Review: 2010/2011 Rossignol s110w

[alta_gal83]

(I hope @Tradygirl doesn't mind, but her Gear Reivew layouts are stellar, so I'm going to borrow. Shoot me a text if you want me to change it Trady)

Skier: Female, 27yrs, 5'4", 165lbs
Ski: 2010/11 Rossignol s110w
Length: 178cm
Dimensions: 140/110/118mm
Purpose: Powerhouse ski

Conditions: 4-5" of fresh over groomed, fresh over hardened off-piste, and total fresh
Terrain Skied: Everything Alta had open (Sugarloaf, Collins, Wildcat). Mostly blacks/advanced blue, no backcountry.
Impressions/Comments: I bought these skis without demoing based on what I have read here and elsewhere on the web. I had been skiing my Rossignol BC Scratches for three seasons solid, and while I had a blast with those skis, I knew I needed something bigger and better. Hence, the s110w.

I was going to wait until Alta had a 100" base before I took these out, for rock/exposure reasons, but Mother Nature brought in another good storm today. So, although Alta's base was only at 60ish inches last night, I decided to make a game time decision this morning and took the new toys out to play. And I'm happy I did. Like most have said in the reviews for the Pro VooDoo BC 110 (https://www.theskidiva.com/forums/showthread.php?t=8357&highlight=s110w), this ski is pretty much fun anywhere. Today I skied in at least 6" of fresh consistently throughout the day, whether that be 6" over groomed, 6" over previously tracked out/hardened off piste, or just pure POW areas. This ski rocked everything I skied today. This ski is 18cm longer than my Scratches, and although I could physically feel the difference in length, I did not feel like I was skiing something truly 178cm in length, which can be attributed to the rocker of these skis.

I enjoyed the stability of these skis in the tracked out type powder, because they charged right through it as if it were butter. And the float was a dream come true. The only other ski that I've demoed that I could really compare the s110w to is the Dynastar Exclusive Legend Pro, which I hated every minute of. Those had virtually no sidecut, so while they were stable at speed, I felt like if I tried to turn them (like on a groomed outrun toward the lift), I was a danger to myself and everyone around me. The s110w shape is odd, but it accommodates a sidecut, which makes them fun on the groomers!

One concern: These skis alone are much heavier than the Women's BC Scratch. Once bindings are added, this is a heavy ski to get used to. But, I also have very heavy bindings on these, so an AT setup may differ in weight completely.

Bottom Line: Today I fell in love with the Rossignol s110w, and these will likely be my main, go-to ski until it's time for some icy groomers. This ski is a true powerhouse and it will definitely keep up with me! Rossignol definitely gets us Utah ladies. I'm so happy these are mine.

**Once I get more days/conditions under my belt, I'll add to the review.

 

[Witchery]

Thanks so much for the review!! I'm dying to try mine out. I'm about 5'4" -5" and about 120 lbs, i'm 37 and ski mostly black, blues and some double blacks. When I asked Rossi about the ski they suggested I get the 168cm. I normally ski a 155cm with my Rossi SC80's, now i'm wondering if I should have gone up a size?

Do you think a 168cm would be too small for you? What bindings have you got on your ski's?

I haven't had mine mounted yet, i'm tempted to demo the 168 and the 178 and see which one is best before I mount mine. The ski shop I got my 168's from will probably exchange them as they are still wrapped in plastic.

 

[Witchery]

I was just checking out youtube and found this!!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QRcifX1iGDg&playnext=1&list=PL6A2E57760A5C37AE&index=4

 

[skisamurai]

S110W Sizing

Hey AltaGal,

We're about the same size, and I'm currently rocking Auras in a 163, but I really think that I should be on similar skis in about a 168cm (and somedays think I should have bought the 170 Auras).

Looking at buying the S110W's or S7's in the 178 but like you, a little worried that the length jump (15cm) will be a little much to handle.

Thoughts?
Anyone else made a significant jump like AltaGal and found it awesome or too much to handle?
Anyone else skiing relatively stiff skis (like the Auras) and switch to S110W's or S7's?
Comments on the S110W's vs. S7 dilemma? (Would be awesome if there was no difference between the two b/c can save $50 going with the S110W's at the local shops).

