EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › Ski Gear Discussion › Rossignol 9S oversize...
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Rossignol 9S oversize...

post #1 of 13
Thread Starter 
I just finished reading the new skipress magazine with all of the ski reviews...
They gave the Rossignol 9S oversize an awesome review...
I don't see much info on Rossignol here...
Head, Fisher, Dynastar, K2, Nordica and Volkl pretty much dominate the forums...
Are they off base with their review...
Has anybody tried these skis...
Are they as good as the review's indicate...
They ranked them above the Head Supershape's...
The reviewers gave them very high ratings in forgivness...
I did not think that was possible for a high sidecut ski...
If the review is accurate I might be interested in these to improve my technical skills...
Must always try to ski better...
post #2 of 13
I skied the VS Oversize a few seasons back in both the 158cm and 165cm lengths which I believe is the same, or at the very least similar, ski. I found them to be "okay" but certainly not as wonderful of a ski as some of the testers this year seemed to.

Here is my review of the 2006 VS Ti:
Quote:
VS Oversize Ti:
So this is pretty much a 9S with a new name. I didn't expect much out of this ski, as I didn't really care for the older model retail 9S. Much to my surprise I found this ski very easy to turn on. Initially I took it out in a 158.

The 158 seemed like it was the length that Rossi had intended for someone of my size, but after doing most of my recent slalom skiing on a race stock 165cm ski, I wasn't too thrilled with it's stability. It was however buttery smooth, easy, and quick. It didn't like to be powered though. The mounting position seems to be more forward than I am used to, and would probably suit a female skier quite well. I am actually considering looking at this ski for my girlfriend for next year. I could really bend the ski pretty well, and it just wanted to be rolled back and forth in short slalom turns... but it didn't like abrupt movements.

The 165 felt like a different ski. I think it had a larger turn radius. I was still able to get tight slalom turns on it. I really enjoyed the added stability of the 165 though. It was less of a finess ski, and more of a ski that rewarded slightly more harsh carving technique. I was disappointed with the tune on them. They weren't very sharp. The 158 had a great tune, and held well for a retail race ski, but the 165 was in need of some love from a file, and didn't like to hold when I hit ice that was shinny.

I wouldn't buy this ski to race on, but it might make a decent coaching ski or cruiser ski. I still wasn't amazed by the ski, but it was fun to ski on. If you're a guy, buy the 165. Women looking for a high performance short turn carver should seriously look at the 158.
Later

GREG
post #3 of 13
Thread Starter 
Thanks...

Just doing some research...

Trying to find a ski that is a bit faster and a bit quicker turning than my Head im72 skis...Without getting a ski way over my head...
post #4 of 13
Quote:
Originally Posted by rspacher View Post
Trying to find a ski that is a bit faster and a bit quicker turning than my Head im72 skis.
Well that shouldn't be hard to do.

You might want to consider Heads and Elans as well. Elan has a multitude of offerings that fit into the category you're looking at - specifically the Elans SLX Fusion Pro (really great ski). The SLX Fusion is a bit more ski than the standard i.Supershape, and less ski than the i.Supershape Magnum (IMO). If you want a slightly more tame offering, look into the Speedwave 14 from Elan. I don't ski on Elans or Heads, but have always been a big fan of the round, progressive flex that both company's skis offer. The Rossignol you're considering does not have those characteristics.

Later

GREG
post #5 of 13
There've been several threads that bear on this. I've skied several versions of the oversizes, currently used the 158 and 165 as recreational race trainers/small hill carvers. Short version: I like 'em.

Longer version: But very few Bears, or U.S. reviewers in general, seem to get very excited. In Canada and Europe, they get very high marks, often highly recommend for expert carving/recreational racing. Ski Canada, for instance, which is well respected as review sources go, rated both the S and X at the top or second for both male and female testers. SkiPressworld likes them a lot too. Ditto for sources in France, Denmark, you name it.

