Ask a new question about this model (will popup in separate window.)
I AM 6 FOOT 240 LB HAVE BEEN INSTRUCTOR AND PATROLER AND STILL PATROL IN WESTERN PA , DO SOME REC RACING GS AND SL IS THIS A GOOD FIT AND IF SO HOW LONG OR SHOT OF A SKI WOULD BE A GOOD FIT
ON A 184CM GS RIGHT NOW BY K2
-TODD March 03, 2010 7:52PM If your looking for a big burly GS ski blened with an all mountain charger, this is definitally a ski worth considering. Our charts put you at a recommended ski lenght of 177, but with the weight and sheer beefyness of this ski, it would be a good size for you. Grip and and Rip it!
-Sam March 04, 2010 2:14PM Enter follow up to this question
I have head chip XRC 1400's at 170 cm. I have reversed the camber on them in the 4 years I have owned them. I am 6' tall and 175lbs. I love fast with short tight turns. I ski the crud and ice of Wisconsin always fast. Would this be a ski for me?
-DW 46 February 17, 2010 12:19PM The Big Heat would be a great choice for you! Tear it up!
-Alex February 17, 2010 12:37PM Enter follow up to this question
Just wondering which ski you recommend between these Fischer's and the Atomic 11's. I'm an advanced skier but at 6'5" and 280 lbs I like a sturdy ski. I ski mainly in eastern US on groomed trails. Any suggestions?
-Ryan February 16, 2010 3:48PM Both choices would be great for the terrain your are skiiing. It's difficult to recommend one over the other as both are such great skis.. You have a difficult decision ahead.
-Alex February 17, 2010 9:09AM Enter follow up to this question
Hello, I am 6'2" 140lbs skier. I am currently on 174cm k2's which I have topped out on. I have the need for speed in my blood and currently run over 50mph on my runs, straight and fast as I can on these. I am looking for a faster ski and am wondering if these skis are for me? I understand they are much more to control at slow speeds, but, I am never cruising around slow at all, always as fast as I can. The conditions where I ski in NY range from very icy, to sometimes slushy and choppy. I want to break my speeds but am topped out!!
-Joshua L. February 14, 2010 6:42PM The Atomic Drive 11 would be a much better choice for your conditions. he Heat can handle speed for sure but would not be much fin on ice.
-Rich (L9 owner) February 14, 2010 6:46PM Enter follow up to this question
I'm a large skier 6'2", 235 lbs who is old 46 but still loves to fly. I live in Maine but have spent several winters out west working at various resorts (vail, snowbird, squaw). I'm looking at this fischer and the atomic drive 11. It seems that the drive 11 will handle ice better but the fischer would be a better choice for all conditions. I'm wondering what you would choose if you were going to have just the one pair of skis here in the east. Right now being the dinosaur that I am, I'm skiing on 203 atomic beta races.
-brian February 11, 2010 4:35PM I would go with the Big Heat..... Perfect ski for eastern terrain. And it does FLY!
-Alex February 12, 2010 8:49AM Enter follow up to this question
First - off, I want these skis because they look hairy. But now to be realistic, I am ex-racer I will not ski anything smaller than 174 no matter how well they ski - it took me all ot the 1980"s to get up to 205 cm I just can't do the lilliputian ski thing.
Ski east coast ice mostly with the occasional groomed hard pack. I ski fast but I do like to do the Stein Erickson no light through legs quick turns when the ladies are watching.
I know I should by the Head Monster 181 cm you have on sale ... tell me I am wrong and why I need to buy these Fischer RX big Heats!
-Sturgeon February 10, 2010 12:42PM YOU need the big heats to be the fastest skier on the mtn.. when you venture to deer valley, ski patrol should be chasing you around all day long and never catch you because you are the fastest, faster than even their radios....
both are great choices...but only the heats will make you FAST!
-Alex February 10, 2010 2:44PM Enter follow up to this question
Hello like everyone else I'm wondering if this ski is a good match. 6' tall 168 lbs ex-instructor. I ski the west primarily mammoth or UT. Fairly aggressive skiier ~2/3 black~1/3 double black 2/3 trail 1/3 off not crazy bump guy.
-Joe February 07, 2010 11:01AM Your gonna dig them.....but you will have to ski them aggressively...
