Doing laps and hitting jumps off of the Collins and Wildcat lifts, the Sickle proved to be just as at home in the air as it is on the snow. Swing weight was pretty average — not too heavy, but not the lightest thing out there, either. And though my knee hasn’t been 100% all season, I was still easily able to throw any trick I wanted.
Another significant test of the Sickle occurred when the Baldy Chutes opened in early April. I was able to ski Tree Chute, which features a pretty tight choke approaching 50 degrees, a mandatory air, and a high speed run-out. The Sickle performed beautifully. I easily nailed the upper hop turns, had enough confidence in the ski to stomp the air, and charged through four, nice GS turns down into the bowl below.
Simply put, the Sickle has proven to be anything and everything I’ve ever wanted out of a ski. (This might be a good time to mention that the Sickle is the ski that Dylan Crossman used to win the 2010 Kirkwood Freeskiing World Tour event. Dylan can rip; so can the Sickle.)
Ok, enough gushing. You’re probably wondering whether there is anything negative to say about the Sickle. For me, given my height, weight, and how and where I ski, there is very little negative news to report.
The only snow condition the Sickle felt a little overwhelmed by was deep, manky snow on a super warm day at Snowbird. In that snow, the sidecut felt a little too tight and the shovel perhaps a little soft. (This is really nit picking; I’m struggling to come up with weak points of this ski.) I really only felt those sensations during a couple runs, and it was probably aided by the fact that I hadn’t waxed the bases in weeks.
The only other negative I can think of doesn’t really concern the performance of the ski, but rather Rossignol’s measuring methods. The Sickle I tested is listed at 186 cm, but measures just under 183 cm. I never really wished for more ski, even on one of the deepest runs of my life down the newly opened Alta/Snowbird Comma Chute. (I could only see shades of white billowing over my head the entire run.) I only mention these length stats because someone who is over 6’ and pushing 200 lbs. may wish that Rossi made the Sickle in a low-190’s cm length.
Rossignol Sickle vs. Rossi S7 and Super 7
Now to the big question: how does the Sickle compare to its more famous big brothers, the S7 and Super 7? (Read my full review of the Super 7 / S7 here.)
After spending a great deal of time on both skis, I found the Sickle to outperform both the S7 and the Super 7 in all respects. The Sickle floats better, busts crud better, handles speed better, jumps better, and is nearly as easy to ski.
Unlike the Rossignol S7, the Sickle has a full-length sidecut that translates to more stability at speed and far less deflection in crud. And even though the Sickle has a wider tail than the S7 / Super 7, the fully rockered shape still allows the skier to break the tails free in soft snow and get that soft, easy, smeary feeling that many love about the S7 shape.
If you are a beginner powder skier, you might prefer the softer flex and the shorter turn radius of the S7, but I would recommend the Sickle over the S7 to everyone else. In fact, if you are thinking of picking up the S7s, I would strongly recommend that you demo the Sickle before you buy.
The 110mm-underfoot Sickle may seem like too much plank for some, especially the East Coaster’s out there. For you, Rossi gave the S5 the same “U / Spin Turn Rocker” treatment as the Sickle for 2012. It has been renamed the Scimitar, and is 98 mm underfoot. If it skis anything like the Sickle – and we will let you know as soon as possible – it could very well be the perfect all-around ski for areas that don’t see 400+ inches a year. (You can now read our reviews of the Scimitar.)
Bottom Line
If you like skiing every bit of the mountain, including steeps, bowls, trees, groomers, jumps, and cliffs, and you want a ski that will instill confidence on any terrain or snow conditions, then the 2012 Rossignol Sickle is the ski for you.
The Sickle has become my new personal favorite, and the reference ski I’ll use to compare all other skis in the tip and tail rockered, +/- 110mm category.
Just curious how you arrived at +2cm mount location. Thanks.
Honestly, I arbitrarily set them up at +2 my first day out and in the end, it turned out to be where I liked them the best. I typically like to run my bindings as far forward as I can without causing tip dive in crud and pow. This balances out the swing weight as much as possible for when I’m in tight spots or throwing tricks. It also helps out when skiing switch. I tried them as far back as 0 and as far forward as +3. I found the Sickle to perform its best at everything I love to do between +2.5 and +2.
Thanks for commenting!
Thanks, Jason. Demo’d a pair of s6’s at Crystal Mt last season but didn’t check binding location. Agree it’s one of the most versatile skis I’ve ever skied – packed,crud,pow,anything. Bought a pair on sale a week before your review came out. Then saw Brian Ellsworth’s review at rateskigear.com – he set the bindings at -.5cm and that made me curious. Thanks for the explanation and great review.
I’ve read this review multiple times and am strongly considering this ski now. I have flip flopped so many times on what to get but I think I finally have my choices narrowed down. I’m between the new 184 Sir Francis Bacon and the 186 Sickle. I know you love the Sickle but wonder if you’ve had a chance to check out the new SFB or know somebody who has. I’m hoping for a comparison contrast of the two as a quiver of one ski for now.
Hi Tyler,
Unfortunately I have not yet been able to get on the new SFB’s. Like you I am very curious about them. In fact, they are one of my top picks (the other being the new Mr. Pollard’s Opus) that I have asked to review as soon as the snow starts flying. I have always been a fan of EP’s skis. I think the new SFB’s look like a fantastic one ski quiver, but I do believe it will ski quite differently then the S6. Anything I say is complete speculation though so you’ll have to take that info for what it is worth. As soon as I get on a pair I will be able to give you my take on them compared to the Sickle.
One thing I can say for sure is that the Sickle rocks, you won’t be disappointed if you go that route.
Sorry I couldn’t be more help right now!
Have you skied the Wailer 112? I am looking for a comparison between the two, esp. for: performance in heavy deep snow, non-powder, and tourability. I’m thinking the Wailer wins in the last category, but not sure about the other two.
Hey mtb, I’ll field this one, since I’ve skied both the Sickle and the 112rp, and Jason hasn’t been on the 112rp yet. (We’ll fix that this season.)
First: the 190 112rp Pure is my favorite touring ski of all time: best combination I’ve ever seen of a lightweight ski for going up, that is exceptionally good going down. If you are going to be touring on this setup regularly, let that be the tie breaker.
But the Sickle is a very good ski, and at the price point, it could be a pretty attractive alternative to the 112rp. In heavy, deep snow, I’d give the nod to the 112rp, because of its extremely rockered tip. You will sink the tip of the Sickle before the 112rp, for sure. I’ve skied the 112rp a bunch on groomers, and it’s fantastic. I put in very little time on groomers on the Sickle, so I have to be careful. Jason, of course, thinks they’re amazing. Perhaps the biggest thing to note is that the 112rp has camber underfoot, the Sickle doesn’t. Jason noted no hardpack shortcomings to the Sickle’s U-rocker, but in talking about hardpack performance, I’m generally going to go with the bite of a ski that’s cambered underfoot – just my bias.
In sum: the more importance you’re giving to tourability and heavy, deep snow performance, the stronger I’m recommending the 112rp. The more important groomer and chop performance are, the more it looks – to me at least – like a tie. And if you’re skiing switch, flippin’ or spinnin’, go Sickle.
Anyway, that’s a rough beginning of an answer to your question. But I’m glad you asked about these two skis. They are two very versatile skis, and a more direct Vs. Review would be fitting. We’ll get on that review as soon as we can.
Any thoughts on how a Blizzard Cochise (2011-12) would compare to the Sickle for an all mountain resort/side country skier (not touring)? I’m a bit heavier (190) than Jason but ski roughly similar parts of the mountain at Alta/Snowbird seeking out variable conditions and demanding terrain without big air, jibbing, and switch stunts. I was ready to buy the Cochise or Bodacious, but after reading this excellent review, I’m more likely to go with the Sickle based on performance and price. Are these comparable skies or am I comparing apples and oranges?
Got to this from your S7 review, thanks for the great info. As soon as you started talking about laying down railroad tracks on moguls, I knew you had to have been from New England originally. Ski hard man!
