2018 Rossignol Sky 7 HD Skis 2018 Rossignol Sky 7 HD Skis

2018 Rossignol Sky 7 HD Skis

The Rossignol Sky 7 HD is back for 2018 with some updates and changes in both its design and construction. The new ski features Rossignol’s Air Tip 2.0. This redesigned tip has a new reinforced 3D structure and ultimately construction that makes the ski both lighter and stronger. Essentially Rossignol is attempting to give the ski more balanced performance from tip to tail and a stronger overall feel. The Sky 7 HD has always been known for its maneuverability, so how did the new tip construction change the ski?

According to our testers the Sky 7 HD retained its easy-going, maneuverable feel, but the new ski does feel more solid on your feet. Steve Brown, who’s a pretty big guy and was skiing the 180 cm length commented that it’s “quick, playful, and felt light, but sturdy under foot.” He admits that the 180 cm ski is probably too short for him, but adds in that the “tip shape made the ski playful and easy to smear.” Actually, 5 out of the 6 total testers marked that the 180 cm length felt short to them. Something to consider if the Sky 7 HD is on your list of potential skis: you can usually upsize from your typical ski length due to the light weight, rocker profile, and early taper.

Not surprisingly the Sky 7 HD received the highest scores for forgiveness and playfulness. It also received good scores in both the flotation and maneuverability categories. These are attributes that have always been associated with the Sky 7 HD, so it’s nice to see Rossignol retain its personality. Mike Aidala offers up some nice advice in terms of who the ski might be best for: “solid intermediate to advanced ski for skiers looking to learn and explore off piste, fresh snow at slower speeds.” Mike gave the ski 5 out of 5 for both flotation and forgiveness, which is an excellent way to think about the Sky 7 HD.

According to Danielle Nichols Rossignol successfully achieved their goal of making the ski stronger. She comments that the ski is a “crowd pleaser” and that it’s “good for a range of abilities, but capable of standing up to more aggressive skiers.” It’s important to note here that Danielle was the only tester who did not say the skis felt short, even though she was on the 172 cm, so if our larger testers had been on longer lengths we may have seen similar responses from them as well.

Bob St Pierre was pleasantly surprised by the skis performance. He’s one of those bigger testers who skied a 180 cm ski and did comment that it felt short, but he followed that up with some positive feedback: “Easy to turn. Mostly short to medium radius turns. Turns on a dime. I took it into the woods and it excelled!” The Sky 7 HD has always been a ski that excels in off piste terrain and it’s nice to know that the new version still has that performance, but going back to Danielle’s thoughts, we do think the ski has more power than the previous version, just pay attention to lengths and don’t be afraid to size up a little compared to your typical ski length.

Steve Sulin is known for short, honest opinions on skis, and we think his feedback on the ski is a great place to leave it:

“Easy skiing ski that’s quick and nimble.”

Testers

Jamie Bisbee Ski Tester Headshot Image

Jamie Bisbee

Age: 43Height: 5'10"Weight: 190 lbs.

Ski Style: Fast and Furious, like the movie

Steve Brown Ski Tester Profile Photo

Steve Brown

Age: 26Height: 6'6"Weight: 235 lbs.

Ski Style: Fast, smooth, and swingy down the fall line

Bob St. Pierre Ski Tester Headshot Image

Bob St. Pierre

Age: 39Height: 6'2"Weight: 215 lbs.

Ski Style: Adaptable, versatile, ex-competitive mogul skier.

Steve Sulin Ski Tester Profile Photo

Steve Sulin

Age: 42Height: 5'10"Weight: 235 lbs.

Ski Style: Smooth, precise GS turns

Mike Aidala Ski Tester Headshot Image

Mike Aidala

Age: 40Height: 5'9"Weight: 170 lbs.

Ski Style: As fast as the terrain allows

Danielle Nichols Ski Tester Headshot Image

Danielle Nichols

Age: 40Height: 5'3"Weight: 150 lbs.

Ski Style: Fast fall line ripper

83 Comments on the “2018 Rossignol Sky 7 HD Skis”

  1. Hi,

    I’m a reasonably athletic, 190cm, 80kg, intermediate-skier transitioning from snowboarding.
    I primarily ski in Tahoe.

    My style leans more towards maneuverability and quick turning over raw speed.
    Have been mostly on-piste but am looking to venture further off-piste next season.

    I’m thinking that the 180s would be better than the 188s for my skill/style; would you agree?

    Thanks for the help,
    HH

  2. Hello! I am currently an intermediate-advanced skier (more advanced than intermediate) and am comfortable on most blacks with good snow on them. My home mountain is Mammoth Mountain and we tend to get a good amount of snow. Even so, I am often faced with cruddy or tracked up conditions that are not the most favorable. I am a bit torn between the Soul 7 and the Sky 7, as I enjoy groomers and turning but do not want to be faced with a ski that does not float well or handle crud/tracked up powder well. I am 14 years old, 5’8 and growing, and am 145 lbs. Which ski would you choose based on my preferences and what length would you get? Also, I am looking at three choices for bindings – the Tyrolia Attack AT 13, Defense 12 Black, or integrated Konect SPX 12 Dual WTR Bindings. Which binding is the best from a performance standpoint, the price for the bindings is not a problem. I am currently using the 2015 Elan Amphibio 88 XTI skis are their crud and powder performance is a bit lacking in my opinion.

