EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › Ski Gear Discussion › Correct Rossignol Bandit B2 Length?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Correct Rossignol Bandit B2 Length?

post #1 of 14
Thread Starter 
Hey guys,

After doing my market research I have decided to settle on a pair of 2006-2007 Rossignol Bandit B2s (116-78-105) for $299. Is $299 a good price for them? Or should I hold out until November? I have searched high and low and that is the best deal which includes free shipping. I am going to pair them with a pair of Rossignol Axium pro 120 bindings for $100 which seems to be a pretty standard setup.

Okay, so I am a 28 year old 5'9'' and 150 pound low/mid-expert level skier. The available lengths in the B2s are 158, 166, 174, and 182. Considering my size and ability I am going to want to go with the 166 length correct? 158 is going to be too short and 174 a bit much for me. After all, my stature is just a bit smaller than the average 28 year old male.

Is that the right length for me? Is that a good deal on that equipment? Any feedback would be greatly appreciated!

Cheers!

Wolfelot
post #2 of 14
IMO that appears to be a pretty good deal on a very good ski. As for the length, I am sure you can get some better first hand opinions on thoses sizes of that ski, but if you weigh 150 lbs and really are a "low/mid-expert level skier" I would think that the 166 is a little on the short side for the B2.
post #3 of 14
B2 -great ski. Does everything without complaint. Not alot of energy in this ski, but it skis predictably (metal and foam). Great in powder, good in crud. I skied on a pair for a season-nice relaxed experience.

Without seeing you ski, I am going with the 166 length for you. If you are an expert skier, comfortable on steeps, in crud, and powder and you feel centered on your skis 98% of the time (not fighting to get out of the back seat in challenging conditions) then you will want the 174. If not, shorter. If you only ski on the groomers then 174 is ok. Lastly, this is a easy and relatively quick turning ski, so that is an arguement for the longer length. Hope this answer is not too nebulous.
post #4 of 14
My son has the B2 in 166 and it worked great for him. I don't remember what he weighed last year, but right now he's 5'9 and 140 or 145. Maybe ten pounds and an inch less last year? (He did a ton of growing the summer before, but not a lot this summer.)

They work well in powder, bumps, and groomers. (He has another ski for racing.)

He is rapidly improving but not yet an expert.

On the other hand, one of my adult friends who is shorter but heavier borrowed them and thought they were too short and too soft.
I think you'd be happy with either, but would lean towards the 166.

Oh, and I got his as used demos with bindings for ... well I dont remember. Somewhere in the 200 or 250 neighborhood, probably.
(BtW, I got the B3's for myself and love them too)
post #5 of 14
I think that is a good price, and I agree with what all the previous posters have said. 66 or 74 isn't that big of a difference and I agree with mudfoot that for a B2 the 66 sounds a tiny bit short, but its certainly not short for you in general. Really comes down to what you expect from the ski...
post #6 of 14
Quote:
Originally Posted by shipps View Post
B2 -great ski. Does everything without complaint. Not alot of energy in this ski, but it skis predictably (metal and foam). Great in powder, good in crud. I skied on a pair for a season-nice relaxed experience.

Without seeing you ski, I am going with the 166 length for you. If you are an expert skier, comfortable on steeps, in crud, and powder and you feel centered on your skis 98% of the time (not fighting to get out of the back seat in challenging conditions) then you will want the 174. If not, shorter. If you only ski on the groomers then 174 is ok. Lastly, this is a easy and relatively quick turning ski, so that is an arguement for the longer length. Hope this answer is not too nebulous.
I would think the 174 as it is a ski that can be quickly mastered...however, shipps has delivered some concise input for the OP to consider.
post #7 of 14
For what the B2 is good at, 166 seems like a good length for you to have.
post #8 of 14
Oh, forgot to mention, as I’m learning not to assume anything anymore. Perhaps one thing that I have noticed in my advancing years are folks that are vacillating with ski length purchase maybe lacking confidence [knowing or unknowingly] with their boot. With a good balance point beginning with a solid platform, correct alignment, appropriate ankle articulation and well matched flex pattern for your physiology, you can hammer confidently a wider range of ski lengths and sidecuts at your size. Ok, sorry for the hyperventilating, but I certainly will sleep better now with that said
post #9 of 14
Thread Starter 
Wow! Thanks guys, you all gave some really good insight and recomendations regarding my ski size decision and it was very helpful. BTW my boots fit great so that isn't the cause of the uncertainty between the 166s and the 174s. Going with what you guys have said and what I know about myself and my ability, I will be going with the 166s even though the 174s wouldn't really give me too many problems. I sure am getting fired up to hit the slopes!

Thanks again,

Wolfelot
post #10 of 14
Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfelot View Post
Wow! Thanks guys, you all gave some really good insight and recomendations regarding my ski size decision and it was very helpful. BTW my boots fit great so that isn't the cause of the uncertainty between the 166s and the 174s. Going with what you guys have said and what I know about myself and my ability, I will be going with the 166s even though the 174s wouldn't really give me too many problems. I sure am getting fired up to hit the slopes!

