Free Shipping on Orders Over $50 - Some Exclusions Apply*
  • 1-800-409-4502

  • Live Chat with a Gearhead

  • 100% Guaranteed Returns

WishfulThinking

WishfulThinking

Whistler/Blackcomb, BC, Canada

Cecil's Bio

i have an unrelentless passion for, and an insatiable addiction to skiing; i love to ski; can't get enuf of it; the white stuff is addictive; i love the speed; i love the pow; and i love hucking myself off of precipices

i dislike being indoors when the weather is nice or when there's fresh snow on the mountains

WishfulThinking

WishfulThinking wrote an answer about on January 14, 2014

In regards to Bent Chetlers vs Automatics... Night and day! (Never skied JJ's though I'd love to try)

I love both. I find the Chetlers to be super fun and playful and the Automatics to be hard-charging fast and stable (but also quick to turn, even for mashing bumps!). My perception is likely due to the Chetler's more balanced and centered geometry versus the Automatics' directional geometry (a lot more tip, a lot less tail).

I'm torn between the two, but ultimately went with the Auto's since it suits my free-ride style more.

(0)

 

WishfulThinking

WishfulThinking wrote a review of on December 9, 2013

5 5

Familiarity: I've used it several times

I've been using the 22D Axl for about 4 years (great binding!) and decided to try out the Enzo since I have this strange issue with the Axl where once every other day the heel piece seems to slip off my boot.

With the short/default springs, the Enzo is very comparable to the Axl (I set the pivots on both to the 2nd position). I'd even say the Enzo feels more smooth and linear in terms of spring tension than the Axls.

I haven't toured with them yet, and don't know how they'll hold up to abuse, but I'm loving them so far.

(0)

 

WishfulThinking

WishfulThinking wrote a review of on December 9, 2013

5 5

Familiarity: I've put it through the wringer

I'm loving my 186's mounted at +1 for forward-only free-ridin' telemark. After skiing the Rossi S7's since they first came out, the Automatics are a very noble 'upgrade' that keeps the same characteristics that I loved about the S7 and adds the stiffness that the S7 lacked. Yummie.

I had them mounted at -0.5cm and didn't like it - kept feeling like i had to lean forward way too much to get the sweet spot - it was very obvious when skiing groomers and just rolling the ankles over.

(1)

 

0 Comments

WishfulThinking

WishfulThinking wrote an answer about on March 17, 2013

I read the Team Line on 2012/2013 186cm Automatics were 102.5cm from the tip, which is the same as where the Factory Recommended line is on my 2013/2014 186cm Automatics. Hope this helps!

(0)

 

WishfulThinking

WishfulThinking wrote an answer about on November 22, 2011

I disagree with Jamie's reply. Here's why...

I've been on the S7's since Spring 2009. I'm 5'7" 130lbs and used to ski 170cm traditional shaped skis, so similar to you. I love to charge really hard and fast and do enjoy hucking off cliffs. A bit different than you, but I still assume you're a strong skier none-the-less.

I started on the 176's (now sold as 178's) due to advice of people speculating what it's like to ski an S7. I mounted them at 0 for freeriding (not park riding). Note their weight was not an issue while skiing. In the end, it was fun and I liked it, but it felt too short and soft. I really felt it when skiing hard and fast through chopped up snow - not as stable as I'd like, tips deflected, not enough effective edge up front to carve through the crud.

Sold them and bought the 188cm's. LOVE! They look huge for someone my size and weight, but they work so well! They're now very beat up and I just picked up a new pair of the same to replace them once the mountains get a bit more snow.

I'm not sure I'd recommend the 188's to someone our size unless they really know how to not let the ski ride them, but I definitely recommend the 178's for anyone our size who is a strong skier. 168's will likely leave you wishing you bought 'em bigger. Good luck!

(2)

 

WishfulThinking

WishfulThinking wrote a review of on October 9, 2010

3 5

This year, North Face did two things that discouraged me from buying this highly technical jacket: (1.) Hand pockets are in the traditional street-jacket area, low on each side of the jacket. Hard to access when you've got the waist strap done up on your backpack. For those of you who always wondered why technical jackets often have the pockets high up in the chest area, it's for that reason - so you can access your pockets while wearing a pack. The previous years' versions had the pockets up higher. (2.) The pit zips are not longer "pit" zips. There is now only about a 6" zipper under the arm, near the armpit. Previous generation had full pit zips up the torso and along the underarm.One good thing they did this year was add back in the upper left arm pocket. They had this in the 2007 version, which I own. The upper arm pocket is perfect for a cell phone or small walkie talkie. It's easy to hear whatever you've got in there. If a walkie-talkie, you can talk into it easily without removing it from the jacket, and without taking off gloves. If it's a phone, it's easy to reach quickly without undoing any straps on your backpack (which may be obstructing your other pockets and main jacket zipper).