    PS: What does Konect mean? What does it do for the skis?

    Thanks!!!

    1. Hi Matin!
      I think the Sky is the better all-around option. I’d get the Soul if I had another ski for non-fresh snow days, but for one pair, the Sky is more versatile. We pair the ski with the Tyrolia Attack 13 or the Marker Griffon 13. The Konnect indicates that it is a system binding, and not suitable for a flat ski like the Sky or Soul. You’ll need a drill mount for either ski. Have fun!
      SE

  3. Hi I’m looking for skis to ride more off-road trail, undergrowth, muggles in Quebec and to use it in places like Jackson hole . It will be a second pair of ski for me since I already have my Nordica dobermann 165 cm for carving. I’m 37 year old height 171cm, 192lbs and I’m expert skier (was a ski teacher before).I was looking for Rossignol sky7 or soul 7 HD or others and still hesitate between 172cm And 180 cm length . What is your recommendation ?

    1. Hi Jean-Francis!
      I think the Sky is a great choice! The Soul is probably on the wide side for your application. Also check out the K2 Pinnacle 95 and the Blizzard Rustler 9 for comparison. I’d go with the 172 for length. Have fun!
      SE

  4. Great review!!! I currently ride Volkl twin tips (179cm) but after a couple seasons I realized twin tips aren’t for me. I am looking for more speed, response and more versatility, is this the right ski for me?I am an advanced skier and am 6’1 and weigh about 95 Kg, would the 180 cm length be ideal or should I find a bigger size? I found the 180 cm at a local shop for a great sale price, thinking about making the purchase just don’t want to regret not getting a larger size. What would you recommend?

    Thank,

    Joseph

    1. Hi Joseph!
      I think you’ll find similar performance with the Sky as your twin tips. They’re pretty light and maneuverable, so you won’t get the same stability at speed. They prefer to make shorter turns and are great in trees and moguls. Check out the Blizzard Rustler 9 and the K2 Pinnacle 95 for comparison. Have fun!
      SE

    1. Hi Phuong!
      If you prefer shorter turns and ski at a slower speed, then I’d recommend the 164, but if you’re looking for longer turns and higher speed, you could use the 172. Hope that helps!
      SE

  5. I am 44, 178cm with being 92 kilos. Skiing for the last 5 years. Intermediate let’s say. Ski on groomed however want to follow some of my snowboarding friends going off piste on fresh snow with no jumps while they are going speeds around 30km/h.

    Dont like speed, max was 60km/h and that was fast for me. Like short and long turns at/around speed of 40-55 km. This is what i like most. Easy maneuvering is what i am after. Want to use my own gear and looking to buy these at 172cm after searching forums but expert suggestions are what i am after.

    After all these info, what would you recommend? Thanks

    1. Hi Isaac!
      I think you’re right on track with the Sky 7. They’re very easy to turn, especially in tighter areas. If you’re after easy maneuvering, the Sky is a fantastic choice in the 172. Have fun!
      SE

  6. Hi,
    Thank you for some awesome reviews.
    This is yet another question regarding size, but also type of ski.
    I am 36 years old, 5’9 tall and 175 lbs. Have been skiing for 7 years, 1 week each year and 7 weeks total. Since 2016, I have been using the Experience 80 at 168 cm.
    Last year, I rented the Soul 7 at 164 cm for 3 days and was probably the best and most fun skiing I have ever experienced.
    I have been looking towards the Sky instead of the Soul since I after all, spend a lot of time on piste. I enjoy crud, moguls and off-piste more than fast paced skiing on newly preped pistes. Find speeds above 50 mph to be high speeds and prefer control, ease of use and maneuverability above speed.
    Would like a ski that is easy to use and control, but also will let me do a few “tricks” like 180’s on the side of the piste and such. No big-air or park.
    I have been looking at the Atomic Bent Chetler 100 as an alternative.
    What ski and size would you recommend me to get and what will I gain/lose going from 164 cm to 172 cm?
    I know the above is quite a lot of information. Hope you can help! 🙂

    // Jacob

    1. Jacob,
      I think the Bent Chetler vs. the Sky 7 is a great comparison. They both have fun, soft, and maneuverable tips and tails with some strong performance to be found underfoot. At speed, I’d give the edge to the Atomic, but not by much. The tips of the Sky have some pronounced early rocker, so if you are driving the tips strongly, you may encounter some flutter. From a sizing standpoint, given the maneuverable tips and tails, I would think you could size up unless you really, really liked the 164 version that you have skied. Based on just your stats, I’d recommend the 172, but again, not by much. Overall, I’d say it sounds like you’re a Sky 7 skier. Have fun!
      SE

      1. Thank you for the fast response and the time you have put into the answer, means a lot.

        What will I experience as different, choosing the 172 over the 164 and will this difference be to very or little notice?

