 Poster: A snowHead
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
|
kitenski, if the S7s I bought and skied this season (and which I found a real pleasure to ski everywhere and anywhere, in any conditions) are anything to go by, I can believe the hype. Looks like the geometry is similar enough to give the same/better performance.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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?
|
Lots of very similar skis out there, tried and tested shape/size. Nothing particularly revolutionary there.
Will be interesting to see/hear how the tip-lightening thing compares with Kaestle's approach. If they can lighten it and maintain dampness, win. For a resort ski I couldn't care less about weight, if anything, heavier the better, but if it works it could make for an excellent resort/touring combo ski (I find skis with a lot of carbon a bit too reactive for my tastes/technique in 'bad snow' offpiste, great for skinning for untracked stuff though).
I'm sure someone before has done some sort of honeycomb/lattice to reduce weight in the tips and tails (though with different materials), maybe in freestyle skis? Maybe something similar to Salomon's foam core stuff? I can't remember.
I don't understand why you'd want so much sidecut in this sort of ski?
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
| clarky999 wrote: |
I don't understand why you'd want so much sidecut in this sort of ski? |
'cos you're pandering to the pistencarven demographic. Makes sense in a utility ski - it's not the ski for straight gunning couloirs at mach loony or holding a traverse in a no fall zone if it's intended to be a one ski quiver.
They're not selling this to those who've already drunk the koolaid on fat rockered skis as they'll already be on S7s or competitive products. they're trying to get solid piste skiers or old "90mm is way fat" reactionaries onto this. Competitive category though with some excellent offerings from Blizzard and Movement (& I suspect Atomic) in there as well as the boutiques. If they snare a few seasonnaire types and downsizers into the bargain then so much the better.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
| fatbob wrote: |
| If they snare a few seasonnaire types and downsizers into the bargain then so much the better. |
I won't say I won't try them but for the next two seasons, at the very least, I won't try other skis so that I can just enjoy the ones I've got. It's all about removing temptation 
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
|
fatbob, you're right of course in who it's aimed at, but it's not like you need a tight radius for a good carving ski. 20-25m radius (like a gs ski) would carve just as well, and be less of a compromise in funky ungroomed stuff. I guess it's the viewpoint that 'you need a tight radius for high performance piste skiing/to be able to carve' that I don't understand, especially given all the evidence to the contrary in the racing scene.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I've got some Shamans with IIRC 17m sidecut and don't find them too hooky in funky crud which is the majority of the skiing they do. Admittedly the bulldozer nose might help. It also helps that I ski like a nonce.
Most skiers aren't racers nor put down anything like the forces that racers do to bend larger radius skis into tighter turns so why not get a hand with the sidecut.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I guess it comes down to personal preference, the 21m radius on my old Big Troubles felt pretty spot on for crust/crud. Several 15-18m skis I've tried definitely felt more squirrely and needed much more care and concentration to ski in funky stuff, obviously more differences than just turn radii, but I could definitely feel them hooking up. I'm no great shakes at skiing either, but even when I was an 18 year old skinny rake I had no problem bending them (they're not soft, but obviously nowhere near race ski stiff either). Assuming the Soul 7s won't be very stiff either.
If I was a better skier I wouldn't need stiff/damp/stable skis for those conditions, but I can't ever remember thinking 'I want more sidecut,' for any kind of skiing.
Last edited by After all it is free  on Wed 8-05-13 16:28; edited 1 time in total
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
clarky999, based on my experience with DPS 112s, it's pretty fun carving a 17m radius ski on hard snow, even if it is 112mm underfoot. I don't find them a big problem in crud etc - a far bigger problem is the ability of the driver in my case
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Are the Soul 7's the black ones with a coloured tip ? If they are then they look awesome, anyone used them ?
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
They rock, the whole new range do.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Yes but if I don't read the reviews and don't try the skis, then I can live in denial and be happy with what I've got 
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
|
Zero-G, I wouldn't worry. "Pro" reviews always have to have an angle as saying no real difference isn't worth much. If you like em that's all that counts.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
|
fatbob, to be honest, I'm not even tempted buy new skis. I have four pairs and only intend to ski the one pair – the others will be sold and no new skis purchased for a while.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
|
my husband has bought me a pair of these (suspected displacement activity, he really wants the souls for himself but can't justify the expense) however I think they are just too long especially if I am going to use them as a touring ski - I am 5'1 (1.55m) and the shortest they come in is 173cm - 20cm longer than me! Any idea why they make them so darn long... ? While I get the rocker theory, I can't see kick turns getting easier with all that extra length to take into account ...
|
|
|
|
|
|
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?
|
|
Why did Rossi make their website so totally crap on ipads? It must have been deliberate as you couldn't just screw it up that badly by accident.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
| poma wrote: |
| I am 5'1 (1.55m) and the shortest they come in is 173cm - 20cm longer than me! Any idea why they make them so darn long... ? While I get the rocker theory, I can't see kick turns getting easier with all that extra length to take into account ... |
The Rossignol website claims the Soul comes in a 164, and the Savory in a 162. Perhaps someone is trying to buy themselves some skis, surreptitiously?
