the new skis and knowing how to make 'em really hum.  Perhaps all of the above....? I'll definitely pay attention next time I try a wider ski.

I wonder how much binding stand height influences the mechanics of stress on the knees.  Seems to me, at first glance, that this would have significant influence.  Lower stand ht. = more leverage needed = greater stress?

However, on the flip-side, my impression is that technology and production has reached a point where the major players are able to make really great skis with waist widths btw 75-85mm that absolutely rip on the frontside.  And I mean rip in the lay them over, carve a series of deep trenches at speed kind of rip.  The added bonus is, these skis do well in a host of other conditions as well-from over skied groomer crud, actually crud, corn, and light tree and bump use--all of which is part of a typical 'front-side' day of skiing (especially here in new england!).  Look at the celebrated Movement Jams and new Head Peak 84s (neither of which I've skied...but I heard a pretty good carver liked these).   Look at the new progressor series, or the kastle 78's, etc-it goes on and on.

I think the moving away from the 70mm waisted and lower high performance front side skis has happened because there are equally competent skis being made with more useful waist widths--this year's progressor line is a clear indication that positive trend.  I don't think it is because people have lost the ability to ski and don't appreciate those sort of narrower skis anymore, I think it's because there are better options, even for the true expert.

Agreed on all points.  Although I must say I really like the edge-to-edge quickness of a 70mm or narrower ski.  There is just something incredibly fun and playful about a ski that you can flick over one edge to the other in the blink of an eye.  Paired with a great pair of boots, you're in for a super ride!  And to be honest, where I do most of my skiing (southern Ontario -- the other Blue Mountain....are you listening, Mike?), there are so few days when I really need the float that a wider ski offers, and for that I have my 88mm Mythics.  With the Progressor 9, I have a ski that works exceptionally well for at least 75% of my ski days, including soft spring mush (surprisingly).  No need for anything wider, no need for rocker.  But what I do need is exceptional ice grip, great high speed carving stability and smoothness, and a compliant shovel that can transition over crud and chop and not toss me.  For me, the P-9 is it.  Love it!

OTOH, if I were skiing a lot out west, like Gary for example, who seems to spend about a third of his season west of the Mississippi  , then I would likely own a 78mm ski as my narrow ski, and something in the 95mm+ range as a 2nd pair.  For a skier like Gary, that kind of 2-ski quiver makes perfect sense.

I've heard a persistent lamentation that major ski companies aren't making enough true high-end, expert frontside skis anymore--and the lack of skis with waist widths under 78mm is often pointed to as the proof of this.

As a side note to that, it's good to see the companies taking women's narrow performance front side skis seriously.  All of the major firms are making at least one pair of high performance skis aimed at females who want a real ski underfoot.  Fischer C-Line Zephyr (Ti laminate, flowflex race binding); Head Power One (basically a Supershape Speed with different graphics); Nordica Firefox (ditto -- a Doberman Spitfire with a different topsheet); Dynastar Exclusive Elite (a Contact Groove)....etc.  When it comes time for my wife to replace her beloved Supershapes, there will be no shortage of choices , including all the great unisex skis.

Liam, like you said, these are fine times for ski gear nuts.  Just so hard to resist the temptation to keep buying more.... 

[Gary]

I must have good knees...I know I feel it when I'm trying to hold high edge angles with 98 underfoot...but 78...not so much.

I am very much a finesse skier, not hard or harsh movements...ankles and angles but nothing forced..not sure if that makes any difference or not.

I think the trade off for where and how I ski....the 78 underfoot fits the bill. For me east or west coast, the groomers are fun for rippn' but I LOVE playing in the pushed up snow and piles along the edges.....which is where 78 underfoot is a blast. Still the TR of my Kastles is 16m, it loves to turn as well.

So...how, where and what kind of turns you like to make certainly can dictate your favorite ski. Keeping the knees healthy is also a critical factor in longevity...I really don't look to typically carve high edge angle all turns on my fat skis...I don't even bring them out unless the pow is over the boots so that kind of knee problem doesn't surface.

Picking the right tool and technique for carve, slide and glide is key!   best, g

[Liam]

I don't think he  said anything about high edge angles that would require a definition, Max.  He said he was a finesse skier who doesn't look for high edge angles on his fat skis.  Likes carving but prefers playing in snow piles with his narrow skis. 

What's with the 'how close is your hip to the snow'?  Are you trying to knock his skiing (what's next, demand to see a video of his carving on 78mm skis) or pump up your own?  I didn't realize that unnecessary, over-exaggerated body angles were the only definition of carving.

Who cares how close his hip is to the snow--bottom line is, when he does carve on his 78mm skis, his knees don't hurt him. 

Why can't you say the same? Maybe you're doing something wrong.

[jim-ratliff]

When comparing what we are feeling it makes sense to make sure we are doing the same thing. To me high edge angles mean the hip is no more than 12" off the snow and the front of the boot is getting crushed. This is the type of carving where I feel the extra 10mm in my knees.

I disagree Max. The reason wider skis can be harder on the knees is simple physics and not really related to how high the edge angles.  A 66mm skis is 33 mm from center to edge; an 88mm ski is 44 mm from center to edge.  Skiing exactly the same on the 88 mm ski is going to require 33% more force through the ankle and the muscles around the knee, no matter how high the edge angles or the speed.
I agree, however, that if you are making turns where your hips are 12" off the snow you are skiing faster and resisting a lot more compression forces in the turns, so the base line load on your knees is greater.
I think, though, that if you are strong enough then your knees never really feel the extra stress because the quads are able to keep the knee in line and the loads never fall on ligaments or cartilage??
Higher speeds or weaker legs make it easier for us to notice the difference, but it is always there (ASSUMING the same skiing -- same speeds and turn radius).
But I