New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Rossignol S3

post #1 of 16
Thread Starter 



I`m thinking of getting 2012 Rossignol S3 skis, they have apparently been used once and are on sale w/bindings non-centered (good) for 400$. I currently have 2011 Line Sir Francis Bacon 183cm (115mm). I find them not that fun in the East but out west they are unbelievable. The Rossignol`s for me will be for skiing in the east with their smaller waist at 98mm and for my dad when we go out west. Right now he is skiing on Volkls from 2006 that are way to small for him in length and width, all in all he is sinking in the powder out West. Also Park does not apply for these skis. 

My questions for the Rossignol are:

Are they too long at 186cm for me (6'1, 160lb) (high advanced)?

Are they going to be better for the east (WHITEFACE, Quebec, Vermont)? Still be good out West (Anywhere, this Year BC and Utah)?

Is 400$ a good deal? I think it`s amazing but what do i know...


Thanks, Tyler


P.s Whiteface is highlighted for my home area, it`s not that ICY!!! But do not center these skis around skiing that specific mountain. 

post #2 of 16

Edge grip is not the long suit of the S3. It may be marginally better on hard snow than your SFB's (certainly a bit more nimble) but still probably not an ideal daily driver the east. Despite the differences in width, the two skis have more or less similar skill sets. One may a bit better for one thing, the other maybe better for another but roughly similar overall capabilities. It will be fine for your Dad out west. The length is is no problem as the S3 skis very short. The "deal" is OK at best. Depending on the binding and whether you'd have to pay for a remount, you could probably get pretty close to that for new ones.



post #3 of 16

I see a fair number of S3's on guys slipping into the trees back here. SJ is right, they'll be noticeably better than your SFB's for hardpack and bumps, and decent on normal groomers, but that's not saying much compared to other choices you have. I wouldn't own one for a daily driver in the east, unless your idea of driving is through trees and only when there's soft snow.


Suggest you check out one of our review threads on 80-100 mm skis, lot of great alternatives out there that will also rock in the west. Bonafide, Line 98, Moment PB&J come to mind if you want a rockered ski. 

post #4 of 16

I demo'd S3s in Park City.  You're a more skilled skier than am I.  Nevertheless, I had a ton of fun on bumps & bowls.  They mashed potatoes on groomed runs very well, and they were good in crud, too.



post #5 of 16
Thread Starter 

Thanks for the advise so far. Remounting won`t be an issue so the all in price on the hill ready will be 400$. 

I think I`ll see if I get anymore replies and ponder it for a bit.


The Line Prophet 98 would be ideal but finding them is another issue. The thing about the rossignol is it`s as simple as driving downtown and picking them up and they are ready for next season.

Honestly though don`t concentrate on skiing whiteface as it`s around 15 days in the East and 15 days in the West for a normal ski season which this one hasn`t been... Rocks all throughout the year here basically...

I was also looking at the Rossignol Experience 98 as well do they do well out West in Powder, the only turn off is non-twin tipped. 

Also I`m not the kind that zips down groomers, more moguls and Glades (if Whiteface could ever open them...).

post #6 of 16

You're starting to not make sense here. Your OP said.............


You wanted a ski for the east, (you already have one for the west)

When you are in the East, you ski mostly Whiteface........(BTW......specifically which eastern resort doesn't matter all that much)

When you ski the west you'll ski your SFB's and your Dad will ski the new ones.

You don't ski park or at least won't on these.


Now you say........................


Don't concentrate on Whiteface (east) Why not?.....that's where you're gonna ski 'em......right?

You did say you won't ski these in the West.......your Dad will.........right?

Rossi Exp 98 is miles different from an S3. And.....BTW, they don't do well in powder but why would you care? have your SFB's

You say you don't do Park, yet it's a turn off that the Exp 98 isn't a twin tip.......HUH?......then why the twin tip?

The P-98 sounds ideal but you can't find one on sale? So what.....get something else........


