2015-2016 Rossignol Soul 7

226 comments on “2015-2016 Rossignol Soul 7”

1. Great initial review Jonathan. I’ve been eagerly awaiting Blister’s take on this, what seems to be, a hot ski for this season.

   I’ve been toying with the idea of getting a “fun”, snappy all mtn ski to complement a Bibby Pro and Vicik. Was trying to sell myself on getting a Deathwish as it to is receiving tons of positive feedback. Just feel a bit centered mounted for my directional style.

   You made a comment about rider weight that may favor folks less than 170lbs. I’m tipping in at 200lbs/6ft. Any insight as to what could possibly change the ski’s behavior with a heavier pilot?

   Thanks for all the hard work you put into providing a solid source for consumers to hone in on products that suite their needs.

   Kiley

   • Thanks, Kiley! With virtually any lighter weight, medium flex ski, the heavier a skier is, the more likely it is that they will overwhelm the ski, feel like the ski is too much of a noodle. This is less relevant if we’re talking about skiing on piste (e.g., I think that a 150 lb. and a 200 lb. skier would have a fairly similar experience of the Soul 7 on groomers), more relevant when considering how well a ski floats, and a lot more relevant when considering performance in variable conditions or terrain. I.e., the ski will likely feel more supportive / substantial to a 160 lb. skier than a 200 lb. skier. On the flip side, stiffer, heavier skis that feel like a lot of work to lighter skiers often don’t to heavier skiers. (Of course, the strength & ability level of the skier is a big factor, too.) In your case, if you’d be using your Vicik on days when it hasn’t snowed in forever (let it handle mediocre / bad conditions), and kept the Soul 7 for decent / good conditions days (softer groomers, spring slush, or 2-8″ of new snow, etc.), and the Bibby for bigger days, I think you’d enjoy the Soul 7.

     • Thanks Jonathan… Another option I had in mind was the PB&J – which you guys also regard as competent all over the mountain. I would imagine it could handle the crud better, but how would you compare the fun-factor, snappy and playful attributes between these 2 boards?

       • I’ll just tease out a few distinctions and let you decide: the 188cm Soul 7 will be the better pow ski, and you’re right – the 188cm PB&J will handle crud a bit better. The PB&Js are 200 grams heavier per ski, and they will (obviously) feel like more ski than the Soul 7s. The PB&Js will definitely ski switch better than the Soul 7s. At your height & weight, I think it will mostly come down to (1) whether you want better pow performance or better crud performance, or (2) whether you want your skis coming in at 2000 grams or 2200 grams.

   • Kiley,
     I spent a bit of time on the Soul 7 in NZ (look for the second look, coming soon) and I skied the Deathwish all last winter in Vermont.
     The Soul 7 is lighter and VERY easy to whip around in small turns, tight trees, chutes, etc. Despite being reasonably stiff for its weight, it will get bounced around in choppier or harder conditions. Getting it on edge is very easy.
     The Deathwish is a bit heavier and feels, to me, like there’s more dampening to the ski. They’re not as quick to throw around as the Soul 7 due to the weight, but they are slower to deflect in chop and heavier snow. They’ll also hold an edge on groomers a bit better due to their slight increase in stiffness over the Soul 7. As you are ~200lbs, you may want to give the Deathwish a demo. I weigh ~185 lbs, and usually ski with a photo bag and gear, so I find that the 184cm Deathwish is spot on for me. They’ll rail a turn on groomers, will turn quickly in the trees (quick enough anyway), and will push through cruddy snow easily (though not as well as the Bibby). And they’re decent in pow.

     Hope this helps in your decision.

     Dana

   • Great review. I demoed this and had a similar impression. Awesome, surfy, turny in fresh pow, not so great with crud at speed. Surprised to see they could rail at modest speeds on groomers. Even able to navigate bumps, although not at great speed or a tight line.

     I like to bulldoze through crud, bounce off bumps at speed, and carve really fast GS turns on groomers. Opted for a Dynastar 94 for all that instead.

     I am very tempted to buy this ski as a touring ski because it is so much fun in deep pow through tight trees. I already have 4 sets of skis and if I get 5 I think I would get divorced.

2. Great review Jonathan

   I have been looking forward to reading Blister’s opinion on this ski. I have the Rossignol Sickle as my everyday ski and it’s a fantastically versatile ski as reviewed by Jason and I love skiing the Sickle.

   I know the Soul 7 has tip and tail rocker with camber while the Sickle is a full camber ski but are they comparable skis ? Would the Soul 7 be a good replacement for the Sickles ?

   I am 5′ 7″ and 154 lbs and currently ski the Sickle in the 174cm (which is really a 170cm) and probably wouldn’t mind something a few cms longer.

   thks
   Ian

   • Sorry, meant to say the Sickle is a full (gradual) rocker ski.

     • Thanks, Ian! And I think the answer is: Probably. It’s important to keep in mind that I only skied the 11/12, 186cm Sickle, and it’s been a while. First, I’d recommend that you go with the 180cm Soul 7. In pow, in bumps, in trees, and on groomers, I think you’ll enjoy the Soul 7, and find it to be quick and maneuverable (similar to the Sickle) and the Soul 7 might be even better in pow. Where the Sickle may have an advantage over the Soul is IF you’re looking to make big, fast turns down the fall line in deeper, heavier chop. The rocker profile and the tip shape of the Sickle is probably better suited than the Soul 7 to that type of skiing. But how much better, I can’t say.

3. How is this ski compared to the salomon quest 105?
   And will you review the amplid egotrip?

   • Hi, Mats – no immediate plans to review the Amplid, but we’ll see. As for the Quest 105 / Soul 7, the tail of the Quest 105 will work better for pure carving in firm conditions, while the Soul 7 will be the better pow ski – it doesn’t have the short nose feel of the Quest 105 (tip dive will be less of a concern), and the Soul 7s tail will be less likely to get hung up in deeper snow. Neither is pure crud buster, and they are close enough that, without skiing them back to back, I couldn’t call the clear winner in those conditions.

4. Thanks for the great review. How does these compare to the Armada TST or the Icelantic RKR?

   I am thinking about getting the Soul 7’s as a telemark ski. Seems like they would be great due to their light weight, quickness, and maneuverability.

   • Hey, mb – Soul 7 vs. TST is a tough one: the TST has a huge amount of splay in the tip that will promote flotation. The Soul 7 has less splay in the tip, but is a fatter ski. So which will be better in powder? Probably the Soul 7, but not by a huge margin. The TST isn’t tail rockered per se, but it does have a big twinned up tail. The Soul 7 is tail rockered, but it’s relatively subtle. So which will be the better carver? Maybe the TST – Will Brown raves about its carving abilities, but I doubt the Soul 7 would be far behind. And in chop, neither is going to shine, but hard to say which will clearly do better. Also, these skis weigh about the same, and have nearly the same sidecut radius. We’ll really need to ski them back-to-back to get crystal clear on how they stack up.

     As for tele, my standard answer is that I’m not qualified to advise about anything tele-related, and I won’t weigh in on where to mount tele bindings. I do, however, think that the 180cm Soul 7 could be a fun tele ski (don’t go 172cm). But what you might do is read Robin Abeles’ reviews of the DPS Wailer 112 and 99. As I say in this review, the Soul 7 has some similar traits of those two skis, should help you get a sense on whether this ski is what you’re after.

     • Good stuff, thanks. Interesting you mentioned the rocker, looking at the pics, the rocker looks pretty minimal (even when ignoring the camber). I guess there is some good early rise in the front, and a little in the tail. Does it feel like it has a big rocker when you ski on them?

       I have had trouble with big tail rocker in the past–makes it very difficult to recover from one bad backseat turn. Prob a reflection of my poor form.

       thanks again

       • I never felt that the Soul 7s tail was unsupportive – and like you, I hate that feeling. The Soul 7s tail is good, not too tapered, not too much rocker. Yes, less rocker and it would be less loose / slarvy on groomers, but that tail rocker doesn’t make the tail feel like a trap door you’ll fall through. Then again … that’s coming from an alpine skier, so I’d still advise you to check out Robin’s reviews.

         • Thanks again for all the helpful feedback. I went ahead and pulled the trigger on some 180 Soul 7s (my local shop had them 20% off and I got the last ones). I’ll report back in a couple months when Colorado has some more snow.

           As a side note, I think they look pretty ugly (or maybe a better word is dorky) in person. But the specs are ideal and the reviews have been great. And really, anything’s gonna be a huge improvement off my hand-me-down K2 PistePipes.

   • Hey MB, how did you end up liking these as a tele setup? I’m doing the same mental shopping that you did.

     • With the ski season coming to a close, I just want to say what a fun year I had on my Soul 7’s. I’m really glad I got them. The are super quick and light, yet plenty stable, and they worked great in the bumps, steeps, and trees.

       I think the best thing I can say about them is they are extremely intuative—despite being longer and signficiantly wider than my previous hand-me-down skis, it took approximately one turn on each side before I was comfortable with them. And that comfort leads to confidence and better sking.

       If I had to point to a weakness, I would say I’m still concerned about the long term durability, especially considering these are my only skis. But I will enjoy them while they last.

       For reference, I’m using the 180s, and I’m 6-2, 170, and have a telemark setup.

       Thanks again for the rec, Jonathan!

5. I was on the Cochise (177cm) last year, loved it but was wanting a ski with camber, smaller sidecut radius, and nimbleness at slower speeds so went with the Soul 7 (172cm) for this year. Was thinking I would replace the Cochise with the Soul 7, but from the review seems like they might complement each other. I am in the Pacific NW so keeping the Cochise for those “variable conditions” days or days when I just want to go fast and make big turns might be the way to go. Seems that people build quivers based on waist widths, but not in this case. Any thoughts on this? Thanks.

   • Hey, Vince – I think there could be perfectly good reasons to go with a quiver of two skis of a similar width. That’s really one of the main things we try to convey around here: that width is merely ONE consideration. Only other thought is that if you’re okay with the length of the 177 Cochise, but are just looking for something a little more relaxed and playful, I’d go with the 180cm Soul 7 rather than the 172, especially if it’ll be your pow ski – I think you’ll appreciate the greater surface area in the deeper snow you’ll use it in. And if it isn’t deep, grab your Cochise. In any case, let us know how it works out for you!

6. Thanks for the great review,

   I am willing to buy this ski for telemark. I am 5,7 and 160 lbs. Would you recommand me the 172 or the 180. About the mounting point, should I mount the binding at the center or I should mount + or -.

   Thank

   • Hi, Simon – as I said in the review, if you’re between sizes, go up. And I’ll stand by that even for you tele guys. As for mount positions, I’m useless. But it might be helpful to check out my answer to mb above. Let us know how it goes.

7. I have skied the Soul 7 180 cm through the Australian season, which came late and ended early. I got to ride them in dry boot deep powder, chalky refrozen snow, warm slop, occasional ice patches, soft bumps and groomers. Fantastic ski in all these conditions, surprising for its width. Nice rebound, tracks well on hard stuff. Looking forward to skiing trees in Japan next January on the Souls.

   • Nice, Greg! Glad you’re digging them.

8. What do you think about this ski as a replacement for the 11/12 Sickle? I’m kind of in the same boat as your guy who thinks the Sickle is the best ski of all time… desperately looking for a replacement (sadly, I loved mine to death) and the Soul 7 is on the short list. What would you say is the biggest difference between these and the 11/12 Sickle?

   • Jason – see my reply to Ian above. Really, the Sickle and the Soul are more different than similar – completely different rocker profiles and tip & tail shapes. So this isn’t an apples to apples comparison, but they are two all mountain skis. As I speculated above, I will bet that the biggest performance difference will be in crud, where the tip and tail shape of the Sickle will likely make it more at home in those conditions than the Soul 7. In pow, in trees, in bumps, and on groomers, I’d bet you’d enjoy the Soul 7s as much or nearly as much as your Sickles.

9. Hey great review!
   I am stuck between choosing either the Soul 7 or the 4frnt Hoji as a devoted backcountry touring ski. I am wondering which ski is better for; turns in the trees, hitting cliffs, some open powder skiing, touring, and playfulness. Im 5″11 and 160 lbs. Just wondering which one you would choose??

   • Hey, Garet – I never totally clicked with the Hoji; I didn’t find it to be nearly as intuitive as the Soul 7, and I struggled with it on steeper, bumped up sections at Alta. But I also experienced pretty significant tip dive in deep powder in Niseko – to a degree that I doubt I would have on the Soul 7. Your experience may vary, but Jason Hutchins’ review of the Hoji is excellent (he and I are in agreement), so I’d tell you to go for whichever ski sounds more like what you’re looking for.

10. What about Squad 7? Will you write a review too?

    • We’re eager to ski the Squad 7, and hope to do so as soon as there’s enough snow on the ground.

11. Great Info Jonathan!
    From what I gather of this thread, the Soul 7’s will maybe feel a bit too light and unstable for me? I’m 6’3″ and 220 pounds.
    I like what I can see about the Soul 7’s and have been looking at the Exp 98’s too.
    I like skiing the groomers but am always looking to head off through the trees and take the route less traveled when I can. I enjoy skiing fast, taking long sweeping turns as well.
    Any wisdom you can throw my way is much appreciated.

    • Yeah, Jason, if speed is really important to you, and groomers are important to you … I think you might want more ski than the Soul 7, and the Experience 98 is one of my favorite groomer skis ever. No speed limit. Totally impressive.

      At your size, and if you’re a pretty strong skier, I think the 188 Experience 98 would be a ton of fun and it will definitely feel like enough ski. Of course, it isn’t going to be a great pow ski, but it also doesn’t sound like that’s what you’re primarily looking for.

      • Thanks for the reply, Jonathan!
        While most of the terrain I frequent is groomed runs, I look for powder when I can.
        A ski that’s a good powder ski and good on the groomers would be ideal but probably not realistic. From the sound of things, the Blizzard Cochise seems to maybe fit that bill.(?)
        I’ll demo the Cochise, E98 and Soul 7, among others.
        Thanks again

12. Jonathan,
    Great review of the Soul 7. I have an interest in the 2014 Super 7. Do you have any plans to review that ski soon? I own the Sickle and am looking for a replacement ski for this year…
    Bruce

    • Hi, Bruce – on paper, the Super 7 seems like a pretty different ski than the Sickle. It’s basically the S7 with a redesigned tip and tail, and I imagine that it will be an improved S7: a fairly soft, very intuitive pow ski. My hunch is that it won’t have the versatility of the Sickle. From Rossi’s new lineup, if you’re looking for a Sickle replacement, I think you’d be better off considering the Soul 7 than the Super 7.

