186 Rocker Review Thread

**pechelman** · 12-18-2007, 01:44 AM

and one more bump cause i had an epic weekend on the rockers

untracked smooth as shit pow
wide open to nicely gladed

in one word, fabulous

they have quite the surfy feeling
imagine the surfy feeling of a Spat, but more toward the tip, so its something that you can actually drive and use to turn as well as to remove that teetery feeling I just never got over.

they have energy in pow
i found myself having a blast hopping from turn to turn in combination with the surfy feeling above. they arent dead like spats, so a huge plus for me there.

they are most definitely not as manueverable as spats, but they are the 2nd quickest handling pow ski Ive ever been on. Stability wise in pow, theyre amazing. No hookiness on either end, and run nice and straight when you point them that way. I might even say these are a tad more stable than the 192 bros in pow just cause of the highly tapered design.

these skis absolutely suck on narrow, hard, rutted skin tracks and sled tracks on the way down. holy shit. id find the tips would hook all over and basically ended up going down a 6mi track in wedge mode. my knees hurt afterwards. Of course i was tired and wearing a heavy pack. They can handle it fine, but really, what ski will that actually be fun on?

Id say my review is 90% complete.
Really i just need to get them out in crusts, breakable and otherwise, to get the full picture.

Things id change given this weekend?
Honestly, nothing.
If I had to say one thing, Id say lighter construction.
If I had to say two things, then Id add a slightly taller shovel ala XXL/LP. (but not as much as them)

edit: fer a pic of me on teh rockers this weekend

**GBB** · 12-18-2007, 01:50 AM

One question, do you wish they were longer?

**pechelman** · 12-18-2007, 02:04 AM

in the backcountry
not at all

at the resort on any given day
definitely

why i drew up a 186 and a 196

in powder and soft snow these skis are stable and ski bigger than their effective edge says it will
as i said, stability wise, its right there with a 192 bro if not even more so (at least at the speeds I ski)

on anything thats hardpack or resembles ice, they ski like a XXX effective edged ski would ski
im actually a bit surprised to not hear some similar reports from people on EHP193 or dp120s given that they both have less effective edge despite their longer lengths

**Ville** · 12-18-2007, 04:11 AM

So 196cm rocker is coming?

**pechelman** · 12-18-2007, 10:01 AM

eventually. thats the plan.
the design is all done on them, and really Pat & Co just want to get the smaller, more difficult version to dial ski dialed first before making the big 'uns.

**XtrPickels** · 12-18-2007, 10:09 AM

So they suck on skin tracks.
How about rollercoaster turny traverses

**pechelman** · 12-18-2007, 10:19 AM

really they sucked cause

a) it was a hard track with random sled tracks thrown in there
b) it was required slowing down with a wedge, didnt have enough width to throw them to the side
c) i was tired and with heavy pack

rollercoasters are fine in general though
they arent so stiff that they buck you around like an im103 would

ive skied them in the luge tracks that are colorado trees at the resort
and theyre lots of fun.
Honestly, I dont remember them skiing that much differently in that situation than my old 180 explosivs...just a tad softer (edit, and wider, duh)

**pechelman** · 01-02-2008, 12:30 PM

bump for pat to announce that these are going into production and he is going to start taking preorders soon for TEH 186.

**splat** · 01-02-2008, 12:55 PM

Originally Posted by Ville

So 196cm rocker is coming?

We're launching the 186 first, Ville.
We just a little shop and have to take it slowly.
But once we get the frst batch of 86s built, I'll think there's going to be a stampede for both them and the 196s.

Dude - we are taking ordes now. We'll be pressing next week.

**Tyrone Shoelaces** · 01-02-2008, 01:37 PM

Originally Posted by splat

We're launching the 186 first, Ville.
We just a little shop and have to take it slowly.
But once we get the frst batch of 86s built, I'll think there's going to be a stampede for both them and the 196s.

Dude - we are taking ordes now. We'll be pressing next week.

great news Pat. What topsheet will these 186 rockers have?

**splat** · 01-02-2008, 02:35 PM

Originally Posted by Tyrone Shoelaces

great news Pat. What topsheet will these 186 rockers have?