        Thank you in advance! 🙂

      2. Hi Jacob,
        Stability at speed will be better with the longer ski, while maneuverability will decrease. There’s always some sort of compromise, right? It’s also kind of silly because at the end of the day we’re only talking about 8 centimeters, which when you look at a measuring tape, really isn’t a whole lot, but it’s hard not to think about it!
        SE

  7. I’m 48, 5ft 5 and 155 pounds. I mainly ski in the West Coast and consider myself closer to advance than intermediate but not an aggressive/fast skier. I would like to ski more off-piste so may be 50% on and 50% off. My current skis are Experience 80 (168cm) and Meier Quickdraw (171cm) thinking of switching to Sky 7. Should I get the 164cm or 172cm? I kind of like the idea of a shorter ski for easy turning. Thanks!

    1. Hi Chris!
      I think the 164 is the way to go based on your stats. You’ll love their turning ability! Have fun.
      SE

  8. Thank you for the review. i just recently came across this website. very useful. I use an older pair of rossignol experience skis, and am just starting to get aggressive in blacks. I ski the Denver area so get my fair share of powder, and slightly icy conditions. My buddies use very wide Rossignols, but tend do to a lot of powder and back country. I am looking for an all mountain, that is much more capable in the powder than my current skis. I very much value maneuverability, and also want something easier on my poor knees. They pointed me towards the Sky 7 HD, size 180. I am 6 ft tall, 180 lbs. Would you recommend that size for me? What would be the benefit of moving up to a 188? Any other all mountains that you recommend that also do well in deep powder?

    1. Hi Mark!
      I think you’re right on the money with the Sky 7! If you’re looking to take it easy on your knees, I’d recommend the 180. The benefit of moving up would be stability, but you also have to work harder to achieve those types of speeds, so at the end of the day, I’d still stick to the 180. Check out the K2 Pinnacle 95 and the Volkl 90Eight for comparison! Have fun!
      SE

  9. Hi, I am 162cm and weighs 128lbs, intermediate to aggressive skier. I ski in Colorado. Last year, I tried the soul 7 162cm(roughly) and foud it too hard to maneuver in heavy powders. I then bought Head Total Joy at 158cm, which has a width of 85cm. I like them in mogulas and groomed runs but had trouble when there are lumpy powder or thick soft powder
    L. Do you think I should get soul 7 but shorter or sky 7, just for heavy powder days? I do run into moguls quite often. If it is sky 7, what size?

    1. Hi Emily!
      If you’re looking for a dedicated powder ski, then I’d go with the Soul in the shorter size. For a one-ski quiver, I’d recommend the Sky over the Soul due to its versatility. Hope that helps!
      SE

  10. I am 510, 167 pounds. Have a pair of super sevens for powder days which I love 180 cm. I demoed the Sky 7 at 180 and liked them for non- powder days for better turning/carving and bumps. What other skis should look at, understanding that I will be keeping my super 7. My current ountain ski is the S 86 but I beat them up pretty good and the edge is starting to separate in one place so I need to replace them.

    Thanks, Scott

    1. HI Scott!
      Check out the K2 Pinnacle 95, Blizzard Rustler 9, and the Nordica Navigator 90. Anything in the 90-95 mm range without dual-metal laminate should work great. I’d stick to the ~180 cm range. Happy skiing!
      SE

  11. I’m 5-7, 155 lbs, 72 years old. I have been eyeballing the Sky 7 (172), primarily because they are lightweight and because they have soft tips – less chance of knocking me back in the moguls, and because they might make skiing powder easier if I run into any (skiing the Rockies for 9 days this year). i’ll ski blacks and double blacks without bumps, and blacks with bumps if not huge. Would also like to get into open glades. So my pain points are: big bumps, bumps with heavy chopped up powder and maybe deep powder. What do you think of the Sky 7 and should I look at anything else?
    Thank you.

    1. Hi Paul!
      I’ll add to that by saying the Sky is great for moguls because they are so maneuverable–I loved them in tight trees and bumps. They’re super fun and easy to turn, so I think you’ll love them!
      SE

  12. Hey!
    I consider myself as a intermediate/advance skier who likes skiing both in the piste and off piste, also likes the woods. I would probably say that I’m skiing 50/50 piste and off piste. I was first interested in the Rossignol Soul 7 then i saw these (Rossignol sky 7) and now i don’t know which of them i should buy. I also watched your video 2019 men’s 100mm all mountain ski, and it made me even more unsure which ones fits me best. I like skiing aggressively but with control, don’t really like when the skis flutter, also likes to go fast sometimes. I have a lot of experience with both tall and short skis but prefer when the skis are a little bit longer.
    I’m 187cm tall and about 75kg so i believe skis about 185-190cm suits me the best. Which skis do you think would suit me the best out of the 15 skis in the 2019 men’s 100mm all mountain skis video? Multiply examples would be nice! 🙂 How tall skis do you think i should have?
    Thanks! / Felix

