Rossi BC skis- why all the negativity?

[lilcliffy]

So I recently flexed the current Rossignol BC 80 and 100 skis in the shop.

The Rossi BC line gets pooped on a lot on this site- I am not quite sure why...
(EDIT: I myself have made all kinds of negative assumptions about these skis- entirely based on my experiences (many years ago) with the narrow, stiff, cambered XC-focused models- not really fair of me to do so- they might suit other skiers perfectly! )

I am thinking it might be a legacy of older models?
The older Rossi BC65/70 are stiff, short, double-cambered, have cheap bases and a very poor slippery waxless scale design.
For a while there was a "BC90" that seemed almost identical to the waspy, stif, double-cambered Fischer Rebound/Atomic Rainier (~90-60-80). (I know that some skiers loved the Rebound/Rainier (I am not one of them) so I am not sure why people hated this BC90...)
The most recent outgoing BC90 seems to be identical to a current Fischer Excursion 88 (without Fischer's Off-Track Crown insert). People love the 88- why the hate for the BC90? My friend has this version of the BC90 and skis in lowland, Nova Scotia with its mild temperate winter- he loves this ski for BC Nordic touring on wet snow.
The outgoing BC110 is- from what I can tell-measure- a Fischer S-Bound 112- without the Off-track Crown insert. Again- people seem to love the S-112- why the hate for the BC110?
Is it the crappy base?

The current BC 80/100 are totally different than the outgoing BC90. They are very light, less cambered than the Fischer 78/88 and lack the resistance of what I would call a "camber-and-a-half" ski-
They are less cambered than a Madhshus Eon- they have a smilar flex to a Madshus Eon- and I think that the Eon has more tension underfoot. The base quality and scales are really no different and I don't see how the old Karhu Omnitrack is really any better than the scales on the current Rossi BCs...

For those looking for an inexpensive light-duty Nordic BC touring ski for gentle to rolling terrain- and don't need/don't want/can't afford a high-performance ski- I cannot see why one would not consider the current BC 80/100...

The current BC120 is another ski altogether- I seriously considered buying this ski on clearance for a mere $180CAN last summer...

The recent SkiEssential video that was posted clearly shows that the BC120 has a purely downhill geometry- with a "hybrid rocker" (i.e. rockered tip, single alpine camber, flat tail)- it looks like a Voile Objective to me...

Check out these specs:

Voile Objective 178cm:
117-84-102mm
2.27kg
19.5m radius
hybrid rocker
- no reinforced binding zone

Rossignol BC 120 176cm:
120-86-108mm
2.25kg
20m radius
hybrid rocker
- reinforced binding zone

Isn't the Rossi BC 120 a "poor man's" Objective?

[Rodbelan]

Man, the BC 120 is just the Seek 7 with different graphics; it's not been designed as a nordic ski... Just a way for Rossi to optimize a ski that was a bit too flimsy to be in their touring catalog. You should look at them side by side—Voile Obj and Rossi BC 120. Not sure you would still call that a «poor man» Obj. Replace man by design and I'll agree...

You know why Rossi Nordic has found a way to the retailers & customer? They offer a <clé en mains> solution: with Rossi, you get XC, Nordic, Alpine... Easier to deal with when you are in the business... I talked to a designer from J Ski about it (former Karhu designer) that shared my views; we were also trying to figure what was going on with R&D regarding Rossi Nord skis; our conclusion? They do not care...

I just want to let the newcomer know my point of vue. But of course they can do whatever...

You can say they're great and I'll say they are crappy. That's fine within me.

[Baaahb]

Interesting question. The BC-125 is/was a relatively cheap ski with a relatively bad reputation. But I had a friend who loved the BC-125, and got in more backcountry days than anyone (i.e. everyday). I had bc-125's mounted for 2-buckle plastic and found it so-so, but when I changed it to a three pin leather boot ski it now gets a lot of use. Which is to say every ski seems designed for a particular purpose and when you use it outside that purpose it is derided. IMO the BC-125 (which I assume is somewhat similar to their newer wide fishscale versions) is great for light touring while (from all I've heard) the Voile BC skis are designed for much heavier and aggressive use. I.e. very different skis.

But there's lots of variations within ski lines and models....f'r'instance the fischer boundless (sbounds 98?) is/was a great ski, IMO, while the outtabounds (sbounds 88?) was meant for a different purpose and, IMO, for what I want to do, sucked.

I've also skied the annum.aka Karhu Guide which was the premier bc ski for touring for turns in its day. But it never did it for me. Some skis you float on (bc-125) other skis are made to force turns (annum).

The bc-125 also seems super light, though other skis are just as light. It seems to me other characteristics (eg spring rather than dampness) make a ski feel light. The boundless and bc-125 both seem lighter than they actually are, very springy skis.

