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

Rossignol Soul 7 length

post #1 of 12
Thread Starter 

Hi everyone,

I can't decide on a length for the Rossi Soul 7! Can anyone help me? I'm 5'2'' and about 120 pound, and an expert skier. I demoed the 172cm and I really loved it, but now I'm going to buy it and I'm totally freaking out about how long it is and wondering if maybe I should get the 164cm. Any advice?

post #2 of 12
Quote:
Originally Posted by gc85 View Post

 

I demoed the 172cm and I really loved it, 

unless there was something about it that made you think "I wish this was shorter/ more maneuverable/ easier" then you have your answer, buy the ski you demoed and loved.

post #3 of 12

Agree with Whiteroom. I'm 5'9 ½ 180lbs and ski the 180's perfect length for me.

 

The 164 is a very short ski in a ski like that.

post #4 of 12
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Whiteroom View Post
 

unless there was something about it that made you think "I wish this was shorter/ more maneuverable/ easier" then you have your answer, buy the ski you demoed and loved.

 

The only issue I had was with some bumps, it was a little hard to maneuver around them. Then again, I skied the same bumps the next day with my current Atomic Elysians (which I hate because they ski short)  and they were just as tough....

It just seems like an insanely long ski for someone as small as me to buy.

post #5 of 12
You have to rethink ski length for skis with that much rocker. Due to the rocker you basicly have the effective edge of a slalom ski on hard snow with the float of a longer ski in powder. You can easily size up as long as your skis don't get too long for the powder skiing you do.
post #6 of 12
Quote:
Originally Posted by gc85 View Post
 

Hi everyone,

I can't decide on a length for the Rossi Soul 7! Can anyone help me? I'm 5'2'' and about 120 pound, and an expert skier. I demoed the 172cm and I really loved it, but now I'm going to buy it and I'm totally freaking out about how long it is and wondering if maybe I should get the 164cm. Any advice?


Hi!

 

At your size and weight I would try the Sin 7 instead.

post #7 of 12


If I was in your ski boots, I'd go with the 164.   I'm having the same battle, but I'm 5'7" and 140 lbs.   I demoed both the 172 and 164.  I loved the 172s at speed, but I spend most of my time in the trees and bumps, and the 172 was too much ski and made me work too hard.   I'm an expert skier, strong and aggressive.  Good luck!

post #8 of 12
Quote:
Originally Posted by mikebpg View Post


If I was in your ski boots, I'd go with the 164.   I'm having the same battle, but I'm 5'7" and 140 lbs.   I demoed both the 172 and 164.  I loved the 172s at speed, but I spend most of my time in the trees and bumps, and the 172 was too much ski and made me work too hard.   I'm an expert skier, strong and aggressive.  Good luck!

You're a 5'7" 140 lbs strong, aggressive "expert" and a 172 soft , heavily rocked ski was to much ski in the trees and bumps?
Great first post
post #9 of 12
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eric S View Post


You're a 5'7" 140 lbs strong, aggressive "expert" and a 172 soft , heavily rocked ski was to much ski in the trees and bumps?
Great first post

I'm about the same size and also felt the 172 Soul 7's i demoed were allot to throw around. Was probably compounded by lateral torque of tilting the waist width up on edge on tracked out groomers, not exactly what the ski is designed for. If i had them i'm sure i'd get used to the length and would never buy that ski in a 164, but coming from skiing rockered 168's for the past five years i have a mental image of where my tips and tails are and am comfortable with the 168cm length in the less than ideal shaped and spaced bumps i usually encounter. It's also less length for me to put at a right angle to the fall line for quick speed scrubbing in tight trees. All in my mind are less about contact point of cambered area when railing groomers where yes that 172 would be appropriate. Also in soft snow with no scraped out icy hardpack and fresh falling fill in snow i'd be fine with the 172 anywhere. I know that sounds like a contradiction but snow conditions make all the difference, imo.


Edited by neonorchid - 3/24/15 at 4:28pm
post #10 of 12

Relax. They ski short and are very forgiving. I'm 5'11", 170 and have been on the 188's for two seasons now. Could not imagine going shorter, they purr like a kitten, playful as a puppy.

Very quick edge to edge, shockingly so for the width, like magic.  Love the ski. 

post #11 of 12

I'm 5'10" 180lbs. beer league and Masters racer ( I don't consider myself to be an expert) and have the Soul 7 in 180. They are a great old man's (I'm 63)  tree/powder/soft bump ski. I think for me the 172 would be too short-remember the turn radius on the 180 is 17 m. I'd err on the long side rather than go short.

post #12 of 12


gc85, Eric S and neonorchid,

 

In my opinion:  As gc85 is only 120 lbs,  the 164 is the perfect length for skiing bumps, trees and powder.  The 172 will be a lot of fun on groomers, especially at speed, but I think it's too much ski in all other conditions for someone that only weighs 120 lbs.  The only people you should be listening to are those close to your weight,  not those that weigh 170+ lbs. 

 

As for me, at 140 lbs, if I skied 25+ days a year, I'd buy the 172.   But I'm lucky to make 3 trips out West and get in 12 days.   If the 172s are a lot for me to throw around, they're going to be a lot harder for someone that only weighs 120 lbs.   And yes, neonorchid, it is all about snow conditions.  FYI, I just bought the 164s yesterday.   Hope I made the right decision!!

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 length