New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Rossignol Sickle 181

post #1 of 24
Thread Starter 

Hi all,

 

Just a quick question! Has anyone any experience with the Sickle 181? (I'm 5'11'' 190lbs, fairly aggressive, mostly off piste skier) and having read the blister gear reviews (among others) I'm happy that these could be the perfect ski for me. However, I'm in the UK and can not find the 11/12 model 186 for love no money! So....would the 12/13 181 Sickle be a good size or too short given I'll be near 200lbs with kit on??

 

Would appreciate any advice

 

Thanks all and happy new year!

post #2 of 24

I'm 160# and ski the 181.  I think you'd be safe at your current size on the 181 as well.  Beware though, the ski will put a smile on your face from ear to ear!

post #3 of 24
Quote:
Originally Posted by hellboy76 View Post
 

Hi all,

 

Just a quick question! Has anyone any experience with the Sickle 181? (I'm 5'11'' 190lbs, fairly aggressive, mostly off piste skier) and having read the blister gear reviews (among others) I'm happy that these could be the perfect ski for me. However, I'm in the UK and can not find the 11/12 model 186 for love no money! So....would the 12/13 181 Sickle be a good size or too short given I'll be near 200lbs with kit on??

 

Would appreciate any advice

 

Thanks all and happy new year!

 

 

the 186 and 181 are actually the same exact ski.

 

they both actually measure 182.25 according the blistergear review.

 

Its a very fun powder ski that does not suck other places. Its shame rossi no longer makes it.....

 

My are entirely enjoyable from woods to more open runs and pretty stable as long as the base is not to hard or your just floating above it.

 

post #4 of 24

The 12/13 181 model (178 cm) measures shorter than the 11/12 186 model - (182).   But it amounts to around 1.5 inches - not much. 

 

I own the 186 model and weigh 220 and am 6'1".   They are perfect for me as an advanced skier (not expert).  I don't get tip dive, edge-hold is just awesome, weight at 2200 g or so is robust enough for plowing through crud.  It's a fantastic choice at one ski quiver.  Now for you at 5'11", 190, I've got you by 30 lbs and 2 inches... I think the 181 would do just fine.  Careful not to over-detune them. The sickle is a unique ski... It's such a fun ski for such a diverse audience.  From lightweights to heavyweights, it holds up well for almost everybody I've put on them.  Its fairly poppy and can really carve hard, yet work in 36 inches of pow and hold up a variety of skiers.  I'd say pull the trigger and enjoy...

post #5 of 24
Where did everyone mount these ?
post #6 of 24
Jester schizos... Mounted at boot center. Then depending on conditions I've gone from +1 to -2. Forward - the tail will just rip you through a turn. Back - better flotation in pow. My advise - get a jester or griffon schizo and enjoy the flexibility.
post #7 of 24
Thread Starter 

Thanks all for the advice.

 

Skibum, I've pulled the trigger on some 181 Sickles and Griffon Schizo bindings. Looking at mounting them center like you advised.

 

Got the skis, booked the flights. Can't bloody wait!

post #8 of 24
Making sure to clarify - mount the schizos at boot center (the recommended mounting point by rossignol) not ski center. I think it's like -5 cm from the center of the ski but its marked on the ski.

Have a great time on those and report back how you liked them. Hopefully we helped find a fun fun ski for you. I know I love mine.

You say you bought flights. Where you headed?
post #9 of 24
Thread Starter 
Hey Skibum

Heading to Telluride for 19 nights and as much skiing as possible!

Going to be getting some boots fitted at the boot doctors as well!

Will get the schizos mounted boot centre once I'm there. Can not bloody wait, hopefully they're going to get plenty of snow in the next couple of months.

Seems like they've had a fair bit over the past few days.

Any yous ever skied there??
post #10 of 24
"19 nights in telluride" - sounds like the title of a good book... Hopefully it will be the title of a fantastic vacation for you. Never been there. But certainly on the ski bucket list.

