Rossignol BC ski series - quality, performance

[MikeK]

Yeah I realize the Rossi scales are the same design as any of the other actual fishscales for the most part. Maybe it is their camber stiffness (and placement) that makes them a little more finicky. At any rate it is some combination of camber/stiffness/material/placement/design that makes them not as good. Oddly enough sometimes what works well for a DC ski doesn't work as well single cambers. Fischer's Off track crown is not nearly as good on a skinny, heavily cambered E89 although it's the same material and shape of scales as it is on the S Bounds (placement, camber, width?). On the skinny, DC skis, I found I like the MGV+ the best for grip. The Omni grip pattern on the wider Madshus looks like a sized up version of the MGV pattern, but I don't think it works as well. It seems there are a lot of factors besides the shape of the pattern.

Turning again I relate to stiffness and lack of rocker on the thinner ones. Never skied the bigger boys myself.

Apples to apples in the narrower skis the Madshus are much easier to turn IMO. I find the Fischers much easier to as well, but that is all subjective. As you know, some people really dislike them.

If you ever get a chance to ski an Eon, at least in its current stiffness/camber, you might be surprised at how easy it is to maneuver, even in long lengths. It's significantly easier to ski dh than the S78 (or BC70 or 90) which is almost the same ski dimensionally (and in terms of camber stiffness) and with some (small) Nordic rocker. The Eon is just so much more pliable. This is what I mean. As far as holding edges on hardpack, I have no clue - don't try and don't think it's very relevant to these skis.

On the skinnier end I'd say the Voss and the Glittertind are much easier to handle as well.

[lilcliffy]

Placement camber and width are everything when it comes to traction- this is precisely why a double-cambered ski needs to be sized for a skier's weight- too short and it's a grippy shuffle; too long and there is no grip.

That E-89 is one stiff sucker of a BC ski- stiff enough that I cannot effectively engage the kick zone if the snow is deep and soft- I just end up driving the tips/tails into the snow.

Even the E-99 is stiff enough that I have to properly weight the ski in order to effectively engage the kick zone on deep soft snow. And when you climb anything significantly steep, it becomes very difficult to fully weight the kick ski. The E-109 climbs better than the E-99 because of it's softer and lower profile flex pattern- not the width and placement of the scales.

I wasn't aware that the Rossi BCs had scale inserts...to my knowledge, every one of them I have looked at has a plain-jane extruded base with the scales ground in...Forgive me if I am mistaken...

[connyro]

I wasn't aware that the Rossi BCs had scale inserts...to my knowledge, every one of them I have looked at has a plain-jane extruded base with the scales ground in...Forgive me if I am mistaken...

The Rossi scales are a positive pattern, so they are molded, not ground in.

[lilcliffy]

OH- right- so the same as the Madshus XCDs- but they aren't an insert with sintered tips/tails- yes?

[MikeK]

I thought the whole base was molded out of one piece just like Madshus... although maybe they changed or my memory sucks.

[lilcliffy]

I thought the whole base was molded out of one piece just like Madshus... although maybe they changed or my memory sucks.

Well I look at the Rossis every time I am in my local shop- was in a couple of weeks ago for some klister- and the Rossi BCs were definitely a molded extruded base- just like the Madshus XCDs.

[glennw89]

Thanks for the feedback so far.

Primarily looking at a wider stable ski for hut to hut tours (e.g. Charlevoix Traverse) and breaking trail in deeper snow. I am familiar with the Madshus and Fischer offerings in this general niche, not so much the Rossignols - thanks for the info.

I ski mostly in Eastern Ontario with reasonably frequent trips to the Adirondacks - although I often bring my AT gear out to ski the peaks there.

[lilcliffy]

In my limited experience, I don't see any of the XC skis (BC70 and narrower) breaking trail effectively through deep snow. The BC70- though the "widest" of these double-cambered skis- is a stiff ski. My limited testing of it was that it was too stiff to perform well on fresh, soft snow of any significant depth. The BC68 (and possibly the 65?) has a much more versatile flex pattern for fresh snow (similar to the E99). Connyro has many miles on the BC65- he would be able to testify to how a BC65 is going to do in deep snow.

The wider skis all have low-profile tips- like an alpine ski. In my opinion, these wimpy tips SUCK at breaking trail in deep snow when XC skiing. The exception to this is if you are getting enough flotation so that those open tips are floating to the top, and the waist is carrying you near the surface.

On truly deep snow, you would be surprised how efficient a ski like the BC110 can be when XC skiing. It comes with a major hitch though...It will shine ONLY in deep soft snow- it will SUCK as a XC ski on hard/dense snow. It is a serious compromise.

The BC125? MAN- I struggle to see using a Nordic ski with those dimensions in any other context than "touring for turns"- steep and deep! Plus- it is such a big ski- I would need full-on plastic to be able to drive it- which I hate for skiing any significant XC distance...

The BC90 could be the sweet spot of versatility. It won't provide a lot more float than a longer BC68- due to that ridiculously skiiny 60mm waist. But- if they have softened up the flex on the current version it will perform better in hilly steep terrain than the XC skis. (MAN- why do they put so much sidecut on these mid-width BC-XC skis?!) (As an aside I have a bit of a distubing obsession with skis with the profile of a BC90. The best deep snow mid-width ski I have tested yet is the Asnes Ingstad- both due to it's flex and it's bad-ass trail-breaking tip). Rodbelan recently posted that the BC90 was too stiff and cambered to perform on soft snow- I am not sure if he was speaking of the current version of this ski. The older version of the BC90 was definitely a stiff double-cambered ski- I have no idea what the current flex pattern is like- my local shop didn't bring any in...It has the same specs as the BC110 on the Rossi site though...If you can get your hands on both the BC110 and the BC90 see how they compare in terms of flex. Flex pattern in a midwith ski like the BC90 is a VERY delicate balancing act. Too soft and it won't float, nor offer true Nordic kick for a heavy skier- to stiff, and it will be challenging climbing and turning...They should be making the BC90 longer for distance oriented touring. My Eon/E109/Combat Nato are all over 200cm. My 210cm Combat Nato performs perfectly as a distance-oriented ski for hilly/steep terrain and deep snow- I wouldn/t want it any shorter.