Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 1 2
Results 26 to 44 of 44
  1. #26
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Cruzing
    Posts
    11,911
    ^^^^^impressive

    I would definitely be interested in taking these out for a demo. Interesting concept, except I see two different shapes in my quiver. Something like the Czar, 110ish underfoot with flat to tip rocker. And a solid 90-something crud busting freighter, with a touch of camber.

    So they just need to create pop in sidecut adjusters and pair that with their rod flex adjusters. Now we are talking.

  2. #27
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Skiattle
    Posts
    7,764
    Quote Originally Posted by schindlerpiste View Post
    Dood, you certainly know more than me. I'm just skeptical...especially when it comes from Rossi. To me, they missed the boat on the fat ski thing. I used to be a fan, but, to me, their last great ski was the grey and white Bandit XXX. Gadgets on skis...power switch, snap-on interchangeable rods, dual rocker...meh.

    Give me some metal and wood, and I'm good to go.
    im with you on rossi as a whole
    see that thread where people thought i was overly harsh on them when i said i wouldnt care if they died.

    i dont see this as a gadget really
    i mean, AT bindings are gadgets of a similar fashion, but theyre a tool with a means to and end. Similarly, BD01s.

    i see this as being the same thing

    the ratcheting lever looks $$ also
    even if the cable does break, i bet its just something simple like a bike brake cable you can just string into tip housing, have it be affixed by the hammer end of the cable, and then just sinch it down on the lever end with hand pressure.

  3. #28
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Cedar Flats
    Posts
    8

    Bandit Rocker?

    I say Rossi needs to come up with something. Great ski company hasn't had a winner in a long time. They need to move beyond the Bandit.

    How do you think they turn a "Rocker" on and off. Sounds like an SNL skit.
    I will say I love the little rooster. I did say rooster didn't I?
    Last edited by xtrasteepski; 10-10-2008 at 09:52 PM.

  4. #29
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Lapping the pow with the GSA in the PNW
    Posts
    5,161
    I have to agree about being intrigued and that it all hinges on the execution of the lever.

    The one thing that I dislike about my Sallie Rockers is the disparity of how the skis handles in firm or shallow conditions. It is slow and cumbersome, but a totally different ski in deep stuff...agile and a charger. With this type of rocker, the ski does not need to but that wide to kill it in pow, while normal mode gives you a Squad that does everything else.

    Imagine how lifting the tip will shorten that 195 and actually make a Squad-type ski "easy" to ski in trees!! Take away all the bad things about rocker and take away all the limitations of a Squad. Seems a bit silly, but it just might work...

    p.s. - It blows that they put an integrated binding on the 95-mm waisted version. Kills it for the AT crowd...
    Last edited by Bandit Man; 10-10-2008 at 09:25 PM.

  5. #30
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Skiattle
    Posts
    7,764
    ^ fwiw, i was sure this was a good idea when i was skiing (or being taken for too many rides) on a pair or head im103s for the same reasons that parallel the ones that you draw out about squads and the sally rocker not needing to be so wide to preform well in pow
    Last edited by pechelman; 10-10-2008 at 09:25 PM.

  6. #31
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Seattle
    Posts
    5,351
    Quote Originally Posted by Bandit Man View Post
    I have to agree about being intrigued and that it all hinges on the execution of the lever.

    The one thing that I dislike about my Sallie Rockers is the disparity of how the skis handles in firm or shallow conditions. It is slow and cumbersome, but a totally different ski in deep stuff...agile and a charger. With this type of rocker, the ski does not need to but that wide to kill it in pow, while normal mode gives you a Squad that does everything else.

    Imagine how lifting the tip will shorten that 195 and actually make a Squad-type ski "easy" to ski in trees!! Take away all the bad things about rocker and take away all the limitations of a Squad. Seems a bit silly, but it just might work...

    p.s. - It blows that they put an integrated binding on the 95-mm waisted version. Kills it for the AT crowd...
    I wonder how much the AT crowd would really be interested in this ski. the device certainly adds extra weight. I also wonder what effect the tension cable has on the flex of the ski. I'm sure that it feels stiffer, but what about when you flex it while skiing in the rocker position and the ski wants to return to it's natural state but as it retensions the cable "thunk" it stops.

    Still, it seems crazy enough to work!

  7. #32
    Hugh Conway Guest
    < sniffs air >

    smells like massive warranty returns

    < sneezes >

  8. #33
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Somewhere else
    Posts
    5,676
    Quote Originally Posted by Poacher View Post
    I am concerned with pre bending the fore body of a ski via cable with lots of metal in it. Makes me wonder after time if they will return to true/regular camber.
    Just wondering that myself. I'm retiring my old XXX's because they're worn out, and I could see this wearing out the ski faster.

  9. #34
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    2
    I ordered a pair of these a few weeks ago and should take delivery of them soon. I've been a big fan of the Bandit B3s for a while now and have decided to invest in these to have some more fun in the powder.

    I'll be heading to Val d'Isere in early december then instructing in italy soon after that - i'll put a little review of them here if anyone's interested?

    Cheers,
    Tom

  10. #35
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Australian in Zürich, Switzerland
    Posts
    31
    Quote Originally Posted by Dromond View Post
    I wonder how much the AT crowd would really be interested in this ski. the device certainly adds extra weight. I also wonder what effect the tension cable has on the flex of the ski. I'm sure that it feels stiffer, but what about when you flex it while skiing in the rocker position and the ski wants to return to it's natural state but as it retensions the cable "thunk" it stops.

