EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › Member Gear Reviews › Rossi Sickle 186cm on going review
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Rossi Sickle 186cm on going review

post #1 of 17
Thread Starter 

28 years old(man am I getting old!)

165lb

5'10

130-150 days a year

I ski alot of everything but mostly freeski trees

I can turn left and right in various shapes and sizes on most parts of the mountains

 

Ski

 

186cm Rossingnol Sickle

140-110-133

TR 21.3

Spinrocker which mean VERY low rise rocker from tip to tail

mounted at 0 with marker Duke

 

Conditions

 

skied for 4 days a in row in far from ideal conditions for this ski.

soft fresh man made

fresh groomed

slush

granular piles

HARD bumps

scraped of groomers

 

So I finally mounted my new skis and despite the lack of any fresh snow or any real terrain to ski on them I could not wait to get on them. SL skis were getting old and I really wanted to get back to my comfort zone. After spending the last 2 seasons on the Katana I was looking for skis that A. had better edge grip. B. was lighter. C. no metal while still retaining the katana ease of use while skiing trees

 

So far I have been happly surprised. The Sickle has the 3rd best edge grip of any 110mm skis I have been on. Only the Cochise the RP112 are better and its not by much. The Sickle is way better than Katana in this regard. The katana was downright scary at speed on scraped off eastern hardpack the Sickle is more than passable. On soft groomers big fast GS turns are alot of fun. Due to is wood core with no metal the Sickle is  lighter than anything else this size except the Rp112(s).

 

On totally scraped off snow that is closer to an ice skating rink than anywhere this ski should really be it is not ideal. Only SL skis are really ideal IMO though it is at least predictable and will be enough to access the woods  I will eventually be accessing.

 

On groomers the ski is damp and uber stable with no speed limit bombing GS/SG turns. If the snow is soft and your comfortable with tipping, SL sized nearly carved turns are with-in its realm. Steered turns are predicable and catchless due to its rockered design.

 

On soft snow that i hvae found thus far the skis is floatly and has a nice energy at the end of the turn. Its is alot more poppy than the totally dead katana. again not much of this yet but so far I have liked its surfiness on the new and deep manmade.

 

Bumps that are HARD. Better than the Katana. These kinda of suck, but are better than most other 110mmish skis. Compared to the Cochise they are a Joy.

 

the jury is still out I did ski it in powder at snowbird on a demo, but powder days at stowe are more specific stat and more of niche than powder days at Snowbird. I am hoping it as quick and as easy to ski as the katana. With that said alot of people go right for the S7 design and I think alot of people should be trying out this ski and its little brother the Scimitar before going for the S3/S7 skis. With that said if your an off piste junkie like myself both could be justified because of how much better I am sure the S7 is weird funky deep snow.

 

 

post #2 of 17

I have the S6 (last year's version), which I hear is the same (correct me if I am wrong). Have them mounted at -2.

 

I agree with all the comments by BW. All my other skis mostly collected dust last year after I got these. They rail like a GS ski on hardpack, but ski so well in 3D snow. They just feel so comfortable in almost any condition.

 

 

post #3 of 17
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by cbgarrett View Post

I have the S6 (last year's version), which I hear is the same (correct me if I am wrong). Have them mounted at -2.

 

I agree with all the comments by BW. All my other skis mostly collected dust last year after I got these. They rail like a GS ski on hardpack, but ski so well in 3D snow. They just feel so comfortable in almost any condition.

 

 



I wouldnt say they rail like GS skis, if you ever owned GS skis you know that is simply isnt not true. They do a really good job and will be more confindence inspiring than GS skis in more conditions. Gs skis on a firm surface are pretty much in a league of their own They are better than alot of other 100-120 mm skis I have owned and skied though.

post #4 of 17

No, I have never owned or been on GS skis. I guess I was saying they rail really, really well on groomed snow.

 

So maybe I should edit my post to make sure it is 100% accurate for the people who can't read between the lines and have to have every word and statement factually correct.

 

Just trying to agree with you, dude.

post #5 of 17
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by cbgarrett View Post

No, I have never owned or been on GS skis. I guess I was saying they rail really, really well on groomed snow.

 

So maybe I should edit my post to make sure it is 100% accurate for the people who can't read between the lines and have to have every word and statement factually correct.

 

Just trying to agree with you, dude.



yeah I know :)

 

I just hate the termrails like a GS skis because nothing actually rails like a GS skis.

 

these things are damn good but yeah you get it:)

post #6 of 17

Maybe I'll pick up a pair of GS skis next year at a swap...

