- Home
- Rossignol 2011/12 S7 Ski
- Review
Gear Review
Rossignol 2011/12 S7 Ski
Overrated.
By William richmond
Ranked #45 - Big Mountain Freeride Skis
April 2, 2010
The S7 is the Indiana Jones 4 of skis: very overrated and disappointing. The rocker and soft flex create a very forgiving ski, but not much else. I didn't feel stable on this ski at all, and had a very hard time skiing anything not powder. The S7 is awful in crud, with lots and lots of tail flap. Also the rocker makes it extremely easy to become skiing in the backseat in if you're not careful, and I almost had the crash of my lifetime because of it. Maybe I should've tried the Super 7, but the 188 was one of the worst skis I demoed. Rocker is awesome, but this ski isn't.
I'm 5'8'', 135 lbs and demoed the 188.
For a comparison between this and some other skis I have demoed, check out:
http://williamrichmondski.blogspot.com/
View Details: Rossignol 2011/12 S7 Ski
Helpful Votes: 6 Yes
Change me.
17 Comments Last Reply: January 11, 2011 By: skipunkx
You will not be skiing a 168, you will be skiing a 145 with super long tip and tail. This doesn't even resemble a traditional ski, so sizing it like one doesnt achieve the same result.
Helpful Votes: 0 Yes
can anyone think of a worse powder ski?
Helpful Votes: 0 Yes
ok i'm just gunna say the s7 is the worst powder ski out their. having camber underfoot causes you to sink more into the pow and the sidecut being closer to the waist give you a lot of hookiness in powder. there is almost no side cut in the tail which makes it super hard to ride switch as they aren't symmetrical enough. the reason they are in such "hot demand" is because there are still people that know nothing about powder skis or like hookie edges and sinking in powder. bottom like the s7 sucks. it has major design flaws and is not a 100% powder ski as rossignol claims. the side cut and the camber underfoot is completely unnecessary for powder. very disappointing ski. it is not the first ski to feature multiple sidecuts. if you look at the bases of the pontoons the tail is almost exactly the same as the tip of the s7. so i guess you could say rossignol copied k2
Helpful Votes: 1 Yes
It's still a good ski. Not the best. As icy beard said every company based their ski off of this ski. This ski definitely started it all with the rocker. But the other companies have made a way better version of this ski. I agree if your skiing powder and trees these are great. But when you start hauling down runs you have a 123 mm tail to rely on with a 145 shovel? Makes no sense. Rossignol tried to replace that by making the super s7 with an extra layer for stiffness. Skis like the atomic bentchetler or the armada jj have a fatter tail that you can rely on when going really fast after a line or even just going down some bumps. Still a good ski, but not the best and it's more money than the other better skis.
Helpful Votes: 0 Yes
Fully agree with the review. I sold my S7s the next day after I rode the Bent Chetlers. There is not doubt this is a good powder ski, but it does not even come close to those like the Chetler, JJ, even the Radict. The S7 was a big hit in its 1st year since it there was very little out their that used the modified rocker design (except for the JJ), but outside of the top sheet it is a 1st generation modified rocker ski. As for the response above on Atomic and other manufactures coping the design, if you wanted to state any ski design that was copied it would be Armada's JJ. If your looking for the ultimate pow ski the Chetlers own it. They achieve better float, are much more playful, and are more responsive (there is a reason why they sell out so quick, and its not the tie dye bases).
Helpful Votes: 0 Yes
there are definitely better options than the s7 for powder ski. the s7 is no where close to being the best powder ski in terms of maneuverability and flotation. It may be versatile but isn't as maneuverable as the arg of as floaty as the pontoon.