Have a great time!
post #11 of 24

@hellboy76 Telluride is an amazing mountain.  You'll have a blast.  Are you just taking your Sickle or do you have a narrower ski too?   Looks like it's going to be dry for 10 days, so you'll probably want something narrower for the great bumps.   I just skied my 181 Sickles for the first time Monday at Copper.  Total powder day and they were amazing and incredibly versatile, but they are not going to be the best for the big steep firm bumps you'll find at Telluride over the next week or so.  I'll post more of a review here when I get a chance.

post #12 of 24

Sickle 181 Mini Review.

 

There are many reviews of the older 186 Sickle, but very little has been written about the 2012/2013 181 Sickle, so here are my thoughts after day one.

 

Me: 5'11" 180lbs, CO native skiing 33 years, ~30 days/year.  Reasonably proficient aggressively skiing powder, steeps, bumps, crud and the occasional high speed cruiser.   Mostly ski Copper, Mary Jane and A-basin.

 

Monday was an amazing powder day at Copper Mountain with progressive terrain openings that led to nice untracked shots every run.  8 inches new in 24h, 16 new in 48h and a 35 new the over the prior week (more about conditions here and here).  We skied lots of laps in Copper Bowl, Spaulding Bowl and Upper Enchanted Forest.

 

My first day on my 181 Sickles put a huge smile on my face.  All around, I could not have been happier with how the Sickle performed on a fairly big pow day.  The Sickle wanted to ski fast and aggressivly, but still wanted to turn on demand.  What made me tickled pink is I enjoyed it in soft bumps too. Five out of six laps in Spaulding bowl, I actually chose to ski the bumps on Sawtooth et al rather than the groomed Cross Cut to get back to the Resolution lift.  A caveat being the bumps were super soft, even late in the day.   I'm fairly hopeful I'll also like it in not as soft bumps on a more typical powder day of say 6 inches over firm snow.  It will be interesting to see if I end up on Sawtooth or Cross Cut then, or maybe even switch skis for the afternoon.

 

The last couple years I would have been on the 186 S3 and before that the 184 or 177 Mantra for that day (been staying narrower for bump performance).  The Sickle is a fantastic soft snow upgrade to either of those and meets in the middle with a nice medium flex.  Compared to the S3, the extra width for float in pow was great, but it's also much more stable at speed in all conditions.  I was really happy how easy turning the Sickle is given it's increased width and stability.  It's not crazy, silly easy turning like the S3, but very nice in tight trees and really wants to keep turning.  It's extraordinarily more versatile than the Mantra.

 

What is the Sickle not good at?  Well it can't be good at everything.  It's not a powder ski and it not a big mountain ski, maybe something between?  I loved it in powder, but I'm also happy on whatever I'm skiing in powder so don't listen to me there.  I don't think it's a "big mountain" ski, too short and too turny.  There is a speed limit, albeit high, in a open bowl or in chopped up pow over a groomer.  The speed limit is high enough 97.36% of skiers should be fine with it.  Just know it just likes to turn (big, little, whatever), and not go straight.  If you want to straight line an open bowl at mach speed or rip through chop at 50 mph, you'll want a longer and stiffer ski.  And, I'm also pretty sure it's not going to be a good firm bump ski, but I'll try to keep an open mind, give it a shot and report back after I have more days on it. 

 

Edit: mounted -2 with STH2 13's after seeing both my 170 AC30's and 178 Steadfasts would both have longer tips if mounted at on the zero line, and I don't ski switch.


Edited by tball - 1/15/14 at 10:35pm
post #13 of 24

@Josh Matta, I've read you like both the Sickle and the Nordica Patron.  I almost bought the Patron and I'm wondering what conditions might favor it over the Sickle.   I really enjoyed the Sickle and I'm curious what draws you to the Patron.... love to hear your thoughts on Sickle vs. Patron.  Thanks!

post #14 of 24
Quote:
Originally Posted by tball View Post
 

@Josh Matta, I've read you like both the Sickle and the Nordica Patron.  I almost bought the Patron and I'm wondering what conditions might favor it over the Sickle.   I really enjoyed the Sickle and I'm curious what draws you to the Patron.... love to hear your thoughts on Sickle vs. Patron.  Thanks!