    Still, it seems crazy enough to work!
    This is my situation too. When the cable is released the tip is free and loose on the hardpack. When it is shifted into rocker mode, the tip is fully preloaded making it stiff and snappy in the pow. Call me crazy, but isn't this the exact opposite to what we want?

  11. #36
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Da burgh
    Posts
    2,664
    Quote Originally Posted by Woodsie View Post
    This is my situation too. When the cable is released the tip is free and loose on the hardpack. When it is shifted into rocker mode, the tip is fully preloaded making it stiff and snappy in the pow. Call me crazy, but isn't this the exact opposite to what we want?
    depends on who you ask. In my opinion, the reason a regularly cambered ski needs to be soft in the tip only because of its lack of rocker. You want the tip to be soft so it can bend up and create its own temporary rocker, but once it bends a certain amount it gets harder to bend it even more and acts stiffer. If the ski is already bent upwards at the tip, why the hell would you need the tip to be soft anymore? Think of how floppy it would feel and how far bent upwards it would be? My favorite ski is lotus 138's in a flex 3 because they have lots of tip rocker, and are stiff as all hell making them stable at speeds faster than you'd ever want to go. the flex 2's arent bad, and they arent that soft but when you got them going super fast they started to flop up and down too much making them more unstable than their stiffer counterpart. It does sacrifice some playfulness at slower speeds, but once you get them moving they can still turn on a dime.
    Last edited by couloirman; 11-17-2008 at 05:00 PM.

  12. #37
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Central VT
    Posts
    4,806
    the idea isn't half bad. better than that muti-x adjustable turning radius crap they use. i just don't think it will work well as a production ski. switches/moving parts/adjustments on a ski is a recipe for disaster. with less moving parts on a ski, there is a lot less than can go wrong.

    its one thing to have adjustments on a resort alpine ski (ie Volkl Tigershark). if you're fancy ski breaks, you walk back to the lodge. but a rockered powder ski is more of a backcountry tool. i wouldn't want a ski like that to fail miles from civilization.

  13. #38
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Denver, CO
    Posts
    4,321
    nice video on the site. 140-108-120

    185 or 195... interesting concept and looks pretty well put together.

  14. #39
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Back on the Wet Coast
    Posts
    108
    i wouldn't want a ski like that to fail miles from civilization.
    Failure of the mechanism will have little if any consequence on the utility of the ski in the BC. You just lose the rocker, no big deal.

  15. #40
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Redwood City and Alpine Meadows, CA
    Posts
    8,277
    Certainly seems more useful than the Volkl PowerFuckingSwitch.
    not counting days 2016-17

  16. #41
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    2
    Just got a call from Rossi - they've had a few problems manufacturing them so won't be releasing them until next year. Shame

  17. #42
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Truckee
    Posts
    919
    I'm bummed about the new lengths 185 and 195, where's the 189. 185 is too short, and 195 is way too big, and rocker on/off doesn't help me much here. I can ski a 195 in pow, rockered or not, but I don't want to ski a 195 regular camber in chop/firm and I definitely don't want to ski a rockered 195 in the those conditions.
    Go Sharks.

  18. #43
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Brohemia
    Posts
    2,324
    Quote Originally Posted by Nathan Explosion View Post
    If McIntosh can ski 'em and not break 'em, then I'm not too worried. His part in Lost and Found still gives me fucking goosebumps.
    He was one of many team-members breaking the shit out of this gimmick. From what I saw, the wires pulled through the tips, caused delamming in the tip and froze up all the time. Plus a massive amount of snow build would build up on the ski and there was nearly no way to scrape it off when in the 'rocker' was engaged. I'm only saying this stuff cause this is one of the dumbest ski 'technologies' invented in the last ten years. While the concept is good, the execution is poor at best.

  19. #44
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Boulder
    Posts
    6,044
    Quote Originally Posted by pechelman View Post
    why?
    this is a great idea
    and what at first glance, looks like an excellent execution on the concept.

    sorry i didnt have the means to incorporate this when lb, myself, and summit were talking about this a couple seasons ago before rossi ever published this concept
    Should the designs of a traditional camber ski differ from the dimensions of a ski with rocker?

    When I think of a ski with rocker, I look for some taper as well. As it is with the BROcker. I've never skied a pair of the proto 188's that got rockered, but I can't imagine they skied better than a design dedicated to a rockered ski.

Similar Threads

  1. 186 Rocker Review Thread
    By pechelman in forum Tech Talk
    Replies: 113
    Last Post: 08-20-2010, 05:17 PM
  2. Advantages to more rocker?
    By Below Zero in forum Tech Talk
    Replies: 38
    Last Post: 09-14-2009, 06:36 PM
  3. Replies: 424
    Last Post: 01-14-2008, 04:38 PM
  4. Quiksilver may have to sell Rossignol
    By skier666 in forum General Ski / Snowboard Discussion
    Replies: 41
    Last Post: 07-06-2007, 02:27 PM
  5. ROSSIGNOL TO MOVE HQ TO PARK CITY
    By grizzle6 in forum General Ski / Snowboard Discussion
    Replies: 16
    Last Post: 02-01-2006, 06:17 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •