Rossignol BC ski series - quality, performance

[glennw89]

Hello all. I am looking for opinions on the Rossignol BC series, specifically related to quality of construction, base quality, and general ski performance traits.

I have an opportunity to pick up a few versions of the BC line at reasonable prices - but have no opportunity to ski them first.

For reference, I have skied extensively on the Madshus Voss & Glitterend and have some time on a Fischer E99 Xtralite.

[MikeK]

I've only demo'd the Rossis but they are about on par with the Chinese made Madshus in terms of quality; less than Fischer.

Performance is subjective perhaps, but I feel all the Madshus skis performed a little better than the Rossis I tried. Fischer is maybe better than Madshus for some skiers, maybe worse? Seems to be pretty split. I tend to think ski to ski in their class, Fischer is all around better performing than Madshus.

[anemic]

so Glenn I assume you'd be interested in one of the more skinny BC's similar to voss and glittertind?

[glennw89]

For the most part yes - but am considering the wider BC 90 as well.

[connyro]

I've skied the BC70s, BC65s, BC110s, and BC125s. Generally speaking, the Rossi skis do what they are advertised to do and do it quite well. I did not really like the BC125s much, but I make the unfair comparison with the Voile Vector BCs. To me, the 125s are stiff in the wrong places and floppy in the wrong places and they are pretty heavy. Plus, I feel they don't have aggressive enough scales in the right place for optimal grip. I like the 110s because feel like a stiffer Guide (Annum) to me. I have been really enjoying the BC65s this season due to the lack of snow near me. They seem pretty tough and you can get pretty good momentum and rhythm for fast tours out the back door. The BC70s, which I have little time on, seem like a faster, stiffer cambered version of the 65s.

[lilcliffy]

These skis are very popular BC Nordic touring skis in my neck of the woods- and in the Canadian market they sell for a MUCH lower price than the Fischer lineup. I know many skiers that own a full-range of these skis- and, I have tested many of them over the last decade. I rigorously tested the Madhus, Fischer and Rossi BC Nordic skis about a decade ago when I was trying to decide what to invest in for my growing family of skiers!

As far as which brand/line is "better" than the other- it depends a lot on who you are, how you ski, and how one defines "better". Despite the higher price point- I see no evidence that Fischer BC Nordic skis are higher quality than Chinese-made Madshus/Rossis. And as far as durability- I have put my Eons through 1000s of kms of abuse in the bush, that I doubt my current E-99/E-109 would stand up to.

There are some significant differences in terms of upgrades though. Madshus has done nothing to "improve" on the tech of their XCD lineup since they inherited it from the late Karhu. Both Fischer and Rossi have put way more into their BC-XC/XCD lines. Making the Eon uglier has not changed it's flex pattern- nor it's traction.

There have been a number of significant upgrades to some of the Rossi BC Nordic skis. To my knowledge the narrower range (from the BC70 down) has not been changed in over a decade (forgive me if I am wrong here). From the BC90 up they have added "moderate tip rocker" (which from my examination seems a mix of slight true rocker and Nordic rocker), as well as a progressively softer flex pattern from the 90 to the 125.

When I first tested the BC110 (old version) it was much stiffer than the Annum- and I did not like it in soft snow. The new BC110 is every bit as smooth and flexible as the Annum- PLUS it has those nice open tips! If I was to replace my Annums now- I would seriously consider the BC110.

The original BC125 was bizarre to me- wide, ton of sidecut, fairly stiff, cambered, and no rockered tip...Didn't like it. The current BC125 is a HUGE improvement in my opinion- why would anyone want a Nordic ski as wide as the BC125 that doesn't have a flex pattern designed for deep, soft snow?

One of the attributes that does not seem to have changed (again- please forgive me if I am wrong here) is that the waxless scale design- "Positrack"- does not seem to have been improved. In the past- at least- I have never been impressed with Rossi's waxless scale design.

This is my take on the current lineup:
1) BC59: cross-country ski; gentle terrain and hard/dense/groomed conditions
2) BC65: cross-country ski; more stable than the 59; more versatile flex pattern than the 59 (NO idea why they don't make this ski longer)
3) BC68: cross-country ski; even more stable (almost identical to the E-99)(doesn't seem to be sold in NA anymore? Too bad). IMO- they should do away with the 65 and make the 68 in a waxable and scaled version with lengths to 210cm.
4) BC70: weird XC ski; stiffer than both the 65 and the 68; short lengths; no waxable base; terrible traction- really didn't like this ski.
5) BC90: this is the one I currently know nothing about (my local shop didn't bring it in- I have only seen the older version). I don't know whether this is still a stiff XC ski- or if it has crossed into hybrid "XCD" territory. But- it now has similar specs to the BC110...They need to make it lengths over 200cm for skiers that actually weigh something and want to cover some distance.
6) BC110: hybrid "XCD" ski; nice round smooth flex for soft snow and moderate downhill; open tips. BIG improvement.
7) BC125: hybrid "XCD" ski; nice round smooth flex for soft snow and moderate downhill; open tips. BIG improvement.

Without the BC68 waxable in the lineup- IMHO the best XC skis in the lineup is the BC59- perhaps the 65 if you don't want a waxable base- it's just so damn short for anyone that weighs anything...

The current BC110 is a beautiful XCD touring ski for deep soft snow.

If the BC90 has been similarly upgraded- it would be the best touring ski for hilly terrain- similar to the Eon/E-109/Fischer 78-88/Ingstad. They need to make the BC90 longer...

So- what are you looking for? What kind of snow and terrain are you going to be skiing on? What is the climate like? Distance? Turns? Climbing?

