EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › Ski Gear Discussion › 186 S3 as East coast tree/bump ski, or too long?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

186 S3 as East coast tree/bump ski, or too long?

post #1 of 9
4/16/12 at 6:00am
Thread Starter 

I know someone who might want to get rid of a 186 Rossi S3 - I'm meeting him to ski next week, should I ask him to bring the ski along for me to try or not?

 

I 'm pretty sure that if I was demoing the ski from a shop I'd want to start with the 178.

 

Me 5'-9" 165 - 170 lb, not sure what "level" but can ski most things.

 

Currently my everyday ski on both coasts is a Scott P4 in 181 - I can ski that in bumps and EC trees, but it seems like I might want something a little lighter/narrower/more rockered.  There is a good chance I'll put a tech binding on this ski if I get it.

Reply
post #2 of 9
4/16/12 at 4:33pm

I'm 6' 205lbs, I have the S3 in the 186cm. To me it is too long to manuever around really tight trees, i.e. steep 2-4' spacing or less. Wide open slopes, bumps, widely spaced tree/glades it is a very good ski. It does ski short, makes short smear turns it's just the physical length that seems to get hung up in the really tight and steep trees for me. Go for the 178 I think you will enjoy that more. FWIW I have the Blizzard One in 177 that I use much more than the S3 and am getting a Worth Mt. Humpback in a 178cm. I'm not going over those lengths for my east coast tree skiing.

If your friend is bringing it and you try it get it in the conditions you want to use it in, if you like tight trees then really ski it in there and see if it works for you.

Reply
post #3 of 9
4/16/12 at 7:58pm

Remember that the S3 measures quite short versus the named length.  The 186 comes in around 182.5cm standing on end (chord length).  In addition the 178 has virtually the same running length as the 186.  The 186 just has a longer rockered section in the tip (especially) and the tail.

 

Good luck.

Reply
post #4 of 9
4/16/12 at 8:00pm

Not crazy long, and some like added length for landings. OTOH, in tight trees you still have to get the entire ski back and forth, regardless of how easy it is. Depends on how and where you ski. 

Reply
post #5 of 9
4/16/12 at 8:09pm
Thread Starter 

Thanks for the input.  What you say is pretty much what I figured - I just didn't want to pass up cheap skis if someone was going to say "no, those would be great, I ski them in the trees and they rock."  I probably won't even ask my friend to take up space in his rack with them...

 

Btw, I think I missed you by a day at the West Coast Gathering...sorry to hear about your garage.  Hopefully there will be another gathering next year.  (Actually I may be spending some time in Middlebury next year, so perhaps I will check out the snowbowl.) 

Reply
post #6 of 9
4/17/12 at 3:37am
Quote:
Originally Posted by cometjo View Post

Thanks for the input.  What you say is pretty much what I figured - I just didn't want to pass up cheap skis if someone was going to say "no, those would be great, I ski them in the trees and they rock."  I probably won't even ask my friend to take up space in his rack with them...

 

Btw, I think I missed you by a day at the West Coast Gathering...sorry to hear about your garage.  Hopefully there will be another gathering next year.  (Actually I may be spending some time in Middlebury next year, so perhaps I will check out the snowbowl.) 


West Coast gathering?  wink.gif  You don't teach geography, right?

 

Yes, you guys missed each other by a day at Stowe.

 

Reply
post #7 of 9
4/17/12 at 5:17am
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by KevinF View Post


West Coast gathering?  wink.gif  You don't teach geography, right?

 

Yes, you guys missed each other by a day at Stowe.

 

I must have my upcoming trip to Whistler on my mind :)


 

 

Reply
post #8 of 9
4/17/12 at 7:37pm

If you are around the Bowl next year I'll show you some tree runs. Have fun at Whistler.

Reply
post #9 of 9
4/19/12 at 9:06am

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by cometjo View Post

I know someone who might want to get rid of a 186 Rossi S3 - I'm meeting him to ski next week, should I ask him to bring the ski along for me to try or not?

 

I 'm pretty sure that if I was demoing the ski from a shop I'd want to start with the 178.

 

Me 5'-9" 165 - 170 lb, not sure what "level" but can ski most things.

 

Currently my everyday ski on both coasts is a Scott P4 in 181 - I can ski that in bumps and EC trees, but it seems like I might want something a little lighter/narrower/more rockered.  There is a good chance I'll put a tech binding on this ski if I get it.

 

to long they will be for you.

Reply
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 › 186 S3 as East coast tree/bump ski, or too long?