Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 38
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    61

    rockered ski questions?

    Why do all rockered skis have such a fat waist? Doesn't seem like there are any rockered skis with sub 100 waist?

    I have not used rockered skis but I have tried some fat skis over 98 waist and felt they were too slow edge to edge, great for big turns but not so great for tight trees, and thread the needle type technical skiing.

    Im interested in trying some rockered skis mainly because I like to ski tight trees and have heard that they are super maneuverable. Im about 155# and am currently skiing on 169 mt bakers (BC), and 172 public enemy's (resort). I like shorter skis because they feel more maneuverable. Can any tree skiing aficionados recommend any rockered skis that I should look into?

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    da eskalaterz
    Posts
    1,200
    I'll bite.

    2011 Volkl Bridge. End of story.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Worshington
    Posts
    247
    Rossi S3, Tip/Tail Rocker and 98mm waist. Sounds like a good ski for you.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    3,064
    Bluehouse Monarch, tip/tail rocker and 96 mm waist. Sounds like a good ski for you!

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Eburg
    Posts
    13,243
    K2 Wayback and Backlash have 88mm and 92mm waists with some (enough) tip rocker and flat tail. Wayback has Mt. Baker dimensions but with a bit o' (enough) tip rocker.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Stowe
    Posts
    4,434

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    I-70
    Posts
    3,448
    ON3P Jeronimo

    96 waist

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Not Brooklyn
    Posts
    8,319
    K2 Hardside.
    Dynafit Manaslu.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    The Other Side
    Posts
    751
    Quote Originally Posted by afox View Post
    .

    Im interested in trying some rockered skis mainly because I like to ski tight trees and have heard that they are super maneuverable. Im about 155# and am currently skiing on 169 mt bakers (BC), and 172 public enemy's (resort). I like shorter skis because they feel more maneuverable. Can any tree skiing aficionados recommend any rockered skis that I should look into?
    I would say any of the above recommendations should interest you. Also my question to you would be, when you ski trees is it mostly powder? I ski a ton of tight east coast trees, and while a shorter narrower ski is more maneuverable on tracked out or hardpack, a fatter, longer rockered ski keeps you from getting bogged down in pow at the slower speeds required in really tight trees, making them more maneuverable. As noted above there are many offerings in 90-105 range that you would probably really enjoy, (on hardpack too) however I would recommend that you step the length up to low mid 180s. I am the same weight as you, by no means an amazing skier, and my 185 JJs are easy as pie in tight trees.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    'bangin' your girlfriend
    Posts
    801
    Black Diamond has several skis that are well under 100 underfoot and have early rise tip geometry.

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Not Brooklyn
    Posts
    8,319
    Quote Originally Posted by Shu Shu View Post
    I would say any of the above recommendations should interest you. Also my question to you would be, when you ski trees is it mostly powder? I ski a ton of tight east coast trees, and while a shorter narrower ski is more maneuverable on tracked out or hardpack, a fatter, longer rockered ski keeps you from getting bogged down in pow at the slower speeds required in really tight trees, making them more maneuverable. As noted above there are many offerings in 90-105 range that you would probably really enjoy, (on hardpack too) however I would recommend that you step the length up to low mid 180s. I am the same weight as you, by no means an amazing skier, and my 185 JJs are easy as pie in tight trees.
    Agreed. My best (powder) tree skis are 190cm Lotus 120's (120 waist) are my biggest skis. If the snow is 3D, they are more agile than my 170cm, 70mm-waist Dynafits.

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    take a guess
    Posts
    2,213
    did you even bother searching? or did you just randomly decide you were going to voice what you thought was fact?

    Quote Originally Posted by afox View Post
    I have not used rockered skis but I have tried some fat skis over 98 waist and felt they were too slow edge to edge, great for big turns but not so great for tight trees, and thread the needle type technical skiing.
    Can any tree skiing aficionados recommend any rockered skis that I should look into?
    You couldn't be more wrong. Maybe you should try a fat ski with rocker. I challenge anyone who can floss the bark the better on a narrow ski than I can on either of my praxis skis.
    Magic Mountain Freeride Team...bringing your grom's game to the next level.

    The only ski you'll ever need...http://worthskis.com/skis/the-magic/

    "Errare Humanum Est"

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    61
    Quote Originally Posted by njfreeskier View Post
    did you even bother searching? or did you just randomly decide you were going to voice what you thought was fact?



    You couldn't be more wrong. Maybe you should try a fat ski with rocker. I challenge anyone who can floss the bark the better on a narrow ski than I can on either of my praxis skis.
    Huh, I was asking for advice from "people that can floss the bark better than I can". Not stating any facts, just my experience that I did'nt like the fat boards ive demoed (all traditional camber) for tree skiing. Sounds like you're trying to pick a fight or something.

    Thanks everyone else for the ski suggestions, im looking into a bunch that have been suggested here, did'nt even know about bluehouse, have been checking out the wayback but wanted something with more rocker, from reviews Ive read sounds like theres not much difference between the bakers and waybacks, or am I wrong? Also, if im on a 169 baker, think I should give the 174 waybacks a go or something shorter?