Great review. thanks for making it so detailed. I have been on a pair of older S6’s the last 3 years and love them. My only complaint is the tips occasionally diving when it gets really deep, otherwise they are amazing. They are mounted at +3, I’m 6′ 1 & weigh 190. The Sickle’s rocker sounds like the perfect upgrade, would you still recommend mounting at +2 for my size? the shop is telling me – .5
I think the new Sickle would be a fantastic upgrade for you. If you are liking your old s6 at +3 I’m not sure if I would go all the way back to -.5 on the mount. I personally like a little more forward mount as it balances the ski out more. I am quite a bit lighter than you but I loved the +2 mount. I’d be willing to bet you would like something around +1.
Perfect, thank you for the response. I have a new pair on the way.
Love this site. I especially like that you guys make an effort to make comparisons and recommendations for people asking for advice rather than just saying “search” or “demo.” I am 6’1″, 195lbs, expert skier, technical style more than power (kind of old school, I guess). Live in Colorado. I took about ten years off from skiing to snowboard exclusively and just caught the ski bug again a couple years ago. Have been skiing a 189 Seth Vicious which I like, but am now looking for a rockered everyday ski to fit a quiver of two with a pair of High Society FR Rockers for deeper days. I think the Sickle sounds great, but am wondering about the size for me. Jason, do you think the ski might feel too small in all conditions, or just in deep stuff (that wouldn’t be as much of an issue). I am also thinking about the Moment PB&J and Nordica Girish. Would also love advice on mount point on the Sickle for someone who rarely rides switch and doesn’t hit the park much. I do like to to ski bumps, but not all day like I used to. Thanks. Keep up the good work, guys.
Great reviews. I’ve been trying to decide which ski to buy for 2011/12. Was leaning to the S7 until I read the Sickle review. I’m 5’10” and 155 lbs. Advanced skiier. I ski a mix of powder, steeps, fast groomers, trees and bowls. No moguls or jumps really. Any advice?
As I said in my review, I personally believe that if you are an advanced skier you will like the Sickle more than the S7. I don’t think the S7 holds a candle to the Sickle in terms of all around shred-ability and balance. We are close enough in size that I think you would absolutely love the Sickle, get the 186 and mount around +1.
Great review! Amazing how long the new S6 were a hidden secret. I was wondering the whole last season why so few people skied S6.
I’d add their ability to turn on a dime. Their slight weekness is packed wet snow when you can’t keep them on the edges – the edges get caught up a bit. It is what you usually encounter on a spring day skiing out on a popular groomer. Did not bother me.
Mine are mounted at 0.
Another quality of the new S6 I would also mention is impact dampening with little flexing. Feels like a Cadillac.
Decided not to wait for further input and got a pair. 2011 S6. Mounted at zero. Only two days on them so far but I am really impressed. I have yet to ski on anything more than a couple inches but they feel pretty quick and are very stable. If you have been on the fence, get them, especially if you have been worrying about hardpack performance.
I have been on the hunt for then perfect all mountain ski for Utah. I am 5’10” 185 pounds, love to spend every minute possible on steeps and in the trees. But, i also want boards that can lay tracks and hold an edge on the groomers at high speed or snap tight turns on the side of the trails when with my more conservative friends or family. I was leaning toward the Blizzard Chochise but was steered toward the Super 7 at the on mountain shop. After reading your review on that ski and the Sickle I feel like the sickle would be a much better fit but I am still suffering from Cochise on the brain. I saw someone else mention them earlier in this thread and am interested in your thoughts between the two and what length(s) you would recommend.
Ps. Your reviews are some of the best I have ever read!
Lee,
I haven’t been able to get on the Cochise yet, unfortunately (as I’m sure you are aware) the snowpack is still pretty thin here in UT and now we’re basically at full on east-coast firm. So, we have delayed the Cochise test until the snow arrives. With that being said I don’t feel that it would be fair to say much about the Cochise.
What I will say though is that the Sickle fits PERFECTLY into the mold of what you say you are looking for. If you are a strong skier go with the 186, as you can see at the top of the review it actually only measures in at 182.25 with a straight-pull tape.
Wondering about your thoughts on using this ski for tele?
None of our Tele skiers have been able to get on the Sickle yet. I’ll try to get Robin to chime in with what he thinks and I’ll do some research for you…
I am not an aggressive skiier but have skiied for 45 years. I like to make lots of turns, do mostly tree skiing. I ski on groomed rarely but love an easy turning ski. How do you feel about a 174cm Sickle for me at 160 lbs, 5’8″?
David,
To me you seem like a prime candidate for the S7 actually. Which resort are you skiing at mostly? Either ski would work very well for you and both will be very easy turning. Remember they run pretty short, I would guess the 174 Sickle actually measures around 170 with a straight pull tape, keep that in mind if you are skiing at a resort that sees mega pow days. If you were to go S7 I would recommend the 178, again they measure short and they ski with the ease of a much shorter ski. You won’t be disappointed either way.
Yo Tsizzle!
I’d love to try this ski with a powerful telebinding, like the NTN or a Hammerhead AXL. I wouldn’t worry about the full rocker, because the edge is fully engaged when carving, but that is only if your aren’t in the backseat. If you depend on a stiff tail, this probably isn’t the ski for you, but if you keep your weight centered, then it sounds bomber! Give us a note back if you do ride it!
I took some Sickles out of the plastic today. Will be mounting them Telestyle w/ NTN. Still haven’t decided where to mount, leaning towards 0 or -0.5. Open to suggestions … I’m 6’3″ / 200. These skis will not be going switch all that much — mostly steep powder and low-angle trees. Some resort when the conditions are good, mostly side/back country.
Ran this by Robin and he recommended going with 0 since the NTN’s have 3 location settings which you can choose from.
Enjoy!
How does the S6/Sickle compare to the Gotamas? The Gotamas also have slight rocker tip to tail. Which are better in crud, meaning most everything in Vail’s Back Bowls after about 10 AM.
I haven’t been able to get on the Gotama for a comparison yet this year. The best I can do for you right now, is let you know if the Sickle is a fit for you based on your size, skiing style, and favorite terrain. Let me know!
Love your reviews. Real reviews for a change. Want to read more. Saw an earlier post about the Sickle vs. SFB. Have you had a chance to get on the new SFB to compare? Also, is this years Sickle the same as last years S6, aside from graphics??
Thanks Jeff!
Unfortunately getting on a pair of SFB’s has been, well, impossible thus far, for multiple reasons. Believe me, they are at THE TOP of my list, the very top. I’m hoping in the next week or two a few things will change: 1)It will SNOW!!! 2) I’ll have SFB’s under my feet!
Yes, the Sickle this year is the same ski as the S6 of last year. They share the same graphic except the 11/12′ has “Sickle” written in the top sheet.
The S6 Sucks. DO NOT BUY.
Seriously. I own a pair. I’d love to sell you these 186s with look style bindings.
I was in Vancouver in March 2011 and was pushed into these by a sales guy, instead of the S7s, for versatility bla bla bla.
Why do I dislike the S6?
1. These boards ski like my old voklls from the early 90s. They are not a fun ski. They only like to go in straight lines. Yes they stomp stuff in their way, but most advanced skiis since 1988 can do that.
2. My comparison was my last pair of skis, the Rossignol B3s, which are a much better ski. The B3s turn faster, are lighter, float blissfully in powder and can alternate between tight powder 8s and long fast lines. they have a softer flex and yet are very stiff in torsion, allowing me to carve on man made bullet pack without compromising the fun in the powder.
3. Testing against 3 other skis.I just spent 4 days skiing at Kicking horse ski resort in B.C.with my S6s in excellent conditions. One day I decided to do a premium rent where for $40 you can ski on as many demos as you’d like during the day.
a) I skiied the Blizzard cochise 177cm. I am 6’3″ and 200 lbs. These skis were just too short. they skied like short skis, spinning me around 2x. They felt unstable and I could not setup flow with the boards. I believe with the rocker the effective length is 20+cm shorter on mixed terrain. These could be a run ride if they were long enough, like 190 cm. Definitely try before buy, don’t just believe skiing magazine.
b) I also tried Salomon Sentinel at 190 cm. The was a heavy ski with a pretty traditional design. Full length camber, very mild rocker at tip and lots of side cut. I found these skis sluggish and heavy. The didn’t perform that well, and on extreme terrain I became concerned that I could not get these skis around quick enough for the lines I wanted to hit. I returned them after one top to bottom run.
c) I wanted to try something radically different for my next skis, I pulled a pair of ULLR 190 cm skis. These skis looked weird. Huge rocker up front, traditional camber and side cut in the middle, and radically turned up tails. These skis make no sense until you ride them to discover the genius of the design. These skis have features I will look for from now on in EVERY SKI I consider buying.
