Noodler

Just call me Sir Turn-a-lot
Skier
Joined
Oct 4, 2017
Posts
4,715
Location
Denver, CO
I may have misled unintentionally. I was on the 168 in both skis, not the 175.

In any case the stats above are not what I would have predicted for the 82 based on how they felt on snow. I suppose it's also possible that Fischer builds in a big stiffness jump between the 168 and the 175, especially since they've gone unisex.

Yes, in reviewing data on a bunch of skis in their database, it is clear that you cannot make assumptions about every length available when you've only skied one of them. Sure they may be similar in "flavor", but you really need a specific and direct comparison of the length in question for the ski you're interested in.

I think Phil has noted many times for this season how manufacturers are now scaling the ski performance based on the length so that there is more consistency in how each of the lengths of a model will ski. This really is a great turn of events in my opinion.
 

mogulman

Snowboarder and
Skier
Joined
Aug 6, 2017
Posts
30
Location
Colorado
Skied my 182s a few times now. Seems like great edge hold so far. Ripped a lot of turns on soft groomers and some stuff with a dusting of snow over ice. Didn't really slide at all. Had no trouble on soft smaller moguls and choppy snow. Not as quick turning as my Volkl RTM 81 (as expected), but seems to have better edge hold. I like these a lot better than my old Monster 88s. They don't seem heavy to me. Then again.. I used to ski Nordica Jet Fuels. Those suckers were heavy, but fun. Anyway.. .Not a ski tester, but so far liking the skis!
 

Quandary

Getting off the lift
Skier
Joined
Mar 27, 2020
Posts
345
Location
Colorado
Finally took the 86GTs out in proper snow. All I can say is wow! what a fantastic ski. We started skiing groomers, moved to ungroomed than did a few laps on the T-Bar (Breck) on snow that these skis aren't really designed for. The 86GTs absolutely rip on groomers. My brother (level 2 PSIAA) was following and just said "holy shit you just make absolute perfect railroad tracks with those things"! They are super easy to roll over and carve any shape turn you want. They didn't get nervous at speed. We then moved to the T-Bar and did a few laps on Forget Me Not and Boundary Chutes, the type of skiing that I don't think was in the design concept of these skis. Nevertheless the 86GTs handle the chalky firmer upper parts beautifully. Towards the bottoms the snow was deeper and unconsolidated they managed just fine as long as you paid attention to what you were doing. You ask these skis to give you something and they respond.

Two final thoughts. First, the 86GTs almost make me want to add another pair in the 182 length for even more stability at real speed. Second, these are the first Fischers I have skied or owned, I want to try the Rangers now.....

P.S. I was thinking about finding so Stöckli's to demo...... nah no need
 
Last edited:

Autoloader

In the parking lot (formerly "At the base lodge")
Skier
Joined
Jan 10, 2022
Posts
3
Location
California
I'm trying to decide between the GT 86's and the older Pro Mtn 86's. Based on a few of the comments in this thread, it sounds like the Pro Mtn might be a better choice for an intermediate skier trying to improve everywhere on the mountain? I'm 6'1", 200 lbs and currently skiing some Renoun Endurance 98's V2.0. I'd like to add a ski with better edge hold on groomers, but still able to venture off trail.
 

Noodler

Just call me Sir Turn-a-lot
Skier
Joined
Oct 4, 2017
Posts
4,715
Location
Denver, CO
I'm trying to decide between the GT 86's and the older Pro Mtn 86's. Based on a few of the comments in this thread, it sounds like the Pro Mtn might be a better choice for an intermediate skier trying to improve everywhere on the mountain? I'm 6'1", 200 lbs and currently skiing some Renoun Endurance 98's V2.0. I'd like to add a ski with better edge hold on groomers, but still able to venture off trail.

Really depends on which way you'd like to "bias" the new skis for their intended use. The Pro MT 86 Ti has more playfulness and a bias toward softer snow off-piste. That's not to say it cannot absolutely rail carved turns on the hard stuff. The 86 GT is a smoother, damper ride with a bit more beef to it. The shapes are very very similar. I would agree that the 86 GT is probably better fit to more advanced skiers, while an intermediate probably can get on the Pro MT 86 and grow their skills with less punishment.
 

Autoloader

In the parking lot (formerly "At the base lodge")
Skier
Joined
Jan 10, 2022
Posts
3
Location
California
Really depends on which way you'd like to "bias" the new skis for their intended use. The Pro MT 86 Ti has more playfulness and a bias toward softer snow off-piste. That's not to say it cannot absolutely rail carved turns on the hard stuff. The 86 GT is a smoother, damper ride with a bit more beef to it. The shapes are very very similar. I would agree that the 86 GT is probably better fit to more advanced skiers, while an intermediate probably can get on the Pro MT 86 and grow their skills with less punishment.

Thank you! I think I'll pick up the Pro Mtn 86's and save a little money. It sounds like they'll be a better fit to my ability level.
 

ARL67

Invisible Airwaves Crackle With Life
Skier
Joined
Jan 15, 2016
Posts
673
Location
Waterloo, ON, Canada
Hey Noodler, any comments on your RC One 82 GT ?
I'm still really enjoying mine in 173cm, but I'm a more laid-back skier these days, and down a few pounds.
 

