Today I fell in love with the Brockers

**Lizhnik** · 05-29-2008, 08:08 AM

Originally Posted by splat

I miss Ootah and skiing with Dibs!
I'm in the process right now of tuning up the Brockers to be even better.
Looks like we might run two different rocker heights to have an AK/UT version with it rockin a lil higher and earlier.
And based on some email exchanges I've had today, it looks like we'll do a Russian model for all the powhounds in Sochi.

On behalf of the Sochi powhound contingent, may I please request that the Russian model be 5-10 cm longer? These skis look sound and look great, I can't wait to get on them next season...

**RootSkier** · 05-29-2008, 09:29 AM

summer pre-orders happening anytime soon?

**Phill** · 05-29-2008, 09:31 AM

hey splat. do you guys have the ability to lay up skis with metal yet? I know when I was last down there you guys were doing mostly carbon and glass but the 195s had metal

**hutash** · 05-29-2008, 09:34 AM

Originally Posted by BeanDip4All

Splat. what size did you put EricaZ on?

Oh, this post has so much potential

**Long duc dong** · 05-29-2008, 10:29 AM

Nice review. It would be nice to see how the Brockers compare to the EHP 186.

**splat** · 05-29-2008, 10:54 AM

BD4A - 186s are the only size we have right now.
The only reason we haven't put them up on the website for ordering is that we haven't finalized a topsheet for them yet. Still kicking ideas around. Beyond that, we're filling orders with the green 188 tops and the brown FKNA 192 tops.
So, yes, we are taking orders. We're a little behind in getting them out, but starting to catch up after a long, hard winter and a little bit of work burnout at the end of it.

I'm putting the 196 materials prep and mold construction into motion next week.
Looks like we'll test them in SA in August.

**dookeyXXX** · 05-29-2008, 11:15 AM

Originally Posted by splat

If you ride the tail, the ski will ride you out of control, dookey. With a properly weighted forward stance, they are solid. Slush bumps are probably somewhat more difficult on them than just about every other condition, but only because the tip will flex and stall the ski for a millisecond when it gets in a trough or hits a big pile of glop, throwing your perception of what a regular ski would do into the mix. But it's not a regular ski. Sure, you can throw them around like a spat, but on edge, the Brockers are a screaming machine. I experience no flopping on them unless I'm up around 40 mph in the bumps. When you see and feel the tip flex come into play in soft snow, especially powder - and suddenly 'get it' - you'll shit your pants with joy and excitement. I'll give you a Brocker lesson this weekend if you're out. It's all in the carve...

admittedly i'm slow on the uptake and need a good, full day on a pair of skis to get their feel. hell, i'm still figuring out my Ginsu planks.

but if i bite the bullet (looking like i'm leaning that way given that Tioga is open), i'll gladly take you up on a Brocker lesson.

**LivinCO** · 05-29-2008, 12:01 PM

This review makes it even more difficult...

So, I've been reading every BRO review possible to help me choose which model I should get for this coming season. I'm 5'11", 185lbs, former racer, 70% in bounds (Abasin, Vail, Crested Butte), 30% side-country. In general, I lean towards stiffer rides. Gonna be putting Duke's on whatever I get.

Do I go with Brockers? 188 Stiffs or 192's?

**splat** · 05-29-2008, 12:07 PM

For a former racer, I'd highly recommend the 192 carbons for 70% inbounds.
They are floaty speed machines that still carve like a mofo on the hard stuff. They are the preferred ski for our IFSA competitors.
Carbon takes a pound out of each ski for 5lbs per ski weight.

**LivinCO** · 05-29-2008, 12:10 PM

^ Thanks Splat, I guess I'll move them to the top o list for now. Expect to be getting an order from me at some point this summer.

**ZomblibulaX** · 05-30-2008, 08:42 PM

Originally Posted by splat

I'm putting the 196 materials prep and mold construction into motion next week.
Looks like we'll test them in SA in August.

If you would like me to test them by drooling and dry-humping all over them in my front yard in August, I would gladly accommodate you. Will the 196 be any stiffer than the 186?

**skiingsamurai** · 06-02-2008, 08:33 AM

bump for pics. does anyone have a pic of the bases together? I want to get a better idea of the rocker.

anyone whose skied em: good touring setup? right now im thinking fat bros, or rockerd bros, or praxis pow. whatever I choose will get dukes

**Hayduke** · 06-02-2008, 08:38 AM

Oh why the fuck did I read this thread! I don't NEED any more skis.

**squirrelmurphy** · 06-02-2008, 10:18 AM

Originally Posted by skiingsamurai

bump for pics. does anyone have a pic of the bases together? I want to get a better idea of the rocker.

anyone whose skied em: good touring setup? right now im thinking fat bros, or rockerd bros, or praxis pow. whatever I choose will get dukes

Rockered carbon 192 fatties with dukes = CHA CHING!!!!

