or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Advice on Bandit XX

post #1 of 28
Thread Starter 
I'm looking to buy a wider ski to compliment my everyday boards (Crossmax 10 Pilot) for spring crud skiing, occasional dumps, and trips out west. I don't want to go a full blown powder plank, as when I travel I can usually only bring one pair, and don't want to get stuck skiing a real widebody for a week on the groomed if it doesn't snow. Plus living in the east, I probably wouldn't get enough use out of a real wide ski. The Bandit XX seems to fill the bill for what I'm looking for, but I'm wondering if it would be that much better off piste than my Crossmax to make it worthwhile to get a pair. Also, I've stayed away from Rossi in the past because of a lot of negative things I've heard in regards to durability issues. I'm also wondering about size, as I've never had a chance to demo them. I'm a little over 6', 205 lbs, 50 years old, and ski about 40 days a season. I'm thinking probably a 184. Any help would be appreciated.
post #2 of 28
Depending on the terrain you are skiing the XX is excellent. Someone your size could go to 191s if they are going to ski big mountain, wide open bowls. Bumps, trees etc stick with 184s which will still have enough stability for the hi speed groomers. I always enjoy hearing about "durability issues", next time you are at any of the big resorts out west checkthe racks for older skis. I guarantee that the more vintage they get the more Rossis you will see. Besides Rossi has one of the most liberal warranty departments in the industry with world wide warranty so where ever you go you are covered.
post #3 of 28
I'm 60 years old, about 150 pounds, 5 feet 8 inches in height, and I ski on the average of 40 days a year. I demoed the Bandit XX - current model - in a 177 cm and hated it. At the insistence of the techie, I went out for a spin with the Rossignol Bandit XX in 170 cm, and I fell in love with it immediately. I bought a pair, but they were hard to find near the end of the season because so many stores were sold out of them. I've tested - and owned - a whole lotta skis, and the Rossignol Bandit XX is my all time favorite. I've also skied the Salomon Crossmax 10 Pilot, also in 170, and I also loved that. However, the Bandit XX is a more versatile ski and went through all manner of deeper snow easily, including heavy, cut up crud. I've never skied it in bottomless powder, but hell, I've skied in hip deep powder with folks on those old straight skis and they did fine. If I needed some other ski for bottomless powder, I'd rent it. The Bandit XX is so versatile that I rarely use my other skis except in pure ice situations [use Rossi T-Powers at 160 cm] or rock skis conditions. When I travel west, the XX will be the only pair I haul. I've never had a durability problem, but I know that folks who have agree that Roosignol has been excellent in replacement. I've heard one or another durability rumor about a number of different ski brands, so I wouldn't take this stuff too much to heart. If you buy the XX, I'm betting on your being happy with them. However, you may find that the XX also covers the performance envelope of the Crossmax, so there probably would be no need to own both, and the XX is the better for deeper snow. Amazingly, the XX also is a winner on hardpack. I myself live and ski in Vermont with the occaional western jaunt.

By the way, I mentioned the different reactions I had to the 177 and the 170. I'm told by a patroller who's skied on the Rossi Bandit XX's for years that many are skiing the current model XX in one size shorter than the older model.

[ September 02, 2002, 03:22 PM: Message edited by: oboe ]
post #4 of 28
Thread Starter 
Thanks for the advice. I'm still up in the air about length, though. I'm wondering if the turned up tail shortens the actual length of the ski. (Is a 184 really only a 180?) I ski my Crossmax in a 185, and that seems to be ideal. It's taken me a while to give in to the shorter skis, and I'm hesitant to move back up to a 191. I'm not comfortable with some of the advice I get in some of the ski shops, I've been told that at 205 lbs. I should be on a 170, and I don't buy that. I'm going to check out Rossi's web site, maybe they will have some info there. Thanks for the help.
post #5 of 28
OK, Mac, a few more things: Rossi typically has recommended one length longer than is good for me, so be careful with there recommendations. I'm not the only one who's had that experience with them, either. I'm on the 170 Bandit XX and I also was right on the Crossmax 10 Pilot in 170. Considering the information you've given us, a 170 for you would be uncomfortable. But your Crossmax 10 Pilot and the Bandit XX will be comparable - if you like the 185 in the Crossmax, that'll work for you in the Bandit XX. Don't worry even a second about the "turned up tail" thing, it doesn't matter.
post #6 of 28
Thread Starter 
Thanks again. I know that the best thing to do would be to demo, but I know where I can pick up some of last seasons leftovers at a reasonable price, and I don't think they've changed at all for this year. Unfortunately, they probably won't be any left if I wait much longer. I did get a chance to ski the Bandit X in a 184 last season, and that seemed to be fine. If I lived out west where the skiing is a lot more wide open, I might be tempted to go with a 191, but with what we have to ski around here, I'm probably better off with a 184. By the way, I actually passed through Essex Junction in early August, my wife and I were on a mini vacation, so at least I know where it is now. You have the best of both worlds up there, you're near the water and you're lucky enough to be close to so much good skiing.
post #7 of 28
At 150 pounds and 5'8", I found that the Bandit X [single X] was too short for me in 170 and needed the 177 to feel comfortable. The Bandit XX [doule X] on the other hand was too long for me in 177 and just right for me in 170. If you liked the single X in 184, then that length in the double X will be plenty long enough.

