or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Rossignol CX 80 Review

post #1 of 25
Thread Starter 
I've been looking for a Tahoe hard snow ski and research/interests kept pointing to the Rossi CX80 so I demo’d a pair over the weekend at Squaw.

About me: 5 foot 8, 160 lbs, level 8/9, ski 35+ days/year.

Ski Tested: 2009 Rossignol CX80 170 CM w/ integrated plate and Look/Rossi Axial 140 Ti Binding

Conditions: groomed runs were hard/very hard underneath a 1-2” layer of loose snow that varied from granular sugar to packed powder; ungroomed runs exposed to the sun were quite hard and steep chutes that faced north/east remained fun with nice soft/chalky snow.

Pros: fast and very stable, skis responded well to high edge angle/modern technique in med/long radius turns; confidence building on very hard snow, I was able to hold an edge and maintain arcs through snow that varied from ice to hardpacked and back to ice, the thing that I really liked was that I felt confident with maintaining edge pressure even when the ski chattered in a turn on hard/very hard surfaces, I suspect that part of this is due to the weight of the skis helping to dampen the chatter. In steeper terrain/shorter radius turns the ski worked well. The 170 CM length was nice in steep narrow terrain that you can find at Squaw.

Also liked the pop coming out of the turn, not extreme/uncontrolled but definitely felt the rebound energy coming out of the turn into the next.

In softer snow, med/long radius turns were a lot of fun, skis felt really good on edge and rewarded edge pressure and speed with a really nice locked in feeling.

Cons: these skis don’t really like to run straight, always seem to want to be in a turn, especially on roads/cat tracks, I don’t mind this quality but others might find it a burden/hassle. They only come in 10cm size increments and you have to buy with the integrated binding setup noted above.

I wouldn’t use these skis in powder or tracked out powder (I have other skis for those situations). The skis need an aggressive, body forward/centered approach and cannot be skied from the back seat or off the tails. If you end up in the back seat (and I did a couple of times) they just want to keep going in whichever direction the tips happen to be pointed.

I cannot see this ski as a 1 ski quiver on the west coast in spite of the 80 mm width.

Summary: I ended up buying this ski in a 170. I really liked it, it did what I wanted and I also had some logistical/timing issues that limited my access to demo skis and other ski choices. My goal was to end up with a 2 ski quiver, 1 ski for hard conditions and 1 for soft snow/powder conditions and this one exceeded my expectations for hard snow.
post #2 of 25
my original plan this year to get grizzlys fell through so i took the cs 80 in a 180. i live in eastern canada and after a few days on them, i see why our ski buyer didnt bring many of the 180 into our store. its a LOT of work.

i am a 6'4" 205 pound guy whos probably somewhere around a 9, with a fairly extensive racing background and man oh man...i havent skied a ski that needs to be worked like this one in a few years. its incredibly damp and smooth, and i cant say i noticed the turniness you describe. maybe the extra length helps out there? i also found myself getting launched out of turns a few times if i wasnt careful about where i kept my weight. again maybe its a length thing..the flipside to that though is that if i was on the dime on them they literally flew from one turn to the next...lots and lots of energy

agree that its not a one ski solution...theyre just too much work for soft snow and if youre not on point on them they just dont turn. i found though that being too forward on them resulted in less than desirable results. it took me a run or two to find the money spot on them as i figured a ski of its calibre would want to be loaded up fairly far forward and i was surprised to find that money spot being a little further back underfoot than i expected

all in all its a great ski and im going to have fun with it. im glad i got the 180 as i love the stability and the rebound at the end of the turn. this and the cs70 are hands down the best commercially available rossi skis ive skied on in years...maybe ever.
post #3 of 25
I demo'd the CX70 and CX80 last week at a demo day at Elk Mtn. Pa.
Me - 200lbs, my skis, my mountain, midseason form = maybe level 8. That day maybe level 7. Primary style is PMTS linked short radius turns.
Really liked the CX 70, it fits my style really well. Nimble and fun to ski. It had a great tune which was needed on hard snow conditions.

Some caveat's about my CX 80 review. First, I really wanted to demo this ski, and, it was in view at the Rossi Van, but, not in the area of available skis. The Rossi rep agreed to give them to me but explained the tune was reported as poor. Second, did two 1000 ft runs on terrain that had a full spectrum of changing conditions (soft bumps, ice, hard pack ) that challanged all the skills I have. Third, after skiing so many different skis, my technique was missing.
My first run immediately confirmed the tune was not good. I switched right and left ski and second run was better tune wise.

