or Connect
EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › Ski Gear Discussion › 05'/06' Rossi B3 Ski length?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

05'/06' Rossi B3 Ski length?

post #1 of 22
Thread Starter 
A little about myself... I'm 6'1" 200 lbs. a level 6-7 skier. I bought some demo powder skis last year at a 168 length.(that was all that was left, it was a good deal)...skied on them last year (I live in Utah, lots of powder..) and I loved it. This year I bought last years Rossi B3's as my mid-fat ski and I got them again in 168 lengths thinking that because I loved my powder skis in the same length I should get the same. I'm now second guessing myself and I'm thinking I should go longer. I've called the ski shop and they do have longer sizes and will let me go in and trade straight-up. Do I do it? What would be your expert advice? Thank you for your help.
post #2 of 22
The 168 is much too short for you. I'm 5'10" and 155 and I would go for the 176. You will need the extra length in the Utah powder at your size and weight. I'm not sure if you would want the 184 however. Depends on your likes/dislikes and skill. I would go up one size to the 174.
post #3 of 22

Rossi B3

Agree at minimum with the 174 at your size of 6'1"...I demo'd B3s last season at 184 and 190. At 6'4" I purchased the B3 at 184s (18.8 radius) due to more tree use and rebound needs...the 190 was just a little slow in swing for me in close contact. As prior post mentioned, depends on your skill, agressiveness and likes (all conditions all mountain) is this ski your only one, will you ski some hard and bump etc? This ski has real quiet power and some good carve once up on an edge (which is not difficult as a GS line with your size). Again, for me the 184 is great with some tighter shrubry turns here in the CO rockies. If you are more pow in the little cotton wood canyon, you should be at 184. If you are really into pow, and like Rossi, then try out the B Squad (189 at 34.9 radius and girth at 130-104-117). Good luck.
post #4 of 22
My opinion is that the 168 is certainly too short. My suggestion would be to tailor the length choice according to your preferred turn shape and speed. When you are standing atop a steep bowl with 12" of broken crud, what is your preferred mode of attack?

If you want to dice up with a lot of short to medium turns......176
If you want to charge it and crush that crud with G.S. turns......184

SJ
post #5 of 22
I'm 5'10", 215lbs, level 7-8 and ski the 06' B3 in 184 and have ridden the 176 and I didn't notice any appreciable difference in the shorter length. In light of this I went with the longer length for some extra stability.

You mentioned the 05' and 06' B3...Keep in mind they are entirely different ski's between those two model years. The 05' model is more of a true fat ski and the 06' more of a mid-fat. The 06' model is a much more versitle ski than the 05', so if you are looking for more of a one-ski quiver, the 06' is the one to have.
post #6 of 22
I'm 180# and bought last year's B3 in a 176. It is the idle length for me since I take them into tight trees and moguls. I also ski them very fast in wide open spaces & have not hit their upper speed limit.
post #7 of 22
Thread Starter 
Thank you for your advise. I went back to the ski shop and traded the 168's for the 176's. I feel much better about the purchase. It was mentioned earlier that the 05' B3's and the 06' B3's are completly different....this I am aware of because I own both. The 05' B3's are my powder skis and the 06' B3's will be my new all around ski. Just for the record, I also have the K2 Axis XT as my GS carving ski. They are all loads of fun. Thank you again for all of your help. I feel good about my decision.
post #8 of 22
I've got the '06 B3's in a 176. I'm 6', 180 lbs. and they're perfect for me. Like Rio said, I haven't maxed them out for speed either. I also have skied the '05's in powder and like the new ones better even for the pow. You might find yourself selling your '05 B3's on e-bay by the time the second or third good dump hits the Wasatch..
post #9 of 22
I'm 5'6", 160lbs, level 7-8, would 168 be a reasonable length as an out west / crud / powder ski?

This would not be my only ski, they would complement some GS / Cross / SL ski's that would be used for racing/carving hardpack.

Thanks,
Gord
post #10 of 22
Good choice.

SJ
post #11 of 22
there is a new 2005/2006 B3 168cm on auction at ebay if you are interested.

http://cgi.ebay.com/ROSSIGNOL-BANDIT...QQcmdZViewItem
post #12 of 22
Thanks SierraJim and Bumpdad.

Now I just have to figure out how fit another pair of skis into my marriage.
post #13 of 22
Quote:
Originally Posted by GordM View Post
Thanks SierraJim and Bumpdad.

Now I just have to figure out how fit another pair of skis into my marriage.
Easy...Don't tell her.
post #14 of 22
I also recently bought a pair of '06 Rossi B3's at 176 cm. They were something of a leap of faith, since I only had two demo runs to go on (during lunch -- it was a family ski vacation).

For reference, I'm 5'10" (which is 178 cm), 49 yrs old, slightly overweight, almost-expert ability. I'm coming off 188 cm K2 Fours.

The last time I carefully selected skis, I demoed, and demoed, and demoed. But it dominated my ski season. So this time I decided to cut to the chase. I liked them, I had tried one other "modern" ski I did not like as well, so why not?

Besides, I wanted to be able to take advantage of the "clean-out-last-year's stuff" sales, which I did a few weeks ago. Can't do that if you demo all year.

By the way, I didn't demo the Fours either - bought them used on a whim at a ski swap, and liked them so much I bought an identical pair at the same swap the next year. (I always wondered if they had the same original owner.)

Why the 176? Well, that was what I tried. It also seems to be the common recommendation. I figure they have about 20% more surface area than the old Fours. Of course, I just computed the 168 would still have 13% more area.. oh well. Too short makes me nervous.