If you do buy and ski the XX in 184, I'm betting they'll become your one-pair quiver and the Crossmaxes will become superfluous.
post #8 of 28
Hi, Mac:

Does the shop you're dealing with have more than one pair of 184 XX's? If so and the price is right, I'd be interested in buying a pair.

I'll just add my little bit of input to the mix. I will be buying a pair of skis to mount with randonee bindings. I'm looking for something that does *everything* well (but doesn't necessarily specialize in any particular conditions), so that I could use these skis as backcountry skis but also in-resort if I go that way.

I demoed all kinds of mid-fat and fat all-mountain skis last year. The ones I liked best for a full combination of conditions (powder, junk, groomed, quick turns, and cruising) were the XX's. I think it's a very good all-around ski and I think you'd probably be very happy with it.

BTW, I think there is a little bit of a concern about long-term durability with those skis, but I think that concern applies more to people who are lucky enough to ski hard for a hundred days a season or so. For the rest of us, I think that ski will hold up fine.


PM me with the shop's name & phone number if they've got an extra pair?
post #9 of 28
It just so happens that I was about to make my first post to this forum and ask advise on the same ski. My profile is similar to Mac's . I'm a eastern skier, yearly VT. trip or UT. depending on my cash situation. Looking for a ski to take into the trees, in variable conditions. Also ski steep trails. Moguls are not my favorite..prefer bumps on steeper terrain but, I don't go looking for them. I'm 48, 195lbs. 5'10" and thinking about the XX's in a 177. Also, I am considering the X. I'm not sure which ski would fit the bill. Any thoughts?
post #10 of 28
Has anybody tried the Rossi RPM21 (basically the XX with power plate)?


Apart from the 70's style ugly graphics whats the difference e.g. how does the powerplate affect performance?

post #11 of 28
IMHO the reputation that Rossi has for breaking down quickly is way overblown. I've had at least one pair of Rossi's for the past 25 yrs and they don't break down any faster than any other ski. It's an old wives tale.

Rossi sells more skis than any other manufacturer. They lead the way in quality control. I'm not saying you should buy a Rossi for the quality, rather that you shouldn't shy away from them because of some rumor about their durability.

Now, you asked about length. I'm 6'3" and 250lbs and ski very hard. I'm going with the 184 XX this year.
post #12 of 28
A lot of us are traveling this trail... I just bought some brand new Bandit XX on eBay for $449 in 177 cm (6', 180lbs). They are offering them continuously on eBay, usually by Cupolo Sports in Niagara, Ontario. If the price sounds right, give them a call.
As for length, demoing is the only sure way, but I feel more comfortable a size shorter for eastern tree skiing (and would definitely go longer for the West). For me this is definitely a 'second' ski - in the East I like a stiffer model as a 'first' ski like the cross skis now becoming popular or a shortish slalom...

Ain't it fun to look at all these toys tho'?
post #13 of 28

Add the Fischer Big Stix to your list. The 74 was initially designed to compete with the Rossi XX. They have nearly the same footprint. I find them to be lighter and stiffer. Super construction as well.

And though you have a concern about too wide a ski the Big Stix 84 is a light weight powder ski that handles groomers great.

