 Poster: A snowHead
|
pam w, Yes, I did try them in December in VT. I had a pair of 165cm, R9X. Completely different to my 160cm Wave Magics (WMs) - much stiffer (but remember I am still 13 stone and about 5'9") - I took a brand new pair, that had never been on the snow so completely sharp and ready to ride. Having got quite used to the softer WMs I will admit to catching an edge on the somewhat tricky descent immediately outside the shop in poor light after about 20m that dumped me on my backside  , but I didn't fall for the rest of the day and we did in a lot of distance over blues and the odd red.
It took about 15 mins to get comfy on them. They had much less flex (were much stiffer) than the WMs, but despite this turning them was remarkably easy - the extra width that I expected to notice in the ease with which I could tip them from edge to edge just wasn't obvious - they rolled over real easy. Where they scored way over and above the WMs was in a straight line. They are heavier skis than the WM's which as you know aren't overly light themselves, but despite their apparent weight I have been finding some bounce and twitch in the WM under my weaker leg when picking up speed in a straight line, sufficient to worry that the twitch would cause the WMs to catch an edge and dump me. This bounce and twitch just wasn't there in on the RX9's - their added weight was a huge help to keeping sufficient pressure on the snow to prevent the twitch and this led to increased confidence. They also held their edge brilliantly on really hard packed icy stuff - in fact it was entirely confidence in the skis ability to hang on that got me down one bit. I also had a carving lesson on them and they performed wonderfully - I could feel them roll over and bite in and off I went powering out of the curve - tremendous fun. I couldn't get quite the same feeling out the WMs when I tried similar manouevres on them in February.
At my level I was surprised at the noticeable difference in them as skis, but if I had a spare £500 at the moment I'd be ditching the WMs and getting a pair - I thought they were great.
I don't know how the above serves as a 'ski test' report, but although many here would claim that they ought to be too advanced for me I found them brilliant.
Does this help?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
Megamum, yes, it helps a lot. It's all very well the likes of Stewart Woodward saying he likes the skis, but I'm not quite at that ski level!
Maybe they'll come down a bit more in price in Annemasse; will keep an eye on it, and also see if they are to be found in the Vieux Campeur in Sallanches - I have to go to Geneva on Tuesday and could pop into both.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
|
pam w, I was quite surprised that Vieux Campeur in Thonon wasn't offering up its usual savings. I'm sure, for instance, that they've had gloves at 50% off at this point in the season before.
I suspect that their sale is linked to Easter - so just after will be the time to look I suspect.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
|
Can anyone clarify whether the skis being discussed here are the narrower (70mm) or wider (80mm) version of these skis, which seem both to have very similar names. The narrower ones are more expensive - but both are available in quite a range of sizes in Au Vieux Campeur in Sallanches.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
pam w, I would expect the 70mm ones are the full on, FIS race approved, Radical R9X Worldcup iBox and the 80mm ones are the "recreational", "GS-like-but-not-really-a-race-ski" Radical R9X Worldcup Oversize.
In general, unless you're hitting gates for your fun, the latter would be recommended.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
|
under a new name, I can confirm the skis we had were the 80 mm Radical R9X Worldcup Oversize
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
under a new name, thanks, I rather thought that the wider ones would be better - but they were both labelled "oversize" - and almost identical in terms of graphics etc.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
under a new name, The FIS approved ones would be narrower than 70mm.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
|
|
BMF_Skier, thank for that - they have loads available to hire here - might try a pair for a day. The 80mm ones are cheaper than the 70mm, though only 50 euros.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
BMF_Skier, You may just buy her a pair 
One of my friends skied them in March, she loved them too.
|
|
|
|
|
|
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
|
|
BMF_Skier, How much do you weigh?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
|
RPF, Brilliant idea!!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
|
My OH weighs just over 11 stone and is 5'6" and got the 160s - they didn't have 165s and the 170 seemed likely to be too long (even the young Frenchman selling them said so). He likes them very much, and so did I, when I borrowed them for a day (I am just over 10 stone) so I hope we haven't bought them too short.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
pam w, I'm 5'8" ish but currently over 13 stone. As far as I'm aware they dont do 165's. Think the Rossignol web site will confirm that. I think the R9x that we had in Dec were 160's. They are very heavy but stilll enjoyed using them today, hopefully same, or more, fun tomorrow!
Megamum, Ha, bloody, ha.... 
RPF, Also Ha bl..... ha....
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
|
rjs, for GS? I can check today but I'm sure mine are significantly wider than my SL-Rs which are 66mm.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
|
is this a temporary state of affairs, then? Heading up? Or down?
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
under a new name, Your ones may be wider than your SL skis but I would still expect them to be under 70mm.
