Individual Review Long-Term Review: 2020 Fischer RC One GT 86

[Tony S]

As you have seen I'm a big guy

You're a TALL guy. Which means you are probably going to be on a long ski. But you're not a HEAVY guy for your height. Which means you are at risk for getting on a model that is "a lot of ski" in the ungroomed, for someone who is working to acquire more skills in that area.

 

[ScottB]

@Marker ,

One last tidbit, I was at the Boot Pro in Ludlow on Sunday on the way home getting a boot adjustment. All their skies in stock were 40% off. They sell more boots than skis, so still had some long lengths in stock. I had a 185cm Nordica Enforcer Unlimited in my hand (touring AT ski) which was 40% off MSRP of $800= $480. I had room for one more pair of skis in my roof box, as I told Tony S. Drum roll please.......... I passed (only had one beer après ski) and just tipped the boot fitter for my adjustment and headed home. Its worth a drive or a phone call to see what they have that you might like. They do demo's as well. I like the shop a lot and will try to give them my business if possible.

 

[Marker]

You're a TALL guy. Which means you are probably going to be on a long ski. But you're not a HEAVY guy for your height. Which means you are at risk for getting on a model that is "a lot of ski" in the ungroomed, for someone who is working to acquire more skills in that area.

Tall at 6'6" and dense at 225 lb, although not a heavyweight, but heavier than probably 95 % of the skiers on the mountain. Still, I'm looking for that ski that will work for someone my size and skill level in the bumps. That's probably less than 1 % on the mountain.

 

[Quandary]

um isn't this an RC One 86GT thread? let's move the irrelevant chatter elsewhere.

 

[JJ5250]

I've got a pair of 2022 Kore 93 and 86gts..... The Kores are light and highly maneuverable and I like them a lot.. but when I put on the 86gts I feel like superman... The control and dampness (smoothness) is like no other... I like both so much I just bought another pair of each...

 

[tromano]

See is you can find the Salomon Stance 90 in 182 to try. Fun ski.

Those are nice skis. More of a Cadilac ride vs Fischer. More am oriented vs front side as well.

Tall at 6'6" and dense at 225 lb, although not a heavyweight, but heavier than probably 95 % of the skiers on the mountain. Still, I'm looking for that ski that will work for someone my size and skill level in the bumps. That's probably less than 1 % on the mountain

I recommend demoing, your a good enough skier that you will want what you want. I have spent most of my demo days in the last few years in the 9x-8x range and you can usually figure out what the ski is going to be before even skiing them... but the skis are very different in feel, balance, and nuance.

The QST 92 was mentioned up above, in a 185 its similar in feel to stance but a bit more surfy and narrow freeride oriented vs am of the stance 90 182. Its a similar ski to the Fischer Ranger 92ti, but more damp, and more balanced in its implementation. The Q92 is a great bump skis anytime soft snow is in play, like this last taos mini towards the end of the week. But has enough firm snow capability to not let you down on a frozen spring morning before things soften. It would be the wrong tool for a icy day midwinter. Also its a very predictable freeride ski for mid winter chalk, as seen on ridge hikes at taos during the mini, since the ski is not gonna hook up too aggressively, which can sometimes be an issue when the snow is very grippy.

Stance 90 would be a much better AM ski and would take more of an ignore the powder approach. And just feel more connected in the tip all the time. Its basically a better version of the head monster 88; meaning easier, funner, and more versatile, while being just as capable in terms of stability, etc... Only ever demoed these, but if I had them in my quiver earlier this winter, it may have been the only ski I needed at Taos during the mini. Wouldn't hesitate to ski these in big steep bumps.

 

[FlimFlamvanHam]

A Stance 90 is nothing like a Monster 88 other than similar waist width. Stance has some obvious tip and tail rocker, more camber, far softer tip and tail, longer radius, much narrower tip and tail, and it's about 350g lighter in similar length. The Stance is a way more accessible ski than a Monster 88. I would argue very few skiers ski the way that would allow them to love an M88 and actually use close to all of it, esp the '16 and '17 versions.

I really like the Stance skis. I think they are a smart truly versatile all mountain design. My 14yr old daughter is on the Stance 88 FWIW.

Back to the GT86. It really is amazing how these skis are nowhere. In all my travels throughout BC this winter I have seen 0 pairs in a store or on a hill. However, I did see a pair of the 82GTs and actually asked the owner if he wouldn't mind popping them off so I could see the profile and flex them.