Each part of the ski is designed for a purpose
Front rocker plus narrowing tip.
– get’s the length out of the way for faster turning response
– adds stability and edge control when force (harder turn) is applied
– adds control through floatation in powder and soft pack
– absorbs some of the bumos in chop and crud
– narrower tip has less mass than other skis (S7) and makes the ski more responsive
Camber + side cut
– all the reasons we’ve had this technology for 60 years
– more stable on hard pack, edges carve better and transmit force to edge more evenly
– less twitchy
– prevents catching an edge on straight runs
Rear rocker and shape
– The rear rocker allows very quick maneuvers in treed glades and down powder chutes. No more dragging the tails around
– they add stability in powder and on the steeps
The ULLR 190cm skis were fast turning, floaty, stable, and performed amazingly in double black diamond terrain. I kept these boards until the lifts closed. unfortunately I could not buy these skis, as they are made by a small custom ski builder out of Nelson B.C.
If you live near a ski hill my best advice is to demo demo demo before you buy. The skis are so very different these days and the choice can really change how you ENJOY your ski days.
Robin Dymond
Jason –
Great review. I just skied a pair of S7s at Stevens Pass today and was rummaging around reviews here for it and stumbled on your S6 article.
Anyway, funny enough, I noticed you grew up in Canaan and on Eaton Mtn. I’m from St. Albans and learned at Eaton as well. Little before your time but as you know, not a lot changes in that neck of the woods.
Need to try the S6 soon,
Scott
Scott,
Thanks for chiming in, glad you like the review! You definitely should check out the Sickle before purchasing anything. There is also a new Rossi coming out soon that might be worth the wait…
Miss the old days of shredding Fox, Fisher, Moose, etc at Eaton. Couldn’t ask for a better place to start building the foundation!
Hey Jason,
I was wondering if youd ever consider this as a touring ski? I currently use S5’s as my east coast park/ everything ski. Im now moving out to kicking horse in bc and want a “do everything that my s5’s dont” ski (backcountry, tour, powder…both in bounds and out)
Would these be a bad touring ski for what i described i was looking for?
It’s going to depend on your size whether or not it’s going to make a great pow ski. For me it was perfect. Although maybe a little heavy to be slogging around on huge tours (with dynafit’s they wouldn’t be bad), I think the Sickle’s versatility makes it an exceptional backcountry option as long as your not trying to set any ascending speed records or cover huge distances.
im pretty small, 5’5″ 140lbs. Im definitely not going to be trying to set any sort of records, although im not to sure how long my tours will be.
Jason-
Thanks for all the great reviews. I just picked up a new pair of Sickles (186cm). Where do you think I should mount them? I’m a big guy (6’3″, 280 lb) and I don’t care about riding backwards or spinning much. Thanks
Simon
Hi Simon,
I wouldn’t go much further back than 0 due to the continuous rocker. You are going to have to be careful not to overpower these things.
Hi Jason,
Thanks for the input. I went with -2 and i just love them. Maybe i am missing out on something but honestly I don’t care. These skis go anywhere. I don’t know what overpowering the sickle would feel like but I feel like I can charge these skis as hard as I want. Maybe I just don’t ski as hard as you do.
thanks
simon
Awesome Simon. I personally didn’t need anything more from the Sickle either. Still the best “one ski quiver” I’ve found. Enjoy!
Well Jason,.. if a butterfly flaps its wings in another part of the world will anyone notice? In the case of your review and the the drawing of parallels apparently you have very big wings. I have seen several references to your article around the Net and it appears quite influential. So,.. allow me to pester you with yet another question regarding the Sickle. Have you skiied it on steep black diamond mogul runs with left over powder? If you have, then in your honest opinion how did they perform? The mountain I ski at in Northern B.C. has little to no true free ride terrain aside from steep double black mogul runs.
thanks,
PS: Next year(2013)the 186cm becomes a 181cm. I wonder what the true length of that ski will be??
If you are talking “zipper-line” bumps the Sickle will handle them fine, but personally I might prefer a mogul ski. If you are talking about soft, monster, abnormally spaced moguls that typically form on steep, heavily trafficked un-groomed runs, then the Sickle will crush it! They are quick and smeary enough to slither through the troughs if that’s your style, but also stable enough to open up and lay trenches across the tops if you feel like leaving your friends in the dust.
Hi Jason,
How does the the older S6 Caballero (2009/2010) compare to Sickle? It happened that I bought for half the price of new Sickle a pair of brand new S6 Caballero and mounted them at +1.5 (I’m close to your size, I wonder if this would be ok?), then I found your review (btw, best reviews on net) and now I kind of regret my decision. What do you think?
Thanks.
Greg,
I don’t think you need to regret your decision, you bought fine skis at what sounds like a great price. The Sickle gains a bit of smeary soft snow performance and straight up pow performance with it’s slight full rocker shape. As far as I know the construction and sidecut are basically the same. I also think you’ll be happy at +1.5
I have heard that the S6 Jib and the Sickle are one in the same. Is that true?
Yes that is true. Be careful if you are purchasing the s6 though. There were issues with the first batch of s6’s that came to the statea and the rocker profile was all over the map. Some were just flat and some were wavy. If you get a pair make sure it is a slight continuous rocker with about a 1/2″ spread between the tips and tails when pressed together at the center.
Thanks sooo much for the hedz-up. Was that for this years 2011-12 production? I’d be buying 2011-12, hopefully they fixed by now.
Any knowledge of the Atomic Access? The shop steward was suggesting that model over the S6 for the second half of my soft snow quiver. I’m a 5′-11″/175# L5-6, and ski in western Colo., so I must take advantage of the powder days, which my IM78 doesn’t cut! ;-)
No the issue with the S6 Jib was the first production run of the 10/11 model. They are absolutely all good now, as with most of the 11 Jib’s you will find out there, as Rossi recalled the ones with issues. There are just a few that may have slipped through the cracks so you want to be aware.
As for the Access, I’ve never skied it, and have always been steered towards the Coax, Blog, Bentchetler, or Atlas from Atomic. That’s about all I can say on that.
Thanks for all the great information everyone. I am very interested in the rossi Sickles but at 6’6 235lbs am I left out in the cold?
I am an aggressive skier who enjoys all aspects of the mtn except for bumps. I ski in a very traditional GS stance but I am not scared of the newer surfy skis.
Of the all the reviews I have read so far this season the skis that impress me the most in order are the Sickles,bibby pro’s and the Cochise.
I don’t believe in the one quiver ski but for reasons of economy I would like to keep it to one well rounded ski if possible. Looking for your input Blister boys.
Trying hard not to hate as you have your way with Japan’s finest peaks.
Gregory,
If you look back through some of the comments you will see that a couple bigger guys are really digging the Sickle. It all comes down with what you are comfortable on for a length. The Sickle measures in just over 182, depending on where and what you are skiing that may be enough for you. They are strong enough to support you, and I say many of them ridden by bigger folks here at Alta so I wouldn’t discard them.
All three skis you have mentioned are fantastic skis in their own ways. The Bibby and the Sickle are probably more similar to each other than to the Cochise. With what you have narrowed down I’d basically say it’s time to try to get on some demo’s.
Great reviews. Continuously trying to convince me that the sickle is for me, to change it for my S3. I have the tendency to ski something seated in snow irregular and feel that the S3 does not have a tail that helps me in this aspect. Sometimes I skied the Bandit B3 (waist 83) and the ski pushed me forward and it avoided that it seated to me but simultaneously was very forgiving. Something similar in the sickle happens, you have that same sensation.
