or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Bandit xx help

post #1 of 10
Thread Starter 
i have the opportnity to buy a pair of xx, cheapthey are last yearws model and in good shape.The problem is that i have no way to demo. From reading in this forum i gather this a v. good ski, and the lenght seems ok ( i'm 5.9 and the ski is 1.70). But the few that had anything against it sait it was damp, so my question is how damp? does it mean it has no rebound? i enjoy a ski that goes "pop" at the end of a turn, does the xx do it?
thanx for your input
post #2 of 10
Although Pierre has stated his disagreement with my assessment, my experience and that of many others is this: The Bandit XX is a lively ski. I had the hots for another ski, but when I tried the XX in a length suitable for me, it was much livlier.

I'm an skier of modest ability, weigh about 150, stand 5'8" tall. The XX in 170 is very comfortable for me. If there's another model of "mid-fat" ski that has the capabilities of the XX and more "pop", tell me what it is!

To get a good read on the XX, go to the "Gear info" part of this web site [NOT in the "Forums" - just "Gear Info"] Go to ski reviews and click on Rossignol. Those reviews are the work of Peter Keelty [pronounced "Keltee"], and he tells me he arrives at his descriptions after getting feed-back from a number of people. I have found that my experiences with different skis are on track with his.

[ February 18, 2003, 07:24 AM: Message edited by: oboe ]
post #3 of 10
Quote:
Originally posted by psy:
i have the opportnity to buy a pair of xx, cheapthey are last yearws model and in good shape.The problem is that i have no way to demo. From reading in this forum i gather this a v. good ski, and the lenght seems ok ( i'm 5.9 and the ski is 1.70). But the few that had anything against it sait it was damp, so my question is how damp? does it mean it has no rebound? i enjoy a ski that goes "pop" at the end of a turn, does the xx do it?
thanx for your input
I'd think that 170 is way too short. I am 5'11" and tried a 177 XX and it was definitely too short. Oh, it did turn okay, but at speed it was terrible. But then I didn't really like any of the Bandit (I also tried the 184 XXX), they felt dead to me (the opposite of what Oboe feels). That is why I ended up with a 188 G4.

YA
post #4 of 10
[ October 15, 2003, 04:36 AM: Message edited by: bearberry ]
post #5 of 10
I also have the XX (2 in fact, but that's another story ... it's starting to look like a ski shop around here!) and think it's an amazing ski. However if it's pop you're looking for keep looking. Maybe something wood cored with stiffer tail ie Volkl. Found the XX does everything reasonably well.

Regarding length, well I guess everyone is entitled to their opinion, mine is to disagree with Ladede. Sorry old mate Sure at 5'11" a 177 or even a 184 would be about right, but 5'9" I'd suggest a 170 or maybe the 177. I'm 5'8" and ski the 170.

Unstable at speed? See my "How fast do you ski ..." thread, the 111kph run was on some 177 XX

Cheers,

Pete
post #6 of 10
Quote:
Originally posted by Pete:
Unstable at speed? See my "How fast do you ski ..." thread, the 111kph run was on some 177 XX
Pete, if we can't disagree then why do we have opinions for?

I've been very fast on some short and very soft skis too (Head Bumps & Powder) but it doesn't mean I wouldn't say they were terrible at speed.

In any case... I've seen a *lot* of people love the Bandit and it looks like consensus is to ski shorter those days, so I may well be plain wrong. Maybe I am just reflecting my own bias, as illustrated by my ordering 188 cm G4 skis instead of the consensus of 178. And I better not regret it, those things are expensive. I am so used to long skis, it may take me my first pair of shaped skis to realize that shorter skis are okay now [img]smile.gif[/img] And the G4 is wider than the XX, so I'll blame the extra length on my need to rip in deep in the Western bowls (I'll manage trees carefully). It's funny though, I was swearing by slalom skis (what I've had for the past 20 years) and am in love with the way the G4 goes. I guess it was time to have another style of ski in my quiver.

YA
post #7 of 10
Thread Starter 
Thanks to you all.I have never tried a mid fat, so it's a little confusing for me. I like slalom oriented skis ( Rossi Viper, Atomic 9'12), and i also enjoyed the Volkl P50. I didn't like the CROSSMAX 8, it was too damp and it was no fun at all. I want to start skiing out of bounds more, but i'm worried that i will be sacrificing too much on the groomed . How would you say the xx compares to the Viper ( i Know it's apples and oranges, but still). Right now i am inclined to bite the bullet and buy them.
post #8 of 10
The Viper is made for groomed but can be either unpleasant or impossible in deeper snow. The XX is made for BOTH. You're right, comparing it to the Viper tell you nothing useful. If you plan to go off-piste as well as on piste, go with the XX. I have found that, especially among mid-fats, it's one of the best on hard snow. I never feel it is lacking in any conditions.
post #9 of 10
Thread Starter 
Thanks. I just bought them. I got them for 320 $ with bindings used only for one week. the guy that sold them needed the cash. All i have to do now is wait 2 weeks for my trip to Val Disere. Right now it seems like a very long wait.
post #10 of 10
well i guess it is old news, since you already bought them... but i ski on the same ski, length 170cm. i am 5'3", i consider myself a relatively strong skier (piste? what's that? [img]smile.gif[/img] ) i think these skis are great! responsive, fairly snappy, they take what i consider to be some moderate speed (some racing background)... i stuck a junior race binding onthem, and a lifter, and shiiii-sh [img]smile.gif[/img] i think they are groovy! [img]graemlins/thumbsup.gif[/img] hope you enjoy them!

oh yeah, and my sis bought a pair too [img]smile.gif[/img]
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Ski Gear Discussion