Worth the look. I got turned onto them at www.footloosesports.com when they reviewed the XX and said the Fischer 74 is a comparible ski.
post #14 of 28
Hey DangerousBrian,

I demoed the rmp 21 and 17 plus a few other rossi last year at jiminy in ma. i skied the rmp21 in 177 and loved it, offer the rossi tech to buy it right there and he said he could not do it because of more demo show. the skied the rpm 17 in 170 and felt it either to short or to narrow for my taste. i am 5'7" 170, the 21 made me feel confident while the 17 was a little skiddish. they had a little mogul run, zipped thru it fine.

if you thinking of getting the bandit demo the rpm first before making your final decision. but you have to live with the graffiti.
post #15 of 28
The Rpm is a rocket. By adding the plate it turns the bandit into a speed demon. If you used to ski GS skis as your all mountain weapon but now find them to specialized go with the RPM. Basically you get the bandit footprint and versatility with the advantage of nitrous and turbocharging.
Oh yeah, the graphics are supposed to be Nascar/Moto-x influenced, the two most watched motorized events in th US.
post #16 of 28
Thanks VT and Waxman,

Does the plate on the RPM21 adversley affect softer snow performance?

A friend can put custom graphics on ski's so if the ski's right I could always change the graphics.

post #17 of 28

depends on where you ski, i am an eastern skier. soft snow for me is cloudy ice vs. clear blue ice.

basically the rpms is speedier version of of the bandits. i demoed late last year and it was either ice or slush and the rpm skied beautifully in both conditions.

post #18 of 28
If you're looking for a ski to complement your on-piste cruisers, then getting the plate would seem unnecessary. The plate would diminish the ski's agility in shorter, quicker turns. The reason for the plate would be to enhance stability and grip at very high speeds.

[ September 09, 2002, 09:05 AM: Message edited by: oboe ]
post #19 of 28
>... The plate would diminish the ski's agility in shorter, quicker turns ...


Tom / PM

PS (in edit) - Well, not precisely. Maybe the better way to say it would be something like, "the plate significantly enhances the ski's ability to *make* short carved turns, but slightly decreases its agility to be set up for such turns."

See below for details.

[ September 09, 2002, 11:46 AM: Message edited by: PhysicsMan ]
post #20 of 28
I've got a few sec. Let me elaborate.

Plates like this do three major beneficial things:

1) They help the center of the ski flex more, thereby promoting a nice continuous, unbroken arc when the edge is in contact with a hard surface. More flex = tighter turning radii.

2) They often include a visco-elastic damping layer between the ski and the plate to help damp higher frequency vibrations encountered on hard surfaces. This helps you stay in a carve (ie, at higher speeds, in tighter carves, on rougher surfaces, at barely adequate edge angles, etc.)

3) They lift the foot further from the snow surface. This reduces the torque that the ski is applying to your lower leg trying to flatten the ski. Thus, you don't need to work so hard to get a given edge angle. Again, this helps you make tighter carves.

They also have a few negative consequences:

4) They add weight.

5) They can require more lateral movement of the knee to get the same edge angle (albeit with less force).

6) Make the skis feel overly responsive to changes in edging angle.

I'm guessing that Oboe made his comment in part based on a statement in Peter Keelty's review of the rpm 17 where he said, "... Adds power, damps the ski and slightly reduces quickness and agility ...". I don't want to put words in Peter's mouth, but I would guess that Peter is most likely likely referring to effects #4 and #5 in the above list (which can slightly slow down your ability to set up for a carve), not the abilities of a plate to enhance tight carves (once you are into one).

This is the everpresent danger of trying to summarize complicated, many faceted aspects of the performance of a ski into a single sound bite.

Tom / PM

[ September 09, 2002, 11:49 AM: Message edited by: PhysicsMan ]
post #21 of 28
I've re-read my own post about the plate and the remarks that follow, and I stand by my original remarks. The plate reduces AGILITY in smaller, quicker turns. Translation: Not as quick edge to edge, as a practical matter. The ski with the plate would NOT be my choice for trees, because once I make a quick turn to the left, I must be able IMMEDIATELY to follow with a quick turn to the right and a quick turn to the left etc etc. . . at least on enough occasions so that edge to edge quickness is important.

If GS type stuff is your meat, get the plate. If you prefer the trees, stay with the Bandit XX with no plate.
post #22 of 28
Basically, my gripe is not with your overall recommendation, but with your / Peter's sentence, "... The plate would diminish the ski's agility in shorter, quicker turns ...".

IMHO, while a very strict interpretation of it does indeed yield the correct results, I think the vast majority of people would immediately interpret this sentence as, "plates will decrease the ability to make shorter-quicker turns", and unfortunately, this is exactly the opposite of why people put plates on skis. Plates are used specifically to make shorter-quicker carved turns. IMHO, a tiny number of customers will ever make the distinction that we are discussing.