 

 

they are very very different, I own the 186 Sickle with Dukes and not getting rid of anytime soon., just order some 185 patrons. 

 

 

powder about equal the sickle is slippery and slavrey with the patron being poppy and more lively. Both are going to do great in basically any amount of fresh snow.

 

groomers - this is where the patron is quite a bit better than not only the sickle, but basically any other ski in this class. the patron rails hardpack stupid well and can even make very enegetic SL style carved turns. The sickle is workable and can make lazy GS turns and SG turn quite easily. both make the shorter steered turns on hardpack better but the patron whiling doing this is much grippier and poppier

 

bumps - edge to the sickle, the full continous rocker, straighter sidecut and soft flex make it much easier to handle assuming they are no super hard hardpack. the patron feel to precise for eastern troughed out bump skiing and the wide shovel/tail tend to be catchy. in soft bumps the sickle is silly amounts of fun and make me laugh out loud. 

 

eastern trees - the sickle like to charge the fall line and will slarve at will, the patron likes to ski the slow line fast and be more dynamic pretty much seperate but equal

 

western style crud(something we rarely get here, we are basically either icey hardpack , soft pack or powder in the woods) the sickle does slightly better. the Patrons soft tail makes it less forgiving in western style crud

 

eastern style death cookie crud - the patron can slay groomer when the tiller has made everything super sugary and thick of ice balls. The sidecut grabs the hardpack, while the huge surface area planes on top. the sickle in similat condition is workable but leaves alot to be desired.

post #15 of 24

Thanks so much Josh!  Your description of the 186 Sickle is 100% consistent with my first day on the 181 Sickle.  I'm really excited.  I think it's going to be a great ski for me.  

 

At some point I hope to bump into someone with a 186 to put side to side with my 181.  I'll take a picture and finally put the true length question to rest!

post #16 of 24
My sickle 181's just came in. The specs are as follows:

Straight pull, tip to tip is 178.8 cm
Weight for two skies is 4536g
the ski's mounting points are +5, 0, and -2. These points are 91cm, 96cm, and 98cm from the ski tip respectively. True ski center is 89.4cm from the ski tip. This makes the +5 mounting point pretty close to true center.

Can someone with sickle 186 post the same mounting point dimensions? I would like to know where +2 on the 186 sickle relates to the true ski center of that ski.

Hope this helps.

Cheers
post #17 of 24
My 186s are 182.2 in length. "0" point is 97.8 cm from tip. Sorry for the very delayed response. smile.gif
post #18 of 24
Quote:
Originally Posted by tball View Post

 

My first day on my 181 Sickles put a huge smile on my face.  All around, I could not have been happier with how the Sickle performed on a fairly big pow day.  The Sickle wanted to ski fast and aggressively but still wanted to turn on demand.  What made me tickled pink is I enjoyed it in soft bumps too. Five out of six laps in Spaulding bowl, I actually chose to ski the bumps on Sawtooth et al rather than the groomed Cross Cut to get back to the Resolution lift.  A caveat being the bumps were super soft, even late in the day.   I'm fairly hopeful I'll also like it in not as soft bumps on a more typical powder day of say 6 inches over firm snow.  It will be interesting to see if I end up on Sawtooth or Cross Cut then, or maybe even switch skis for the afternoon.

 

quoted from my post up above: http://www.epicski.com/t/124341/rossignol-sickle-181#post_1672998

 

 

A follow up on my Sickle review above, since someone is asking about the Sickles in another thread, and there are a few still out there to purchase.... and I'm bored waiting for snow!

 

In short, I love my Sickles.  They really are a perfect CO powder ski for me.  We had a big snow year last year, so I got lots of days on my 181 Sickles.  I'd say I had about 20 days on my Sickles, 10 days on my Steadfasts, and 5 days where I started on my Sickles and switched to my Steadfasts for the end of the day.

