PDA

View Full Version : 6 ski review from demo day



Crinkle
11-24-2003, 08:36 AM
So I headed up to Loveland Sunday to give a rip on their demo day. It was $35 for the lift ticket, all the skis you can ride, and a $9 lunch voucher, not a bad deal. The catch was that it was cold as balls up there. When I arrived in the parking lot, it was -4F. Not including wind chill, which I heard later from a patroller was-50 further up the mountain.

What I have been skiing for the last 5 years: East coast and New England, just moved to Colorado last year did 40+ days on 1998 Salomon X-screams 187cm. Needless to say I haven’t skied anything wider than the 64mm waist that I have right now. So skiing fats was a priority and just to see what is out there.

Its obvious to say I have been getting killed in powder and crud for the past year, sinking and getting kicked around like a red headed stepchild. So I have to get a new pair of sticks this year. I have a pair of Salomon 1080's 181cm unmounted right now, so to figure out whether or not to mount them was one of my reasons for going.

I did 2-5 runs on each ski. Depending on how the first run went. If I didn’t like it, I took it back after 2. There was not much open so I pretty much did the same 3 runs over and over, due to limited cover and high winds. I focuse on how it behaved in a few bumps, quickness to turn, stability at speed, and fun factor.

The conditions: 0 deg F, snow was windblown in some random spots, icy, and frozen groomers.

The skier: 5'10" 175lbs

the skis:

Salomon 1080 181cm:

Since I have been considering keeping this ski, I skied it first. I took 3 runs, which were my first runs of the day. It was SUPER turny and well balanced. It was very maneuverable and turned on a dime. Even though the demo bindings were heavy and mounted back, I still felt forward on the ski constantly. If I could I would keep this ski for bumps and the trees on tracked out days, I would, but I can't afford more than one ski this year and I definitely need the upgrade from my current skis. Didn’t feel very stable at speed or on ice, but then again that is not what it was designed for. I am not a park skier, but I took it off a couple small jumps and it was fun and provided smooth landings.



Salomon Pocket Rocket 185cm

I had to take a run or two with these to see what everyone raves and rants about. Of course there is now powder to be found. Ok in the soft stuff, very turny as well. I thought the 1080's were more stable at speed than the PR. Of course I am not use to skiing fat skis, right now I am on 64mm waist and these are 90mm. So it was odd trying to get on edge. As soon as I was up to speed these were chattering all over place on groomers, which I know they were not designed for, but I figured they would be pretty sloppy at speed in chop like "they" say. I can see how they would be a fun powder ski, but I still think they wouldn’t hold up very well at the speeds that I ski, even in powder.


Head Madtrix Mojo 186cm

What a cool ski. Definitely stiff enough to handle chop and hold a good edge when it’s nasty (in a bad way). Quick to turn and well balanced, similar to the 1080, but with much more weighty feel to the ski. I was impressed by the stiffness of the ski and how it held and edge in hard conditions, would probably be killer at speed in soft stuff. If i could get 2 skis this year, this would be one of them, for powder @ 90mm waist.


Head Monster iM 85 179cm

Oooohh “High tech ski” This was the ride of the day for me. The first run on an icy groomer, this thing just carved it right up. I was super impressed. It did take a little more energy to get this baby to turn at slower speeds than I expected, probably due to its width and being groomed snow. The monster hauled with incredible stability at speed. I took this ski for about 3 runs and actually went back later to try it at 186 but it was out, so I took this one out again for another 3 runs before calling it quits. I can’t wait to get this into some pow and chop.


Atomic R:ex 177cm

I wanted to try more skis around the 85mm waist, because after I skied the PR, I felt that 90mm would be too fat for an all around ski for my preferences. I don’t know if it was a lull in the day for me or not, but I did not enjoy this ski all that much. It seemed to have a small sweet spot and didn’t like the rough conditions. It was skittish on the ice and did not want to hold and edge let along carve a turn for me. It is a burly ski, more so than the other 2 that I skied (head and fischer), but it wasn’t what I was looking for. Light in weight and pretty easy to turn.

Fischer FX 8.6 Big Stix Fti 190cm

Ski with the longest name as well as the longest length ski that I took out all day. I wanted to ski it in a 180, since I do spend a lot of time in the trees and in some tight situations, but they didn’t even bring it in a 180. Another ski that I was very impressed with, especially considering its size. It was buttery smooth and very maneuverable, stable at speed and slightly lighter feeling than the Head. It is a tough call between this ski and the head for me. It was very quiet and held a great edge on harsh snow and ice.



