Is the 4FRNT Devastator the new and improved Rossignol Sickle?

[DGamms]

After four seasons on the 186 cm Sickle and just two days on the 2016 184 cm Devastator, I've formed my preliminary opinions. No pow and no ice testing yet. But I wanted to see what other mags thought too. Anyone with lots of experience on both these skis?

My TLDR summary of the comparison is: yes, people lamenting the loss of the Sickle will find everything they want in the new Devastator. The Devastator build is subtly different in that:

- it has a slightly narrower and straighter tip profile
- the rocker profile is more refined, and results in a few millimeters more splay at the tip and tail (the Sickle was really closer to flat camber with a twin tip)
- the twin tip tail is lower on the Devastator (less rooster tail spray behind you)
- the rec'd mount point is a little more forward (I mounted at -1cm from Rec'd and that matches up perfectly with the rec'd mount point in the Sickle)
- it is about 1 cm shorter on straight pull

I'd love to hear the collective's opinion on ride quality differences before I spew mine...

[SupreChicken]

Paging shroom.

[shroom]

I will not stand for this!

unfortunately, I never rode the sickle. name was too fickle for me.

[ghosthop]

I've ridden both, sickle was my daily for two seasons but only two half day demos of the devastator, one which was ended early by air from roller to pole plant to face

I thought the Devastator rode heavier and damper than the sickle, although it seemed to have more pop when really loaded up as well. I also thought the devastator felt more locked into a carve and harder to feather a turn but I would attribute at least some of this to tune.

I prefer the ride of the sickle, but I think I also prefer flat camber as opposed to full reverse.

[DGamms]

Ghosthop, do you think the heavier feel of the Devastator was the demo bindings? To me, the two skis feel basically the same as far as total weight, swing weight, and dampening (yeah VibeVail). Both mounted with STH 14s.

To me, the Devastators differed in that:
- they provided more pop when loading the tail to ollie over a roller
- they carve more cleanly because of the subtle reverse camber throughout
- the tails break free even easier due to the increased tail splay (not what you experienced)
- they ski switch more easily due to the tail rocker splay and narrower tip
- they might be a hair stiffer throughout, resulting in higher max speed limit

[undertow2]

I don't own the Sickle, but do own the 194 Devastator and to date it is by far the heaviest Fing ski I have owned... Love the ski and the weight is not an issue, but damn they are heavy... So no I do not think it is due to the bindings...

[DGamms]

Yeah, it seems like that most people think it feels heavy in the hand, Undertow. Do you think it skis heavy?

Again, only two days on the Devastator, but the weight difference vs the Sickle feels negligible to me.

186 Sickle 2215g
184 Devastator 2298g

My legs don't feel the 83 grams per ski. I've done a few park laps, and the swing weight doesn't feel any worse on than the Sickles either when I do my ugly 360s

[tenB]

Maybe the 184 devastator is similar to the sickle, but the 194 is a much more burly a ride than the sickle. I've skied both and like them in their own environment. The devastator is the best crud ski I've ever been on but the sickle is much more nimble.

[DGamms]

No doubt, I'm sure the 194 Devastator is much more ski. I've never skied that length, but that sure seems to be the consensus. I wonder if 4FRNT added additional fiberglass to stiffen up the big boy length... Just like how Volkl had stiffer builds in the 190/191 metal Katanas compared to the 183/184.

I love the progressive mount point on the Devastator (-5 cm from true center) and Sickle (-6cm from true center) compared to the old school mount point of the Katana (-12 cm to -14 cm based on ski size).

But if the forward mount point has a disadvantage, it's that the skis do feel a little short compared to the Katana, especially if you try to lean way forward and pressure the tips when blasting cruddy/variable snow. I bet the 194 Devastator solves this issue with more weight/length, but it's too big for me at 5'10" and 150 lbs

So my dream ski, the mating of the Sickle and the metal Katana, is the Devastator, but just not in the available lengths. If 4FRNT made something between the 184 and 194, say a 189 cm (which would measure around 186.5 straight pull), I'd be all over it.

[swissiphic]

So my dream ski, the mating of the Sickle and the metal Katana, is the Devastator, but just not in the available lengths. If 4FRNT made something between the 184 and 194, say a 189 cm (which would measure around 186.5 straight pull), I'd be all over it.

Solution? 184 + 5cm tip extender? Lean on those tips all you want. Contour the taper profile and base edge bevel/spoon of the extension to dial in your ride and front of ski 'feel'.

[DGamms]

Ha! I saw that pic in other thread, you are a DIY wizard, swissiphic. Now, adding just tip length would alter the mount point relative to true center...

Plus, if I fixed it myself, what would I have left to pine for?