I hope you understand my terrible English
Thanks
Waldo,
The Sickle is going to offer more support from the tail than the S3, but it isn’t going to be super strong like a flat tailed “comp” ski. Instead of looking for a ski that will be o.k. with your bad habit, of sitting back in challenging snow, you should be looking for a ski you can TRUST being in a strong balance position when the snow gets variable. The Sickle definitely has the upper hand there compared to both of the skis you mentioned.
Jason thanks. Totally in agreement with its commentary. In the B3 it felt that the tail corrected my bad habit. It pushed to me forwards and it forced to me to ski trim. But with the S3 I feel that this is not thus. I cannot say that this is a defect of the S3 because it grants the characteristic to him of the pardon, so appreciated by some skiers. Nevertheless I believe that the great one rocker of tail and the soft tail gives to too much forgiveness but little support.
Could you compare the Bibby to the sickle. Being a larger person 6’6 235LBS i am feeling I need at least a 190. Any Idea if rossi plans on longer lengths for next year with the sickle?
And how would the praxis protest compare with the the bibby and the sickle if you could indulge me with your opinion. thanks guys for all the insight and taking the time to break it all down for some of us who don’t have the time to demo everything.
Thanks
Hi, Gregory – Jason asked me to weigh in on this, since he hasn’t yet skied the Bibby or the Protest.
I’m not sure whether you’ve read my review of the Praxis Protest, but if you have, you know that I don’t recommend it as a one-ski quiver, which you’re earlier post says you’re looking for. The Protest is a phenomenal ski, but it’s just not designed for everyday use. Also, you say you like GS turns, and GS turns aren’t the specialty of the Protest. Again, it just comes down to design decisions and choices.
My time on the Sickle has been limited to a pretty deep day at Alta, where we definitely weren’t shredding groomers. But you might take a look at my Rossignol Scimitar review – the Sickle is a slightly stiffer, 12mm wider Scimitar, and the Scimitar is exceptional on groomers. (As you’ve read, Jason loves the Sickle on groomers, too.)
But at 6’6″, 235, I think the safest bet is the 190cm Bibby Pro – by a long shot, actually. A 196cm Praxis Protest will absolutely be the best ski of the 3 for you in deep pow, and the (relatively short) Sickle will likely be a lot of fun on true groomers. But the 190cm Bibby Pro sounds like the best all around ski of the three, based on what you’ve said you’re looking for and how you like to ski. (Oh, and Rossignol is not introducing a longer Sickle for 12/13.)
Of course, there is also the 193cm Cochise which you previously mentioned, a ski that I was very impressed with and that Jason liked, though not nearly as much as the Sickle since it’s less playful. I would give the nod to the Cochise over the 190 Bibby for groomers, and definitely the nod to the 190 Bibby over the 193 Cochise in pow, and I don’t have a clear sense that one ski would fair far better than the other in chop. But if I were your height and weight, I would probably be looking at the Bibby or the Cochise over the Sickle.
Thanks gents I will demo the bibby and cochise this weekend as we have been blessed with spring snow in the northwest mountains.
I guess i wanted the praxis protest to be the “ski ” as you mentioned that in even 1″-2″ of fresh the protest was golden and how loyal fans of the ski use it for all scenarios.
keep up the good work gents i love to worship at the house of Blister.
Haha, thanks Gregory. I’ll be curious to hear what you think of the bibby and the cochise, but I’ll also be a bit surprised (and impressed!) if you’re able to demo both of those skis in the 190 and 193cm lengths, respectively. Fingers crossed….
Just picked up a pair of the sickles in 186 today for dirt cheap without demoing and plan to mount them tele when I decide they’re right for me. I’m 5’9 165 and ski 80+ days a year. I like to ski fast through everything I find in Tahoe, and am getting more into BC jibbing and big mountain. I spend some time flying around on Belafontes and love the stability and stiffness, but want some thing turnier and floatier, but still rock solid (love the Bela’s but they sink at medium and slow speeds). This is the first ski I’ve ever bought, and I’m coming from 2005 179 line prophets, both skis are double coreshot, and they are now flat, so I’m excited about the rocker. My true passion is maching through trees on a powder day. Reading Robin’s review on the skis, I’m a little confused/nervous. The medium/stiff flex of the ski seems solid enough in the tail for speed, and agile, but he says it wont turn. They’re for sure turnier than the Belafontes right?
They suck at anything other than fresh snow when mounted too far back. At +1 tele boot center they rip tele and parallel turns with ease. They definitely slither, not much rebound out of the turn, but who buys a rockered ski wanting that anyways. I found the rocker to give steep, soft bump skiing a whole new dimension. Thanks for the reviews, I agree with Jason that this could be the most versatile ski ever.
Great review,
I was wondering if the sickle would be as good a “do it all” ski for me as it was for you?
I’m a progressing intermediate looking to improve 5’9″ and a hefty 240Ibs, I live/ski in Fernie BC canada. We ski the groomers and also blessed with some good powder.
Do you think these ski would be a good choice to take me to the next level? Or should I try the S7?
Chris,
What are you skiing on right now? The Sickle is definitely easy to ski, and can conquer any part of the mountain. I’d be a little concerned about the size in super deep given your weight, but you’re also looking for a “do-everything”, so there are gong to be some small sacrifices somewhere. I’m not a huge fan of the S7, but you may enjoy it.
I am thinking to change my rossignol S3 by sickle. but in the revisions, the commentaries of both skis are very good. That I can win with this change. That I can win with this change. In which sickle is better than the S3. The Sickle is so easy to turn as the S3.
Finally I decided for the Sickle in 1.86 m. But to my surprise and probably Jason also, Rossignol made Sickle 2013 only in two lengths, 1.71 and 1.81, not more manufactured the 1.86. They transformed the ski more oriented to the park. With all the comments I read, I had fallen in love with the Sickle and without skiing one day. I think that the length of 1.81 m. is very short for a ski freeride considering my size and weight (1.88 m and 87 kilograms) and I hope have I not wrong.
It should take the decision between continuing with the S3 or go to the S7. I finally bought the S7 with Axial 2 120 XXL.
I don’t know if it was a good decision but it is taken. Now am going to ski them and enjoy the S7, with all its virtues and defects.
Jason, Jonathan, please can recommend me a good mounting position, I am not going to ski strong or fast, only average speeds, some small jumps but nothing tricks, and in all types of snow. ( Powder, groomers, spring snow. no bumps, etc)
Thanks for your comments
Here it is starting to snow, I hope to comment them, with less authority than your comments and my lousy English, the sensations of skiing the S7.
I’d mount those S7’s on the line Waldo.
What are the differences in the 2013 Sickle besides the top sheet? Are the 171/181 actually shorter in running length to the previous version’s 176/186?
what are the sickles like compared to the S3’s?
Hey guys! Great review!
Unfortunately, I read this review AFTER I purchased my sickles. Im am 5’9, 170 lbs, and I purchased the 174s. Upon reading the comments, I realized I probably should have got the 186’s. I bought them online, and could exchange, but would be 150 bucks in shipping. My preivous ski’s were K2 extremes, 171 cm, and they were the perfect length.
I would say I am advanced-expert skiier, I ski 30-40 days a year.
What do you guys think, will the 174’s be OK, or should I pay 150 bucks extra, and switch to the 186s. Will it be a huge difference? Where should I mount them? I am thinking +2, like the reviewer.
Thanks!
Cam it depends on where you are skiing and how aggressive you are. If you are an athletic skier using them for big mountain stuff, or skiing where you see lots of snow I would opt up to the 186’s. If you’re more into relaxed skiing in tight trees, east coast, or low snow areas you’ll be fine with the 174’s. If you stay with the 174 I’d mount at the recommended line if you’re taking them in deep snow. Moving ahead will help quicken them up, but at a loss of deep pow performance in the 174 length.
Thanks so much for the review. Which ski would you recommend for east coast tight trees, powder, and occasional bumps, the rossignol sickle or the line sir francis bacon? Thanks so much.
For your situation I personally would go SFB over Sickle. The Bacon is light and extremely quick, which will be two nice characteristics to have in those East Coast trees. They are also a little softer and energetic which I think will be more fun in the bumps. The Sickle is better in the super deep, but you will be absolutely happy with the SFB on the East Coast.
