or Connect
EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › Ski Gear Discussion › Rossignol S3 vs Line Influence 105
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Rossignol S3 vs Line Influence 105

post #1 of 25
Thread Starter 

I've narrowed my search down to the Rossi S3 or the Line Influence 105.  I'm looking for a ski for the next several years and while I live in Chicago, I get out West a few times a year.  I'm an advanced/expert skiier that likes to play in the powder, trees, etc but still spends a decent amount of time on groomers.  I'm not into overly steep hardpack. I'm 5'9"/175lbs.

 

I demo'd the S3 in Whistler last year and really liked it, and it's that experience that is pushing me to finally purchase instead of rent. But as I've done research, the Influence 105 sounds like an awesome ski that could really hold up better on the powder.  Since I've never skid anything wider than the S3, I don't have anything to compare it to and while there are TONS of reviews of both skis online, there's nothing to tell me the difference between the two head-to-head.

 

Any feedback would be MUCH appreciated as i'm getting ready to head west again!

post #2 of 25

If you demo'd the S3 and liked it, pull the trigger. There's good reasons why it is such a popular ski up at Whistler. 

 

If you are still shopping, why have you settled between the S3 and Influence 105?  Those two skis have almost nothing in common, aside from both being skis.  Different feel, different target skier, different performance band.  That's why you'll be unlikely to find a head-to-head comparison of the two. . . unless you ask for it on a place like this board.

 

FWIW (and that isn't much), I like the Influence 105 a lot - I demo'd it twice last season - and I think that it is an underrated, under-loved ski.  But it is nothing like a S3.  The Influence is a damp, powerful ski, with the metal matrix under the topsheet and sidewall underfoot.  The reason that I like the ski a lot is that it had a similar feel to my P100s, but they improved it in two ways - way more damp and solid on hard pack, combined with a more loose, modern feel in soft snow (probably from the rocker and being a bit more forward mounted than the P100).  But those are exactly the reasons why it isn't a good comparable with the S3.  To me, the Influence is more of a big mountain charger, solid on firm snow with soft snow capability.  It kind of splits the difference between the Cochise and the Bonafide, but it is more in that category of stiff, burly skis (that might also include the Mantra, E98, Atomic Ritual, Cham 107). The P98 is the Line that is probably closer to the S3 in capability, although relatively more damp than the S3, it might give you more firm snow grip for groomers without totally losing the fun-factor of the S3 that you probably enjoyed in the powder at Whistler.

 

The S3, on the other hand, is a softer flexing, more forgiving, more snappy wood core ski that is respectable on groomers (up to a limit) but biased toward soft snow.  Comparable skis would be: Atomic Access (if you are a value operator, the best deal on the ski wall in my opinion), Armada TST, Cham 97 (metal but 5 point shape aimed at soft snow), or maybe the Nordica Soul Rider (a really fun poppy twin). 

 

This is where magazine/internet research can be dangerous.  You seem to have concluded that the Influence 105 would be the better powder ski of the two - and the greater width might suggest that.  But shape, flex and construction are just as important factors and as a result, the S3 is likely to outperform the Influence 105 as a pure powder ski (unless you want that heavier, more damp feel). If the S3 was solid enough for you on groomers, pick it up and don't look back.

 

Both skis, or types of skis, would be worthy choices for a OSQ to take out west.  Neither is better nor more "expert."  The question is what do you want?  Powerful and damp?  Light and poppy?  Stable and cruisy?  Fun and surfy?  Do you want to optimize for high speed on groomers on the front side of Blackcomb, or for runs off-piste in soft snow off the peak chair?  Only you know that.  Your height/weight is in the middle. . .  although "not into overly steep hardpack" suggests that a more playful, less charger ski is probably the direction that you would enjoy most. 

 

One thing that both the S3 and the Influence 105 have in common. . . they are both being phased out.  So you could probably pick up either for 1/2 price this summer.  Or if you are willing to wait and want the latest and greatest, you might check out next year's Line Sick Day 98 or the Rossi Sin 7 (98 underfoot), both of which sound like evolutions of the S3 idea. . . at least from the press coverage.