    1. Hi Felix!
      If you’re a 50/50 skier, and like to go fast, you should stick to something under 100 mm underfoot like the Sky. Check out the K2 Pinnacle 95, Blizzard Rustler 9, Salomon QST 99, and the Nordica Enforcer 93. I think the 185 range would be perfect for you. Have fun!
      SE

  13. Hi,
    Im planning to by Sky 7 for my daughter. She is quite experienced and 160cm tall (short ;))
    In the pist she run Head Performance and prefer high radius.
    What length would you recommend for the Sky?
    Would 175 be far to long for her?
    Thx /Rolf from Sweden

  14. Trying to decide between Soul 7 and Sky 7. Ski mostly out West, ski a large mix of on and off trail. I am 5’8″ 185 lbs, also trying to decide 180 or 172 CM. Currently on a pair of K2 AfterShocks 167 cm 130-86-114

    1. Hi Brian!
      I think you’re skiing a good mix, then the Sky 7 in the 172 is the ski for you! Happy winter!
      SE

  15. Hi, I’m looking for my first set of of skis I’m pretty capable on piste but want to start getting in to the trees and powder, pretty comfortable on blue park jumps and some black. I’m 6ft 3, I rented a pair of sky 7s my last trip and they felt pretty good but what would you recommend?

    1. Hi Robert!
      The Sky 7 is a great option for trees and other tight situations. There are better options for a 50/50 on/off trail ski, but if you’re interested in skiing woods and soft snow, the Sky 7 is a fantastic choice. I’d recommend the 180 cm length, but that depends on what you demoed and how you felt about it. Have fun!
      SE

  16. Two questions. Trying to decide between the Soul7 and Sky7. Spend a week out West in Utah and love to be off trail and in the powder, but being in the Midwest, well sometimes ski the ice 🙁

    I am 5’8″ 190 lbs currently skiing on K2 AMP After Shocks 174CM…I prefer a bit shorter ski….from what I can read I am guessing the 180 is a better fit and the 172 will be to short?

    1. Hi Brian!
      If you were only skiing Utah, I’d recommend the Soul, but since you’re back and forth withe the Midwest, I think the Sky is a better choice. They do ski a bit short, so I agree that the 180 is the proper length for you. Happy winter!
      SE

      1. I was incorrect on my current ski length. I am skiing 167….Still recommend the 180 or drop to the 172?

  17. Hi,

    I’m 6′ (182 cm) and weight 200 lbs. I am an intermediate/advanced skier who like to ski 50% trees and 50% groomed/on piste.
    I like to chase the soft/powdery snow but I’m from the east coast of Canada so it’s often icy.

    I ski fast, but still want good control when slowing down in the trees or when I’m riding high speed on groomed trails.

    I’m having a hard time deciding between the Sky 7 hd, Head Kore 93 or Head Kore 99.

    What do you suggest ? Are these good choices or should I look at something else?

    Hope you can help me.

    Thank you

    P.S. Thank you for your reviews. Really helpful.

    1. Hi Francis!

      The Sky 7 HD is a great ski, but it doesn’t have the best stability at speed. It’s better for skiers who generally keep their speed relatively low and make lots of quick turns. The Kore 99 could work really well for you. It’s stiff, so handles higher speeds really well, and still performs well in soft snow too. The rockered and early tapered tips and tails help boost maneuverability for tight terrain here in the east, and they have enough float for even relatively deep powder days.

      Feels like the best choice out of the skis you’ve listed for sure. The Salomon QST 99 comes to mind too. That ski is very similar to the Kore 99, although not quite as stiff if you wanted a little more forgiveness.

      Hope that helps!

      SE

  18. Merry Christmas guys!

    Stats: Male, 5’7”, 180 lbs, turning 50 next year.

    Location: Nothern Utah

    Experience: Intermediate at best. Been skiing for 30 years, but only a few times a season on a good year, and not at all many years. Can glide down the greens with no problem and make it down the blues with a lot of cutting back and forth to keep the speed down in the steep parts.

    Goals: Finally at a point in life when I am ready to buy my own gear, get a season pass, and hit the slopes on a weekly basis. Hoping to greatly improve and get much more comfortable by skiing regularly. Would like to eventually be able to follow my snowboarding kids off piste into the powder. I’m not trying to show off to anyone, so I have no desire to do moguls or jumps, and if you see me on a black diamond, I’ve made a wrong turn, because I have no desire to go breakneck speeds. I just want to have a fun yet safe day on the mountain week after week.

    Situation: I tried to do my research before I went shopping so I could narrow my ski search to what was appropriate for me given the info above. Planned on getting something with under a 90 width under foot. Ended up being pushed toward the Sky 7 at 172 cm and a 96 width at the midpoint.