It sounds like you are looking for an excuse to buy an S3 b/c it's easy. OK......go buy it. It's wrong for what you said you want and the deal is mediocre. but it seems that's what you want. So......go buy it.


Or......listen to the advice that Beyond gave you which is look for a narrower more hard snow oriented ski. The Experience 88 is a better call than the 98 if it needs to be a Rossi. If not.....lots of better choices than an S3 (Blizz Bushwhacker, Nordica Steadfast, to name a few) If it has to be a twip then a Line P-90 is a possibility.


Or......redefine what you said you want and come up with a new wish list.



post #7 of 16
Thread Starter 

Sorry for the confusion, I`ll clear it up.


50/50 East/West Skis

In East, 50% Whiteface 50% Everywhere Else.

In West, must be like 7/10 in Powder. 80-100mm I think will be good. Rockers are a plus.

Not Park Oriented (No Rails) but again twin tipped for Jumps in Park and off-piste are a plus. 



Rossignol S3, Line Prophet 98, Blizzard Bushwhakers , + Similar 


What I`m able to get: W/Bindings

Rossignol S3 (1day) (400$) , Head Monster iM 78 (300$) (newish) (Saw good reviews on these here) , 2012 Dynastar Legend Sultan 85 (450$), 2012 Armada AR7 (500$), 2012 Atomic Access (450$), 2012 Salomon Twenty Twelve (470$), Head 2011 J.O. Pro 84 (450$), 2011 Head John 94 (400$),  2011 Head Richie 102 (400$), 2011 Head Joe 105 (400$), 2009 Dynastar 6th Sense Distorter 87 (370$), 2011 Atomic Snoop 94 (300$), 2011 Coreupt Adrien Coirier 102 (300$), 2011 Coreupt Candid Pow 102 (300$), 

+ Still looking

Got a pretty good list now

So many more as I found a store close to me which is having a ski sell off

Starting to lean off of Rossignols


What is the ideal length and range of length? (6'1 160lb) 186cm?


I`ll be adding to this post What I`m able to get.

This Font Means NEW and Non-Mounter still with Bindings

Edited by skiwhitblu - 4/28/12 at 5:09pm
post #8 of 16



Here are a couple of non-objective opinions from someone who spent several years (until this past winter) as a rep for Head and the past winter as one for Rossi:


1. The S3 is, as SierraJim has suggested, a great ski for soft snow and playing around.  It's "adequate" as a groomer ski but that's not its strong suit.  If I were buying an "Eastern" ski, it wouldn't be an S3.  That said, I did get a pair as my Jackson Hole backcountry alpine touring skis (but that's almost exclusively ssoft-snow skiing).


2. The E98 is what I would call a firmer-snow-leaning ski.  It's a strong, gutsy ski for a big, fast skier.  While it "leans" toward harder snow, I put in many, many days on this winter in soft snow and powder and enjoyed it.  It's not, however, a ski to be lazy on.  It likes to go fast.  It also can be skied shorter than some comparable skis.  Where the 186 S3 skis almost silly-short for me (I'm almost exactly your size), the 180cm E98 is all the ski I need.


3. Of the skis you list, and for what you seem to say you want, I think the Head 78 is nearly perfect.  I can't remember the lengths it comes in, but I would think 180 or just longer would be right.


Good luck with the choices.

post #9 of 16
Thread Starter 

I`m starting to lean towards the Atomic Snoop now. It has a pretty middle width at 94mm. The reviews I`ve seen are pretty limited but overall pretty good with the evo customer reviews giving a 5/5 on 7 reviews. The only thing is I`ve barely heard of them. One person here has reviewed them at a 4.5 stars with a all around good review. 

Has anyone skied them or knows anyone who has skied them?

Has the technology progressed far enough in skis to make them dated? They are 2011 skis but seem more on the basic side of things or did the ski makers go crazy this year with the BBR esc.

Description from company looks pretty well targeted at my desires as well and the reviews reflect their description.