Either way you can’t go wrong. The Sickle has a firmer, progressive flex and is undoubtedly more damp, yet is still quick and has nice energy . If that sounds better don’t be afraid to go that route.
I’m torn between these and the black diamond zealot’s. I’m 6′ 2″ 200 lbs and a pretty aggressive Vermont skier and would love some help deciding. I’m worried about the length of these mostly. Thanks! Love the site!
Advanced charger, with an inclination to hitting natural terrain such that I free myself of the confines of earth and snow, having just recently (and hopefully) stepped up my game, with what I feel was a major Labor Day slamming 20 PERCENT OFF deal (THANK YOU EVO !!) on a set of Sickle 186’s :) Along with a set of Marker 12.0 Free bindings..
I’m 5′ 10″, 170, and have been knocking around for 64 years this passed May.. I hit the gym 3 days a week, which includes a 30 min 3 mile run, as prepping the lungs & heart to ‘breath ‘n pump’ as best they can allllllways seems to put me at the bottom the hill long before my stop and go stop and go ski mates arrive.. Just sayin…
I live in So Cal, ski locally (Rossi Z9’s), but do make a week long trek every Feb to Utah, hitting all the big name resorts, and get this, crashing at a friends home up in Sundance !! Schaweeeeet….
Two questions:
1. Do I fall into the Plus 1 on the mounting location ?
2. How would you suggest the edges be tuned ? A simple question, but I know, one that requires some direction (and a skilled tech’s hand)… It’s the direction I would need, so that I could let the tech know what I want/need, as opposed to “The house Blue Plate Special”.. If you know what I mean ?
Say, maybe add an edge tuning article under the Gear section ?
Aside from that, I dig the Blister site ! Seriously looking for more boot reviews.. I’m looking for light, 2 and 3 buckles, etc.. Maybe your thoughts on Full Tilt’s ?
Rock on my brother…
Michael,
First off, 64 and catching air, props to you! Now to your questions…
Yes, I think you will like +1. As for the edges, I ski Utah, so I am never that concerned about my tune :-). Basically, everything we test is with a factory tune, and I do my own de-tuning until I get the feel I want. The Deep Powder House (DPH) at Alta has a special tune that A LOT of ripping skiers around here swear by, so if you want the local flavor you know where to go!
Hi, I just purchased the sickles in 174 and I’m wondering if they are too small. I’m 5’8″ and 150 pouds. I’m an aggressive skier that skis mostly steep trees and bowls.
Also where would you recommend mounting them.
Hey, thanks for the great review.
I am torn between the sickles and the 2011 atomic blogs. I am 6’0 170 and on the advanced end of intermediate. I like to ski pow when I can, I am working on my tree skiing and this year I will probably be hitting the cliffs and chutes at Schweitzer. The rest of of my time I will probably be skiing chopped up crud or hiking for powder. I am coming off some older K2 silencer 179’s that I skied all mountain on last year. I am trying to decide between the sickles, some used 2010 4frnt vct’s and atomic blogs. Any kind of input or advice would be greatly appreciated.
Thanks,
Cy
Hello,
All these reviews are great! I’m looking for a new ski to put dynafit bindings on that will do well in Colorado backcountry conditions (hopefully all powder this year). I’m finding good deals on rossignol S3s and sickles and I like the looks of both of them. Do you think the sickles would work well as a backcountry ski? Do you know if the u-shape makes skinning more difficult? Are the sickles much heavier than AT specific skis? Ok, sorry for all the questions – thanks again for the great reviews!
Hey Jason, sorry to ask another mounting question, but I read through the comments and didn’t quite find what I needed. I just purchased the 186 Sickles (2012’s, not the 2013’s) and am planning on complimenting them with a pair of 185 Scimitars as my main mogul/groomer ski and reserving the Sickle as my pow ski (Scimitar 12″). Your advice to mount the Sickle at +2 seems like good advice if it was the only ski in the quiver, but with the Scimitar I am inclined to think that mounting further back is better. I’m 190 (but dropping weight quickly) and since this is going to be my pow ski, I’d like no chance of tip dive. I still want the ski to be versatile though and ski tracked out pow and groomers well too. Also, what mounting point do you recommend for the Scimitar for all-mountain/groomer/mogul use, but still will float ok when needed?
After the glowing review you guys gave this ski, I just picked up a 186 pair for a measely $350 @ Evo and cannot wait to get on them. I am 6 foot and 190lbs and normally prefer a shorter ski to get in some tight trees. I live in Colorado and normally ski all terrain but the park (favorite being the back bowls at Vail). With that said, I am coming off my decade old X Screams (which now become my rock skis and my Atomics will go to the recycling center) and am looking at bindings for the Sickle… Any preferences on what type or manufacturer?
Rossignol FKS 140 XXL, no other
Mike,
I have to agree, I love the FKS 140 or the Look P14.
Yes Sir. Identical dimensions and characteristic
PIVOT 14 LOOK
Toe lateral elasticity 45 mm
Heel vertical elasticity 28 mm
Height interface 20 mm
Length ajustment 20 mm
Brake width 100-117 mm
Heel piece PIVOT
System Open
ROSSIGNOL FKS 140 XXL
Toe lateral elasticity 45 mm
Heel vertical elasticity 28 mm
Heel piece system 20 mm
Heel piece Adjustment 20 mm
Brake FKS XXL / 100-117 mm
Heel piece FKS
Glider Wide Free
Toe piece DUAL ACTION III
Thanks Waldo and Jason… I hope I can pick them up on the cheap at Colorado Ski Expo this weekend!
Jason
Great review. Keep up the excellent work !
Jason
I am 5′ 7″ and weigh 160 lbs, and would consider myself an advanced skier (not expert). Based on your excellent review, I am considering getting the Sickle in the 174 length as I am looking for a wider pow ski than my Atomic Access (I currently ski the 171 cm) but which also needs to be able to handle most conditions in Whistler except bulletproof ice which we don’t get much of. However, I can only find information on the 186 length Sickle and I know that Rossi sometimes have different waist width and dimensions for different lengths eg the 178 S7 has a 110 waist but the longer lengths have a 115 waist.
Any thoughts on whether the 174 Sickle is the right length and if the dimensions are identical to the 186 ? I am a bit torn between the Line SFB in the 178 length and the Sickle after reading your reviews of both.
I would be grateful for any suggestions.
thks
I have last years 174 sickle and it is 106mm underfoot
Thanks Ben, would you mind revealing your weight and height and how do you find the Sickle in the 174 ?
thks
Ian
Ian,
I actually just bought them and have not tried them yet. I am 5’7″ 150 lbs.
I just bought a pair of 186. I am going to mount them with some guardians. I am am 5’7″ and only weigh 135. I am a strong skier and compete in big mountain events. Do you think the 186 will be to much ski given my weight? And do you think 2″ forward would be my best option. Thanks noah
Noah,
If you are strong enough of a skier to be competing you will be fine with the 186. I would go +2cm not +2″, but at your size you could go even further forward if you’re into throwing tricks off of everything.
Hi jason, thanks for the review!
The sickle seems to pretty much the ski im looking for! Now I#m wondering if there are any changes for the 2013 version compared to last years, beside the shorter length, do you know anything about it?
181 should be fine for me, since im not the heaviest guy…
thanks julius
Julius,
Honestly I don’t know the answer to that question yet. I plan on getting onto the 2013 Sickle asap so I can properly answer this question, and continue to recommend this ski. As for right now, if I were you I would look to pick up a 2012 model online while they are available. There are places selling them for much cheaper than you will find the 2013 model, so get em’ while you can!
Jason,
From what I can tell you and I are very similar in body type (I am 6’0 170lbs), age (I am 28) and ski style/ability. I live in Aspen and just bought a pair of the 11-12 186s to use as my daily driver this season. I was pretty set on the 189 Turbo but your reviews of both skis has changed my mind.
I have 192cm Rocker2 122s for deeper days and plan to use these for everything else and I’m trying to decide where to mount. Keeping in mind that these won’t really be used in any more than 6″ of fresh, would you keep them at +2 or move them forward/back?
