After skiing more tiring raceier skis, GT feels almost too easy too ski, regardless of conditions on piste (frozen, groomed, spring slush and slush bumps) and there is always that - is it good enough, since it is not tiring ski, but at the end of the day the ski has improved my skiing, there is very small number of people faster on the mountain and it handles all conditions and turns whiteout to much fuss. And you can ski it pretty fast all day on all slopes.
Thanks for all the summer ski content! Great reviews as always. I was curious how these compare to the firebird hrc and thunderbird wb15. Thinking about turn initiation, energy out of the turn and sizing for a 5’11 205lb athletic guy. I’m a strong aggressive skier, and have no problem making it down any part of the mountain, but haven’t really ever spent anytime diving deep on carving and more race style technique. Looking for a ski to help me progress in that aspect of skiing that will hold my weight and aggressive style once I get the hang of it. Any help or thoughts would be much appreciated! Cheers
Hey Jason! I would say it's a closer comparison to the Thunderbird R15 WB than the HRC. The HRC has a stiffer, heavier build. It's really built like a race ski, just with a wider shape, shorter turn radius, etc. If you're specifically looking to progress in carving, I think either The Curv or the Thunderbird would be better choices. Both are still very high-end skis that will be supportive of your size, that you can ski aggressively on, and that you won't outgrow anytime soon. On the other hand, I do think they'll both be more supportive of progression. The HRC needs to be driven more than Curv or Thunderbird, and I think you'll benefit more from the other two skis. I absolutely love skiing both The Curv and the Thunderbird. Super fun, not too demanding, but a very high performance ceiling. They were both very supportive of Bob's size too, so should work just fine for you. For length, I think I would go 182 cm in either ski. You could size down one from there if you want a quicker turn, but you'll be trading some stability. Hope that helps!
Great review! Just wondering if the 182cm would be too long for instructing? I am 6’1 190 lbs just looking for a front side teaching ski that I can carve on. Thanks!
Maybe the 175 would be a better choice for your stats and application. They're sturdy skis for sure, so you don't need to size up in order to access performance.
Congrats you are definitely No1 on ski reviews! Skiing in Europe mostly groomed (it is hard to find powder :) but even piste in the afternoon sometimes look like off piste skiing. 50yrs old advanced skier, spent las few years on Head Magnum, at the moment making decision between CurvGT an Rossignol 86Ti. What would be your suggestion?
Thanks! We found the Rossignol to be considerably more versatile and all-mountain oriented. The Curv is awesome, but is limited to the piste while the Rossignol can function at a very high level both on and off-piste.
I would say yes, certainly damp enough. It's not the stiffest, hardest-charging ski in the world, but I think the vibration damping is quite good. Gives you an excellent connection to the snow.
Really interested in this ski as I am looking for something that can be driven hard but is also a bit forgiving in a long day or softer snow in the afternoon. I am 6´1 and 185 lbs but would prefer the 175 over the 182 for the shorter radius. Woukd I regret this? Also, is the version with the m/o plate a lot more demanding?
I think 175 is a bit better--I'm 6/2 and find the ski to be a bit long in the 182, especially if you're seeking a shorter arc. Yes, the non GT Curv is more demanding--thicker metal, denser wood, and narrower waist.
First of all thank you for all the great content you produce! I am 5'9 and 163 lbs. I am former ski instructor (lowest level) and have spend two full winters as a "ski bum". These days I mostly go skiing with the family. I have a pair of rustler 9 in 180. They are perfect all rounders for most stuff but I miss some more energy, stiffness and edge hold on piste especially on hard snow and Ice (when i get a chance to ski alone😂). So I look for an on piste ski for carving and figured that these curv gts could be a good choice. My question is about sizing. 168 or 175?
Great skis, and an awesome complement to the Rustler. I'd think the 168 would be better in that ski--you can definitely size down in these front side skis these days.
@SkiEssentials thank you for a speedy reply! I think I go with the 168 then. My favourite was actually the thunderbird (I guess in 175 since they are bit less ski than the curv) but they are sold out.
I bought the 175. Sizing is perfect. Awesome ski! So nice to be on a narrow ski ! I should mention that my conversion skills failed. I am 180 cm I.e 5 10.5
The width makes a little ungroomed just fine. It's not long ago that 76 mm underfoot was considered mid-fat, it's more that there are much better all-mountain skis out there, it just depends on where you spend most of your ski time.
Deacon feels more like a race ski, this feels more like a carving ski, not a race ski. It's extremely rewarding, but more approachable and more forgiving than something like the Deacon 72 Master. I find The Curv GT is impressively easy to ski.
After skiing more tiring raceier skis, GT feels almost too easy too ski, regardless of conditions on piste (frozen, groomed, spring slush and slush bumps) and there is always that - is it good enough, since it is not tiring ski, but at the end of the day the ski has improved my skiing, there is very small number of people faster on the mountain and it handles all conditions and turns whiteout to much fuss. And you can ski it pretty fast all day on all slopes.