Thanks again,

Wolfelot
Not to push you to the 174s, but a couple of additional thoughts I had might make you change your mind. I am not sure about the exact charateristics of last year's B2s compared to previous year's models (they may have stiffened them up), but I believe they have a slightly turned up tail. Not a twin tip, but they will ski a little shorter than their acutal length. My wife skis on older Rossi T3s, which is the tele version of the B2 and exaxctly the same ski except the metal layer is slightly thinner thereby making it a little softer flex, but not as soft as the women's specific B2-W model. She is 5'5", weighs 115 lbs. and rips on the older 170 length in bumps, crud and hardpack.

The B2s are nimble ski with a running length that is less than their measured length, so they will probably ski more like 163s. You are getting advice from other good people who have experience with the B2s and who are recommending the 166s, and I don't want to change your mind, I just thought I'd throw you a little more input from a guy who favors longer skis.
post #11 of 14
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by mudfoot View Post
Not to push you to the 174s, but a couple of additional thoughts I had might make you change your mind. I am not sure about the exact charateristics of last year's B2s compared to previous year's models (they may have stiffened them up), but I believe they have a slightly turned up tail. Not a twin tip, but they will ski a little shorter than their acutal length. My wife skis on older Rossi T3s, which is the tele version of the B2 and exaxctly the same ski except the metal layer is slightly thinner thereby making it a little softer flex, but not as soft as the women's specific B2-W model. She is 5'5", weighs 115 lbs. and rips on the older 170 length in bumps, crud and hardpack.

The B2s are nimble ski with a running length that is less than their measured length, so they will probably ski more like 163s. You are getting advice from other good people who have experience with the B2s and who are recommending the 166s, and I don't want to change your mind, I just thought I'd throw you a little more input from a guy who favors longer skis.
Mudfoot, you bring up an excellent point. I was actually just thinking about that a few moments ago. Do any of you other guys think that because of the partial twin tip that they will behave a little bit shorter? Really 166 does feel a little bit short but a 174 a little bit long. If the twin tip will make them behave like a slightly shorter ski then the 174s may be the best way to go. What do you guys think?

Thanks,

Wolfelot
post #12 of 14
Quote:
Originally Posted by mudfoot View Post
Not to push you to the 174s, but a couple of additional thoughts I had might make you change your mind. I am not sure about the exact charateristics of last year's B2s compared to previous year's models (they may have stiffened them up), but I believe they have a slightly turned up tail. Not a twin tip, but they will ski a little shorter than their acutal length. My wife skis on older Rossi T3s, which is the tele version of the B2 and exaxctly the same ski except the metal layer is slightly thinner thereby making it a little softer flex, but not as soft as the women's specific B2-W model. She is 5'5", weighs 115 lbs. and rips on the older 170 length in bumps, crud and hardpack.

The B2s are nimble ski with a running length that is less than their measured length, so they will probably ski more like 163s. You are getting advice from other good people who have experience with the B2s and who are recommending the 166s, and I don't want to change your mind, I just thought I'd throw you a little more input from a guy who favors longer skis.
+1. I have a feeling that you would eventually wish for the added cm's especially if you like to run and turn. I demo’d the B2 in a 182 length a year or so ago all over Loveland and agree with many that it is a very versatile fun ski...especially with the Axial 120 and at your quoted package price. However, while we share the length recommendation, my taste differs with mudfoot in that I did not feel the ski to be nimble rather a bit damp [Rossi FAT technology] and without much rebound, which is not necessarily a bad thing [of course damp feel is perhaps influenced with the 182 I skied]. Regardless, the B2 made me feel as though I could mow just about anything down…but…IMO…you need power from the tail [finish] building the energy to get that ski over for a quick next turn. While the B2 is not a true twin, I believe it is one of those skis that do require you to consider the next size up, especially if you run into some epic snow days with that 78mm middle. As I mentioned in a prior post, the 174cm (116-78-105 r. 16.6) would be my choice based upon the dampness of this ski and its consistency I felt over bumps, groomers and crud. BTW, at 6’3.5” the 182 was short for me although I found it a gas on bumps during a day after a 6” new cover. Also, I’m not sure about Rossi’s ‘shark nose’ technology [aluminum sandwich tip] with the 166 or 174? I believe it was incorporated on the 182 B2 [others could verify]. Said to add torsion strength along the line and help deflect crud and junk with a tip that fortunately is not the size of the prow or bow of the Titantic…as many a ski tend to employ today…and a plus for this ski with a good turning radius at the 174 length. Finally, mount the 120 and [your good fitting] boot dead on the B2’s line. Cheers.
post #13 of 14
However, while we share the length recommendation, my taste differs with mudfoot in that I did not feel the ski to be nimble rather a bit damp [Rossi FAT technology] and without much rebound, which is not necessarily a bad thing [of course damp feel is perhaps influenced with the 182 I skied]. DonDenver

I agree the the B2 is not a snappy ski with a lot of rebound, it is a smooth, damp, even skiing board that initiates turns without much effort and is pretty forgiving. Perhaps "nimble" was not the right adjective, but I know several people on this ski and they all really like it. It is not the kind of ski that will kick your a$$ if you get it a little longer, like a stiffer more demanding ski would.
post #14 of 14
I've been on the B2 for quite a few years now. I'm usually weighing in around 185 during the Winter and i'm 5'9", skiing for 50 plus years, agressive, bumps, steeps, backcountry and love to crank the groomers. I ski 174. You could probably handle the length but I think with your experience, a 166 would be better.
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 › Correct Rossignol Bandit B2 Length?