rossignol bandit x vs. b1

Hello,

I've seen a shop selling a used Rossignol Bandit X with bindings for
$200. Can anyone compare them to the newer model, Rossignol Bandit b1?



Thanks,
Ori.

Personally, I can't imagine skiing a 198 in those skis, but I'd bet
there are a few used pairs out there. For example, Google found this
pair:
http://ski-deals.com/ads/messages/1025.html

TexasSkiNut,

Thanks for the link. It's funny how quirky google searches can be, all
depending on how you enter the search terms. You da man!

As for not being able to imagine "skiing a 198 in those skis," what do
you want me to say? Conventional wisdom says to try out skis before you
buy and I always do. The demo shop listened to my story and put me on
191's the first day. Those weren't substantial enough for me. Next day
they put me on 198's and they were perfect. Double digit ski days
later, I still love them, which is good enough for me...

Back to the original question, again: Does anyone have any insight as o
what if any evolution in the design of the Bandit X has occurred over
the last four years? Specifically, if I get a newer model are they
substantially the same? And, does anyone know when (and if) they
stopped producing 198's?

Thanks again!

TexasSkiNut wrote:
Personally, I can't imagine skiing a 198 in those skis, but I'd bet
there are a few used pairs out there. For example, Google found this
pair:
http://ski-deals.com/ads/messages/1025.html

As for not being able to imagine "skiing a 198 in those skis," what
do
you want me to say? Conventional wisdom says to try out skis before
you
buy and I always do. The demo shop listened to my story and put me on
191's the first day. Those weren't substantial enough for me. Next
day
they put me on 198's and they were perfect. Double digit ski days
later, I still love them, which is good enough for me...

Whatever works for you. You'll probably have to make them last,
because I doubt the manufacturers are going to make any recreational
skis that long any more. Personally, I tried the Rossi B2 in a 182
last year, and although I didn't have any trouble handling it (my
regular skis are 200cm), I felt that it would easily work for me in a
much shorter length, especially in the bumps. That was the only pair
they had available so I didn't get to compare different lengths. Last
month I got to try a K2 Apache Recon (fairly comparable to a B2) in a
174. It also felt like it could've been a bit shorter. You might have
to alter your skiing style to go that much shorter if you prefer a 198.

Does anyone have any insight as to what if any evolution in the
design
of the Bandit X has occurred over the last four years? Specifically,
if
I get a newer model are they substantially the same?

From what I've heard, they added some internal dampening when they
transitioned to the B1/B2/B3 line from the Xs. Some prefer the new,
some the old.

"frankenskier" wrote in
ps.com:

As for not being able to imagine "skiing a 198 in those skis," what do
you want me to say? Conventional wisdom says to try out skis before you
buy and I always do. The demo shop listened to my story and put me on
191's the first day. Those weren't substantial enough for me. Next day
they put me on 198's and they were perfect. Double digit ski days
later, I still love them, which is good enough for me...

How, where, and what do you ski that makes you prefer a 198? That's quite
a long ski in curren shapes and technologies.

I looked around at Volkl and Atomic's websites and couldn't find ANY skis
in that length - although I just looked at racing and all-mountain types.
You can get Atomic "sugar daddy pimp edition" (God save us from extreme and
gansta lingo) skis in a 193.

You're free to do what you like, but when the entire industry stops
manufacturing in that length, you just might want to give a shorter ski
another try.

dh

How, where and what do I ski?

Whe Alpine Meadows, Sugar Bowl, and Sierra-at-Tahoe mainly,

What: If there are any bumps at all available, that's all I ski. If its
new snow or a good corn snow cycle, then I'll ski that. But mostly
bumps. The only skiing condition that's self perpetuating, mmmm...
mmmm... good. Groomers are for getting to the bumps.

How: In the bumps, as I alluded to in my earlier post, I ski quite slow
compared to a pro bump skier. Same bump line, but this is much easier
on my now 41 yr old knees.

Why: (you didn't ask, but you implied wanting to know): Remember that
the vintage of Bandit X I'm talking about was *not* an exaggerated
shape ski, its almost hard to tell that they're "parabolics." In the
days of straight skis I was on 205's, sometimes 203's if the choice was
between 203's and 207's. So these are of the same family. I have no
problem skiing as fast and under control as I like, on all in-bounds
and legally out of bounds places I've cared to go, and on shorter ones
I felt like I didn't have enough edge. What else can I say?

N.B. I wouldn't hesitate to go to a much shorter ski on a more
pronounced sidecut ski, its just that I prefer this mild sidecut ski,
so there you go.

Sure, ski manufacturers have stopped manufacturing them, and when I
can't buy them any more, I'll adapt. I just don't feel the need to just
yet. To each his own, it's all good.

David Harris wrote:

----snip--------

How, where, and what do you ski that makes you prefer a 198? That's
quite
a long ski in curren shapes and technologies.