 

It says a lot about the Sickle that I skied them that much and didn't switch more often at the end of the day.  I was surprised I enjoyed them on days with only three inches new, and that the only times I switched off them was to really bump it up at Mary Jane and Copper after everything was tracked up.   There were a bunch of times I skied tracked out bumps at the end of the day and didn't bother switching skis.  I'd have to slow down and ski a wider line around the bumps (rather than a zipper line), but I wasn't so miserable I completely avoided the "mile long bump runs" on the A-lift at Copper, for example.  

 

That says a lot about the versatility of the Sickle.   Similarly, I probably skied 50+ laps of Spaulding Bowl to Resolution over the course of the season.   90% of the time I skied bumps at the bottom rather than skiing the oft groomed Cross Cut, even when the bumps were dust on refrozen slush at the very bottom.   If they really sucked in bumps I would have been on Cross Cut most the time.

 

So, where did they fail me?   No ski is perfect... here where I wished I was on a different ski:

 

  • Deep, deep, powder.  In our very rare huge 30+ inch dump I wished I was on wider and longer powder skis, duh.
  • Spring sloppy slush.  They were too soft to handle late May slop at A-basin.  I liked my stiffer Steadfasts for that, but am thinking I'll pick up a used pair of old Mantras for a little more width and crud busting ability.
  • Zipper line bumps.   I can only keep the Sickle in the zipper line for a limited time before I can't turn quick enough and need to make rounder turns.
  • Cruising faster than I should be anyway.   I skied lots of fast (for me) runs down the Copper Speed Center course (Andy's to Rossi's) and maybe held back to 95% of my speed I'd ski on my Steadfasts, which is fine for me, but might not be for someone who skis groomers faster... but that's not what they are made for anyway.

 

Another data point:  two of my buddies tried my Sickles.  Both are good skiers, and both bought a pair the next day.   I like them enough that I also bought a backup pair.... so I'll be on them for quite a while :D.

 

For the fun of it, here's a couple videos of me on my Sickles:

 

 

 

 


Edited by tball - 11/11/14 at 11:02am
post #19 of 24
Quote:
Originally Posted by tball View Post

A follow up on my Sickle review above, since someone is asking about the Sickles in another thread, and there are a few still out there to purchase.... and I'm bored waiting for snow!

In short, I love my Sickles.  They really are a perfect CO powder ski for me.  We had a big snow year last year, so I got lots of days on my 181 Sickles.  I'd say I had about 20 days on my Sickles, 10 days on my Steadfasts, and 5 days where I started on my Sickles and switched to my Steadfasts for the end of the day.

It says a lot about the Sickle that I skied them that much and didn't switch more often at the end of the day.  I was surprised I enjoyed them on days with only three inches new, and that the only times I switched off them was to really bump it up at Mary Jane and Copper after everything was tracked up.   There were a bunch of times I skied tracked out bumps at the end of the day and didn't bother switching skis.  I'd have to slow down and ski a wider line around the bumps (rather than a zipper line), but I wasn't so miserable I completely avoided the "mile long bump runs" on the A-lift at Copper, for example.  

That says a lot about the versatility of the Sickle.   Similarly, I probably skied 50+ laps of Spaulding Bowl to Resolution over the course of the season.   90% of the time I skied bumps at the bottom rather than skiing the oft groomed Cross Cut, even when the bumps were dust on refrozen slush at the very bottom.   If they really sucked in bumps I would have been on Cross Cut most the time.

So, where did they fail me?   No ski is perfect... here where I wished I was on a different ski:
  • Deep, deep, powder.  In our very rare huge 30+ inch dump I wished I was on wider and longer powder skis, duh.
  • Spring sloppy slush.  They were too soft to handle late May slop at A-basin.  I liked my stiffer Steadfasts for that, but am thinking I'll pick up a used pair of old Mantras for a little more width and crud busting ability.
  • Zipper line bumps.   I can only keep the Sickle in the zipper line for a limited time before I can't turn quick enough and need to make rounder turns.
  • Cruising faster than I should be anyway.   I skied lots of fast (for me) runs down the Copper Speed Center course (Andy's to Rossi's) and maybe held back to 95% of my speed I'd ski on my Steadfasts, which is fine for me, but might not be for someone who skis groomers faster... but that's not what they are made for anyway.

