or Connect
EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › Ski Gear Discussion › Rossignol Soul 7 vs Dynastar Cham 97
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Rossignol Soul 7 vs Dynastar Cham 97

post #1 of 28
Thread Starter 

Ive been skiing the volkl bridge 172cm skis for the last 2 years. Last years trip out west was kinda eye opening, never been out west. I would say I am fairly skilled, but my Volkls just wouldn't get stable at speed. I had issues i think primarily because it wasn't enough ski. The 172cm and sub 90mm waist is fine for east coast, but going west it is just inadequate. Additionally the skis were exposed for their softness. That being said, would you pick:

 

1. Dynastar Cham 97 178cm

or

2. Rossignol Soul 7 180cm

 

My stats:

Height: 5'9"

Weight: 185lbs

Ability: Intermediate-Advanced

Desires from ski: stability at speed, ability to ski bumps, stiffer than volkl bridge, wider underfoot, something more confidence inspiring. I would gladly sacrifice east coast hardpack skiiability for something that translates better out west for the week or 2 I will be spending out there this year. I will also probably ski trees, no park skiing.

post #2 of 28
Two thumbs up for the cham 97. Just like any rochered ski your going to sacrifice some edge hold. However I found that they perform really well on the hard (once you get use to them). make no doubt about it that they really shine in the soft/crud/wind slab surfaces.
cant really comment on the new s7. I had a pair of the originals and sold them soon after. I didnt like the soft tail of the original. However, this years skis are getting great reviews.
My advice is demo.....
post #3 of 28

They have a different construction and a differing tail treatment.  I managed to demo the Cham 97 and the Sin7 (not the Soul7) in recent weeks.  

 

The Cham is wood core with dual titanal and phenol sidewalls.  It's a solid, damp ski with a more traditional feel and prefers to be driven.  The tapered pin tail is dead flat out to the very end, so the tail provides more support.  They feel a little shorter on hard pack than the length suggests due to the big rockered tip and the taper in the tail.

 

The Sin7 I tried has been beefed up a little from the old Rossi S3 - especially in the tail.  They're a wood core, fibre laminate construction with a full sidewall.  They'll feel more lively than the Cham and they prefer a more neutral stance.  They'll happily carve in softer snow, but they're also easier to slash and pivot due to the extended rocker in tip and rocker in the tail (reduced from the old S3).

 

I liked both of them to be honest, although the Cham is more damp and on that basis is a more natural fit in the heavy snow we get locally.

 

If you like to drive a ski, prefer to carve rather than slide, and need the ski to deal with cut up, heavier snow I would opt for the Cham.  If you're skiing lighter, newer snow, position yourself neutrally in the middle of the ski and like to slash and slarve around the hill the Soul7 is the go.

 

If you're somewhere in the middle of there I'd opt for the Soul7.  Reviews on the Cham seem to be polarised between "love them" or "no way" and you'll be hedging your bets with the Soul7.

 

Best of luck.

 

[edit - and of course demoing is the best option to 100% guarantee you love your new skis]

post #4 of 28
Thread Starter 

haha. way to strike fear and indecisiveness into my heart :)

 

guess i should demo.

post #5 of 28
Quote:
Originally Posted by mudflaps View Post

 

Ability: Intermediate-Advanced

Desires from ski: stability at speed, ability to ski bumps, stiffer than volkl bridge, wider underfoot, something more confidence inspiring. I would gladly sacrifice east coast hardpack skiiability for something that translates better out west for the week or 2 I will be spending out there this year. I will also probably ski trees, no park skiing.

This is an impossible list. A ski that's stable at speed will necessarily give up something in bumps or trees. A ski that's great on hardpack necessarily gives up something in powder.

 

(Yeah, yeah, I know: Someone out there's gonna say, "MY blezzelfart testoscary 9.7 is the best ski ever made for every possible condition, including some only found on Mars, for every possible skier.") They need to rethink their meds. Or go have a chat with their physics teacher.  

 

Meanwhile, you need to prioritize. Life's about tradeoffs. So's skiing. And be realistic about what you actually do on a ski slope, and how often, not what you'd like to do.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by mudflaps View Post
 

guess i should demo.