    Question: Is this the right ski for me? I didn’t put bindings on it yet, so I can take them right back if not. I plan on skiing on these every week during the season going forward for years, so it’s worth it to me to take my time and get the right skis. The Sky 7’s are billed as a ski that can do on and off piste very well, but then the reviewers go on and on about their great powder handling and them being for more advanced skiers. I don’t mind them being good off the trail as I hope to follow my kids there as I get more comfortable, but will a skier of my ability still be comfortable with them on the groomers, or would I be better off on some type of 80’s ski? I want to feel comfortable on the skis, be able to make the turns I need to keep my speed under control, have an enjoyable day week after week, and not get hurt. If the Sky 7 can do that and do the powder, great! But if there is a ski that would be better handling and more comfortable and enjoyable for a skier with my ability and goals, please let me know and I’ll order it.

    Thanks in advance!
    Undecided in Utah

    1. Hi Jim!
      Don’t get buyer’s remorse just yet. I’d probably have pointed you in a different direction from the outset, but we all have different comfort levels when it comes to buying unfamiliar gear. The nice thing about the Sky is that it has a five-point sidecut which basically means that, for the length of the ski, it makes shorter and easier turns. This comes in handy when in soft snow because you can control your speed easily. But if you’re spending pretty much all of your time on the groomers, there’s definitely better options. Sticking with the Rossignol family, the 2019 Experience 88Ti is a great option. They’re narrower so they’re easier to control, but still wide enough to help you out when the snow gets soft. Each company makes that ~88/90 mm underfoot ski that can do a little bit of everything. K2 Pinnacle 88, Nordica Navigator 85 or 90, Blizzard Bushwacker, and Salomon XDR 88 are a few other options that fall into what I think is “your” category.
      Ultimately, you’ll probably be just fine if you decide to keep the Sky, but from what you wrote, I feel you’d find better options with a narrower, all-mountain type of ski like the ones I listed. It’s amazing how well these “narrower” skis perform off-piste these days with wider shovels and rockered profiles. Hope that helps!
      SE

      1. Thanks so much for the quick reply and knowledgeable advice! Confirmed what my gut was telling me, the Sky 7 is a great ski, but probably not the best ski for me and what I will be doing on an average day.

        Something else my gut is telling me is that at my age and experience level, maybe trying to hang with my teen to early 20’s boys who like to snowboard on powder and find jumps isn’t such a good idea for me at this point. My wife has a pair of women’s Rossignol Experience 80 CI W, and is about at about the same experience level as me. We should probably drive up with boys, meet up for lunch, etc, but stick to skiing the groomed runs together for the most part and let the boy go be boys.

        So, if I change what I originally posted to favor primarily green and blue on piste skiing in Northern Utah snow, what would your suggestions be. Still the Saloman XDR 88, Rossignol Experience 88, K2 Pinnacle 88, etc, or would I get more enjoyment in comfort, control, and stability on an 84 waist ski in those lines above. Also had someone mention to me the Black Crow Captis which has a 90 waist for Northern Utah snow conditions. Do you have any opinion about those vs the big name brands?

        I don’t have any brand loyalty at this point, so I’d appreciate your opinion on what would be most user friendly ski that will keep me safe and in control for what I will normally encounter.

        Thanks again,
        Jim

      2. Hi Jim!

        Yeah, that was basically what I was thinking when recommending those skis. The XDR 88, Experience 88, and Pinnacle 88 are all fantastic skis and I think would all work really well for you. They’re quicker edge to edge than the Sky and don’t require as high of an edge angle, something that helps with developing skiers like yourself. Don’t feel like you need to go narrower, however. These 88 mm all mountain skis are pretty easy to manage, and you’r really not gaining much dropping down in width 4 mm. On the other hand, you do get some nice stability in choppy and softer snow conditions.

        I’ve been on some Black Crows, but not the Captis, at least not recently. We’ve actually considered picking them up as a brand and were thinking about doing so this season, there was just a restriction as they are already carried by another local shop, which would’ve stopped us from being able to offer them in our brick and mortar store.

        I am a big fan of both the Experience 88 and the Pinnacle 88, especially for someone like yourself. Those skis are approachable, forgiving, and aren’t going to beat you up, yet are still very capable skis that will allow you to explore a lot of different terrain while helping to promote progression in your technique.

        Hope that helps! Happy to chat more about it if you have any other questions.

        SE

      3. Thank you so much for the great advice! Sense my wife has the women’s Experience 80, I think I’m going to go with the Experience 88 you recommended and keep it in the family.

        The last question is size. Again, I’m 5′ 7.75″ (172cm) and after the holidays 185 lbs (hoping to drop back down a few quickly). With my lower intermediate experience level, I was initially thinking I would stay under 170 which would put me in the 166, but I’m guessing by some of your other recommendations that with the rocker making the effective ski length less, you will recommend that I move up to the 173 and grow into them experience wise. Is that right?

        Thanks again for all your help!
        Jim

      4. Hey Jim!
        I’d agree that the 173 is the way to go. It’s a good excuse to keep the holiday weight on!
        SE

  19. I’m 67in tall and 170lbs. I would say i’m an intermediate skier that loves skiing groomers. Do not spend a lot of time off-piste but would like to learn. Never owned a pair of skis (have always rented). So not familiar with difference in feeling between a short or longer ski. I’m currently caught between the Rossi experience 88 HD and this Rossi Sky 7. Most of my skiing is done around Bozeman, MT. So a lot of fresh snow, even on the groomers. Which ski do you think would be a smarter choice for me? Also, would a 164cm be to short…should I go for a longer ski? Thank you for your time.