 

Hope that helps.

post #3 of 25
Thread Starter 

WOW, thank you for taking the time to provide what I find to be an awesome response.  I really appreciate it.  And you're right, I completely assumed that the 105 width would be better in power.  And for what i'm looking to do on the mountain, the S3 is a great fit.  I will look into those other skis you mentioned to consider as well, but I'll probably be pulling the trigger on the S3's.  Thanks again!

post #4 of 25

The S3 is literally a noodle compared to the Influence.

 

Lewy gave a great summary of both skis.

post #5 of 25
Quote:
Originally Posted by east or bust View Post

The S3 is literally a noodle compared to the Influence.

 

Lewy gave a great summary of both skis.


Or you could say the Line is a plank compared to the S3. same difference.

post #6 of 25

If you like the S3 you should ask yourself: Why am I not buying it?

 

Or maybe you would rather take a chance on a ski you may or may not like?

post #7 of 25

You're making too much of the difference in width.  7mm is only 0.27 inches.  All things being equal, there would be virtually no difference in float.  

post #8 of 25
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr5150 View Post

If you like the S3 you should ask yourself: Why am I not buying it?

 

 

Agreed.  And you've already started down the path of comparing it with totally different skis, as LewyM explained.  The most likely outcome if you continue that way is you'll end up with something else that you actually don't like as much as the S3.  At the end of the day, the best advice I think I've read on here is that if you're shopping for skis and you demo a pair you really like, just buy them.  Don't overthink it.

post #9 of 25
Quote:
Originally Posted by mtcyclist View Post

You're making too much of the difference in width.  7mm is only 0.27 inches.  All things being equal, there would be virtually no difference in float.  


It's not the width that makes these ski's different, it's shape, flex, and construction.

post #10 of 25

I live in Vancouver and ski Cypress, Whistler and Baker.  I love my Line Influence 105's, Im 50, 5'8" 170lb's and I use the 179's.  They really rip the Hard pack, crud and powder, super damp and very predictable, but I find them too stiff for the bumps.  The thing I really like about this ski is that you can make almost any turn shape, long fast carving GS turns to tight hard turns are no problem, at high speeds they don't bite or toss you out of a turns unexpectedly .   Haven't skied the S3, but the S3 sounds more comparable to the Line Sir Francis Bacon, you might want to look at those instead of the Influence if your into a softer flexing ski, almost identical profile as the Influence.  If you spend the majority of your time on piste I would go with the Influence, I am sure it will be better on the hard pack and ice
 

post #11 of 25
Quote:
Originally Posted by ecimmortal View Post

It's not the width that makes these ski's different, it's shape, flex, and construction.

 

That was why I said "all things being equal."  I was trying to point out that the OP is making too much of the 7mm width difference.

post #12 of 25
Rossignol was kind enough to send me a pair of S3's this year...I skied them once on a powder day and sold em. Not a terrible ski but it certainly didn't stand up to my high standards. Not exceptionally floaty in pow or crud and worthless on hard pack at high speeds (50mph or higher). I found them to be super chattery. I was on the 178, which I will admit was way too short for me. That being said, many people I know (many of whom are excellent instructors) rave about the S3. Personally, I say if you're looking for a real powder ski, go much fatter. I demoed the new Icelantic Gypsys today and at 125mm underfoot I would take them over the S3 any day of the week. Unbelievable in pow and crud and they carve groomers like you wouldn't believe. Just my opinion though. I've never skied the lines but just comparing specs I would say they are far superior to the s3s.
post #13 of 25

Why'd they send you the skis if you don't know what to do with them? nonono2.gif    over 50mph? give me a break. deep powder? not their mission. 

Your standards exceed Rossignol's designs?

post #14 of 25
Quote:
Originally Posted by HippieFlippinNM View Post

 I've never skied the lines but just comparing specs I would say they are far superior to the s3s.