Yep. Especially since the two skis you've tossed out there are about as far apart in feel, handling, construction, design, and preferred terrain as you'll find on a ski rack...

post #6 of 28

I demoed the Soul7 and the Cham 107 last spring.  I skied both skis in deep heavy spring slush and slushy bumps.  I liked the Cham a lot more than the Soul7 in those conditions.  I will be skiing on the Soul7 this season.  Even though I liked the Cham better in 6" of slush, the Soul7 was also pretty good in those conditions.  A lot better than I really expected for a ski that light.  I have always preferred a ski with some mass and metal like the Cham, but decided to go with the lighter ski.  I am a little tired of driving tanks all day.  I think I will find the Soul7 to be more versatile in a wider variety of conditions than the heaver Cham.  If I'm wrong, I can easily and quickly sell the Soul7s and get something else with the money.

 

I had heard that the Cham 97 was the best in the Cham line.  I only skied the 107.  Both the Chams and the Souls are very good skis and the OP would probably like either of them.  I am about the same size as the OP and I would recommend going up a ski size for him.  I will be getting the 188 Soul7.  IMO the 172 Bridge seems too short for him.

post #7 of 28

Tetonpwdrjunkie - If I could ask - Are you using the Soul7 as a 1 ski quiver? Or will you also be using a wider powder ski for really deep days? And also even some other ski for groomer days? 

 

Curious bc I'm likely getting the Soul7 and am really unsure of how it overlaps w/a traditional powder ski and say a mid-fat carver

post #8 of 28

Kabookie?

post #9 of 28

I use a 2-3 ski quiver.  I can keep 3 skis in my ski slot at Teton Village.  Because I also teach Telemark and theoretically snowboarding I only have room for two alpine skis and one telemark setup.  I tend to have the middle ski in the slot all the time and swap out the ends of the alpine "quiver" based on the condition trend.  Last season my daily driver was the 178 E88 with a 165 Head WC slalom and the 188 S7 covering the ends.  This year it will be the same except that I will swap the 188 Soul7 for the 188 S7.  If the Soul7 works as expected, I will probably be selling the 188 S7 and my 180 E98.  I will probably also ski the Soul7 more frequently than I did the S7.

 

I think the Soul7 could probably work pretty well for a one ski quiver for me.  I think the E88 is probably better in that role though.  I don't typically like really fat skis.  The S7 always felt a bit wider than I needed even on the big days.  I like the E88 in knee deep powder.

post #10 of 28

Teton, are you ditching your E98s?  How do those factor into the equation?  (I believe you have the E98s, correct)?

 

[/slight thread drift]

post #11 of 28
If you want a cham without metal, consider the high mountain series. The high mountain series is not as demanding (in the sense of no metal-easier to bend-swing weight significantly less).
As others have posted its all in what your looking for.
Id put the cham high mountain 97 on your list to demo as well.
post #12 of 28
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gunnerbob View Post
 

Teton, are you ditching your E98s?  How do those factor into the equation?  (I believe you have the E98s, correct)?

 

[/slight thread drift]

 

I currently have 178 E88, 180 E98, 188 S7.  Two years ago the E98 was my go to ski.  Last year I got the 178 E88 and skied that a lot.  I really like both skis, but feel like the E88 is a better ski for what I do than the E98.  I'm thinking that the 188 Soul7 will bridge the gap between the E98 and the S7.  If this is true then I should sell both of those skis while they still have some value.  It's easy for me to wind up with a garage full of skis.

 

I also have 176 Sumo with Barons & Skins, 176 pre-rockered Gotomas, 170 Jet Fuels, and assorted others that are taking up space.

post #13 of 28

One more question - I also have the S7 - ski it all over the place - is the reason you are thinking of replacing with the soul bc the S7 floats too high? Or bc you don't like the width for mogules? 

post #14 of 28

Over time I have come to the conclusion that the S7 has a tail that is too thin and too rockered.  I also think the ski is overall a bit softer than I would like.  I don't really like fat skis that much.  To me 105 feels about like all I need.  The S7 skis bumps OK, but the width and overall size make them less than ideal.  I'm thinking of replacing them because I have had them for three years and would like to own fewer pairs of skis.  I also have a pair of skis given to me to use every season.  If I was paying money for the skis, I would be very happy with what I already have.