For reference, I'm 5'4", about 155lbs, blues/blacks/double-blacks/trees/chutes, skiing Whistler-Blackcomb ~30+ days/year. Would be using these for off-piste in-bounds skiing and busting through the elephant-snot crud. Will be keeping the Auras as my high-speed groomers/touring setup b/c can't afford to pay out for another set of skins.

 

[pinto]

I jumped from a 164 Queen Attiva to a 177 Aura, and it took me a few runs to get used to it, then I was really pleased. This was to be used as a deep snow/big mountain ski (way back when 94 was considered WIDE!), and now I use them as my more all-around ski. I think I might could go to 170 for an everyday ski, but 177 covers everything pretty well.

I also have the 176 S7 ... which does feel 8-10 cm shorter than the Aura. Most times it's fun, others I sort of want the stability of a longer ski. Ironically, I kind of prefer the Aura in really deep snow, and the S7 in everything from soft packed to about a foot. I think that's backwards of what I'm supposed to think, but there you have it.

I'm not sure there is a difference between the S7 and S110W in the two longer lengths of the latter? I bought my S7s used (barely) for about $400, so that's the only reason I didn't go with the women's version, as they were cheaper.

I'm 5'9" by the way, which is about 175 cm.

(The nice thing is that the Rossis are in such demand, I imagine you could easily sell the 178s if you felt them to be too long.)

 

[skisamurai]

Thanks Pinto! I'm just getting up the nerve to pull the trigger, but worried that if I wait too long everything will be sold out! Will be looking at possibly demo-ing the S7s this weekend, as I can't find an obvious shop at my mountain that will rent the S110w's - if I can handle the S7 but I could use a tad more control will likely buy the S110Ws. And chances are the 178cm S110W will be available longer than the S7, which is sold out everywhere until subsequent shipments arrive it seems.

Thanks again!

 

[Magnatude]

Hi Skisamurai,

I'm 45, 5ft8, 175lbs, and this year skied about 40 days. When I bought the 188cm S7, I had been skiing on a 162cm Nordica Victory (stiff-ish carving ski), a 26cm difference. When I demoed the S7, it seemed so monstrous that I asked the ski shop guy if I needed to ski more strongly/aggressively! He suggested I should, so I was a bit anxious when I clicked into it for the first time.

I needn't have worried. Once you get used to the extra width underfoot (which takes around 20 seconds), it is actually very easy to ski. You don't even notice the length. The S7 is much more forgiving than my Victories, which I still get out on from time to time, often for no other reason than to keep my skill levels topped up. And I feel stable and confident on the S7 all over the mountain, from hard-packed groomers, and moguls, to all off-piste conditions, where it is so much faster and funner than the Victory!

 

[alta_gal83]

Hey SkiSamurai, Like Magna_Tude, I don't think you'll have a problem with the 178. Really, I noticed the length for only a short period of time and by the end of my day, I was completely used to the longer length.

As for my Scratches, I KNOW I should have bought the 170cm length in those vs. the 160cm, but you live, you learn and that day, I was being stupid. And because of how I got them, there was no way to exchange without paying more $$. So, I made do with the 160.

Now after skiing the 178cm S110W's, I know that the bigger/longer ski is what I need to be on. So I would say if you can secure an S7 this weekend, go ahead and give 'em a whirl. You'll be sold after 2 runs

 

[alyeskaluv]

I am 30yo, 5'7" and ~150 lbs. and I ski the 163 Auras and the 176 BC110s (now the 110sw). These are really the only two skis in my quiver, besides my old Salomon rock skis, and once I have an AT set-up, my collection will be pretty complete.

I really like the Aura at the 163 length - it's super versatile and fun to ski in most all conditions, including a little bit of powder. I seriously considered going up to 170 Auras, but decided it wouldn't be worth it for me since, with the 110s in my quiver, I'm not going to be skiing the Aura on a powder day, and that extra length was not going to give me any measurable advantage for other snow conditions . . . most likely, the 170 was just going to give me more feedback than I need (or want). The Aura is such a stiff ski that 163 cm is plenty of ski for my needs, and my knees!