 

I've always found that's an extremely reliable way to judge one ski as far superior to another.

post #15 of 25

You liked the S3's in powder? You're half way home. Did you like them well enough in what you'd have to do to get to the powder (sketchy, maybe bare or icy traverse or billygoating) and back from the powder (runout, piste to lift, etc.)? If so, pull that trigger. 

 

Me, I figure anything fat and rockery's gonna be just fine in powder. I think more about the other stuff (and price) for buying decisions. FWIW. And it's not worth much. 

post #16 of 25

How would these skis compare to the Line Prophet 98?  I'm considering buying these.  I also ski at Whistler and Cypress.  I'm advanced but don't necessarily want to push a ski really hard. 43, torn ACL, 5'6".  Love soft snow and carving tight turns. And powder when I get the chance, of course. smile.gif

 

I sort of get the feeling that the S3 might be too soft for me, and the Prophet 98 would be a bit softer than some other options.

 

thanks!
 

post #17 of 25
Quote:
Originally Posted by davluri View Post

Why'd they send you the skis if you don't know what to do with them? nonono2.gif     over 50mph? give me a break. deep powder? not their mission. 
Your standards exceed Rossignol's designs?

I was answering OPs question based upon my personal experience with the ski...not just being an idiot. OP is planning on skiing out west, probably in Whistler. He expressed that he is looking for something that will hold up in powder. I personally did not like the way the S3 performed in powder. And if you are going to quote someone, at least be accurate. At no point in my post did I ever say deep. I skied the S3 on Christmas Day in 4-6" of fresh and I wasn't impressed...take it or leave it.

The problem isn't that I'm holding the ski's design to a high standard. The problem is that the ski's design limits its ability to execute any one task well. It's trying to do too much. It's a full-rockered mid-fat ski...not quite fat enough to float the powder and the rocker design makes it feel chattery and unstable on hard pack. OP also said that he enjoys skiing groomers and that he is an advanced/expert skier. I assume that if OP is an advanced skier he is skiing pretty fast, which is why I emphasized that the S3 didn't hold up at high speeds. My standards are too high? Give me a break. If I'm spending $700 on skis they better perform. Your posts should be more about helping OP and less about attacking people for sharing their experiences.
post #18 of 25
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChiTown Skier View Post

I'm an advanced/expert skiier that likes to play in the powder, trees, etc but still spends a decent amount of time on groomers.  I'm not into overly steep hardpack. I'm 5'9"/175lbs.

 

 

Any feedback would be MUCH appreciated as i'm getting ready to head west again!

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by HippieFlippinNM View Post

Rossignol was kind enough to send me a pair of S3's this year...I skied them once on a powder day and sold em. Not a terrible ski but it certainly didn't stand up to my high standards. Not exceptionally floaty in pow or crud and worthless on hard pack at high speeds (50mph or higher). I found them to be super chattery. I was on the 178, which I will admit was way too short for me. That being said, many people I know (many of whom are excellent instructors) rave about the S3. Personally, I say if you're looking for a real powder ski, go much fatter. I demoed the new Icelantic Gypsys today and at 125mm underfoot I would take them over the S3 any day of the week. Unbelievable in pow and crud and they carve groomers like you wouldn't believe. Just my opinion though. I've never skied the lines but just comparing specs I would say they are far superior to the s3s.

Re-thinking my previous post. OK, the OP likes the S3. I said just buy 'um. I still stand by that statement.

 

With that said, I too demoed the S3s two seasons ago.  My goal for the S3 was to ski on fresh and cut up snow on powder days and also the soft grooomers that tend to accompany said powder conditions. I don't have the ability to spend the whole day off piste and I do enjoy groomers

 

My findings: Conditions were a foot plus of fresh and soft groomers. I was very impressed with how the S3 perfomed in fresh/cut up snow. However as stated, I found them to be a little sketchy on the groomers and limiting speedwise. But if as the OP stated he likes to do both and not just use the S3 to get back to the lift he may want to demo a few more skis. But then again, maybe as a better skier than I, the S3s may be just fine for him. I ended up getting a Sultan 94 which suits my purposes better than the S3.