      • Jonathan,
        Thanks for the input. I bought the Sickle 181cm based on your recommendations and love the ski, except in Tahoe 10am leftovers after a big dump, where the tips just grab and hook when crossing the fall line. I thought the Super 7 might be soft. So I am looking for a ski on that dump day that will deliver with float and crush the crud. How about the Squad 7 in the new 180cm? I am 5’8″ 165lbs and ski agressively. I love the skied off snow of 1-2 feet thats pushed all over the place on steep terrain.
        Thanks,
        Bruce

13. Hey,

    So I am looking for an almost backcountry exclusive ski that can handle all types of conditions. My ski I currently use for deep-er-ish resort days is the Automatic and I love the way that skis. I do wish it was a little burlier for chop (since I just try to blow through it).

    I was looking at this in the 188, but was worried about stability (6 ft 195lbs). I was also looking at the Moment Exit World. Thoughts? Any other recommendations?

    • Note: I would be mounting with dynafit bindings.

      • Hey, Garrett – the Soul 7 won’t be a significant upgrade in chop performance over your Automatics. If you’re primarily looking for a step up in chop performance, especially at your height / weight, then it’s clearly the Exit World. The Soul 7 will feel quicker, and they’re 200 grams lighter per ski. Just depends on what tradeoffs you’re willing to make.

14. Thanks for the great review, Jonathan!

    I´m about 6 ft and around 173 lbs. I mostly ride with a backpack, so you can add a few pounds there. I´m looking for nimble and versatile backcountry skis at around 110 under foot with vertical side wall construction, camber under foot and rocketed tip/tail. The weight should not be more than 4,5 kg. I will use them mainly in powder, occasionally (1-2 days per season) on- and next-to-groomers and I will mount a touring binding (still not sure if to go for dynafits or guardians) so the set-up should also be ok for short hikes up to 2 hours. They should perform very well in powder, but still be able to take me through crud or icy groomers without problems. I would consider myself a good skier, skiing middle and long radius,but still there is lots of room for improvement. Coming more from the skitouring corner, I´m getting a little bit lazy these days and more and more enjoy lift-supported freeriding.

    I am already pretty much set on the Soul 7 because of a lot of good reviews on the internet and because I think it fits my profile pretty well. Still, I am also considering the BD Amperage as a little bit wider alternative, which also seams to be a nimble and playful, yet stable ski. Have you already skied the 13/14 Amperage? If so, how would you compare these two skis and which one would you recommend for my intended use? Will you be doing a review on the 13/14 Amperage? Would be interesting to hear what you think about the changes/improvements to last season.

    thanks a lot for your help!
    fred

    • Thanks, Fred. We haven’t yet skied the 13/14 Amperage, but I’m sure we will this season. As for the previous iteration of the Amperage, I definitely prefer the tails of the Soul 7. Aside from the additional width of the Amperage, it will also feel like a looser, surfier ski than the Soul 7. So bottom line, I’d opt for the greater width of the Amperage if you get a lot of deep (say, 24″+) pow days. If your pow days are more in the 6-24″ range, then I’d probably opt for the Soul 7, since you won’t need the extra width, and it is a really well-balanced ski. But yeah, not the most helpful answer since we haven’t skied the new Amperage.

      • thanks for your reply, Jonathan. I’m skiing mostly in the easter part of the Alps. 24’+ days will definitly be the exception. most of the time I will ski in 6′ to 20′ I guess and since I mostly only have time on weekends, it will not always be fresh untouched powder. I guess I’ll go for the Soul 7 then. But still looking foward for your review of the new Amperage.

        Thanks lots for your help!
        Fred

15. Jonathan,
    Really enjoyed your review of the Soul 7. Yours was the most complete review I’ve read to this point. I currently ride a set of Fischer Watea 94 and want to go to something a little wider under foot and learn to pow ski. I would classify myself as an intermediate to advanced intermediate skier I’m 5′-11″ tall and weigh 185 – 190 lbs. Up to this point I’ve been on the groomers about 90% of the time and the pow only about 10%. Would the Soul 7 be a good ski for someone like myself to learn to ski powder, given my ability level and height / weight or would you recommend another ski that you think is more suited for me? Also, what length would be the best for me 180cm or the 188cm length?
    Thanks for any input.

    Bryan

    • Thanks, Bryan! Short answer: I think the Soul 7 would be an excellent choice for you. My only caveat is that I don’t know where you’re skiing, and whether you’ll get a lot of really deep days (i.e., 24″+). In other words, if you are going to ski your Watea 94s on anything from firm conditions to 12″ of new snow, then I might suggest you consider bumping up to Rossignol’s new Super 7.

      But if you plan to break out this new ski whenever there is anything more than a couple of inches of new snow on the ground, then I think the Soul 7 will be a pretty ideal ski for you. And if I find out that you went shorter than 188cm with the Soul 7 … I’ll kill you.

      You guys do read our sizing recommendations, right? :)

16. Hey Jonathan,
    Great review, as always.
    I’m really interested in this ski but I’m worried about length. I’d like to possibly throw some Dynafit Radicals on them but also be able to use them more than just for touring. I absolutely love my 193 Atomic Automatics and don’t feel they are too big by any stretch of the imagination (I’m 6’4, 185 lbs.). I’d like something similar to the Automatics but a little thinner at the waist for more hardpack/variable/bump/light pow conditions. I don’t feel the need to go below anything 105 at the waist either. The Rocker2 108 is very intriguing as well. What are your thoughts?
    Thanks!

    • I now see Garrett^ has a very similar question…

      • Hey, Col – if you like your Automatics, then I think you’d really like the 188 Soul 7, and wouldn’t be wrong to think of it as a more hardpack-oriented Automatic: slightly stiffer underfoot, more supportive tail, less tail rocker, etc.

        As for the Salomon 108, great ski, and a touch ‘more’ ski than the Soul 7. I’d rather ski groomers on the Soul 7 (the 108 has more tail rocker), I’d rather ski switch on the 108, and I suspect that I might get more float out of the tip of the Soul 7. Also the 108s feel a little more center mounted (shorter-shoveled) than the Soul 7s. But without skiing these two back-to-back, I don’t have more specifics to offer. It may come down to whether you want more or less tail rocker.

        • Hey Jonathan,

          one more question since Col also mentioned this. How do you see the combination Dynafits Radicals + Soul 7. Does it make sense to put bindings like this on a 108mm underfoot ski? I’m skiing dynafits on my touring setup and I’m ok with their downhill performance. However, will there be a noticeable difference in downhiill performance to let’s say a Marker Duke, except the overall comfort of a step-in-binding. It’s been a long time since I last skied true alpine bindings so I don’t have a feeling how much stiffer/better they are. I have been on Dynafits for years now, also skiing on groomers, and never had problems. Trying to safe some weight and make the setup as touring-friendliy as possible…

17. Jonathan – great review. I have some lust for that Soul 7 but my question is similar to Bryan above – only I am not sure I understand your response. I am 195 and am worried about the weight limit you seem to have placed on the Soul 7. I am intermediate to intermediate advanced, want to challenge myself with powder and a bit more off-piste. I intend to have only one ski in the Northwest – though if I am exhausted I do have a nice pair of groomer skis. Right now..I seem to be torn between the Soul 7 and the Super 7. Any thoughts if you care to re-tread this question a bit?

    • Thanks, Darren. And my intention definitely was not to set any “weight limits,” but rather provide some reference point for who will and who will not feel like this is “enough” ski.

      But if you aren’t looking to ski very fast and make big turns through nasty chop, then I think you’ll like the Soul 7 and find it extremely easy to ski. And given that you want 1 ski, I would go for the Soul 7 – the Super 7 is a softer, more dedicated pow ski.

18. Can you compare this to the line sick day 95. I want an al mountain pow ski that is quick enough for glades and moguls. Also how does it compare to the salomon rocker 2 108

    • We haven’t yet tested the Sick Day 95, Ryan. But we are about to post our review of the Sick Day 110, and that review has direct comparisons to the Soul 7. The SD 110 is a much more apples-to-apples comparison with the Soul 7: 110mm vs. 108mm underfoot.

19. Hi Jonathan.

    Thanks so much for the detailed review and the well-thought-out answers to all the questions that you’ve received about the soul 7

    For years I’ve been skiing a traditional cambered ski:The Black diamond verdict from 2009. It’s a 180 length and 102 underfoot with an effective edge of 157cm.

    I just bought a pair of 180 CM soul 7 skis. The effective edge is measure to be 130cm

    I am strong skier who spends most of his time in the backcountry but I really enjoy carving powerful turns on the hill at the end of the day. I’m 5′-9″ 165lbs, a runner and Triathlete.

    Most of the reviews that I’ve read about the soul seven is that it is a ski that is easy to turn because of the low swing weight and generally a compliant ski.

    Here is a simple yes no question for you: Am I crazy to think that I can ski a 188 Soul7 ?

    From your review it sounded like he really enjoyed skiing 188 CM length. But you are a bigger guy than me. Another way to ask my question would be: If you could buy a soul7 in a 196 cm would you prefer that ski over the 188CM?

    • Thanks, Matt. First, if you really are a “strong skier” who “enjoys carving powerful turns,” then you’re not only crazy to go 188, I’d argue you should. I don’t know for sure, but I would wager that your 180cm Verdicts are about the weight (or heavier) than the 188cm Soul 7. Going too much lighter and giving up too much effective edge on a dead easy ski that’s both tip and tail rockered? I am confident that your 180cm Soul 7 will be / feel like less ski than your 180 Verdicts. I’m not prepared at all to say you won’t like the 180cm Soul 7, and if you were telling me that you want a super quick ski for big bumps and tight trees, I might hesitate just a little before recommending the 188. But strong skier looking to make powerful turns on a light, tip and tail rockered ski? 188.

      Now, your question about whether I would prefer the 196 to the 188 is a really interesting one, though I don’t quite think it’s your first question asked differently. In short, I don’t think I would go 196. I’m only 2″ and 15 lbs. heavier than you, and I’m not convinced that going up to 196 would significantly bump up the Soul’s crud performance at speed (it would still be a relatively light ski), which is the only thing I’d be looking to bump up. And I’m not sure I’d want to have to drag the extra material length of the ski through bumps, given that there, the 188 feels really quick to me. Skiing a 196 Soul wouldn’t be a problem, I just wouldn’t see it as a clear improvement all-around. But given what you say you’re looking for, I am a little concerned about you ‘only’ going 180. Put differently, and this only speaks to what I would do, it’s really not advice for anybody else – but if I had to choose either a 196 Soul or a 180 Soul, I’d go 196 without hesitation.

      And yes, this is officially the greatest “Yes or No answer” Fail in history. Hopefully, it’s at least slightly helpful.

20. Hello, can anyone make a comparison between the Soul 7 and the Volkl Nunataq? Looks like fairly similar specs; the Soul 7 has a sharper sidecut while the Nunataq is actually a half lb lighter per pair. Hearing good things about both. thanks

    • Late reply, so probably not helpful but … they will ski very differently.

      I have gotamas (heavier Nunataq but very similar shape) and just picked up the Souls to replace them. Souls are much quicker / turnier. The volkls are a subtle full rocker, and don’t have they playful characteristics of the “fun shape” design of the newer rossis and similar skis. The volkls do well in soft snow but chatter a lot on firmer snow with the full rocker. Lacking the camber underfoot, they definitely do not carve like the souls. I didn’t dislike the volkls (and will be using them next season as my early season soft snow ski until conditions get good enough to break out the Bibbys), but definitely don’t find them to be as versatile. Although I have not skied the Cochise, I would describe the volkls as a lighter, softer, less damp version of a similar shape (and the Nunataq’s will be even more so.) I think they would make a very nice middle width but lightish touring ski for consistently soft snow.

21. Hi I am looking for a pow ski that I can tour on for this season. Currently I have last season’s Atomic Theory’s (186) which i bought randomly after the S3 sold out in EU. I totally love this all mountain ski but I also loved the S3 and old S7 so would like a pow ski to fit. With the Theory’s in the quiver do you think the Soul or Super would be the best bet?

    • Hey Timbo,
      I also skied the Soul 7 in NZ and I think they would be a good option for a BC touring ski that’ll also ski pow. They’re pretty light, they float well, handle decently on groomer-like conditions, and exhibit a nice, consistent flex from tip to tail. We haven’t skied the Super 7 yet, so take any advice here with a grain of salt, but from what Rossi says of the Super 7 versus the Soul 7, my take is that the Super is a fatter version of the Soul. Again, we haven’t clicked into them yet, but from what Rossi lists in their specs and technology, they’re built very similarly.

      So, to answer your question (sort of), my take is this: You have a 95 underfoot ski for frontside/groomers/whatever you want to do with it. Personally I’d feel pretty good about skiing pow days on the Soul 7 that aren’t SUPER deep and SUPER light (we’re probably in the sub-1.5 foot range here). And on those ultra-deep days, maybe I’d want something more, but I feel I could make the Soul 7 work pretty well. So for where I live (East coast, where most of our pow days are under a foot with generally heavier snow and lots of tight trees), I’d take the Soul over the Super. If I lived somewhere with lots of deep dumps and wider-trees or bigger, open bowls/faces, I might consider the Supers. Sounds like you’re in Europe, where the snow can get heavy sometimes and floatation isn’t always the biggest issue. If that’s true, you might want to save some weight and go with the Soul over the Super if they’re also going to be your BC ski.

      Hope this helps. Look for my second take on the Soul 7 coming soon.

      dana

22. Thanks for the heads up Dana I must admit I like charging hard on my theory’s in powder up to about 1ft deep but then they struggle, however they feel super light so as a normal touring ski tick alot of boxes for me. I will ski mostly Chamonix (I live here 3 days a week in winter Muhahaha) so want a proper full on pow ski as we dont really have many tree’s at altitude and its pretty big mountain stuff. I have a demo day in Tignes in 4 weeks so will try them both then assuming we have some soft stuff :)

    Will look forward to your review many thanks.

23. great review!. I had narrowed my choices to the soul 7, wailer 99 or 112. I love the shape and for my skiing (non aggressive) I though one of these would work very well. I am 5’8″ and weigh 145 (age 46). Recently however, I have seen such a good deal on a pair of Atomic Access that I am wondering if this will fit the bill close to as well as these other skis considering they will be half the money. We ski twice out west (Canyons/Pow Mow, etc…) one trip with my son skiing 70 piste 30 off and one with the guys almost all off and with one day of Cat skiing. I think the soul 7 and 112 would work for all of the days but I with the 99 or Access I might have to use powder boards (although maybe not). Do you have any thoughts that might help. We are also beginning to do some short touring so any of these skis will be mounted with tracker/guardian 13’s. I am coming off of Blizzard “the ONE’s” that are now beat to heck.

    Thank you both for the review and any insight you may be able to provide.

    • Neither Dana nor I have skied the Access, Molykk, so you’ll just have to decide whether Emily’s review of it sounds compelling enough – and whether you’re willing to rent pow skis for bigger days. You’re right – the Soul 7 or Wailer 112 will have you covered for everything you’re describing. The Access and 99s won’t, but they’ll tour great.

    • Just my two cents as I asked about the Soul 7s. I bought the Atomic Theroy’s the Access baby brother after skiing them last season in some thigh deep powder. The Access are more than enough ski to handle deeper powder im 6,1 so at my thighs we are talking almost a meter of the good stuff and they were fine. However I chose the Theory’s in the end as they offered more versatility for a ski and the float in the powder was almost the same. I think theres 3 mm underfoot different. If you want a pure powder ski dont get the access in my opinion the Theory’s are a lot lighter to. I would try the others you mentioned. Purely from my view of having skied 30+ days on the Access baby brother last year.

      • Timbo:
        Thanks for the insight. I really am not looking for a dedicated powder ski, it would be nice if one was serviceable but not absolutely necessary. I guess I am deciding if I am replacing my Blizzard One’s or adding a wider ski with enough benefits that it is worth the cost (as soul and W112 are reported to be very good on groomers as well as deep snow and I really only travel with one set of skis) or would I be happy enough with a ski with similar dimensions to my current ski that would likely not handle really deep powder. As rare as I would get super deep powder I am not convinced I would be getting twice the value for the cost out of a wider ski…that said, if the soul or W112 is that much better than the access it may be worth the extra expense. I fully understand I am the only one that can decidae what the value is to me… it is just enlightening to read other perspectives from better skiers who have tested many more skis than I will ever. Thanks again for the perspective

24. Thanks for your response…got some deciding to do

25. Hi Jonathan,

    Great review. I really enjoy reading all of your reviews, they are quite thorough and very helpful. Maybe too helpful: I was ready to pull the trigger on a pair of Rocker2 108 @190cm based on your reviews (you can get a pretty good deal on them right now), but now I am wondering if I should splurge and go for the 188cm Soul7 instead.

    Some vitals to help you with any wisdom you care to share:
    – I do all of my skiing in Kirkwood, and I only use groomers to get back to the lift or if I am teaching a friend
    – I don’t do the crazy stuff like you guys do (no backflip from a 20′ cliff riding switch;-). My comfort zone is more like dropping 4-8′ cornices (The Wave on a good day) and 4-8′ rocks are nice, depending on the landing zone; and trees and bowls (like the ones around Emmigrant Lake)
    – I am 6’6″ and weigh 210lbs
    – I currently ride a pair of 191 Shogun

    I like the Shoguns, but I wish they had more float in the powder, and I also wish that they could turn better in trees (I am trying to keep up with my snowboarder kids and their friends). I hate to admit it in this forum, but I actually enjoy snowboarding for exactly that reason: great float in the powder (reminiscent of surfing which I also do) and turns on a dime in the trees (or anywhere else for that matter). So I figured that a shorter and fatter ski (a ski that skis shorter, if not actually shorter in cm) would allow me to remain a ‘real’ skier and get closer to the float and quick turns I enjoy on my snowboard.

    So, before I shell out about $700 of hard-earned money on a new pair of skis + bindings, do you have any strong word of advice? Many thanks in advance!

    • Thanks, Jean-Marc, and this is a tough call. If you weren’t 6’6″ & 210 lbs., I’d probably encourage you to go with the Soul 7. But at your height / weight, I think the 190cm 108 may feel a bit more substantial. The only thing is that the Soul 7 has a longer shovel, and I expect it to handle deeper, light snow better than the 108. But if you’re skiing heavier Kirkwood snow, my hunch is that you’ll be okay on the Rocker2 108.

      And just to complicate the decision, it seems like you might want to take a look at the 192cm Praxis GPO or 191cm ON3P Caylor. Both are bigger skis, but at your height and weight, and for PNW snow, they might be worth a look. Let us know what you decide to do and how it works out.

26. can you compare to sick day 110 for all mountain pow ski. Which is better on groomers

    • Check out Dana Allen’s review of the Sick Day 110 for comparisons.

27. One more time: Top Review!
    (Especially on this ski: None of this endless airtip-innovation-honeycomb-revolution-writing…)

    I was very eager to read about new rossi’s for 13/14. I am on my S3s since last season and I enjoy them. While the S3s are a super allround toy, they’re a little to weak for more mixed up conditions: While the last season in the alps was massive with dreamy conditions all season long, I am expecting to ride in 5”,10”, maybe 20” inches of fresh snow and then have to handle it too, when it gets cruddier/choppier. Now I am not sure: I want to update my quiver with a wider (105 to 120mm), bit more solid (more specific: I’d like to be able to drive the shovels harder) BUT still playful ski (no metal, shorter radius). After reading your review, the Soul 7 would be more like an replacement then a addition to the S3s. Do you agree? Could the Super 7 or the Atomic Automatic be more of that what I am searching for? Salomon Q 108/115? I am 5’11” and 180 lbs.

    Thx

    bonschorno

    • Thanks, bonschorno! As you know, none of these skis EXCEL in firm crud / chop. I think the Salomon 115 will handle it best, but it won’t be as playful as the other skis. (Read Will Brown’s comments on the 115 in his 2 ski quiver review.) The Automatic handles very firm, shallow crud pretty well, but struggles in deep chop. I haven’t skied the Super 7, so can’t say. The Soul 7 is a better pow ski than the Rocker2 108, and you can certainly drive the Soul 7 in good conditions. But given what you’re looking for, the 115 might be your best bet.

      • Thank you Jonathan for the answer and the hint with the 2-quiver section. I learned, that my approach to ski probably is between yours and Mr. Browns – not talking about skillz, but about the mix between let it roll over what may comes and the light-feets adapting the underground (stereotypes are important in skiing too, as we know…). I still consider the soul 7 as my next touring ski. They seem to be a very nice one mounted with tech bindings (waiting for fritschis…).
        But for what I am searching now, I will just keep on diggin’ in the ~115mm section and try demoing the q 115. It came up to my mind that i was demoing the Line Influence 115 last year and really liked it…the set up with Dukes was just too heavy for longer sidesteps, so I dismissed them. The Opus on the other side felt too soft, even in the 192 length. Best thing would be, if I could A/B q 115 versus Rossi Super 7 in mixed conditions. I will let you know about my “further researches”, but thanks so far…

28. I am 5’6 and weigh 190 pounds and like to ski a 160 for quickness in the trees and powder. I dont ski fast however so am wondering if due to the light weight I will over power the Soul 7 at 164 length?. I ski almost all colorado resorts in bounds in the trees on powder days. The ski sounds ideal to me but really dont want to jump up to the 172 at my quickly advancing age of 47. Thnaks so much for any input

    • Hi, James – the 164cm ski will be far too short. Please don’t even consider it. I am going to make the assumption that the 160cm ski you use for quickness is not a tip and tail rockered ski. The Soul 7 is, and that means that the effective edge of your 160cm ski is probably a whole lot closer to the effective edge length of a 180cm Soul 7. In fact, I have no doubt that you would be quite happy on the 180 Soul 7, and that is the length I would actually encourage you to get. But at a minimum, ignore that 164 length and go AT LEAST 172. That way, you’ll only be one size too short. :) I’ll say it again: these are dead easy to ski and quick. If you want these to float in pow, it isn’t wise to give up surface area.

29. I am 5’4″ 165 lbs and am going with a 172cm Soul 7. It was either that or the 180 so for me 172 cm is the choice for quickness. With both tip and tail rocker I think 164cm would be way too short. Question for Jonathan: if the Savory 7 covers women who would be the right person for the 164cm Soul 7?

    • Hi, Vince – 164cm is so short for a lightweight, tip and tail rockered ski like this, I’d honestly only recommend it for someone who was about 5’0″ and 100-110 lbs. I could understand some trepidation about length if we were talking about a burlier, metal ski like the Rossignol Experience 98 or a Blizzard Cochise. But I am at a bit of a loss why so many people seem to worry that they need to downsize this ski in order to preserve quickness. That is the exact opposite of what I’ve claimed in this review. The particular brilliance of the Soul 7 is that it is an incredibly lightweight, incredibly intuitive ski that is dead easy. Truly, about the only way to screw this ski up is to go too short on length.

      For those who still need to be convinced of this, I’d encourage you to read the comments section of my Rossignol S3 review. Not a single reader complained that he or she went “too long” on the S3. And I predict that not a single reader will complain that he or she went “too long” on the Soul 7. But I do worry that some here will find that they went too short. Anyway, just my two cents. This is a fun ski, and I just hope everyone gets the length that will work best for them.

30. This is a great review, I always just ENJOY just reading your ski comments! Very thoughtful writing, thanks.

    Torn between the DPS Wailer 112RP and the Soul 7, I am looking for a downhill oriented ski mainly for touring and backcountry, also allowing me to ski inbound some days. I am planning to throw Dynafit Radical FT’s on them. Is the Soul 7 as quiver-ful as the one speaks of the DPS 112?
    I am coming from Black Diamond Aspects, which are too light and not enough “ski” for me.

    I am 5’11”, 165 lbs, fit and happy to drag up some weight in order to have more fun on the way down. I would choose the 188 cm version, right?

    Thanks,
    Philipp

    • Thanks, Philipp. And re: the 112RP vs. Soul 7, without skiing them back to back, I’m afraid I don’t have more to add to what I’ve said in the review. But I mean what I wrote, and I certainly would tour on either ski. For the person really interested in a LIGHT setup, the 112RP Pure wins. And if you’re mostly touring for pow – and deep pow – the 112RP probably gets the nod. For shallower, firmer conditions, Soul 7 probably gets the nod. But there is a good bit of overlap here.

31. HI Jonathan

    I am looking for a good compromise travel ski, having had a kid recently it going to be tougher to bring a quiver out west since the little guy doesn’t travel light. Recently Ive been bringing a 186 S3 and a 187 Praxis Protest (original year model, slightly more rocker and slightly less sidecut/taper) on my multiple yearly trips out to Utah. I wanted to replace the S3, its the original year model and pretty beat up. I liked its versatility but found that the over aggressive tail rocker / twin was a bit more than I needed and the high fairly soft front shovels got deflected easy at speed in chop and flapped around alot at speed on hardpack, despite pretty decent edgehold. I did manage to use these on Vt hardpack without too much trouble too, like I said decent edgehold but not a high speed ski on pack.

    I was looking at the Soul 7 as a ski I could use for occasional short touring, use on softer days in Vt, bring by itself out west if the forecast wasn’t great , or bring with the Protests if it looks like Ullr was cooperating. My only concern is at 6’1 , 205 lbs + gear was how it would handle crud (not heavy set up crud, I know its not ideal for that, but usual Alta backside day after chop, etc) and speed on hardpack / groomers. While not as ideal as the older 94mm Mantras I used before, I didn’t mind these aspects of the S3, except for maybe the getting pushed around it chop, but if the Soul 7 would improve on these areas that would be great. Do you think this would work at my size or woul you look in a different direction?

    • Hi, Ben – since you say you didn’t mind the S3’s performance in chop crud, I do think this could be a good pick — it will handle chop & crud a bit better than the S3 – not world’s better, but a bit better. This is no Mantra, but it sounds like you’re okay with that.

      On a different note, I am increasingly interested in skiing the Sin 7, the updated S3. It’s got less tip and tail rocker and a stiffer flex than the S3. I can’t yet say, but I think that ski looks like it could be an excellent update on the S3. Hopefully we’ll find out shortly…. Still since you’re looking for 1 ski, I think the wider Soul 7 will make more sense for you.

32. Jonathan, thanks again for the review and all your effort to help us find the right equipment for playing in the white.

    I can get a good deal on last years Line Sir Francis Bacon in 184cm that was skiied only once with a dynafit Vertical FT binding. However it comes without the binding. Actually I wanted to pull the trigger already on the Soul 7 but now I´m thinking of taking the SFB instead. The plan was to have wider touring and do-it-all option next to my regular skitouring setup. I´d like to mount dynafits or plums on the Soul 7 or SFB. Or would you recommend to rather mount barons/dukes on the SFB?

    I read a lot of reviews on both of them and I get that both are really highly recommended by everyone who was on them. The SFB maybe being the more playful ski that you can turn a lot and ski switch easily. That´s not what I do so far, but I´m thinking the SFB maybe can make me into a more playful skiier..? Also the SFB is about 200 grams heavier per ski, which makes it obviously less tourable than the Soul 7. Whihch one would be better on groomers concerning carving abilities and edge hold? Which one would you go for for side and backcountry skiing and touring in the alps in 6′ to 24′ of pow. How would you compare the Soul 7 and the SFB and what would be the main differences? I´m 6 ft and around 173 lbs.

    thanks again for your help!

    • Hi, Fred – you’re right, both are good skis, but I have limited time on the 184 SFB, and I’m waiting to get on the 190 SFB. So I think you’re best off drawing your own conclusions between my review of the Soul 7 & Jason’s review of the SFB. The 188 Soul 7 will be the better pow ski than the (short) 184 SFB, but beyond that, I’m not comfortable making definitive statements about performance comparisons.

