Fischer Pro MTN series

[Erik Timmerman]

Anybody skied on them yet? I just picked up a pair of Pro MTN 86 demos in 175 to try tomorrow. Really intrigued by these especially after owning the Motiv 95 and having tried the Ranger 90. Blending the carbon tip onto the Motiv seems like a pretty good idea. I imagine that the 86 and 95 are the ones people will be buying, but I wonder about the 80 too, I'll bet it is pretty sweet for someone that wants to ski mostly frontside bumps and groomers. As far as I can tell, the construction is the same across all three skis as opposed to what usually happens where the biggest one is stiffest and they get softer and more mild mannered as you go down in width.

 

[Erik Timmerman]

Skied the 175s today, have the 182s in the car for tomorrow. Today we had new snow and some wind overnight, so depending on where you were it was somewhat stiff wind buff, harbor chop, or soft fresh snow. I didn't love the tune, not sure if it still has the factory tune or if it has been molested. It reminded me of the factory tune on the Firearrow 84, a bit deep and too linear, the ski turns great on edge, but feels a little bit stuck when trying to pivot on harder snow. This made the older bumps feel like more work than the ones that were still soft and creamy. I followed @Mike Thomas down Hayride which was more of a harbor chop situation in the upper sections, the ski felt a bit small here, I mean that sort of thing is the wheelhouse for the 186 Motiv 95, but once it got steeper and more bumped the ski really comes into it's own. It's much like really, really light, but also strong and communicative. It feels long enough for my 6' 200 lb frame. On the groomers it still feels like a Fischer and you can go as fast as you want, it doesn't tighten the arc with more pressure and tipping the way the Curv does though, you do have to steer it some. I think this is because of the rocketed tip. One of the skis I'd most compare it to is the RTM84, I'd say it is more soft snow oriented, but unless you are about your "Performance Shorts" and lane changes and so on, you won't notice what it gives up on the groomed.

 

[Erik Timmerman]

Skied the 182 today. Probably going to pull the trigger on this. I don't feel like I should be going to the biggest ski they make, but it isn't that big, and it sure rips on the groomed. Not sure how it stacked up in the bumps, maybe not as good, but early season legs, different day... I dunno, it was close and it's not like I was sucking at bumps on the 182s.

Wish I could demo the Pro MTN 80 Ti in a 180...

 

[Cheizz]

The 80 (TI) is a very different animal. I found the 86 to be too carbon-stiff, not smooth. More for agressive skiers, less able to ski with finesse. Had to work them a lot. Th 80 TI is the other way aroudn. Smoth, easy to ski, great for lighter skiers or upper-intermediates too. Much more gentle.

The 80 TI reminds me of last year's Motive 86; the Pro Mtn 86 reminds me of... well... the Motive 95 with carbon.

I am not a carbon-lover I guess

 

[Erik Timmerman]

Does the 80 Ti not have carbon?

 

[Cheizz]

I am sure is does, but not as predominant as the 86...

 

[hbear]

I happen to really like the 86, debated a long time between the 95 and 86 and the 86 just made more sense in the quiver.
I don't find the carbon all that stiff (it is light and poppy), but even though I'm not a heavy guy I do like to charge. Edge hold is way up there in the priority list (although understandably not at race ski level). I found the 86 plenty forgiving in the bumps, it's not as burly as my old pre-rocker Kendo or the Brahma....the 86 is much more refined but can still hang with the bombers.

Guess it depends on how you like to ski.

 

[Cheizz]

I agree. And also, what you compare it too. Compared to the Brahma, almost any ski is 'forgiving'. Compared to ast year's Motive 86 - which I love and own - the new Pro Mtn 86 is too carbon-poppy for my taste. But I agree that is IS a matter of taste and style.

 

[Erik Timmerman]

I happen to really like the 86, debated a long time between the 95 and 86 and the 86 just made more sense in the quiver.
I don't find the carbon all that stiff (it is light and poppy), but even though I'm not a heavy guy I do like to charge. Edge hold is way up there in the priority list (although understandably not at race ski level). I found the 86 plenty forgiving in the bumps, it's not as burly as my old pre-rocker Kendo or the Brahma....the 86 is much more refined but can still hang with the bombers.

Guess it depends on how you like to ski.

What size do you have?

 

[hbear]

168, I'm 5'6" and 165lbs. 174 was fine to ski, but went shorter to bias for bumps, trees and kickers. That being said I do prefer a shorter ski and come from the 170 kendo. Even my powder ski (gunsmoke) is a 179.....funny as my GS ski isn't far from that length.

