EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › Ski Gear Discussion › Rossi S110W vs Atomic Century
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Rossi S110W vs Atomic Century

post #1 of 19
10/14/10 at 3:06pm
Thread Starter 

These two skis start with a similar idea - tip and tail rocker with traditional camber in the middle, and are women's powder skis. The online propaganda makes them sound about the same. The specs indicate some differences:

 

Rossi has a tighter turning radius (14 vs 18m)

Rossi a bit wider underfoot. (110 vs 100)

Atomic is slightly lighter and more easily set up for touring

Atomic is quite a bit cheaper

Atomic claims its "step down" sidewall provides dampening and better edge grip, although their website is woefully limited in information about what it is and how it works

 

Neither are likely to be available to me for demo, so am very interested to know if anyone knows how they compare in performance on snow.

 

 

Reply
post #2 of 19
10/14/10 at 3:43pm

100mm vs 110mm is a big difference.

 

The Century would make for a more versatile ski that can handle a little bit of anything in soft condition (depending on size would probably provide plenty of lift), the S110w is going to be a better powder ski.

Reply
post #3 of 19
10/14/10 at 6:23pm

Just bought a pair of the Century's for my wife after doing extensive research on both those skis.  The Century does not have tail rocker, just an upturned half twin tip, whereas the S110W has actual early rise rocker in the tail.  Both have camber underfoot, but the camber on the Century goes almost all the way to the tail, so it should ski much better (longer) than the Rossi on hardpack.  Both also have an early taper tip where the fattest part of the ski is back a little from the tip giving it a patch of reverse sidecut that allows you to smear turns in front. The S110Ws tail rocker should allow it to pivot and give it a different feel in deep snow, but the Century's tail will allow it to release and smear turns, but not as easily as the Rossi.

 

From what I could tell, the S110W is more powder specific, and the Century should be a better all arounder with superior crud and hardpack carving.  My wife is 5'5" and 115 lbs., so we figured a 110mm waisted ski would be very hard for her to get up on edge, and the 100mm Atomic would provide enough float and be better after the snow got cut up.

 

If you want the S110W look for deals on the Roxy Mumbo Jumbo and Rossi Voodoo BC 110, which are the previous model, but the same ski and cheaper than the 2010-2011 S110W, which just has a different topsheet.  Despite extensive searching, I was unable to find any of them in a 166 length, except the new S110W.


Edited by mudfoot - 10/15/10 at 8:03am
Reply
post #4 of 19
10/15/10 at 1:24pm
Thread Starter 


 

Tyson, the 168 length rossi is actually 105 undrefoot.. but appreciate there is a difference and thank you for the answer.

 

Thank you too mudfoot. It helps but i'm still on the fence. (BTW, it too am 5/5 but am 118 and i found the line pandora and head jimi, 115 and 110 respectively, easy enough to edge.) it would be a second ski, so powder specific, but the fact is that powder turns to crud and bumps well before the day is done most of the time. I heard the rossis are very forgiving in the bumps because of the tip and tail rise and you say the century's will be better in crud. Oh what's a girl to do?!

 

You are correct that last year's 166 Rossis are hard to find. Even the new ones at 168 are sold out on the Rossi site. There are a few pro-bcs on Ebay, but they are just as expensive as the new s110Ws although a damn sight nicer looking!
 

Reply
post #5 of 19
10/15/10 at 1:38pm

I have skied neither (nor their bigger cousins). However, I've looked at both pretty closely & the Atomic is much more "conventional". The camber runs way far back. So the tail is going to behave like any more conventional fattish all mountain ski.

 

As a Western all mountain ski, I'd have a strong bias toward something *like* the Rossi (since I've never skied it, I can not speak to the specific ski) with meaningful tip and tail rocker. Especially if you are looking for a jump in "powder" or soft snow handling. But it obviously depends a ton on personal preference...

Reply
post #6 of 19
10/15/10 at 1:42pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mom View Post

 

 

You are correct that last year's 166 Rossis are hard to find. Even the new ones at 168 are sold out on the Rossi site. There are a few pro-bcs on Ebay, but they are just as expensive as the new s110Ws although a damn sight nicer looking!
 

S110W_1.jpg

 

What's the matter Mom, not a fan of girlie skis?

Reply
post #7 of 19
10/20/10 at 3:05pm
Thread Starter 

I don't mind girlie. I'm proud of my gender ;-)    Would rather not be looking down at a Japanese version of Morticia when I'm skiing is all.

Reply
post #8 of 19
10/20/10 at 3:22pm

Morticia?.....welll.....closer than Elvira I guess.