Thanks for all the summer ski content! Great reviews as always. I was curious how these compare to the firebird hrc and thunderbird wb15. Thinking about turn initiation, energy out of the turn and sizing for a 5’11 205lb athletic guy. I’m a strong aggressive skier, and have no problem making it down any part of the mountain, but haven’t really ever spent anytime diving deep on carving and more race style technique. Looking for a ski to help me progress in that aspect of skiing that will hold my weight and aggressive style once I get the hang of it. Any help or thoughts would be much appreciated! Cheers
Hey Jason! I would say it's a closer comparison to the Thunderbird R15 WB than the HRC. The HRC has a stiffer, heavier build. It's really built like a race ski, just with a wider shape, shorter turn radius, etc. If you're specifically looking to progress in carving, I think either The Curv or the Thunderbird would be better choices. Both are still very high-end skis that will be supportive of your size, that you can ski aggressively on, and that you won't outgrow anytime soon. On the other hand, I do think they'll both be more supportive of progression. The HRC needs to be driven more than Curv or Thunderbird, and I think you'll benefit more from the other two skis. I absolutely love skiing both The Curv and the Thunderbird. Super fun, not too demanding, but a very high performance ceiling. They were both very supportive of Bob's size too, so should work just fine for you. For length, I think I would go 182 cm in either ski. You could size down one from there if you want a quicker turn, but you'll be trading some stability. Hope that helps!
@@SkiEssentials super helpful, thanks for the insights!
Thanks for the review, what size would you recommend for a 180cm advanced skier?
I'd go with the 175 in that ski. Very strong and stable, so I don't think there's a need to push it up to the 182. Have fun!
SE
Great review! Just wondering if the 182cm would be too long for instructing? I am 6’1 190 lbs just looking for a front side teaching ski that I can carve on. Thanks!
Maybe the 175 would be a better choice for your stats and application. They're sturdy skis for sure, so you don't need to size up in order to access performance.
Congrats you are definitely No1 on ski reviews! Skiing in Europe mostly groomed (it is hard to find powder :) but even piste in the afternoon sometimes look like off piste skiing. 50yrs old advanced skier, spent las few years on Head Magnum, at the moment making decision between CurvGT an Rossignol 86Ti. What would be your suggestion?
Thanks!
We found the Rossignol to be considerably more versatile and all-mountain oriented. The Curv is awesome, but is limited to the piste while the Rossignol can function at a very high level both on and off-piste.
Thanks for the review. Is it damp enough?
I would say yes, certainly damp enough. It's not the stiffest, hardest-charging ski in the world, but I think the vibration damping is quite good. Gives you an excellent connection to the snow.
Really interested in this ski as I am looking for something that can be driven hard but is also a bit forgiving in a long day or softer snow in the afternoon. I am 6´1 and 185 lbs but would prefer the 175 over the 182 for the shorter radius. Woukd I regret this?
Also, is the version with the m/o plate a lot more demanding?
I think 175 is a bit better--I'm 6/2 and find the ski to be a bit long in the 182, especially if you're seeking a shorter arc. Yes, the non GT Curv is more demanding--thicker metal, denser wood, and narrower waist.
First of all thank you for all the great content you produce! I am 5'9 and 163 lbs. I am former ski instructor (lowest level) and have spend two full winters as a "ski bum". These days I mostly go skiing with the family. I have a pair of rustler 9 in 180. They are perfect all rounders for most stuff but I miss some more energy, stiffness and edge hold on piste especially on hard snow and Ice (when i get a chance to ski alone😂). So I look for an on piste ski for carving and figured that these curv gts could be a good choice. My question is about sizing. 168 or 175?
Great skis, and an awesome complement to the Rustler. I'd think the 168 would be better in that ski--you can definitely size down in these front side skis these days.
@SkiEssentials thank you for a speedy reply! I think I go with the 168 then. My favourite was actually the thunderbird (I guess in 175 since they are bit less ski than the curv) but they are sold out.
I bought the 175. Sizing is perfect. Awesome ski! So nice to be on a narrow ski ! I should mention that my conversion skills failed. I am 180 cm I.e 5 10.5
So little ungromed terrain would be fine? Or just keep it groomed
The width makes a little ungroomed just fine. It's not long ago that 76 mm underfoot was considered mid-fat, it's more that there are much better all-mountain skis out there, it just depends on where you spend most of your ski time.
This or a 2023 Volkl Deacon 72 Master?
Deacon feels more like a race ski, this feels more like a carving ski, not a race ski. It's extremely rewarding, but more approachable and more forgiving than something like the Deacon 72 Master. I find The Curv GT is impressively easy to ski.