33. Jonathan, awesome review that seems to have sold me on these skis. I’ve always been unsure when it comes to sizing my skis so the only thing holding me back from buying these right this minute is whether to go 180 or 188. I am 6’1 and about 170 lbs. I love on WA so I get some good powder days and I would like to say that I am a pretty we’ll rounded skier that loves to go fast when space provides and I usually perform long turns. Now all that seems to leed to the longer ski but here’s the twist, I also ski in trees a lot and I ski moguls occasionally. I had a pair of 172 line sfb’s which were great skis but weren’t quite there. So if you could point me in the right direction as to what size I should get that would be awesome.

    • Thanks, Tyler. Your 6’1″, 170 lbs, “loves to go fast,” “well-rounded skier,” in PNW snow. All that = 188. Adding less than 4″ of length over the 180s isn’t going to turn this ski into a chore in trees, even tight trees. Promise.

34. Hi Jonathan,

    first of all: Thank you guys for your awesome work! Your Reviews are pretty outstanding!

    I´ve got 3 Questions regarding the Soul7:

    1. When can we expect the 2nd look at the Soul 7? I am living in Europe and will have to buy this Ski in the next few weeks if I want to make sure it´s still available. But I would like to read your 2nd look first.

    2. I am 5.10 and 163 pounds. As I have been a Snowboarder until 5 years ago my skiing technique certainly isn´t the best out there and I definetly do not have the hard charging style of a former racer. Still I think by now I am a quite good skier and able to handle even quite serious decents.
    Coming from Snowboarding with a weak technique I was skiing a 179 K2 Kung Fujas as my everyday ski for the last years which I do like for beeing easy and intuitive, forgiving and playfull. My everyday ski has to handle just about everythingin the backcounty, touring and even quite a lot complete grromer days. For the really I good days I do also have an Atomic Automatic which I love. Now I want to update my everyday Ski and I think the Soul 7 sounds like it could be the ski I am looking for. I am looking for a bit more ski than the Kung Fujas giving me some more in hardpack chopped up conditions. Yet I do not want a ski that is to strenuos for my technique and abilities. So the Cochise would be definetly to much. I was also looking at the 108 and Q105. The 108 seemed to be to close to the Automatic and maybe not directional enough, while the Q105 might just be to directional and stiff for me. The Soul 7 seems to be in between.
    What do you think? And again the sizing question. As for my less than perfect technique I am actually considering the 180. I do not like the feeling of too long skis. Also I am skiing a lot in narrow terrain. Not a lot of high speed charging in open terrain. Would you still go 188?

    3. For my girlsfriend with pretty much the same abilities (maybe a bit weaker) I am looking at the Savory 7. I know you didn´t review it but it should basically be the same ski. She is 5.3 but quite strong and heavy 160 pounds. Looking at her weight we should probably go 170 but again with her less than perfect technique I am afraid of the 170 being to much. Would the 162 be by far to short?

    Thanks for your opinion,

    Hias

    • Thanks, Hias – I wish you’d told me what size Automatics you’re currently riding, but I’ll assume 179. If that’s true, and you already are a fan of your 179 (tip and tail rockered) Fujas, and your 179 (tip and tail rockered) Automatics), and you already know you dislike long skis … then yes, it seems safe to go with the 180s, and I think the Soul 7 sounds pretty ideal for what you’re looking for.

      We’ll post a 2nd Look from Dana Allen this week or next (he rode them in NZ), then Jason Hutchins will be getting on them in Utah. But that review will be several weeks out.

      As for your girlfriend, Julia and I would both recommend the 170 Savory over the 162.

      • Hi Jonathan,

        thank you for the fast reply!
        My fault: My Automatics are 186 and I am fine with their size.
        I demoed the 193 but couldn´t see any real advantage.
        That is a good example of what I mean with too long skis.
        No advantage for my riding abilities but less easy to handle.
        The 179 Kung Fujas is more or less the same length as the Automatics (maybe 184) as K2 seems to measure differently.

        Once again thank you for your great work! Even offering this discussion board on top of your reviews is simply great!

        Best Regards,

        Hias

35. Great review, great comments, really great work. I’m new to powder, got these as my first pow skis, and have just tested them for two days. And I love them! I have never skied skis that are more than 85mm under foot, and the Souls are so easy to ride for a freeride beginner in all conditions during these two days (including fresh pow in the Alps). Made a good choice based on your review, thx!!!

    • Nice, Greg! Really appreciate the feedback, and glad to hear you’re digging the ski.

36. Dear Jonathan,

    Thanks for the info on the soul 7s! I bought a pair recently but can’t find any info on the surface area of the 180 cm model. Do you know? I emailed Rossi at Park City location just now, so if you don’t have readily available don’t worry–and if I get the info from Rossi I will share.

    • Rossi replied but had no info on surface area. Isn’t this measurement a key ingredient determining float? My Nordica Steadfasts have all specs including surface area and weight incorporated in the top sheet graphics! I love my Steadfasts by the way, what a great playful all rounder.

      Im looking at the Steadfasts and the Soul 7s side by side in my living room and I almost forgot how wide the Steadfast were! In this era of super wide skis the Steadfasts were a step in that direction for me 2 years ago when bought, but even then they were considered only middling fat, jez.

      To compare these two skis, the Steadfasts have continuous side cut to the waist, but are similar to the 7s with tip rocker (albeit less so) and a flat directional tail with slight camber under foot. Similar construction materials I believe with glass and wood and Steadfasts have I-core to lighten the ski, similar idea to the 7s honeycomb. Will these skis ski too much alike? The 7s are definitely wider with far less side cut, and widen back from tips and up from tails.

      The idea was that the 7s are supposed to complement the Steadfasts but in looking at my two skis I’m wondering if I shouldn’t have gone for the full monty i.e. the Super 7s as what I was going for was the Steadfasts for my west big Mtn all Mtn ski and the Rossi for my 12-24 inch powder day ski. I ski almost exclusively inbounds but like side country, trees stashes, etc.

37. Hi Jonathan,

    First of all just wanted to say thanks for all of the great reviews, really good stuff. I’m dead set on getting these skis based on all of the glowing remarks around the internet, but am torn on length and was wondering if I could get your opinion. I’m currently on the 185 Cochise, and my motivation for getting the Soul 7s is to have something to compliment their hard charging style with something more maneuverable and playful. I do almost all of my skiing in Maine and Vermont and want these to use in some of the tight trees out here. That’s one of the reasons I’m leaning toward the 180s, but at the same time, if I can get away with the 188s in the trees I see no reason not to go that route and have something more stable on the groomers and bumps. I’m 6′, about 200 pounds, and 23 years old. Any feedback would be much appreciated, thanks!

    • Thanks, Kyle. At your size, 188s, for sure. If you struggle with the 188s in really tight trees, I assure you, you wouldn’t struggle less on the 180s that are a mere 8cm / ~3″ shorter. Besides, the Soul 7s work well at slow speeds (a la tight trees) – they do slow better than the Cochise.

    • Hi Kyle,
      I also ski back East (Vermont mostly) and ski trees all the time. I would not recommend a 180cm for you. Yeah, I get the tights trees thing, but the Soul 7 is plenty quick. If Jonathan hadn’t taken them back out West with him after I snuck them into my ski bag after NZ, I’d be rocking them this winter and, I suspect, loving them.
      So get the 188cm and you’ll be happy.

      Dana

38. HI,
    Thank you for all the useful information. I was wondering if you can help me decide on the appropriate length ski for me. I am 5’10”, 205 lbs. I am an advanced skier. I ski all conditions and terrain out west here (Tahoe). I like to ski fast and hard. I am looking at this ski for an AT/multi-purpose set-up. I am debating between the 180 and 188. I currently ski an older Volkl AC50 in a 177, good ski, at times seems a touch short.
    Thanks

    • Thanks, Kyle. Please see my reply to the comment immediately above yours. 188.

      • thank you

    • Yes, absolutely agree with Jonathan. 188cm is the way to go for you, Kyle.

      • thank you

39. Hello Jonathan,

    Thanks for your review.

    I’m 5’8 150 pounds. I’m an experienced skier, I used to race, but have always enjoyed skis shorter than what would be traditionally recommended for me. I like making quick turns, either in trees or in powder.

    My current skis are 164 volkl’s with no rocker. I really enjoy that length of ski, so with the Soul 7’s I’m thinking of moving up to a 172. I’ll mostly be using these skis for touring, with dynafit bindings. I live in the pacific north west.

    I have a pair of 172’s put aside, but I’m not sure I could even get my hands on a pair of 180’s anymore – they seem to have been bought up fast.

    Thanks!

    • Hey JP – good thing you like short skis, because those 172 Soul 7s will ski shorter than your unrockered 164 Volkls. But given your weight and style, you’ll certainly find the Soul’s to be exceptionally quick, we’ll just see if you find them to provide enough stability. But again, if you’re making LOTS of turns, stability will likely be less of an issue.

      • Hi Jonathan,
        As an update, I bought the 180’s as well and after a day testing the 180’s on a pair of rentals I wound up going with that size and returning the 172’s..

        I’m really excited to try the soul 7’s in powder, but in spring like conditions the 180’s turned easily. Thanks for your reply!!!

40. Hello Jonathan,

    I follow all your recommandation about the size and I wonder if it will be ok with the 180 cm soul 7 or I can jump to the 188 cm. I do telemark, this will be my all mountain-powder ski. I pass a lot of my time in trees and bumps. I’m 5,7 and 170 pounds. Should I stick with the 180 or jump to the 188?

    Thanks againt for all your goods advices

    • Thanks, Simon. I’m told that tele skiers used to generally ski comparatively shorter lengths, though that trend seems to be changing. But if you MOSTLY ski trees and bumps, and since you’re tele-ing, I could see you going either way, but am leaning toward the 180s for you. Of course, I have no idea what skis you’ve been skiing or their length, so I wouldn’t put too much stock in my opinion here.

41. Hello Jonathon
    I am also trying to decide between 172cm and 180cm Soul 7.
    I have been skiing the S3 in 168cm size and it is definitely to short for me, I am 5.8 and 170 pounds.
    Will the 180cm be too big a jump up in length for me? I am an intermediate skier that spends time in bumps, between the trees , in the powder and on the groomers.
    Thank you
    Deon

    • Hey, Deon – I’d still recommend the 180.

42. Hi Jonathan,

    can anyone of you say a word about the soul 7 compared to the atomic ritual?

    Thank you,

    Hias

    • I am going to be getting time on the Ritual as soon as Taos opens (the 28th!), so can report then. I have limited time on the Ritual (and it’s been a long while), but the 2 skis don’t strike me as all that similar. But I’ll shut up for now and report back soon.

      • I am looking forward to your Review of the Ritual.
        Just a word for now:
        Why do you consider these Skis so much different?
        Both do have Tip / Tail Rocker, camber, quite some taper, similar sidecut, both are neither noodles
        nor ridiculously stiff…
        I would have thought of the Ritual as a slightly more groomer, stable at speed version of the Soul 7.
        Am I completely wrong?

        Best Regards,

        Hias

        • I definitely don’t think you’re completely wrong, it’s just that the tip rocker profiles of both skis are quite different – the Ritual has less splay, and I suspect it *may* feel more locked down / less loose on groomers. But I don’t want to say anymore – smarter for me to just get on them again and go find out. And I may well find exactly what you’ve described.

          • Hi Jonathan,

            could you get some time on the Rituals already?
            Can you say a word about how they compare to the Soul 7 and maybe the Moment PB&J?
            I am the guy with the Kung Fujas and Automatics from above, still struggling with the decision.

            Thanks

43. Hello Jonathan,

    I am a 24 year old skier. Have been skiing since I was 4 years old and long past due for a new set of skies. I love skiing trees and off-beaten tracks, primarily in Washington State, Utah when I can. It is usually soft snow, except on certain days. I am on the search for a new pair of skies and the stores I have stopped by all highly suggested to look into this ski. Right now, I am trying to debate between 172 cm or 180 cm. I am a female that weighs 130 lb and am 5′ 8.5″. I was looking at the 172 cm, but after reading the reviews, I have been thinking maybe the 180 cm. What do you suggest would work the best for someone like me?

    Thanks for all your help!

    • Hi, Valerie – If you haven’t already, you should definitely read Julia Van Raalte’s review of the Savory 7 – it’s the exact same ski as the Soul 7, just with different topsheets. Julia is closer to your height & weight than me, and I’ll let you see what she thought about the length question. But if it’s safe to assume that you’re a pretty strong skier, I know what Julia would recommend…

44. How do they ski switch? common ground could be, Volkl Chopstick, OG black goats, Bluehouse Maestro, Monarch, Blizzard One, Answer, Salomon Rocker1(yes they can), Rocker2, Czar, Rossingnol Sickle, Head jimi 110, Armada JJ, ANT, Skevik Anton. Haven’t skied any moments or 0n3p.

    • Hey, Mike – the conditions on the days I skied the Soul 7 in NZ didn’t inspire any switch skiing. But Jason Hutchins ought to have a review up from Alta in the next couple of weeks. Biggest thing, though, is that mounted on the line, there still is a fairly long shovel / short tail. If I was really concerned about switch performance, I’d mount in front of the line by at least a centimeter or two. But if I REALLY cared about switch performance, I’d probably also be looking at the LINE SFB or Rocker2 108.

45. Jonathan:
    Thanks for your review and all the Blister reviews. They are the most in depth and reliable out there IMO…I skied the 188 at Alta today and it was great, perfect. I’m 5’11”, 165 # and a strong skier, but even if I wasn’t, the Souls are so effortless to ski that an intermediate would have a lot of fun with these. They are light, agile, and I-wanna-do-wall-hits fun. I had them out zooming corduroy and they did just fine & the softer & deeper the snow, the better they’ll get. There is a lot of chatter in the shops and on the web about size- many of us thought a 184- if they made it- would have been the right length for my weight, but they’re not real stiff and with the rocker they do ski short. What sold me is that you told a guy similar to my size earlier in the thread “I’ll kill you if you get the 180!” Good advice, thanks again. Bob, Park City

    • Sweet, Bob! And thanks for the feedback. Psyched to hear we helped you pick the right length, and that you’re digging the skis.