post #15 of 28

Personally the only fat skiis I have really ski'd in deep snow are the S7 and Gotamas. Like them both alot better than race skis which is what I grew up skiing pow on. I personally do buy skiis but in somewhat of an interesting situation. Thinking of getting the soul7s and super 7s this year and just can't decide if its stupid. Goal is also to live in Jackson from Jan - end of March so your opinions here are particularly relevant. Originally was thinking of using the souls as pretty much my daily ski unless it has not snow'd in a while and the super 7s when there is alot of snow. Have been really on the fence about it though for a while. (Will also bring with me some WC slalams and GSs + maybe something similar to a CX-80 -- excessive quiver no doubt) 

post #16 of 28

Apologies for drifting the thread, but could I ask you how you would compare the E98 with the E88 as a one ski quiver.  I've demoed the E88 (178cm and 186cm) three times, and liked it, and I've read a little about the E98.  Is the 98 'same same but wider', or do they have a different feel?  Thanks. 

post #17 of 28
No. It is not the same. Think all mountain cheater GS ski. Damp, much more powerful.
post #18 of 28

I find this very interesting as i am thinking of Soul 7 and (Rossi 88 OR Kastle 83) as my two ski quiver.

 

I skied the Cham 97 (not the 107) at Lake Louise.  It was fun off piste but no so much on.

I know that groomers are not target for the Cham but i'm hoping the Soul 7 would be more *versatile*

 

The quickness of the E88 blew me away...

post #19 of 28
Quote:
Originally Posted by sinbad7 View Post
 

Apologies for drifting the thread, but could I ask you how you would compare the E98 with the E88 as a one ski quiver.  I've demoed the E88 (178cm and 186cm) three times, and liked it, and I've read a little about the E98.  Is the 98 'same same but wider', or do they have a different feel?  Thanks. 

 

The E88 and E98 are very different skis.  The E88 is built with no metal, it is built with extruded Basalt cloth.  The E98 has 2 sheets of Titanal.  

 

IMO the E98 is much better (more powerful) than the E88 on groomers and hardpack.  It has no real speed limit and can leave smoking trenches in your wake.  It's also better in funky crud as it has more mass and stiffness to power through things like the Lower Faces at speed.  The E98 doesn't make short turns easily and can be a handful in bumps if you stuff the tips in the wrong way.  The E98 was a great one ski quiver for me two seasons ago.  It likes to be driven hard and fast.  It might spank someone who skis it timidly, especially in tight mixed terrain.  There was a review here on Epic where the reviewer said that they thought the ski was soft.  It's not.

 

I found the E88 to be a more versatile and rounded ski for me than the E98.  It doesn't have the edge bite or power that the E98 has, but it is better (easier) in trees and bumps.  It turns smoother at lower speeds than the E98 and has a pretty reasonable top end.  The E88 makes much nicer short turns with far less effort than the E98.  The E88 is also better in powder than the E98 because it is softer and doesn't go right to the bottom.  It's also easier to turn in soft snow than the E98 because it bends and initiates turns easier when there is less snow resistance.  I teach skiing about 5 days a week and the E88 is much better for doing demos at slower speeds than the E98.  I never had problems with the E88 getting unstable at speed, but it is not rock solid in the long turn like the E98.  There have been people on Epic who have said that the E88 was "hooky" and only makes one turn.  That has not been my experience.  I would say that it imitates turns easily and can easily make a variety of turn radius's and shapes.

 

I skied both of these skis as an almost one ski quiver, 60+ days on each, The E98 is more of a charger and will do best for someone who wants to ski fast and not make a lot of turns.  The E88 is a far better teaching ski for me as I am not as prone to outrunning my students:rolleyes.  The E88 skis allows easier access to a wider variety of turn shapes and sizes at lower speeds than the E98.

 

I hope this helps.  

post #20 of 28
Quote:
Originally Posted by beyond View Post

 

(Yeah, yeah, I know: Someone out there's gonna say, "MY blezzelfart testoscary 9.7 is the best ski ever made for every possible condition, including some only found on Mars, for every possible skier.") They need to rethink their meds. Or go have a chat with their physics teacher.  

 

I had to quote this because it made me laugh. Thanks.