My previous skis before the Fours were 200 cm straight skis. Hmm... 200 minus 188 is 12. 188 minus 176 is 12. I detect a dangerous pattern developing!
post #15 of 22
I own the 176; I'm 165 and 6 feet. At 200 lbs, forget the 168.
post #16 of 22
[quote=mdf;554573]I also recently bought a pair of '06 Rossi B3's at 176 cm. They were something of a leap of faith, since I only had two demo runs to go on (during lunch -- it was a family ski vacation)...

The last time I carefully selected skis, I demoed, and demoed, and demoed. But it dominated my ski season. So this time I decided to cut to the chase. I liked them, I had tried one other "modern" ski I did not like as well, so why not?




Very true words spoken by MDF for a great number of us out there dealing with limited time during a ski season to demo while you still must get the kids, their friends, gear, power bars, lunch money, talkie’s batteries checked, Chevy gassed, dealing with the din of constant chatter while rap rattles the cabin, lift tickets affixed, meeting place defined, hourly on mountain crisis management issues, master on site equipment technician, chief negotiator with patrolman avoiding a potential ticket pull of one of the kid’s, friends, etc. Amongst all of that chaos, dad gets to demo some gear. Pretty maddening that demo process for some. Fortunately for many of us, the B3 is a good choice in any size.

Dindar524, come back this season with feedback for us regarding the 176.

PS. Snowing down to 6000’ and passes with over a foot expected at 11000’ in northern and central CO Rockies this weekend.
post #17 of 22
Quote:
Originally Posted by mdf View Post
My previous skis before the Fours were 200 cm straight skis. Hmm... 200 minus 188 is 12. 188 minus 176 is 12. I detect a dangerous pattern developing!
Can you say, "Snolerblades"?
post #18 of 22
I still have not made a decision.

I read on some sight that the 176's and longer have a sheet of metal in them that is not in the 168's and shorter?

Anyone know if that is true and if so would that make a significant difference in the stability of the 176 vs 168. As stated earlier, for me these would complement some GS/SL ski's so I am not that concerned about high speed groemrs (I have the GS's for that).

I am wondering if at my size 5'6" - 160lbs I could go either 168 or 176.

My other thought is a Dynastart 8000 in a 172.

Thoughts anyone?

Thanks,
Gord
post #19 of 22
It's twuwe, it's twuwe.....the 176 has metal.

And it is significantly stiffer than the 168. At your size, and weight, the 176 would require that you ski it fairly hard in deeper snow. The bennie of course, is that you can ski it really hard if that's on your agenda very often.

For folks your size, and of average agressiveness, I think the 168 is plenty.

The difference between the B3 and the 8K is largely one of personality. Both skis have roughly similar capabilities but the B3 is smooth and damp and has something of a gee-essy feel. The 8K is more energetic and feels more nimble.

SJ
post #20 of 22
Hmmm. Every upside has a downside waiting. For the downside of "more energetic and more nimble," try both in heavy chop. The B-3 just glides through, straightline or arcs, fast or slow, while the 8000's tip gets shoved this way and that, takes more management throughout.
post #21 of 22
Ski Magazine described the B3 as 'utterly predictable' which is why I bought them. They are a high performance ski that doesn't bite you when you don't want them to.
post #22 of 22
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rio View Post
They are a high performance ski that doesn't bite you when you don't want them to.
Sounds perfect for what I want - performance on occasional trips out west and a crud performer for those freakish rare occasions when we have any depth that has escaped the swath of the groomers (back here in Ontario).

Quote:
Originally Posted by SierraJim View Post
For folks your size, and of average aggressiveness, I think the 168 is plenty.
SJ
My gut feel from everything that I have read here and elsewhere on the web is that Jim is right on the 168 cm.

The reason for my reservation with the 168cm is my experience on one of my current skis, 170cm Elan GX Fusion Pro. Most reviews describe it as a beefy, stable, smooth (ooh you better be really strong) - I did not think of it as a difficult ski at all, it is a carving blast. In fact in hindsight I wished I had bought it in a 178, because it felt a little hooky in house league GS (178 is actually what Dawgcatching recommended to me, but I went felt that might be too much ski because of all the other 'beefy' review comments). I since have purchased some 176cm 05/06 Atomic GS11m's to get a bigger radius for house league GS.

The rest of my quiver is:
Atomic SL9 160cm - 12m rad
Atomic GS11m 176cm - 18.5m rad
Elan Fusion GX Pro 170cm - 15.4m rad (wished I had bought 178's for GS)
(never thought I'd have a quiver, it kind a snuck up on me).

Looking at the rest of my skiis, the 168cm or the 176cm's would blend well.

I am guessing that the 176cm B3 would be softer that the Elan Fusion Pro GX (SW, wood + two layers titanium) and therefore more bump/crud friendly. I currently use the SL9's for slalom or bumps, I found the Elan's a little stiff for bumps.

Given that I now have the GS11m's, if I do buy B3's, the Elans may be for sale and I will go with the remaining three. If I wasn't in house league racing I would probably stick with the Elans and add the B3. But if you ski in Ontario and want to make some fun of it you either hit the gates or hit the terrain park, I chose gates so I guess I am keeping my Atomics.

I think I am back to my gut feel from all I have read that the 168 B3 would likely be the best fit for me to ski all day everywhere except absolute boiler plate ice in which case I would be on once of my current frontside skis.

I am a little dizzy from all I have written, I don't even know if there's a distinct question in this anymore. The mid-fat / fat category is so foreign to me that I may even actually demo before buying this time.

Thanks for the input everybody.
Gord
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Ski Gear Discussion
EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › Ski Gear Discussion › 05'/06' Rossi B3 Ski length?