46. Howdy. Just another length-advice query. I’m 5’11”, 145ish, skiing in Tahoe. Am comfortable on 182 Shoguns and have managed 185 Patrons. Looking for something for both deep days and for handling trees and bumps when they inevitably intrude. Should I stop at 180 or will I be hunted down and killed if I don’t go 188?

    • Ha. You’re light enough that we won’t hunt you down and kill you for going 180. And THANK YOU for including what you’ve been skiing. That’s helpful. I can tell you that the 185 Patron will likely be more work than the 188 Rossi Soul 7 – not a ton more work, but still. So if the Patron was far more work than you wanted, the more I think you could safely go 180. But if you like the way your 185 Patrons handle, I’d say go 188 Soul 7s – which remember, straight tap pull shorter than 187cm – hardly any longer than your Patrons.

      • Thanks for the reply. The Patrons were mostly fine: exactly right on hard snow because of the short effective edge, uncomfortable in deep heavy snow or crud for whatever reason — maybe too long to easily control, maybe just weird flex made balance difficult. What I fear is ending up with something like the old, blue Megawatts in 188 that I briefly owned, which, once the snow got deep or choppy and the full ski was engaged, I pretty much couldn’t turn. I’m sure tail rocker, a more centered mount and shorter sidecut change things, and I suppose I want to squeeze as much float and stability out of them as I can, but at what point does one lose too much agility to make it worthwhile? Or vice/versa, I guess.

47. Hello Jonathan,

    I’m a 30+ year South Central Ak backcountry skier. I’m 5’8″ 155/160 lbs. almost 58 YO.
    Just picked up a pair of 180 Soul 7’s that I haven’t drilled yet for my Tech bindings and am wondering if I should go with the 188’s instead.
    Most all our skiing here is above treeline because of our latitude, but what tree skiing there is when the conditions are right I really enjoy, there’re some nice ledgy cliff bands too here and there that when dropping them you’ve only got time to make a quick direction change, that or check your speed before being airborne again 8)
    The maritime snowpack we have usually consists of a good base no matter the depth of the fresh.

    Without listing all the skis I’ve owned over the last 30 years I’ll limit it to my favorite last two, the first year Atomic 10EX 184cm and my most current go to ski the first year K2 Coomback 181.

    The Atomic was/is a very muscular ski and doesn’t really work well going slow or in the real tight tree stuff. The K2 is a much more versatile ski with less high speed stability than the Atomic which is to be expected.
    I do like to carry a fair amount of speed but at the same time like the ski to be quick in the tight fast stuff
    I almost pulled the 188 Souls off the wall but grabbed the 80’s instead and after reading your description am really wondering if I shouldn’t swap the 80’s for the 88’s. That or maybe one of each 8)

    Thanks for your time !

    • I haven’t skied the Coomback, but I am pretty confident that it has a big, flat, fat tail, right? In that sense, the effective edge of your 181 Coomback will be significantly greater than the 180 Soul 7. So do you want a ski that feels even shorter / quicker than your Coombacks, or not? That will answer your question of 180 vs. 188. But don’t think of it in terms of “the 188 is going to feel like a chore compared to my 181 Coombacks.” More ski, maybe, but not a chore.

48. Hi Jonathan,
    Love your insights on a myriad of skis. Here’s my situation. I’m 44, 6’0″ weigh 200 live in the east but ski mostly the west. Love the Pow and spend as much time in the trees as possible. I’m a high advanced skier and can handle the black diamonds relatively easy at whistler and some of the double blacks. Right now I’m on a pair of S7’s that are 178cm and absolutely love them. Is the Soul 7 a different ski altogether than the S7 or is it an improved version that skis similar to the S7? And no doubt based on your previous comments that I should move to the 188’s. Thanks in advance for your insights!

    • Thanks, Derek – you’re right: definitely 188. But the apples-to-apples comparison to your S7s, is the new Super 7. The 13/14 Super 7 doesn’t have metal, so it’s an S7 with a better tip and tail rocker profile, at ~117mm underfoot. Doesn’t sound like you were complaining that your S7s were too fat. So if you don’t want to go skinnier (Soul 7), you might want to check out the new Super 7. But again, we haven’t skied it yet. I don’t doubt that it will ski well, I just don’t know how stable / unstable it is compared to the Soul 7.

      • Thanks for the heads up. I hadn’t considered the Super 7 as I had tried the old super 7 (2012 model) and didn’t much care for it. I’ll look forward to your review on that one….any ideas when you’re getting your hands on them? I just like the nimble playfulness of the S7 and thought the Soul 7 sounded fun… waist width doesn’t really matter to me. Thx.

49. As mentioned above, I skied the Soul 7 in a variety of Australian conditions this year, and I ride the S7 in Niseko pow each year. I love them both, but I think I will get some Super 7’s for Japan, based on the responsiveness of the Souls and the more positive tail. I expect it will charge a bit harder on the peak and in the bowls, and still turn tight and twitchy in the trees.

50. Just curious where you had your Soul 7’s mounted. At the factory reference mark or forward or back from that at all? I just bought a pair of 188’s and am waiting on bindings. I am leaning toward mounting them up at the Rossi reference mark, but wanted to hear if you did anything different, or would you do anything different if you were to mount up a pair for yourself? Thanks, and great, in depth review.

    • Thanks, Josh. We always note at the top of each review the mount point that the individual reviewer settled on. Both Dana and I skied the Soul 7 on the line. Jason Hutchins is spending time on the Soul 7 now, we’ll see what he opts for.

      • Jonathan,

        A few posters asked about the mounting point.

        I have the 188s mounted on the centre line. I am struggling w the tails, so went back to the shop; here’s the thing. The 180s and 188s have exactly the same length from midpoint line forward, and ALL of the extra length of the 188s is in the tail.

        Then , 2015 production of the Soul 188’s started having another mounting line at -2 cm.

        Can you help me understand this? What is going on with the longer ski?

        For reference, I also have the 2012 Super 7’s mounted on the line and find them perfectly balanced.

51. Sorry. As a quick follow up, I will never ski switch, I live in Washington, and will ski them inbounds as well as some touring with a pair of Marker Tour F12’s. I tend towards aggressive skiing in wide open spaces with some trees thrown in every once in a while. Sorry I didn’t include this in the first post. With that said I am curious as to how you would mount them.

    • The line seems like the right choice. Given how / where you ski, I see no need to get forward.

52. Any idea on when a Super 7 review will be coming? Very curious to hear your Super 7 vs. Soul 7 vs. Atomic Automatic thoughts.

    Thanks!

53. Hi Jonathan,

    First off – thank you for the amazing reviews that you and the Blister team put together. They’re truly helpful, and this is another great one!

    I’m pretty set on this ski, but have another sizing/comparison related question, and will try to give you an idea of which skis and style I’m coming from.

    I’m about 168lbs and 6’1″. I’m from Europe and ski primarily in the alps, but this year will be doing a fair amount of skiing in Colorado and BC. On piste, I’m a very strong skier with a racing background. In the last couple of years I’ve been getting more and more into off-piste skiing (primarily in the alps for now). 2 seasons ago, my first experience on a “powder” ski was a rented K2 Hardside, which I loved of course compared to previously just using a regular ski (I don’t remember the size unfortunately but think it was a little shorter than I was). I found this Hardside very easy to ski in fresh snow.

    Last year I then decided to buy skis and got the Cochise 185 mounted with Marker Dukes (with the idea that I could do some short treks uphill), but have found these quite challenging to ski. When I’m in the off piste, I’m learning that I like to have a relatively playful style, with lots of small, snappy turns… and I found the Cochise very difficult/tiring to manage this. When I’m on the slope, I like a ski that’s able to go fast and hold its ground carving as well. The Cochise can go fast and is stable for sure, but even on the slope (where I am otherwise a very experienced skier given my racing background) the Cochise felt quite “damp” and heavy to me… and took a lot of effort to put it on an edge (perhaps because of its weight and width, and also because I’m not super buff or very strong). In short, skiing the Cochise well both off- and on-piste required a lot of energy and I found this to be quite tiring, and less fun than I would have liked.

    The soul 7 sounds like it will be a lot snappier and more playful in deep snow while still being able to hold its ground at speed on the slope. Given my disappointing experience with the long 185 Cochise, I’m a little hesitant to get the 188 Soul 7 (vs. the 180). I don’t want to get another long ski that will be more tiring than fun. Again – I’m looking for something opposite to the Cochise: Playful, snappy, short turns in powder, but that can still hold its ground and live up to my skill level carving groomers at quite high speeds (though I know it will never be a race ski). In addition to this, I’m looking for a light ski that I can use to do occasional touring, which I’m also new to. To keep weight down but still have a sturdy binding, I’m thinking of mounting the Soul 7 with Marker F12 EPF bindings to primarily ski in bounds but have the flexibility to put on some skins (I’m not jumping off cliffs at this stage, so the DIN should be OK). Some people have said that a shorter ski is better for touring… again I’m new to this so don’t know whether that should influence my decision.

    Given my experience with the Cochise and my style, I would love to hear your thoughts on what length to get for the Soul 7, and also whether you think the Marker F12 binding makes sense for this ski.

    Thanks so much!

    • Hi Tom,
      I got the 180s mounted with Dynafit Radical FTs as FreeTouring setup. Kyle and everyone here is right, the Soul 7 are surprisingly light ski. I was in-between the sizes with 5’11, 163 lbs, intermediate skier, and went for the shorter version (which is equivalent to my body-height). Straight-pull tip to tail the Soul 7 180s measure only about 177cm.
      You are a little bigger and heavier then me, so my guess is you can go with the 188s as well for a touring oriented setup – especially, if you are not after a dedicated light setup. The 180 are supposed to weight 3800 grams, the 188 are about 4000 grams. You can save more weight, if you choose a tech binding for touring.
      So far my experience with this setup is: they float well in soft snow, are dead easy to turn and fly up the mountain in touring mode. They don`t like boiler plates (the bindings either) and anything else, that`s icy.

    • Thanks, Tom. And thanks, Philipp, for the thoughts.

      The 185 Blizzard Cochise measures 184.2cm and weighs 2250 grams per ski. The 188 Soul 7 measures less than 3cms longer, is 250 grams lighter per ski, and has a shorter sidecut radius and shorter effective edge than the 185 Cochise. The comparison is apples-to-oranges. At your height and weight, if you truly are a “very strong skier,” you will want more ski than the 180 Soul 7. The Cochise is a heavy metal ski. And you’ve got a heavy Duke on it. It was not designed to do short, quick turns. The Soul 7 is. If you didn’t care about the speed part, then sure, you could go 180cm and make slower, short turns. But if you do care about speed, it’s the 188.

      As for the F12, we haven’t reviewed it, so I really can’t say.

    • Hi again Jonathan and team,

      Just wanted to post a long overdue follow up to this. Thank you for your advice back in December – it was very much appreciated! I pulled the trigger on the 188s and LOVE them. I’ve skied them a total of 4 weeks now in both the Alps as well as Colorado … an unbelievably playful and fun ski, very easy to manoeuvre and great float. For anybody still thinking about whether to size up or not, definitely size up … they are so easy to ski you will have no issues either on or off piste. The 188 holds very well at speed on groomers also. Hands down, best ski I’ve ever owned!

      Thanks again and enjoy!

54. I picked up a set of 188s and mounted a set of Marker F12 Tour bindings on them. I mounted them with those bindings because I wanted a set-up I could take into the backcountry. I think this will be great. They are surprising light, of course not as light as a dedicated backcountry binding set-up. After hearing all advise on this forum, I went ahead with the longer ones. I am 5’10” 205 lbs, advanced skier. I have not skied them yet, so I have no input.

55. Jonathan,

    Thanks for a terrific review and very helpful feedback in the comments section. After an 18 year hiatus, I recently repented got back into skiing (life happens). Once a much younger, more athletic, advanced skier, I guess I am now an intermediate skier looking to regain some of my old form. I like to ski off-piste. I like the trees, powder and launching off things. I like to take the long way down the mountain – speed isn’t my primary concern. I can ski bumps, but don’t seek them out. While groomed runs are not my reason for skiing, I will often be found skiing these with my kids (sometimes at unfortunately low speeds) and will want a ski that performs reasonably well on groomers. My primary mountain with the family will be Sundance, though I hope to hit Alta and some of the other larger hills as well. I’m 6 ft. and approximately 205 lbs (looking to drop a few) and in pretty good shape.

    With that background, I would welcome any suggestions you have on ski selection. My last ski was the Salomon Force 9 – a lot has changed since then. I demoed the 188 Rossi Soul 7 last weekend and really enjoyed it, though I didn’t get to do much exploring. A friend from back East strongly recommended the Volkl Mantra, but I’m concerned it won’t be as fun/versatile, will make me work harder than the Soul 7 and isn’t as wide under foot as I’m going to want in Utah. The Blizzard Cochise looks interesting, but I have similar concers with this ski. Based on the reviews on this site of the Rossi Sickle, I am quite interested in this ski (and have found it at a good price online), but I wonder if at 181 it won’t be enough ski for me given my weight. Do you have any suggestions regarding these or other skis? Any feedback is much appreciated. Thanks.

    Jim

    • No offense to your friend, and I love the Mantra, but that’s a poor recommendation given what you say you’re looking for. If you’ve read my Mantra review, I believe you’ll see why. And given that you’ve read this Soul 7 review – AND THEN WHEN OUT AND HAD FUN ON IT … I’m no genius, but even I can connect the dots on this one. Enjoy your new 188cm Soul 7s, Jim.

      • Jonathan – thanks for the nudge. Decision made.

56. I got my new Soul 7’s out in some surprisingly decent conditions (6” overnight, snowing all day) this weekend. Overall they were awesome.

    Pros: 1) Very intuitive ski that required literally one turn on each side to feel very comfortable—felt like I had been on these puppies for 15 years. 2) For a ski with some rocker, the tails were very supportive and didn’t doom you if you got in the backseat. 3) The 5 pt design is wonderfully quick in the moguls/trees, yet plenty of edge when you need to really crank a turn.

    Slight concerns: 1) A little worried about the long-term durability of the tip and tail but I think they’ll be fine. 2) I still think they are pretty ugly and dorky looking, but whatever. 3) A little squirrely and slow on the flats/catwalks.

