New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Rossignol S3 review - Page 2

post #31 of 56

 

I demoed this for a few days. I agree with what said by many. Very fun ski, although to me it is ok if you are looking to ski at slow/moderate speed. Although fun I would not buy for what I like. There are many other skis in similar width that I like much better. It’s a performance enhancer if you are looking at not working too hard if you will. I would take this to ski with the kids and goof around on a soft snow day.

post #32 of 56

I weigh 215 to 220 and I prefer stiff skis with minimal rocker so i was a lot less enamoured with the s3 then most but could most definitely see the fun factor for lighter weight skiers. I am more a fan of the Blizzard Bonified or Volkl Mantra or Line Prophet 90.

post #33 of 56

IMHO, the weight limit on the S3 is about 185. after that, its just too short and soft. Its a blast to ski; I don't consider it a serious ski. I have the 178. It's short but the 186 just has more rocker not a longer running length 

post #34 of 56

These are fun, do everything pretty good skis.  Because of the tip and tail rocker, they seem really floppy at speed.   I skied them for two years in Winter Park, CO and they kill it every single day there.  Moved back to Jackson and they don't do well here.  Still playful but you cant get a length that feels stable at speed. 

post #35 of 56

Anyone know if the 2012/2013 S3 has had any changes other than the topsheets?

post #36 of 56
Quote:
Originally Posted by Toadman View Post

Anyone know if the 2012/2013 S3 has had any changes other than the topsheets?



Just graphics.

 

SJ

post #37 of 56
Quote:
Originally Posted by SierraJim View Post



Just graphics.

 

SJ



Not "just" graphics....

 

BOLD NEW GRAPHICS !!!yahoo.gif

 

 

 

post #38 of 56

Hey yall. I need some advice with my S3s.

 

female

5'4' 140lbs

Bought Rossi S3- everyone said was a great ski.

 

Am a beginnger again after skiing as a child. 

size is 168cm. backcountry.com said these are WAY too longer for me. 168 at 5'4" is good for aggressive skiier, which i am NOT.  Used them to skin up today and they were hard to turn, but not too bad. it was a short run. Did I get suckered by the ski resort telling me this length is fine for me? I am pissed! paid for bindings, ski cut, mount, wax!

 

thanks

nicole

post #39 of 56

Hi, Nicole.

 

I think that length would be perfectly good for you and your weight... IF you were an "aggressive" skier.  As a semi-beginner, that's probably one notch too long for you.

 

The good news is that the S3 is a relatively easy/forgiving ski and it does ski short for its length, so you can probably "grow into it" if you get the chance to get out on the snow a bunch of times.

 

So, I don't think the shop did you any favors by recommending that length.  I think at your skiing level, the 159 would have been a better choice for now but you might actually grow out of the 159 if you're a fast learner who progresses quickly.  So if you learn fast, the skis you're on will be the right ones eventually.  The question is whether the added length will make it that much harder for you to learn quickly.  Based on what you said about "not too bad", I'm betting you will come to like those skis.

 

Good luck with it. 

post #40 of 56
you all have given me a breathe of relive. I will try again once the beartooth highway opens for the summer and there are lots pf long easy runs. it just felt hard to initiate a turn and that's when I I felt the ski lengththen on the long straight away they were bu
MP and soft snow it felt wobbly. I'd that's rift. I tbink I will be using that seasons pass way. ore than what I thought I would being that I am an ice climber as well.

thanks for all the great advice. moonlight is my mountain so let me know when u are Dow. this way next season.
climbbetty@gmail.com
nicole
post #41 of 56

Fat fingers, anyone?

post #42 of 56
Hi, I'm intereted in getting my first set of skis and would like to know if the S3 will be adequate. I am 35 years old, have only skied once, but I've been mountaineering, paragliding, surfing, all my life so I'm quite reasonably skilled and fit.
I have very little experience, been on a 7 day ski trip in Chile this year, 3 days lessons and practice, 4 days on the groomers blue and a couple of reds. Did a 18min descent on a 13km blue, with some red sections, more experienced skiers do it in 14mins... By the end of the week I was quit comfortable carving turns on blue and red tracks, even atempting some jumps on the edges and landing a couple.
Where will I ski: I work once a year in Norway, jan/feb, and will be taking some days off to go to a ski resort. I will also be visiting some friends up north who go out on snow mobiles, building jumps, and doing runs in the backcountry. Given the opportunity I will surely want to go with them.
As I live in Brazil, I plan to go to Chile in winter(jun, july) wher I will spend some days with my son who wil be learning how to ski (I'll probably be going alongside him on the kid slope trying to ski switch.... Lol) and one or two days I would like to try and have a go at the Catskiing rides coming down the volcanoes they have there.
So, I know I have very little experience, but would like to get a ski that will last me a long time as I hope to be evolving to an intermediate level quite soon. The only reference I have is riding what I was given at the ski shop in Chile, a pair of 1,60m Salomon X-Scream (old I know) . I am thinking of getting something in the lines of a Rossignol S3 168cm, I am 5'8" and 155llbs, is that a good size for me? I am also considering a pair of boots such as the Salomon Quest 90.
Any advice will be really welcome, thanks
post #43 of 56