I think we'll do the green 183 and 188 tops and change the name.
I don't want to wait another minute, cause it's like, pow season, ya know???
I held off on any opinions until I skied them at Revelstoke in deepness.

I am now so sold on this ski, it's sick. And so is the ski.
I remember talking to bossass last summer about what the next rocker innovation would be - a pow-specific rocker that rips grooms.
We now have it.

I just got back from the shop that's milling the molds after ripping some ass on the phone with the guy who said they'd be done by now.
We came to an understanding that the molds would be done next week.

And I just got off the phone with Brant Moles...........

**comish** · 01-02-2008, 03:16 PM

Splat, at Revi, were you still skiing the proto-Rockers you showed me in the Gondi line at Mammoth or was this the next iteration?

How much rocker are you putting in the tips? The one's you had at Mammoth had pretty minimal rocker, but I understood those were proto's and the design was still evolving.

So, where did you end up? More rocker, longer tip, the same as I saw or ???

How many peso's for these here Rockers?

**splat** · 01-03-2008, 02:31 PM

Originally Posted by comish

Splat, at Revi, were you still skiing the proto-Rockers you showed me in the Gondi line at Mammoth or was this the next iteration?

Yes, indeed. I needed to ski them in every condition to make sure they fulfilled our one-ski quiver goal for this and all our skis. I've been skiing them on pretty much packed slopes since October. But it was in Revelstoke that they got the ultimate test and I creamed my jeans.

Originally Posted by comish

How much rocker are you putting in the tips? The one's you had at Mammoth had pretty minimal rocker, but I understood those were proto's and the design was still evolving.

I don't have the numbers right in front of me, but I think I showed you at the gondy that we'd start the tip rise a little earlier. Not sure what it is and will it will end up at. I just know we can enhance pow perfromance a bit without giving uo any hard snow performance.

Originally Posted by comish

So, where did you end up? More rocker, longer tip, the same as I saw or ???

How many peso's for these here Rockers?

A higher tip (more rocker) than what it had when I showed them to you.

I guess I better drum up a price. Looks like we'll do only 10, maybe 20 pair this year.

**Kya** · 01-03-2008, 06:48 PM

These sounds sweet. I really enjoy the 179 Fatty, but really want to try a pow ski with some rocker. I will do my best to completely beat the shit out of my current Bros (out of love) so I can justify some Rockers in the future. Stoked for PMGear. FKNA!

**ChowdahRidah** · 01-04-2008, 07:11 AM

What flex were the Rockers you were skiing on? Will they be available in all the PM Gear flexes? What are the pros and cons in getting this ski in a stiffer flex?

**pechelman** · 01-04-2008, 09:58 AM

Originally Posted by ChowdahRidah

What flex were the Rockers you were skiing on? Will they be available in all the PM Gear flexes? What are the pros and cons in getting this ski in a stiffer flex?

Mine are fairly stiff as they were made with 188 cores with a spliced in stringer to add width. Id probably put them around a 6 or so on marshals scale.

Since this ski pretty much has no camber (1-3mm) and has a little tip rocker, there is much less detriment or even change in feel from going stiffer.

Going stiffer you have a heavier ski that will ski about a ski 1 or so flex number less on a traditionally cambered ski. The tips will also be more stable as they will have a tendancy to flap around less. The stiffer you go, the more surfy the ski will feel if you're skiing at slower speeds and arent actually bending the tips a lot.

Im not sure what Pat is planning for flexes, but Id say we really only need to make these in stiff and extra stiff, ie ~6 and ~8+ on marshals scale.

I suppose he could also make a soft version to save even more weight but id bet youd lose some versatility on hardpack.

**splat** · 01-04-2008, 03:37 PM

The only place I see a stiffer 186 making a dif is on ice - and they do ski ice, as Idris demonstated skiing some boilerplate in Courmayeur as few weeks ago quite beautifully on them. We were on the grooms from lift to lift to make our way to the top which had just opened and he totally blew my mind on the icy runs. The pair he skied and that I skied at Revy have stiffness underfoot with a soft tip. Tom has a completely embarrassing shot of me hucking a ledge off the top off Courmayeur on the 183s that really illustrates the float of the rockers. It was a small 10- 12 foot drop that had two or three feet of absolute blown-down cake in the lz. When I landed on the 183s, my skis sank and stuck and I double ejected straight out of my skis. After picking up my stuff and hiking back up, I shot pics of Tom doing the same air on the rockers and he barely sank at all and skied out of it with ease in that mank.

