Your Experience with Rockered Skis

[bdfreetuna]

However I have skis (Rossi Phantoms) that are front rockered with camber and it is a true all mountain ski. It floats well enough on the powder days and carves up the groomers with little effort.

The Chopstiks are fun but I have never really used them all day. Effectively, I stick to my Rossi's!

I ski Phantoms too. I have the SC80s and I think their flotation is somewhat terrible. Better than the skis I had before that, but now I'm seeing people on skis with more rocker and wider underfoot and clearly their skis are giving them an advantage in a lot of situations.

Like Trailboss said he can turn on a dime in the woods. I can only do that if I jump. There's no way I'm smearing the kind of turn that I'd like to if I was floating on the snow instead of boot deep.

That's not to say they aren't good skis, but I find their performance much better in tracked-out woods, corn snow, and packed powder conditions,

 

[bdfreetuna]

Originally Posted by fbrissette I think many people are overdoing it in the east. I have a feeling that ski width is becoming the macho bragging fad that ski length once was (you were not a man unless you skied 200+cm skis). The wider the better in true powder but the very wide skis are definitely less quick to turn in the trees.

I am seeing people with like 200cm+ fattie rocker skis so I guess you can kill 2 birds with 1 stone.

 

[MadMadWorld]

Rockered skis are great. I ski on K2 Kung Fujas that have only a tip rocker. I think having tip rocker only is a great option for east coasters. It handles amazing in the pow and chop and holds it's own on hard pack and ice. I don't think I could ever go back to a non-rockered ski.

 

[tnt]

tnt, do the Bushwackers have metal? I know they have two 88mm waisted skis with the same dimensions. One has metal and one does not. Those are skis I'd like to try. My wife is on Black Pearls and really likes them.

No, the bushwackers have no metal. And I choose them because of that, thinking no metal = more flex = better bumps.

They now offer the exact dimensions with metal - bodacious I think it's called.

 

[Hawkshot99]

No, the bushwackers have no metal. And I choose them because of that, thinking no metal = more flex = better bumps.

They now offer the exact dimensions with metal - bodacious I think it's called.

Not true. The Bushwacker has a single sheet of metal, but it is omly under the binding. If you turn the ski onto its side you can see the metal layer. The Brahma is a bushwacker with a single sheet of metal tip to tail and a doublemlayernunder foot.

Sent from my SGH-S959G using Tapatalk 2

 

[thetrailboss]

Have you all gone longer with your rockered skis? It was a dilemma with me because I had a choice between 181 or 191 and the difference in turning radius was huge (19 vs like 30). I normally skied 170-177 or so east coast and felt that even a 191 cm rockered ski would feel too big.

 

[snowmonster]

Have you all gone longer with your rockered skis? It was a dilemma with me because I had a choice between 181 or 191 and the difference in turning radius was huge (19 vs like 30). I normally skied 170-177 or so east coast and felt that even a 191 cm rockered ski would feel too big.

It depends on the amount of rocker. Since the tips and/or tails are off the snow, they tend to ski shorter. What you should be looking at is the effective edge, i.e., where the ski actually makes contact with the snow. This is the length that you're actually working with. Normally, you can go about 5 to 8 cms longer than what you are used to. A 181 ski should be fine for you (although I suspect that your sweet spot may be in the mid to high 180s). Unless you're straightlining chutes, a 191 ski may be too much ski for you even if you are out west.

To the original post: I've been singing the praises of rocker ever since I bought a pair of Rossi S7s in 2008. You're about 6 years late to the party. I guess I have no credibility with you, TB. Enjoy the snow and rip!

 

[goldsbar]

Have you all gone longer with your rockered skis? It was a dilemma with me because I had a choice between 181 or 191 and the difference in turning radius was huge (19 vs like 30). I normally skied 170-177 or so east coast and felt that even a 191 cm rockered ski would feel too big.

