EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › Member Gear Reviews › Rossignol Muti X Review
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Rossignol Muti X Review - Page 2

post #31 of 49
Quote:
Originally Posted by stekan
One pair of skis for two skiers? Stiffer configuration for higher level skier, softer for lower level. The only disadvantage: can’t be used it at the same time by both skiers.

One skis for man and wife? The same disadvantage apply. Could be advantage in this case?
Perhaps the spin might be "a ski that can grow with you", soft ski for starters and graduate to stiffer ski as you improve?
post #32 of 49
It is just morally wrong - WRONG, I tell you - to frustrate the absolute NEED to buy more skis. WHAT ABOUT FAMILY VALUES?! It's true, then. The country 's values are in decline. How sad.
post #33 of 49
They should have made them as short as 145 to capture the two ski junior market where the two ski quiver is a drain on dear old dads wallet.
post #34 of 49
I have tested this ski in both configurations and in varying conditions. The arms modify flex and they do feel different from short to long arms. Overall ski behavior was better than I expected and there shouldn't be any complaints from recreational skiers. Rossignol said the ski will probably break if skied without arms. They are quite expensive compared to other skis. Changing the arms is not a simple procedure. Snow and ice locks them in and I saw hammers and pliers being used to try get them out to change over. Rossignol plans to offer more arms in future so consumers can upgrade or further tweak their skis so combined with price this is obviously a marketing-driven product. I heard one testimonial from a skier in Europe that flexed the ski too much and the tip of inside arm slid off the ski and plunged into the snow. He broke the arm off and fell.
This is not a new idea. Following the war a ski company in Three Rivers, Quebec made a ski called Clement. It had a wooden stiffener on top that was secured with a metal clip that could be moved forward or back to modify flex. Ernie McCullough won the Harriman Cup on Clement skis. Then Attenhoffer came out with a variable flex ski controled by a dial that flipped metal stringers from flat to on edge to change flex. It was quick and convenient. The fact that neither ski is around today may say something about what consumers want to do - fiddle with their skis or go skiing.
post #35 of 49
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by martino
I have tested this ski in both configurations and in varying conditions. The arms modify flex and they do feel different from short to long arms. Overall ski behavior was better than I expected and there shouldn't be any complaints from recreational skiers. Rossignol said the ski will probably break if skied without arms. They are quite expensive compared to other skis. Changing the arms is not a simple procedure. Snow and ice locks them in and I saw hammers and pliers being used to try get them out to change over. Rossignol plans to offer more arms in future so consumers can upgrade or further tweak their skis so combined with price this is obviously a marketing-driven product. I heard one testimonial from a skier in Europe that flexed the ski too much and the tip of inside arm slid off the ski and plunged into the snow. He broke the arm off and fell.
This is not a new idea. Following the war a ski company in Three Rivers, Quebec made a ski called Clement. It had a wooden stiffener on top that was secured with a metal clip that could be moved forward or back to modify flex. Ernie McCullough won the Harriman Cup on Clement skis. Then Attenhoffer came out with a variable flex ski controled by a dial that flipped metal stringers from flat to on edge to change flex. It was quick and convenient. The fact that neither ski is around today may say something about what consumers want to do - fiddle with their skis or go skiing.
Agree that the arms were time consuming for the demo guy to change over due to snow clogging the insertion points and he did say that the
skis would break if skied on without the arms.
post #36 of 49
I've been on these in both the long/long arm, and short front/long rear arm configurations. Definately noticed a difference between the configs, but being more of a freerider without any racing background I couldn't really dial in precise differences for feel and technique. I actually felt more comfortable ripping it on the Z9's. I definately wouldn't want to spend the time fiddling with the configuration for particular runs/conditions while I could be skiing instead.

To me it seems that only technical skiers with race backgrounds would really be able to appreciate the differences, and from what I've found the standard GS and slalom skis delivered better feel than the MutiX anyway. It will be neat to see how many of these are found in the lift lines, and where they go from here in the next couple of years.
post #37 of 49
Quote:
Originally Posted by samurai
I can now imagine Volkl/marker's iPT system developing into an internal flex selector.
Hmmm.
post #38 of 49
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Singel
I've been on these in both the long/long arm, and short front/long rear arm configurations. Definately noticed a difference between the configs, but being more of a freerider without any racing background I couldn't really dial in precise differences for feel and technique. I actually felt more comfortable ripping it on the Z9's. I definately wouldn't want to spend the time fiddling with the configuration for particular runs/conditions while I could be skiing instead.