The 176 110s are great - just an absolute beast in soft snow. Altagirl is right about the extra weight - you can definitely feel the "heft" of this ski, especially on the lift! But the length is not a big deal since they are so nimble and easy to turn . . . and with the tip and tail rocker, the actual running length of this ski doesn't feel any longer than my other boards. The weight of the ski was more of an adjustment for me than the length, and these days I really only notice the additional weight in heavy, wet snow (i.e., conditions where everything feels heavier and harder to turn than usual!).

 

[ikkin]

wow, we have a lot of aura/S7s(or similar) quivers here.

I'm 5'3", 125, and also ski the 163 Aura. I just skied my new 176 roxy mumbo jumbos (same ski as the 176 bc110, different topsheet) for the first time last weekend and I am in LOVE. They are SO easy to ski, so fun, the tail is so awesomely poppy. They are heavier, but they just pivot at will...they're SO easy to turn. I think the Auras are gonna be relegated to firm days only. The Mumbos plow through or float over anything in their path. I immediately started skiing faster with more confidence. You can dump speed on them immediately, the tails release super fast, and they are playful and FUN FUN FUN. Super different from the Auras.

I LOVE them. They even do okay on groomers. I'm actually wondering if I even need the Auras anymore! Basically, you can't go wrong on this ski, and don't be afraid to size up.

 

[Witchery]

I can't believe i'm about to post this but I just bought a set of 2012 S110w's! Not a typo, and they aren't called the S110w anymore either.

I have a 168cm in the S110W, but was offered the 178cm in the new design so bought them for big powder days. I'll probably leave my 178cm's in Canada and bring the 168cm's home and use them in Australia. The newer skis are my Chrissy present from my husband

The new one's graphics are by Caia Koopman as well, but quite different from the 2010 one's. I think I like the 2010 better, but I love almost all of Caia's work and would collect them all if I had the snow, the room, and the money lol!!!

 

[skisamurai]

Tested....and in love

Thanks for the encouragement.....took out a pair of 178cm's S110W's this weekend and they were FABULOUS.

Once the extra width and the extra length were quickly adapted to they charged everything. The only thing that I would have to get used to which would take a while is the extra weight - those puppies are heavy! I could really feel it in all of the little muscles in my lower legs by the end of the run - but all the reason to hit the gym a little more often.

Day 1 we were blessed with a whole 1/3 of the mountain opening for the first time all season, after a week of storms. They busted through the midweight pow like a dream, the longer length with flexible nose made landing after unexpected log drops/pillow a non-issue, they were surprisingly nimble on turn initiation which is helpful in the trees, with an awesome turn radius, and were surprisingly solid carvers on the groomers. Will have to get used to the increased speed in the deep snow - I used to fight with the Aura's to stay up but these beauties just surf on top of everything.

Day 2 was a sloppy soggy mess as the freezing line had marched up the hill on top of a 30cm dump...so nothing would have been a pleasure to ski, however one ski partner did mention how she wished she had an earlier rise tip like mine b/c she kept getting sucked under the thickest down duvet of soggy snow. Score for the S110W's!

I have my name on the last pair of 178's from the shop which the manager somehow mined for me when they thought they were permanently out of stock - apparently the Canadian distribution of the 178's is over. Get 'em while they're still available!

Now on to binding selection, and trying to save a little money on the set-up. If anyone from Seattle area is planning on hitting the Whistler area over xmas let me know - there are no deals on bindings to be had north of the border... Sigh.

 

[Witchery]

Hey skisamurai,

Thanks for your review, the more I hear about these skis the more excited I get about them.

I wonder if Rossignol didn't produce enough of the s110w's this season and thats why I got a set of the 2012 graphics? Glad you got hold of a set

Looking forward to seeing some photo's of some Diva's on their new skis!!

 

[skisamurai]

2012 graphics?!

Does anyone have a link or picture of the 2012 graphics?

It boggles my mind that they start selling 2012 skis before 2010 has ended!

