or Connect
EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › Ski Gear Discussion › Rossignol S3 vs Cham 97?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Rossignol S3 vs Cham 97?

post #1 of 32
Thread Starter 

My 186 S3's are really beat up and it's time to replace them. I was thinking of replacing them with 184 Cham 97's, anyone ski both? How do they compare? 

post #2 of 32
Quote:
Originally Posted by borpborp View Post
 

My 186 S3's are really beat up and it's time to replace them. I was thinking of replacing them with 184 Cham 97's, anyone ski both? How do they compare? 

There are two Cham's, the older metal one and last years w/o the metal (and a 3rd, next years Cham 97 2.0). All are stronger, stiffer with better control out of the tail. Other than your S3's being older, what are you looking for the ski to do that your S3's are not doing? 

post #3 of 32
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Philpug View Post
 

There are two Cham's, the older metal one and last years w/o the metal (and a 3rd, next years Cham 97 2.0). All are stronger, stiffer with better control out of the tail. Other than your S3's being older, what are you looking for the ski to do that your S3's are not doing? 

 

I'm not really looking for anything different per se, the S3's are a great tree ski and powder ski for me but they need to be replaced because the edges have been chewed to death from hitting rocks for 5 years so icey conditions are difficult. I was looking at the Cham 97's simply because they're dirt cheap these days (the ones with the green/white/blue topsheets). But let me just get this straight for the Cham 97:

 

2012-13: First year for Cham 97 (green/white/blue topsheets)

2013-14: Same topsheet as previous year, but different ski? doesn't have metal?

2014-15: New blue topsheet with black tip and tail, same ski as 2013-14?

2015-16: All new topsheet again, Cham 97 2.0, different ski?

post #4 of 32
Quote:
Originally Posted by borpborp View Post
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Philpug View Post
 

There are two Cham's, the older metal one and last years w/o the metal (and a 3rd, next years Cham 97 2.0). All are stronger, stiffer with better control out of the tail. Other than your S3's being older, what are you looking for the ski to do that your S3's are not doing? 

 

I'm not really looking for anything different per se, the S3's are a great tree ski and powder ski for me but they need to be replaced because the edges have been chewed to death from hitting rocks for 5 years so icey conditions are difficult. I was looking at the Cham 97's simply because they're dirt cheap these days (the ones with the green/white/blue topsheets). But let me just get this straight for the Cham 97:

 

2012-13: First year for Cham 97 (green/white/blue topsheets)

2013-14: Same topsheet as previous year, but different ski? doesn't have metal?

2014-15: New blue topsheet with black tip and tail, same ski as 2013-14?

2015-16: All new topsheet again, Cham 97 2.0, different ski?

First two years are the same, this years, no metal, but basically the same as the HM. Next years different ski. Find this years or a HM (High Mountain), nice skis. Like the S3, they ski short. 

post #5 of 32
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Philpug View Post
 

First two years are the same, this years, no metal, but basically the same as the HM. Next years different ski. Find this years or a HM (High Mountain), nice skis. Like the S3, they ski short. 

 

Hmm, on the dynastar site it says this years has two layers of titanium and that the HM version is Paulownia wood core with no metal? Which from what I can tell is the same as the regular and HM versions of the 97 from the two previous years, just different top sheet this year?

post #6 of 32
I don't think any of the manufacturers have next year's gear on their websites yet.
post #7 of 32
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by mtcyclist View Post

I don't think any of the manufacturers have next year's gear on their websites yet.

 

Sorry I'm talking about this years http://www.dynastar.com/CG/CA/cham-97_DADK201_product_dynastar-skis-men-freeride.html

So it appears this is the lineage, unless I screwed up

 

2012-13: First year for Cham 97 (green/white/blue topsheets)

2013-14: No change

2014-15: No change, new topsheet

2015-16: Cham 97 2.0 http://www.sbcskier.com/uploads/Image/SIA_2015/Day_3/Dynastar_2.jpg

post #8 of 32

Those seem like really different skis S3s are very forgiving, the Chams, from what I've heard, are great IF you work them.  I've got S3s and have demoed Soul 7s, which are pretty similar (haven't skied the Sin 7 which is the replacement for the S3 but have heard not so great things about it, though they were with reference to the first year, w/o tip lightening).

post #9 of 32
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by cometjo View Post
 

Those seem like really different skis S3s are very forgiving, the Chams, from what I've heard, are great IF you work them.  I've got S3s and have demoed Soul 7s, which are pretty similar (haven't skied the Sin 7 which is the replacement for the S3 but have heard not so great things about it, though they were with reference to the first year, w/o tip lightening).

