EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › Ski Gear Discussion › Changes in the Sin 7 from 2015 to 2016?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Changes in the Sin 7 from 2015 to 2016?

post #1 of 12
Thread Starter 
I just demoed some 172 Sin 7 s and I really loved them. However, I'm a cheapskate and don't want to drop the 550$ it'll prolly cost me to get 2016s. I'm looking at getting some 2015s which would save me about $120.

I was wondering if anyone had tried both and noticed much of a difference? One video from Rossi stated they made some changes to the sidewall, but my impression is that they were minor and likely not noticeable, especially to someone like me who hasn't tried a lot of gear and frankly doesn't know much. Is that about right?

My info: 5'10 190lbs. Advanced skier looking for something that handles well in the trees but can be used as all mountain. This is my third season. Last season I got my first set of skis, Salomon Q90s which I've enjoyed. I just bought new Pivot 12 bindings for them and will switch them over to my sin 7s if I get them.


Gear mentioned in this thread:

post #2 of 12
Thread Starter 
Thought I'd bump this and maybe make it a bit more general:

Is it common for skis to change a lot between years without being branded as whole new skis? Or is it reasonable to expect taht the sin7 2015 is very similar to the 2016 and that if I like the latter I'll like the former?
post #3 of 12

Yes, it is common for skis to change so much that the name should change as well, but doesn't... but the Sin is not one of those examples. If you liked the 2016 you will almost certainly like the 2015 as well.


(between 2014 and 2015 there WAS a significant construction change, be aware of that while you shop.)

post #4 of 12
Thread Starter 

Awedsome!!  Patience is not one of my virtues, so I already got the 2015s by the time you replied but it's good to know that it won't bite me in the ass!


thanks so much for the reply

post #5 of 12

172cm sin7 is seem a bit short for a guy your size though

post #6 of 12
Thread Starter 

I thought so, too, but the rosignol guys insisted I should ski a 172 and I really liked it.  In retrospect, I should've tried the 180 afterwards to compare.


What is the downside to too short of a ski? I remember when I started I was told to start on a short ski and go to a larger one, but I never learned why longer is better when you have more experience.

post #7 of 12

you will like them.  I demo them twice in two years then picked up a pair last Spring.  They are a fun ski.

post #8 of 12
This ski skis short!

If you're an advanced skier at 5'10", you should be on a 178cm ski at least. This ski is a fun all-mountain ski, but at high speeds it gets scary and the short length won't help. You'd be much happier on the 178.
post #9 of 12

How did you end up liking the 2015 version on the Sin 7?  Notice any differences to the 2016 that you demo'd?

post #10 of 12
Thread Starter 

Naw. I didn't. If there are differences they're small.


I really like these skis.  The only time I am unhappy is with speed through crud.  If the snow is smooth, I can ride em at 60+mph and feel fine.  And of course their nimble as all doowhop in the trees and bumps.  Anyway, they're snickerdoodle is what I mean. Freaking snickerdoodle.

post #11 of 12

I think this is the last year for Sin 7's. They're being rebranded as the Sky 7 HD. Here's a link to a little bit of info on the changes. Seeing as how they're being dropped in favour of a new flavour (poet) there should be some pretty god deals on the Sin 7's right around the corner.



post #12 of 12
Those are a common length i went to 2nd track sports in salt lake city and got a pair with demo bindings pretty cheap.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Ski Gear Discussion

Gear mentioned in this thread:

EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › Ski Gear Discussion › Changes in the Sin 7 from 2015 to 2016?