 

[ikkin]

had another day on these beauts this weekend...this time in heavier, firmer, more tracked out PNW manky snow.

HOLYMOTHEROFSKIING, thank you for making these skis. The Auras used to get bogged down in this stuff...and it was always really hard to get the Auras to turn out of it. The Mumbos/S110ws? Just plows over/through the mank. And I can still release the tail and turn on a dime.

I agree with the comments above about them being heavy, but I only notice this in the afternoon after 4-5 hours of non stop shredding. Just gotta get the legs a bit stronger. Still can't believe I (small) can ski a ski this big (176) with no issues whatsoever.

I have noticed one slight negative: the tips are a tiny, itty bitty bit "hooky", especially on groomed runs. I'm gonna experiment with de-tuning the tips to the contact point and see if that helps at all. No big deal though, I am totally willing to overlook that in favor of loving these skis in literally every condition on the hill. They do everything. They're the kind of ski you can LOVE in the morning on a powder day and still feel super happy with in the afternoon when things have gotten tracked a bit.

Anyone want a pair of nice, 163 Auras? I want to ditch 'em and get some S3s now.

 

[Witchery]

Does anyone have a link or picture of the 2012 graphics?

It boggles my mind that they start selling 2012 skis before 2010 has ended!

I know, really quite bizarre?? I actually thought the ski shop had stuffed up when they said 2012 graphic, but they are real. The ski shop thought it was a bit weird getting the 2012 now, but i'm happy I managed to grab a set.

Mine should arrive in the post tomorrow so i'll post a photo once I get them.

 

[Witchery]

had another day on these beauts this weekend...this time in heavier, firmer, more tracked out PNW manky snow.

HOLYMOTHEROFSKIING, thank you for making these skis. The Auras used to get bogged down in this stuff...and it was always really hard to get the Auras to turn out of it. The Mumbos/S110ws? Just plows over/through the mank. And I can still release the tail and turn on a dime.

I agree with the comments above about them being heavy, but I only notice this in the afternoon after 4-5 hours of non stop shredding. Just gotta get the legs a bit stronger. Still can't believe I (small) can ski a ski this big (176) with no issues whatsoever.

I have noticed one slight negative: the tips are a tiny, itty bitty bit "hooky", especially on groomed runs. I'm gonna experiment with de-tuning the tips to the contact point and see if that helps at all. No big deal though, I am totally willing to overlook that in favor of loving these skis in literally every condition on the hill. They do everything. They're the kind of ski you can LOVE in the morning on a powder day and still feel super happy with in the afternoon when things have gotten tracked a bit.

Anyone want a pair of nice, 163 Auras? I want to ditch 'em and get some S3s now.

I bought a cheap set of S3's before I bought my s110w's and now i'm not sure i'll need them. Do you think you would ski on the S110W's all day or would you still see the need for the S3's?

I'm not sure what to do now???

 

[alta_gal83]

Just wanted to check back in on this review. I had my second great weekend on my S110W's. Those of you gals on my facebook know that I'm absolutely head over heels for these babies, so I thought I'd share with the rest of Diva community ....

Ladies. Rossignol did it. They have hit the nail on the head for the best women's big mountain ski of all time.

Saturday, I was treated to a fantastic bluebird pow day at Deer Valley. I skied all day, powder to groomer outruns and these skis did every single little thing I asked them to. I made big, long, fast pow turns. Shorter, carved turns on the groomers. Skied the aspen glades, making quicker pow turns between the trees. And they plowed through the moguls and the skied out areas without even flinching. I could not find one thing that these skis didn't respond to. Yes, they're a heavier ski, and I felt my legs by the end of the day -- but that was the best hurt post skiing I've ever felt because I have never, in all my years of skiing, felt so awesome about a ski.

Rossignol is going to have to rename the S110W to "The Diva," since I think we're all going to own a pair by the end of the season.

 

[Witchery]

Is it possible to be MORE excited!!!! Can't wait to try mine out

 

[ski diva]

Ladies. Rossignol did it. They have hit the nail on the head for the best women's big mountain ski of all time.

Omigod I have to try these skis.