• For more information on how to avoid pop-up ads and still support SkiTalk click HERE.
Thread Starter
TS
Philpug

Philpug

Notorious P.U.G.
Admin
SkiTalk Tester
Joined
Nov 1, 2015
Posts
42,624
Location
Reno, eNVy

Noodler

Sir Turn-a-lot
Skier
Joined
Oct 4, 2017
Posts
6,314
Location
Denver, CO
I think the new Curv GT is a really nice improvement over the old one. I think the tip was too on/off on the old one. This ski has no vices.

So what exactly is different in the construction to pull that feat off? I will admit that the ski is so torsionally stiff that it can be quite the handful, but you just need to bring your A game. Do you see the new version as potentially being more all-mountain capable? I ask because the Curv GT really sits as a wide carver for me, whereas skis like the White Out, Stockli Laser AX, etc. of similar width will more readily gobble up other parts of the mountain without complaint.
 

Dougb

Out on the slopes
Skier
SkiTalk Supporter
Joined
Dec 31, 2019
Posts
1,104
Location
Alameda, California
Another ski that somehow wasn't on my radar. I've never skied Fischer but this ski, along with the 102 FR and 99ti, really intrigue me. Seems like the RC One GT 86 and one of those would make a good 2-ski Tahoe quiver.
 

Erik Timmerman

So much better than a pro
Instructor
Joined
Nov 12, 2015
Posts
6,304
So what exactly is different in the construction to pull that feat off? I will admit that the ski is so torsionally stiff that it can be quite the handful, but you just need to bring your A game. Do you see the new version as potentially being more all-mountain capable? I ask because the Curv GT really sits as a wide carver for me, whereas skis like the White Out, Stöckli Laser AX, etc. of similar width will more readily gobble up other parts of the mountain without complaint.

I gotta be honest here, I'm not really sure if the construction is different or not. I think it's mostly the shape that is different. I skied the AX right after the Curv GT and I didn't feel like it delivered anything that the Curv didn't. So yeah I definitely think it's more capable as something other than a carver.
 

ScottB

Making fresh tracks
Skier
SkiTalk Supporter
Joined
Oct 29, 2016
Posts
2,166
Location
Gloucester, MA
I looked up the 2018 Curv GT dimensions and they are the same as the Curv GT MT published numbers. There is a different weave/material (visual pattern) in the tip area. I suspect it is the tip construction that changed and it sounds like for the better.

I ski my Curv DTX twice a week for race team coaching and really liking it for small hills and lots of turns.
 
Thread Starter
TS
Philpug

Philpug

Notorious P.U.G.
Admin
SkiTalk Tester
Joined
Nov 1, 2015
Posts
42,624
Location
Reno, eNVy
Two 2022 tidbits....
  • The RC One GT 86 is just updated graphics. Cleaner and better, IMHO.
  • The new Curv GT is not the old Curv. The shape and profile is closer to the RC4 (CT/RC) skis than that elongated tip profile than the older model. Finish (base structure and smooth sidewalls) is on par with what you would expect from Fischer.
 

ScottB

Making fresh tracks
Skier
SkiTalk Supporter
Joined
Oct 29, 2016
Posts
2,166
Location
Gloucester, MA
I was looking on the Fischer website at the 2021 skis, I guess. There is a different weave in the tip on the 2021 Curve GT, at least visually. Are we talking about the 2021/2022 skis that aren't out yet and nothing published yet?
 
Thread Starter
TS
Philpug

Philpug

Notorious P.U.G.
Admin
SkiTalk Tester
Joined
Nov 1, 2015
Posts
42,624
Location
Reno, eNVy
Are we talking about the 2021/2022 skis that aren't out yet and nothing published yet?
Yes. Andy changes for next season will be cosmetic.
 

Pierreoj

In the parking lot (formerly "At the base lodge")
Skier
Joined
Aug 19, 2020
Posts
2
Location
Montreal
Hi,
The reviews are very nice for this ski. I am currently looking to replace my older Volkl Kendo and Nordica Firearrow 80 pro. Can the RC one 86 GT take the spot of one of these skis or maybe replace both ? For East Coast all mountain, groomers, ice, trees, bumps.