 

I have skied both men's versions pretty extensively. The S7/S110W are certainly closer to powder specific. The Access/Century are far more broad spectrum skis. The Access is quick, lively, very nimble and a hoot to ski for someone that doesn't need burly. I would say however, that the grip/dampening statement might be a little figmentary. Still, from the contact point back, the Access grips pretty well (better than the S7) but the rise is pretty pronounced and some tip flappage is in evidence in rough conditions.

 

So.....

 

S110 = powder.

Century = closer to everyday.

 

SJ

Start Haus Insider

Bringing World Cup caliber ski equipment and service to all skiers - from pro ski racers to everyday all mountain skiers and into the...

» Get the latest news and updates at the Start Haus sponsor page.
Reply
post #9 of 19
10/22/10 at 3:29pm
Thread Starter 
thank you!
Reply
post #10 of 19
1/18/11 at 10:40am
Thread Starter 

Posted on the Ski Diva also... So I went for the 168 Rossis and skied them for the first time this weekend in about 4" of new wet snow expecting to LOVE them, but did not.

 

they are very light; very easy turning (maybe too easy turning) and much better looking in person! But I had the bizarre sensation that I was going to go head over handlebars, although I did not.

 

Is this normal? Has anyone experienced this feeling with them or the s7?

 

I had them mounted at "0" which made for actually less ski in front than my 9 cm shorter Wateas. So is it all in my head or should I have mounted them at -2 ? Is it even possible to move them that small distance? Do i risk creating a different problem if i move them back? Or did i get them too short? (I'm 5'5" and a little under 120 lbs.)

Reply
post #11 of 19
1/31/11 at 3:38pm
Thread Starter 

After a few more days on the S110W, I can say that they shine on the hard pack and bumps, even hard bumps. Not exactly what I bought them for.

 

I'd still be grateful for any feedback on the notion that moving the binding point back could make them more, er, predictable in soft snow.

 

I liked Segbrown's find on TGR describing them as a terrier grabbing your ankle in certain conditions.

 

One thing that came as a bit of a surprise to me was that in some types of shallower powder, the skis tend to ‘plow’ rather than plane up on it, as some of the other skis listed (such as the Czar, 120’s or Lhasa’s) that have much less, but more gradual tip rocker. This isn’t that much of a problem unless the snow is of variable density. Then the terrier starts grabbing at the pant legs.

 

Am going to demo the Century this week as we are finally due for some snow and I found a pair to try. If I don't fall in love with them, I guess I'm just going to have to learn to love the Rossi.

 

demo, demo, demo!

Reply
post #12 of 19
2/2/11 at 5:15pm

Did you demo the Century?  I'd be very interested in what you thought.  I demoed the Rossi's last year and have been tempted by the Atomics.

 

Thanks.

Reply
post #13 of 19
2/2/11 at 10:24pm

My wife has the Century in a 176 per my advice.  She weighs 130 and is a good skier, can ski pretty much any double black diamond resort run, but doesn't bend the ski like a super G racer or anything (i.e. not super aggressive).  Ski store wanted to go shorter, but the early rise is more aggressive the longer the length.  She really likes them.  The price is right too.  Although that rossi was on the list, I am against tail rocker for most people.

 

She has other skis that are more appropriate for harder/groomer conditions, but they haven't come out yet, so...

Reply
post #14 of 19
2/3/11 at 12:18pm

My wife now has a few days on the Atomic Centuries, and she really likes them. She is 115 lbs and got the 166s. She started out with some very deep powder days and had no trouble skiing them from the first turn after coming off of 10 years on 168 Chubbs.

 

After getting a chance to ski them on hardpack, curd, bumps, and even some rather icy (by Colorado standards) conditions, she is surprised at what an all-around ski they are. She is not giving up her carvers, but it looks like the Centuries are a winner, especially in the deep stuff.

Reply
post #15 of 19
2/3/11 at 2:14pm
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by ski-then-sleep View Post

Did you demo the Century?  I'd be very interested in what you thought.  I demoed the Rossi's last year and have been tempted by the Atomics.

 

Thanks.



Not yet. Hopefully on Saturday... I'll report back.

Reply
post #16 of 19
2/3/11 at 2:16pm
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by mudfoot View Post

My wife now has a few days on the Atomic Centuries, and she really likes them. She is 115 lbs and got the 166s. She started out with some very deep powder days and had no trouble skiing them from the first turn after coming off of 10 years on 168 Chubbs.

 

After getting a chance to ski them on hardpack, curd, bumps, and even some rather icy (by Colorado standards) conditions, she is surprised at what an all-around ski they are. She is not giving up her carvers, but it looks like the Centuries are a winner, especially in the deep stuff.



Thanks for the report. I was hoping you'd update.

