Fish grow bigger when they eat other fish. X-Fish grow bigger when Movement bows to the demands of addicted skiers who want even more. The “race plus” line of skis from Movement might someday have the biggest Fish in the sea. For now, we are psyched to have an even more versatile tool in our arsenal. Expanding the waist of the highly-acclaimed (and highly useful) Gold Fish, the Big Fish will leave no snow un-skied. With slightly more waist and slightly more rocker, the ski may be slightly more addictive. The advanced carbon fiber wrapping process of the X-series make the lightweight ski rigid enough for the most demanding ski mountaineers. With a host of lengths to choose from, everyone is bound to catch a Big Fish-X that is right for them.
- Generous 77mm waist makes the Big Fish Movement’s first oversized alpinist ski.
- Ultralight Karuba wood core is wrapped with carbon fiber using the North TPT process.
- Additional unidirectional and tri-axial layers of carbon make the ski an elite performer.
- 1.8mm of steel edges do not short change you when it comes to durability and tuning.
- P-Tex 5000 bases are some of the hardest available, ready to take on the mountain.
|Lengths (cm)||152, 160, 168, 174|
|Weight (pair)||1660g 
|Turn Radius||17m 
|Skin Fix||Race (fish) notched tip|
|Profile||Light rocker tip, flat tail|
|Shape||Fishy tip, medium radius, flat tail|
|Construction||Carbon cap (North TPT)|
|Skimo Co Says|
|Notes||Race notch in tip for quick transitions|
|Bottom Line||Big Fun-X|
|Compare to other Low-fat Skis|
Questions & Reviews
As for the downhill performance, their shape (bigger shovel and narrower tail) makes them easy to float in powder, they were cutting well through breakable crust and wind slab, and skied reasonably well on groomed hard pack although there was some chatter. I would rate them 4.5 so far.
I switched to these skis from Atomic Backland UL 78 (175cm and 114-78-104) and while both are very similar in their performance the Big Fish does better in powder or deeper snow - they are easy to float even in forward leaning (more aggressive) position despite the narrow waist.
I have them mounted with Dynafit Speed Radical toes and Plum Race 170 heels as I like that combo for a variety of reasons.
If you plan on using them for a few races a year, but will also be using this primarily as your touring ski, then the 174cm makes a lot of sense, especially for spring skiing.
Background on product familiarity: I’ve used this ski so far for a single test outing, in the 160cm length, mounted with Dynafit Low Tech Race “1.0” (i.e., older version with the tripod heel three-screw mount), driven by Dynafit RC1 boots (size 26). I plan to use these for long outings in the late spring and early summer where I would have previously used my Hagan X-Race, Hagan Cirrus, or Trab Magico. Other skis I’ve previously used with a 70s waist width include the Trab Duo Sint Aero, Hagan X-Ultra, and some of the many incarnations of the Atomic 9.22/R:9 design.
First, the first impressions out of the wrapper: The sidecut depth is on the more curvy end of the spectrum. But the tip > tail differential is fairly high so should avoiding “hookiness” in potentially tricky snow. The tip has noticeable rocker / early rise, with a race-style skin notch that is angled to provide extra security. The tail is fairly flat.
Second impressions, in use: Edge hold was very impressive on moderately steep resort ice. None of that carbon chatter. The only unconsolidated conditions during my test outing were large heaps of damp loose granular, but I was still very impressed by how the slightly rockered tip easily plowed its way through. And overall, felt much more stable and secure that I would have expected from the 160cm length.
Third impressions, for long-term durability: I can’t pass judgment on that yet, but my old Movement Fish-X was still in almost perfect condition after almost half a million earned vertical feet. (My old Logic-X is also still in great shape, but far less usage.) The Big Fish-X also has a fairly beefy cross section (i.e., unlike some other lightweight skis that are very thin) and relatively thick edges.
The only drawback is that I've mainly been reserving them for very long tours where they also have to spend some time of my pack, given that they're barely heavier than a race ski, and noticeably lighter than other ultralight skis in my quiver.
(Picture attached of an overnight hut tour this past May -- the lack of snow in the background provides a hint at how much time they had to spend on my pack!)
Yet they ski so well even in variable conditions, and they are so surprisingly stable even though I went with merely a 160cm, that they deserve to be skied far more often than I've been using them!
-Any recomendation between both?
-big question is about size 160cm for the movement or 169? Im 1,72cm tall an73kg weight
-Last is cheked weight for ultimate 164?
Thanks a lot
Earn store credit by writing reviews. Learn more.