 

Well I've read a few reviews on the Cham's that say they're really easy to ski, easy to turn, carve, etc.. and have amazing float because of the tip. So that's why I was curious about them as a potential S3 replacement, but perhaps the stiff tail would make life a lot harder in the bumps and trees compared to the S3..

post #10 of 32
Quote:
Originally Posted by borpborp View Post
 

 

Well I've read a few reviews on the Cham's that say they're really easy to ski, easy to turn, carve, etc.. and have amazing float because of the tip. So that's why I was curious about them as a potential S3 replacement, but perhaps the stiff tail would make life a lot harder in the bumps and trees compared to the S3..


I'll let someone who's actually skied them take that one...

post #11 of 32
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by cometjo View Post
 


I'll let someone who's actually skied them take that one...

 

Yeah, still no luck finding anyone who's skied them both :)

post #12 of 32

I've skied them both, although the metal Cham 97 rather than the High Mountain version.  Quite different skis.  

 

S3 has no metal, rockered tip and tail with a small amount of camber underfoot.  I really liked them.  They're very friendly, easy to ski, flexible and compliant.  Great in soft snow and actually not bad carving on a soft groomer.  They measure short (the 186cm version measures at about 182.5cm chord length) and ski even shorter.  The 178 version has the same running length as the 186 version (which has longer rockered sections in tip and tail).  The two quotes that stick in my mind about the S3 are "so easy to ski they're almost like cheating" and "they're like giant snowblades".  They've been accused of being a noodle in funky snow at speed.  For me they're a ski that simply disappears from my thoughts altogether when I ski; I have to concentrate to get a sense of how they're working for my demo notes.  They're in no way a charging ski, and if I were really trucking through cut up new snow (which I haven't had the chance to do on them) I imagine they would require a lot of attention (here I'm referring to that 'noodle' quote).

 

The Cham has that big, rockered spoon tip (flaps a bit) but is much more ski for the rear two thirds of its length.  My notes say "you can 100% stop your tips from flapping if you stop looking at your tips".  The tail is dead flat and provides a lot of support in comparison with most rockered tails I've tried.  The obvious tapered shape to the tail is a real point of difference, designed to lengthen the ski in deeper snow whilst removing some of the float in those same conditions (I haven't tried them in those conditions).  They're designed with quite a short turning sidecut / shape between the contact points.  It's a ski that likes to be driven whereas the S3 is happy for the skier to sit neutrally in the middle without pressuring the tips.  That leads directly to my favourite quote for these: "they're a skier's ski".  My real takeaway from these was they're the best funky-conditions, crud busting ski I've ever been on.  That's quite a different impression than the S3 provides.  They're very different animals.

 

So, if you're thinking of directly replacing the S3 with the Cham 97 I would recommend demoing first to make sure it's what you're looking for.  If I found a deal I'd happily buy both skis, but they'd fill different roles within my quiver.  If I were powder and tree skiing I'd reach for the S3.  If there was hard snow and crud in the mix I'd prefer the Cham.  If I were throwing them into a bag for an overseas trip I'd be hard pressed to make a decision between the two, but I'm a Libra and I'm told that's just my fate :rolleyes 


Edited by sinbad7 - 2/24/15 at 5:37pm
post #13 of 32

I have a heavily used pair of S3s and a pair of metal Cham 97s with 20ish days on them.

Sinbad covered it well.

 

S3s are fun, and have a speed limit easy to find.  Fun on groomers, quick in trees.  Ride them more than drive them.

 

Chams are fun when driven.  Higher speed limit, and just plain fun to hold a carve on hard snow and blast through any piles you find.

 

S3s are better in the trees, Chams are better on groomers crud, crust.

 

No idea which is better in uncut powder, as that is easy and fun to ski on anything.

 

If your primary concern is maneuverability in the trees, I think anything with a rockered tail will be easier than the stiff flat cham tail.  In theory, the pintal pivots easily, but I think the rockered S3 tail is easier.

 

Take what I say with a grain of salt.  I am a hack

post #14 of 32
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by HHTELE View Post
 

I have a heavily used pair of S3s and a pair of metal Cham 97s with 20ish days on them.

Sinbad covered it well.

 

S3s are fun, and have a speed limit easy to find.  Fun on groomers, quick in trees.  Ride them more than drive them.

 

Chams are fun when driven.  Higher speed limit, and just plain fun to hold a carve on hard snow and blast through any piles you find.

 

S3s are better in the trees, Chams are better on groomers crud, crust.

