The new Cirrus ski is a combination of Hagan's race ski know-how and a wider platform. 75mm in the waist with a 113mm rockered shovel, the Cirrus is significantly more tourable in soft snow than the X-Race. However with a 98mm tail and the same advanced structural materials, it is equally at home in difficult terrain where nimbleness is key. You will be able to execute both short and long turns with precision after "lugging" these up the mountain. A possible one ski quiver for light and fast ski mountaineering.
- Square tip profile with 250mm of rocker for soaking up powder and chop.
- Diamond Edge cap construction angles the topsheet like a diamond for maximum edge strength at minimum weight.
- Narrower in the waist and tail for consistent behavior in all conditions.
- Sidecut with a 17m turn radius makes the ski quick from edge to edge.
- Optional 100% mohair skins available.
Update 2015/16: Hagan updated the colors on the Professional series skis, otherwise they remain the same.
|Lengths (cm)||155, 163, 170, 177|
|Weight (pair)||1820g 
|Turn Radius||14-16m 
|Skin Fix||Tip notch, flat tail notch|
|Profile||Regular camber w/ 250mm tip rocker|
|Shape||Wider in the tip than tail for float and nimbleness|
|Construction||Diamond Edge cap|
|Skimo Co Says|
|Usage||Light and fast ski mountaineering|
|Notes||Race technology in a wider platform and rocker for tourability.|
|Bottom Line||Great race/touring crossover ski at a great price|
|Compare to other Low-fat Skis|
Questions & Reviews
Just a couple of questions:
1. Does new Hagan 100% Mohair skins match with 2014/15 163cm model? I've noticed you're saying that the only difference is color but just to be sure:)
2. I have a 65/35 Mix Volkl skins for my current setup and they soak water quite fast in wet snow we have now in PNW and I'm worried that pure mohair skins are gonna be even worse. If I'm right then could you, please, suggest a better skins for these skis for Spring-Summer long day tours.
These skis look sweet. I'm looking for a ski for big-vert days, overnight ski mountaineering trips, and perhaps entering some of the big destination style ski traverse races like the Elk Mountain Traverse. I am 5'11" and weigh 175. I usually ski a 175-182 in my resort telemark skis and I don't have experience with much else. I currently own a Voile Vector BC with Dynafit in 180cm length and they honestly would ski just as well five centimeters shorter but that wasn't an option.
What length would you recommend for this ski? I was thinking the 170, but would like to know more about the performance characteristics of 170 vs. 177. The terrain I would ski these on is equally mixed between tight trees and long, wide-open runs.
These climb like race skis and ski like 90 underfoot. They are the best skis I have owned. Even now that I have a pair of race skis (Hagan x-races) I would not hesitate to jump into a race with these. Similarly I do not hesitate to bring these out on an epic powder days. They are just that good.
I would say that they have a medium radius sidecut. In general my style favors short turns...If I am going to hike a few hours for untracked powder I want to make as many turns as possible. These ski's natural instinct is towards slightly longer, faster turns. However, without too much effort they will turn as much as often as I want and need. Otherwise, they simply haul. They are equally comfortable and maneurverable in tight rock-hard couloirs, wide open powder-runs, mogul fields, and groomers. They do well in just about every condition and at any speed.
These are the first rockered skis I have owned. The squared, rockered tip floats through and over conditions and obstacles with the relative ease of a much wider ski. This may be why these ski much "bigger" than they really are. The rocker does decrease the effective running length and edge/snow contact and this takes a bit getting used to. For these reasons the ski seems to ski wider and slightly shorter than you would expect. If you are good enough skier or are accustomed to a rocker it won't take long to find the right balance and sweet spot. Like any light weight ski, there is a bit more deflection compared to a heavy ski. But these skied so well, I was used to them after 1-2 runs. There was almost no learning curve. With any ski this light, your legs will be fresher and you will want to make more runs...also a true story.
I have put these through the ringer. Lots of rocks!! Other than some scratches, the base and edges have held up gloriously. I actually think the lack of mass has something to do with this. Rather than plowing into rocks, these tend to glance off.