-Alex February 08, 2010 4:06PM Enter follow up to this question
I am 6'3" weigh in at @250lbs and am a very aggressive skiier. I have skiied Utah,Colorado but have now landed in upstate Ny. I ski hard and fast and after reading about these boards I find myself interested..What do you think? THanks for your help.. Bill
-Billlmx February 01, 2010 1:12PM Perfect ski for your style of skiing and the conditions in NY.. DO IT!
-Alex February 01, 2010 4:50PM Enter follow up to this question
Hi im 5'7" 170 pounds and am looking for that fischer big heat but i can only see you hawe 184 cms sizes do you hawe 168cms?
-mike January 09, 2010 7:54AM We currently have the 174s which you should see in the other sizes above by the title. We never had the 168s. This is a big beefy ski so I would agree that 168 in this ski may be ideal. Our inventory is ever changing, but the ski that is most similar and a better size for you that we have right now is the 2010 John 166cm freakin awesome.. the price is higher but make sure to check out the binding options they are basically free.
-Rich (L9 owner) January 09, 2010 10:03PM Enter follow up to this question
Hi, I'm a advanced skier from NW, age 40, 6-1, 170#. Currently skiing on Head Monster 77 (bought from you guys). I am doing great with the skis on every condition except deeper (>5-6 inches) powder. I want an all-mountain ski with better powder performance. What is your suggestion?
-Dan December 22, 2009 10:28PM More powder = need a fatter ski.. especially that wet NW "powder". The Heat is great if you are expert. If you are merely advanced the mojo 90,sweet fat thang, hazmat are all good choices
-Rich (L9 owner) December 22, 2009 11:51PM Enter follow up to this question
I am a 19 year old, 5'10", 135 pounder who skis mostly on a smaller groomed hill but likes to ski fast and hard. I want a ski that will work as a giant slalom that I can put all I have into when I don't want to ski on my Head worldcup isl 156cm. Would this ski work or should I look for something different?
-Manny December 14, 2009 1:37PM This is probably too much ski for you (no offense). It is very unforgiving and its wider almost like a powder ski. It takes a lot of effort to get it up on edge and its even more work when you are riding at slower speeds or through technical terrain. It does have a giant slalom sidecut, but its probably not the best match for you right now. Check out the Head Monster 77 and 72's, as they are still advanced level skis, but a lot easier to handle.
-Jon (L9 manager) December 14, 2009 2:14PM Enter follow up to this question
I skied the Volkl ac50 last year in a 177cm. It was incredible! It also goes fast, yet it is nimble at moderate speeds. You seem to indicate that the Fischer Big heat can't duplicate that. I'd like to get the Fischer based on the price difference- but if it's a dog at moderate speeds- I hesitate. Why would the Volkl be so much better on a tight run that requires quicker, slower turns?
-jim December 03, 2009 9:57AM That ski is not as wide and probably not as stiff as the Big Heat. So either it is inferior in wham bam crud and powder conditions to the Big Heat or you are such a beast that you could slalom these too... Hey Bodie could.
-Rich (L9 owner) December 03, 2009 2:21PM Enter follow up to this question
I'm 50 yrs young level 3 CSIA instructor 175lbs ski everything steep,deep and packed what do you think?
-Ron December 01, 2009 11:36PM IF you ski fast bombs away on them. Obviously you have the skill.. just a matter if you have the desire.
-Rich (L9 owner) December 02, 2009 12:41AM Enter follow up to this question
I am 41 years old, 6'4" 242lbs, been skiing for over 20 years, would say advance skier +. Can still out run friends. Ski mainly NC and WV areas, more hard pack to some groom with some ice conditions, normal east conditions I guess. I still like speed but needs to slow down, LOL. Most of our runs are no more than 1.5 miles long. Some trails are tight, might go out west to Utah and Col. once a year. Wondering if these are good skies for me. I run on Fisher 193 they are about 12 years old now.
Thanks for any input.
-Daniel Beseth November 27, 2009 11:58AM NO, I do not think these are a good choice for you. Your old fischer 193cm skis probably have about 50% less surface area and these Big Heats. This is a big stiff mean ski that must be skied at top speeds preferrably in powder or deep slush. If you are looking for a ski that can still handle your aggression but is a little better suited towards your terrain and snow conditions but still be good out west, the Monster 77 in 181cm would be my suggestion.