I find this really intriguing. Theories previously suggested here include a marketing conspiracy (Canadian and W. European testers have been seduced at birth by Rossi exposure/sponsorship), or testosterone (maybe Canadian, French, and Northern Euro skiers are all wimps who prefer girlie-man skis; only the Teutonics really know how to challenge you. Or invade you.), or misinformation (actually most Canadian and Euro skiers abhore Rossis/there are secret hordes of expert Rossi lovers here).

My current theory is that since Americans seek more of a beefy planted feel from the time we're young. Could be our size, could be our preference for aggressive physicality over finesse, could be our teen need to go for the biggest, baddest, stiffest, beefiest fill-in-the-blank.

(I'm sure I'll get dinged a lot with personal examples of flyweights who ski stiff skis, starting with Heluva, but that's my Uncle Harry rule: Everyone has a relative who smoked, drank, ate bacon and donuts four times a day, and lived to be 110. So therefore, there's no connection between behavior and longevity?)

All I know for sure is that the S's combine several some qualities usually found separately: Light but damp, good snowfeel but not nervous. Maybe the problem is that they can be skied by advanced skiers, so experts would be embarrassed to be seen on them. Their loss...
post #6 of 13
Thread Starter 
Thanks for the reply...
I like the way the Head im72's feel...
They are very forgiving IMO...
I have thought about the Speedwave 12's...
Thought the 14's would be too much...
I am a big guy...225-240...depending on how much time I get in the gym...
Apparently someone my size doesn't have a hard time flexing a ski, based on what I read...
I would say that i am a level 6/7...really stick to the frontside, in Colorado...
Used shaped skis for the first time last year, much easier than the old straight skis...much easier...
Became hooked on carving up the groomers, after i get bored with the groomed runs, I want to tackle the bumps again...but that is for another time...
I was thinking that the wider waisted skis will handle the time when we ski when it is snowing and get 4-6 inchs of fresh snow during the day vs the narrow waisted ski..ie 66 vs 74...
But I want to have the quicker carver, the im72' are around 15tr...i would like to get around 12-13tr...
I don't mind building a quiver, neither does my wife...
Our families think we are nuts, the kids love it, they get to snowboard...
post #7 of 13
OK more info changes everything. Lose the oversizes. Not for heavyweights, IMO.
post #8 of 13
Thread Starter 
Not stiff enough...
Would Z9 be better...?
I am going to the demo day at loveland in a couple of weeks...
I hope they have some of the skis i want to try...
post #9 of 13
I tried out some 9S Oversize some years back. They were very quick, lots of fun to rip on, and they were forgiving imho. They did have a speed limit that I found too low, but most people wouldn't bump into it. The phrase "Where's the beef?" might be also appropriate; they could be overpowered more easily than say an RX8, and if you are a heavyweight, then you likely want a stronger ski.

Maybe RX8 fire or Progressor?
post #10 of 13
Thread Starter 
I am certainly looking at the Supershape standard/Chip/Magnum and Speedwave 12/14 line of skis...
Would they be beyond a level 6/7...
Keep in mind I am 225-240, with really strong legs...
Would that take out some of the stiffness of the ski...
Skipress gave the supershape Magnum very good marks...
Realskiers gave it outstanding marks...
Hopefully the Head, Rossi and Elan reps will have the skis i want to demo in a couple of weeks...
Maybe the new Atomic Metron M9...
So many options...:
I am thinking of 170cm length on most all of them, too long, too short...?
I guess I am like most everyone, looking for that ultimate one ski that does it all...
No problem, owning several pairs of skis is not a bad thing is it...?
post #11 of 13
I'm your size. The oversize are noodles. They have a nice flex, but they are not for skiers our size.
post #12 of 13
Here is a link to the thread with both reviews.

http://forums.epicski.com/showthread.php?t=34947
post #13 of 13
I've owned three pairs of the 9S Oversizes and really liked them. They do however ski short, I'm 5'10" 215lbs and much prefered the 173cm length over the 165cm. The 9x Oversize is even better but again at its longer length of 181cm.
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 › Rossignol 9S oversize...