To me it seems that only technical skiers with race backgrounds would really be able to appreciate the differences, and from what I've found the standard GS and slalom skis delivered better feel than the MutiX anyway. It will be neat to see how many of these are found in the lift lines, and where they go from here in the next couple of years.
As I said in my original post not as stable as a real GS or SL ski but may
be a viable compromise for a lightweight skier who skis groomed runs only.
post #39 of 49
Groomed runs only? I really liked them in the bumps.
post #40 of 49

I liked them alot

New guy here.

I demoed this ski in a 165 at the Spring Demo Day at Crystal Mtn with about 12" of fresh in March and had a such a ball on them that I bought them for my 64th birthday which was a week later.
I wasn't expecting to get them until September, but was rewarded to get them about 3 weeks later so I was able to ski them 4-5 times at Alpental in varying spring conditions before the snow petered out.

I'm 6'-2", 190# and level 7-8.
I found them to be fast and stable at speed, both in the short and long arm configurations, and on groomed and cut-up conditions.

Changing the arms the first time was a real pain.
The tool that is provided is kind of of a joke with a plastic handle which has a recess for a double-ended Torx/slotted head screwdriver bit. It would have been nice if they had added a magnet in the handle to hold the bit in, and also hold onto the screw when removed.
I already had one episode of changing arms where I had to find a screw which had dropped into the snow. The kit does come with two extra screws though.

I found that the secret to removing the arms easily is to place the ski on a bench and bend the tip or tail over the end of the horizontal surface so that the pressure of the arms on the ski can be relieved, otherwise it's almost impossible to pull them out.

Once we finally get some snow again this winter, I'm looking forward to experimenting with changing the arm combinations to see how it changes the ride.
post #41 of 49
Multiple shops around here carry Rossignol and they all are stocked full of MultiX (meaning that race centers have fewer WC SL and GS, shucks). Maybe it's because they aren't selling them or they are expecting a lot of demand, but Rossi is really pushing this ski along with its oversize companion.

As for the actual verdict (gimmick or not), it'll have to wait, but I had Salomon Prolinks back in the day (2V and 3V) and managed to shatter a lot of them, especially with gates in slalom... Maybe the reason the arms look like plastic is because the carbon fiber is INSIDE a plastic casing, like the old Salomon race skis. And many racers hated that damn Prolink since it didn't flex in front of the binding but the tip would go soft on you early since ski wasn't beefy. Good for a season or so (or even great, since it would have a nice smooth flex while being rigid torsionally), then in the trash bin, especially the slaloms. It would've been nice to have these arm "float" on the ski and not directly attached to it, so that they could be longer and provide even more support in torsion. But at the same time, a sandwich construction with fewer metal and vertical sidewalls will give you approx the same results...

Has Rossignol become the new Salomon (taking gimmicks from other companies and marketing them to death). We'll see.
post #42 of 49

Rossi R11

First off DO NOT ski this ski with out arms

With this ski you get an arm kit with two sets of short arms and two sets of long arms. The arms will control the flex patern of the front and tail of the ski. With the kit you will be able to set up your ski with four differant flex paterns. Front/Back

Short/Short will give you a 9m ski for the 155cm length, 11m ski for the 165cm and 13m ski for the 175cm.

Long/Long will give you a 13m ski for the 155cm, 15m ski for the 165cm and a 17m ski for the 175.

Now the fun starts you can mix up the arms Short/ Long or Long/Short. You have to get out and ride these combinations to see what type of reaction you want out of the ski.

Rossi is working up differant arm material for later this year...playing with Kevlar, Titanium and others to see how the ski will react.
post #43 of 49
[quote=arcemorparkem;606562]

Short/Short will give you a 9m ski for the 155cm length, 11m ski for the 165cm and 13m ski for the 175cm.

