2006 Rossignol Bandit B2 length?

Hi all,

I am intending to buy a 2006 Rossignol Bandit B2 ski, but am having
difficulties in deciding the best length for me.

I am 73kg in weight and 177cm tall. I would consider myself an advanced
skier with quite a lot of experience. I mainly skied on the piste in
the past, but now want to diversify and do much more off-piste, and
hence went for the Bandits.

I skied on the 166 model at the weekend in Switzerland and found it
fine, but maybe the 174 would be better? Anyone have any
recommendations - the skis are available in 148, 158, 166, 174, 182. I
also see that it is recommended that freeride skis are slightly longer
than piste skis, but maybe a shorter size would be better for
bumps/jumps and more fun?

Thanks,

Paul

wrote:
I am intending to buy a 2006 Rossignol Bandit B2 ski, but am having
difficulties in deciding the best length for me.

I am 73kg in weight and 177cm tall. I would consider myself an advanced
skier with quite a lot of experience. I mainly skied on the piste in
the past, but now want to diversify and do much more off-piste, and
hence went for the Bandits.

166.

JP

Skier's Weight (lb, kg) Ski Length (cm)


161-180 (72-80) 180



The above is based on what you indicated. Whoever said "166" was dead wrong
(see below).

120-140 (54-70) 167


I weight 162 LBS and ski the B2s at 176. Perfect for me.




"Jay Pique" wrote in message
oups.com...

wrote:
I am intending to buy a 2006 Rossignol Bandit B2 ski, but am having
difficulties in deciding the best length for me.

I am 73kg in weight and 177cm tall. I would consider myself an advanced
skier with quite a lot of experience. I mainly skied on the piste in
the past, but now want to diversify and do much more off-piste, and
hence went for the Bandits.

166.

JP

Tourist,

where did you get those figures from? Were they from Rossignol for the
B2s, or from a generic guide?

Thanks,

Paul

wrote:

where did you get those figures from? Were they from Rossignol for the
B2s, or from a generic guide?

Good question. Tourist's recommended 180 length isn't even available.

You could go with a 174 but it's almost as long as you are tall, and
you certainly aren't overweight, so it would be harder to turn.

If you want more flotation on powder, consider the Rossi B3.

Question: did you find the 2006 B2 too flaccid, especially in the tail?

Bill Tuthill wrote:


Good question. Tourist's recommended 180 length isn't even available.
Well, it is available in 182.

You could go with a 174 but it's almost as long as you are tall, and
you certainly aren't overweight, so it would be harder to turn.

About weight - I weigh 73kg without any equipment - I guess with
equipment and boots and everything I must weigh well over 80kg. When
quoting my weight in relation to skis and binding settings, I guess I
should be quoting the latter, shouldn't I?


If you want more flotation on powder, consider the Rossi B3.

Question: did you find the 2006 B2 too flaccid, especially in the tail?

To be honest with you, I can't really remember! The day I tested them
it was pure whiteout, so I didn't really get to push them to their
limit. Seemed fine to me though as I was still able to ski like a bat
out of hell on them!

Am sort of going on the reviews, where these skis seem to be highly
acclaimed as long as you aren't doing racing.

As to the length question again - driving me mad as keep getting
different responses - someone else told me that because they are soft
at the front, they are quite easy to turn compared to a normal ski,
even at the 182 length.

Anyway, am about to finally blow my 400 euros on these over the net.
Thinking about just plunging for the 166, as that is the size that has
been recommended most - here and elsewhere. Can always give them to my
short father if they aren't right!

Paul

wrote:

About weight - I weigh 73kg without any equipment - I guess with
equipment and boots and everything I must weigh well over 80kg. When
quoting my weight in relation to skis and binding settings, I guess I
should be quoting the latter, shouldn't I?

Probably doesn't matter, it's an inexact science.

Am sort of going on the reviews, where these skis seem to be highly
acclaimed as long as you aren't doing racing.

Yes, the B2 seems to be one of the most universal all-conditions skis
designed and produced in the past several years. It does everything
fairly well, but nothing extremely well, they say. Nordica makes skis
like that, but they are harder to find.

I've had my eye on the B2, which is why I ask. I like to buy skis
on discount at end of season.

If you ski often in icy conditions, there might be better alternatives
than the B2.

As to the length question again - driving me mad as keep getting
different responses - someone else told me that because they are soft
at the front, they are quite easy to turn compared to a normal ski,
even at the 182 length.

A longer ski would probably feel slightly more stable at high speeds,
as a tradeoff for being harder to turn. It would also float better
in powder, but you might tend to cross tips more.

Anyway, am about to finally blow my 400 euros on these over the net.
Thinking about just plunging for the 166, as that is the size that has
been recommended most - here and elsewhere. Can always give them to my
short father if they aren't right!

I think you should get the 166, especially if you enjoy turning
more than going downhill like a bat out of hell. The longer the ski,
the more difficult it is to negotiate moguls.