Noodler

Just call me Sir Turn-a-lot
Skier
Joined
Oct 4, 2017
Posts
4,715
Location
Denver, CO
Hey Noodler, any comments on your RC One 82 GT ?
I'm still really enjoying mine in 173cm, but I'm a more laid-back skier these days, and down a few pounds.

They're in the house. I've started the new ski prep (cut back the sidewall flashing and set the side and base edge bevels). I'll finish the tuning tomorrow and they'll probably get on snow on Sunday.

I will say that just hand flexing the skis, they have the "guts" I wanted to see. They're not quite as stiff as my Curv GT skis, but they're very close. So I'm suspecting that the 173cm length is going to run true to the SoothSki data. I also noted from my "ping" test that they're fairly damp; very solid sounding also when I let them drop a couple inches onto the garage floor (another test I do). So I have high hopes...
 

ScottB

Out on the slopes
Skier
Joined
Oct 29, 2016
Posts
1,375
Location
Boston
I may have misled unintentionally. I was on the 168 in both skis, not the 175.

In any case the stats above are not what I would have predicted for the 82 based on how they felt on snow. I suppose it's also possible that Fischer builds in a big stiffness jump between the 168 and the 175, especially since they've gone unisex.

I have had the same experience when looking up skis I own or have skied on on their website. I don't have an explanation other than they didn't feel like what the data would predict.
 

Noodler

Just call me Sir Turn-a-lot
Skier
Joined
Oct 4, 2017
Posts
4,715
Location
Denver, CO
I have had the same experience when looking up skis I own or have skied on on their website. I don't have an explanation other than they didn't feel like what the data would predict.

The ski comparer really works best when you have direct experience with at least a few skis in the comparison you run. It's also really important that the lengths are exactly what you want and what you've been on.
 

AlexisLD

Getting on the lift
Skier
Joined
Jan 30, 2021
Posts
139
Location
Quebec
I may have misled unintentionally. I was on the 168 in both skis, not the 175.

In any case the stats above are not what I would have predicted for the 82 based on how they felt on snow. I suppose it's also possible that Fischer builds in a big stiffness jump between the 168 and the 175, especially since they've gone unisex.

We unfortunately don't have the 168 in the Pro MT 86 Ti.

You can however see that there is indeed a big stiffness jump between the 168 and 175 RC One 82 GT. I would say around 30%... They are not the same ski!

Screen Shot 2022-01-16 at 7.18.14 PM.png

Similarly, the RC One 78 GT is completely different with half the torsional stiffness. Very similar name and geometry (identical?), but a different beast for sure! The 78 is marketed has a more intermediate ski than the 82. It only has one 1 out of 10 bar less in the "beginner to pro" scale on Fischer website, but ... it is 50% softer in torsion and amongst the softest ski you can find in torsion in that shape. It is always good to remember that almost all skis fall either in the intermediate or advanced categories when ranked. Beginner and expert are scary terms! :)

This is why torsional stiffness measurements are so important and have been a "missing part of the puzzle" for so many years.
 

Tony S

I have a confusion to make ...
Skier
Joined
Nov 14, 2015
Posts
7,238
Location
Maine
We unfortunately don't have the 168 in the Pro MT 86 Ti.

You can however see that there is indeed a big stiffness jump between the 168 and 175 RC One 82 GT. I would say around 30%... They are not the same ski!

View attachment 155442
Similarly, the RC One 78 GT is completely different with half the torsional stiffness. Very similar name and geometry (identical?), but a different beast for sure! The 78 is marketed has a more intermediate ski than the 82. It only has one 1 out of 10 bar less in the "beginner to pro" scale on Fischer website, but ... it is 50% softer in torsion and amongst the softest ski you can find in torsion in that shape. It is always good to remember that almost all skis fall either in the intermediate or advanced categories when ranked. Beginner and expert are scary terms! :)

This is why torsional stiffness measurements are so important and have been a "missing part of the puzzle" for so many years.
Yes, so the 82 GT I demo'd was indeed a 166, not a 168. And this goes a LONG way towards explaining certain things. Thanks!
 

Noodler

Just call me Sir Turn-a-lot
Skier
Joined
Oct 4, 2017
Posts
4,715
Location
Denver, CO
Yes, so the 82 GT I demo'd was indeed a 166, not a 168. And this goes a LONG way towards explaining certain things. Thanks!

I will probably have the 173cm 82 GT with me at Taos, so you're welcome to take a lap or two to "solidify" your comparison between the lengths.
 

Marker

Out on the slopes
Skier
Joined
Oct 16, 2017
Posts
1,586
Location
Kennett Square, PA & Killington, VT
This wouls explain why Blister detuned the whole ski when they test the Ranger 102.
My 115 Xti came with a 1/3 tune. I asked the shop I use at Killington and they confirmed they were shipped this way. But I don't see the reason for detuning if they are as good of skiers as they seem and get a lot of powder. I'm a hack although a very large one.
 

Noodler

Just call me Sir Turn-a-lot
Skier
Joined
Oct 4, 2017
Posts
4,715
Location
Denver, CO
My 115 Xti came with a 1/3 tune. I asked the shop I use at Killington and they confirmed they were shipped this way. But I don't see the reason for detuning if they are as good of skiers as they seem and get a lot of powder. I'm a hack although a very large one.

If you've never seen a reviewer ski, then there's certainly a leap of faith required in what you can take from a review. Folks can ski aggressively (the big Blister claim), but also not very well...
 
Top