EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › Ski Gear Discussion › New ski advice rossi experience 98, 88.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

New ski advice rossi experience 98, 88.

post #1 of 22
Thread Starter 
I can get a really good deal on either the of the 2 models, but I'm not sure if these are the skis for me. I am 5'9" 145 lbs, advanced, but definitely not expert. I mostly ski groomers, but with an occasional foray into the trees. I ski west coast, but make it to utah or colorado occasionally for some powder when I'm lucky. I am not an aggressive skier, but I do like sharp speedy carved turns, I would love to get better at skiing bumps. I am currently skiing on 2007 atomic izor 9:7 159cm and loving them. These skis have been very good to me but are starting to get a bit worn. I would buy these skis again if they still made them. Would either of these two rossis be a good replacement for my beloved atomics?
post #2 of 22

Is there any possibility that you could demo before you commit?  

 

I wouldn't really recommend the E98 because it's perhaps a little bigger ski than what you need based on your description.  I think the E88 in the 162 length could be very good, however.  It's a quick and responsive ski that's great on groomers, good in bumps, and pretty good in soft snow and crud. 

 

A demo would really tell you.

post #3 of 22

Neither of these are great in powder, I would say for your size and to be used as a 90% ski, go with the E88, especially sine you are just coming off a Izor which is fairly narrow, and as Bob says the 162. 

post #4 of 22
Thread Starter 
Unfortunately I don't think I could demo them. Thanks for the advice though, I'll look more into the 88's
post #5 of 22

Honestly, it's great to get advice here, very useful too, but the best advice is to demo, demo, demo.

Often times ski shops at the area and in the local vicinity of the ski area have demo's for daily rental. It's worth spending $40 or $50 for the day to get used to something on your short list.

Also, i don't understand why they are telling you to go with a 162, least of all why you are on a 159 @ 5'9" 145lbs. Go up in size, i would bet you'll grow into it skill wise in no time. I'm 5'7" 140lbs and demoed a pair of Kästle BMX 88's in a 168 and felt like they were to short, probably due to the what was going on at the shorter end of the dual radius. I don't know why the rep wasn't able to figure that out and tell me about the dual radius when i discussed the skis performance with the guy. Sorry i cant tell you about the E88/98 I had wanted to demo the E88 but each time a checked the Rossi tent the 170 was out, only the 162 E88 was in and i couldn't go that small. FWIW, IMHO, i think you'd be surprised with your ability to ski a longer length, should be fine even in the trees.

post #6 of 22
Quote:
Originally Posted by neonorchid View Post

Honestly, it's great to get advice here, very useful too, but the best advice is to demo, demo, demo.

Often times ski shops at the area and in the local vicinity of the ski area have demo's for daily rental. It's worth spending $40 or $50 for the day to get used to something on your short list.

Also, i don't understand why they are telling you to go with a 162, least of all why you are on a 159 @ 5'9" 145lbs. Go up in size, i would bet you'll grow into it skill wise in no time. I'm 5'7" 140lbs and demoed a pair of Kästle BMX 88's in a 168 and felt like they were to short, probably due to the what was going on at the shorter end of the dual radius. I don't know why the rep wasn't able to figure that out and tell me about the dual radius when i discussed the skis performance with the guy. Sorry i cant tell you about the E88/98 I had wanted to demo the E88 but each time a checked the Rossi tent the 170 was out, only the 162 E88 was in and i couldn't go that small. FWIW, IMHO, i think you'd be surprised with your ability to ski a longer length, should be fine even in the trees.

 

Please read what he posted:

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by jstein222 View Post

Unfortunately I don't think I could demo them. Thanks for the advice though, I'll look more into the 88's


 

post #7 of 22

Quote:

Originally Posted by Philpug View Post

 

Please read what he posted:

 



 

Thanks Phill, i didn't miss that which is why i mentioned looking into the possibility of shop demo's at or near the ski area. I had replied because i thought the early rise E88 at 162cm seems small for a advanced 5'9" skier and wanted to reinforce how beneficial demoing could be here.
 