[MikeK]

I would really argue the quality thing. Quality does not mean durability. Something can be made with cheap materials and shoddily and still be durable.

Here's my observations regarding Fischer vs Madshus:

Fischer has superior bases - they are tougher, come ground nicer, and hold wax better. The waxless pattern is a different material which doesn't ice easily and is very tough.

The top sheet and laminate look much nicer and don't gouge as easily as the Madshus.

The multiples I've had in each ski show more variation in camber in the Madshus. Fischer seems consistent ski to ski.


Where Fischer lacks:

Non-solid core. It doesn't save much weight and it's not as robust.

Edges - they are thin and wimpy.

They tend to be on the heavy side for comparable skis.


What does this have to do with Rossi?

Laminates and bases seem similar to the Madshus. Don't know about camber variation, never measured any of them.

[lilcliffy]

I understand what you are saying here Mike- and I do not disagree with you. Though- the word "quality" can be pretty vague- without making specific descriptive comparisons. Some of what we discussing is really about performance- IMO- and not "quality". And- quality could mean durability if we agree that it is an important attribute of what we are comparing. Quality doesn't necessarily have anything to do with "value" or the costs of production. Ski production has moved to places like China in order to reduce manufacturing costs- is it fair to assume that this automatically reduces the "quality" of a product? In my "qualitative" but experience-based assessment- there has been no degrade in the quality of the Madshus XCDS produced in China, versus the identical Karhu XCDs produced in Quebec. Do I wish they were still made in Quebec? SURE DO- but, this is a social-economic value, not a material/technological value.

The "quality"- meaning the finish, wax retention, and performance- of my sintered-base Eon Wax is every bit as high as my E-109 Tour.

The finish and wax retention of the waxless Fischers (vs. Madshus/Rossi) is because the tips and tails are sintered. Are sintered bases higher quality? They are more expensive to manufacture. They perform better than extruded bases- but they are NOT as durable. Extruded bases are more durable than sintered bases.

I agree that the Offtrack Crown is currently the best BC waxless scale design in terms of performance. But, in most conditions where waxless scales are best- they all do well. And- IMO- the length and position of the scales has a lot to do with the extra traction. IF the Fischers glide better, I bet it has more to do with the sintered tips/tails than the scales.

From my perspective- Fischer seems more focused on performance at the moment- than durability.

For a BC touring ski- I see durability as a VERY important quality.

If I compare my current Fischers (E99/E109) to my Madshus and Asnes- the Fischer design and construction is very high PERFORMANCE- but I do not see them being anywhere as durable as my Madshus or my Asnes. (And- there are loads of reports of the current Fischers failing and breaking to pieces on any serious trek).

Where do the Rossi's rank in terms of durability? Not sure. I know many skiers that have put a ton of miles on them...But the "wood-air" cores would concern me in terms of durability- and longterm retention of camber/flex.

[MikeK]

I just don't agree about the bases. I consider a sintered base higher quality than an extruded base. True they are not as hard, but some of the durability depends on how thick they are. The stone grind on the Fischers from the factor seems to be a lot nicer than any of my Madshus.

At the same token, I don't find Asnes to be much higher quality than Fischer.

Quality, in engineering terms tends to be stuff we can measure, like surface finish, size tolerance, etc... Aesthetic quality is part of that, but obviously it's a bit harder to quantify. It's a lot of stuff we can't actually comment much on because we don't have enough parts to measure or don't have the tools to compare those types of thing. The few skis I've handled, the camber was wildly different height on my Madshus and close on the Fischer.

In terms of qualitative feel, I'd rate Fischer and Asnes pretty close, and Madshus and Rossi pretty close, but lesser than those other two.

Durability is something one but it's only one part of the value equation: Quality and Performance being two of the other main metrics.

I don't have nearly the miles on any Fischer that I put on some of my now passed on Madshus, but I had no issues other than the bases and wax retention. That is probably more a function of being extruded.

I think the thin edges and air core are bit hokey as I said it may contribute to a less robust ski (I have no real data on that other than hearsay), and the fact that I pointed out that they are heaviest in class despite this. My thought is this a tradeoff for giving the skis more stiffness and thus, perhaps, better performance. I will say again that is subjective because some people HATE the Fischer skis, and love Madshus/Karhu. In those terms, they are just different.

I also feel durability has to be within the confines of the intended use. It doesn't make much sense to build a S Bound 112 as durable as an exped ski. Likely people won't use it as an exped and will value turning performance and light weight more for a ski like that. A ski like the E99 OTOH, I would expect to be bomb-proof in terms this. My older gen E89 and E99s felt this way. They felt like tanks compared to my Glittertinds. Very subjective, but that's the impression I got. All were plenty durable enough for my needs.




Again, back to the subject of the Rossis - I felt skiing them that they were fast, stiff skis but perhaps a little lacking in terms of turning ability compared to the softer, more even flexing Madshus and definitely lacking in their scale grip.

[connyro]

...Again, back to the subject of the Rossis - I felt skiing them that they were fast, stiff skis but perhaps a little lacking in terms of turning ability compared to the softer, more even flexing Madshus and definitely lacking in their scale grip.

I don't find the Rossi scales to lack grip when compared to similar skis, and I think they turn just as well as similar skis from other brands. IIRC, Rossi sources their scale inserts from a company that supplies several ski companies with scales including Voile and G3. I think grip with scales has more to do with the distribution of scales on the base and less with the actual scale patterns. For example, I can't find any difference in the scale pattern between the BC125 and the Vector BCs, but the scale zone is larger on the Vector (plus the Vector flexes in a way that helps with grip as well.)