    1. Hi Andrew!
      The Experience 88 is certainly a more capable carving/groomer ski. If you were spending your time 50/50 on/off trail, the Sky is a great option, but if you’re on the groomers, even with fresh snow, the Experience is the way to go. You’ll be able to enjoy it more of the time. Hope that helps!
      SE

  20. Bobbi- I am looking at the Sky 7 to replace my old Volkl first generation Aura skis which I use for powder and in the trees and are either 94 or 96 under foot. My day to day ski is the Kastle LX 82. Both of these skis are 156. I have lived in Aspen for the last 50 years and ski all four mountains given the day, snow conditions and time constraints. I usually get in 40 to 50 days. Yes lucky me!. I am an expert skier in that I can ski most anything but am not super fast or flashy but stable and consistent. I am not sure what length I should look at, the 156 or the 164. I was also looking at the Soul 7 HD W but it is 106 under foot and I am only 5’2″ and about 115 lbs. Any suggestions?? Thanks

    1. Hi Bobbi!
      I’d stick to the 156 if that’s what you’re comfortable with. The Sky is more turny and user-friendly than the Aura, and since you have the groomer ski already, the Sky 7 is a great soft-snow ski. If you find yourself in that gorgeous Colorado powder more often than not, there’s no reason not to stretch it to the Soul 7. They’re pretty light and maneuverable, so I wouldn’t worry too much about the width just so long as you’re using it as a dedicated powder ski. The Sky is more versatile for sure. Have fun!
      SE

  21. Hi guys,

    I’m looking to switch to Rossi Sky 7 HD skis but would need a little help on choosing the right size and binding model.

    I am 5’8″ and 215lb, 48 yrs old intermediate-advanced skier.

    I intend to do some on piste skiing and SNOW-KITING with maybe some off-piste sometimes with this skis.

    Prior to now I’ve been on Salomon 163cm and Volkl 164cm.twin-tips both with rail binding.

    I’ve been riding on shorter skis like up to my chin or my nose because in Snow-Kiting most riders do ride a bit smaller size then their height and rail bindings to keep the ski-boots up when riding..

    What would be your advice for me on this Sky 7 HD as far as length and binding brand/style/model ?

    Thanks in advance and look forward to your reply.

    1. Hi Jimmy!

      We don’t have too much experience with snow-kiting, although it looks like an absolute blast!

      That said, I think the 172 cm length will be best. You could probably even ski the 180 cm, but considering your used to shorter skis already, it might be a bit much to jump up to the 180 cm length. Because the Sky 7 HD uses quite a bit of tip and tail rocker, however, I really wouldn’t go shorter than 172 cm. I would worry that would feel unstable for you.

      For bindings, we currently have it packaged with the Attack 2 13 from Tyrolia. That binding works really well because it has one of the widest platforms. For a wider ski like the Sky 7 HD, it helps transmit power to the ski more efficiently.

      Hope that helps!

      SE

  22. I’m struggling to work out sizing for this ski. I weigh 170 pounds at 5’9.5”. I am an intermediate to advanced skier. I currently use Experience 84 HD 170. After reading other comments and your responses, I’m assuming a 180.

    Thank you!

  23. I’m a 68 1/2″ tall 140# 60 year old male. Advanced skier who loves to fly on piste and jump into trees and back bowls whenever I can. I’m struggling with the size of Sky 7 to buy. I’m currently on 178cm Armada and feel they are just a tad long. What do you think? 172 or 180cm?

    1. Hi Scott!

      What Armadas are you coming off of? If they’re mostly camber you might find the 180 cm Sky 7 skis shorter than them, but let me know. The 172 cm is almost as tall as you, which could definitely work, but you mention you love to fly on piste, which makes me wonder if you’d appreciate the extra stability of the 180 cm. If you can let me know which Armada model you’re coming off of I’ll let you know if that sways my opinion one way or another.

      SE

  24. I’m interested in comments and recommendations for my next new ski’s
    I spent one of 2 weeks on 180 Rossi Ski7 HD in Canada this year
    I’m 44, a reasonably advanced skier, the thick and lumpy stuff is fun but also spend a lot of time on the hard blues with teenage kids
    need a new set of skis to mix powder and groomed
    I’m 6’2, 180 pounds and fit for my age
    Loved these skis this year, they felt a bit short
    Any other recommendations as I’m about to go on a trip including heliskiing

    1. Hi John!

      Yeah, I think the 180 cm Sky 7 HD can feel a bit short for someone your size. It is, however, a great ski for mixing some powder skiing with more traditional all mountain conditions. If you go with the Sky 7, consider moving up to the 188 cm length. It sounds long on paper, but as you already know, the Sky 7 skis pretty short.