I just never developed a good feeling when using the ski. It's stiffer than my skis or the other skis I skied that day. After such a good experiece on the CX70, it was a disappointment for a ski that I hoped would live up to the praise others have given it. I'd like demo it again in a more fair test.
post #4 of 25
I'd be interested to see how this compares to an IM78 and 4x4.
post #5 of 25
Tog demo'd the CX80 at Aspen Snowmass. IIRC he felt that it lacked something. I hope he weighs in.
post #6 of 25
I had a chance to demo a pair of CX80s in 170 on a "powder" day at our local mountain. Conditions were 8" of fresh over a firm hardpack. I was spending most of the day noodling on the edges looking for powder & soft bumps, so I didn't really get any high speed runs in on the skis.

Agree with much of what has been said .. very nimble & quick edge-to-edge, great grip on the scratchy patches, seemed quite stable & damp (although as noted didn't give 'em a chance to really run). Surprisingly amenable to short-radius turns in spite of the 16.5m radius. Lots of pop & energy if you loaded them up in the turns.

The 80 width gave them plenty of float for the fluff, although probably not enough if it was deeper than it was. They behaved fine in the bumps, but these were soft, widely-spaced "baby bumps" ... not tight, hard Volkswagons planted on the trail. I think the flat, square tail and stiff flex would be a detriment in tighter, deeper bumps or off in the trees.

I didn't find the 170 to be a lot of work like Broad did with the 180 ... in fact I found them quite friendly & tons of fun. May be a different story as they come up to speed, but you certainly don't need speed to have these come alive like some other skis in its class.

This ski has huge potential for an everyday ski in the East. Definitely biased for on-piste work, but capable of working on those soft snow days as well.
post #7 of 25
Spent the day demo-ing a bunch of skis including the CX 80 and CS70. Conditions were 3-4 in of fresh snow on top of hardpack. I found both skis to be too damp. Returned them after 2 runs. Skis felt dead with no feedback. I was really disappointed by these skis.

Also tried the Nordica Doberman Spitfire (not available in the US), Atomic SL12 and Volkl SL. The Doberman was the best ski of the group. With a 14m radius, it is a much more versitile ski for the east. Cappable of doing both GS and SL turns. Easier to initiate into a turn than the Volkl, pops out if the the and much faster in making link turns than the CX80s. I really enjoyed the Atomic SL12, but it is not a ski you want to be on in slow speed skier traffic.

The rep said the CX80 and the 9x Oversize are the same ski - a cheater GS ski. Couldn't imagine ever using the CX80 as a cheater GS ski.
post #8 of 25
Originally Posted by SkiNut View Post
The rep said the CX80 and the 9x Oversize are the same ski
Uh, the 9X has a 68 mm waist.
post #9 of 25
He said 9x OVERSIZE, which has the 80 mm waist.
post #10 of 25
I ski the CX80 and LOVE it. Its a fun, beefy ski. Quick edge to edge, and is capable of making large or short radius turns.

Skied it in 12'' of powder and it skied pretty awesome (I dont ski In powder much, and I dont know what a "real" pow ski skis like) But, it was good enough for me!

anyway..its a kick ass ski, highly recommended!

If a girl can handle it, all you boys should have no problem!
post #11 of 25
I'm kind of surprised by the negative reviews as well. I skied them last spring as a demo (almost all day) and really liked them then. Took them out for a few runs again last weekend and found them to be a damp ski with a high speed limit that really rewards loading up the skis. When the light got flat, I had to take them in because I didn't ever want to slow down on them (thought I'd just wind up hurting myself). I don't own them, but I really like them.
post #12 of 25

I reviewed these here.

post #13 of 25
Originally Posted by Trekchick View Post
Tog demo'd the CX80 at Aspen Snowmass. IIRC he felt that it lacked something. I hope he weighs in.

Actually I demoed the Rossi Phantom SC 80, it's a dark blue/black ski with a tip in the rear though it's not I guess a true twin tip.  It's in their "Freeride" category. I tried it in their what, 176cm  180cm length.

The picture on their website makes it look like you can actually see that detail on the ski, but it's actually printed in black on dark blue/black.  Given that, you'd have to have some sort of truly exceptional eyesight to actually see what it looks like on their website. (I think I spend more time on the looks than on the performance.  That should tell you something)

edit: Ok, here's a picture for you!

 hmmm...didn't come out well. take this how you want but to me it's appropo



I think this is the ski broad described above in post#2, though I'm confused because they don't sound like the same thing.  I suspect his bindings could've been mounted too far back.

The ski is very soft, though "very" depends on your weight.  For me, at 200lbs, it's  very soft.  In fact, had I taken it out of the rack and flexed it, it's doubtful I'd have demoed it.  I was in a hurry though, and was somewhat confusing it with good things I've heard about the CX80 out east.