 

No idea which is better in uncut powder, as that is easy and fun to ski on anything.

 

If your primary concern is maneuverability in the trees, I think anything with a rockered tail will be easier than the stiff flat cham tail.  In theory, the pintal pivots easily, but I think the rockered S3 tail is easier.

 

Take what I say with a grain of salt.  I am a hack

 

Thanks so sounds like S3 would be a better east coast everyday and Cham 97 a better west coast everyday?

post #15 of 32

Hello 2 @ll

 

 

Actually I do really have the same "problem" than borpborp...

 

My pair of S3 is from 2009 but I simply do love them. The 97er HM from Dynastar got my attention as I does not have a quite good price if choosen from 2013/2014 (new).

 

My question to all that have tried the S3 (Rossignol): Which other ski does "run/ ski" like that?

 

 

By the way is there anywhere a shop where S3 (177cm) are still avalailble?

 

 

Hope 2 get few answers,

thank a lot in advance

post #16 of 32
Soul rider? Shreditor 102? 4frnt Cody or Rossi Scimitar (if you can find either of those). Maybe the new SFB. Any med/soft flexing, tip and tail rockered, ~100 waisted ski with a ~ 20ish radius should be similar. I've got some S3 for sale, if you're interested.
post #17 of 32

There a several current skis that are very similar to the feel and performance of the S3 (around 100 in the waist, playful, nimble, good in reasonable powder and hold a decent edge on hardpack).  These include:

 

Atomic Automatic 102

Salomon Rocker2 100

Line Sick Day 102

 

Good luck!

Mike

post #18 of 32

A half dozen friends and I, all on S3's, bought Soul 7's. It's everything the S3 was and more. The Sin 7 was the S3's replacement, but I have not skied it. By the numbers of Sins I see on the mountain, they are just as popular as the S3's were. I think you would be happy with either one.

post #19 of 32

However, the Soul 7 and Sin 7 ski very differently from the S3.

post #20 of 32
Quote:
Originally Posted by mike_m View Post
 

However, the Soul 7 and Sin 7 ski very differently from the S3.

Please elaborate.

Thank you.

post #21 of 32

"Your experience may vary," however, I found the S3 to have a huge sweet spot and be very stable in all conditions despite their nimble and playful nature.  When I demoed the Soul and Sin, I felt Rossi's desire to increase lightness (just a guess) led to chatter and a lack of stability compared to the S3.  The other skis I listed replicated the characteristics of the S3.

post #22 of 32

Probably, if nothing else comes up, I would go for the Soul7. I tried them in 172 during a few hours in the Alps.

I´ve also beeing skiing the Sin7 -2014- one full day, in 180 and 172. I did not like either of them. They did not seem as "easy playable" as the S3 to me.

 

One thing I really like on the S3 is the length. They have the same length than I am: 177cm. As I´m a "lightweight" I feel like these pair is perfectly fitting for me in deep pow -as far as there is some- and they even work on iced black pists.

On the S3 there is also the possibility to change the mounting of the binding, on Soul 7 the mounting position is given by the factory...

 

 

Thanks a lot for sharing your experiences....

post #23 of 32
Quote:
Originally Posted by Freeski83 View Post

On the S3 there is also the possibility to change the mounting of the binding, on Soul 7 the mounting position is given by the factory...
Recommended mounting position is always given by the manufacturer, it is up to the user to decide if he/she wants the bindings mounted on the recommended line or somewhere else. In that regard, the S3 and Soul 7 are no different.
post #24 of 32

On S3 there are +/- 3 position.

On Soul 7 there is only one mounting position...

post #25 of 32
Quote:
Originally Posted by Freeski83 View Post

On S3 there are +/- 3 position.
On Soul 7 there is only one mounting position...
Jesus
post #26 of 32

:ROTF 

post #27 of 32
Quote:
Originally Posted by Freeski83 View Post

On S3 there are +/- 3 position.
On Soul 7 there is only one mounting position...
Do you get arrested if you mount the bindings at -1?
post #28 of 32

WTF, .... Send Jesus to the two shops where I got this information from!

post #29 of 32
Quote:
Originally Posted by Freeski83 View Post
 

WTF, .... Send Jesus to the two shops where I got this information from!

 

Do the folks at those two shops know what a ruler looks like?:cool

 

It shouldn't take divine guidance for that. I am sure Jesus has better things to do with his time.  :rolleyes

post #30 of 32
The answer is simple: mount a set of Marker Schizo bindings and you'll have +/-3cm of travel to play with.
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 S3 vs Cham 97?