Uh yeah ok feel free to not respond to this. I just read thru the rest of the comments and saw that there are like 20 other people asking mounting questions, I think I can get what I need from that. Thanks for the great review.
Hi Jason,
Thanks for the excellent review – led me to grab a pair of 186cm for a rockin’ deal. I’m 6′ and 210lbs and ski very aggressively, with lots of airs but only occasional switch take offs and landings. Mounting these up with some Quiver Killer inserts and swapping out my new Atomic Guardians between these and my new Praxis Protests (196cm). I’m looking at these for all mountain, all condition, early/late season riding as well as touring where mixed conditions (not just deep pow) is expected. I get that you like skiing forward (+2cm mount), but was wondering if you had any recommendations on mount point for me given my greater weight and intended use (I’m thinking 0 or +1cm). Thanks for your help,
– Cal
Dear Jason,
Read through your review and all the comments, this is a great review. However I have just one question, leaving ability out of it, I’m looking to get the new sickles as my all-day, all-around the mountain ski, considering groomers and harder pack as daily skied. Is this a good decision? should I be looking at something a little narrower?
Thanks,
Lorenzo.
Lorenzo,
I use the sickle as my everyday all-mountain east coast ski and I love it. It does great on hardpack, is very easy to get up on an edge, and also holds an edge well.
Picked up a pair of 174 Sickles (I’m 6’0, 145lbs, expert)…I have a pass at Kirkwood and set them up with Baron’s to get into the BC. Knee deep pow, abused late day leftovers, manky wet stuff, groomers, touring with a heavy overnight pack, tight chutes, trees, whatever-this ski is uber versatile. I mounted my bindings -1 and have never had tip dive issues. I don’t venture into the park anymore so I don’t need that centered feel…this mounting helps out to get out of trouble situations, i.e. sitting on the tails to run out a cliff drop or steep sluff is no problemo. Truly a one ski quiver, and really, if you’re a high level skier you’ve got a pair of powder puff bombs for those Kirkwood pukers. Get a pair of Sickle’s, you shant be disappointed.
Hi Jason,
My daily driver was a 184 Katana mounted 4+ of rec’d, but those skis were stolen from outside of Goldminers yesterday (I’ve seen you at Alta… separate your skis at the bottom now!). Do you think a 186 Sickle would be a decent Katana replacement, or not burly enough?
Thanks,
Dan
Jason,
Thanks for the awesome review. You really sold me on the Sickle – I just picked up a pair of the 186’s. Given that I’m a little bit bigger guy (6’2″ – 220lbs) I’m thinking that it might be appropriate for me to mount them at 0. I plan on skiing them mostly in powder, trees, and the end of the day chewed up stuff. Since I don’t plan on using them in the park, I don’t think I’ll need that real centered feel. I would really like to avoid tip dive though. Any suggestions?
Jason,
Did you get a chance to ski 2012-2013 Sickle yet? Any changes from the last year? I have tested 186 which is awsome ski but felt too long for me (I am 5’3″), while 174 seemed short, narrow and not very capable at all. I wounder how the new 180 compears to old 186?
Thanks a lot!
Thanks for recommending these skis. I was looking for a ski to replace my older Line SFBs (too hooky and unstable in crud) and my 4frnt Turbos (not enough float in powder). I bought the sickle 186 at the end of last season after demoing bibby pros and 4frnt ehps. I’ve had 7 days on them this season and they have been exactly what I was looking for. My first day at Mt Baker had me a little worried. I got first tracks in 20 inches of PNW early season powder, and the float didn’t seem that great, but the snow was insanely thick. Since then, I’ve had them in every other condition and they have been amazing. They float through dry powder, cut through crud, and hold an edge on hardpack. The thing that really stands out for me is how stable they are while feeling very playful at the same time. Even though they are fully rockered, the tips never flap and the ski really holds its line through crud. The tips aren’t hooky (like my SFBs) and they can pretty much make any size turn you want. The tails don’t wash out on the groomers (like the bibby and EHPs) so you can really carve them. Also super fun in soft bumps and very balanced popping off natural features. They really do it all. I haven’t had a chance to get them in super deep snow again but I think they will do fine now that I’m more used to them. I’m 5’11 180lbs and mounted them at recommended, which seems just right. Not sure why they shortened it to a 181 this year because the 186 doesn’t feel long by any means. Thanks again for the tip on these.
Hi Jason,
I recently bought a pair of S6’s and was aware of the botched rocker job on the first generation. I in think I might have a pair, especially after reading your comment of, “some might be wavy…..should be 1/2” between tips/tails when pressed together. I live in Truckee now, how can I tell for sure if I have a pair of the bad ones? Serial number? Local Rossi rep? I’m super interested to know. Thanks.
Sam
Hello-Super forum! Curios if anyone had a chance to ski the Sickle tele after the above entries. Decision between S7 and Sickle. I can’t find anyone who has skied full rocker tele.
Thank you
I’ve teled these skis the end of last season and all this year. The rocker is a blast in deep snow, hardpack and bumps. It forces you to always be turning, and requires an earlier edge transition while dropping knees. Haven’t skied the S7, but i imagine these are much better from what I’ve heard about the 7s. I even teach lessons on them they’re so versatile. Probably going to buy another pair once these die.
Thanks Michael!! I appreciate the info. Hats off to this forum, it is the best place to find ski info.
Jason….
Alas, I have yet to find a new pair of boots :/
With such an elagant review, one that had me snap of a pair of SICK’les some months back, I would love to hear what you might have to say with regards to the ‘perfect’ boots to go with ! More to the point, is there anything new on the horizon, or should I just slug it out with the hit or miss local dealers, knowing that there is no way for any of them to carry a truly wide choise of makes and models…
Blister ski reviews far out pace boots, and leave me at a loss..
Trying to find a new pair is the pits… I dont even know what I want any more.. Is that normal ?
That’s why I’m back here, asking you, what would be the best (closest) fit for this ski.. I’m a front sider, looking for powder, hitting natural & man made features (small to med), runnng bell to bell.. Mostly just goofing off all day…
Isn’t there a big button somewhere you punch, and BANG, your boots appear !?!
I’m at work right now, and using this space to vent my frustrations in this endevor! haaa…
Any thoughts on the ’12-13 sickle yet? In dying to know if it has been changed at all.
James,
I’m dying to find out too, so I can keep recommending the ski once the 11-12’s are gone. But, since we haven’t been able to get on the new Sickle, my best recommendation is to grab the 11-12, and you won’t be disappointed!
Hi Jason, great review!
I am writing you as I hope to help me choose my ski – before I read your review I’ve decided to buy armada jj 185, but then I learned everything nice for rossignol sickle/s6 186, i cant choose which is better ski.
I need it for pow days and a little for different type of snow. I have second quiver ski for all days – scott punisher 182, and new ski will be more for powder.
My request to share with me your experience if you’re driving and Armada jj – which is more fun and better – jj or s6?
I’m advance skier, i’m 6’2ft 183lb.
If I buy rossignol I have 2 options – 186 s6 koopman and sickle 181 from this year – Do you know is there a difference in both, and 181 will ит be shorter for men?
Thanks a lot for help and sorry for my terrible eanglish :)
I will wait your answer
Best regards
Assen
You might find a little too much overlap with your Punisher if you go the Sickle route. Of the two skis you listed I would have to suggest the bigger JJ, though I have never skied it, so you have a devoted powder ski. Considering your size, I would also highly recommend checking out the 192 Line Opus.
Jason, how do these compare to the salomon rocker 2 108? I demoed a pair of the rocker 2 this past weekend at Squaw and found they were stupid easy to ski, almost too soft for me. I also demoed a 185 Cochise and I loved their stability at speed, but I definitely had to work harder in them. Is the sickle somewhere in between the two skis?
YES!
The Sickle is super easy to ski, I would even say more intuitive than the Rocker2 108, but also much more stable and damp feeling. The Cochise is a metal laminated ski, and like you I enjoyed the heavy feel at speed, but not the extra work when needing to be quick (trees) or while playing in the air. For my body and my style, the Sickle has shown the best balance of skills of any ski I’ve ridden.