      There are some other skis out there you could consider too. The Nordica Enforcer 100 is a popular choice for skiers seeking this mix of performance, although it’s heavier, stiffer, and a bit more demanding than the Sky 7 HD. It’s not quite as easy to throw around and maneuver, mostly because of the extra weight, but you get more stability at speed. Lots of other skis in this category too, Salomon QST 99 kind of splits the difference between the Sky 7 and Enforcer, and there are lots more. If you liked the maneuverability and overall feel of the Sky 7, however, it might make sense to stick with it, but maybe in that 188 cm length instead.

      Hope that helps!

      SE

  25. am on an Armada TST 156 cm – love it but is old and starting to delaminate – looking at the sky 7 for a new ski. Am 5’4″ and 120# (80 years old) – an advanced skier – former ski instructor – still skiing all conditions and all slopes but not crazy fast speed. Am thinking of the 156 cm sky 7 – don’t think it will be too short for me as I’m fine on my Armada 156 cm that has a big tip rocker and is supposed to ski short – Do you agree that the 156 Sky 7 should be my size?

    3

    1. Hi Bob!

      If you find your 156 cm TST to be the right size I would stick with the 156 cm Sky 7. In theory you could ski the 164 cm as it would only be slightly taller than you, but again if you like the size of your TST I would stay there. The TST and the Sky have similar rocker profiles, so both kind of ski short like you’re saying. Stick with what you know works! The Sky is also a bit of an upgrade over the TST in terms of construction and technology, so you’re already benefiting from that.

      Hope that helps!

      SE

  26. Another size question. 5’9″, 170 lbs intermediate skier. Pretty confident on the groomers but just starting to get into the off trail stuff, which is what I’ll be using this ski for. Trying to decide on the 172 or 180, any advice? I’m on the east coast… leaning toward the 172 as I feel it may be more maneuverable in tight east coast trees, but want to make sure this length will still be OK for my yearly trip out west.

    1. Hi Chris!

      So, the Sky 7 HD skis pretty short. What lengths have you used in the past? I would say if you have experience on cambered skis somewhere around the 170 cm length you should bump up to the 180 cm Sky 7 HD. Because it uses so much tip and tail rocker and early taper the effective edge is pretty short when you’re on firm snow, so very maneuverable. The rocker and early tapered portions of the ski really only come into play in softer snow conditions, something to keep in mind. There are definitely a fair amount of skiers around your size who prefer the 180 cm length, although you don’t necessarily have to go that long. I would let the lengths of skis you’ve been on in the past be your guide, that should give you a sense of whether the 180 cm would be manageable for you.

      Hope that helps!

      SE

      1. Thanks for the informative response. I currently ski Experience 77’s at 168 so it sounds like it may be a good idea to go with the 180s. Thanks!

  27. I am an intermediate skier, just transitioning back from snowboarding. Like mellow cruising and not bombing too fast. 6’3 and 245 lbs. I’m thinking 172’s as I want something forgiving on the turns… or should I go up to the 180’s? Thanks,

    1. Hi Scott!

      The Sky 7 HD uses quite a lot of tip and tail rocker as well as early taper, which makes it ski relatively short. At your size I would go with the 180 cm length. I think you’d find the 172 cm feels a little bit unstable, and the 180 cm will still be perfectly forgiving for you.

      Hope that helps!

      SE

  28. Hi. I’m a 61 year old fit male who is around 5′-7″ and 170 lbs with a total hip replacement one year ago. After about a 10 year hiatus I’m thinking of getting back into skiing. I used to consider myself an advance-intermediate to advance skier who like to ski all types of ski conditions from powder to bumps, but not extreme steeps. Because of my hip I’m thinking I’ll probably be toning it down a bit, but was wondering if the Sky 7 HD would be a good ski for me and what length. I was thinking either 172 or 180. Thanking you in advance for your answer

    1. Hi Philip!

      I think the Sky 7 HD will be a fantastic ski to help you get back into the sport. You’ll likely be blown away at its performance in all the terrain and conditions you like to ski. There have been some big developments in ski design and construction in the past 10 years and the Sky 7 HD is a great example. I think the 172 cm length should be just fine for you. That’s about 2 cm taller than you, which should be about perfect for your ability level and considering you haven’t been on the slopes for a while. The 180 cm is probably just a little bit unnecessary, and I would worry a little bit that it would be a little too demanding for you considering your recent hip replacement.

      Hope that helps!

      SE

  29. Hi. I am a 5’3″ 145 lb intermediate to advanced female skier. I demoed both the 156 cm and 164 cm 2018 Sky 7 this past weekend at Mammoth Mountain in heavy powder and packed powder with some icy spots. I loved the 156 cm. They were playful and turned easily in all conditions I encountered. I felt that the 164 cm were too long for me, but my husband who is an expert skier thinks I should go up in size for stability and control. I like medium to short radius turns, mostly ski on piste, but would like to venture into powder in the trees. Currently on my 2012 K2 153cm Lotta Loves I feel that I don’t have enough control in the sierra “chowder” to turn in the trees. Do you agree with my husband that I should get the 164 cm, or should I stick with the 156 cm that felt really fun to ski on.