I'm going to mix it up once we start pressing them and will prolly rocker the tips and tails much more on a pair or two as well, making them more pow specific. We know they work as they have been made so far, so we'll make some more changes on the fly (our typical MO) to see what happens with some additional changes. But more than anything, we wanted to make a one ski quiver rocker that slays pow and grooms - and we've done that. Now we'll also see what some other minor changes do to the way these ski and fuck around on them for a while, share them and report back here.

**Atrain505** · 01-04-2008, 10:04 PM

Ya boys. Its THE ski. The one ski quiver. What you guys started out as and continue to accomplish.

**pechelman** · 01-05-2008, 05:19 PM

a little bump because i let p_mcposer borrow my setup

hoping he'll post a few impressions to add some more feedback so its not just overly biased people like me and splat

**splat** · 01-05-2008, 05:25 PM

I also plan to ski Mammoth or Kirkwierd this week, so I'll get someone out them as well.

**TheDon** · 01-06-2008, 03:04 PM

SO STOKED!!!

Very cool you keep everyone in the loop here.

**P_McPoser** · 01-06-2008, 03:58 PM

Skier
5'11, 160, decent tailgunnin' steeze, better than average skier, but not a super ripper like most of the colorado maggots
Favorite skis: Spats and Public Enemies
Not-So Favorite Skis: Line Motherships

Location \ Snow Conditions
Loveland 9" fresh, crud, tracked pow, ice, and avi debris

I skied these in Pechelman's spare boots which didn't fit as well as i'd like and caused me some pretty intense foot pain.

Hard Snow performance
Can't really comment due to lack of hard snow other than windbuffed ice, which was randomly encountered. They sucked at hitting avi debris in flat light, but I think most skis do.

Tracked Pow & Crud
These things cut like spats do through this stuff but feel much more "lively." No deflection and very little tip floppines. I could definitely get my ghetto sloppy version of a carve on in this snow.

Pow
Had some runs early on lower angle pow, and then later on OTR and Avi Bowl. There were very few true "untracked" pow runs, but where there were these things ripped and made me feel confident which i don't always feel on these runs. I did manage to dive the tips when I tried, but only at slower speeds. Once the tips dive they pretty much zoom off in whatever random direction they feel like. At speed it wasn't an issue.

Final comments on the initial review
They were fun to ski. I skied my spats in the afternoon as a comparison. The spats turn a lot easier and faster, but the bros are soooo much lighter and I felt a lot more confident getting forward on the bros and more able to stay out of the backseat which is a big issue I have with the way I ski pow. I think that if these skis were mounted a little bit further forward it may have made skiing bumped up pow a little easier for me than it was. I would be curious to see if the suggestions Pechelman made regarding tip profile and/or tip rocker would make them as turny as spats without sacrificing the carvibility.

I apologize that I do not have very strong analytical skills, if anyone has a specific question, shoot.

**lax** · 01-06-2008, 09:43 PM

oh my gawwwwwwwwwwwwwwd. i know what i'm buying next year. why exactly do most PM gear skis not have a full twin?

**pechelman** · 01-06-2008, 10:00 PM

because skiing switch is stupid
just ask marshaLOLson

sounds like you had a good time out there today P

2nd on the diving of the tips at slow speeds
they need at least a little speed (as do most skis)

sorry about the boots too
maybe try them again if ya want by putting your liners in my shells

**splat** · 01-06-2008, 11:42 PM

Originally Posted by lax

oh my gawwwwwwwwwwwwwwd. i know what i'm buying next year. why exactly do most PM gear skis not have a full twin?

Because they're more big mountain/all mountain.
We make them flat-tailed for a European guide who skis them.
The Bros like big mountain skiing.
It's what they were designed for.
That's why we wanted the rockers to ski well on ice.
It won't always be powder.