[LC]

But if the forward mount point has a disadvantage, it's that the skis do feel a little short compared to the Katana, especially if you try to lean way forward and pressure the tips when blasting cruddy/variable snow. I bet the 194 Devastator solves this issue

Not really. I love the 194 Devastator but it took some time to find my balance on it. Its weight and stiffness means it can cut through chop and wants to go fast but it's most balanced with your weight quite upright. I mounted very slightly forward of the line but pretty sure it would ski nicely at -2cm pressuring the tips more. Not as playful as I was hoping for, but it might soften with time.

I'm 6ft4/80kg and ski 191 and 198 Katanas too. I'm keeping all of them. Sickle/S6 always looked good on paper but I've never been on a Rossi I really loved so I didn't take the chance.

[swissiphic]

Now, adding just tip length would alter the mount point relative to true center..

Tru dat, DGamms; Ghettoworks plastic cutting board variable mount point binding plate to the rescue! Came up with this ghetto hack job in 2010 but threw out the bathwater, kept the baby and will be dialing in a more refined low profile quick release system for next ski season...not out of want but need...the five quiver set of old dynafits is shrinking with attrition...while the ski quiver grows...



But yeah, in all seriousness...i found the tip extenders mounted on my armada jj's to basically maintain the feel of mount point in firmer or less ski pen 2D snow while providing an ever so slightly more 'rear' feel in any soft conditions with more ski pen in 3D snow...i still feel correctly positioned over the sidecut but with more tip to lean on the ski has higher speed limit in variable snow and much more float in deep pow...basically haven't stuffed a tip yet or had anything even close to resembling tip dive. Of course there is a balance of pros and cons...the tips flutter on choppy 2D groomers/refrozen and do alter swing weight...but i constructed them only with deep pow/slabby upside down snow in mind.

[DGamms]

Interesting LC. At forward of the rec'd line, you are probably -4cm of true center in your 194 Devastators? That is about 10 cm more forward than the 191 Katana mounted on the rec'd line. I wonder if the Devastators would feel like they could be driven more from the tips if you remounted at -2cm like you said. You'd still be 7 cm forward of the traditional 191 Katana mount point.

[undertow2]

Yeah, it seems like that most people think it feels heavy in the hand, Undertow. Do you think it skis heavy?

Again, only two days on the Devastator, but the weight difference vs the Sickle feels negligible to me.

186 Sickle 2215g
184 Devastator 2298g

My legs don't feel the 83 grams per ski. I've done a few park laps, and the swing weight doesn't feel any worse on than the Sickles either when I do my ugly 360s

When I am skiing them I do not find them heavy or to much ski... The only time I feel the weight is at the end of the day and have those heavy sum bitches dangling on the chair... As stated earlier the weight now doubt makes these ski a killer crud buster and find them as capable as I do my 191 glass Katanas and ON3P 191 Wrens...

You may have already read this review, but I found this review from Earlyups spot on when describing the Devastator... I will not be parting with mine anytime soon and one thing you have to love is the absolute end of year deals you can get on the ski... Everything I have read and everyone that has ridden them absolutely loves em, but they just do not appear to be catching on as I got my 194s shipped for $310 shipped...

[galibier_numero_un]

Tru dat, DGamms; Ghettoworks plastic cutting board variable mount point binding plate to the rescue! Came up with this ghetto hack job in 2010 but threw out the bathwater, kept the baby and will be dialing in a more refined low profile quick release system for next ski season...not out of want but need...the five quiver set of old dynafits is shrinking with attrition...while the ski quiver grows...

T-nuts in the sliding tracks?

... Thom

[DGamms]

Undertow, I read the Earlyups review too. Yeah, I pretty much agree with their take as well. Again, no pow or firm groomer testing for me yet.

After skiing the Sickle for more than 150 days, the more upright stance to drive the Devastators feels totally natural. I'm sure if I went back to Katanas as the daily driver, I'd have to adjust the balance/stance again.

Another difference between the Sickle and Devastator: the Devastator base material feels faster, even after a fresh wax on the Sickle. It might be old ski vs new ski bases, but I think the actual base material used might be different between the two skis

[CaliBrit]

T-nuts in the sliding tracks?

... Thom

Guessing so. It's such a great idea! Curious about slippage. Wonder if you could have a slight well every few mm.

[kathleenturneroverdrive]

You may have already read this review, but I found this review from Earlyups spot on when describing the Devastator...

Thanks - I wrote that review last season. After another season on them I found myself liking the Devastator even more this year. The ski just plain rips in every condition (although I ski a Renegade on big days).

Although I agree with the poster wishing for a 189. 184/194 is just a massive split. That said the 194 is pretty damn easy to ski.