Thank you!
 
Thread Starter
TS
Philpug

Philpug

Notorious P.U.G.
Admin
SkiTalk Tester
Joined
Nov 1, 2015
Posts
42,624
Location
Reno, eNVy
Hi,
The reviews are very nice for this ski. I am currently looking to replace my older Völkl Kendo and Nordica Firearrow 80 pro. Can the RC one 86 GT take the spot of one of these skis or maybe replace both ? For East Coast all mountain, groomers, ice, trees, bumps.

Thank you!
Both of those skis were very traditional in shape and profile. The RC One is much relaxed of a ski in tip shape and profile and will be able to handle much more adverse conditions with ease. Nth degree hard snow porformance might take a slight hit but at the cost of being much better everywhere else.
 

Jersey Skier

aka RatherPlayThanWork or Gary
Skier
Joined
Jan 16, 2016
Posts
1,956
Location
Metuchen, NJ
Anyone play with the mounting position on these? I feel like they want to be controlled more towards the rear of my foot than the balls.
 

Noodler

Sir Turn-a-lot
Skier
Joined
Oct 4, 2017
Posts
6,314
Location
Denver, CO
Anyone play with the mounting position on these? I feel like they want to be controlled more towards the rear of my foot than the balls.

I could write a book about this issue, but here's the short version.

For many, many years I was a strong proponent for modifying your mount position to improve ski performance. There is no denying that changing the mount position will absolutely change how the ski will react, however, I now believe that many skiers actually are dealing with fore/aft stance alignment problems that they "fix" via changes in mount position. Changing mount position should be viewed as a workaround rather than solving the root problem; the alignment.

My reasoning is based on how a ski works when tipped on edge. When tipped, the ski will bend into an arc. The bending will continue until the ski's effective edge fully meets the snow. To bend the ski further, the skier would need to tip the ski over further. The apex of the ski's arc is where the ski's sidecut is narrowest. If you were to place a boot on the top surface of the ski while bent into this arc, it's nominal position should have the midsole of the boot aligned with the narrowest part of the ski. If you were to place the midsole further forward, the toe of the boot will be effectively "higher" than the heel (and vice versa).

So skiers should target having their boot midsole positioned directly over the narrowest point of the ski's waist. If skiing the ski shows less than desirable performance, small adjustments to the mount position can be used, but the skier should also experiment with changing their fore/aft alignment; primarily through the use of toe or heel shims to "rock" the boot forward or aft. There's a lot more to this, but this is the "short" version... ;)
 

Dougb

Out on the slopes
Skier
SkiTalk Supporter
Joined
Dec 31, 2019
Posts
1,104
Location
Alameda, California
Re-reading this thread I am really impressed that folks put this ski over the Laser AR and White Out.
 

Noodler

Sir Turn-a-lot
Skier
Joined
Oct 4, 2017
Posts
6,314
Location
Denver, CO
Re-reading this thread I am really impressed that folks put this ski over the Laser AR and White Out.

Honestly, we're talking about 3 of the very best skis available right now. At that point it's really about matching the skier, the skier's needs, and the ski. I wouldn't necessarily put one above the other in absolute terms until we're talking about what's the best match.
 

Dougb

Out on the slopes
Skier
SkiTalk Supporter
Joined
Dec 31, 2019
Posts
1,104
Location
Alameda, California
Honestly, we're talking about 3 of the very best skis available right now. At that point it's really about matching the skier, the skier's needs, and the ski. I wouldn't necessarily put one above the other in absolute terms until we're talking about what's the best match.

Got it, thanks. So speaking generally, what needs would you match each up for? Understanding every skier is different, of course. Obviously, each of these skis have considerable frontside chops.
 
Last edited:

Noodler

Sir Turn-a-lot
Skier
Joined
Oct 4, 2017
Posts
6,314
Location
Denver, CO
Got it, thanks. So speaking generally, what needs would you match each up for? Understanding every skier is different, of course.