(4)

 

WishfulThinking

WishfulThinking wrote an answer about on October 3, 2010

Hi Chelsey,
I tele on 170's (traditional shaped skis; I'm 5'7" 130lbs) and was worried too.. I went with the 176's of the original S7 ski and though it was fun (about 50 days on them), when I was charging hard I felt I was pushing the limits of the ski in terms of rigidity and stability. I "upgraded" to the 188 size and am *loving it* (about 30 days). Hard to believe it's 18cm longer that my 'normal' ski, but when you compare the amount of edge in contact with the snow, it's quite a short ski. And the turn radius is small - the 178 length is about a 15m turn radius - You shouldn't have a problem with that in terms of agility.

Your mileage may vary, but based on my experience, I highly recommend the 178 size versus the 168. Good luck! Lettuce know how it goes.

(0)

 

WishfulThinking

WishfulThinking wrote an answer about on October 3, 2010

I use my 188 S7's for slackcountry day tours (w/ free pivot tele-bindings), and it's noticably heavier than my touring setup. Usually I pace my touring buddies, but when I have the S7's, I'm in the rear playing catch-up... but it's all worth it on the downhill.

(0)

 

WishfulThinking

WishfulThinking wrote an answer about on April 7, 2010

Here's my experience with the 176 cm and 188 cm S7's.

I spent about 50 days (telemark w/ 22D Axl's) on the 176 length and and found them too short and too soft for aggressive skiing. I'm 5'7", 130 lbs and usually ski a 170 cm ski. I recently swapped to 188 cm and after 10 days have enjoyed it a lot more, especially at high speeds in chopped up crud where a longer and stiffer ski are imperative. The extra 18 cm length (relative to my traditional 170cm skis) is of no concern and of no consequence, as the 188's still have a 17.5m radius and short effective edge due to rocker. I am rocking the 188's and loving it!

If I was 5'9" and 165 lbs, I would not be concerned at all about the 188's and would even consider the 195 length.

(0)

 

WishfulThinking

WishfulThinking wrote an answer about on March 25, 2009

So I just bought these skis and skied them last weekend (Mar21/22,09) at Whistler after about 80+ cm of fresh. I mounted them tele (Black Diamond O2 bindings) at -1cm. My style of skiing is primarily freeride; I don't do any park or switch-style skiing.

In the pow: The ski was phonomenal as expected. I need not say more.

Not in the pow: The ski was surprisingly good even on groomers and on ice (as I skied out to the village at the end of the day). The camber and 18m sidecut/radius really makes the ski work more like a normal ski when you need it. Just put it on edge and you'll be making some quick turns. There is a noticable lack of edge grip at the tips for turn initiation (due to the rockered tip and hence very short effective edge) when compared to a traditional ski, especially when needing to turn quick in the bumps. However,this is expected from an early rise/rockered ski, and this deficiency is compensated by the short-radius sidecut underfoot.

Landing drops/jumps: I was slightly concerned about a short tail due to a soft/rockered tail and mounting -1cm instead of the +3 the Sage recommends. However, I had no problems putting on the brakes when I needed to emergency stop or when landing big drops where I was too far in the backseat. Swing weight while doing 360's was noticable, since I'm used to much lighter skis (G3 Saints).

In summary, I love these skis. They are not a one ski quiver though. For hardpack and touring days, I'll go with my G3 Saints. But if there's any semblance of soft snow off-piste (where I spend the majority of my time), I'll be breaking out my S7 clown-shoes.

(0)

 

WishfulThinking

WishfulThinking wrote a review of on March 15, 2007

1 5

At first, I was impressed with the fit and comfort of these gloves. HOWEVER... within the first 10 days of using these gloves, it already has a hole in one of the fingertips. After about 10 more days, most of the fingers now have holes.

I simply use them as an liner for downhill skiing. I don't use them for anything that would accelerate the wear on the gloves prematurely. I've had other glove liners which have lasted much much longer.

(0)

 

0 Comments

0 Comments

0 Comments