These really are fantastic skis, even for the east coast. For anyone in Canada, check out Sport Chek (of all places), they have the S6 which is pretty much the same ski for $220!
BE AWARE!
The 175 Sickle ski totally diferent from 186! While 186 Sickle is a big powerfull ski, 175 will not work for anybody 5’3″ or taller! I skied boths lengths and while 186 felt VERY substantial and way TOO long for me, 175 felt tiny and short. I was constantly owerpowering 175 at speed and had to work hard to bring ski to the surface in powder at least at transition between turns. So if you ussualy ski 170 to 176cm lengths you are too big for 175 Sickle
I am 5′ 7″ and 154 lbs and ski the 174 cm (170 cm actual length, straight tape pull) and have not had issues with flotation in up to knee-deep powder (sure they don’t float as well as the Atomic Automatics but I find they float pretty well and are easy to steer in powder),
As per the reviews on Blister, they are amazingly versatile skis and really easy to ski (like Stella, I got on them and needed no time at all to adjust to them). I am not an expert skier but I do ski double blacks and all over the mountain and in my experience, the Sickles can handle anything and everything except sheet ice. Powder, moguls, crud and groomers are all handled extremely capably in pretty much any turn shape you fancy except slalom.
I feel like this puts me in a bit of a pickle. From the reviews, it sounds to me that these or the bibbys are my holy grail. Would you mind doing a quick compare/contrast, bibby vs sickle? Would be super helpful!
About me: 5’11”. 160lbs. Aggressive big mountain skier. 65% resort / 35% touring. In the market for a fun, snappy ski that can handle crud well, between 106 & 120 waist.
Hi,
Great review and you got my attention so I just grabbed a pair of the sickles for a pretty good deal (171 cm), and have a set of Fritschi Freeride Pros ready to mount. Any suggestions on boot center position? I mostly ski BC back country, powder and a lot of trees. I am 5’6 male and 160 lbs (trying to loose 10 lbs though). Going to retire my DPS 112’s (184 cm) as was never my ski, but lots of my ski friends love them!
Thanks.
Do the 2013 model ski any different from the 2012? I would be getting the 171 for the 2013 and 174 for the 2012. Hopefully somebody responds. Thank you.
I’m trying to decide between the 2012 174 and 2013 171 version of this ski. Very little has been written about the 2013 Sickle, so I’m wondering if I should play it safe and spend a few extra dollars for the 2012 version. The 2013 “171” actually measures about 167 tip to tail but the quoted turn radius is the same. I’m about 130lb, 5’5 and ski primarily in the PNW.
Does anyone have any suggestions for me and know how the two versions compare? I’m stoked to get on this ski!
I have been skiing the Sickle for 9 years now as they are my designated powder ski. I have found them to be as reported by Stella Selden, as the most amazing ski I have ever skied. In deep powder (14”) on tight large moguls at Mary Jane, put them on edge, and they continuously go down the fall line without effort, perhaps due to their long effective edge (banana shape). I have clocked them at 50 mph on hard pack on Campground at Snowmass with good control. I have skied ridiculously fast through the trees at Eagle Wind at Winterpark, on powder days. They playfully went down Log Chute at the end of a powder day at Vail. In all conditions that I skied them, they were just great. I am now 65 years old, and just underwent my second knee replacement and I am looking for a new pair of powder skiis. I will continue to use my Sickles, but what do your think?, DPS Koala 111, K2 mindbender108 ti, Salomon QST blank, Icelantic Nomad 105?
These really are fantastic skis, even for the east coast. For anyone in Canada, check out Sport Chek (of all places), they have the S6 which is pretty much the same ski for $220!
BE AWARE!
The 175 Sickle ski totally diferent from 186! While 186 Sickle is a big powerfull ski, 175 will not work for anybody 5’3″ or taller! I skied boths lengths and while 186 felt VERY substantial and way TOO long for me, 175 felt tiny and short. I was constantly owerpowering 175 at speed and had to work hard to bring ski to the surface in powder at least at transition between turns. So if you ussualy ski 170 to 176cm lengths you are too big for 175 Sickle
I am 5′ 7″ and 154 lbs and ski the 174 cm (170 cm actual length, straight tape pull) and have not had issues with flotation in up to knee-deep powder (sure they don’t float as well as the Atomic Automatics but I find they float pretty well and are easy to steer in powder),
As per the reviews on Blister, they are amazingly versatile skis and really easy to ski (like Stella, I got on them and needed no time at all to adjust to them). I am not an expert skier but I do ski double blacks and all over the mountain and in my experience, the Sickles can handle anything and everything except sheet ice. Powder, moguls, crud and groomers are all handled extremely capably in pretty much any turn shape you fancy except slalom.
I feel like this puts me in a bit of a pickle. From the reviews, it sounds to me that these or the bibbys are my holy grail. Would you mind doing a quick compare/contrast, bibby vs sickle? Would be super helpful!
About me: 5’11”. 160lbs. Aggressive big mountain skier. 65% resort / 35% touring. In the market for a fun, snappy ski that can handle crud well, between 106 & 120 waist.
Hi,
Great review and you got my attention so I just grabbed a pair of the sickles for a pretty good deal (171 cm), and have a set of Fritschi Freeride Pros ready to mount. Any suggestions on boot center position? I mostly ski BC back country, powder and a lot of trees. I am 5’6 male and 160 lbs (trying to loose 10 lbs though). Going to retire my DPS 112’s (184 cm) as was never my ski, but lots of my ski friends love them!
Thanks.
Do the 2013 model ski any different from the 2012? I would be getting the 171 for the 2013 and 174 for the 2012. Hopefully somebody responds. Thank you.
I’m trying to decide between the 2012 174 and 2013 171 version of this ski. Very little has been written about the 2013 Sickle, so I’m wondering if I should play it safe and spend a few extra dollars for the 2012 version. The 2013 “171” actually measures about 167 tip to tail but the quoted turn radius is the same. I’m about 130lb, 5’5 and ski primarily in the PNW.
Does anyone have any suggestions for me and know how the two versions compare? I’m stoked to get on this ski!
I have been skiing the Sickle for 9 years now as they are my designated powder ski. I have found them to be as reported by Stella Selden, as the most amazing ski I have ever skied. In deep powder (14”) on tight large moguls at Mary Jane, put them on edge, and they continuously go down the fall line without effort, perhaps due to their long effective edge (banana shape). I have clocked them at 50 mph on hard pack on Campground at Snowmass with good control. I have skied ridiculously fast through the trees at Eagle Wind at Winterpark, on powder days. They playfully went down Log Chute at the end of a powder day at Vail. In all conditions that I skied them, they were just great. I am now 65 years old, and just underwent my second knee replacement and I am looking for a new pair of powder skiis. I will continue to use my Sickles, but what do your think?, DPS Koala 111, K2 mindbender108 ti, Salomon QST blank, Icelantic Nomad 105?