**skiingsamurai** · 06-02-2008, 10:35 AM

im not man enough for 192's
especially on the EC

**squirrelmurphy** · 06-02-2008, 10:45 AM

Yeah, 192s aren't really EC machines. 186 Rockers would fucking kill in EC trees though. Not as slarvy as the Praxis, so it would depend on your skiing style, but if you ski like skifishbum (see video on p1) the Brockers are fun because they really allow you to hammer down on the tips.

**bossass** · 06-02-2008, 10:56 AM

Splat, when you gonna tell them about the AK Brockers?

**skiingsamurai** · 06-02-2008, 11:50 AM

poops self
details...bossass...you know just as well as I do that splat is in a drug induced coma/haze

its your duty to enlighten the world

**gh444** · 06-02-2008, 12:35 PM

I ski the 192 rockered carbons. By far my favorite ski of all time. A great alternative to the Brocker for those of us a bit over the 200lbs mark

I did get to ski the Brockers in Utah this winter in one hell of a storm. I can see exactly how someone lighter than myself would enjoy them in many conditions.

**Vets** · 06-02-2008, 06:50 PM

Originally Posted by skiingsamurai

bump for pics. does anyone have a pic of the bases together? I want to get a better idea of the rocker.

anyone whose skied em: good touring setup? right now im thinking fat bros, or rockerd bros, or praxis pow. whatever I choose will get dukes

I'll take some profile pictures of the Brockers. I also need to put up some pictures from Mammoth's closing weekend. Yesterday I experienced the Brockers in a variety of conditions other than pow. They held an edge on the salted firm groomage, were a delight in corn snow, cranked through the mank, curved around slush bumps, and did any desired turn shape. I'm still in love.

I'm not sure about how they would be touring uphill, but I know I would feel confident about their versatility in most any condition heading downhill.
(BTW - I have Dukes on my 179 stiff Bros and love the setup.)

**Vets** · 06-02-2008, 09:07 PM

Here is quick Brocker profile shot I took this evening:

(The ski tips in the lower right are my fence post decoration skis.)

Brocker on snow:

Photo: Tarkman, Skier: Vets

Brockers over the shoulder:

Photo: Tarkman, Hiker: Vets

Flying Brockers:

Photo: Vets, Skier: Junker

**skiingsamurai** · 06-03-2008, 04:34 AM

thanks vets. that doesnt seem to be all that much of a rocker. I thought they were just sub spat rocker. Still I want em
are they the same dim's as the 192, just in a 186?

**Vets** · 06-03-2008, 07:06 AM

IMHO they have just the right amount of rocker. They also have a progressive flex (relatively softer to relatively stiffer) from the tip toward the boot/center of the ski that works great.
The dimensions and sidecut are different than the 192.
I believe that the 192 has expanded dimensions based on either the original or 179 Bro design. I think that the Brocker has a wider shovel, slightly narrower waist and a narrower tail than the 192.

**pechelman** · 06-03-2008, 11:56 AM

Originally Posted by skiingsamurai

thanks vets. that doesnt seem to be all that much of a rocker. I thought they were just sub spat rocker. Still I want em
are they the same dim's as the 192, just in a 186?

i designed them with the intent of having very minimal rocker as is shown

Originally Posted by Vets

IMHO they have just the right amount of rocker. They also have a progressive flex (relatively softer to relatively stiffer) from the tip toward the boot/center of the ski that works great.
The dimensions and sidecut are different than the 192.
I believe that the 192 has expanded dimensions based on either the original or 179 Bro design. I think that the Brocker has a wider shovel, slightly narrower waist and a narrower tail than the 192.

thanks for the great review and insight here

i also designed them to have that progressive flex, though Pat has a lot of control over that with what reenforcement he decides to put in there

and you're right on the 192
its essentially the 179 bro scaled up to a 192 length, cut in half, and widened to make a 114mm waist

the 186 rocker retains very little heritage design, but i started with a couple proportions i felt really made the Bros a Bro and tweaked from there. Width dimensions, tip\tail geo, and sidecut are all completely new.

**Toadman** · 06-03-2008, 01:29 PM

Originally Posted by pechelman

i designed them with the intent of having very minimal rocker as is shown

thanks for the great review and insight here

i also designed them to have that progressive flex, though Pat has a lot of control over that with what reenforcement he decides to put in there

and you're right on the 192
its essentially the 179 bro scaled up to a 192 length, cut in half, and widened to make a 114mm waist

the 186 rocker retains very little heritage design, but i started with a couple proportions i felt really made the Bros a Bro and tweaked from there. Width dimensions, tip\tail geo, and sidecut are all completely new.

Pech,

Just curious when you are designing a ski, how do you determine the length? What was the deciding factor in the 186 length for the Brocker? Were there other lengths tested?