The 70mm skis described above were probably the R9s Oversize.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
|
I found the names and attributes of all those Rossignol Oversize skis to be thoroughly confusing, not being any kind of expert. The OH hired some - which were slalom skis, recommended that he used 155 by the ski shop guy. He found them a little twitchy and not great in the slush. There are at least four completely different skis called Rossignol Oversize, including those slalom skis and some fairly intimidating GS skis. I think the racier style ones have green flashes on them, as well as the orange and white But I might be completely wrong on that, and I found the Rossignol website little help. Anyway, we both like the skis, though we could only try them in the slush.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
|
rjs, R9[b]X[b] OS are ~80mm and to my astonishment my ~2003 181cm 9X Wc are ~65mm as are my 191cm ~2006 ones. I could have sworn they were fatter. Probably explains why they're so easy to ski on.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
David Murdoch, my 9S WC and 9X WC of about 2005 vintage are both 65mm under foot.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
rob@rar, quite!
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
|
|
pam w, The ones I have were a little 'twitchy', for the first 10 mins, but thats down to my lack of technique. Once we had got used to each other, I had the best two days ski-ing I've had for a long time. Back in the UK now from Val Thorens after an overnight drive. When I unload the car I'll confirm the dimnsions.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The ones I have are the R9X
Specs
Giant S
Sizes : 160-170-180
Sidecut : 124-80-112
Radius : T.170:15m
The others we tried were the R9S
Specs
Slalom
Sizes : 155-165-175
Sidecut : 124-70-112
Radius : T.165 :11m
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
|
BMF_Skier, yep, they're the Oversize, rather than the FIS ones...which is almost certainly what you want.
|
|
|
|
|
|
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
|
|
|
|
|
|
bump.
I'm toying with picking up a pair of these for next season. If anyone knows of some a good deal or has a pair to sell (or swap for 3Vs) let me know?
Quick question. These are usually described as 17m but the official stat's say 15m. Can anyone confirm the 17m stat ? I'm interested in the 170 ish size.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
|
The radius on the 170 model is 15m. Last years model said 17m on the topsheet but they were 15m really.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
They are still lovely toys. I got to pinch them for 2 days in February and still loved 'em  . Just as an observation I still think they are easier to ski than my 170cm Magfire 78 Ti's
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
|
were any model years 17m @ 170 ?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
| david@mediacopy wrote: |
| were any model years 17m @ 170 ? |
Not that I am aware of. They have been the same model the last 2 seasons. This season all they did was add models on the 5s i.e. 165 and 175 as well as 160, 170, 180 and change the graphics slightly. Before this they were much narrower I think.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
|
| snowrider wrote: |
| The radius on the 170 model is 15m. Last years model said 17m on the topsheet but they were 15m really. |
Are you sure about that snowrider? It seems strange that they'd keep the wrong dimension on the topsheet two years running (the previous year's model said 17m too) - especially as they made changes to the topsheet design for last season.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
|
david@mediacopy, you thinking 17M for the coaching courses? i dont think you need +17 for isia / istd tech modules anymore..
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
skimottaret, I was chatting to a friend who's recently passed his ISTD about the current BASI requirement for "shorts" and "longs" at ISTD level and the long radius ski would appear to make a lot of sense over a SL ski.
I'm thinking of swapping out my 3Vs on the basis that the Rossie's will be a better all round piste and training ski. Note to self - Must stop riding twin tips 
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
| FlyingStantoni wrote: |
| snowrider wrote: |
| The radius on the 170 model is 15m. Last years model said 17m on the topsheet but they were 15m really. |
Are you sure about that snowrider? It seems strange that they'd keep the wrong dimension on the topsheet two years running (the previous year's model said 17m too) - especially as they made changes to the topsheet design for last season. |
When I said last years topsheet was wrong I ment 08/09 model. Sorry for not being clearer. I had a pair of these (used to pass my ISTD tech ) and they certainly skied like a 15m ski. Not checked the topsheet on the 09/10 model but the Rossi website says they are 15m.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
david@mediacopy, i would agree, when i did mine it was right when they changed the "rule" to a recommendation and i had just bought some +17's (volkl ac30's) and brought along my head supershape magnums which i used to start with, after a few days my binding screws pulled out of the heads so i swapped to the volkls and everyone said my longs were much better... the rossis do sound good as all rounders, the radius will change with each length and they usually state the radius at around 170 lenght models but it was difficult to get info on the actual radius. weird that the top sheet is wrong...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
skimottaret, How do you get on with the Volkl's ?
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
|
|
david@mediacopy, i liked em but they were very heavy, lots of camber and hard work even at 100kg... i sold em recently and bought a pair of head titans... they were good for courses though just the heads are a lot easier to ski
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