[BushwackerinPA]

Undertow, I read the Earlyups review too. Yeah, I pretty much agree with their take as well. Again, no pow or firm groomer testing for me yet.

After skiing the Sickle for more than 150 days, the more upright stance to drive the Devastators feels totally natural. I'm sure if I went back to Katanas as the daily driver, I'd have to adjust the balance/stance again.

Another difference between the Sickle and Devastator: the Devastator base material feels faster, even after a fresh wax on the Sickle. It might be old ski vs new ski bases, but I think the actual base material used might be different between the two skis

We have 3 pairs of Sickle/schimitars in my house and they are simply the slowest bases I have ever skied. Everything else me and my girl owns is WAY faster.

[LC]

Interesting LC. At forward of the rec'd line, you are probably -4cm of true center in your 194 Devastators? That is about 10 cm more forward than the 191 Katana mounted on the rec'd line. I wonder if the Devastators would feel like they could be driven more from the tips if you remounted at -2cm like you said. You'd still be 7 cm forward of the traditional 191 Katana mount point.

I ended up about 5mm forward of the line, so -4.5cm from true centre. I measure my Katanas' line at -13.5cm from true, and they're mounted at +2 and +2.5 (191/198) so still way back compared to the Devastator. I jump between them and definitely keep my weight forward more on the Katanas but I don't even think about it when I start skiing whatever ski on a given day. Incidentally, both the Katanas and Devastators I found to have a bit of a learning curve on them to get the most out of them, whereas the Cochise was very natural when I first borrowed a friend's but I like them all.

I had the Katanas already so I mounted the Devastators a little forward because I knew I'd be keeping the Katanas and kind of wanted a twintipped closer-to-centre version too. If I didn't have the Katanas and I'd never spin or ski switch then I'm pretty sure I'd be happy with the Devastator mounted at -2cm to replace them all.

I skied a few runs on the Devastators today in new snow with tired legs from a big tour on Tuesday - decent powder up high, getting heavier and more tracked lower down the mountain. I love the weight and flex normally but they felt like a lot of work today!

Also the bases are damn tough (mine are the 14/15 black bases). Pretty sure I've read this exact thing in someone's review of another 4FRNT and though "Yeah right", but I've hit a few rocks hard this winter and had that horrible moment of turning it over ready to see core, but got away with scratches.

[DGamms]

BushwackerinPA, I'm guessing your Sickles feel slow even after a fresh wax? What is it about the Sickle bases that make them ski so much slower? The speed/glide difference in spring conditions between the Devastator and the Sickle was pretty significant for me too.

LC, what conditions do you prefer your Katanas over your Devastators? I had Katanas as daily drivers prior to the Sickles, but it's been years since I've skied the Katana now, and I've never done a back to back day of Katanas vs Devastators.

[ghosthop]

I think Rossi wasn't building the best product at the time, I remember hearing about delams around then especially on snowboards. My s6 were retired partly due to a propensity for core shots. I didn't have much original base material on either one of my skis along the edge underfoot.

As for your question DGamms, it may have something to do with demo bindings but I remembering thinking the 4frnt had more heft to it, which certainly helped with its crud busting ability. This was the demo at Stratton after SIA so it also could have been a preproduction pair. I don't spin so no comment on that but I didn't have any balance problem when popping rollers and such compared to a sickle.

In regard to mount I never felt anything noticeable on the devastator, but in fresh snow felt the sickle was a little too forward and had times wanting to turn in crud where I wished for more ski in front of me.

I really dig the katana comparisons as well, the old metal, full reverse katana is one of the skis on my shortlist that I want to try.

[LC]

LC, what conditions do you prefer your Katanas over your Devastators? I had Katanas as daily drivers prior to the Sickles, but it's been years since I've skied the Katana now, and I've never done a back to back day of Katanas vs Devastators.

Katanas when I want to go faster, pretty much.

[BushwackerinPA]

BushwackerinPA, I'm guessing your Sickles feel slow even after a fresh wax? What is it about the Sickle bases that make them ski so much slower? The speed/glide difference in spring conditions between the Devastator and the Sickle was pretty significant for me too.

LC, what conditions do you prefer your Katanas over your Devastators? I had Katanas as daily drivers prior to the Sickles, but it's been years since I've skied the Katana now, and I've never done a back to back day of Katanas vs Devastators.

Its the base material and nothing more, its simply does not even take wax in the first place. the farther from freezing either colder or warmer the more you notice it. I have spent hours trying to let wax actually get into the Ptex and nothing.

Skiing in tremblant last week, i was on my Enforcer 93 and my girl was on her Schimitars and on the flats at the bottom both going straight I would gain 100s of yards on her, if she was on one of her blizzard's that would never be the case