Holy shit. I actually knew they would flex as stiff as they did but still, that was one stuff ski. The shovel is cool (big/long for such a ski).

I had mentioned a couple pages back that I found the sentiment on the 86 "mixed". I should clarify: yes (like every ski "review" ever) everything said about these is good so I have to read between the lines and also get a sense for the capability of the reviewer. It's almost impossible. They are great in bumps. They are a handful in bumps. They are a great carver. They are a good carver. They are really heavy (that was totally false: the system binding and plate is really heavy). But flexing and seeing those 82s was helpful. I will own a pair of 86s.

I would like to point out that L9 has sold very few pairs of the 86s
They have them listed on ebay and the sales history there shows how very few they have sold. Point is, they are going to have to further discount them as they are sitting on a pile that was not dented priced at $399 (for the flat ski) from season open, thru xmas, till now. Just saying. If anyone is thinking about these I fully expect L9 to have them at $299 between now and next season. The Ski Monster has one pair of new 182s left, flat, for $299.

 

[James]

I would argue very few skiers ski the way that would allow them to love an M88 and actually use close to all of it, esp the '16 and '17 versions.

You could argue that about shape skis in general. But it’s a good point, certain styles lend themselves to certain skis.
One could easily argue that the Stance 90, though “more accessible” than the Monster 88, really only shines with advanced skiers that can tip it early in the turn. Otherwise it’s just a relatively soft ski with a paddle tip and too much sidecut. It’s not a charger ski, but on the other hand, those lend themselves well to windshield wiping and straight lining.

What year Monster is this? 18/19 or 17/18?
You can have it. Not nearly as awful though as the Atomic S9, which on paper should be fun in its class, but is a frozen rotting fish with no redeeming qualities when dull.

Back to the GT86. It really is amazing how these skis are nowhere. In all my travels throughout BC this winter I have seen 0 pairs in a store or on a hill.

They’re all over the NE US.
It’s a shame you can’t handle one in store because it actually tells you a lot about the ski, which becomes apparent after skiing it.
It seems wider than it is, it’s pretty substantial. Very rigid. Has a gradual curve for the tip which is well integrated with the forebody.
People call it damp, but I wouldn’t, though it is not the opposite. Solid. Light-dense. If you call the Volkl M5 damp, then it’s similar in that aspect.

I skied the 175 at Killington.
On snow, it has tenacious edgegrip, that’s for sure. They’ve worked out the sidecut/tip curve somehow that even with that gradual curve it’s not that vague an entry. It functions more as a unit. Will carve a storm. There is no tip flap at speed, I didn’t push it to extreme, but I can’t see there being much.

Didn’t do anything other than slush bumps, so hard to tell there.

It’s a bit machine like in personality. The 175 skis maybe not short, but shortish. I wonder if there’s a big difference with the 182, like the older Curve GT was reportedly very different 168 to 175 and the 182 was just stupid. I wouldn’t expect the RcOne to suffer the same issue.

 

[FlimFlamvanHam]

You could argue that about shape skis in general. But it’s a good point, certain styles lend themselves to certain skis.
One could easily argue that the Stance 90, though “more accessible” than the Monster 88, really only shines with advanced skiers that can tip it early in the turn. Otherwise it’s just a relatively soft ski with a paddle tip and too much sidecut. It’s not a charger ski, but on the other hand, those lend themselves well to windshield wiping and straight lining.


What year Monster is this? 18/19 or 17/18?
You can have it. Not nearly as awful though as the Atomic S9, which on paper should be fun in its class, but is a frozen rotting fish with no redeeming qualities when dull.


They’re all over the NE US.
It’s a shame you can’t handle one in store because it actually tells you a lot about the ski, which becomes apparent after skiing it.
It seems wider than it is, it’s pretty substantial. Very rigid. Has a gradual curve for the tip which is well integrated with the forebody.
People call it damp, but I wouldn’t, though it is not the opposite. Solid. Light-dense. If you call the Volkl M5 damp, then it’s similar in that aspect.

I skied the 175 at Killington.
On snow, it has tenacious edgegrip, that’s for sure. They’ve worked out the sidecut/tip curve somehow that even with that gradual curve it’s not that vague an entry. It functions more as a unit. Will carve a storm. There is no tip flap at speed, I didn’t push it to extreme, but I can’t see there being much.

Didn’t do anything other than slush bumps, so hard to tell there.

It’s a bit machine like in personality. The 175 skis maybe not short, but shortish. I wonder if there’s a big difference with the 182, like the older Curve GT was reportedly very different 168 to 175 and the 182 was just stupid. I wouldn’t expect the RcOne to suffer the same issue.