The demo shop in Alta put me on a pair of mid-160's on a 115mm Rocker^2, a ski with a ton of visible rocker. I was like, great, they see/hear a skinny guy from NJ and assume he can't ski. Usually ski low 170s fully cambered (155#s). Truth is, they were great and I was charging everything on them (fresh pow). Be very carefull about going to long. To short will only suck at high speed (and you can compensate). To long will suck at everything but very high speed.

I see you're in SLC. This is easy, you "need" rocker. Highly advise buying. EC, not so much.

 

[thetrailboss]

It depends on the amount of rocker. Since the tips and/or tails are off the snow, they tend to ski shorter. What you should be looking at is the effective edge, i.e., where the ski actually makes contact with the snow. This is the length that you're actually working with. Normally, you can go about 5 to 8 cms longer than what you are used to. A 181 ski should be fine for you (although I suspect that your sweet spot may be in the mid to high 180s). Unless you're straightlining chutes, a 191 ski may be too much ski for you even if you are out west.

To the original post: I've been singing the praises of rocker ever since I bought a pair of Rossi S7s in 2008. You're about 6 years late to the party. I guess I have no credibility with you, TB. Enjoy the snow and rip!

:lol: yeah I remember how much you ragged on me for being old school. The "incident" at Alta when we were skiing together in 2012 when my Head Joes "disappeared" in the pow convinced me to go rockered. I did go with the 181 and they work well.

 

[tnt]

Not true. The Bushwacker has a single sheet of metal, but it is omly under the binding. If you turn the ski onto its side you can see the metal layer. The Brahma is a bushwacker with a single sheet of metal tip to tail and a doublemlayernunder foot.

Sent from my SGH-S959G using Tapatalk 2

Brahma, that's right. I think the bodacious might be wider underfoot? I forget. Anywho - I'm loving the bushwhackers.

 

[Hawkshot99]

Brahma, that's right. I think the bodacious might be wider underfoot? I forget. Anywho - I'm loving the bushwhackers.

I soied them for the season 3 yrs ago. I trully liked the skis alot. My only complaint with them was that they were to soft. The Brahma would have solved this, but I went with the Volkl Kendo instead.

Sent from my SGH-S959G using Tapatalk 2

 

[tnt]

I soied them for the season 3 yrs ago. I trully liked the skis alot. My only complaint with them was that they were to soft. The Brahma would have solved this, but I went with the Volkl Kendo instead.

Sent from my SGH-S959G using Tapatalk 2

If I had a chance to demo, I would have tried the kendo or Bod., or brahma, just to understand that metal/less metal thing….end of the day, I spend more time in the bumps and trees than charging steep lines, so softer ski made logical sense, I think. Way back I had a set of fishers with metal and they were brutally unforgiving in the bumps - this was skinny ski/205cm days though, so I am sure much has changed.

So hard to decide this stuff without trying. It's all so much theory without giving them a whirl.

Hear raves about the kendo as well.

 

[Abubob]

I demoed the Dynastar Cham's and K2 Rictors last year. The Chams loved soft snow, however if it got a little chunky or heavy, like spring snow, they got kicked around a bit and were not good on hard pack. The Rictors skied really well on everything else, in chop, firm snow, hard pack. However I did not get to try the Rictors in fresh or tracked natural.

My overall impression was I did not like the Chams (tips maybe too soft) but I really liked the Rictors (very stable rock solid ski).

 

[Shredder of Gnar]

I demoed the Dynastar Cham's and K2 Rictors last year. The Chams loved soft snow, however if it got a little chunky or heavy, like spring snow, they got kicked around a bit and were not good on hard pack. The Rictors skied really well on everything else, in chop, firm snow, hard pack. However I did not get to try the Rictors in fresh or tracked natural.

My overall impression was I did not like the Chams (tips maybe too soft) but I really liked the Rictors (very stable rock solid ski).

+1 on the Rictor -- snagged a pair (new, with bindings) on eBay for $400 this summer and have had them out a dozen or so times this season once coverage was good -- cannot find a single thing I don't like about them -- they are VERY stable and EXTREMELY quick -- been in powder bumps, ice bumps, crud bumps, you name it, the Rictors delivered!