    Thank you for your time.

    1. Hi Leslie!

      I think it’s somewhat of a toss up, but I would follow your instincts on this one and trust your testing on those skis. The 164 cm is taller than you, which is often the point where skis start to feel a bit long. The Sky 7 does use a lot of tip and tail rocker, so it skis “short” compared to other skis of the same length, but I don’t necessarily think the 156 cm is too short for you. I do think the 164 cm would provide more stability, but I disagree that that length would give you more control. Longer skis typically translates to less control, or at best the same amount of control, but a more fatiguing feel. Did the 156 cm ever feel unstable? Did you ski it as fast as you would want to? If the answers are “no” and “yes” then I don’t think you should go up to the 164 cm length.

      Hope that helps!

      SE

  30. Hi Chase

    I’m an intermediate skier: female, 5’6 and 135 lbs, I like short and long turns and am getting into moguls and powder. But need an all round ski for Eastern Ontario snow conditions. I’m not into too much speed but when demo-ing the 2016/2017 Sky 7; it gave me more confidence because of the lightness and forgiveness. How is the 2016/2017 Sky 7 different from the newer 2017/2018 and the Famous 10 which I also tried but found a bit more difficult to manoeuvre.

    thanks Shirley

    1. Hi Shirley!

      The newer version of the Sky 7 HD is a little bit more powerful and has a little bit better vibration damping, but aside from that they’re pretty similar. I would say at your weight you’ll be just fine on the 16/17 version and likely don’t need the benefits for more aggressive skiing in the new model. The Famous 10 is a more carving oriented, firm snow ski. Much less rocker and early taper, so I’m not surprised you found it less maneuverable.

      I thought I would chime in with my thoughts in case Chase doesn’t reply.

      SE

  31. Hi! Thanks for the review. I’m a 5″10 – 180 lbs male, and I’m an advanced skier who is moderately aggressive. I definitely ski more heave mogul runs than powder but want a light ski that lets me do both. Given this info, should I go for the 172cm or 180cm? I have never been on skis above 175cm. Thanks!

    Chase

    1. Hey Chase!

      I’m about your size and definitely prefer the 180 cm Sky 7 HD. It’s pretty lightweight, and has plenty of tip rocker, so we find most people size up when they feel like they are between sizes and are very happy they did.

      Hope that helps!

      SE

  32. Hi! Great review, thanks! I am thinking of buying these as well but am unsure about the size. I am an intermediate skier, a bit aggressive, and I like speed. I measure 174cm and weigh 69kg. Should I go for the 172 or the 180? Thanks for your advice!

    1. Hi Daniel!

      If you like speed and are comfortable with having a ski that’s taller than you I don’t think the 180 cm length would be too much ski for you. The Sky 7 HD is pretty lightweight, and quite maneuverable, so usually people don’t have any trouble going with the longer of two lengths.

      Hope that helps,

      SE

  33. Hi all,

    I’m struggling to work out sizing for this ski. I weigh 135 pounds at 5’10”. I am an intermediate to advanced skier, who loves speed and a combination of long and short turn styles. I will also be venturing of piste occasionally in search of powder, but the majority of skiing will be done on piste. Any assistance would be very much appreciated.

    Thank you!

    1. Hi Josh,

      At your size I would say you’ll either want to go with the 172 or 180 cm length. Considering you say you love speed I’m guessing you’d appreciate having the extra length, so I’m leaning towards 180 cm. I am about your size, maybe 10 pounds heavier, and definitely feel the 180 cm is the right length for me. It also gives you a little better float when you get some powder.

      What do you think?

      SE

  34. I’m thinking about buying these, I dont know what size would be best for me. I’m 183 cm and weigh 72 kg. What would you recommend, 180 or 188.

    1. Hi G!

      How aggressive are you? DO you like to ski really fast? If your answers are “very” and “yes” then I would go with the 188 cm. There’s a lot of tip and tail rocker in the Sky 7, so you can size up on it without it feeling overwhelming. If you’re answers were the opposite, or even somewhere in the middle, however, the 180 cm would probably be more appropriate as you likely wouldn’t need the extra power and stability.

      Hope that helps!

      SE

  35. 2018 ROSSIGNOL SKY 7 HD SKIS
    They look “chattery” on the first few turns of the video ? Snow sounded like ice from last evening but still the tips were a bouncy. Is this endemic to the category

    1. Hey Bob!

      Tip chatter is certainly more prevalent in skis with a lot of tip rocker, like the Sky 7 HD. That being said Rossignol actually did a really impressive job reducing tip chatter in the new model. You’ll always get a little bit of tip “bounce” with this much rocker, but the 2018 version feels much smoother than the previous versions of the ski.

      We had mini thaw/freeze cycle during our ski test, so some of the snow was really firm while also being pretty variable (not perfectly groomed), which definitely plays into what you’re seeing.

    2. I just tried these guys the other day. There was definitely some chatter at the tip throughout the day. However they remained solid underfoot the whole time.

Comments are closed.