Now, to be fair, I have to say that I fully agree with your recommendation not use a plate when off-piste, but I am doing so for a very different reason, and IMHO, the difference in underlying reason is extremely important for potential purchasers to understand.

Keelty's exact quote is "...SLIGHTLY decreases its agility...". This arises specifically because of items #4 and 5 in my previous post. WRT #4, all of the added weight is directly underfoot and this does nothing to increase the polar moment of intertia (aka, "swing weight) of the ski. WRT issue #5, the extra distance the knee must move is also quite small, of order the plate thickness. The net effect of these two effects truly is tiny.

OTOH, the MUCH larger effect of using a the plate will be to make it feel like your are skiing high above the snow, and this can feel a bit wobbly as the plate thickness gets larger. This is the last thing you want while in the irregular snow usually found off-piste, especially when most turns involve considerable amounts of skidding and less carving, and plates' main reason for existence is to help carved turns.

Tom / PM
post #23 of 28
Well, at least your last paragraph has something I can agree with - extra height in natural snow is a minus, not a plus. But your point about "shorter, quicker" is somewhat misleading. GS skis can make VERY short, quick turns - ONE WAY. That's not what we need to improve on the Bandit XX, for heaven's sakes, because even a thoroughly medium skier like me can turn the XX quickly and shortly enough - BOTH ways, great edge to edge - and its grip on piste is hunky dory - who needs to improve on it?!

You know, I love ketchup - I use it on eggs, burgers, and fries. In my own view, the XX is intended for 50% on piste and 50% off piste, and it does both beautifully. To me, putting a plate on it is like putting ketchup on apple pie - what's the point?! If you want GS skis, GET THEM! I think that this XX-with-a-plate ski is superfluous in the Rossi line. For that matter, I think the single X is superfluous. From my own experience with the X and the XX, it is apparent that anything the X can do, the XX can do just as well or better; while there are things the XX does that the single X just can't keep up with. Rossi has some great skis - I just wish they had fewer models.
post #24 of 28
Dangerous Brian, try out this thought: If you like the graphics on the Bandit XX but think it might be too soft, buy the ski anyway and try it out. If you then want that ski but stiffer, put on a plate! Voila! The graphics you like and the stiffness you seek!

I'm betting that after you ski the XX's, you'll be so happy you wouldn't think of messing with them . . . but it's nice to know that you CAN, if you really want to. Also, if you try the plate and really hate it, you can take it off. Options
post #25 of 28
>... Dangerous Brian, try out this thought: If you like the graphics on the Bandit XX but think it might be too soft, buy the ski anyway and try it out. If you then want that ski but stiffer, put on a plate! Voila! The graphics you like and the stiffness you seek! ...

Oboe, I presume you know that these days, most "plates" are designed to let the center of the ski flex naturally, thereby decreasing the overall stiffness of the ski, not increasing it. OTOH, a binding not designed specifically to promote free flex, or a simple lifter (firmly bolted to the ski) will have the effect you are suggesting.

Unfortunately, even if you make the underfoot area of a ski infinitely stiff, the maximum change that you achieve in the overall flex of the ski is really quite small, perhaps, of order a few percent. Thus, even if DB does what you suggested, he may never be able to get the ski up to the stiffness he wants/needs.

Tom / PM
post #26 of 28
Thanks Oboe,

Of all the ski's I tried last year (and there were a few) the Bandit XX was the best all rounder. Just really wanted to know what difference the plate made. It was very stable but I didn't like it as much the second time around (think it was a tunning issue).

I'm also thinking about a two ski quiver (e.g. Atomic SL9.12 & Pocket Rocket) v one all rounder (Bandit XX, Fischer 74 or 75, Atomic 10.20).

Be it ski's, mountain bikes, DVD players or women it's always difficult to make that final decision because there could be a better model out there.

post #27 of 28
I never actually PLAN to buy new skis every season . . . it's just that I discover something BETTER, so of course I MUST have it. This penchant for discovery and change concerns my wife. [img]graemlins/evilgrin.gif[/img]
post #28 of 28
Thread Starter 
Anyone got any advice about matching the Rossi turntable bindings with the XX? What are the advantages? I have a Marker 1200 titainium binding that I could mount on them, I'm just wondering if there would be enough difference between the two to make it worthwhile, other than the additional year of warranty that Rossi gives you for using their bindings.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Ski Gear Discussion