57. what mounting position is recommended – “0” or “-2” line ? Rossignol web site does not explain which one is good for what. I will use Griffon / Schizo – where should I center ? I tested Soul 7 / 188cm and they are easy to ride and very playful skis – but I do not recall mounting position.

    • Dana and I both skied them at “0”, and wouldn’t recommend going -2. Go Zero.

      • 0 line is perfect on piste and I went -1 in thin pow. very predictable and playful skis. wow!!

58. How would the Soul 7 compare to the 185 Rossi sickle in terms of versatility?

59. Thanks for the review, just saw the answer to my question in a comment.

60. Hi Jonathan,

    Great review, and all the responses here have been good to read through. I’ve been looking for a pair of skis for a while now. I skied some 184 SFBs in tahoe last winter and loved them but when kitted out were a bit pricey for my (limited) budget. I stumbled across a site selling the soul 7s at an unbelievable price considering its mid season and ordered them immediately. I have heard of their great reputation and believed that 180s would be ok for me considering how much I enjoyed the similar length bacons last year. Having read through the above comments it seems I might have assumed wrong and that the 188s are the only size I should consider. Im 6’3 and around 175lb and ski mostly in the alps. I like everything particularly tight powder lines and big turns on the hard stuff. Have I made a huge mistake?

    • “Huge mistake”? Probably not. But in this 10 mile long comment section, notice that we are still waiting for someone to say that they went TOO long on this ski. All I can say is that I had a lot of fun on the 184 Bacon, too, and I just spent a day on the 190cm Bacon. For firm condition bump skiing, I would prefer the 184 Bacon to the 190. But there is no situation where I personally would opt for the 180 Soul 7 over the 188 Soul 7. Same goes for reviewer Jason Hutchins, who is 10 lbs. lighter than you and loving the 188 Soul 7.

61. Hi Jonathan,

    Huge thanks to all you’re efforts with the reviews and the site!

    I’m intermediate advanced? Get off piste as much as possible 70% but trying to improve. Aggressive , athletic, 190 lb plus backpack 5’11’ ‘. I’ll be skiing Out west for my next 3 week trip from the UK. I like the idea of amore playful ski but am concerned the soul 7 won’t be as stable as I’m looking for. Tend to go fast when I can but wanting to have a little more ‘fun’ on the mountain (no park). Jason’s review of the Sickle convinced me that ski was just the ticket, but I can’t get hold of the 11/12 186 ANYWHERE, which leaves the 181 which would likely be too short? Would the Soul 188 fit the bill or something else?

    Thanks again for the awesome website and any help is greatly appreciated.

    Happy new year to all you guys and girls at Blister

    • Hey, Gav – if you can wait a little bit (week or two?), sounds like you ought to read Jason Hutchins’ upcoming reviews of the 186cm Blizzard Peacemaker and 190cm Line Sir Francis Bacon…

62. Jonathan,
    My wife is about to kill me because I can’t stop reading Blister ski reviews! Thanks for the great resource even if it does put me in the doghouse! I was really close to pulling the trigger on the soul 188, but wanted to get your opinion. I only get to ski about 12 days a year and it’s usually at one of the Summit resorts in CO, Park City area, or Snowbird/Alta. I’m 5’10” 185 and currently ski the Kendo 177. I’m a strong advanced skier, but I don’t ski switch or plan on getting inverted anytime soon. I want a ski to take along for those 8-18″ days. Big powder days are extremely rare for me. Tree skiing is my favorite, so that’s a priority. But when I ski open terrain I like to GO. So I’m a little concerned about “playful” skis as the day wears on and everything starts getting chopped up. Maybe an ideal ski doesn’t exist, but I’m open for suggestions. Think I should stick in the 105-110 area, or step up to something wider considering the Kendo is 89? I’ve been looking at the soul 7, super 7, Q-115, Automatic, old Bibby or Exit World, sickle (if I can find it in the right size), Line Influence 115. What would you suggest for me? And just out of curiosity, what is your ideal resort pow ski? Thanks in advance. Now I’ve gotta go pay attention to my wife…

    • Ha, thanks Jack. Please tell your lovely wife that we work really hard on these reviews, so it would be really tragic if nobody took the time to read them. I’m sure she’ll agree.

      Can’t say which of the skis you name would clearly be the best choice. But the old Bibby would fit the bill, given what you say you’re looking for, though you might prefer the 184 to the 190 for trees. Exit World would also make sense. For gunning in open terrain and handling well in afternoon chop, the Blizzard Gunsmoke would also be worth a look. And maybe someday we’ll actually ski the Super 7 & Squad 7s – though my hunch is the latter would be the better fit.

      • Thanks for the input Jonathan. I added the Gunsmoke to the list. I may wait a bit and see what you guys say about the Super and Squad. I can’t seem to find the old Bibby for sale anywhere, so I don’t know if that’s a realistic option. I would like to see a review by you or Will on the Exit World comparing it to the old Bibby before I pull the trigger on that one. Ahhhh….the search continues. Thanks again for your help. My wife says hello!

        • Just pulled the trigger on some unmounted 11/12 190 Bibbys! Couldn’t pass it up. My only concern is they might be a bit much for me to handle at 5’10 185. I know you like them Jonathan, but I’m sure my skills don’t stack up to yours. Would it make any sense for me to go +1 on the mount or just stay on the line? Thanks!

63. Jonathan, any input from Jason H and/or Will B on the Soul 7s? Would be vry interesting to hear their thoughts as well, maybe compared to Rocker2 108, Sickle etc..

    • Jason’s been getting time on the Soul 7, review should be out this week or next.

64. Hi Jonathan.

    Thank you for your great reviews at Blister Gear.

    I’m thinking about buying this Soul 7 ski. But I can’t decide which length to go with. I am 161 lbs and 6’1 height. I live in Sweden but I am going to use the ski for some hiking with skins backcountry and for some tree skiing in Canada (Nelson Whitewater) and hopefully some powder skiing aswell. :) I am a intermediate/advance skier. According to my weight maybe I should go with the 180’s but according to my length maybe the 188’s is better?

    Kind regards, Daniel.

    • Thanks, Daniel. For what it’s worth, Jason Hutchins is almost exactly your height and weight, and he’s skiing the 188 with no interest in going shorter.

      • Hey Jonathan

        Seems you are keen on the 188 soul 7 for someone like me. 5’11 200#. Solid level 8 @ snowbird
        Love my old Rossi b3 in a 176 and they always served me well. Hated my mantra in a 184. Big g turns in wide open areas at high speed are not my thing. I want to kill it in the calm of the trees and the splendor of eye of the needle. Would you kill me if you saw me on the 180?

        • I wouldn’t kill you, because I’d be too busy skiing and having fun to stop and commit murder. But I would think it was unfortunate that you spent all that money on the wrong length ski for you. Please keep in mind that the Mantra and Soul 7 have virtually nothing in common. Night and day. Just because you didn’t like the Mantra in a 184 doesn’t mean you ought to go shorter on a ski that is at the opposite end of the spectrum from a Mantra. (And again, read this entire comment thread. Has anyone yet complained that they went too long on this ski?)

          • Love your sense of humor,honesty and great reviews. Heading to the bird and will demo the 188 and take it from there. Thanks for the quick response.

          • I have to stop reading your most excellent reviews :) The 2014-15 mantra @ 177 sounds rather fine too. It is going to be a fun demo week.

65. Hi theese are the skis I am considering
    1. moment pb and j
    2. Rossignol sin 7
    3.Rossignol soul 7
    4 line sick day 110
    5. Line sick day 95
    6. line sir francis bacon
    7.vokl mantra
    8 salomon rocker 2 108
    9. salomon q98 or
    I want an all mountain ski. I want it to float in 6-12 inches of snow, turn fast in tight trees and on natural terrain, be stable enough to ski groomer. I dont ski that hard and fast unless i’m on a groomer. I am 5’11” and weigh 150lbs. I am 16 yrs old. I ski at jay peak resort and mostly ski trees and natural terrain. I dont ski much park. which of theese options are best for me. or do you have any suggestions that meet my standards. I know ski on an 80mm width park ski(because it was cheap) should i stick with a skinnier ski. I am also wondering if a flat tail would be a problem because i am used to a twin tip ski.

    • Hey, Ryan – the pb&j could be a good choice, check those reviews. And while we haven’t skied the Rossi SIN 7 or LINE Sick Day 95, I think either of those skis might make sense for you. And cross the Mantra off your list – it’s not the ski you’re looking for.

66. i ski at jay peak also the salomon rocker 2 108/q-98 could be achoice

67. Hi guys,

    I’ve been thinking about simplifying my quiver and seeing what some opinions are out there. I have an older 185cm JJ and last years akjj that I bought for the deep days where I always felt like the 185 was never enough ski out in front of me. I never wished the original jj was wider just a bit longer but akjj was only way to really go. I didn’t end up skiing it much last year due to lack of snow and so far same this year. I’m curious to know if just selling both and getting a 188cm soul 7 for my powder ski is the way to go? No way it doesn’t float better than the 185cm JJ/less tip dive?? I’m 6’1″ roughly 178 lbs. I ski a ton of moguls and jj is awesome in them, not sure about Rossi but the ski design looks great. I looked at super 7 as an option but think the narrower, quicker soul 7 is the way to go. I ski eastern Washington and Idaho. Any thoughts?

    • I agree with your take on the JJ, and I do imagine you’ll get less tip dive on the Soul 7. But nothing much else to add. You’re thinking about things the right way – though I still believe the Super 7 will also be a quick (~117mm underfoot) ski. But if you were going to drop from an AK JJ + JJ down to 1 ski, I think the Soul 7 could work well.

      • How does the soul7 and super 7 compare in flex patterns and rocker profiles? I tried the soul7 yesterday but think if replacing both my JJ’s with one ski I better go super 7. Also how much of a weight difference are they?

        • We haven’t been on the Super 7, TM, so can’t say.

68. hi Jonathan
    great, great site! i am looking at some new boards to replace my 4th pair of rossi s3’s… i was just hooked on that ski!! i had a pr of dps 112’s i loved but they were stolen (by my son who ran away to colorado with them). i have dps 99’s that are set up with dynafits that i tour with and those are great too.
    given i am an admitted Rossi slut i was thinking of going with the soul 7 but i really should spread my wings a bit. I also would like to buy american, stay in the 105-112 waist bracket, and buy something asap.
    i am an east coast skier, spend every minute i can in the trees, but we can’t avoid hardpack especially this year at sugarloaf :( hard pack is a term for blue ice lately. 6 ft 185 lbs very experienced
    so the short list is :
    Rossi soul 7.. not usa made
    line Sir Francis , is it american made?
    DPS 112.. but only the carbon is usa made
    Moment Deathwish, a bit concerned it’s too stiff??

    i am open to suggestion on others but these seems like contenders. i was thinking Praxis but they all describe as “hard chargers” i really think i like foolin around in the woods, popping around, but need to be able to ski new england hardpack when the woods are shut down like now.

    • Hey, Joe – none of the skis you name are going to be great on blue ice, but if you are okay with the blue ice performance of the S3s and Wailer 99s, then we can continue the conversation.

      Soul 7s and SFBs are not made in America. DPS Pures are. The Moment Deathwish will not be too stiff. It is a playful, easy to turn ski, not as soft as the S3, but not a bear by any means. As for Praxis, you can adjust the flex pattern of every ski they make, make them as soft or as stiff as you like. So Praxis skis definitely should not be dismissed as hard chargers per se.

69. Am intrigued by the Soul 7 based on its real versatility. I am 59 yo, 5’9″ 168lbs currently on 168cm Atomic Snoop Daddys which I love. I am headed to BC for a Heli and cat trip and am thinking of investing in some versatile powder skis. I am a very strong skier who loves steep, finds powder in the trees even if tight. I ski entirely out west nowadays. I love off piste – Europe and BC – -wish I had more opportunity. I am handy on frontside (older legs so I no longer bash through the bumps), but prefer steep and deep. I ski more on turny side of spectrum rather than flat out. Soul 7 sounds good. Length? 180? 188? sounds long but I am not sure how to account for rocker… (Of course I grew up skiing 200 cm slalom racers).
    Thanks in advance. I enjoy the site!

    • Thanks, David. Your call on the 180 vs. 188. But if you really are a strong skier, then see all the comments I’ve made above about this. Jason Hutchins weighs less than you, and there is no way he’d downsize to the 180s. And we’re still waiting for ANYONE to say that they went to long on this ski….

70. hello
    compliments for reviews. are 170cm x 68 kg. my problem: I would like a ski fun. suitable for all types of snow.
    are a great skier practical snowkiting. I love freeriding. I have a twin tip ski 175cm Mayestic giving me some trouble on the track. the soul could be skiing right? which measure 172 or 180
    thanks rob

    • Thanks, Rob. Go 180.

      • Thanks Jonathan. I may have a few years on Jason… I’d guess it comes down to whether I use this primarily as a powder ski – or use them as my workhorse in a one ski quiver. For frontside use (which is more frequent), shorter = more maneuverable in bumps and trees. For backside/backcountry (longer = stability and more flotation). Anyway, Soul7 sounds like it really can be all mountain and I may need to demo to decide… . I skiied an older generation of Rossi S7s 4 years ago on a catski trip – wish I remembered the length.
        BTW: I really enjoy your site, glad I stumbled onto it…

71. I just won a pair of Soul7’s in a contest and I was trying to figure out if they would work well for me. I ski at Castle Mountain in AB so we get a lot of Powder up top and wind sift but lower down it tends to be groomers in the morning and usually gets scraped off to about an inch of soft in the afternoon.

    If I’m an intermediate skier (I’m pretty comfortable in Single blacks and working my way towards doubles) do you think I’ll be able to handle this ski? I’m also pretty heavy (~250) if that makes a difference.

    • Hi, Scott. At 250 lbs., I hope you have the 188cm model. If you don’t, then trade it or sell it. The question isn’t whether you’ll be able to handle this ski, the only question is whether it will be enough ski for you.