Long/Long will give you a 13m ski for the 155cm, 15m ski for the 165cm and a 17m ski for the 175.
quote]

once again... how does the radius change if the side-cut doesn't? That is bold mismarketing. when bluffs like that get sold, the R&D guys at the ski companies continue to waste their time with these faddish marketing plugs that do nothing for the advancement in ski technology. such bs...
All you are paying for is customizing your flex patterns. You are NOT getting a ski that can change it's turn radius!!! NO ski today can do that...
post #44 of 49
The radius of a turn is different, and it varies as the turn is being executed with the edge angle being used by the skier and with the amount of reverse camber in the ski during the turn. However, it is not too hard to calculate an approximation of the the radius of a "pure carved turn".
Geometrically, a carved turn is the composition of two curves, the sidecut of the ski and the deformed sidecut of the ski when its camber is reversed as it is pressed onto the snow. To find these curve, I assumed that the carving ski looks like a segment of a cylinder, and that the ski hill is an inclined plane. The arc the carving ski follows is the curve at the intersection of the cylinder and the inclined plane.
It will help you understand the formula if you'll do the following simple geometric demonstration. Take two identical rectangular pieces of paper. With scissors, make a large radius (shallow) sidecut on one of the long sides of piece 1. Make shorter radius (deeper) sidecut on the corresponding side of piece 2. Now hold each piece with the sidecut against a tabletop so that the edge of the sidecut is in full contact with the table. Notice the decambering effect of pushing the edge into contact with the table, and notice how changing the angle changes the radius of the approximate cylinder.
To use this approximation, you have to calculate the radius of the cylinder, and this involves the geometry of the ski. The approximation I make is not too bad if you assume that the ski does not twist, but it does calculate the radius of the carved turn when you are traversing the hill.
To approximate the cylinder radius, I computed the distance from the ski edge to a chord extended from the widest point on the ski tip to the widest point on the ski tail. Then I projected that point to the inclined plane given the inclination angle of the pressing force. If you think about this, its easy to see that there will be a minimum angle where this actually can be done. Thus all these calculations should be only considered for angles above that minimum.
The variables are:
  • phi = angle swept out by the sidecut of the ski, i.e. Rsc*phi is the length of the edge from the widest point on the tip to the widest point on the tail.
  • d_rc = reverse camber distance, distance from the flat ski to the edge when the ski is pushed into the snow
  • alpha = inclination angle of the skiers leg.
  • theta = inclination angle of the slope.
  • Rcyl = cylinder radius.
  • Rturn = turn radius
Here is the result
  • d = Rsc * (1-cos(phi/2))
  • d_rc = d * cot(alpha-theta)
  • Rcyl = (L^2 + 4*d_rc^2)/(8*d_rc)
  • Rturn = Rcyl * sin(alpha+theta)
I would say that the arms change the d_rc with this ski
post #45 of 49
arcemorparkem,

When talking about turn radius it is best to leave flex (d_rc) out of it, since it is misleading and makes it impossible to compare with other ski. For example you mentioned that a 165cm R11 Mutix with dimensions of 118-70-102 has a turn radius of 11m.

On the other hand the Head i.Supershape 165cm ski has a turn radius of 11.4m yet the dimensions are 121-66-106. Do you see something wrong with that picture?

Anyway, I can see the value of being able to change flex patterns, but mediocre skiers who buy into this gimmick won't be able to tell the difference or take advantage of the difference, while strong/expert skiers generally get a quiver to cover SL and GS situations. I cannot see this as the future, but who knows.
post #46 of 49

Adjustability

Having spent many years road racing formula cars, I found the concept of these skis very interesting. When I first saw these Rossis in person, I immediately thought of the possibility of different length arms, alternate materials for the arms to give them varying degrees of stiffness and mounting the arms "asymmetrically" to accommodate different skier styles, stances, weights, etc.

When tuning the race car to the track, we try to get the car to 'handle' best through the corner that leads onto the longest straight, thus maximizing forward bite and maximum acceleration onto the straightaway. I can envision mounting various combinations of arm lengths and materials to match the demands of a ski race course and the strengths of a particular racer. Maybe when (if) the concept is fully developed, skis can be precisely tailored to the individual skier, both recreational and racer alike - much the same way ski boots are individually fitted.