Reply
post #17 of 19
2/3/11 at 2:43pm

My wife has an old school style of charging the front of the ski, and the Centuries required her to ski them from the center, but the transition was pretty easy.  She noticed that in funky snow and bumps they were faster and much smoother because of the tip rocker. She skied some big bumps today with ice underneath and piles of setup snow in the troughs (a run called "brutal" by other skiers today) and said they were surprisingly smooth and relatively quick turning.  The wide spot back from the tips moves the sidecut back and shortens it.  I was surprised that she did not find them feeling a little short. Perhaps the flat tail and camber extending quite a ways back makes a difference. In any event, she is very pleased with them, although she has not tried any full rockered skis like the S110W.

 

She has loved her Chubbs, and the one thing I noticed immediately when she got on the Centuries in deep snow (33", 18", and 16" storms) was that she was turning much quicker.  The tip rocker totally eliminated the little initiation move required by the Chubbs, so she just seemed to turn without any effort, which is how she described the sensation.  I am sure the S110W is more nimble, but based on watching on my wife over several days in very deep powder, I cannot imagine her needing a fatter or more rockered ski 

Reply
post #18 of 19
2/7/11 at 1:09pm
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by ski-then-sleep View Post

Did you demo the Century?  I'd be very interested in what you thought.  I demoed the Rossi's last year and have been tempted by the Atomics.

 

Thanks.


S-t-S,

 

I finally got to ski the Century on Saturday at Taos. I took a 166 Century. I'm 5'4"+ and 120 lbs for reference....

 

Since it was Taos, there was plenty of steep, but, on this day, precious little deep. (Three or four day old 11" on top of a shallow base that has seen warm temps and no snow for quite a while.)

 

The ski was very intuitive and handled really well and was (yay) predictable.

 

The softest snow we found was in Valkyrie's and far skier's right Lorelei Trees, which is a pretty steep tree run at the top, opening to a more gentle, open trees in the middle and  bottom. It was a fair amount of picking around stumps and rocks with soft patches in between. Since it was tight and full of "features" it was impossible to get a good reading/feel for how the ski would behave in real crud or open powder and so I can't really give you an impression of the most important thing about a powder ski. (Except to say I made it down without incident which means it must have behaved!)

 

In comparison with the Rossi:

  • it skied longer (a good thing) and felt stiffer.
  • Yet it was easy to maneuver in the fairly huge (for me) variable snow bumps; while the Rossi was fine in hard, consistent bumps I was not confident on it in bumps that had piles of soft snow on top or blown in. this is a little apples to oranges...
  • It did carve on the groomers and some scrape-y hard pack, but did not rail short little turns the way the Rossi does. Personally, I don't think this is a negative since that is not the ski's primary function and it held just fine anywhere i needed it to. It was more versatile in that it would easily feather too.
  • In taking it through every single patch of un-tracked 4-6" slough at the side of the trails or in the trees, (I'm talking teeny little patches at the edges) I can say that the ski seemed to float better than I remember the Rossi doing. That is to say i could see the ski from my bindings to the tip which was not always the case with the Rossi. This is extrapolating quite a bit, however, and you have to take it with a grain of salt; it was not enough for me to make a decision about the ski.
  • this ski was willing to do pivot slip kind of turns (hope I'm describing this correctly) in a narrow space without suddenly tracking on edge. this is good for the trees!

 

Hopefully, I'll get a chance to ski these powder skis in some actual powder. If they do as well in the silent powder as they did in the 'loud' powder, I'd have bought them for sure. But I learned my lesson. There is no substitute for trying them yourself.

Reply
post #19 of 19
4/6/11 at 3:54pm
Thread Starter 

Have had two more days on the Atomic Century (both in powder) and bought a pair on end-of-season sale. There are only graphic changes for next year.

 

Conditions: First day all "kinds" of powder from fresh wind blown meringue, consolidated and tracked of about a foot to thigh-high smokey wonderment in the trees that made time stand still. (truly the most amazing run of my life; like skiing a slow-motion waterfall) Then second day had a full day of fresh tracks in everything from light winter snow, to wetter snow and a few runs at the end of the day of breakable crust and some tracked out chunky snow.

 

They were so stable that you could really zoom on them in the open faces and wide-spaced glades. Yet they also performed brilliantly in steep tight trees allowing for joy instead of worrying about survival.

 

What is really nice about these skis versus the Rossi is that you do not have to think about them at all. Predictable, trustworthy; no surprises or little terriers grabbing ankles. Are they the fattest skis for bottomless days? No. But then the Line Pandora at a real 115 wide would win over the Rossis anyhow.

 

Reply
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 › Rossi S110W vs Atomic Century