72. Can you do a reveiw on the rossignol sin 7. I really like the sound of the soul 7 because it is easy to turn and light weight. I am 5’11″and weigh 150lbs. I ski the eastcoast and want an allmtn ski. I ski at jay peak and mostly ski natural terrain and tight trees. I am only 16 years oldbut am wondering if the sin 7 if right for me. Right now i ski a 80 mm park ski. Ilike its playfulness and quickness but not its turn inition and float in 6-12 inches.Is the sin 7 right for me. If not theese are other skis I am considering. I also dont like the feel of a flat tail. I dont ski super fast unless im ona groomer. I want the ski to be playful and versitile. But most importantly it has to turn fast in trees and moguls.
    1 sin 7
    2. soul 7
    3. line sir francis bacon
    4. salomon q-98
    5. line sick day 95
    6. another playful park ski.
    7. Any sugestion that you have i will consider
    Which ski is right for me

    • Ryan – we’ll hopefully get a SIN 7 review out next month. Stay tuned, it could definitely make sense for you.

73. Just got these skis and I am trying to choose between the Look Px 12’s and the Marker Griffon. I am 5’10” 160lb and a pretty aggressive east coast (at the moment) skier. I got the 180’s. I know the Griffon’s are lighter, but do you think with such a light ski that it would matter to have a little bit lighter binding? Both seem like a pretty reliable binding, what would you choose? I ski all over, woods, groomers, park..

    • Hi, Chuck, your call. We’re big fans around here of the LOOK “P” (pivot) bindings (aka, Rossignol FKS), and we would choose them over the “PX” series. But we also spend a lot of time on Jesters, and some time on Griffons. So since you asked what I personally would choose (1) Look P14 / Rossi FKS, (2) Jester (3) Griffon, (4) PX.

74. Hey Jonathan,

    Great reviews. Would love your input on my specific situation. I would put myself in the advanced intermediate category. I am comfortable skiing at decent speeds on steep groomed runs, skiing small bumps, etc., but still tentative in bigger bumps and in trees . . . however I have a strong desire to improve. Powder skiing experience is limited as it is luck of the draw if I get any fresh snow when I have a chance to ski. On few occasions I got into some powder, I was not on the right type of ski and it was not a pleasant experience. Typically ski 5-8 days a year in Colorado or Utah on vacation.

    I have been doing a lot of research to find a ski that would be extremely versatile and enable me to start expanding my terrain and improve my skills. I’m thinking either the Soul 7 or the Blizzard Bonafide, but wondering if these are too much of a step up into the Freestyle category for me. I still spend majority of my time on the front side on the groomers right now, but as skills improve hoping that will change. Wondering if this category/style of ski will help me progress??? I did have a chance to demo Soul 7s a few weeks ago when in Lake Tahoe, but snow conditions were poor so didn’t really get to give them a full workout. But I felt pretty comfortable on them on some pretty hard, man-made snow.

    I am 6′ 2″, 205, athletic, late 40s, and in pretty good shape. Tend to do everything on the “aggressive” side, but starting to slow down a “bit” with age. Would love to know if you think I am on right track with Soul 7 and/or Bonafide, and if so, which would be a better choice? Based on the multitude of comments already shared, I’m sure you would recommend a 188 ski length in either of these? And are the Marker Griffon binders a good choice? If I’m on the wrong track here, would welcome some other recommendations for something that would be a better fit. Thanks a bunch!

    • Hey, Freddie. The Bonafide and Soul 7 are very different skis, but I could see you making either work, actually. I would much, much, much prefer to ski the Soul 7 on a pow day. So if you want this ski to SHINE in soft conditions but still be serviceable in firm conditions (at slower speeds), then Soul 7. The Bonafide is definitely a more firm-conditions oriented ski, and the 187 Bonafide will be much more stable at speed than the Soul 7. No 98mm underfoot ski with metal will be an outstanding pow ski, but it will be fun in 6 inches of fresh. You’ll have to decide where you want this ski to excel.

      One last thought: seems like you should read Jason Hutchins’ review of the Blizzard Peacemaker. It’s a ski that is sort of situated between the Bonafide and the Soul 7.

75. Hi Jonathon

    I am heading up to Niseko for some off piste fun in the trees and backcountry powder. I am 6′ 4″ and 210lbs and usually have a pair of 192cm Bent Chetlers for the deep powder days but am looking for a more manueverable ski for the trees. Would these be a good option or would I be too heavy for them?

    Peter

    • Would these be replacing your Bent Chetlers? For the deepest days in Niseko, I think you’d want more than the Soul 7s. But if you’ll have your Bent Chetlers, too, then I could see you using these on shallower days, especially given that Niseko is more about low-angle (super fun) tree skiing.

76. Hi Johnathon,

    I ski Mantra 170, I’m going to Alta. I’m 5’6″ about 150 lbs male. Advanced but not expert. Have skied a lot of Alta about 4 times. 48 years old. I can only get Soul 7 180. No more 172 around. Should I go up to 180. The shops say yes, but they may be just trying to sell a ski. Thanks. And Great site!

    • Thanks, Michael. And I think you should give those 180s a try. I’d actually be more nervous about you going with the 172s.

      • Thanks! It’s done. That was my gut feeling. Great site. I will tell my friends and support your advertisers!

77. Can you compare the soul 7 to the volkl nunataq for backcountry use? I am 6’1” 175 and will skiing around SW Montana. Thanks.

    • Sorry, Nico. We haven’t skied the Nunataq.

    • Same reply as above ….

      I have gotamas (heavier Nunataq but very similar shape) and just picked up the Souls to replace them. Souls are much quicker / turnier. The volkls are a subtle full rocker, and don’t have they playful characteristics of the “fun shape” design of the newer rossis and similar skis. The volkls do well in soft snow but chatter a lot on firmer snow with the full rocker. Lacking the camber underfoot, they definitely do not carve like the souls. I didn’t dislike the volkls (and will be using them next season as my early season soft snow ski until conditions get good enough to break out the Bibbys), but definitely don’t find them to be as versatile. Although I have not skied the Cochise, I would describe the volkls as a lighter, softer, less damp version of a similar shape (and the Nunataq’s will be even more so.) I think they would make a very nice middle width but lightish touring ski for consistently soft snow, but not as good of an all-rounder.

78. Just an update I have now skied the 178 Soul, 188 Soul and 188 Supers.

    In deep snow the Super is awesome and to be honest is fine on piste if you are just using it to get places. The Soul offers a little more versatility but not too much float. Always size up in my experience even the 188s feel small when your blasting them so dont be afraid :)

    I bought the Supers in 188 and im 6 ft and 200lbs if they did a bigger set I would have got them to.

79. Hey, thanks for this great review. Would you recommend this ski for, essentially, a beginner? I’ve skied and snowboarded about 10-15 times in as many years (albeit, I’m athletic and a longtime class v kayaker). Someone at a shop was trying to sell me on 180 cm, but I’m 5’10” and 185 lbs — if these are appropriate, it sounds like sizing up to 188 cm would be the right thing to do. I’d love to have the time to demo more options, but I really don’t. Looking for a relatively aggressive ski to grow into, so if there is another option, would you (or someone else) please recommend?

    • Thanks, Jason. And yes, I do think the Soul 7 would work well for an athletic beginner, and I would still say that the 188 is the right call. As you progress (and I think you will progress quickly if you just get some time on snow), you might discover down the line that you prefer a beefier ski, but I wouldn’t worry too much about that right now. Most of all, I think you’re going to have fun on this ski, which I think is paramount. (RANT / FUTURE ARTICLE: This is also why basically all “beginner” rental skis should be destroyed immediately – those old skis are not making skiing more fun or any easier for anybody.) I don’t know where you live or where you ski, but the other ski that I would consider for an athletic, 185 lbs. guy would be the 186 Volkl Bridge at 98mm-underfoot. In fact, if you tend to ski in lower-snow areas, that might be my first choice for you. Let us know what you decide to go with and how it works out!

80. Hi Jonathan,
    I read that you stated nobody has said they got the Soul 7’s too long…..I might have to be a lone dissenting voice. I am 6’0″ and 200+ lbs in my 40’s and an advanced/expert skier. I went from some 178 Rossi S7’s to the 188 Soul 7’s based on your recommendation. I just spent a week in BC on Icy groomers, light pow, heavy pow and even a day of heli thrown in for good measure. Are they light…you betcha. Are they good on piste….I’d say better than good. Are they good in pow… yes (but not nearly as good as my old S7’s (I know they’re the beefier pow ski)). The issue that I did have with them was in the trees, where I love to spend my days. In this instance I wish I had the 180’s. I also found the tails to be much more grabby on the snow than my S7’s (something that I understand a lot of people wished that Rossi would correct with the S7…I happened to like it). As a result I found that I was working way too hard to get the skis around in the tight quarters.
    Don’t get me wrong, I really do love these skis, but to the people that are looking to spend a lot of time in the trees doing tight turns I found the 188’s to be too long for me.
    If I had time to demo them first it would have been a great help….I may have even ended up with the new Super 7.
    I did find your review and this thread very helpful in choosing the Soul 7’s and this is why I thought I’d add my 2 cents.
    Happy trails….or off trails as the case may be!

    • Thanks, Derek. Perhaps you’re simply the exception to the rule, but neither Jason, Dana, nor I would recommend going shorter than 188 for a 200+ lb. expert skier. (Jason weighs 160 lbs. and wouldn’t consider going shorter.) It sounds a little bit like you are skiing the Soul 7 like you can ski the S7: on your heels. As the designer of the S7 admitted to me, that’s how the S7 was intended to be skied – at slower speeds, from the heels rather than the balls of the feet. If that’s what’s happening, then it could explain why your Soul 7s are harder to turn. Of course, the skinnier Soul 7 won’t float as well as your S7s, so that is a factor, too. If you bump up to the fatter Super 7 you’ll get more float, but if you’re skiing with your weight shifted back (a la the S7), you’ll likely have similar problems with the Super 7 that you’ve had with the Soul 7. They have the same tail design.

81. HI there

    I am in the market for a pair of new skis and have heard a lot of good things about the Soul 7’s. I am 6’3″ and about 220 llbs. I would describe myself as an Advanced skier. I mostly enjoy off piste and through the trees in tight spaces. I also like to have a bomb down but mostly prefer to get around the whole mountain and have a play. I have been skiing the Salomon XT850 and it’s been OK but I am looking for something that is lighter, more playful and good in the softer snow/pow days. I live in the Canadian Rockies so my local hills are Sunshine, Lake Louise, etc. Two questions:

    – what size would you suggest for me – 180 or 188?
    – what bindings would you recommend?

    Cheers

    • Hey, MJE – please read the many, many answers to the “What length?” question in the above comments. I guarantee you’ll find your answer. As for bindings, Rossi FKSs are a very solid choice.

82. Jonathan,
    Great Review! Very enlightening, I am an 6′ 195lb Intermediate skier living in Bozeman, Montana. I just demoed the Soul 7’s in a 180 in some variable spring conditions, I’m currently riding an old hand me down pair of K2 Public Enemies that a friend loaned me to get back into skiing this year. Skiing has become my sanity through winter, and I’m looking to get a new pair of skis. I demoed the Soul 7’s in a 180 against Blizzard Bonafide in a 186, and a pair of Fischer Big Stix 110 in 176. I’m not a hard charger, by any means and love tree skiing and we have alot of tight rocky chutes from our ridge terrain at Bridger Bowl that I’d like to progress into next winters, this being said I’m starting to get bored with the groomer situation, and find myself venturing out through the trees searching for powder or hiking for it. The Soul 7’s felt superb at every level on and off piste, and through moguls but there edges seemed to grab almost to well and made them feel squirly to me, I hated the Bonafides for the stiffness again just not a ski for my style, but I really liked the Fischer Big Stix they performed really similar to the Soul 7’s, but felt a little more “loose”. My concern is this, after reading some reviews about the Big Stix I would need to move up to there 186 to have a chance in powder, would I lose the similar performance to the Soul’s at that length? I’ve also read about some concern of being to heavy for the soul 7’s, at 6′ 195 would I be weighing the Soul’s down at both the 188 or 180 lengths? Could you give any insight about which ski might be better choice, I don’t blast through snow, and definitely ski around moguls, I just want a ski that will float me in powder and thats the only thing I didn’t get to test on these two skis today…Thank you!

    • Thanks, C, and I’ve got to say, I’m impressed by how clearly you’ve described your ability level and what, exactly, you’re hoping to get out of this ski.

      As for powder performance, the Soul 7 is simply going to be better than the Big Stix the deeper the snow gets. At your size, bumping to the 186 Big Stix isn’t going to make it float as well as a 188cm Soul 7 – the Soul has a lot more tip and tail splay. BUT this will only be an issue if you’re concerned about more than ~18″ of pow. Less than that, and I think the 186’s more traditional shape (more subtle rocker profile) will work fine for you, and you’ll probably appreciate the Big Stix more than the Soul 7 in firm conditions. As for the Soul 7, sounds like the tips and tails could have benefited from some detuning. If you aren’t skiing on your heels, that ski shouldn’t feel grabby. As for length, you loved the 180 now, and my general rule is to buy what you already KNOW you like. Having said that, if you are getting a lot of ski days in next season and think you might advance quickly, I am confident that you will be wanting more length. So up to you: get the 180s now and understand that you might need to sell them when you outgrow them, or just go longer now. Your call. Same goes for the Big Stix 110. More than anything, I hope whatever you get helps you to enjoy this sport more and more. The mountains keep me sane, too.

83. Finally demoed (and purchased today). Demoed alpine but they’ll be my go to tele ski for anything even a little soft. 188 are stupid easy to ski. I’m 5’10”, 165#. Unless you really miss your old snow blades, I couldn’t see anyone my size or bigger being dissapointed in the 188. They are so quick and easy to turn I didn’t even consider going back to try the 180.

    I expected them to be quick, but was pleasantly surprised at how well they did making big turns through 5″ of soft chop on top of frozen crud. I didn’t particularly miss my Bibbys today as long as I stayed light and fluid on my feet. The Bibbys seem to have a speed and turn size that they really like, whereas I felt these were much more versatile at making a variety of turns (makes sense given design characteristics). I probably wouldn’t trust the Soul as much at high speed in firm steeps.

    I felt that all 3 Blister reviews give a very detailed, clear picture of what to expect out of this ski … Quick, light, easy and they really will pivot and smear on a dime. I agree with Jonathan … they are a good expert ski, as long as your definition of expert extends beyond straight up fast charging.

    • Really great feedback, Jack. Thanks.