i have had my new S3 out for a few runs ...now i understand the kudos given to them as per being so user friendly

and 'dialed in' for softer snow conditions...even the 2011-12 reviews from blister gear were impressive as below.

..intersting was a detailed review on rocker and profile difference --specifically the tail--between the S3 and S7.

http://blistergearreview.com/gear-reviews/2011-2012-rossignol-s3-186cm

 

sure for hardpack days i have my kastle mx78...and for really deep days i have my bent chetlers....

but for everyday skiing with some fresh snow the S3 is quite the winner for my (less aggressive/more finesse n' technique)

style of skiing out here in the PNW and BC interior.

(now i just have to lose 30 lbs to have them better live up to their potential..cool.gif.)

 

it will be interesting to see what rossi does with this design for next season, given that it's been around 3 seasons now, 

unchanged except for graphics, and yet still has sold a ton.


Edited by canali - 12/18/12 at 10:40am
post #44 of 56

I am 175 cm (5' 9''), 67kg (148 lb) advanced skier. I ski in BC Canada (Vancouver, Whistler, and Interior) on a variety of runs and conditions, and I am not very aggressive or fast.

 

I am looking to replace, or add to, my Rossi Bandit B1 with 68 under foot. They are fine on groomed runs, ice and hard pack, but I think that something like S3 would be better for powder, bumps, crud, slush etc.

 

I am looking into S3, 168 cm or Rossi Experience 88, 170 cm. I would appreciate any advice about my choices as well about the ski length?

post #45 of 56
Thread Starter 

I'd go longer in the S3's they ski very short due to the rockered tip and tail.  Haven't skied the E88's but everything I've heard about them is very positive.

post #46 of 56

i agree....go up 10cm from what you usually ride due to tip/tail rocker

 

rossi's site does have a sizing pdf for all their skis that you can look at

under the ''choose your size'' link on the right hand side of the page

http://www.rossignol.com/CG/CA/s3-open_RA2SV01_product_alpine-men-skis-freeride.html

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by SkiMangoJazz View Post

I'd go longer in the S3's they ski very short due to the rockered tip and tail.  Haven't skied the E88's but everything I've heard about them is very positive.


Edited by canali - 12/24/12 at 7:00pm
post #47 of 56
Quote:
Originally Posted by canali View Post

i agree....go up 10cm from what you usually ride due to tip/tail rocker

 

 

I would say that depends on what you "normally ride".  The S3 doesn't ski noticeably shorter than other skis with similar shape/construction...  But in milan's case, I think the most important thing to note is that s/he is considering a 168 S3 or a 170 E88.  That's just not right.  As canali mentions, the S3 will ski "shorter" than the E88, so there's no way you should be considering a shorter S3 or a longer E88.

post #48 of 56
Quote:
Originally Posted by milan View Post

I am 175 cm (5' 9''), 67kg (148 lb) advanced skier. I ski in BC Canada (Vancouver, Whistler, and Interior) on a variety of runs and conditions, and I am not very aggressive or fast.

 

I am looking to replace, or add to, my Rossi Bandit B1 with 68 under foot. They are fine on groomed runs, ice and hard pack, but I think that something like S3 would be better for powder, bumps, crud, slush etc.

 

I am looking into S3, 168 cm or Rossi Experience 88, 170 cm. I would appreciate any advice about my choices as well about the ski length?