Does anybody know if the 12/13 Sickle in 181 is effectively shorter than the 11/12 Sickle in 186? Unfortunately i hit a big rock a few weeks ago with my 11/12 Sickles which bent the edge a little and now I’m worried that the core might get soaked (repair job doesn’t really hold up). So I’d like to buy another pair just in case but fear that 6cm less might be a little short (if that’s really the case).
Hi Jason,
I decided on the sickle, after reading this review…. what a great decision. Just got back from a week in Verbier, were I went from day long tours, to groomers to moguls. They were ripping everywhere. I couldn’t believe it. I have my bindings (Dynafit TLT Radical FT) mounted at 0cm, had to do a minor adjustment when skiing on groomers by not putting so much forward weight, as I felt the tails a bit loose, but once that was done, this skiis were performing incredibly well everywhere! thank you for you review!!
If it helps anyone else, I’m 5’10” and weight about 180, I have the 186cm.
For everyone wondering about the 2013 Sickle 181 length, it’s straigth tape pull measurement is 177.35cm.
This is quite disappointing for me and might be the only reason I will never get this ski, even though it could be my dream ski judging from everything Jason has written.
I don’t understand what Rossignol is thinking not giving a longer model, and now even discontinuing the Sickle. :(
Mikael, is the only thing different about the 2013 sickle is that it is shorter? Is everything else kept the same and they just decided to do away with the 186 length and introduce the 181?
Hey Ian,
As Stella said in the review of the Sickle that Blister put out a couple days ago, Rossignol also apparently blunted the tip and tail profiles to reduce swing weight.
Mikael
Jason –
Forgive me if I missed it but, have you skied the Moment PB&J?
I am searching high and low online for a 186 sickle from last year, but I cannot find a pair. I guess the 181 from this year measures in at 177, and being 6’3 185, that’s way too short. It looks like I’ll be missing out on both the Sickle and also the current gen Bibby Pro, two of BlisterGears favorite skis. You guys gotta find new favorites for skis coming out this year, all your current favorites are being discontinued, unfortunately. Hopefully they’re just being integrated into new, better models.
Jason, anything from next season that catches your eye as a Sickle de-throne ski? and what do you think is the closest thing to the sickle as a one ski quiver for a playful/charger? The Kastle XX110 west, the Deathwish, or the Rocker 2 108? or anything else? What is your “2nd” favorite?
Thanks for this great review, I got 186 last month in Japan with Jester schizo because I was curious about the best mounting position for me.
As the skis were the previous model on sale, they were cheaper than the bindings.
I have already tried several positions in the spring snow condition and found +2 was the best as recommended by Jason.
But before concluding, I have to wait 6 months to test them in fresh powder snow here in Japan.
I am Japanese, 183 cm and 75kg mainly skiing off piste.
Jason,
Loved, loved, loved reading your reviews and how you break it down. Thank you! I need your help! I love bc skiing, but am having trouble finding a good ski. I want something light but then I need it to charge and currently have the black diamond scarlet ski and absolutely hate it when I am in crud or hard pack. I feel like I have no control. Would you recommend the Rossignol Sickle for a lady that’s 5’3″ and 110 lbs and wanting to feel comfortable on any conditions and able to hang/keep up with the boys or would you recommend a different ski? I”m a little concerned with the 171 length. That seems rather large for a gal of my height and weight. I heard about the Nina 99s and am thinking about them, but after reading this review…I’m not so sure. Let me know what you think. Thanks!!!
Though the Sickle isn’t nearly as light as the Wailer 99, it is much better in variable conditions; which seems to be what you are looking for. The Wailer will feel a lot like your BD as far as nervousness on hardpack and lack of predictability in chop. The Sickle is incredibly easy to ski, so I wouldn’t be too concerned about the length, especially if you are a solid skier.
You should read Stella’s review of each ski, she is very close to your size.
Hey Jason
Reading your review of the sickle makes me confident that it would be great for me but I’m still feeling that the line sir fransis bacon is th way to go because it is what I’ve been skiing on for 3 years. I couldn’t picture anything better. So if you we’re to compare the 2 skis in hard charging and carving ability what would you go for. I’m 6’1 170.
Has anyone skied the 2012/2013 Sickle @ 181. Is it close enough in performance to to 11/12 that is getting rave reviews or does it ski differently?
181cm 2012/2013 Sickle straight tape pull tip to tail 178.43 cm
Base measurement 182.24 Makes more sense for a manufacturer to measure the base because all design/material measurementsl/takeoffs have to be based on physical attributes, Because of rocker straight tape pull negates actual surface. Can an arc be measured with a straight tape? Alas, a 191 cm would have been nice.
Hey Blister Gear,
Thanks for all your reviews, they’re definitely the best out there!
I’m 5’11” & 190 lbs and looking to get hold of the Sickle, but its looking impossible that I’ll get hold of the 11/12 186 especially here in the UK. The question is, would the 181 be too short for me. Fairly aggressive advanced intermediate skier looking fwd to 3 weeks in Colorado!
If any other readers have an opinion its greatly appreciated.
Happy New year all.
Hey guys!
Last year Jason and Jonathan helped me confirm my decision to purchase the 184 12/13 Bibby Pro. AMAZING ski, and I love it! You also gave me a recommended mount point.
I happened to stumble across a 186 11/12 Sickle, brand new, for a great price and remembered how Jason loved it; so I decided to impulse buy it! It’s coming in in the next few days and I already have Look Pivot 14’s to mount on it. I am 5’9.5″, 165-170 lbs., aggressive (yet not as much as Jason is) skier, would like to take these on the “not-as-deep-pow-days” as I would the Bibby’s, tight-to-medium trees, chutes, drops/jumps of around 15ft, be able to turn on a dime, and some spins/switch riding. Where would you recommend to mount?
Thanks Blister Gear! As always, great reviews and help!
Happy New Years,
-Amit
186 Sickle 11/12 and 181 Sickle 12/13 are the same ski. I happened to ski and love both. There are 2 little differences: 1. the very ends of tips and tails are more rounded, which makes 186 into 181. The change is undetectable when you ski. 2. IMPORTANT: The recommended mounting mark on Sickle 12/13 was moved forward comparing to Sickle 11/12.
The 11/12 Sickle that I skied before was mounted at +2 and felt perfect on hard snow and in deep powder. I mounted the new 12/13 Sickle at +2 as well and got a major nose dive in deep powder from the first turn with every turn on my way down. I am planning to move bindings back on 12/13 Sickle for at least 2cm. Next week I will have an opportunity to put 11/12 and 12/13 next to each other and will balance them to see how much back I need to move it to match +2cm on 11/12 Sickle. I suspect the 12/13 should be mounted on the line, but we will see. I will post the update next week.
My sickle 181’s just came in. The specs are as follows:
Straight pull, tip to tip is 178.8 cm
Weight for two skies is 4536g
the ski’s mounting points are +5, 0, and -2. These points are 91cm, 96cm, and 98cm from the ski tip respectively. True ski center is 89.4cm from the ski tip. This makes the +5 mounting point pretty close to true center.
Can someone with sickle 186 post the same mounting point dimensions? I would like to know where +2 on the 186 sickle relates to the true ski center of that ski.
Thank you :)
Cheers
Thanks Valerie!
I’m going to splash the cash on the Sickle!
There’s been so much written on the binding position that I think I’m going to opt for the griffon schizo to give that flexibility if I get the mount point wrong??
Either that or a standard set of griffons?
Excited!!
2012/2013 181cm sickles. 5’10, 155 lbs 32 year old male. Want them for all mountain. Ski vail/Breck mainly. +1 or +2? I enjoy riding/landing switch while jibbing around on mountain.
Jason can you please review the 184 4frnt Devastator. Its the closest thing on the market to the old 186 sickle, which is practically impossible to find for sale… A lot of people are looking for 186 sickles to no avail. Help save them. Review the 184 Devastator and preach!