Helpful Votes: 0 Yes
Dude. There is a reason that this ski is in such hot demand. And there is another reason that since it was born, every manufacturer either has their version of it, or they will soon. I hate to tell ya, but the proof is indeed in those pics. You are WAY in the back seat. I don't know how you could have landed those jumps upright. Sage Cattabriga-Alosa designed this ski, and he certainly is not a backseat skier as you are in those pics. And watch, now that he as joined Atomic, you will see their version of the S7 made by Atomic and endorsed by him. The S7 is the funnest and best ski I have ever owned. I love how much I can push forward on this ski without it diving down and risking going over the handlebars. I ski it aggressively, like I'm carving on hard-pack. Yet I get paid with face shots with every turn. No need to "lean back" or get back on the tails - that's totally old school. The rocker and pintail shovel will throw you right back up. And the best part is having the float of a 115mm ski that can carve / turn a 17M radius! This ski is so nimble in the trees it's ridiculous. My biggest complaint of previous fat skis was the huge turning radius of 20M - 30+M. And since I don't own a helicopter, I personally like to make more than 7 turns before I'm back on the chair. S7: problem solved. I've skied pow for 30 years, and this ski is the best ever. I welcome you to explore a more race / forward ski technique, perhaps talk to some pros, then try the ski again in the future.
Helpful Votes: 1 Yes
to 9094heel 140lbs is definitely not flyweight for 5'7. I don't understand why everyone is hating on William Richmond's review. Reviews should be the skier's opinion not your opinion or the opinion everyone else. Stop hating.
Helpful Votes: 2 Yes
Agreed that backseat is definitely *not* a problem on these skis. The tails on these bad boys are plenty stiff. There are numerous pics of William in the backseat on his website - it's pretty clear it's not the ski: http://williamrichmondski.blogspot.com/2
Helpful Votes: 3 Yes
I also agree with pee and bsc... backseat is not a ski problem. I'm 5'7 and flyweight 140 lbs and skied the 09-10 176cm. No problem. Honestly, best ski in my 30 years or skiing. The other skis must be jealous as they sit in storage except only when specific needs call for them. Pow... awesome. Trees and tight lines... swing 'em 'round. Jackson Hole BC on rock hard boiler plate and crud during USSMA Nats.... these even carve. Little heavy for BC skinning/bootpacking but the performance is worth the extra poundage. Get them.
Helpful Votes: 2 Yes
I brought a pair of S7 for the last candian winter had a wicked season on them but then i took them back to New Zealand and wasnt going to ski them, however a few weeks into the season just couldnt leave them at home so took them out in about 2-5c of powder :) thinking i was going to have a nightmare of a time, they still rocked. They can ski almost anything if you tell them who boss is!! Never had any problems of tail flap or fall into the backseat. Hands forward.. get forward ..... or go home
Helpful Votes: 2 Yes
I have to agree with pee. You're skiing a to big of ski for your body size and possibly ability. I have rocked the super S7 all season here at Jackson and in the variable snow we had this season they never ceased to amaze me. Oh and FYI not keeping your hands in front of you will put you in the backseat no matter what you ski!
Helpful Votes: 2 Yes
I have to agree with pee. You're skiing a to big of ski for your body size and possibly ability. I have rocked the super S7 all season here at Jackson and in the variable snow we had this season they never ceased to amaze me. Oh and FYI not keeping your hands in front of you will put you in the backseat no matter what you ski!
Helpful Votes: 0 Yes
I have to agree with pee. You're skiing a to big of ski for your body size and possibly ability. I have rocked the super S7 all season here at Jackson and in the variable snow we had this season they never ceased to amaze me. Oh and FYI not keeping your hands in front of you will put you in the backseat no matter what you ski!
Helpful Votes: 1 Yes
I have to agree with pee. You're skiing a to big of ski for your body size and possibly ability. I have rocked the super S7 all season here at Jackson and in the variable snow we had this season they never ceased to amaze me. Oh and FYI not keeping your hands in front of you will put you in the backseat no matter what you ski!
Helpful Votes: 0 Yes
168 would be way to small!!! U should go 178 William richmond, learn how to ski
Helpful Votes: 0 Yes
you are skiing a ski to big for your body to handle. i am 6'1" and 205lbs and this ski is excellent for me. try going for the 168, i think you will have alot more control over the ski and an overall better time skiing.
Helpful Votes: 15 Yes