You're going to have to look up the specs, but I believe it's around 86mm in the waist and somewhere around 16-18m sidecut?  Sorry, but I demoed it from snowmass, skied it at Aspen and well didn't write this stuff down.

Edit: Ok, obviously it's 80mm in the waist, I looked up the specs:

122/80/109 size 180cm = doesn't say but 185 is 17.2 so yeah 180 is probably 16-16.5.


Conditions were packed powder with some tracked out powder.

Skied groomers and moguls mostly.  (What else is at Aspen?)


The ski is meant for soft snow I guess, though frankly it did best in long radius turns on the groomers! Yeah, how bizarre is that!  Though it would be foolish to buy it for that. Well, I wouldn't really recommend buying it for anything honestly, if you're near my weight.  Lighter skiers might appreciate it a lot more.


I didn't really find the ski "there" much. It pretty much dealt with what it got, but had no character or quality at all.  It was pretty good at absorbing moguls, a quality which had it's place when we made about 7 runs down the FIS lift moguls with no poles.  Certainly it's better than a slalom ski for moguls but that only means it bends a lot easier.  I'll take the slalom ski!

Absorbing moguls is one thing, having some spirit on the way out of the absorption is another.  It had little, which make me declare it "somewhat dead".  Actually, let's just call it "brain dead" since it does function. Beside moguls, it just had no character or spirit at all coming out of a decambered situation.

I could make some sort of bar/girl  story comparison, but I'd just sound terrible and get in trouble!  Let's say this ski is like warm chamomile tea with milk though you've left the mug on the counter for awhile.  If that's your cup, then go for it. (Brits take note!)


Oddly, it's performance on the packed, firm powder was much more inspired.  That may be skewed a bit though by the bar being set so low!  I certainly wouldn't recommend it for the east or groomers though.

I wouldn't recommmend at all actually!!



Edited by Tog - Tue, 03 Feb 09 03:40:29 GMT

Edited by Tog - Tue, 03 Feb 09 03:49:01 GMT

Edited by Tog - Tue, 03 Feb 09 03:50:16 GMT
post #14 of 25

Isn't the Phantom80 a current iteration of a B2?  

post #15 of 25



The Phantom 80 is totally unrelated to the B2. Its dimensions are 122 80 109 and has a wood core. I do not know the specs for the B2, but it was replaced last year by the B78, which is a topskinned, railed binding B2.


The B78's dimensions are 116 78 105 and it has a synthetic core.

post #16 of 25

the phantom series is the replacement for the bandit


"I think this is the ski broad described above in post#2, though I'm confused because they don't sound like the same thing.  I suspect his bindings could've been mounted too far back."


no i most definitely have been skiing the cx80. they are sitting beside me as i type this. the phantom is a nooooooodle. nowhere even close to the same ski.  they also dont make the sc80 in a 180 length...

post #17 of 25

Ok, got it.  You just referred to it as the cs80 in the post.  There's no such thing right?

There is a CS 70.



Yes, the Phantom SC 80 is most definitely a noodle.  If one is light though it might not be bad at all.  Plus it really is good on long carved arcs on the groomed.

post #18 of 25

whoops...sometimes i type faster than i should...


damn s and x are so close.. hahaha

post #19 of 25

How do these skis do in the moguls?  I need a ski thats good for carving and bumps.... right now my quiver is just 2 skis... 130 and 92 under foot.  Hardpack ski definately needed.

post #20 of 25


Originally Posted by bullwheelrider View Post

How do these skis do in the moguls?  I need a ski thats good for carving and bumps.... right now my quiver is just 2 skis... 130 and 92 under foot.  Hardpack ski definately needed.

Not a good bump ski at all, too heavy, too stiff with too much sidecut. 

post #21 of 25

 I loved skiing the bumps on them.

post #22 of 25



Two of the most experienced, most capable and most respected members of this forum come up with diametricly opposed views of a key attribute of a relatively middle of the road ski! That's what makes this so much fun.

post #23 of 25

The Phantom 80 sucked and I loved the B2.



post #24 of 25

Phantom 80 and Classic 80 are two totally different skis.


Originally Posted by Lars View Post

The Phantom 80 sucked and I loved the B2.




post #25 of 25
I skied on the rossi CX 80 for a few days as a demo last year.  they were way too expensive to buy brand new so i figured i would wait until this year and they would be cheaper or I could find some used ones.  but i've looked tons of places online and can't find a pair of them anywhere. anyone know where i could buy the CX 80s?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Member Gear Reviews