Another data point:  two of my buddies tried my Sickles.  Both are good skiers, and both bought a pair the next day.   I like them enough that I also bought a backup pair.... so I'll be on them for quite a while biggrin.gif .

For the fun of it, here's a couple videos of me on my Sickles:






 


Highlands is sooooo crowded and the snow always sucks:p
post #20 of 24
Wanting some help with the Sickles and this thread looks like the place to hopefully get some help with sizing. I am 5'7" and 175lbs. Intermediate skier looking to get a pair of Sickles to complement my Brahma 173. Was wondering should I get the 2011-12 174 Sickles or the 2012-13 181 Sickles? Use my Brahmas for pretty much everything and want to get a ~105-110 waisted ski to complement for a 2 ski quiver. Brother has the Line SFB 178 and have felt that length is right but want to get the Sickles since I can use his SFB whenever. Would be very grateful for any advice on which way I should go.
post #21 of 24

At your size, I'd go with the 181 for sure.  I'm 5'10" (shrunk an inch at my last checkup :eek) 180lbs and the 181 is in no way too long.  If anything, it's a bit short for me in really deep powder, but that makes them more versatile in trees and even bumps.   They have a big sweet spot, as I've got buddies on them both 15lbs heavier and 15lbs lighter who both love them.

 

An update to my review above:  after my second season I still love the 181 Sickle.  I like them so much I even bought a backup pair!   I really can't imagine another ski I'd rather be on for their intended purpose of powder and leftovers.   Here's a video I shot on a leftovers day at Copper last season where you can really see their versatility, including taking them out of their element into some legit bumps at the end:

 

post #22 of 24
TBall-
Thanks for the input I appreciate you taking the time. Have read alot of your Sickle posts and have enjoyed all the vids you posted.

I have been leaning 181. Everytime I have always asked for sizing recommendations, usually due to my weight, have always been steered to go long 180ish in any ski but after demo I have always felt more comfortable in the shorter 170s. Probably due to ski level being at a progressing intermediate. Going to start western resort blacks for my first time this season. But when told 180 Bonafide...went 173. Told 180 brahma went 173. I did enjoy the 177 Cochise quite a bit at that length. Does any of this info change your recommendation for the 181 vs 174.

You ski the 181 great, and when you say the 181 "might even be too short for me in powder but makes them more versatile in trees and bumps”....could I go the 174 and get those same aspects out of it or will it be dramatically too short for me? I'm asking because I enjoy your vids and don't want to lose the maneuverability you seem to be enjoying to something too burly.

Last question, could I effectively shorten the 181 by playing with the mounting at +1 or +2 so it skis similar to the SFB at 178, or do I not have to mess with that because of the continuous rocker? I'm directional skier if that helps.

Thanks for your input and time. BTW thats some great bump work at the end of your last vid.
post #23 of 24

Thanks for the compliments!  Glad to help :D

 

181 Sickle is WAY easier to ski than an 180 Bonafide or Brahma, or my 178 Steadfast's.   When I switch from my 178 Steadfast's to my 181 Sickle's I can dial back the attentiveness a couple notches.    

 

I think the 181 a good fit with your 173 Brahma's.  The 174 Steadfast would feel shorter than your 173 Braham's.  Not what you want.  Your wider ski should generally be longer for more float.  Don't worry, the Sickle isn't a burly ski.  It's also not a wimpy ski like a bunch of the Rossi 7 Series.... it's just right, Goldilocks!

 

I dug up the Rossi sizing chart and it says you should go with the 181 Sickle at 175lbs:

 

 

I ended up mounting them -2, as discussed in this thread.   I'm happy with them there for the extra tip length in powder.

post #24 of 24

I always seem to be after tball when it comes to the Sickle.BUY IT BUY IT BUY IT.I totally agree when it comes to the 7 series and the sickle,Rossi has sold a ton of the 7 series for good reason,they put lots of smiles on lots of faces.There is just something about the sickle that it has a great feel,soft but a little more ski  under your feet.Fun fun ski.

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Ski Gear Discussion