Haven't had a problem with going pass pulling speed on the 168. It's not as planted as my GS ski but that was never expected. A lot of fun and can carve a number of different turn shapes.

Dont find the 168 any softer than the 174. Smaller radius but certainly still capable of bombing.

 

[skibob]

The 80 (TI) is a very different animal. I found the 86 to be too carbon-stiff, not smooth. More for agressive skiers, less able to ski with finesse. Had to work them a lot. Th 80 TI is the other way aroudn. Smoth, easy to ski, great for lighter skiers or upper-intermediates too. Much more gentle.

The 80 TI reminds me of last year's Motive 86; the Pro Mtn 86 reminds me of... well... the Motive 95 with carbon.

I am not a carbon-lover I guess

I have felt this way about skis with carbon before also. Its springier and less reactive. Seems to want to snap back into shape more rapidly. But I've only skied a few skis with major carbon so I've never really been sure it was the carbon. Fiberglass stringers (Moment) don't give me this same feeling.

I suspect it might have to do with how much you bend a ski. Carbon doesn't stretch much and the more you stretch it th emore energy it contracts with. IOW, its less progressive. "Poppy" is a good descriptor, but I am not sure it is the same meaning with which "poppy" is traditionally applied to a ski.

 

[Cheizz]

Yes, I think we understand each other. And I know 'poppy' is not exactly the right word for it. But what should we call it then? It should have a word of its own, since more and more skis show that behaviour....

 

[sinbad7]

I've struggled with this one in the past: how to describe the feeling of a carbon-rich ski versus the rest. Mostly it's in response to people asking about the dps range which gets a good workout in our demo days down here. For mine the feeling is lacking in warmth (hat tip to @Philpug for that one) and they feel more digital than analogue.

I've settled on the following description. "Imagine listening to your favourite song, then go back and listen to it again with the bass turned way down, leaving it dominated by the treble. That's the feeling you get from a carbon dominant ski."

I stayed away from the dps tent at this year's demo weekend (I expect I'll go back next year) but got a similar feeling from Rossi's new Soul7 HD with its paulownia / carbon / basalt layup. I can confirm it's not 'my thing'. On the other hand I've seen enough people raving about dps' skis to know it's about personal preference. So, in response to questions I describe all of the above and then tell people to demo a 'carbonated' ski before making a purchase. It's the only way to know for sure.

 

[Josh Matta]

The Fisher's feel far better than any DPS ever....

 

[Erik Timmerman]

Probably depends how much carbon there is. The Pro MTN feels like a heavy metal laminate ski, except that it is light. The Ranger 90 I would say has more carbon (well, really, less of everything else) and I could see how that could be described as lack of warmth.

 

[Cheizz]

I can fully follow your 'treble' analogy. Treble means trouble for me, but that's very much a matter of preference...

But would this mean that all these carbon-heavy (but actually very light-wight) skis could be called 'high pitch' skis?

 

[cantunamunch]

I think that what you all are describing is a subset of a lack of damping - so if Renoun were to offer a similar layup the effect would not be as easy to notice.

I don't think it's inherent to CF as a material. The structure, otoh...

How many of you have skied Atomic 's old layups with aluminum or magnesium cap top sheets? Those were treble high as all get out, buzzy even, with not an ounce of CF. They all had a highly loaded top and light cores underneath.

 

[sinbad7]

Probably depends how much carbon there is. The Pro MTN feels like a heavy metal laminate ski, except that it is light. The Ranger 90 I would say has more carbon (well, really, less of everything else) and I could see how that could be described as lack of warmth.

Well that hangs together. I was impressed with the Pro MTN 95 (this year), but didn't like the Ranger (last year).

 

[Josh Matta]

The thing is the ranger 98ti is REALLY damp.

but at the same time springy and light.....

 

[sinbad7]

I think that what you all are describing is a subset of a lack of damping ...

Not sure I'd agree. Lack of damping I would describe as the "boing factor", like (for instance) the relatively quick rebound from a Steadfast exiting a turn. I'm trying (possibly badly) to describe the feeling that comes through carbon-rich skis. Your "buzzy" description is along the same lines. It's a higher pitch, higher frequency, 'zingy' feeling.

I do get your point though. Years ago (in 2011) I tried an Atomic Vario-flex 78 and got a similar feel off those, complete with the same high-pitch, zingy sound you get from a carbonated ski.