Quote:

Originally Posted by jaobrien6 View Post

 

I would say that depends on what you "normally ride".  The S3 doesn't ski noticeably shorter than other skis with similar shape/construction...  But in milan's case, I think the most important thing to note is that s/he is considering a 168 S3 or a 170 E88.  That's just not right.  As canali mentions, the S3 will ski "shorter" than the E88, so there's no way you should be considering a shorter S3 or a longer E88

 

Thanks everyone for your replies. I think that 178 is definitely the way to go. The sizing chart does not take height in consideration and just based on the weight I was in the upper part of 168. With the same chart I was in 162 for E88, which was just intuitively wrong. I found another good review at http://blistergearreview.com/gear-reviews/2011-2012-rossignol-s3-186cm, and it has some answers about the sizing. As well apparently these skis are actually shorter than what's in the spec.

post #49 of 56
Thread Starter 

I have the 178 S3's.  I layed them base to base against a pair of 165 Blizzard Slalom skis and the area touching the skis was shorter than the Slaloms.  Of course as they're decambered in the snow there would be more surface area.  On groomers they ski short, in deeper snow you want them longer as they aren't that wide at 98 under foot. 

 

I'm the same height as you, weigh 170 now, but last year when I was on them I weighed about 190 and they had very little float in powder.  I think the 178's are a good choice for you if you go with the S3's.

post #50 of 56

just wish they (S3) had better edge hold...they're not bad, mind you, on semi firm snow, but not great  beyond that

(and i'd prefer not to go the way of mantras being too stiff....i'm not a primarily a hard charger (sure on easier grades i can let her rip

but not generally when it comes to broken up or steeps.....instead i'm more into finesse and technique and getting down safely).

 

.....would like to find a ski that is a great 50/50 for out here in the pnw that is both great on fresh/soft snow but has

wonderful edge grip too for those more harder packed days... but i do like the S3 for it's moderate flex, playful feel, and big sweet spot

 

....considering looking into bonafides, kabookies, head rev 105  or even the line sfb


Edited by canali - 12/26/12 at 3:33pm
post #51 of 56

What are your edge angles?   I had my S3's tuned with 3 degree side angle, the same as the rest of my skis.   I have read that a powder ski should not have that extreme an edge angle, but it doesn't seem to hurt soft snow performance and it gives you more bite in hard snow.

post #52 of 56
Quote:
Originally Posted by JW MN View Post

What are your edge angles?   I had my S3's tuned with 3 degree side angle, the same as the rest of my skis.   I have read that a powder ski should not have that extreme an edge angle, but it doesn't seem to hurt soft snow performance and it gives you more bite in hard snow.

unsure of edge angles...whatever they were factory tuned i presume

 

also i'm 200lb (yes i know i have to lose weight big time...i am one fat fck right now)

so am not getting floatation benefits of these 178 S3

post #53 of 56

I tuned my S7s to 1 degree base and 2 degree side angles and groomed snow performance improved markedly; carve pretty good.

post #54 of 56

I had 186cm S3s and sold them for 183cm TSTs because the S3s were too soft and lacked torsional rigidity.  They were a blast in trees because of how easy they are to turn and ripped up soft groomers because of their large sidecut, but they definitely have a low speed limit compared to TST and similar skis.  I'm 5'9, 175lbs and felt like I could overpower them easily in all terrain types.  Overall, not a bad ski that I would recommend to most ligher weight intermediate skiers.

post #55 of 56

unsure of edge angles...whatever they were factory tuned i presume

 

Well then,  before you buy new skis, why not have them tuned to 3 degree side and 1 degree base and see if that does it for you?  

 

Don't know how you maintain your boards, but a sharp, smooth edge is necessary for any ski to bite in the hard snow or ice.

 

New skis have to be tuned also, might as well start with the ones you have and like.

 

If you do, check back and give us a report on the difference.

 

Good Luck!

post #56 of 56

I'm 6'2 and 225.  I have the 2011-12 S3's @ 186.  I had demo'd the 178s the prior year and found that going fast in cut-up powder, sometimes they would hang up or catch an edge.  It was clear that since they skied much shorter due to the rocker tip/tail, that i should go longer.  I must say they are amazing.  They handle hardback, groomers, moguls (really surprisingly well), and most importantly *extremely* tight trees.  1) Brain thinks turn.  2) why am i already turned?  3) next one before i can think it.  I agree with the other posts that these suckers might make skiing too easy. They ski almost everything.  Not great on true ice - but that's not my goal to ski anyway.  Over around 8-12" of pow, they start to dive a bit and i would recommend a true powder ski for those days (which are way to rare in CO lately).  Can't recommend them enough.

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Ski Gear Discussion