EpicSki  ›  The Barking Bear Forums  ›  Skiing Forums  ›  Ski Gear Discussion  ›  Rossi Radical 9S Oversize
Forum Nav More Forums | All New Posts | New Thread

Rossi Radical 9S Oversize

#1
Rating: 0
12/6/07 at 3:07pm
  • Joined: January 2005
  • Location: Homer, NY
  • Post Count: 137
Any experience with this ski? The reviews on it from this year's Ski Press News annual ski test were glowing-but I don't find much on the ski elsewhere. I'm looking for a high performance, Eastern groomer short-turner that still will handle long turns as well. At my weight (225), I would go with the 173.
Thanks
Export to Wiki
#2
Rating: 0
12/6/07 at 7:11pm
  • Joined: September 2005
  • Location: The ice coast
  • Post Count: 2,152
I own several. But I'm 164 lbs. On the one hand, a guy on Ski Reviews who is 200-ish raved about how much fun the 158 is on a small mountain, and most reviewers in places like Skipressworld feel the OS can handle big guys. OTOH, my wife (135) skis the 150, and I have the 158 for training on small mountains, 165 for recreational racing, so I worry the 173 might be a flexy flier for you. If you like damp, quick and smooth, would suggest instead something beefier like a Head SS or one of the Nordica carvers.
Export to Wiki
#3
Rating: 0
12/7/07 at 9:21am
  • Joined: January 2005
  • Location: Homer, NY
  • Post Count: 137
Thanks Beyond. Believe it or not-I have a pair of SuperShape magnums (170) and a pair of Nordica Top Fuels (170). Maybe I better leave well enough alone!! I'm always looking for something just a little bit better
Export to Wiki
#4
Rating: 0
12/7/07 at 10:29am
  • Joined: March 2007
  • Location: Midwest
  • Post Count: 623
I have owned a few pairs of the Rossignol 9S Oversize, I liked them. You do however need to ski them long, I'm 5' 10" 220lbs and ski these in 173cm. The 9S is easy to ski, quick, forgiving and very versatile. I would recommend them. I also owned the Head Supershape in 170cm and didn't like them as well as the 9S. I just picked up a pair of Supershapes in 175cm to see if the extra length helps.
Export to Wiki
#5
Rating: 0
12/7/07 at 11:52am
  • Joined: January 2005
  • Location: Homer, NY
  • Post Count: 137
Buckwild-I also thought about going to the SS Magnum in the longer length next year. I would be very interested in hearing about your reactions to the longer ski. Send me a PM
Thanks
Export to Wiki
#6
Rating: 0
12/7/07 at 12:21pm
  • Joined: March 2007
  • Location: Midwest
  • Post Count: 623
In addition to the Supershape's in 175cm, I've also picked up a pair of Head Chip Supershapes in 177cm which are the same as the Magnum but with the chip. I'll keep you posted, i'm going to try and get out skiing on Sunday.

Buck
Export to Wiki
#7
Rating: 0
12/7/07 at 1:54pm
  • Joined: October 2004
  • Location: Ontario, Canada
  • Post Count: 9,923
My only experience is with the older 9S Oversize. Great for small turns, very quick, smooth, and forgiving, not that high a speed limit, can be overpowered by the ham-fisted, and not the best at longer turns (they had a 9X Oversize for that back then).
Export to Wiki
#8
Rating: 0
12/7/07 at 2:00pm
  • Joined: March 2007
  • Location: Midwest
  • Post Count: 623
At 173cm (14m radius) long turns were not a problem, the skis are very versatile. They do have a speed limit, thats why I went with the 173s verses the 165's. Stability is greatly improved as is edge hold, fun ski's!
Export to Wiki
#9
Rating: 0
10/11/09 at 3:13pm
  • Joined: October 2009
  • Post Count: 3
buckwild, how did you find the head chip supershapes in 177?

im looking for a great ski from 07-08ish, something used obviously to keep the price down.
the isupershape magnums in 170 are at the top of my list. would 177 be a better length for me?

im 5'11, 160 pounds. from eastern canada, love skiing fast, enjoy glades as well.
Export to Wiki
Forum Nav More Forums | All New Posts | New Thread