Head XRC 1400 in expanded reviews or only 1100s

Post your questions/comments about Gear here

Head XRC 1400 in expanded reviews or only 1100s

Postby rick_deckard » Tue Jan 10, 2006 4:35 pm

Simple question: are the skis in the expanded reviews (subscriber) the same as in the capsule reviews, or are there more skis as well as longer reviews?

In particular, I'm interested in comparing the Head XRC 1100 and XRC 1400. The XRC 1100 is in the capsule reviews, but not the 1400. Considering the $$$ involved in the purchase, I'd happily pay the $20 to subscribe if they're both in there, but probably won't use the subscriber resources much, so I'd prefer not to unless both skis are reviewed.

Alternatively or in addition, as the case may be, any comments are welcome. I've searched and read the threads on the 1100s, 1200s, and 1400s as best I can. I gather that

- 1200 is more of a GS feel
- 1100 is more versatile
- 1400 is ?????

Basically, I used to race, but for many years now have been mostly skiing backcountry. I'm still real fit in general as you might expect from a backcountry skier, though I do not have the power in my legs I had when I trained and skied like crazy. Other than being the pacesetter for the local NASTAR, have no real interest in racing these days and don't want a true race ski, but I do still like that style of skiing - fast runs on hard groomers.

This year I want a nice new lift-served ski and have a pipeline to deals on Rossignol and Head. I used to race on Rossis, but I'm thinking of trying Heads and I tried a pair of XRC 1100s the other day and they seemed decent.

Realistically, on big powder days, I'll be in the backcountry on my AT skis, so I'm looking for something that cuts a mean carve on groomers, but isn't too bad for a foray into the crud and occasional bump run. My backcountry skis are not at all stable at speed, so that's one thing I definitely want from a ski.

Thanks
rick_deckard
 
Posts: 4
Joined: Tue Jan 10, 2006 4:13 pm

Postby RadRab » Wed Jan 11, 2006 4:59 am

Bs"D

I haven't skied them myself yet, but according to what everybody else who has is saying, the skis you are looking for are either:

Head im77 (leaning a bit more on piste than off)
Head im82 (not available yet, but could be the perfect mix)
Head im88. (leaning more off than on, but maybe more stable than 77)
RadRab
 

Postby rick_deckard » Wed Jan 11, 2006 10:35 am

Hmm... okay. I haven't looked at those and certainly haven't skied them. I'll have to do some more research. Thanks for the tip.
rick_deckard
 
Posts: 4
Joined: Tue Jan 10, 2006 4:13 pm

Postby Max_501 » Wed Jan 11, 2006 10:40 am

Throw the Head SuperShape into the mix as well if you enjoy an SL turn shape.
User avatar
Max_501
 
Posts: 4124
Joined: Thu Mar 10, 2005 7:39 pm

Reviews are the same, almost ALL skis

Postby Jim Ratliff » Wed Jan 11, 2006 4:17 pm

The review format is the same, but subscribers have access to many more reviews, virtually all skis (excluding rental fleet stuff) for the current year as well as everthing for the past 5 years.

The past year reviews are especially valuable if you are an eBay or local deal shopper, because many times great skis from past years are still great skis.
Jim Ratliff
 
Posts: 40
Joined: Fri Oct 21, 2005 7:37 pm
Location: Virginia

Postby rick_deckard » Mon Jan 16, 2006 2:36 pm

Thansk Jim. That's definitely useful because in fact when I shop for ski deals, not being able to get past reviews is a problem. In this case, it's a pro deal situation at my ski school, so I'll probably just get the 05/06 skis because the price is right.

On Saturday I was able to demo four different skis. Unfortunately, the reason I had time to try so many skis is that there were very few lessons to teach because it was snowing like mad. It started snowing at about 4:00am and we had a foot by 9:00 and got another 6" or so by the time the lifts got closed down in the afternoon because we had a full-on thunder and lightning storm going that knocked out power in the whole region.

This mean that I was testing them in powder, crud and very soft packed powder, whereas I'm looking for a ski that will be great on hard-pack, but FWIW, here are my impressions.

Skis in order of testing:
- my usual K2 Ascent 8611s, 170cm (these are AT skis).
- XRC 1400, 163cm
- Supershape, 170cm
- Monster i.m. 70, 170cm
- XRC 1100, 170cm
- XRC 1400, 163 cm (second round with these).

