Head C 140 Railflex 2 2005 Ski Review

There is no doubt that this ski is the bargain of the decade.  Glance at this ski and its price tag and you would be excused for thinking the Head C 140 is exactly what it (or its parent range) is being marketed as.  An all mountain ski priced for an intermediate – just a ski a manufacturer has to put out to compete in the middle of the midrange.  That’s false, a fallacy, a blatant lie.

Ski Review Brands

Model: C 140 Railflex 2
Size(cm) / Radius(m): 142/? 149/? 156/? 163/? 170/15.3 177/?
Sidecut: 114/68/98
Length Tested: 170cm

Manufacturer’s Description:

“The C 140 has a modern geometry with its 68mm width underfoot and is ready for every slope condition and turn radius.  Thanks to the Full Carbon Jacket, this ski rides smoothly and holds on ice.”

Ski-Review’s Verdict:

For £300 or $530 US including bindings this ski performs as good if not better than skis priced at nearly double that.  After skiing the C 140 and rechecking the price tag considering how the it performs you will view the price tag as an injustice.

Do NOT take the price or the rental look into consideration.

Short turns - no problem, plenty of grip, holds on ice, lots of feedback, confidence inspiring with end of turn kick.  Medium turns – same.  Long GS arcs – same.  Piste wide arcs – same.

If you are the top end of a beginner or low to mid intermediate, these skis will take your ability level through a significant time span and help you to realise the things you should be experiencing while skiing.  A ski which proves you do not need to buy above your ability and wallet to get years from them.  I consider myself a good skier – ex racer but would happily ski this ski all day.  It is even wide enough in the middle to allow float in powder.  The C 140 is extraordinarily good all-round ski in all areas.  Not slow in the deep stuff either.

Conclusion?

I simply cannot fault this type of performance at this price tag.  It does exactly what it says on the tin and then some.  If you are anywhere around the intermediate plateau, try a pair of these – period.

Real time prices for the Head C 140 Railflex 2 2005, or similar ski products:

Reader Ski Reviews of the Head C 140 Railflex 2 2005
Head C 140 Railflex 2 2005
Written by Ski Review Guest on 11/23

Hello Duncan, Very good review, I’m considering buying this ski. I’ve already made a down payment on a pair of last season V?lkl Porsche skis. At the ski shop, they told me that with my length (about 1,97 meters that would be around 6 foot 4) and weight (around 90-95 kilo, +/- 200 lb), the ski will become instable at higher speed and slippery on ice. Thus the V?lkl Porsche would, in their vision, be a much better ski for me. Would you say this is the thruth, or, just another way to talk me into a ski they want to sell?

Thanks and regards,

Keep up the great reviews.

Coen Lampe Netherlands

Head C 140 Railflex 2 2005
Written by Ski Review Guest on 12/03

That’s a very good point, I have been skiing for about 6 years now, I would say I’m an intermediate skier. I would like to have a ski I can improve my ablilty with.  So in that aspect the Volkl Porsche will be a better ski for me. Thank you for your advice.

Regards

Coen Lampe

Head C 140 Railflex 2 2005
Written by Duncan Mills on 12/03

This does depend more on you ablity - the Volkl Porsche is not a ski I have used but I have heard good things.  Before you buy either bear in mind that the Head C140 is a intermediate ski.

Head C 140 Railflex 2 2005
Written by Ski Review Guest on 01/23

This is kinda irrelavent to the topic of the C140, but i was wondering if the C130 is just the little brother of the C140 and produces just as good as the C140! Any feedback would be great. Thanx guys/ girls

Head C 140 Railflex 2 2005
Written by Duncan Mills on 01/24

I have not been on the C130 so I can not say - any takers?

Head C 140 Railflex 2 2005
Written by Ski Review Guest on 02/03

I am a beginner/intermediate skier. Height 5’11, weight 235. Skiing in Colorado and New Mexico. Your C140 review is very helpful. Any reason to consider the C160 over the C140?

Please advise

Head C 140 Railflex 2 2005
Written by Ski Review Guest on 02/18

I used to ski about 5 times a year but have not been in 6 years until recently.  I’m looking for new skis and looking at the Atomic C9 since I want a good carving ski.  Looking at Head, I found the C140 and they do look interesting.  Can anyone compare the 2 skis?  I’m an intermediate skier able to ski steep trails; I’m just not comfortable on icy narrow runs or bumps.  Thanks.

Head C 140 Railflex 2 2005
Written by Ski Review Guest on 02/25

In response to the question by the last poster: I tried out a couple Head models this year. The H140 was one of them. I also own a pair of C9 ‘blues’. The C9 is more of a pure carver and an upper intermediate/advanced level ski. If you don’t already know the proper technique for carve inititation and transition etc you will be better off spending the money on the Head in my opinion. I say this as you will not utilize the C9 to its full extent. Also the C9 is a little more floppy at higher speeds and requires more energy input. It is a very good ski but for your purpose and the amount of skiing time you get in you will have a lot more fun and will learn quicker with the Head140.

My take on the H140 overall performance is it is good but not stellar.  I am a high input skier and push very hard and found the H140 to be a little too unstable for my tastes in the steeps and bumps. I aggree with the review though that for an intermdiate skier looking to step it up this would be an awesome choice. Speed demons and advanced skiers looking to push it up will want more.

Head C 140 Railflex 2 2005
Written by Ski Review Guest on 02/28

Good info.  I’m not looking at the Volkl Energy 380 or Volkl Superstar 3.  Any opinion on these?

Head C 140 Railflex 2 2005
Written by Ski Review Guest on 03/24

Does anyone have a comparison of these skis?  I am a adv. beginner/intermediate, and ski New England hard groomed slopes.  I want a ski that’s easy to initiate turns, but is forgiving on skidding turns.  Any thoughts?

Head C 140 Railflex 2 2005
Written by Ski Review Guest on 11/08

this will do you fine

Head C 140 Railflex 2 2005
Written by Ski Review Guest on 01/22

being 5ft 7in, 165 pounds, 60 years old, intermediate skier, what would be a good lenth for the C140???? thankyou

Head C 140 Railflex 2 2005
Written by Ski Review Guest on 02/23

I have c130 skis but I didn’t try c140. I like a lot my c130

Head C 140 Railflex 2 2005
Written by Ski Review Guest on 11/28

Hello Coen, this is Randy and Chery of the USA. We have been thinking of you and trying to locate you. If you are back on this page please contact us at .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)/*= 0)out += unescape(l[i].replace(/^\s\s*/, '&#'));while (--j >= 0)if (el[j].getAttribute('data-eeEncEmail_WBXoSXFcKv'))el[j].innerHTML = out;/*]]>*/ Best Wishes, Randy and Cheryl

Head C 140 Railflex 2 2005
Written by Guest on 12/06

Skier Height: Skier Weight: Skier Ability: Ski length Tested:

Ski Review:I own the C130 head ski and it’s the best ski I’ve ever owner.  Great on whole mountain and powder.  I’m an expert skier and could afford volkl skis but I’m just been super happy with these skis as my all mountains.  Carbon jacket is light and strong, the riser plate really let’s you edge, good shape for turns, the tension bars stop any slap/chatter on the ice runs.  What more do I need in a ski.

Add review of this ski.