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    SoCal
    Posts
    6,749
    Quote Originally Posted by afox View Post
    I have not used rockered skis but I have tried some fat skis over 98 waist and felt they were too slow edge to edge, great for big turns but not so great for tight trees, and thread the needle type technical skiing.
    That seems exactly backwards. In powder there is no "edge to edge", you've got all of the base on the snow, all of the time. The sensation of width disappears, and is replaced by the sensation of floating/weightlessness.

    On hardpack or dense crust you'd be right though.

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Stowe
    Posts
    4,434
    has noone here ever seen semi skied out trees? My guess is a those people recommending R/R boards have something alittle narrow for the more average day.

    I could live with my 177 "the ones" everyday tree skiing, but couldnt live with a Reverse/Reverse board.

    170cm Blizzard "the one" , "the crush"
    171cm Volkl Bridge
    166 Dynastar Slicer/ Exclusive Legend Powder
    168cm Rossi S3


    tons of other from indies

    174cm Waybacks are would be about the same lenght as a 177 in any of the above skis. I do also think you should look else where.

  16. #16
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    take a guess
    Posts
    2,213
    Quote Originally Posted by afox View Post
    Not stating any facts, just my experience that I did'nt like the fat boards ive demoed (all traditional camber) for tree skiing. Sounds like you're trying to pick a fight or something. did'nt even know about bluehouse,
    That's exactly the point. I'm not trying to pick a fight, just saying that its annoying when JONGS like you come in here without doing any research and start making assumptions about what skis are out there. It sounds like you don't have any experience. How are you on this forum and not know about bluehouse? Do some research. There is a whole thread where people review skis, it's called the ski review thread. Look it up, you might learn something.

    You asked why do all rockered skis have a fat waist. They don't. There are at least 10 skis in the 100ish range and under that don't have rocker. If you did any research you would know that. And if you didn't try any rockered skis, how do you know you want a ski with rocker? It's not for everyone. And as far as skiing tight trees, that's something I love to do and my everyday ski is a 182 4frnt VCT. That ski kills it in the trees. I'm also 155 lbs. The floss the bark comment wasn't a challenge, it was to inform you from an "aficionado's" standpoint that have a ton of rocker makes tree skiing so much easier, even on the fattest boards, which is what you were asking. And if you knew of more ski companies, or looked up any information on rockered skis, you might have known that was my suggestion to you.

    We're here to help, not do the work for you. You want a suggestion on skis, read this thread: [ame="https://www.tetongravity.com/forums/showthread.php?t=104129"]https://www.tetongravity.com/forums/showthread.php?t=104129[/ame] You might just learn something.
    Magic Mountain Freeride Team...bringing your grom's game to the next level.

    The only ski you'll ever need...http://worthskis.com/skis/the-magic/

    "Errare Humanum Est"

  17. #17
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    not there
    Posts
    1,558

    : )

    Quote Originally Posted by njfreeskier View Post
    That's exactly the point. I'm not trying to pick a fight, just saying that its annoying when JONGS like you come in here without doing any research and start making assumptions about what skis are out there. It sounds like you don't have any experience. How are you on this forum and not know about bluehouse? Do some research. There is a whole thread where people review skis, it's called the ski review thread. Look it up, you might learn something.

    You asked why do all rockered skis have a fat waist. They don't. There are at least 10 skis in the 100ish range and under that don't have rocker. If you did any research you would know that. And if you didn't try any rockered skis, how do you know you want a ski with rocker? It's not for everyone. And as far as skiing tight trees, that's something I love to do and my everyday ski is a 182 4frnt VCT. That ski kills it in the trees. I'm also 155 lbs. The floss the bark comment wasn't a challenge, it was to inform you from an "aficionado's" standpoint that have a ton of rocker makes tree skiing so much easier, even on the fattest boards, which is what you were asking. And if you knew of more ski companies, or looked up any information on rockered skis, you might have known that was my suggestion to you.

    We're here to help, not do the work for you. You want a suggestion on skis, read this thread: https://www.tetongravity.com/forums/s...d.php?t=104129 You might just learn something.
    your profile says u are a teacher!!!!
    is your reverse-psychology true reverse reverse psychology or traditional = beat em with a stick.

  18. #18
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    where the beer flows like wine
    Posts
    2,402
    Quote Originally Posted by afox View Post
    Huh, I was asking for advice from "people that can floss the bark better than I can". Not stating any facts, just my experience that I did'nt like the fat boards ive demoed (all traditional camber) for tree skiing. Sounds like you're trying to pick a fight or something.

    Thanks everyone else for the ski suggestions, im looking into a bunch that have been suggested here, did'nt even know about bluehouse, have been checking out the wayback but wanted something with more rocker, from reviews Ive read sounds like theres not much difference between the bakers and waybacks, or am I wrong? Also, if im on a 169 baker, think I should give the 174 waybacks a go or something shorter?
    first post in 2 years, huh. grow a thicker skin and use the search function (tgr or google).