"the Snoop is wide enough to handle the deepest of powder days and narrow enough to set down giant slalom style carves and the groomers."


Thanks, Tyler


post #10 of 16

If there is a ski available that's worse than an S3 for eastern snow, it's the Snoop.



post #11 of 16

Can you just wait until next season? Then you could demo and I would bet that almost all of the skis you are looking at will still be available then and probably at still-cheaper prices.


Although I wouldn't sugar-coat it quite as much as SJ did, I would probably try to gently suggest that you consider something besides Snoops as an Eastern resort ski.


Also - I'm editing this to add that when I read your weight I was looking at a really small screen.  In truth, I weigh 30# more than you, for whatever that's worth.


Good luck.

post #12 of 16
Thread Starter 

I`m focusing in on the atomics as the store close by has lots of them on special with bindings and the widths and specification gear towards the 80-100mm range which I`m looking for. Here are the ones I`ve come up with 

2011 Atomic Drifter 174cm 93mm 

2011 Atomic Aspect 180cm  87mm

2010/2011 Atomic Supreme 181 87mm

2011 Atomic Snoop/ Theory 176cm 93mm

2012 Atomic Trooper 170cm 85mm (Seems like to much of a park ski)


Drifter and Aspect are really sticking out for me right now. 

In my experience buying skis which has been 3 years now..not much I know. The prices seem to be much cheaper now then anytime of the year for any ski that is the reason I`m looking in now rather then waiting to the start of next season. 

Also is the Rossignol Avenger to much of a front side ski for the west. 

post #13 of 16



I am not sure if you made a decision yet, but I would recommend the Rossignol S3.  I own a pair.  I cannot say enough good things about it.  They are a lot of fun to ski on.  Its a very versatile ski that you can take anywhere.  You can use it in the east coast, west coast, touring, powder, bumps, trees, or groomers.  Its a ski that will really surprise you.  Its very nimble for 98mm underfoot.  Its a surprisingly good hard snow carver and surprisingly good on ice thanks to the camber underfoot.  It does inspire confidence thanks to the rocker tip and tail. The only drawback on it is a catch 22.  The tip and tail will chatter at high speeds.  But its not made for that.  Its made to surf ungroomed, powder, and crud.  So what's a drawback going fast is a strength in the powder, chop, and crud.  There is no metal in the ski, so its very light to carry around.  Its a great complement if you have a good hard snow carver.  But you can also take this ski out in any condition and have fun on it.  The great debate is what size to pick.  A lot of people will tell you to size up b/c the Rossi S3 skis short on hard snow.  I would agree with this.  However, my normal ski size is between 167 cm and 173 cm.  I went with the 168 cm S3 instead of the 178 cm.  I am glad I did personally.  I am 5'9 160 lbs.  I was not comfortable going with a ski taller than me.  I hope this helps and good luck!       

post #14 of 16

Boy, you made me feel better after reading your post. I'm late to this game, but just came home with a set of Rossi S3's at 168cm. (used once for $399 w/ Marker bindings).


I am 5'9ish and 168lbs and was worried about the legnth (the Rossi website recommends 178 but it seems like they always recommend skis a bit longer)


I am taking it out to Stratton in the am so I will report back. I am a glade/ungroomed skier that is forced to ski groomers with the family at times (hence Strattton lol)..

post #15 of 16

Thanks as well. I demoed a pair of 168's this past week, and they were the most fun out of the four skis I tried. I to was torn between the 168 and the 178. This discussion has been very helpful.



post #16 of 16
Well my thoughts have changed. I went back to the ski shop and went to the 178. I LOVED the 168's in the glades, but after skiing Mount Snow on a 10" fresh pow day. The skis were overwelmed. The extra length is really need in my case as I am 168lbs. I just got out of the glades with the 178's and they didnt miss a beat ! Still turn quick, are light, and a ton of fun. Dang I love this ski!
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Ski Gear Discussion