EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › Ski Gear Discussion › What length Rossi S3 skis should I buy?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

What length Rossi S3 skis should I buy?

post #1 of 19
Thread Starter 

First time posting here so hopefully I can get some good advice.

 

I've decided to purchase some Rossi S3's and am trying to decide what length.

 

I'm male, 5'6, 130lbs, and just beginning to ski powder.

 

Should I go with the 168s or the 178s? I'm not a crazy aggressive skier but not conservative either.

 

Thanks for the help!

post #2 of 19

I'm 5'11" and weigh 140lbs and i ski the 178 S3. Definately don't go with the 168 however, as the 178 is squirrely enough, and is plenty easy to ski. IMO, you should go with the 178, as that way you won't outgrow them as quick when start getting better.

post #3 of 19

I would think the longer pair as well.

I am on a pair of 188 s7 and find them perfect, even a tad short for me.

I am a little "stouter" than you at 5'11/ 194lbs.

Good luck!

post #4 of 19
Quote:
Originally Posted by skijapan01 View Post

First time posting here so hopefully I can get some good advice.

 

I've decided to purchase some Rossi S3's and am trying to decide what length.

 

I'm male, 5'6, 130lbs, and just beginning to ski powder.

 

Should I go with the 168s or the 178s? I'm not a crazy aggressive skier but not conservative either.

 

Thanks for the help!


Where are you skiing in Japan? Venue can make some of the choice for you.

 

post #5 of 19

I think it depends on what your goal is.  I demoed them in 168 and 178.  Found the shorter ones not as "stable" when on groomers (it was that kind of day), but found the longer ones not as agile in the trees (which is what I want them for).  Still looking, but they are on my list to be re-tried some day along with the Sideshow, the S7's and the Nordica Enforcer.  

post #6 of 19

Note the S3 measures quite short for the stated length.  For example the 186 is more like 182cm when measured along the chord length (i.e. tip to tip).

 

I had a big grin after a couple of demo runs on the 186 back in July.  Considering buying a pair myself. 

 

Enjoy your new boards.

post #7 of 19
Thread Starter 

Thanks everyone for the replies. I'm looking to ski more backcountry up in Hokkaido so I'm thinking the shorter length might be better. But i'll also ski resorts on day trips. I'd prefer the shorter length but if they are that shaky on the groomers, then maybe the 178s are the way to go.

post #8 of 19
Quote:
Originally Posted by sibhusky View Post

I think it depends on what your goal is.  I demoed them in 168 and 178.  Found the shorter ones not as "stable" when on groomers (it was that kind of day), but found the longer ones not as agile in the trees (which is what I want them for).  Still looking, but they are on my list to be re-tried some day along with the Sideshow, the S7's and the Nordica Enforcer.  



What is your weight and height, if I may I ask? For me, the 178 is plenty short to be throne around in the trees, and although it might not be as easy as the 168, it is still way easy. I find the 178 is already really 'squirrely', I can believe the 168 will be a ton more. All in all though, a really fun ski, as long as you keep it within its boundaries.

 

post #9 of 19
Quote:
Originally Posted by skijapan01 View Post

Thanks everyone for the replies. I'm looking to ski more backcountry up in Hokkaido so I'm thinking the shorter length might be better. But i'll also ski resorts on day trips. I'd prefer the shorter length but if they are that shaky on the groomers, then maybe the 178s are the way to go.



Hokkaido backcountry, go longer. It's pretty wide open and with a few exceptions, even the trees and bushes aren't particularly tight.

post #10 of 19

Shorter and heavier than you.  My normal skis have been 167 or so for years.  
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sigurd View Post



Quote:
Originally Posted by sibhusky View Post

I think it depends on what your goal is.  I demoed them in 168 and 178.  Found the shorter ones not as "stable" when on groomers (it was that kind of day), but found the longer ones not as agile in the trees (which is what I want them for).  Still looking, but they are on my list to be re-tried some day along with the Sideshow, the S7's and the Nordica Enforcer.  



What is your weight and height, if I may I ask? For me, the 178 is plenty short to be throne around in the trees, and although it might not be as easy as the 168, it is still way easy. I find the 178 is already really 'squirrely', I can believe the 168 will be a ton more. All in all though, a really fun ski, as long as you keep it within its boundaries.

 



 

post #11 of 19
Quote:
Originally Posted by sibhusky View Post

Shorter and heavier than you.  My normal skis have been 167 or so for years.  
 


Trust me, you don't want to ski off piste in Hokkaido in a 167 unless you're a very petite woman.

 

post #12 of 19
Quote:
Originally Posted by markojp View Post


Trust me, you don't want to ski off piste in Hokkaido in a 167 unless you're a very petite woman.

 


I totally agree with this. Although on a non-rockered ski a 167 might be good, rockered skis need to be bought much larger, which of course you know. The 178 S3 has about 28 cm of rocker on both tip and tail, so the 178 really only has a running length of 122cm. That is short. A 168 will be far worse.

 

post #13 of 19

I think MY off piste is quite a bit different than YOUR off piste.  I am looking for something to negotiate tight evergreens.  I am more than happy with the Outlaws I have in just plain old ungroomed stuff, deep as your boot top or whatever.  I need something that TURNS...NOW.  So, length is a huge issue.  If our treed areas were aspens, I could maybe plan out my path, but around here you can't see where the next open spot is until you round that tree, so responsiveness is what I am looking for.  

post #14 of 19

Not to be annoying or anything, but I also ski in the rockies, where it is all evergreens. the trees are supertight, like what you're describing, and the 178s are no problem at all. anyway, just sayin'.

post #15 of 19

178cm going to short will actually make it less nimble in powder.

post #16 of 19

I am 5'9 140lbs and I ski the 178s. I RAIL groomers on these skis, I BLAST through crud and am always looking to catch air off any bump or mogul. Havnt had a chance to test them in real pow yet, but they seem amazingly fun in soft conditions so far. SUPER agile and playful, will do what ever you want. If you have decided on the S3s, at your hight and weight I would get the 178s for sure.

post #17 of 19
Quote:
Originally Posted by FlyingNugget View Post

 ...I BLAST through crud...

What other skis have you skied? Because compared to most skis, the S3s aren't very strong crudbusters. They are to soft. This makes them fun in pow though, so I guess it's just a tradeoff.

 

post #18 of 19
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sigurd View Post

What other skis have you skied? Because compared to most skis, the S3s aren't very strong crudbusters. They are to soft. This makes them fun in pow though, so I guess it's just a tradeoff.

 


Not many. I completely agree with you, crud is definitely the S3s weakness, too wide and soft. I was just letting the OP know how I ski my s3s, and what you can make them do.

 

post #19 of 19
Quote:
Originally Posted by FlyingNugget View Post


Not many. I completely agree with you, crud is definitely the S3s weakness, too wide and soft. I was just letting the OP know how I ski my s3s, and what you can make them do.

 


Ok, cool.

 

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 › What length Rossi S3 skis should I buy?