Laser AR - targets the skier with a high skill level who values a traditional design in a wider ski with a race-like construction. Skiers who value a super smooth ride, with virtually no top-end limit.

White Out - targets a skier who likes a "turny" ski with versatility across all terrain, but doesn't require a wider ski as a substitute for skier skill. Rewards great skier inputs with high performance outputs, but doesn't punish a lesser skilled skier.

86 GT - provides a modern take on the all-mountain ski that can still rip groomers with aplomb without giving up much in up to a foot of fresh snow (due to a brilliant rocker profile). Pulls off the feat of providing a modern shape without losing full ski engagement at the top of the turn. Probably is the most accessible of the 3 for a larger variety of skiers.
 

GB_Ski

Out on the slopes
Skier
Joined
Jan 29, 2019
Posts
771
Location
NYC
Laser AR - targets the skier with a high skill level who values a traditional design in a wider ski with a race-like construction. Skiers who value a super smooth ride, with virtually no top-end limit.

White Out - targets a skier who likes a "turny" ski with versatility across all terrain, but doesn't require a wider ski as a substitute for skier skill. Rewards great skier inputs with high performance outputs, but doesn't punish a lesser skilled skier.

86 GT - provides a modern take on the all-mountain ski that can still rip groomers with aplomb without giving up much in up to a foot of fresh snow (due to a brilliant rocker profile). Pulls off the feat of providing a modern shape without losing full ski engagement at the top of the turn. Probably is the most accessible of the 3 for a larger variety of skiers.
I wish ski marketing materials are like this.
 

Dougb

Out on the slopes
Skier
SkiTalk Supporter
Joined
Dec 31, 2019
Posts
1,104
Location
Alameda, California
Laser AR - targets the skier with a high skill level who values a traditional design in a wider ski with a race-like construction. Skiers who value a super smooth ride, with virtually no top-end limit.

White Out - targets a skier who likes a "turny" ski with versatility across all terrain, but doesn't require a wider ski as a substitute for skier skill. Rewards great skier inputs with high performance outputs, but doesn't punish a lesser skilled skier.

86 GT - provides a modern take on the all-mountain ski that can still rip groomers with aplomb without giving up much in up to a foot of fresh snow (due to a brilliant rocker profile). Pulls off the feat of providing a modern shape without losing full ski engagement at the top of the turn. Probably is the most accessible of the 3 for a larger variety of skiers.

I agree with @GB_Ski. Thanks @Noodler! This is very helpful. FWIW, here are some tidbits from their marketing materials:

86 GT
Sidecut: 130/86/116 mm at 175 cm length
Radius: 17 meters at 175 cm
Weight: 2450 g per ski

Laser AR
Sidecut: 130/83/112 mm at 175 cm length
Radius: 16.5 meters at 175 cm length
Weight: 3.92 kg

White Out
Sidecut: 131/77/111 mm at 176 length
Radius: 15 meters at 176 cm length
Weight: ?
 

Jersey Skier

aka RatherPlayThanWork or Gary
Skier
Joined
Jan 16, 2016
Posts
1,956
Location
Metuchen, NJ
I could write a book about this issue, but here's the short version.

For many, many years I was a strong proponent for modifying your mount position to improve ski performance. There is no denying that changing the mount position will absolutely change how the ski will react, however, I now believe that many skiers actually are dealing with fore/aft stance alignment problems that they "fix" via changes in mount position. Changing mount position should be viewed as a workaround rather than solving the root problem; the alignment.

My reasoning is based on how a ski works when tipped on edge. When tipped, the ski will bend into an arc. The bending will continue until the ski's effective edge fully meets the snow. To bend the ski further, the skier would need to tip the ski over further. The apex of the ski's arc is where the ski's sidecut is narrowest. If you were to place a boot on the top surface of the ski while bent into this arc, it's nominal position should have the midsole of the boot aligned with the narrowest part of the ski. If you were to place the midsole further forward, the toe of the boot will be effectively "higher" than the heel (and vice versa).