I love my 186. Need this ski but 120 underfoot 190ish. Recommendations? 5’9” 135lbs, 30yo, ski hard. I’ve liked the Bluehouse maestro, JJ, BC etc.. but looking for something with less taper, matched sidecut/rocker. Switch pow performance/playfulness is a must. Have Salomon Rocker 1s for just going fast and hucking. I hate stiff skis, didn’t like the Praxis MVP medium stiff either. Going to use at Kicking Horse, inbounds/slack only setup. Thanks.
Does the sickle REALLY handle pow better than the s7/super 7?
The profile and waist of the 7 series looks much more suited to powder performance.
I’m looking for a powder ski to be used whenever it snows >5″ overnight. Than can also handle variable and crud conditions.
I quote:
“The Rossignol Sickle, THE MOST VERSATILE SKI EVER. The end.”
Man… either you regret somehow your statement above, or definitely someone else maintains your profile on BGR… you tell us what’s actually the case… :D )))))
Otherwise, I really have no clue how’s possible not only that Sickle misses your “Life changing skis” quiver, but neither has a mention among “Other skis I’ve liked” one!!!… ‘REALLY?!?!??? :O
PS -just got the Sickle. Hope to get hyped on them at least as much as I got after reading your review. Anyway, I will never put the blame on you even if I will come to hate the Sickles… You write your stuff much to nice and I really enjoy reading it. …Ride wild! :) …and Safe! ;)
Haha, you are correct, my Reviewer Profile is in dire need of being updated. When I update, you can be certain the Sickle will be filed under “life changing skis” due to it’s versatility.
I hope you enjoy the Sickle!
Why is there no comment on the 2013 Sickle!!!! I just bought a pair in the 181 after reading this review, so I really hope they are at least in the same ballpark of epicness as you credit the 2012 model. Can you please at least put some footnotes in here to reflect the 2013 changes from the 2012 (especially considering that the 2013 is the only one you can find in stock anywhere) and give us your thoughts?
Hi Andre. I noticed you were really concerned about the 2013’s behavior and I’m here to back you up. Did you have in the meantime any experience with your 181s? Can you say some words? How’s your skiing and what about your fit(ness). I would really appreciate that!… I’ll put my Sickles (181) at snow this coming January… I’ll surely share my findings! :)
Sickle Fan Club!!…
My experience with Sickle is a blast!… Hands down, the best skis I’ve ever been on. Actually I haven’t been on soooo many, so this one you may skip… :)
Mounted on the “0” point, they are extremely manouverable, yet stable as a railway.,On icy groomers it stays the same (or even better!) than any camber ski I’ve been on so far. Only they have no canber…
On slush I’ve had a slight feeling I should have mounted them a bit more to the rear (say 1 cm …1.5 cm)…. But I had the same feeling with all other skis, so I’ll keep only the good feeling about it.
It carves acceptable through chop and even on piste, meaning by this it goes not as a carver, but better than any 105…112 mm waist. Chatter on groomer is rather insignifficant due to the “subtle rocker” and once is put on the edge, …no chatter.
Great stability due to the “extended” effective edge once is put on the edge. I’ve been on a handful of rockered skis and I can say the Sickle’s rocker was by far the most effective in spite of its “minimalist” design (I’ve been both on “no rocker”s, and from K2 “all-mtn” rockers to Surface skis’ “monster rocker”s…)
Landing small jumps (I don’t do serious jumps on skis) was easier than I’ve thought, yet I didn’t pushed further.
Linking the turns on switch was a piece of cake, as well.
It delivers exactly what I’ve expected from a great all-mtn twin tip construction.
Unfortunately, I didn’t have any chance so far to put them where they belong, i.e. on a decent amount of “fresh”… The only “fresh” they’ve tasted so far was of 10-15 cm, which I’ve rather call a joke…Still looking fwd.
Material: 2012-2013 / 181 Sickle / FKS 140XXL / “0” mount point.
Me: 179cm /5’10”, 82 kilos, good fitness, average to moderately aggressive on skis.
Bottom line… Fact is that until I went on the Sickles I kept calling myself a snowboarder …for quite a long time (>14Y)… Well, the Sickle got me in doubt…
Still ski my 2011 Sickles.
What is the closest ski to the Sickle these days?
Not really the place for selling gear but knowing many have looked for this ski with no luck, im hoping justin h and crew will be ok with my post. Long story short I have two brand new 186 sickle/s6 skis. Never mounted. If interested, email me : adamnkaren@yahoo.com. I’ll sell em for what I have into them.
Not looking to make money. Just to share the sickle love.
I’ve my Sickles for 3 seasons and they’ve been great. However, I wanted something with a little more float last year, so I picked up a pair of 4FRNT YLE’s. I’ve been A/B’ing them against the Sickle this season and find myself reaching for the 4FRNTs in every condition now. Ironically, I haven’t had a chance to test them head to head in deep snow this year (live in the PNW). However, the YLEs are super fun on groomers, a few inches of fresh, and slush. They have a longer side cut than the Sickle, so they aren’t as turny, but put them on edge and they can carve. The flat bases have a pretty big sweet spot and make it easy to skid/slarve. The amazing thing is for a ski with a 120 waist and rockered tail, they can really hold an edge one hardback and ice. Spent a few icy days at Whistler this year and the YLE’s were better than the Sickles on the hardback, which really surprised me. The recommended mount is 2.5cm back from center, which didn’t work for me–too quick turning, too much tail, and kept fighting to find the sweet spot. I was actually thinking about craigslisting them, but had them remounted at 5.5 cm back from center and really started to like them. Now, I think they are a great “all mountain” ski and more versatile than the Sickle. The good news is you can actually buy the YLE’s. I’d consider putting marker demo or schizo bindings on them, because the mount point made such a huge difference in performance.
Possible ski to review next year?
Just skied Sickles (thanks to Adam’s Feb 28, 2015 comment) for the first time yesterday, mounted at recommended line with Look Pivot 14s. Skiied A-Basin, mostly soft to firm groomer. In short, the ski was very enjoyable. Stable, but light. Really fun to ski. Looking forward to trying them in the fresh pow pow.
Hi, after reading your convincing review of the Rossignol Sickle I was excited to get my hands on a pair. I found a 2013 model in size 181cm and purchased them. I live in Vancouver, BC and am heading down to the border to bick tem up where I had them shipped. I will be eating them mounted lter today or tmr. My question is in regard to mounting position.
I am 5′ 10.5″ and weight is 195lbs. I am a semi-agresive intermediate/advanced skier. My favourite mountains that I will be skiing them on will be whistler/blackcomb, big white, sun peaks, Stevens pass, and Crystal mountain.
I am.thinking of mounting wih a Salomon sth2 13 binding. Can you recommend a binding mount location? From your review and +2cm location that you have them positioned at, I my need to go 0cm (centred). Can you please provide your expert opinion?
Thanks so much,
Cory
Sickle is the best ski for BC only with 4frnt Devastator coming somewhat close. You will love! I used to have Sickle 2011 model and had it mounted at +2 and loved it. Then I bought the 2013 model and mounted it the same way at +2 only to experience major nose dives. I had to remount it 2cm back at the recomended line to remedy the issue. Ever since, the 2013 model felt even better then 2011 model! Enjoy!
Hi Valerie, thanks for the vote of confidence for the Sickle skis I picked up. I am looking forward to having them mounted and then heading out to Whistler. I plan to mount at 0cm (recommended line) also. Although I am heavier then Jason, I think that there is enough length in the skis to allow me to stay at that mounting position and still give me enough float up front. They reach about 1 inch above the top of my head.
Also, thanks so much for your recommendation on where to mount them :)
Looking at potentially picking up some 181 Sickles as a ski I can have fun on in 0-10cm of fresh. I’m 5’7″, 160lbs and have been riding 190 Bibby’s for the past season as basically a one-ski quiver for the Canadian rockies (as per your guys’ recommendation). What I’m looking for is something easier that I can mount forward and ride in the park, but still have fun charging around the rest of the mountain.
My question is will there be any overlap with the Bibby’s, and are they too much ski for some occasional park days?
I have 181 sickle for sale. Like new.
How short do these skis ski? I am 5’7 145 lbs and thinking about the 174s or 181s. Have skied 177 patrons that feel good.
Best skis I have owned in 32 years of skiing. Miss ‘em.
Which skis on today’s market will be similar?