That is my take on these 6 skis. If I could have 2, it would be the Mojo and the Monster. If I could have 3 I would take the Fischer in addition to these. Maybe next year or later this year if things turn around I will be able to afford an addition to my “quiver” and get a true powder ski
Looks like I will be shopping around for the Head monster iM 85, so if anyone knows of any deals let me know. If I cant trade in my 1080’s at a shop for store credit, I will be selling them soon.

ulty_guy
11-24-2003, 09:04 AM
in a strange parallel world, far, far away....

i'm almost in exactly the same situation (except that i've shed a few lbs on ya :p ). anyways, i skied the 181, 1080 last year and found it to be really fun, but it did fold at high speed on ice as well as in heavy, set-up crud (sold them). what i really loved about the 1080's though was that maneuverability, just wish they had a bit more 'composure'. of those skis, which had the most quickness while still not being a chatter-box? also, do you think that the fischer would've been perfect in a 180?

i scored a very cheap pair of dynastar LBF's last year and have yet to mount them, could sell them off for a nice profit and then get something else.

Crinkle
11-24-2003, 09:33 AM
of those skis, which had the most quickness while still not being a chatter-box?

Probably the Head Monster. It has the shortest turning radius of the 3 skis. Head r=20 @186cm Fischer r=28 dunno the r of the atomic. Like I said, the Atomic chattered on the ice, but was ok at speed, not very grippy i guess. The mojo, monster, fischer were all great without chatter and held great edges at speed IMO.



also, do you think that the fischer would've been perfect in a 180?

Possibly. I don't know if it was the way that I skied it or what, but it was silky smooth through the turns and felt like a caddy, but not heavy. But I am not sure how stable it would be in chop. I am thinking of attending another demo day coming up and will possibly try it again, hopefully in a 180 and compare it to the Head Monster again, hopefully in better conditions.


and Ulty_guy: I'm not fat, just big boned (read beer and ice cream)

CaddyDaddy77
11-24-2003, 09:46 AM
Hard choices...

The mojo is a great ski, one of the bst that head has come up with, the 85 is pretty sweet also, but IMHO, not as versatile as the 85.The fischer is a great ski, too bad you couldn't try the 180. I was really impressed by this ski, you can stand on it and not get chatter, great edge grip, and as you said, a "buttery" feel to it.
If it were me I would go between the Fischer and the Mojo, depending on what terrrain I predominately skied.


Oh, and on the note of the 1080, not being quite enough up front, look for the mid-season release of a similar model with vertical sidewals, should be really nice.

ulty_guy
11-24-2003, 10:00 AM
Originally posted by CaddyDaddy77

Oh, and on the note of the 1080, not being quite enough up front, look for the mid-season release of a similar model with vertical sidewals, should be really nice.

cool, i loved the shape, just would've liked it to stand up a bit better.


caddy- what's the quickest of those 3 (mojo, 85, fischer?)

CaddyDaddy77
11-24-2003, 10:22 AM
The fischer when I rode it felt more like a big GS ski, but that mojo was pretty quick for a wide ski also.

I'm really not sure, I tried the Fischer at on snow and the Mojo about a month before when a rep came by.

I think the Fischer may be quicker edge to edge.
The fischer is 120-86-107,
the Mojo, 125/90/118

It's almost the same sidecut just expanded between the two except the Mojo has a big ole tail on it.

Edit: Just realised that I didn't address the 85, I felt like the mojo was much quicker edge to edge than the 85, but really liked the way that it rode once you opened your stance a bit. IMHO the slowest edge-to-edge out of the three.

Crinkle
11-24-2003, 11:43 AM
I agree with Caddy Daddy's assesment about the Fischer, but I felt the Head wasnt that slow, it is afterall 122-85-110. There was something about it that didnt feel as lively as the Mojo, but the 85 felt more stable on edge.

Spamhelmet
11-24-2003, 12:02 PM
agreeing with cringle.
im85 is definetly faster edge to edge than mojo. but the stiffness and dampness made it feel more...uh...phlegmatic?
but opposed to caddydaddy i think mojo is definetly a bit more versatile than im85. and not just ´cause of the twintip.

okokok...edit:180cm/68kg.

FLEX
11-24-2003, 12:07 PM
Most of those skis you demo are midget length

Cornholio
11-24-2003, 12:32 PM
Excellent! Great thoughts. I really, really value all these reviews. Including your background, weight, style, and everything is incredibly helpful. Nice job.



And, Flex, shut up with your midget bullshit. Not everyone is as fat as you.

CaddyDaddy77
11-24-2003, 01:17 PM
Originally posted by Cornholio
Excellent! Great thoughts. I really, really value all these reviews. Including your background, weight, style, and everything is incredibly helpful. Nice job.



And, Flex, shut up with your midget bullshit. Not everyone is as fat as you.

This is where the reviews might get skewed, I'm in the husky kids section.
6'4" 240#'s:D

Crinkle
11-24-2003, 01:44 PM
Originally posted by CaddyDaddy77
This is where the reviews might get skewed, I'm in the husky kids section.
6'4" 240#'s:D

You have the beer and ice cream issue too???

CaddyDaddy77
11-24-2003, 04:04 PM
Mostly the beer and steak issue.


mmmmm...steak.......:D