That's the '17/18 M88. 18/19 and 19/20 (with the blunt tips) went a tad (like I'm talking a tad) softer than the '18; less tip rocker (although on that ski you picture it is very subtle already) and that last version was arguably the best version. I use that ski (in your pic) more than any ski I own. I do appreciate your sentiment towards it. It has to be skied pretty much full throttle all the time to be enjoyed and really, who wants to do that for more than an hour or two? Me. Kinda. Not for 6 hours though. Thus my interest in the Fischer. But that said, I'd rather be on a tank of an 88 than a 100+ at the same weight almost every time.

In looking at those snow conditions in your pic, there would be no ski on earth I'd rather be on than those very skis on your feet.

And yes, it is a shame I cannot handle a GT86 for the very reasons you state. The M5 reference you made is great and I totally get it. Thanks. Because I find the M5 and all the top-sheet-cut-out Volkls "tinny", but that is because the tips and tails are, but they really don't ski like it. They are damp enough. I am looking to trade some damp and crud po3nership for some lithe and athleticism and maybe the ability to enjoy jogging sometimes over alway having to sprint.

Anyway, bottom line, I believe I will love the GT86. The season is pretty much done. A few Whistler days in my near future and will pick up a pair of these for cheap between now and November.

Oh, and your reference on size. I'm 165lbs. I'll take maneuverability in steep and nasty technical terrain over "stability" every time. I can easily adjust for stability. It's the skier, not the ski. I'm not saying I'm some great skier, but that skiers should be working on their skill as a skier rather than buying stability. Not that you were suggesting that. I just like getting on a soap box every once in a while. Shall I define "freeskiing" too? I'll save that. @ski otter 2 owns both the 182 and 175 and seems to indicate it is more than just a length dif and their personalities do have differences. Anyway, no interest at all in the 182.

Some really excellent feedback @James and much appreciated. It actually helps a lot. I am machine like in personality.

 

[Tony S]

the Stance 90, though “more accessible” than the Monster 88, really only shines with advanced skiers that can tip it early in the turn. Otherwise it’s just a relatively soft ski with a paddle tip and too much sidecut

I really wish you would stop saying things about this ski that make me want to try it.

 

[James]

In looking at those snow conditions in your pic, there would be no ski on earth I'd rather be on than those very skis on your feet.

You really should date more skis.

I find the M5 and all the top-sheet-cut-out Volkls "tinny", but that is because the tips and tails are, but they really don't ski like it.

No, it didn’t. I only skied it one day ranging from hard frozen to a sea of corn. The interesting thing is if you tap the tips together sitting on the chair, the M5 sounds/feels almost like steel plate. Seems to be a very dense construction. It doesn’t transmit those vibrations in a metal way, but it doesn’t have that rubber layer damping feeling either.

The RcOne 86GT is a hard glassy sound/feel with the tap test. But it doesn’t ski “glassy” and loud, like say the older Kastle FX96hp. The Fischer is very tight and controlled, but again no rubber damping feel.

I'll take maneuverability in steep and nasty technical terrain over "stability" every time. I can easily adjust for stability. It's the skier, not the ski.

Well a long or a short arrow doesn’t change the archer, but may change what they aim at.

The Monster I skied was 178 or whatever. Maybe the 184 ish if made, would’ve been better. Hard to tell. I’m like 45lbs heavier than you. Maybe overall flex would’ve worked better.
Sometimes sizes just mesh with the skier at a certain length of a ski, sometimes it’s either or, or what you want to emphasize.

Then there’s how different sizes are made, and sometimes different lengths are different skis. If you go back to the Fischer Curve, the original not GT, they made a 182cm in that that was a monster. I saw it in the store, thickest non straight ski I think I’ve seen. Supposedly, it’s the ski Michael von Grunigen wanted.

What size RcOne86 would you get?

I really wish you would stop saying things about this ski that make me want to try it.

Well just buy one of those cheap ones. I can’t vouch for how they scaled it unfortunately. I think I’ll try the 182 now and see how that is.

 

[FlimFlamvanHam]

You really should date more skis.

The RcOne 86GT is a hard glassy sound/feel with the tap test. But it doesn’t ski “glassy” and loud, like say the older Kastle FX96hp. The Fischer is very tight and controlled, but again no rubber damping feel.

Well a long or a short arrow doesn’t change the archer, but may change what they aim at.

