or Connect
EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › Ski Gear Discussion › Rossignol Sickle or Slat? Previously rode the Scimitar
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Rossignol Sickle or Slat? Previously rode the Scimitar

post #1 of 11
Thread Starter 

Key Info: 

 

1. Where in the world are you skiing?

North America, west coast. I mostly ski mt. Hood and sometimes in Tahoe or Montana.

 

2. What kinds of terrain do you prefer (groomed runs, moguls, race course, park'n'pipe, trees, steeps, backcountry/sidecountry)?

Steeps (although somewhat difficult to find at Hood), trees, sidecountry. You know, the fun stuff

 

3. How many days a year do you ski?

30 or so.

 

4. How advanced are you as a skier?

I consider myself an advanced skier. I am comfortable anywhere on the mountain, love dropping cliffs and have more fun skiing difficult terrain. Also drops/bumps/kickers. 

 

5. What's your height and weight?

6'0.5, 180lb. 

 

So, I've already seen the thread discussing replacements for the Scimitar. I looked through the responses and right now am stuck between the Sickle and the Slat (although could be convinced to find something else with good persuasion). 

 

I'm looking for a 1 for all ski. I love skiing in powder, trees and steep terrain. I also enjoy jumps and spins off of drops, bumps, kickers, etc. The Scimitars seemed to be a great ski for everything I love to do, so I am looking for something similar to replace them. Although I admittedly do not have much experience skiing many different types of skis. I'm not as interested in park-ability, but more so being able to jib around and do tricks off of natural features. 

 

I have heard a lot of good things about the Sickles, but I am mainly concerned about whether or not they would be too wide for enjoying less powdery days and runs that have been skid over by the afternoon. The Sickle, on the other hand, has basically the same dimensions as the Scimitar, however, it does not have the full rocker - something I believe helped make the Scimitar more fun with jumps and spins. As for both skis, the longest size is 181 cm, where I am used to 185, should I be concerned about this?

 

As you can see, I have a dilemma. Any help and information is greatly appreciated!

post #2 of 11

I love my Sickles, but 110 is too wide for a single ski, IMO.   I'd try to persuade you to get two skis, and add a 90ish ski for firm days.  The Sickle sounds perfect for you when there is new snow, otherwise stick to around 100 max.  Not sure about the Slat... are there no more Scimitars out there?   

post #3 of 11
Where do you ski? I ran the Sickles as a one ski quiver for 2 seasons and thought they were great. (6'1"; 175)
post #4 of 11
Thread Starter 

tball: to be fair, I try to only ski when there is some fresh snow that I can play in. But I agree that I am hesitant to stick with this as my main ski. Unfortunately I can't afford two pairs at the moment. And there aren't any more 185 Scimitars (that I can find at least)... I've searched pretty hard but would be very pleased if someone found them. 

 

Dino: Do you have the 186 Sickles? I can't find any of these either, it seems as though the only ones left are 181, which I am fairly hesitant about. 

post #5 of 11
Thread Starter 

I forgot to mention that I'm starting to look at Sir Francis Bacons, although these are wider as well. Feel free to add any input. Thanks

post #6 of 11
I have the 186s, which measure 182.5. I've heard the 181 run about 180. I dunno how much the 2.5 cms matter; probably not much.

I found the Sickles held on groomers as well as some 90-94 mm skis, and they weren't so stiff that they punished in the bumps. Sure they were a little slower edge to edge but were very maneuverable with the low rise continuous rocker.

I should probably keep them but a buddy needed a new pair of E. coast pow skis/Western "trip" skis and the Sickles are perfect for that duty. So, I'm helping him out by passing on the Sickles and trying out some new stuff. Probably the best OSQ ever for me; even better than my white Gotamas
post #7 of 11

Don't worry about the 181 being too short.  See some discussion about that in this thread, along with my review and video:

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

 

I was never on the 186 Sickle, but I skied the 186 S3 a bunch.   The 181 Sickle is a far more substantial ski than the "longer" S3.  

 

Here's a POV video of me on the 181 Sickle the other day at Copper:

 

I'd prefer to be on a skinnier ski on that run.  You can see I'm avoiding the bumps as much as possible, until I can't at the end.   Then I can keep them in a zipper line for a few turns, but I'm going slower than I'd like, and it's too much work.  A narrower ski like my Steadfast would be much more fun on that run.

 

But, you win some and lose some.  The Sickle was perfect for the following run in softer snow in the trees:

 

 

Hope that gives you some idea of where I'm coming from.

post #8 of 11
A little more info - found the Sickles pretty quick in trees during a cat trip at Red last year. Decent float for 110mm at my size and at that length. Not overly sensitive to fore/aft balance. Smooth in transitions if you're not too much of a basher. Had them mounted on the line for a 307 BSL,which seemed forward at first but worked great.
post #9 of 11
Thread Starter 

Thanks again for both of your replies. I am no longer concerned about the shorter length of the sickle, <2" difference from the 186 shouldn't be a problem. I see what you're saying with the bumps, but to be honest I would choose to take the trees over those bumps no matter what skis I'm riding. 

 

I am definitely leaning towards these skis but I want to look into the Sir Francis Bacon and Soul 7's, I'd love to hear any input either of you may have on those (if any).

post #10 of 11

I'm in the anti-Soul camp.   I spent half a day on them in almost identical conditions at Copper as the videos above.  It's just not enough ski for me at speed in those variable conditions.   It felt like it was going to fold over and break.  I had to really slow down to feel comfortable on it.   See similar recent comments in the Soul 7 thread... and another thread with pics of a broken Soul 7.    Hmmmm....

 

Edit: to give you some more comfort on the Sickle length, the 188 Soul 7 isn't half the ski the 181 Sickle is, IMO.

post #11 of 11
I looked at the spec on the SFB and they looked too symmetrical for me. The a Sickle has 7mm tip/tail taper and the SFB has a 4mm taper. Based on my experience with other skis, like the 4FRNT CRJ (2 mm), I decided I like more taper on my powder skis.
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 Sickle or Slat? Previously rode the Scimitar