 

post #8 of 22
Quote:
Originally Posted by neonorchid View Post

Quote:

Thanks Phill, i didn't miss that which is why i mentioned looking into the possibility of shop demo's at or near the ski area. I had replied because i thought the early rise E88 at 162cm seems small for a advanced 5'9" skier and wanted to reinforce how beneficial demoing could be here.
 

 


jstein222 is 5'9", but only weighs 145#.  The early rise on the 88 is relatively subdued compared to other early rise designs. jstein would love to get better at skiing bumps.  The ski he(she?) is on is a relatively soft 159.  To move to a stiffer ski that's much longer (the 170cm E88) seems like quite a jump.

 

I think the 162 would be a much better length than stepping up to the 170.  What do you feel the 170 would do for jstein that the 162 wouldn't?

 

IMNSHO, unless the op is already a good skier, stretching out to the longer ski is just going to encourage bad habits. 

 

post #9 of 22

I demo'd the 88 yesterday on groomers and ice, very nice ski. Just not as nice as the RTM 84 for my liking

post #10 of 22

Quote:

Originally Posted by jstein222 View Post

I can get a really good deal on either the of the 2 models, but I'm not sure if these are the skis for me. I am 5'9" 145 lbs, advanced, but definitely not expert. I mostly ski groomers, but with an occasional foray into the trees. I ski west coast, but make it to utah or colorado occasionally for some powder when I'm lucky. I am not an aggressive skier, but I do like sharp speedy carved turns, I would love to get better at skiing bumps. I am currently skiing on 2007 atomic izor 9:7 159cm and loving them. These skis have been very good to me but are starting to get a bit worn. I would buy these skis again if they still made them. Would either of these two rossis be a good replacement for my beloved atomics?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bob Peters View Post


jstein222 is 5'9", but only weighs 145#.  The early rise on the 88 is relatively subdued compared to other early rise designs. jstein would love to get better at skiing bumps.  The ski he(she?) is on is a relatively soft 159.  To move to a stiffer ski that's much longer (the 170cm E88) seems like quite a jump.

 

I think the 162 would be a much better length than stepping up to the 170.  What do you feel the 170 would do for jstein that the 162 wouldn't?

 

IMNSHO, unless the op is already a good skier, stretching out to the longer ski is just going to encourage bad habits. 

 

My thinking, west coast skier = big mountains long runs, so speed stability and the longer turn radius diff between the two would be useful for a advanced skier. But like you said "unless already a good skier", and i had assumed j improved since getting the current ski and "advanced" fit the good skier category, i suppose being content to have a new old stock current ski could indicate otherwise. Regardless, if the ski were mostly for bump skiing, perhaps nothing to gain (i couldn't say it's been a long time since i had the knees for bumps). Again why after reading dialogue re demo's, i tried to reinforce the recommendation to demo the ski, suggesting a possible route to that end to look into. Also as i said i didn't understand why you and Phil were recommending the short length, thanks for explaining. Going forward i'll leave the epic ski advice post to the experts.
 

 

post #11 of 22

I agree with Bob.  I am skiing on the 180 E98 and find it to be great on groomers and hard snow, not so good for me on the hard jagged bumps we have right now.  I demoed both the E98 & the E88 and think the E88 would be better in bumps.  In general I am a pretty good skier and solid in bumps, but the E98 has been feeling long and stiff and I feel like I'm fighting it more than I'm used to.  I haven't had a chance to ski any significant crud yet and suspect that the ski will shine there and on smaller less hard and not so jagged bumps.  I will eventually get used to it and be better for it.  It sounds like the E88 would be better for the OP and I wouldn't go long with out demoing first.

post #12 of 22
Quote:
Originally Posted by neonorchid View Post

Quote:

Quote:

My thinking, west coast skier = big mountains long runs, so speed stability and the longer turn radius diff between the two would be useful for a advanced skier. But like you said "unless already a good skier", and i had assumed j improved since getting the current ski and "advanced" fit the good skier category, i suppose being content to have a new old stock current ski could indicate otherwise. Regardless, if the ski were mostly for bump skiing, perhaps nothing to gain (i couldn't say it's been a long time since i had the knees for bumps). Again why after reading dialogue re demo's, i tried to reinforce the recommendation to demo the ski, suggesting a possible route to that end to look into. Also as i said i didn't understand why you and Phil were recommending the short length, thanks for explaining. Going forward i'll leave the epic ski advice post to the experts.
 