----snip----------

You're free to do what you like, but when the entire industry stops
manufacturing in that length, you just might want to give a shorter
ski
another try.

dh

"David Harris" wrote in message
...
"frankenskier" wrote in
ps.com:

As for not being able to imagine "skiing a 198 in those skis,"
what do
you want me to say? Conventional wisdom says to try out skis
before you
buy and I always do. The demo shop listened to my story and put me
on
191's the first day. Those weren't substantial enough for me. Next
day
they put me on 198's and they were perfect. Double digit ski days
later, I still love them, which is good enough for me...

How, where, and what do you ski that makes you prefer a 198?
That's quite
a long ski in curren shapes and technologies.

I got a pair of bandit xx 198 off of ebay to ski on when I go with
the girls (or other visitors from the lowlands). Something to himhaw
around on. They're ok but don't perform with any balls at all. No
reverse camber turning, now rebound. It's short but the longest I
could get.

David Harris wrote:

"frankenskier" wrote in
ps.com:


As for not being able to imagine "skiing a 198 in those skis," what do
you want me to say? Conventional wisdom says to try out skis before you
buy and I always do. The demo shop listened to my story and put me on
191's the first day. Those weren't substantial enough for me. Next day
they put me on 198's and they were perfect. Double digit ski days
later, I still love them, which is good enough for me...


How, where, and what do you ski that makes you prefer a 198? That's quite
a long ski in curren shapes and technologies.

I looked around at Volkl and Atomic's websites and couldn't find ANY skis
in that length - although I just looked at racing and all-mountain types.

Atomic's SG and DH skies come in lengths of 195 and up, and I'm sure
Volkl is similar, but you don't just walk into the store and buy them
off the rack. The OP _is_ a big guy, but I wonder if length is the only
solution. I'm willing to bet a good stiff GS ski in a much shorter
length would do the trick.

You can get Atomic "sugar daddy pimp edition" (God save us from extreme and
gansta lingo) skis in a 193.

Gangsta lingo concocted by Austrian marketing weenies is particularly
queasy-making.

--
Mary Malmros
Some days you're the windshield, other days you're the bug.

Mary Malmros wrote in
:


Atomic's SG and DH skies come in lengths of 195 and up, and I'm sure
Volkl is similar, but you don't just walk into the store and buy them
off the rack. The OP _is_ a big guy, but I wonder if length is the
only solution. I'm willing to bet a good stiff GS ski in a much
shorter length would do the trick.

Yeah, I knew DH and SG are racing on long skis - but there's no info about
them on Atomic's website for some reason. Or maybe I just couldn't find it
- I was getting motion sickness from all the bouncing icons and flash (God
save us from overflashed sites) so I didn't knock myself out. I did
download a PDF which allegedly has the stats on ALL their skis - excluding
DH and SG, again.

dh

"frankenskier" wrote in
oups.com:

How, where and what do I ski?

Whe Alpine Meadows, Sugar Bowl, and Sierra-at-Tahoe mainly,

What: If there are any bumps at all available, that's all I ski. If its
new snow or a good corn snow cycle, then I'll ski that. But mostly
bumps. The only skiing condition that's self perpetuating, mmmm...
mmmm... good. Groomers are for getting to the bumps.

How: In the bumps, as I alluded to in my earlier post, I ski quite slow
compared to a pro bump skier. Same bump line, but this is much easier
on my now 41 yr old knees.

Why: (you didn't ask, but you implied wanting to know): Remember that
the vintage of Bandit X I'm talking about was *not* an exaggerated
shape ski, its almost hard to tell that they're "parabolics." In the
days of straight skis I was on 205's, sometimes 203's if the choice was
between 203's and 207's. So these are of the same family. I have no
problem skiing as fast and under control as I like, on all in-bounds
and legally out of bounds places I've cared to go, and on shorter ones
I felt like I didn't have enough edge. What else can I say?

N.B. I wouldn't hesitate to go to a much shorter ski on a more
pronounced sidecut ski, its just that I prefer this mild sidecut ski,
so there you go.

Sure, ski manufacturers have stopped manufacturing them, and when I
can't buy them any more, I'll adapt. I just don't feel the need to just
yet. To each his own, it's all good.

Tele, mono, shaped, board, blades, whatever.... If you've strapped some
wood to your feet, and can slide down a snow covered hill and smile, it
is all good for sure.

I do recall the 'x's were a narrower ski, but I thought they were still
fairly well shaped, without being extreme.

I also thought conventional wisdom was to go with shorter skis for bumps.
When I switched to a shaped ski 4 years ago, I went down quite a bit in
size. The advantage has been to open up much tighter trees as being
skiable, with a modest tradeoff in top end speed limited by them being a
bit skitterish.

With 49 yo knees, bumps aren't even an option for me any more (although
I never really liked them, with the exception of a couple of perfect runs
fuelled by just enough beer to conquer fear, yet retain coordination).

dh