/old guy ramble

[connyro]

I have owned and skied the bc125s and the bc65s. I did not like either one. The 65s are cheaply made and the scales do not grip well when compared to other fishscales while somehow slowing down glide considerably. The 125s felt dead and heavy to me and did not k+g well due to lack of grip and lack of camber and not tracking very straight. The tips are too stiff for fun downhills in deep snow when compared to the scaled voile skis of similar size.

[satsuma]

It's not surprising that its difficult to change reputation once it is "earned."

I'm surprised that Fischer and Madshus have such good reputations here. While their current models may be great, I don't think that either of them were very good at making waxless skis in the past. My close friend, who started skiing in the 70's, traded in a pair of Fischer E-99's (around 1990 version) for Alpina Control Edge skis. At 60+ years old, he found it much easier to climb with the Alpina's than the E-99's. The original versions of the S bound skis also did not have a good waxless pattern. I had a pair of Madshus Northcape's which were probably too long for me and had the older Multigrip waxless pattern, which made it difficult for me to climb, I much prefer the replacement (Alpina Discovery).

I have never found speed/glide to be particularly important for BC skis. I look for stability and ability to climb. If I can keep going forwards, under control, and stay upright on rough or hilly terrain, that's good enough for me. On the other hand, why get a ski that is wider or heavier than necessary?

I had two pairs of Alpina NNN-BC boots, on the other hand, which were obviously cheaply made. Presumably, they have improved with the Alaska. I currently have 2 pairs of Rossi XC boots (NNN and NNN-BC) which I love. I did wear out a pair of X6 combi boots in 7 years. They were primarily used for roller skiing.

Our local dealer maybe is a good example of why dealers carry Rossi. In this small (pop ~35000) town, there is only one dealer that carries primarily downhill equipment and clothing (we have a downhill slope 1 hr away), with XC as an afterthought. The only XC brand is Rossi--they have a fully line XC track skis, poles and boots, as well as BC skis and boots (not sure about poles). BC skis here are primarily used for ungroomed XC, as the nearest groomed trails are 75 miles away. They rent both downhill and XC skis, and the BC65 is an obvious ski to rent, given the type of skiing here.

[Rodbelan]

I wish I was honest; not negative... I wrote a post somewhere in october saying that the newer versions of Rossi nordic skis *seemed* actually better than the older version. I also said that the one that made more sens was the BC 65 (or 59) for excursion with pack... I checked the collection at the store a couple of times; I was surprised that they kept that high and stiff camber... First time I looked, I asked the salesman to confirm—he had just put them on display, without further inspection... We checked them and compared them with the others. Very stiff double camber (except for BC 120 or Seek 7). At least, they reduce the sidecut a bit. I do not know Cliff... My observations are very different than yours. I'll check again when I have a chance.

BTW, I talk to a tech last year from Rossi about the Seek 7 (BC 120)... I wanted to know about the *reinforced* area of that very lightweight ski; he told me it was designed for 2 pin tech binding... It was actually made from a composite plastic (don't remember the name) and couldn't hold a telemark binding. (I was interested because the magazine for which I wrote chronicles had a pro deal on those skis...).

[dhdaines]

I can say from experience that the BC59 AR is a very bad ski, although a lot of this is due to the totally inappropriate scale pattern, which means that in addition to being slow, they also have basically no grip. Really, these skis should be outlawed. The other ones all seem okay, although the new graphics are ugly.

[Inspiredcapers]

I get a chuckle when I read ‘opinions’...particularly opinions that are lacking in hands on use. I have the BC-120 ski, it’s mounted with a Switchback binding, and it’s a pretty damn sweet combination. I’ve used it for backcountry and some groomer time, it was capable and responsive in both environments. I goofed around with kick waxing the orange area underfoot and managed an acceptable kick n’ glide off trail (powder on top of consolidated snow) when I’ve wanted some backcountryish kinda fun on old forestry roads.

To each their own...

[Rodbelan]

I get a chuckle when I read ‘opinions’...particularly opinions that are lacking in hands on use. I have the BC-120 ski, it’s mounted with a Switchback binding, and it’s a pretty damn sweet combination. I’ve used it for backcountry and some groomer time, it was capable and responsive in both environments. I goofed around with kick waxing the orange area underfoot and managed an acceptable kick n’ glide off trail (powder on top of consolidated snow) when I’ve wanted some backcountryish kinda fun on old forestry roads.

To each their own...

Yeah... but the BC 120 is not coming from the Nordic R&D; it's coming from their touring catalog. It doesn't have much to do with BC 100, 80, 65 or 59. The fact that you like them depends on many different vectors... And that's excellent for you...

In a way, everything is a matter of opinion, unless I try the ski with measuring tools and a hard core dose of science...
I didn't try all of em—not possible, but I have enough point of comparison to evaluate skis in the same collection, same dna...

Anyway, someone could always buy, try and resell (usually, that's what I promote)... But the thing is: to see Rossi not caring that much about Nordic BC ski — relying on turnkey solutions for retailers — makes me a little mad. Du véritable capitalisme à la con...

I think I made my point. I'll never talk again about em...

[Television]

Turd-key solutions come in handy once in a while