I hadn't heard of the skis with the metal stringers - rotating a metal blade through 90 degrees is the same principle many race cars use for adjustable anti-roll bars.

Joseph Graham
post #47 of 49
bringing skis up to the standards of forumula cars. Now you're talking!!!
post #48 of 49
Convenience stores!!! yes, you can buy this ski in convenience stores in japan. hahahahahahahaha... I immediately thought of this thread upon spotting them last weekend as I picked up my coffee on the way to the hill. hahahahahahahaha.
still want 'em? they will even throw in a free pair of goggles too.

(other things you can buy in convenience stores in japan; a change of clothes because you slept on the curb lastnight, sushi, cell phones/batteries, iPods, fermented beans, gundam toys...)
post #49 of 49
I have an abundance of manic energy so I tend to prefer a short-turning ski around the 165 mark(5', 11", 185lbs.) I like steeps, bumps and extremely short, linked, rhythmic turns. I skied the Demo Day at Crystal Mt. in Wa. State the past two years with the goal of finding the best short-turning ski out there.

The reasons why I liked the R11 the best(for the conditions, both days around 3" fresh, dry snow if I recall correctly);

-I skiied the Rossi R11 in the 165 with both long and short arms, and the 175 with long arms only. The R11 is a very light and springy ski in comparison to all of the other skis in it's respective classes, since I truly believe that the difference in arm lengths puts it in different classes.

The 165 with short arms is a very responsive short-turning ski, and is almost psychic in it's ability to turn at even the slightest of signals. I felt very energized bouncing in and out of turns, almost like jumping on a trampoline. It's rare that a ski can put a smile on my face but this ski reminded me how fun skiing can be.

The downsides: it's squirelly, so if you can harness that little beast-squirrel then you will have the time of your life, but at extremely high speeds and over deep crud they can be a bummer. They will float and chatter and make you wish you had a GS-specific ski.

I wish that I had a better review of the 165/long than saying that it is basically a more GS version of it's short-armed brother, but in all reality, that's all it is. More solid, yet less nimble...the typical payoff. The short arms are where the 165 really shines, I would probably only switch out the arms if the conditions were absolute garbage.

If you like a high-speed GS ski that feels solid underfoot at breakneck speeds, then by all means stay away from the 165/short and move up to the 175 with long arms. I ran the 175/long as fast as possible trying to evoke a response, but it was solid at all times. Nary a float or chatter. I am kicking myself now for not having tried the 175/short combination but I have the feeling that at my height/weight that it might just be step toward GS from the 165/long. Hard to say.

I haven't yet tried the R11 on ice. I've heard it's horrible, and I can easily imagine that being the case.

Other short turning skis I've demoed:

- Dynastar Contact 10, 165: This ski came extremely close to the Rossi R11 in terms of weight and agility. I would happily ski them any day. Stuck to any size turn under 15m. Don't remember how they were at speed.

- The Fischer RX8, 165: Awesome ski. I took them under where the old C5 chair used to be which is a tight chute, 25ft. wide with about a 50 degree pitch. Even though it was lightly dusted hardpack these things turned flawlessly and effortlessly. Great for trees, steeps, and bumps. Not as energized as the Rossi R11 or Dynastar Contact 11.

- Head Supershape, 170: solid under foot. Felt good, at least until I took it down the aforementioned chute, caught an edge somewhere near the top and slid head first for about 120 feet(dusted hardpack). Luckily one of my skis popped off(DIN 11) and I was able to spin myself and get some traction. Finished up the chute with some assemblance of grace. Not as great for ultra-tight switchback turns as the three skis listed above, but more stable at speed than them. I probably would have been better off with their 163 in the chute.

-K2 Apache Crossfire, 167: This ski would be a sensible choice for Pacific Northwest conditions. A fair bit of agility yet solid through the crud. Just heavier than the rest. Doesn't really excel at any one thing but a great all mountain ski. Very solid underfoot.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Member Gear Reviews
EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › Member Gear Reviews › Rossignol Muti X Review