or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Bandits - how long?

post #1 of 6
Thread Starter 
I have a chance to pick up a great deal on some left-over 2005 (but never used) Bandit B1's. I planning to use them primarily as bump skis for East coast skiing.

I'm 5 ft 10 in
175-180 lbs.

I can choose either the 176 or the 182. I'm thinking the 182...

Any thoughts? Recommendations?

post #2 of 6
go shorter for bumps
post #3 of 6
I have 184cm. 2004 Bandit X's - I wouldn't go shorter than that personally. I'm 5'11", and about 180, and I'm PLENTY strong for that ski. Sidecut on it is 107-70-97. It's a fairly soft ski - an good intermediate ski IMHO. If you're a strong skier, I'd probably go longer unless you spend a LOT of time in bumps and trees. That said, it's farily quick edge-to-edge. Good luck! I'm in a similar quandry on some new Rossi B2's - I'm also getting some Rossi Sprayer BC's in a 182 to use in powder/off-piste, so I would use the b2's a tad less probably as they are narrower. They would be mainly on groomed (about 60-70% of the time), so I'm torn between the 176 & 182 on these, but I'm leaning more towards the 182.
post #4 of 6
I don't think it matters that much. I tried the bandit in a 176, and I weigh 165 lbs. For comparison, I had recently skied 208, 190, 180, 170, 165, and 160 in everything from old SG skis to straight slaloms, to new Equipe SCs. I found that the 176 Bandits were just a tad longer for me than I would find ideal in bumbs, but that the extra length did not help thier stability at higher speeds and longer GS turns. In fact I was surprised to find that I felt that at higher speeds a longer ski in this model would have been more unstable, unlike every other ski I had been on, where more length would help.

In short, this ski will not be stable at high speeds, no matter how long you get it, so you may as well go shorter, but the two lengths you chose are fairly close so there won't be much difference.
post #5 of 6
I will admit, my Bandits are not very stable when run FLAT, but they are pretty sure-footed on edge IMHO. The only problem I had again, was that at high speeds, they may have been just a bit too soft. But they were fun in the trees, and I'm NOT a tree skier. They were/are capable of turns of all sorts, short and long.

I missed the initial part about the bumps, and yes, I'd go shorter just because it seems the majority of folks out there are on skis shorter than 180 (or 170, or 160...), so the short-stick people are making the bumps, and fitting long skis into short skis troughs has alwasy been a challenge for me - but then again, I hate bumps...
post #6 of 6
Definatly 176, better in the crud and all around skiing. I think they are decent at higher speeds too.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Ski Gear Discussion