If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Suitability of new carving skis? Atomic C-9 -v- Rossignol Passion -v-Head Intelligence C160
I've just bought a pair of skis and am having a few doubts, first as
to suitability, second as to size. I guess I'm an intermediate level ( Snow & Rock's classification 5-6 ) on-piste skier in crowded European ski resorts, skiing 1 week annually and a total of about 15 weeks. I like skillful turning rather than high speed. I'm out to enjoy myself, not wipe-out. I've always used hire skis. I'm 163cm tall and weight 66kg. I short-listed Atomic C9 160cm as a suitable carving ski for me. Instead I bought Rossignol Passion Classic women's (112-69-95) 154cm 2006-07 model. But I 'm also interested in Head Intelligence C160 156cm which had good reviews and have been offered it pre-owned so to speak. Any advice about the skis appreciated, especially from anyone who has tried them. |
Ads |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Suitability of new carving skis? Atomic C-9 -v- Rossignol Passion-v- Head Intelligence C160
catto wrote:
...I'm an intermediate level on-piste skier I'm 163cm tall and weight 66kg. Lucky for you Horvath doesn't understand the metric system. I short-listed Atomic C9 160cm as a suitable carving ski for me. Instead I bought Rossignol Passion Classic women's (112-69-95) 154cm 2006-07 model. But I 'm also interested in Head Intelligence C160 156cm which had good reviews and have been offered it pre-owned so to speak. Any advice about the skis appreciated, especially from anyone who has tried them. I've skied both the Atomic C9 and the Head iC160. They're pretty similar: an all around amiable ski for usage on groomed snow. Pretty forgiving, easy to ski, yet with excellent edge hold and a decent level of performance if you ask them for it. You're not going to win any Masters events them, and you should look elsewhere if you want to go at mach 9 or spend much time off-piste, but for the intermediate to advanced skier who mostly stays on the groomed, either will be fine. The standard advice is try before you buy, but if I had to pick a ski for someone to buy without trying first, I'd go with the C9 - everybody I've talked to who's tried them (or their predecessor, the 9-18) liked them, even if it wasn't their favorite. The Head iC160 is similar enough that it might qualify too. There are other skis out there that people either love or hate, these aren't in that category. I've never heard of the Rossignol Passion Classic, much less skied on them. You're on your own there. If the pre-owned Head's are from a friend, see if you can borrow them for a day and see for yourself. You'll need to have the bindings adjusted to your boots, but any ski shop can usually do that in a matter of minutes. //Walt |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Suitability of new carving skis? Atomic C-9 -v- Rossignol Passion -v- Head Intelligence C160
On Wed, 30 Jan 2008 16:52:51 -0500, Walt
wrote this crap: catto wrote: ...I'm an intermediate level on-piste skier I'm 163cm tall and weight 66kg. Lucky for you Horvath doesn't understand the metric system. Of course I do. I'm an engineer, with a degree from MIT. I just don't have a way to calculate metric into normal. Oh, wait... this is a computer. He's just too short for his weight. My T-shirt says, "This shirt is the ultimate power in the universe." |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Suitability of new carving skis? Atomic C-9 -v- Rossignol Passion-v- Head Intelligence C160
Harry Weiner wrote:
Walt wrote this crap: catto wrote: I'm 163cm tall and weight 66kg. Lucky for you Horvath doesn't understand the metric system. Of course I do. I'm an engineer, with a degree from MIT. I just don't have a way to calculate metric into normal. Oh, c'mon. Anybody who went to MIT knows that 1 cm == .005876 Smoots. And anybody who hacked their way through Engineering 101 could calculate in their head that the OP is 0.9578 Smoots tall. Didya take Physics for Poets or what? //Walt |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Suitability of new carving skis? Atomic C-9 -v- Rossignol Passion-v- Head Intelligence C160
Harry Weiner wrote:
Of course I do. I'm an engineer, with a degree from MIT. I just don't have a way to calculate metric into normal. Oh, wait... this is a computer. google for it: 163 cm in inch gives: 64.1732283 inch it is very often quite handy ... A. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Suitability of new carving skis? Atomic C-9 -v- Rossignol Passion-v- Head Intelligence C160
Walt wrote:
similar: an all around amiable ski for usage on groomed snow. Pretty forgiving, easy to ski, yet with excellent edge hold and a decent level of performance if you ask them for it. how do you define 'forgiving', any example of situation where skis are easy or hard. A. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Suitability of new carving skis? Atomic C-9 -v- Rossignol Passion -v- Head Intelligence C160
On Wed, 30 Jan 2008 23:38:45 -0500, Walt wrote
this crap: Harry Weiner wrote: Walt wrote this crap: catto wrote: I'm 163cm tall and weight 66kg. Lucky for you Horvath doesn't understand the metric system. Of course I do. I'm an engineer, with a degree from MIT. I just don't have a way to calculate metric into normal. Oh, c'mon. Anybody who went to MIT knows that 1 cm == .005876 Smoots. What is that in cubits? And anybody who hacked their way through Engineering 101 could calculate in their head that the OP is 0.9578 Smoots tall. What is that in cubits? Didya take Physics for Poets or what? I didn't go to MIT. I got a degree from Phoenix, on the internet. My T-shirt says, "This shirt is the ultimate power in the universe." |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Suitability of new carving skis? Atomic C-9 -v- Rossignol Passion-v- Head Intelligence C160
alf wrote:
Walt wrote: similar: an all around amiable ski for usage on groomed snow. Pretty forgiving, easy to ski, yet with excellent edge hold and a decent level of performance if you ask them for it. how do you define 'forgiving', any example of situation where skis are easy or hard. Mostly it has to do with flex. In very broad terms, a beginner ski will bend very easily, meaning you don't have to pressure it very hard or be going very fast to get it to bend and turn. The downside of this is that when you try to go fast on it the forces are so high that it bends too much or in an unpredictable way, becoming "squirrelly". At the other end of the spectrum, "expert" or "racing" skis are designed to be skied at high speeds and are built to maintain their flex characteristics at higher forces. This means you have to pressure them harder to bend and turn, and some won't bend at all until you're going fairly fast. You have to "work" them harder to ski, and if you don't use proper technique they'll misbehave. (e.g. if you let your center of gravity move towards the back of the skis, they'll run away from you.) Most of us want something in the middle, i.e. a ski that makes the appropriate compromise between forgiveness and stability at speed. There's more to it than just stiffness of course. //Walt |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Suitability of new carving skis? Atomic C-9 -v- Rossignol Passion-v- Head Intelligence C160
Thanks for the informative reply Walt.
I've decided that this season I'll try the Rossignol Passion Classic that I'd already bought as the Head skis found another home. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Atomic Metron 9 or Rossignol Z5 | Douglas Hager | Alpine Skiing | 0 | February 11th 07 06:30 PM |
Head Intelligence i.CT board | wanguard | Snowboarding | 3 | December 28th 05 02:04 PM |
Rossignol Delta skate v. Atomic RS10 v. Fischer SCS | nnn | Nordic Skiing | 1 | February 23rd 05 02:54 AM |
How does Head intelligence work? | David D. | Alpine Skiing | 6 | February 12th 04 09:51 PM |
Head Skis | lee | Alpine Skiing (moderated) | 1 | September 30th 03 08:25 PM |