 


I am with you. I have no idea why a 163 ski was recommended to an Advanced skier that is 5'9".  If the ski is too stiff for a light weight, then buy a different ski.  I am 5'10" / 200lbs and my average ski length is 185 and I am no expert.

 

post #13 of 22
Quote:
Originally Posted by liv2 ski View Post




I am with you. I have no idea why a 163 ski was recommended to an Advanced skier that is 5'9".  If the ski is too stiff for a light weight, then buy a different ski.  I am 5'10" / 200lbs and my average ski length is 185 and I am no expert.

 


You outweigh the op by 55#. You are more than 33% heavier than jstein. Optimum ski length is MUCH more a function of weight than height.

Learning to actually use a ski is a lot easier if the ski length is appropriate to the skier' weight and skill. Muscling around a length that sounds macho in the bar is a pretty good recipe for remaining not an expert.
post #14 of 22



 

Quote:
Originally Posted by liv2 ski View Post


If the ski is too stiff for a light weight, then buy a different ski. 

 


Skiers height is just the lazy way to measure an average indication of weight and as Bob infers obviously isn't going to work for everyone correctly.

 

It's not just the stiffness either. The leverage rotational effect on your feet i.e deflection on the extreme ends of the skis, gets more pronounced the longer the ski is too.

If you don't have a lot of weight to combat that but still want a stiff ski for the ultimate feel, control and edge hold then going shorter is the right thing to do. It's easy to feel the differance just trying the same type of ski and demoing two sizes. People get caught up in that they think they need super long skis to be able to go fast and be stable. If you have decent balance and ski your edges properly on stiffer skis that's not always the case if you are of a light weight. Look what SL carvers can manage in only 165cm's for example, they don't do too bad in fast medium turns either. Prior to the fat ski explosion weren't they the quasi all mountain weapons of choice?


 

 

post #15 of 22
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob Peters View Post


You outweigh the op by 55#. You are more than 33% heavier than jstein. Optimum ski length is MUCH more a function of weight than height.
Learning to actually use a ski is a lot easier if the ski length is appropriate to the skier' weight and skill. Muscling around a length that sounds macho in the bar is a pretty good recipe for remaining not an expert.


Thanks for the dose of sanity, Bob. smile.gif  

post #16 of 22

...sanity is overrated, OT, but with this seasons snow if i'm getting a 2nd quiver Alpine ski i want these:

"TESTOSTERMINATOR!If you have been looking for race ski performance but with the look and attitude of a Ford GT40, then the new GTO series is for you! These skis defy (modern) convention. Buy them long, mount'em up, and make all your buddies jealous! Fortunately these skis don't require noise restrictors, because these machines thunder down the mountain.FRMO - For Real Men Only!"

 

HEAD GTO 200; 170cm, 180cm, 190cm, 200cm 118-63-100@200cm, any guess what Elena weights? lol -

 

 

 

post #17 of 22

The point of that video was?

 

I would say that she had too much ski on and was forcing her turns.  Worked OK for her on the groomers.  How would it be on bumps or more challenging of-piste?
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by neonorchid View Post

...sanity is overrated, OT, but with this seasons snow if i'm getting a 2nd quiver Alpine ski i want these:

"TESTOSTERMINATOR!If you have been looking for race ski performance but with the look and attitude of a Ford GT40, then the new GTO series is for you! These skis defy (modern) convention. Buy them long, mount'em up, and make all your buddies jealous! Fortunately these skis don't require noise restrictors, because these machines thunder down the mountain.FRMO - For Real Men Only!"