The Monster I skied was 178 or whatever. Maybe the 184 ish if made, would’ve been better. Hard to tell. I’m like 45lbs heavier than you. Maybe overall flex would’ve worked better.
Sometimes sizes just mesh with the skier at a certain length of a ski, sometimes it’s either or, or what you want to emphasize.

Then there’s how different sizes are made, and sometimes different lengths are different skis. If you go back to the Fischer Curve, the original not GT, they made a 182cm in that that was a monster. I saw it in the store, thickest non straight ski I think I’ve seen. Supposedly, it’s the ski Michael von Grunigen wanted.

What size RcOne86 would you get?

I've skied enough skis although I admit that I used to demo a lot just because the demo tent was there, now I just rarely bother. There's not been much that interests me of late and what does interest me is never in anyone's inventory out here. A Curv GT in BC? I mean I'm sure it has happened....

Sorry, von Grunigen wanted/had a part in the design of that 182 as a rec ski?

I'll be getting a 175, flat.

You should ebay those Monster 88's in the fall especially if they are 177. A few die hards out there looking for those I'm sure.

 

[James]

Sorry, von Grunigen wanted/had a part in the design of that 182 as a rec ski?

VonGrunigen was part of bringing those original curves out, yes. That’s what I’ve heard. That 182 Curve was the one he really wanted for himself. It’s far less versatile, and far more beastly than a 188/30m gs ski. I doubt they sold many. The overall finish on it was first class though, beautiful to look at.
(I’m pretty sure it was 182, regardless it was the biggest one. Whole different league)

I rented those Head Monsters.

 

[tromano]

That's the '17/18 M88. 18/19 and 19/20 (with the blunt tips) went a tad (like I'm talking a tad) softer than the '18; less tip rocker (although on that ski you picture it is very subtle already) and that last version was arguably the best version. I use that ski (in your pic) more than any ski I own. I do appreciate your sentiment towards it. It has to be skied pretty much full throttle all the time to be enjoyed and really, who wants to do that for more than an hour or two? Me. Kinda. Not for 6 hours though. Thus my interest in the Fischer. But that said, I'd rather be on a tank of an 88 than a 100+ at the same weight almost every time.

In looking at those snow conditions in your pic, there would be no ski on earth I'd rather be on than those very skis on your feet.

And yes, it is a shame I cannot handle a GT86 for the very reasons you state. The M5 reference you made is great and I totally get it. Thanks. Because I find the M5 and all the top-sheet-cut-out Volkls "tinny", but that is because the tips and tails are, but they really don't ski like it. They are damp enough. I am looking to trade some damp and crud po3nership for some lithe and athleticism and maybe the ability to enjoy jogging sometimes over alway having to sprint.

Anyway, bottom line, I believe I will love the GT86. The season is pretty much done. A few Whistler days in my near future and will pick up a pair of these for cheap between now and November.

Oh, and your reference on size. I'm 165lbs. I'll take maneuverability in steep and nasty technical terrain over "stability" every time. I can easily adjust for stability. It's the skier, not the ski. I'm not saying I'm some great skier, but that skiers should be working on their skill as a skier rather than buying stability. Not that you were suggesting that. I just like getting on a soap box every once in a while. Shall I define "freeskiing" too? I'll save that. @ski otter 2 owns both the 182 and 175 and seems to indicate it is more than just a length dif and their personalities do have differences. Anyway, no interest at all in the 182.

Some really excellent feedback @James and much appreciated. It actually helps a lot. I am machine like in personality.

I got 150 days on my 1st gen 184 monster 98s. Took a while to figure the ski out but was very rewarding once I did. The 88 I've demoed a few times and it's like the 98; a freeride, am, and front side ski for the right skier. I see the stance as a ski that crosses over from frontside to freeride in a similar way but take a little bit different approach and easier to handle at slow speeds. Has a damp feel very similar to the head monsters as well.

Ended up getting an m6 this time. Don't mind the feel.

As for the Fischer's, I have demoed the 82 rc one in a 180 and tried my wife's 166. The 180 is one ski that I don't think I could over power. This thread says the 86 is more ski than the 82. Not sure I believe that. Have to say for a frontside oriented 8x ski, don't think I need more. Would rather have narrower and less or as I would say just right.

 

[FlimFlamvanHam]

I got 150 days on my 1st gen 184 monster 98s. Took a while to figure the ski out but was very rewarding once I did. The 88 I've demoed a few times and it's like the 98; a freeride, am, and front side ski for the right skier. I see the stance as a ski that crosses over from frontside to freeride in a similar way but take a little bit different approach and easier to handle at slow speeds. Has a damp feel very similar to the head monsters as well.