Me: 5'6" (170cm), 145 lbs, 42 years old, in good shape (will hike up to 50 miles in a day during the summers), but not nearly as good shape as when I did race training and skied hard lots of days a year.

XRC 1400, round 1
On my first test it was hard to tell much since I couldn't find anything groomed and the new snow was real heavy, but still deep. I did find some groomed, but didn't get a good impression of the 1400s except that 163cm seemed awfully short.

Supershape
At least in the conditions I was in, I didn't like this ski at all. Despite the radical shape and perhaps because of the wide shovel, it felt like it took a long time to get it up on edge. Once there it would lay a nice arc and perhaps in firmer conditions where I could have really cranked on it without getting boot-out, it might have been better, but if felt very unresponsive to me.

i.m. 70
This was a nice, easy ski to handle, but it was sort of like an American car - smooth ride but ho hum. They'll hold an edge, they'll skid, they'll plow through crud and they probably do fine on hardpack, but I just couldn't get excited. I had to look down to make sure I wasn't still in my AT skis and I don't see any point in getting a pair of alpine skis that feel like AT skis (I'm sure at high speed on icy slopes they would be far superior to the K2s, but I couldn't try that).

XRC 1100
Now I felt like I was getting somewhere. These skis were fun and responsive and I was blasting around everywhere and finally really enjoying myself. Still, they didn't quite have that kick back at you feel that you might get from a race ski as you finish a turn.

XRC 1400, round II
Since things had gotten packed out a lot during the previous runs, I decided to try these again. These are skis that have more of a race feel. They want to be on edge and they want you to pay attention. Lazy skiers do not apply. On the other hand, with a little love, they repay with an exciting ride that feels like it springs you out of the turns. They want to get up on edge fast and swing you right around. Just real fun to ride and a big contrast from the Monsters or my K2 AT skis.

I could have actually take the demo pair, all mounted and everything with demo bindings, but I still felt that the 163cm was too short, and yet there was enough difference between these and the 1100s that I didn't want the 1100s even though there was a 170cm demo pair.

Fun day and the rep actually left the 1400s there for me to try again in better conditions if I want, so if we get some freeze thaw and a bit of ice, I'll maybe do round III, but I think I'm pretty sold on the 1400s. I wish I could try a 170cm, but I'm pretty certain that's what I'm after.

I'll probably pair them with the Tyrolia Freeflex 14 and I'm still looking into whether or not I need a plate on top of that (I think the Freeflex is fairly high off the ski without a plate, but have to do a bit more research).
rick_deckard
 
Posts: 4
Joined: Tue Jan 10, 2006 4:13 pm

Head XRC's

Postby Jim Ratliff » Mon Jan 16, 2006 9:47 pm

Rick:

You may also want to demo the XRC 1200. The 1200 is actually the higher end ski than the 1400 (laminate construction, more race like feel if that is what you are looking for). The 1400 is the Chip ski and will feel a little more damp. You may also want to look at the i.SL w/wo Chip. The non-chip will be a more demanding, race like ski. The i.SL chip is damp, but does lots of things very well.

Also, once you find which you like, the skis are little changed for the past couple of year other than numbering (the 1400 was the XRC1100 chip, the 1200 was the XRC1100 RD).

Head seems to mount the Carve Plate 13 on many of their slalom skis, seems to be about the same lift as the Railflex plate (which I really like because of the adjustability and flexibility).
Jim Ratliff
 
Posts: 40
Joined: Fri Oct 21, 2005 7:37 pm
Location: Virginia

Postby rick_deckard » Tue Jan 17, 2006 10:23 am

Thanks again Jim.

No, I'm not really looking for a race ski, but I was disappointed with just how damped out the Monsters were. I think the 1400 is a good balance. It's lively and fun but still gives a pretty smooth ride, has a nice tight arc but not crazy slalom tight.

The rep doesn't actually have a pair of 1200s handy to demo, but looking at the stats online, it looks like it's a longer arc than the 1400 and 1100 (which have the same geometry).

Thanks for the advice on the plate.
rick_deckard
 
Posts: 4
Joined: Tue Jan 10, 2006 4:13 pm


Return to Gear

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 13 guests

cron