Thread: Volkl M Rock

Anyone ski on this yet?

Lightweight on the way up with ample flotation on the way down, the Volkl M Rock Ski is a dream ski for those who earn their turns. Volkl based this backcountry powder hound on the original Mantra's dimensions—Volkl's original all-mountain freeride ski. The versatile dimensions give the M Rock Backcountry Ski plenty of float for the fluffy stuff and the chops to handle harder snow conditions as well. Two sheets of titanium lend this Volkl backcountry ski superior stability and edge grip when going fast in less than ideal snow conditions.

Lengths: 163cm, 170cm, 177cm, 184cm
Dimensions: 133 / 94 / 113mm
Turn Radius: [163cm] 19m; [170cm] 21.1; [177cm] 23.2m; [184cm] 25.5m
Top Sheet: Two sheets of titanium
Core Material: Sensor wood
Tail: Raised
Binding System: No
Binding Included: No
Recommended Binding: No
Weight: Not specified
Recommended Use: Backcountry AT or telemark
Manufacturer Warranty: 1 Year

not to shatter your dreams, but you do realize that this is just a re-badged first generation Mantra, right? (that would be the original slate grey/orange ones).

No I did not realize, which is why I posted. How does the weight compare?

Originally Posted by Dickeymotto

No I did not realize, which is why I posted. How does the weight compare?

I'm gonna go out on a limb here and say, "the same."

Actually, I think the MRock will be lighter... There was this rumour going on that it's the old Mantra minus one layer of titanal... So softer and lighter than the old Mantra...

So, in other words you could go AT or downhill bindings on these?

Originally Posted by hemas

Actually, I think the MRock will be lighter... There was this rumour going on that it's the old Mantra minus one layer of titanal... So softer and lighter than the old Mantra...

Probably true. The T-Rock had the same dims as a Karma, but had less metal and was lighter and softer.

Here's a quasi believable review. It's says "no metal" while the OP says "two sheets of titanium." What's the answer?:

Built on the same chassis as Völkl's bestselling alpine ski, the Mantra, the M Rock is lighter (there's no metal in it), and its wood/PU core makes it slightly less forgiving—and more fun—in powder. 133/94/113, 7.8 lbs; volkl.com

Bonus: Hands-down the best resort AT ski we tested. "I'd put alpine bindings on it," said one tester. Bummer: Not as rock-solid on groomers as the Mantra.

http://outside.away.com/outside/gear...ction=showgear

Originally Posted by squirrelmurphy

Probably true. The T-Rock had the same dims as a Karma, but had less metal and was lighter and softer.

x2

If the analogy is T-rock=Karma - metal, then M-rock=Mantra - metal.

Having skied the first three skis quite a bit, if you are heavy or like to charge, I would just go Mantra and deal with a little extra weight.

The OP's post was directly lifted from the Volkl website (i.e. company hype/marketing verbiage).

I would tend to go by what the company has on their website.

Everything I have heard is that the M-Rock is identical to the first generation Mantras (the '05 black/orange models), both in terms of dimensions, construction, and weight.

Of course that's just what I've heard...



The only real difference is that they do not offer it in a 191.

Also, unless things have changed, it's my understanding that you can mount most AT "specific" skis with alpine bindings. You can mount Karhu, BD, G3, Rossi AT skis with alpine binders no problem (I was looking at AT skis a few seasons ago and contacted all of the above companies and was told that one could mount their skis with Alpine binders. The most common answer to my question, however, was "Why?")

What's the difference between the first year Mantras and last year's version? I think the dimensions are the same, so did Volkl change the construction?

Back to the M-Rocks. The T-Rocks were based on the Queen Attiva. I wonder if the last year's proto M-Rocks were based on the Auras (which corresponds to the review in Outside). However the production release of the M Rock seems like it's based on last year's Mantra. I wonder if Volkl changed the ski based on feedback or reviews.

from what i could dig up:

MANTRA
2005 130-94-113 8lbs 14oz

2006 130-94-113 no weight info rumored to have been stiffened slightly

2007 133-96-116 no weight info
- Sensorwood Core
- 2 Sheets of Titanium




M-Rock
2007 133-94-113 utilized sidecut from original 2005 Mantra
- Sensorwood
- 2 Sheets Titanium
- Mantra Design

The majority of accounts have the M-Rock as being identical to the 2005 first gen Mantra, just with a different topsheet design and devoid of the 191cm length option.

Originally Posted by dookey67

The majority of accounts have the M-Rock as being identical to the 2005 first gen Mantra, just with a different topsheet design and devoid of the 191cm length option.

...and different sidecut.

On second glance, looks like the M-Rock is an Aura with another layer of metal.

^ummmm, dunno where you get that when even Volkl's website states plainly:

"Using the sidecut from the original Mantra, we've designed a new backcountry ski for skiers who want the width to float in the powder with a lightweight, yet powerful ski. If they do encounter firm snow, the M Rock features two full sheets of titanium that give it rock solid stability and edge grip."

Besides, isn't the Aura just the "woman's" version of the Mantra (i.e. same ski with a different topsheet)?

Of course if somebody REALLY wanted to get to the bottom of this they could contact Volkl directly and ask exactly what teh M-Rock is more akin to (Mantra or Aura).

Aura, Queen Attiva, etc. have a different core (they call it 20/20 or some shit) which is softer and lighter. The t-rock had the men's (karma's) core.

Dookey, according to what you just posted (post #12), the sidecut is 133-94-113, which is the same as the new Mantra.

M-Rock
2007 133-94-113 utilized sidecut from original 2005 Mantra

something doesn't add up...

^nope.

2007 133-96-116 no weight info


2007 Mantra is a few mm wider all around!



see post #12

At any rate, the M-Rock is more or less a re-badged Mantra (going by what Volkl says on their website), maybe a hybrid cross between 2005 Mantra and the Aura.

Whatever...it's made in Germany, that much is true.

PS
If the whole point of this thread was to find something that's similar to the Mantra, but a tad lighter for AT, then I'd suggest the AK King Salmon. Although it only comes in a 180cm length it tends to ski long, is a lot snappier than the Mantra and a helluv a lot lighter. And it's way cheaper, too ($450).

^ and the expert has spoken!

Thanks for chiming in OHC and possibly solving this vexing mystery once and for all.

Originally Posted by dookey67

^ummmm, dunno where you get that when even Volkl's website states plainly:

Uh, I got it from your stats. Extra 3 in the tip:

Originally Posted by dookey67

MANTRA
2005 130-94-113 8lbs 14oz

M-Rock
2007 133-94-113 utilized sidecut from original 2005 Mantra

Anyway, what really matters is I really like the Mantras, but if the M-Rocks are the same ski, it's just too damn heavy for dynafits.

i used to tour on dynafitted exploders. not featherweight, but i thought they were plenty light while maintaining some amount of charge-ability

^^funny, i found my 177's to be too short, too. sold 'em and moved to the 180cm King Salmon. 3cm ain't much but the ski feels a lot longer. it's also a tad lighter than the first gen Mantra.

I'm an AT noob/JONG and this season i'm starting off mildly light or lightly heavy with Dukes on Lib Tech NAS Freerides (last year's Mt. Bakers). The ski is fairly light. We'll see how it handles all conditions come January.