As for kick turns... given your size, and the surface contact area of skins on those skis, surely you can just power straight up the fall line
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
| poma wrote: |
| my husband has bought me a pair of these (suspected displacement activity, he really wants the souls for himself but can't justify the expense) however I think they are just too long especially if I am going to use them as a touring ski - I am 5'1 (1.55m) and the shortest they come in is 173cm - 20cm longer than me! Any idea why they make them so darn long... ? While I get the rocker theory, I can't see kick turns getting easier with all that extra length to take into account ... |
That does sound quite long for your height. I skied these in the 180cm (I'm 5'9) and unlike the old S3s (and S7s I think although haven't skied them), the Soul 7s did not ski short at all. Why don't you see if you can swap them for the 160 whatever cm womesn version. I believe the only difference beween the male and female version is the top sheet, and the fact that the women's are sold as being 2cm shorter when they are actually the same length.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
oops typo - I should have said that they are 162 (as against my 155 standing as straight as I can in my stocking feet ... ). still look massively long to me especially with the width, I would feel like donald duck! They can still go back as no bindings yet. I am pondering ski test at Tamworth tomorrow night if rossignol are there and have a pair I could try, but it's a long way from Bristol ...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| poma wrote: |
| my husband has bought me a pair of these (suspected displacement activity, he really wants the souls for himself but can't justify the expense) however I think they are just too long especially if I am going to use them as a touring ski - I am 5'1 (1.55m) and the shortest they come in is 173cm - 20cm longer than me! Any idea why they make them so darn long... ? While I get the rocker theory, I can't see kick turns getting easier with all that extra length to take into account ... |
I just bought my wife (5' 2" - 156cm ) the Rossignol Saffron in 162 cm. No air tip, but light and lots of rocker, seem to be well reviewed in tests: http://www.skinet.com/ski/gear/rossignol-saffron-7-2014
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
poma, what size are your other skis? The 162cm is the samllest size these come in suggesting Rossi think this should be ok for someone of your size.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| poma wrote: |
| oops typo - I should have said that they are 162 (as against my 155 standing as straight as I can in my stocking feet ... ). still look massively long to me especially with the width, I would feel like donald duck! They can still go back as no bindings yet. I am pondering ski test at Tamworth tomorrow night if rossignol are there and have a pair I could try, but it's a long way from Bristol ... |
Just seen this, I think the length should be just fine for you. The only question is width and weight and whether you might want to look at the more female specific models and see if there is any real difference over the "male" versions. I just got a great price on my wife's Rossi Saffron (98 rather than 106). And she already has a pair of Powder only skis.
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
|
I skied the 178 S7 last year and loved them. I demoed both the 178 Savory 7 and 180 Super 7 the other day and still loved them. I'll admit it was only at the Castleford ski test but hey, it was enough to make me grin from ear to ear! I'm 5'9" and 140lb and the lengths were perfect, if this would help anybody confused with sizing.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
| clarky999 wrote: |
I guess it comes down to personal preference, the 21m radius on my old Big Troubles felt pretty spot on for crust/crud. Several 15-18m skis I've tried definitely felt more squirrely and needed much more care and concentration to ski in funky stuff, obviously more differences than just turn radii, but I could definitely feel them hooking up. I'm no great shakes at skiing either, but even when I was an 18 year old skinny rake I had no problem bending them (they're not soft, but obviously nowhere near race ski stiff either). Assuming the Soul 7s won't be very stiff either.
If I was a better skier I wouldn't need stiff/damp/stable skis for those conditions, but I can't ever remember thinking 'I want more sidecut,' for any kind of skiing. |
Well, some of us (including me) prefer much more sidecut than you apparently do! I like the more radical sidecut skis like the Icelantic Scout. This year, my every day ski will be the Stockli Y85 (13.8m radius). I love the sensation of getting the up on edge and railing edge to edge down the piste or riding them turn to turn down the bowl...
YMMV...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
poma, you'll be fine with that size. I ski the 178 Rossi S7. I'm only 165cm (5'5") and haven't found kick turns to be a challenge with that length, just a little ungainly
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