As I get more accustomed to this new scene of racing and light-weight touring, I find that people are always comparing notes. These set-ups are expensive investments, and we can't try every ski and boot. I heard a guy say that he has one of the lightest pair of race skis...and they ski like the lightest pair of race skis (aka, not very well). If you are like me, you are probably comparing every combination of skis on the Skimo.co site and looking at all the weight/width ratios....likely late at night, after work, and much to the ire of your spouse/partner. There are probably skis with better "ratios." There may be skis which ski as well. But I doubt there are skis that ski much better or are as versatile. I cannot feel a huge difference in weight (just over 200gms) between these skis and my race skis when skinning. There is a difference, but not much. Similarly, I cannot feel a huge difference between these and my 100 under foot powder boards when blasting through bottom-less blower pow.. Sure, each ski will excel in the correct condition or situation. For light weight touring, racing, or ski mountaineering, when one needs and wants to be fast and light, and also needs to deal with any condition, these skis don't disappoint.
I've never skied anything quite like these before. I'm skiing the 163, with Speed Superlights and the DyNA PDG boot. They replaced a pair of 157cm Black Diamond Cult skis (98/68/??) with speed classics and TLT5Ms. The new setup is more than three pounds lighter, but more interestingly I think I crossed some sort of threshold. Skiing uphill, the weight on my feet doesn't seem to matter anymore, or hardly matters compared to the grade. Skinning is much more like hiking or running, and less like some odd weight machine workout.
But let's talk about the down. My first experiences were mostly at a large Southern Vermont ski resort. It took a while to get used to the lack of mass (as well as better-fitting boots). They felt slightly unpredictable the first few outings, but now feel totally solid on skied-out holiday-weekend New England man-made ice, as well as more pleasant surfaces. I even used them lift-served a few days (and yes, I rode the magic carpet with my six-year-old son with these skis).
The last two days were spent skiing powder at a former downhill area, which now offers only cross-country skiing. There was eight inches of powder on top of a mix of ice and brush. These skied the powder beautifully (who says skis have to be 100mm at the waist?). And they were just as good in the cut-up snow, or slicing through bushes, the post-holed skin-track, etc.
So I'm finding these to be very versatile and fun, as well as insanely light. They are already my go-to ski for everything. Time will tell if they earn that fifth star.
[Note I'm not a very good skier, and ski quite slowly. I'm 5'8" and around 150. And my all-time favorite ski was the old blue Atomic TM22]
Background on product familiarity: I was able to buy this 2014 ski toward the end of the 2013 season, so I already have 112,540' vertical in a variety of spring and summer snow conditions (including some off-snow abuse), mounted with Plum 165 bindings, driven by a mix of the Scarpa Alien 1.0 and Dynafit DyNA EVO (both size 26).
First, the first impressions out of the box: The sidecut depth is just the right compromise between carving ability versus soft snow versatility, and the sidecut tip > tail differential is another nice compromise between strong carving ability versus avoiding “hookiness” in potentially tricky snow. The tip has noticeable rocker / early rise, ending in an interesting shape that is both kind of squared off and angular, with a skin notch that has worked very well with Dynafit’s tip hardware. The tail is fairly flat, ending in a rounded notch that should work well with a variety of tail hardware, and has been fine with the very old school bent-over metal hook that I grafted onto some more modern skins.
Second impressions, in use: I don’t think that a ski can be any better than this at just barely over four pounds per pair and/or with a waist with in the 70s. (Previous skis that I have used with a waist width in the 70s include the Trab Duo Sint Aero, Hagan X-Ultra, and some of the many incarnations of the Atomic 9.22/R:9 design.) The Cirrus comes around very quickly for short-radius shorts, stays stable at speed in longer-radius turns, is agile for hop turns and various other low-speed maneuvers, and holds well on firm snow. The tip rocker / early rise greatly enhances the 75mm waist’s adaptability to softer snow, and even helps significantly in nasty summer suncups. Despite the effectively shorter running length from the tip rocker / early rise, the 163cm length felt just right for my 145 lbs, just like the low 160s usually do for me in spring/summer ski. (I usually go to 170cm +/- a few cm for winter snow.)
Third impressions, for long-term durability: I can’t pass judgment on that yet, but so far the skis still look great – topskins, edges, and bases – despite running over various hidden rocks and some desperate sidestepping over not-so-hidden rocks plus other non-snow surfaces. I did have to resort to helicoils when mounting. Might though have been my own fault or just bad luck – but either way, the mount is still totally solid, with no loose screws now.
-- Happy to report that I just mounted up a 2014-15 pair with no need for helicoils.
Earn store credit by writing reviews. Learn more.