New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Rossi S7 update (195)

post #1 of 14
Thread Starter 
Today TOJ and I went to a little 2011 line intro with Rossi.  While the 195 was technically an '09-'10 ski, they were shipped in very late and arrived about the same time as a mid season intro ski would have. Because of the very short supply, we were only able to get a few to sell and we had elected not to mount a demo so this was the first chance that I have had to get on the 195 S7.

It's no seceret here on Epic that I'm a big fan of the 188 S7. In fact, it is my current favorite of the "rockered" skis in this width range. I do feel that the 188 S7 has some limitations mostly having to do with deflection issues once the powder is heavily tracked out. However, for it's primary purpose (powder) this is current SOTA for my tastes.

Todays conditions were firm chalky groomers for the most part with some little incipient bumps in some areas. This is hardly the kind of conditions that one would select the S7 for but I've skied my own pair enough to know how it goes so this was a good chance for a comparison. Pushing off from the top of the lift into a long traverse, the 195 felt similar to the 188. The Rossi has a pretty long section of normal camber and sidecut under the foot so the ski doesn't feel "squirmy" like full reverse skis seem to.

Peeling off the road and onto the first gradual pitch, the ski still felt similar to mine. I could easily do little ankle roll carves using the normal section in the middle of the ski. As the trail started to drop off, I angled off to skiers right next to the trees where the pitch was at it's steepest. I made a few lazy bigger turns to build some speed and then rolled the ski up to set up a transition to short turns. This was where I noticed the first difference between the two sizes. The 188 would have popped a playful little quicky turn with no effort but the 195 felt a little more serious. I gave the edge some pressure and the ski came right around and exited the turn with an ankle roll. The big ski rolled into the rest of the series of little short turns without undue effort. After 10 quick turns in the fall line, the little steep pitch was just about done so I delayed my finish move and let the turn belly out. When I pushed my foot forward, the ski crossed under and I was able to lay it into the next longer arc. As I let the turns lengthen, the ski felt notably more solid, damp and predictable than my 188's. Over a little transition and down into a long, wide groomed gully, I was able to let the ski off the leash. 6 or 8 longer faster turns took me out into the flats near the bottom of the run where I just stood up and went back to easy ankle rolls. One little quick excursion into the chalky baby bumps confirmed that this 195 was more solid and predicatable than the 188 and much more so than full reverse skis. Naturally given the different length and build, I didn't expect the 195 to be as nimble as the 188 in the bumpazz and.....it wasn't.

I have to say, this little test was an eye opener. The longer size and single metal layer on the 195 will I think address some of the negatives related to the 188. I didn't have the chance to try the ski in deep powder (wasn't any to be had) but I would surmise that it won't feel as effortless or playful as the 188. OTH I also surmise that the 195 will handle better in the heavy chop that knocks the 188 around a bit. This is a very impressive ski and I think will broaden the audience for the S7.

SJ     
post #2 of 14
Crap, 195!  I assume it skis a bit shorter?  So, more of a traditional big-mountain charger than a playful ski in that length?  How did it compare to the Answer IQ in the bigger 191 length, if you have had a chance to ski both? 
post #3 of 14
Thread Starter 
It skis more than a bit shorter as does the 188. I wouldn't call it a BMC in the sense that say the XXL 194, Mothership 195, or Katana 197 are. The S7 is way more nimble than those hogs. I guess I'd say that it's certainly closer to charger status than the 188 is but in the end, that conventional section is still pretty short. When laid over in a big turn the tip and tail still feel disconnected and flap some. They just flap a fair bit less than on the 188. For all that though, the flappage isn't very bothersome and the center of the ski is solid.

I haven't skied the Answer in 191 and I haven't skied the 184 recently at all. The last time out on the Blizzi, there wasn't much of anything firm. Going from memory and extrapolating for length, I'd say the Answer is a little closer to that BMC designation than the S7.

SJ
post #4 of 14
Quote:
Originally Posted by SierraJim View Post

It skis more than a bit shorter as does the 188. I wouldn't call it a BMC in the sense that say the XXL 194, Mothership 195, or Katana 197 are. The S7 is way more nimble than those hogs. I guess I'd say that it's certainly closer to charger status than the 188 is but in the end, that conventional section is still pretty short. When laid over in a big turn the tip and tail still feel disconnected and flap some. They just flap a fair bit less than on the 188. For all that though, the flappage isn't very bothersome and the center of the ski is solid.

I haven't skied the Answer in 191 and I haven't skied the 184 recently at all. The last time out on the Blizzi, there wasn't much of anything firm. Going from memory and extrapolating for length, I'd say the Answer is a little closer to that BMC designation than the S7.

SJ

Sweet, thanks for the update. What is the XXL Dynastar like in the 187cm? It is a ski we have never carried, as I would assume it is more ski than 99.9% of our customers want, and I bet you have skied it. Kevin had the 194 XXL, and it was a monster.  He "downsized" to the Kastle MX98 in 194cm.
post #5 of 14
Wow, intriguing stuff. Great review Jim.