-Rich (L9 owner) November 28, 2009 8:49AM Enter follow up to this question
I saw these skis at a local ski show. Wondering if they are acceptable for me. I am 41 years old, 6'3" and 250lbs. I am an advanced/ expert skier and have been skiing for 30 years. I live in eastern Canada and ski mosty New York, Vermont and Quebec. I like steeps and speed. Loose snow if and when I can find it. Current quiver includes Nordica Dobermann GSR and Dynastar SkiCross 10.
Please advise.
Thanks
-Andrew October 26, 2009 11:24AM THis ski sounds like a good match for you. If you really push the limits of speed and your ability, then stick with the 184cm. If you want to get more casual with your skiing, you can size down. There aren't a lot of really good match ups between skiers and this ski, but I think you are one of the few.
-Jon (L9 manager) October 26, 2009 11:25PM Enter follow up to this question
I am 48 year old pro-patroler 200lbs. currently skiing on 193 monster 85's, 188 mantras, 188 nordica 40, 188 coomba, how will the fischers compare to what i have, and are they too much for me.
-T. F. October 11, 2009 5:27PM Some of those are pretty big skis.. if you handle 193cm monster 85s and Mantra 188s then I think you'll be able to handle the Big Heats well enough. As far as comparables, the Big Heats are as beefy as anything out there. You've been skiing some big beefy skis though so you should expect something similar, maybe more versatile than the Mantras and more powerful than the 85s.. something in betweenish.
-Rich (L9 owner) October 11, 2009 6:30PM Enter follow up to this question
i'm 245lb 40 yr old expert- ex patroller- are these going to crew thru the crap and flow thru the groomer while
i chase my kids- which bindings would match
- October 01, 2009 8:28PM They definitely power through the crud and chopped up snow, and are just as good on groomed runs. The ski is a lot to handle at slower speeds, as it really was designed with advanced to experts with a liking for speed in mind. The ski comes with the Fisher Z13 bindings (made by Tyrolia) included in the price, so you don't need to figure out which binding to pick.
-Jon (L9 manager) October 02, 2009 10:08AM Enter follow up to this question
How heavy in pounds are the skis?
-Jay September 03, 2009 9:30AM The 174cm length is about 12.5 pounds per pair, without bindings. Yes, they are pretty substantial.
-L9 cs team September 03, 2009 9:30AM Enter follow up to this question
I am 65 years old and am very interested in this ski. I ski in New England primarily. Lots os hard pack and ice. I am an aggressive skiier and are very fit for my age. I ski on the mountain...very infrequently off trail.
I am 6'1" and 195.
Is this too much ski for me ???
Pls adv...thx
Dennis
-Dennis Wolz August 26, 2009 8:04AM Wow, glad to hear you are still ripping it up. I think the ski is probably a bit too much for you, but mostly I think the ski is too much for your conditions, this ski can be skied on eastern hardpack only by the best of the best. I recommend the still able to rip it up Monster 72 in 170cm for you. You can go with the 177cm also if you are used to longer skis.
-L9 cs team August 26, 2009 8:04AM i am 53 nh 6 -1 205 still a speed junkie on skis looking for a ski that can fly but still be manegable at slower speeds is this for me
-john August 27, 2009 10:49PM These are not really designed for slower speeds, unless you mean powder at slow speeds in which they are still ok. If you like to ski in deep powder at top speeds then I think these are a great choice anyway (there is no ski that is good in powder at high speeds and also good on groomed runs at slow speeds.) Im not exactly sure what terrain you are looking to ski in, if you want to email me at rich@levelninesports.com, I would be happy to give you some ski suggestions, just let me know what kind of terrain you ski.
-Rich (L9 owner) August 27, 2009 10:54PM don't let my spanish name fool you, I'm an expert skier. Well actually I've been skiing for 4 years and my spanish friends think I'm a legend. Do you think this ski is for me, I want to ski fast, in the rocks, powder and crud. I don't want a ski with a short turning radius, tell me what do you think? Oh yeah five 7" 157 lbs looking at the 174 cm ski.
-Miguel January 15, 2010 11:00PM You want to ski fast in the rocks? If you are an expert skier looking for powder/crud then yes this is a great choice.
-Rich (L9 owner) January 16, 2010 3:15PM Enter follow up to this question
| 
Levelninesports.com