Ended up getting an m6 this time. Don't mind the feel.

As for the Fischer's, I have demoed the 82 rc one in a 180 and tried my wife's 166. The 180 is one ski that I don't think I could over power. This thread says the 86 is more ski than the 82. Not sure I believe that. Have to say for a frontside oriented 8x ski, don't think I need more. Would rather have narrower and less or as I would say just right.

I have a Mantra 102 that I've used off and on since late last season. I like it a lot but I just always tend to a narrower ski. I too skied the 1st gen Monster 98 but maybe only 30 days. Yes, the 88 is same ski, a bit stiffer, but a much more engaging carver, obviously.

As i said a couple posts up, when I was able to fondle a pair of 82 GT's I was amazed how stiff they were even if I expected it. The 86 has to be more just because it's the very same construction but thicker metal. And to your point: is that necessary?

I will find out eventually.

 

[Gizzard Lips]

I pulled the trigger and purchased the 21/22 RC One 86 GT in the 182 length. I do like the new Fischer logo on there compared to years past. It's the little things.

Thanks to everyone for replying and giving their thoughts an opinions. Suppose I won't really know if I mesh with this ski until next season, unless I can pull magic and get a trip in out west somehow. I still have a little fear i should have purchased the Brahma, but let's see how these fair. I will update when I get on the ski.

 

[Quandary]

As for the Fischer's, I have demoed the 82 rc one in a 180 and tried my wife's 166. The 180 is one ski that I don't think I could over power. This thread says the 86 is more ski than the 82. Not sure I believe that. Have to say for a frontside oriented 8x ski, don't think I need more. Would rather have narrower and less or as I would say just right.

The 86 and 82 share a lot of the same construction however the 86 has two layers (top and bottom) of .8mm titanal while the 82 has two layers of .5mm titanal, not to mention that obviously the 86 has wider pieces of titanal as the metal goes edge to edge in both skis (other than the tip and tail bafatex sections). This makes for a much burlier ski. We have a shop in Breck that carries both the 82 and 86 (although they don't stock The Curve...). I have not skied the 82 just the 86 (which I own), but based on hand flexing there is a notable difference between the two skis.

 

[Seldomski]

I have a Mantra 102 that I've used off and on since late last season. I like it a lot but I just always tend to a narrower ski. I too skied the 1st gen Monster 98 but maybe only 30 days. Yes, the 88 is same ski, a bit stiffer, but a much more engaging carver, obviously.

As i said a couple posts up, when I was able to fondle a pair of 82 GT's I was amazed how stiff they were even if I expected it. The 86 has to be more just because it's the very same construction but thicker metal. And to your point: is that necessary?

I will find out eventually.

I have the 86GT (182 long) and it is stiff, but not ridiculously so. The 86GT feels stiffer on snow than a Laser AR (182) but softer than my old skis, Volkl Kendo (177). This refers to longitudinal stiffness (ie flexing the tip/tail). Torsionally, all are very stiff with great edge grip, but the shape of the Kendo (less camber, more rocker, rounder tail) makes the tail a bit easier to break loose.

I have no direct experience with the 82GT.

 

[FlimFlamvanHam]

I have the 86GT (182 long) and it is stiff, but not ridiculously so. The 86GT feels stiffer on snow than a Laser AR (182) but softer than my old skis, Volkl Kendo (177). This refers to longitudinal stiffness (ie flexing the tip/tail). Torsionally, all are very stiff with great edge grip, but the shape of the Kendo (less camber, more rocker, rounder tail) makes the tail a bit easier to break loose.

I have no direct experience with the 82GT.

@Seldomski, what year Kendo 177? Is it even possible to have the tail of the 86 budge when hand flexing it?

 

[Seldomski]

@Seldomski, what year Kendo 177? Is it even possible to have the tail of the 86 budge when hand flexing it?

Kendo is year 2017.

Yeah not sure about actually hand flexing the tail of the 86GT. It is pretty stout in hand, but I can't really hand flex the kendo tail either. I can definitely bend the 86GT ski when on snow, both the tip and tail. If you put the ski on the floor, roll it on edge and press the binding down, the whole ski flexes just fine. The tip is definitely more compliant than the tail.

There is a lot of metal in the 86GT, but the top sheet is cut into thin strips as you get into the tail/tip. So the ends are relatively compliant. I think that year kendo has a full sheet all the way to the tips.