So skiers should target having their boot midsole positioned directly over the narrowest point of the ski's waist. If skiing the ski shows less than desirable performance, small adjustments to the mount position can be used, but the skier should also experiment with changing their fore/aft alignment; primarily through the use of toe or heel shims to "rock" the boot forward or aft. There's a lot more to this, but this is the "short" version... ;)

Well I moved the bindings forward one click and that made it feel more betterer. There’s no doubt that I could use some alignment help, but I’m in boots from 2012. Not going to go nuts making changes now. Moving the bindings made it feel more like my AX78’s and my Motives. So right or wrong at least they are similar.
 

ski otter 2

Making fresh tracks
Skier
Joined
Nov 20, 2015
Posts
2,920
Location
Front Range, Colorado
Nice summaries, @Noodler.

There are so many variables in interaction between the skier and these top flight, front side biased skis. You can get approximations for yourself by reading, but only demoing (including mount point adjustments if that feels in order), with your particular boot, binding and ski, will actually dial into which ski fits you and at what resorts, under what conditions.

For me personally, as would be the case for many skiers, I'd add from my own perspective - what some others, but not all, might experience also:

Laser AR - (from two demos) fairly fixed in its race ski heritage, especially in its locked in 2D carve, in spite of how wide it is, with pros and cons to this. Great for a really smooth carver, someone who relaxes in contained, smooth, fully carved turns.

So I'd like to have a ski that's either less locked in that way, more versatile, or a ski that is even more dialed in to holding a race-ski like carve while retaining some versatility also (with Stockli, for example, the WRT-ST 172; or like the Rossi Hero Elite Plus Ti 174/r.14, 130/78/110, which is 78 wide, relatively heavy like a race ski, a ski I think you might like, @Noodler).

Blossom Whiteout 176 - (from owning) This is a very relaxing, playful carver, great for someone who appreciates a relaxing day of forgiving but full on carving.
Two things, both covered more generally by @Noodler above:
1. The dynamics of the Whiteout (the way its tip works, in particular) are such that it is more a 3D ski when that's called for, than one might imagine; not a locked in carver in such cases, in many off piste and soft snow situations. It is very good in powder/crud bumps and chopped up snow up to at least 6-8", as well as covering most of the bases for a groomer ski.
2. The Whiteout really is a "cheater" ski for doing body separation skiing, with the upper body relatively still/motionless in the fall line, while the lower body carves up a storm with fall line turns, even very high angle ones. One could use this ski for learning such turns on groomers. Part of this is that the Whiteout is not as locked into its carve, but still holds a carve effortlessly, forgivingly - wonderful arc, to me. Just a giant treat to ski.

Fischer RC One GT 86/175, 182 - (from owning 182, demoing 175) This ski works for a skier who wants great stability, at either short to medium turns (175), or medium to GS ones (182). Hard to describe what this ski does, unusual but good - "modern" works for me. It's different but great with its Multiflex radii, that's for sure. The 175 and 182 are very different from each other: The 175 is easier; more smooth turny, good for more powder stability, as a near slalom sort of narrow ski can be. The 182 is more full on GS like, very stable that way, good for less powder than the 175, to me, the way a GS ski can be more exacting: requiring being square to the ski direction, you might say, with it's tip plowing through way more than floating.
I'm tempted to own both skis.

☻ Final note: the Rossignol Hero Elite Plus Ti 174/r.14, 130/78/110 (from owning) sort of fits in this category also, and it retains the incredible even flex smoothness of the top of the heap tech race ski Rossis, in particular the 165 FIS SL Rossi race skis (from owning also; but never been on the Rossi FIS GS), while being forgiving all around for frontside bias recreational use. This ski comes with a 1/1 factory tune, which is great for at least 6-8" of light powder. At 1/2 it's great for recreational skiing, including some all mountain. At 1/3 it would be easier and more natural to lay over at near race angles. And it's versatile. Such a natural, smooth, even turn. I think this ski may have the most natural turn I've ever been on.
 
Last edited:

Sponsor

Top