    100mm waist is the new skinny ski.

    take a look at these:

    4frnt turbo
    faction alias
    next year's liberty helix
    moment belafonte
    Big skis from small companies at Backcountry Freeskier

  19. #19
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Warrrrrrrshington
    Posts
    1,168
    Rockered sub 100's not mentioned yet:

    Armada Alpha 1, 83mm
    Salomon 2012, 91mm
    Scott Dozer, 98mm
    Atomic Aspect, 87mm
    Nordica Enforcer, 98mm
    Salomon Sentinel, 95mm
    Salomon Shogun 173/164, 99/97mm
    2009 K2 Kung Fujas, 95mm
    Dynastar Sultan 94, 94mm

    The original poster would probably love the light and quick feel of the Shoguns.
    Last edited by Stikki; 01-25-2011 at 02:31 PM.

  20. #20
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    201
    Quote Originally Posted by BushwackerinPA View Post
    has noone here ever seen semi skied out trees? My guess is a those people recommending R/R boards have something alittle narrow for the more average day.

    IMO, spats are by far the easiest tree ski out there. I think 169 toons would work quite well too. Most people never try powder skis on a non powder ski day because of some stupid unwritten rule. Fuck unwritten rules. In fact, for me, on an icy chattery shitty day, the praxis pow boards come out more often than anything else, just because they are so easy. I just wish somebody would make some skinnier spats already.

  21. #21
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Upstate NY
    Posts
    110
    cant beat the s3
    its been mentioned a few times but it's an amazing ski no question about it, plus it has a 98 waist

  22. #22
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Mt Baker
    Posts
    356
    Quote Originally Posted by njfreeskier View Post
    just saying that its annoying when JONGS like you come in here without doing any research and start making assumptions about what skis are out there. It sounds like you don't have any experience. How are you on this forum and not know about bluehouse? Do some research.
    Jesus fucking relax and cut the cat some slack. So he has never heard of Bluehouse. Perhaps teaching a little info to help him make a decision is a better approach. Or I guess you could continue living life like an ass.

  23. #23
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Germany Baby!
    Posts
    17
    Quote Originally Posted by afox View Post

    I have not used rockered skis but I have tried some fat skis over 98 waist and felt they were too slow edge to edge, great for big turns but not so great for tight trees, and thread the needle type technical skiing.
    If you'd skied some already, you'd know that they ski incredibly short. I'm on my first pair of rockered sticks, armada JJs, coming from 191cm Head Mojo 105s. I also wanted something more maneuverable in tight trees.

    Stats: 155lbs, 5'10"

    The 185 JJ skis like a 150cm ski and feel light years different than a big, traditional ski when it comes to pivot/agility. Seriously, they feel rediculously short, especially at first. Combined with the fact that they pivot like crazy, it's been a perfect tree ski. In fact, I haven't skiied any of my other skis since I bought these, and they've inspiried me to write an entire freakin' blog about them. Go demo some in a 175 if you want even shorter and tell me they're not agile--I would be very, very surprised.
    very in-depth, season-long armada JJ review with lots of pics here

  24. #24
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Stowe
    Posts
    4,434
    Quote Originally Posted by newe english View Post
    IMO, spats are by far the easiest tree ski out there. I think 169 toons would work quite well too. Most people never try powder skis on a non powder ski day because of some stupid unwritten rule. Fuck unwritten rules. In fact, for me, on an icy chattery shitty day, the praxis pow boards come out more often than anything else, just because they are so easy. I just wish somebody would make some skinnier spats already.
    right reverse/reverse boards for trees that are skied out....

    I just dont think this is the best idea, Id agree that R/R is awesome for trees that have tons of snow in them, but they are not a daily quiver ski unless well you you hate making anything resembling a turn.

  25. #25
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    take a guess
    Posts
    2,213
    Quote Originally Posted by johnnygolucky View Post
    Jesus fucking relax and cut the cat some slack. So he has never heard of Bluehouse. Perhaps teaching a little info to help him make a decision is a better approach. Or I guess you could continue living life like an ass.
    No one's talking to you. Don't stick your nose where it doesn't belong. I'm not an ass I'm a really nice guy. The reason I jumped on him was because he said there are no rockered skis under 100 underfoot, and then asks for recommendations on the same skis he thinks doesn't exist. He just showed his ignorance and laziness and that's what pissed me off. Those are the type of questions you ask on chat on backcountry.com, not on TGR. People put in a lot of time reviewing gear so that people don't clog up tech talk with questions like this. There is also a search function, this thing called google, and another thing called gear guides in ski magazines. Use them.

    Man this place is getting soft.
    Magic Mountain Freeride Team...bringing your grom's game to the next level.

    The only ski you'll ever need...http://worthskis.com/skis/the-magic/

    "Errare Humanum Est"

Posting Permissions

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