84. Tele update: Gonna rant a bit about some tele stuff, because there’s not a whole lot of information out there for the 2 or 3 people still telemarking these days. Kinda long, so just ignore if you are among the nobody who cares that we tele.

    I’d be really curious to hear what Robin thinks about these skis, especially in comparison to both of the DPS Wailers. They seem like a happy middle between the 2 on paper.

    1st day. 188 size. I’m 5’11, 165#, expert, aggressive, former nordic racer (explains the tele skiing) but never spent time in the alpine gates. 5-8″ of nice soft powder / late morning on top of variable firm to refrozen snow depending on aspect and recent sun effect. Breck. NTN freeride with Garmont prophet. Ended up about -1 from Rossi 0 mark on the center binding notch. I found these to be, for me, a darn near perfect soft snow tele ski. Haven’t had any truly firm conditions yet to attest to their 1-ski-quiver potential.

    Why?

    A good tele turn requires pretty pretty even weight on each ski. You don’t see too many people doing this (lazy uphill ski). Doing so, you end up with weight focused a few CM forward of boot center on the uphill ski, and a few CM behind boot center on downhill ski. A bit different than centered to tip driving style in a good alpine turn. As Robin said in one of his reviews, this sort of back seat looking turn is actually pretty similar to a GS / Slalom race position as far as the downhill ski is concerned. I totally agree with him that you really need a supportive (but not punishing tail) to do this right. To make a quick direction or speed change when you are not locked into a carve on groomed or firm snow, I end up weighting and sliding the tail of my downhill ski and then leaning on the uphill ski when I’m going where I want. A bit different than flicking both skis sideways or carving into a deeper turn as I would do on alpine skis. So what?

    I found the tail on the Soul 7 to be PERFECT for this. Not too soft, not too stiff, and loose enough to break out of a turn. My problems with previous / current ski have been that if the tail is too soft / too rockered it just washes out, and if it’s too stiff you get shot into the backseat and have to work to catch up with yourself . The Soul tail is stiff enough to grab some snow, but will still break loose easily enough to quickly change direction. In my opinion, the pivoty nature discussed in all 3 reviews makes for a great tele turn.

    The tips also seem to work very well. Soft and rockered enough to not dive (which really sucks on tele skis). You simply cannot drive the tip of a tele ski like you would with a locked heel so having an overly stiff tip does nothing but make you miserable. I didn’t experience any hookiness per se, but did find that when the short side cut locked into firmer snow between piles of soft stuff, I would find myself in a much tighter radius turn somewhat abruptly. Downside of the turny nature inherent in the new fun ski designs I suppose. Never unsettling though.

    Overall, they are indeed very quick. Didn’t lose any of that compared to my alpine demo. Happy to slash of a couple of quick turns in the trees. Did well enough in bumps, but didn’t get in anything firm or straight enough to zipper fast.

    Regarding mounting position. I was at 0 mark -1 and was pretty happy. I could actually see going back to -2 and still being pretty happy. They looked and felt more forward than I expected and had plenty of tail.

    Regarding size … don’t size down. They still skied way short and didn’t lose any quickness with a tele rig on top.

    • I care that you tele, Jack. Thanks for the great feedback, and glad these are working out so well for you!

      • Haha … just saw this.

        Thanks for the great reviews. Looking forward to figuring out what you guys are going to want to make me buy next season … supernatural 108 takes the cake so far.

    • Hi jackG/jonathan
      I am 5’9″ and 155-160lbs. Norwegian telemarkskier. Not an expert, probably intermediate level. I am looking for a telemarkski that will perform well on touring and all mountain skiing, primarily on softer snow. Sounds like this is a good ski for that? Should i go for the 180 or 188?

      • One more thing, Jack, you mentioned mounting your freerides at 0 mark -1. Does the same go for freedom bindings?

85. Hi,

    Awesome sites and review !!! I would say one of the best out there for sure! Very technical and detailed! Love it!

    Here’s what I’m looking at … I’m looking for a good backcountry setup to replace my existing 174 K2 Coomback (Flat tail, rockered tip) with Dynafit for something that would float better… I’m 5’9″” 160 Lbs + pack and gear, former snowbiard convert, ski mostly black terrain at the resort. I would mount the ski with a new set of Dynafit. I ski the Canadian Rockies (Alberta side) and the occasional trip to the interior BC. I mostly ski continental type snowpack, so it’s not the 2 Feet deep stuff unfortunately ;) For resort pow and fun ski, I ski the JJ 185 mounted -2 (I don’t ski switch, so it turns quick and float like feather for me) … I love the ski.

    Think the following three for my setup, like I said, this would be mounted with Dynaft …

    Soul-7 (180) : Would offer less weight and would be easier and fun in trees, but wonder about the float?
    Soul-7 (188) : Would float better for sure, but might be too much for a back country setup and for what use it for?
    Super-7 (180) : More pow oriented, but worried it wouldn’t be great when it’s not deep enough?

    Thanks for your advice and keep up the good work !!!

    Michael.

    • Hi, Michael – mostly based off your appreciation of the 185 JJ, I’d encourage you to go with the 188cm Soul 7. It might ski slightly longer than your JJs, but unless you’ve ever felt like your JJ’s work too much ski, I’d worry a bit about you dropping down to 180cm. And since you aren’t worried about deep snow performance, I don’t see any reason to opt for the Super 7 over the Soul.

86. Hi Michael,
    I have the setup you are proposing: Soul 7 in 180 cm, with a Dynafit Radical FT. I´m a 5’11 with 165 lbs plus gear, so about the same size as you. I can confirm, that the Soul 7 180cm offers amazing float in any soft snow condition. They are quiet light, specifically with Dynafits, easy to walk up and great joy on the decent.
    If the snow turns into hard crud, gets icy / steep / old, hands off from those skis, they just don´t offer enough edgehold. If don´t know, if sizing up would change my impression.
    I was skiing in Cham this season in mixed conditions, and saw quiet often this setup, also with fancy Plum bindings. However, I am considering to add BD Verdicts or Dynastar Chams 87 to my quiver, as a bad-snow touring setup.
    Hope this helps.
    Philipp

87. im 5 11 and weigh 145. i ski at jay peak.. mostly ski trees and bumps. Do have a decent amount of 5-10in pow days and hit the occasional groomer in the early season when alll the snow is manmade. im considering soul 7,sin 7, line sfb, rossi s3, k2kung fujas. I dont necisarily charge but do ski pretty well through trees and bumps
    I am leaning towards bacons and almost ready to pull the trigger. Bacons appeal to me because of thier lon effective edge, short turn radius(good for treess), and playfullness

    • Um, sounds good? Not sure if there is a question here, but I don’t think your thinking about this in the wrong way.

88. First, Thank you Jonathan for your response to my earlier post comparing the Big Stix and the Soul’s. I went ahead and bought the Soul 7’s in a 188 on a whim, I hadn’t even made up my mind when I went to the ski shop. I ended up putting axial 2 xxl bindings on them for now which I think will work well for me, if I redrill it will be for touring bindings. Anyway, I’ve managed two squeak two days in here before the local mountain closes down. Conditions were tough, for this ski, alot of frozen slush and such, but in the afternoon when it softens up these skis kill it. Second day out, we got 5″ of powder on top of a frozen layer, which wasn’t really anything to write home about but was better than nothing. However once I did get into some wind loaded areas and in some trees, it was pure joy couldn’t be happier. I could hardly tell the difference between the 180’s I demoed and the 188’s. Also a quick note, I did some traversing, and I didn’t detune the factory edges (razor sharp) and felt really stable and comfortable with them. I demoed the 180’s and bought the 188’s because of research and gut feeling, and it was definantly the right choice, even in conditions that this ski is not specifically designed for I felt like they did great, I demoed a pair of Blizzard Bonafides in a 186 and they are a world different from skiing a 188 Soul the Soul’s ski so much shorter, definantly size up. I’m so stoked for next winter already, and some spring snowstorms. But mostly wanted to share my experience with others, and thank you guys at blister for taking the time to help people out like this its really great and appreciated keep it up!

    • Nice, C! And thanks. Glad you like your new setup.

89. Philipp , Jonathan,
    Thanks guys for your comments … both comments are really appreciated!!! My only concern with the 188 was this might be a bit too much to log around, switch backs, longer tour… etc… I’ve never toured with something this long…. I’m leaning on the 180 for ease to tour with and on the 188 for the way down ;-) … I’ll have my wife on the Savory 172 this week end, a loaner from a friend, can’t wait to get her impression, as I also read your review on it here ! Might have 2 pairs instead of one to buy LOL …. thx again to both of you for taking the time to answer me!

    Michael.

90. Can anyone comment on the Rossignol soul 7 vs Volkl Nunataq for the purpose of touring for turns?

    Also, could you give a recommendation on length? I’m 69 kg (152 lbs) naked and about 179 cm (5’10) tall. Me: I’m a decent skier, but you won’t see me in the movies. I don’t have a particularly aggressive skiing style and I like a ski that is easy to maneuver. I mostly ski in the western alps of Europe.
    I currently ski an old K2 Coomba in 174 cm, which I’m very happy with. I once had the Coomba in 181 and found it too long for me.
    I was guessing 178 would probably be the best length for the Nunataq but I’m in doubt about the soul 7: 172 (light, maneuverable but maybe not long enough?) or 180 (Long enough but heavier and maybe too difficult to throw around?)?

91. Hey Guys,

    Right now my 2 ski quiver consists of Line Prophet 90’s (184) and Atomic Bentchetlers (183).
    My wife get’s a Rossi prodeal through work and apparently I do too, so I’m trying to decide between the Sin 7 and the Soul 7.

    My gut tells me I should go for the Sin to round out my quiver but I’m leaning towards to the Soul to make that my primary ski, and use the Benny’s for day with 12+ inches.

    I’m in Seattle and primarily ski Crystal and Alpental (Benny’s have Duke’s) but i usually ski Whistler, Bachelor and Hood a few times a season.

    Any thoughts on which route I should go? (Advanced intermediate)

92. Hi Jonathan,

    Super helpful as always, hoping you can help me just a little bit more as I gear up for this season. I am a converted boarder (past 15yrs) now ski-addicted. Only an intermediate but plan to get lots of days on mountain this year and step it up. I’d prefer to only have one pair of skis and learn to tame them before acquiring a quiver. I prefer a turny, fun ski. In anything soft at all I want to slash and slarve around and look for little things to bump and jump off (nothing big yet though). I dont ski super fast or carve like a racer. The name of the game is “fun” for me. I’m considering:

    Rossi Soul 7
    Line SFB
    Moment PBJ

    Understanding there are tradeoffs for each, I need one ski that will help me learn as I become a more confident all mountain skier. I live east coast but spend 3-4 weeks west each year as well. Will be in VT, NH, WV, CO and PNW this year. Of course I still have to ski mandmade hardpack days too, but I’m usually on the edge of the trail. At 5’11” 185lbs do you think any of these is best for an intermediate wanting to get better and have “fun” all over the mountain? Thanks much

93. Hi Jonathan,

    can give us an idea when to expect the Sin 7 review?
    As I want to get a new touring setup I am really interested in that.

    Also are going to review the Marker Kingpin Bindings?
    If so when?

    Thank you for your great work!

    Best Regards,

    Hias

94. Hi there,

    Thanks a lot for this website with very detailed reviews!
    I am a french intermediate skier; rather light 63 kg and I am 1m 77. I live in the french alps at one hour from chamonix. I ski a lot off piste and do a lot of touring during winter, but I don’t ski superfast notr have a racer background…and I am looking for a ski that makes off piste skiing easier and fun. I currently own light skitouring but quite wide (95 mm underfoot) skis for long tours and some atomic access (100 mm wide and 181cm tall) with marker tour F10 bindings that i use for lift off piste skiing and sometimes on tour with deep pow (but they are quite heavy with market bindings). What would be the key benefits / key differences between a soul 7 and the atomic access? Both skis are praised to be very tolerant, nimble and light. I am thinking especially about the difficult snow (crust, crud, wet powder, wind snow) that we encounter quite often in the alps during winter. I am quite happy with my Atomic access so wondering how better the soul 7 would be in tough conditions.
    I am considering selling my atomic access and upgrading for the soul 7 in 180 cm or the super 7 in 172 cm with dynafit Bindings. What would you pick up? I think I would have more fun on super 7 on deep pow, but reality is that there are not so many deep pow days in the alps where you really need 115 mm underfoot (and right now we don’t have snow!) so I am more leaning towards the soul 7…I know rocker skis are better a bit longer but for touring 172 cm would be better than the 180cm.
    Any thoughts on this?
    Thanks!
    Laurent

95. Also very keen to see your Sin 7 review please.
    Probably overshadowed by the Soul but not a lot out there on these except manufacturer spec sheet reviews which are just advertising where yours are more the ‘real deal’. Looks on paper like an easy better to use on piste and do it all compromise like the S3 was.

96. Is there any chance you are going to be reviewing an Black Crows Atris anytime soon?
    Would love to here your thoughts on this ski.
    Sounds like the perfekt blend of playfulnes / stability.

97. This weekend, I got to try out some new Soul 7s (I bought them as last year’s demo skis), and they were miraculous. I went to a local hill in Southern Utah (Brian Head resort), that had predicted 5″ and got 14″ instead, and they were absolutely beautiful. Plenty of edge grip where the snow was firm and wind-swept, but the soft stuff was sublime. I’m head over heals in love.

98. Hello Jonathan

    Awesome reviews. Awesome dedication. Thank you!

    All the best and stay safe

    Chris

99. Ok to have one question though. Many new skis have hit the scene over the past 3 years. Would u still recommend it as a good buy or say something else might get the job done better. Have a pair of s3 and s7’s. Dig em both. But am very tempted to get the soul 7.

    Please just hit this review commentary one last time to round of 2+ years of new skis hitting the scene.

    Thanks

    Chris

100. Soul 7’s are garbage. They delaminated after 10 days of inbound skiing with my kids over the last 16 months. Rossignol claims that this is not a defect and will not warranty them because they are more than a year since I bought them, despite that they are still BRAND NEW without a scratch on them. My only conclusion is that if they are not defective, then they design them to delaminate. Total garbage. I will NEVER BUY ROSSIGNOL again.