 

HEAD GTO 200; 170cm, 180cm, 190cm, 200cm 118-63-100@200cm, any guess what Elena weights? lol -

 

 

 



 

post #18 of 22
Originally Posted by tetonpwdrjunkie View Post

The point of that video was?

 

I would say that she had too much ski on and was forcing her turns.  Worked OK for her on the groomers.  How would it be on bumps or more challenging of-piste?

...yeah i don't think it's designed for the bump crowd or steep narrow couloir's -

"Details: Speed superfast, Skill top skiers, Terrain groomed slopes, Style excellennt skiing technique. lengths 170/160/190/200"

Would guess Head knew what they were doing releasing the GTO in Europe, seems tailor made for above timber line on piste long cruising runs. Kind of retro cool, everything old is new again. A reviewer commented on the need to bend it to turn. From what i've read people like the ski.

http://www.head.com/ski/products/skis/gto/gto-200/3018/?region=eu

Oh and pardon the cynicism, Fwiw, i wrote "OT", already said i'll leave advice in a epic "what ski..." thread for the experts, figured Bob P. would like "Testosterminator", seemed fitting to "a length that sounds macho in the bar...", besides i hear width is where its at with the barflys;) lol.


 

 

post #19 of 22

neonorchid: Details: Speed super-fast, Skill top skiers, Terrain groomed slopes, Style excellent skiing technique

 

Clearly this is not the case. That "Elena" video clearly shows that you can ski it slowly, you can be a mediocre skier with marginal technique and still ski them. smile.gif

post #20 of 22
Quote:
Originally Posted by TomB View Post

neonorchid: Details: Speed super-fast, Skill top skiers, Terrain groomed slopes, Style excellent skiing technique

 

Clearly this is not the case. That "Elena" video clearly shows that you can ski it slowly, you can be a mediocre skier with marginal technique and still ski them. smile.gif


 and to add, in smooth, easy terrain. Saw those on the Head Europe site a while back. Look like fun skis for sure though.

 

post #21 of 22
Thread Starter 

Wow, this thread really took quite a turn.  I will be going to Utah at the end of next month and will see if they have demos available.  As to length, I have found a shorter ski to be much more pleasant to ski on for me.  I don't want to muscle my skis around all day I'm a pretty small guy.  My previous skis were 177 bandits....way too big for me.  I was fine on them and never knew better until it was recommended that I try a shorter ski.  After switching to those 159 atomics I felt like I could ski anything.

post #22 of 22

I've tried the 83, 88, and 89's All have a rockered tip and tail and ski about 10cm shorter than the length. I'm trying to get a pair of 89's in a 180 for western Canada  for the 'Power Highway' interior BC. So the main difference is the 83 comes on a rail system or flat  and I've only seen the  88 & 89 flat which is it's a drilled ski vs on a track type binding mount system like most of the carvers out there and this will effect the feel and flex of the ski under foot. The wider you go  means slower edge to edge but better float & stability. When you roll onto the edge with a rockered ski it does come around mush faster thus tighter turns on groomed and better float in crud, pow and softer snow. So bottom line demo the different widths, and length and note how it's mounted. All these factors will change the was a ski performs no matter who you are. There were also some comments about bumps with a wider and longer ski. What I've experienced is if the region has lots of bump skiers on short skis the bumps get tight and troughed out very tight, thus it makes it more challenging with a longer wider ski. This you have to change you line and tactics to accommodate the troughs as the shovel and tail will catch. If you plan to spend lots of time in bumpy terrain again try different skis lengths and width to see what works best. Here in the east  where the snow is mostly man made and hard-pack most of us are on a 70-75cm  width under foot. When you head west 80-100cm  under foot depending on the mountain. Hope this gives you some good into to help make you final decision and like buying a car test it out make some notes and add up your score as you have to live with en so don't impulse buy until you try!

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Ski Gear Discussion
EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › Ski Gear Discussion › New ski advice rossi experience 98, 88.