Edited by Mr5150 - 2/15/13 at 12:00pm
post #19 of 25

Everyone has a different style of skiing and like what they like.  If you liked the S3 then go for it.  I'm 5'11'' 185lbs and use 186 S3's as my daily driver in the west.  Just got back from steamboat and skied powder up to my knees and loved every minute of it.  I have other hardpack skis but I always find myself reaching for my S3's because they are so much fun.  I still have fun on them if the conditions are less than perfect but I have other skis for that.  If you ski mostly icy hard conditions then I would go with the lines or something a little stiffer but if you do then you'll always be thinking about how fun the S3 was.  So you'll have to get both.

post #20 of 25
Thread Starter 
Thanks to all of you for the thoughts/information/feedback. This was extremely helpful and I did end up buying the S3's and picked them up today. Heading to Colorado on Friday. Can't wait!!!
post #21 of 25
Quote:
Originally Posted by shmish View Post

How would these skis compare to the Line Prophet 98?  I'm considering buying these.  I also ski at Whistler and Cypress.  I'm advanced but don't necessarily want to push a ski really hard. 43, torn ACL, 5'6".  Love soft snow and carving tight turns. And powder when I get the chance, of course. smile.gif

 

I sort of get the feeling that the S3 might be too soft for me, and the Prophet 98 would be a bit softer than some other options.

 

thanks!
 

 

I demoed all 3 (Line 105 & 98 and S3) last year among many others.

Based on what you said in your post, of these 3 skis, you would probably like the Prophet-98 best.  It's not as soft and "loosy-goosy" as the S3, but it's not as burly as the Influence-105.  It's a nice compromise between the other 2.  I didn't end up getting it, but I did like it.

 

Of course, demoing for yourself is always best, if you can in any way swing it...

post #22 of 25
Quote:
Originally Posted by east or bust View Post

The S3 is literally a noodle compared to the Influence.

 

Lewy gave a great summary of both skis.

You may not know what the word "literally" means.

post #23 of 25

You want a one quiver ski?  Go with the Influence 105.  You can't go wrong.  I have about 200 days on 2 pairs, and they are the quintessential one quiver ski.  I ski them in powder (lots), crud, loose pack, and hard pack, and they are what others have said - a hard charging big mountain ski. I ski Fernie Alpine Resort, where we get lots of powder days, but also due to the low elevation of the mountain, we get a wide variety of conditions, and they handle them all.   I would add, however, that they turn effortlessly and are a very stable ski.  I also agree that they are an underrated ski.  In that they don't make them anymore, I hope the Line Supernatural coming out next year will take their place.  I bought a pair of Line Sick Days last November, hoping they would be the next replacement for the 105's - they weren't.  I sold them and bought another pair of 105's.  I'll wear these out by mid season next year, and if I can find another pair, I'll get them again.

post #24 of 25
Quote:
Originally Posted by Skierish View Post

I demoed all 3 (Line 105 & 98 and S3) last year among many others.
Based on what you said in your post, of these 3 skis, you would probably like the Prophet-98 best.  It's not as soft and "loosy-goosy" as the S3, but it's not as burly as the Influence-105.  It's a nice compromise between the other 2.  I didn't end up getting it, but I did like it.

Of course, demoing for yourself is always best, if you can in any way swing it...
This. The p98 can be skied stupid fast, but at the same time is very easy to ski. It really is a great choice. I'm sad to see it go. I'm surprised that line consistently produces such good skis.
post #25 of 25

The S3 was a wonderful ski, both front-side, backside and in bumps, but it's a bit dated. The new Sin 7 is an improved version, a bit stiffer, lower rocker in front and a pin tail. If you liked the S3, the Sin 7 is even better and more powerful... not quite so "noodley".  I think you'll like it,so go for it.

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 › Rossignol S3 vs Line Influence 105