 

Only other thing about the sickle (S6): maybe Rossi should make it in 3 sizes so there is a longer size; somewhere around 192. Could use a little more length in deep pow. 

post #7 of 17

Get a pair now. This it the perfect time for hard snow skis.

post #8 of 17
Quote:
Originally Posted by tromano View Post

Get a pair now. This it the perfect time for hard snow skis.



You're right about that...unfortunately. 

post #9 of 17

good morning bushwacker:

 

First, you aren't old yet even though it may feel that way at times.  Second, i recently bought a pair of sickles and unsure of where to mount them.  I see you've been riding them at 0, or the center line, any advice for somebody whose 5 foot ten, 170 pounds, and generally skis on the mountain rather than the terrain park with the tips pointing down the hill?  I appreciate your time, thank you. dave

post #10 of 17
Quote:
Originally Posted by mcdave69 View Post

good morning bushwacker:

 

First, you aren't old yet even though it may feel that way at times.  Second, i recently bought a pair of sickles and unsure of where to mount them.  I see you've been riding them at 0, or the center line, any advice for somebody whose 5 foot ten, 170 pounds, and generally skis on the mountain rather than the terrain park with the tips pointing down the hill?  I appreciate your time, thank you. dave



0 is not the center of the ski.

 

A forward mount does not mean that the ski is meant for the terrain park. The Sickle is not your traditional, generic front side carver. Many ski's actually perform very poor when people try and mount them farther to the rear than what the ski is designed for. Mount it at zero.

post #11 of 17

groovy, thank you for the input; i appreciate it! dave

post #12 of 17

yeah sorry mine are mounted at Zero. it time to update this pretty soon. 

post #13 of 17
Quote:
Originally Posted by cbgarrett View Post

I have the S6 (last year's version), which I hear is the same (correct me if I am wrong). Have them mounted at -2.

 

I agree with all the comments by BW. All my other skis mostly collected dust last year after I got these. They rail like a GS ski on hardpack, but ski so well in 3D snow. They just feel so comfortable in almost any condition.

 

 

 

Just curious how you like them at -2 and what led to that decision?  I have a pair of Sickles unmounted and interested in where I should mount.  I'm 6'0" 190lb, looking for good all mountain performance with minimal switch and no park (unless I end up there with the kids)

post #14 of 17

My experience might make your decision easier.  I've skied it from +1 all the way back to -3 at each centimeter and really enjoyed anything 0 and back. That said, I mounted mine at -2.5. I found the further back I went, the better the rockered tip absorbed sudden knee jarring bumps.  Pretty fun easy charger from hardpack to deep pow.  Awesome ski.

post #15 of 17
Quote:
Originally Posted by powderjon View Post

My experience might make your decision easier.  I've skied it from +1 all the way back to -3 at each centimeter and really enjoyed anything 0 and back. That said, I mounted mine at -2.5. I found the further back I went, the better the rockered tip absorbed sudden knee jarring bumps.  Pretty fun easy charger from hardpack to deep pow.  Awesome ski.

What binders do you have on yours?  I'm assuming you had demo bindings or something to move them around that much?

post #16 of 17

FWIW, Baggins at TGR (he works for Rossi) has tended to recommend slightly back (say -2) for folks who ski the Rossi rockers directionally, no switch, and charge; at 0 for folks who are more do-everything everywhere; at +2 or even +3 for serious freestylers. Seem to recall Rossi put out a factory sheet with exact measurement points for different skis, you might Google it. IME, as a lighter guy who doesn't do tricks or switch on fatties, -1 or -2 seems to work best on the one's I've had/tried (S7, S3), but I've heard plenty of votes for 0. And I haven't skied the Sickle. OTOH, heavier skiers seem to prefer moving a few cm rear. If you're paralyzed over Doing It Wrong, maybe split the diff between Josh and powderjon, so -1?

post #17 of 17
Quote:
Originally Posted by elduderino View Post

 

Just curious how you like them at -2 and what led to that decision?  I have a pair of Sickles unmounted and interested in where I should mount.  I'm 6'0" 190lb, looking for good all mountain performance with minimal switch and no park (unless I end up there with the kids)

I initially bought them as my powder ski so I wanted a little more tip. I measured the contact points of my other skis and the zero line seemed pretty far forward compared to my other ones. So I went with -2. I feel like I could also have gone -3 and been good. 

 

I've been totally happy with that mount location for all conditions. I use them pretty much as my everyday ski here in Utah. I do have a narrower ski I use if I will be on groomers most of the day, though.


Edited by cbgarrett - 9/26/12 at 7:45pm
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Member Gear Reviews
EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › Member Gear Reviews › Rossi Sickle 186cm on going review