 

I've only skied a few runs on the Cham 97s at Mammoth in spring conditions. They put a big smile on my face both days I tried them. My impression was that it is a versatile ski with a huge sweet spot (BTW - I was on the 184s) 

However, now I may need to demo the blezzelfart testoscary 9.7 too.

post #21 of 28

"The Cham high mountain series is not as demanding in the sense of no metal"

 

Cham HM 107?  And of all the mtn skis (BC/SC specific skis) demo'ed and skied last season the only ski I realy, really disdain.  Others seem to like it though.  On side by side test doing spring laps on good sow they sucked for me.

post #22 of 28
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dane View Post
 

"The Cham high mountain series is not as demanding in the sense of no metal"

 

Cham HM 107?  And of all the mtn skis (BC/SC specific skis) demo'ed and skied last season the only ski I realy, really disdain.  Others seem to like it though.  On side by side test doing spring laps on good sow they sucked for me.

 

 

The Cham HM 97, a little shorter than I normally ski-- is the only ski I've been on in the last few years that I also really, really disdained. But one of my touring buddies (whose ski it was) raves about it, and he slays the euro-style pow turn. It's a ski with a funky tip, a bit of a pintail, good grip right underfoot, a good amount of tip rocker. I couldn't get balanced in 12 inches of pow. I wouldn't suggest the Cham HM are skis someone should just buy without trying. The whole Cham line seems to inspire love-hate. 

post #23 of 28
OP,
How much is it costing you to transport your skis from East to West? When I crunched the numbers for our last North America trip I discovered that costs for carting ski gear internally were expensive. Might be worh renting demos for your next trip so that you can try a range of widths, lengths, flex.

There is a slight tendency for ridiculous over analysis of kit around here and whilst it is fun (and I do it myself), keep in mind that your size and skill set may be completely different from the person providing the advice.

cheers
post #24 of 28
Depending on your airline and your status, your skis may cost you $50 just as luggage, so that could be a factor.

If you do demo/rent, I suggest finding a place on the hill or at the base. then you can easily try many pairs in one day

My Soul7's just arrived today. binders + pow, then big fun!
post #25 of 28
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by beyond View Post
 

This is an impossible list. A ski that's stable at speed will necessarily give up something in bumps or trees. A ski that's great on hardpack necessarily gives up something in powder.

 

I guess my biggest concern is that my volkl bridges flap too much at speed. I wish there were some sort of flex index that each ski was subjected to. I probably am asking too much. Ultimately I like to lead/keep up with leaders in the group, but also hit some bumps if needed. I understand that achieving that middle ground may be difficult.

post #26 of 28
Quote:
Originally Posted by mudflaps View Post
 

 

I guess my biggest concern is that my volkl bridges flap too much at speed. I wish there were some sort of flex index that each ski was subjected to. I probably am asking too much. Ultimately I like to lead/keep up with leaders in the group, but also hit some bumps if needed. I understand that achieving that middle ground may be difficult.

 

What are the other people in the group skiing on?

post #27 of 28
Quote:
Originally Posted by mudflaps View Post
 

 

I guess my biggest concern is that my volkl bridges flap too much at speed. I wish there were some sort of flex index that each ski was subjected to. I probably am asking too much. Ultimately I like to lead/keep up with leaders in the group, but also hit some bumps if needed. I understand that achieving that middle ground may be difficult.

 

Bidges aren't soft skis. So I wonder if the flapping you mention is mostly optical, as it often is on rockered skis, or if you mean the actual ski body becomes unstable. The other issue is that Bridges are full rocker - a rarity - and so they're meant to be a bit loose and smeary when they're flat. They carve pretty well at higher angles. So if you run fairly low angles a lot, then you'll notice any ski's reactions to crud and chop more. The crew over at TGR, for instance, are obsessive about skis not being stiff enough, or long enough, and I suspect it's mostly because of how they ski, not what they ski. If you run at higher angles, the ski front will be more likely to slice and dice. The ski will become more stabile. So some of this might be more about style (slarving and smearing at low angles or landing flat, vs. carving and banking at higher angles). 

 

But let's say, angles smagles, you just reaally want to ditch the Bridges. All good. Something like a Stockli 95, Nordica Hell n' Back, or Blizzard Bonafide might be a decent compromise, but they'll not be as forgiving at lower speeds as your Bridges, or as smeary in soft bumps and trees. 

post #28 of 28
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stev View Post
 

However, now I may need to demo the blezzelfart testoscary 9.7 too.

I'd wait. Word is, there's a December release of the testoscary 12.3, the one Freeskier talked about, with the rare earth core and mini- flamethrower in the tip. Chop doesn't stand a chance. OMG, I cannot last...:yahoo:

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 Soul 7 vs Dynastar Cham 97