I imagine even the 195 S7 would still only have 130-140cm or so of running length.. Hence skiing short.

Will be very interesting to see how it does indeed perform in deep snow and then in chop. And thus how far along the "deep snow playfulness" vs "BMC" spectrum this ski sits. Sounds like it will definitely be closer to its little sibling 188's playfulness than the charging ability some of the better crud skis in this width range, e.g. Answer, 1010, HT, Katana.

Keep us posted if you get a ride on the 'Super 7' in some deep snow!
post #6 of 14
Thread Starter 
I have skied the XXL 187 a fair bit and it is much more manageble than the 194. I would say that the 195 S7 is still more nimble than even the 187 XXL but of course they are really different critters. IMO, It's not very reasonable to expect a ski like the S7 to have the same kind of power that the big conventional skis would. OTH, the upside in deep snow is pretty notable. As always, it comes down to preferences here as in everything else as well. Right now on a typical powder day, I'll be heading back to the car for my Huge Troubles after a while. I suspect that the Super 7 might delay that trip back to the car for a few hours.

SJ
post #7 of 14
Hey Jim,

I have a pair of the 195 s7's and was curious what size marker jester brake you would mount on it.  It claims to be 117 underfoot, but it also says 120 underfoot on the ski.  Is the 110 marker wide enough or do I need the 130mm?
post #8 of 14
Thread Starter 
I'd suggest the 130mm.

SJ
post #9 of 14
thanks!
post #10 of 14
I mounted them up with the 130mm brakes and they work great.  Just got back from Jackson Hole and had them running in 20+ inches.  They are an amazing ski.  In the deep, untracked pow you can ride them centered or even forward and the tips just won't burry.  Smear turns are a sinch with the tails on these things.  I was in very light powder, but I would imagine they may become heavy in a thicker snow.  I did take them into the backcountry on another day.  We encountered midcalf to knee deep pow and they certainly weren't the easiest ski to sidestep traverse with. 

Also had it out on another day with chopped pow and on groomers and they performed like a champ.  No problem rolling the 117 underfoot board edge to edge. 

All in all, I would rate it one of the best skis I've ever had the pleasure of riding.
post #11 of 14
Any more feed back on the mounting point for the Super 7. Just got them. Old shool skier 6 ft 175. Using on powder and soft crud days. Ex racer, like long gs turns in the crud but manageable in the trees. No switch for me. thinking 0 but this is way further forward than my LP XXL's 194. First twin tip type ski for me.
post #12 of 14
Thread Starter 
Keep in mind that this ski is an unconventional shape. Mounting too far back on a tail rockered ski can exacerbate the tendency to "wheelie" in abrupt contour changes. This is one of the problems commonly associated with this type of ski. You won't get the bruising GS performance from even the Super 7 that you do from your XXL they are just different skis. Certainly, the attraction for the S7 and similar skis is the nimbleness. If you try to make them ski like a stiff straight ski, you are chasing your tail a bit. All the 195 and 188's that we sold have been mounted somewhere between the 0 and +3 depending on the choice of the skier. Personally, I think 0 is too far back.

SJ
post #13 of 14
Quote:
Originally Posted by SierraJim View Post

Keep in mind that this ski is an unconventional shape. Mounting too far back on a tail rockered ski can exacerbate the tendency to "wheelie" in abrupt contour changes. This is one of the problems commonly associated with this type of ski. You won't get the bruising GS performance from even the Super 7 that you do from your XXL they are just different skis. Certainly, the attraction for the S7 and similar skis is the nimbleness. If you try to make them ski like a stiff straight ski, you are chasing your tail a bit. All the 195 and 188's that we sold have been mounted somewhere between the 0 and +3 depending on the choice of the skier. Personally, I think 0 is too far back.

SJ
 

I'm on Atomic Blogs. At first I was hesitant about the center mount myself, but once i got them out it just felt right. You just have to ski more centered.
post #14 of 14
Thank you for the post. Since I'm moving to a twin tip for the first time, I think I will buy the Schizo Binding. I have a pair of Nordica top fuel 178's and found moving the binding fore and aft 1 cm made difference. I ended up a 1/2cm forward, just the enough tip pressure without having the tips dive in powder for my skiing style. 


If you think the Schizos are a good fit, or some other binding that has some adjustablility, I'll  buy them at Start Haus. Also any tune recommendations on the Super 7. Our tuning guy can put anything I want on them.

On another topic. My kids were race training last night, so I decided to demo some S3 Rossi's in 188. Wow, they were fun. 3 inches of  wind blown powder over 6 inches of sun crusted powder or frozen bumps. Skied very short but stable on the groomed. Handled the frozen bumps and sun crust with ease. Got a abused on my Nordicas at first when I went got back on them.

I'm thinking these would be good skis for my wife. Weights 125 5' 6" intermediate advanced. Good groomed and packed powder skier, struggles in powder and crud. Currently on the Nordica Conquerer 154, that's probably to demanding for her. Is there a womens version of the S3. I see they make the S3 in a 158 and 166. Recommendations on length, if you are familiar with the ski.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Member Gear Reviews