or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Rossi Sickle???

post #1 of 13
Thread Starter 

Hi,

 

Is Rossi Sickle still considered great Powder/AllMountain ski?

or

Current new skis are way better?

 

Thanks

post #2 of 13
Quote:
Originally Posted by skimrg View Post
 

Hi,

 

Is Rossi Sickle still considered great Powder/AllMountain ski?

or

Current new skis are way better?

 

Thanks

 

Current skis are different. Not always better. What are you comparing them to?

post #3 of 13
Thread Starter 

Say, Atomic Automatic 109 or Fischer Big Stix 110

post #4 of 13

If the Sickle is the right ski for you, I highly doubt you'll find a better new ski.   Given that, I think the better question is if the Sickle is the right ski for you?   

 

After my first season on them last year I became a huge Sickle fan boy.  I'm confident I'll be happy on them for several years, so I even bought a back pair. 

 

I'm assuming you saw the Sickle reviews on Blister and here:

http://www.epicski.com/t/124341/rossignol-sickle-181

http://www.epicski.com/t/108039/rossi-sickle-186cm-on-going-review

 

Note that Jason on Blister continues to mention the Sickle as a ski he wishes he could have in his quiver choices, but he can only choose new skis.  I think that's the answer to your question.   

post #5 of 13

Getting rid of the Scimitar and Sickle was one of the dumbest things Rossignol could of done. They were poorly marketed as a 'jib' only skis. In reality they were some of the best all mountain/powder skis EVER made. The new S line doesn't even come close in performance. If you can get your hands on some, do it.

 

Haven't skied the Fischers, but they are much better then the whole Automatic line, personally.

post #6 of 13
Quote:
Originally Posted by skimrg View Post

Hi,

Is Rossi Sickle still considered great Powder/AllMountain ski?
or
Current new skis are way better?

Thanks

It was such a unique ski.... Really nothing else like it as all sickle owners will tell you. Skis all have their personalities but the sickle was a one of a kind. It's a shame it was discontinued just as it was being discovered. Bought myself some backup pairs to replace mine as they wear out.
post #7 of 13
Sickles are great. Closest thing now might be a 4FRNT Devastator, which you can likely find on sale
post #8 of 13
Thread Starter 

Thanks guys.

I think I take a chance and buy a Sickle.

It looks from description that if I like S3 I'll like Sickle too.

They can still be found for half the price of new skis.

post #9 of 13

What's your height and weight?  What size S3 did you like?

 

I skied the 186 S3 a bunch, and my 181 Sickle is WAY better (I'm 5'11" 180lbs).  The Sickle has better float, is better in crud, and is much more stable at speed on groomers or in chop.  Only place the S3 is better is in the bumps due to the Sickle's width.  It's not bad enough to keep me out of the bumps, but I have to slow down substantially.   I was pleasantly surprised I actually want to ski the Sickle even with just 2-3 inches new, when I was planning on it being a 6+ inch ski.

post #10 of 13
Thread Starter 

I'm 5' 9.5", 170lbs at the moment.

S3 are 178cm - sometimes feel a bit short (was considering 186cm).

181cm Sickles are going to be the longest skis are own (used to have 195cm skinny slaloms, then 184 Rossi Bandit).

post #11 of 13

Oh good, glad you found some 181's.  I thought they were all gone.  I think it will be a great length for you, buy them quick!

 

The Sickle is really easy to ski.  A 160lb buddy of mine tried my 181's and bought a pair.  Same with a 190lb buddy.  Both loved them enough to buy the next day.  Pretty easy decision after demoing expensive skis, then finding something you like better for $300!

 

I think I've posted these videos of me on my Sickles in one of the other threads, but why not a little more Sickle stoke in case anyone missed them :D

 

 

post #12 of 13
Thread Starter 

Thanks, I saw your videos before - I watched it during my "new skis research" :-)

 

Skis arrived.

Now, I guess "0" is good place to mount them, is it?

I don't know if it's true but I read that on the older (186) models people were going +2cm or +1cm but later on 2013 Sickle Rossignol moved mounting point a bit forward and "0" feels right for all mountain skiing.

post #13 of 13

I mounted my on the -2 line.  I'm very happy with them there, and think the extra tip length helps powder performance.  They still seem to have plenty of tail for me at 180lbs, if anything I'd like them to be a bit longer in the tip for really deep powder.  I believe you are correct they moved the mount point between the new and old models, so there is not a ton of info out there.

 

Here's a thread where I went through the same consternation:

http://www.epicski.com/t/122346/powder-crud-ski-recommendations-on-a-budget/30#post_1642588

 

Note that a) I'm really old, and an old school kinda skier, and b) my skis are always going forward and I couldn't ski switch, let alone land switch, to save my life! :)   

 

This is what made me decide to mount them back so I'd have more tip for powder:

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by tball View Post
 

Got my Sickles... now I need help on mount point.  I was just going to mount as 0, but then I lined up my quiver for the year to see this:

 

 

That's a 181 Sickle, 178 Steadfast and a 170 AC30 next to each other with their zero mount points aligned.   

 

My new powder ski, the Sickle, has the least tip of the three when mounted at zero.  Even less than a 170 AC30, Huh?  Crazy.

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