School me on the merits of full rocker

[SupreChicken]

I love my moustache cambered skis. Bibby, gambit, billy goat, GPO, RPC, Praxis concept, mtn jib, piste jib. Effing love that style of ride.

Previously the only full rocker ski I've owned is a 1st gen 186 renegade. There were things about it I liked, but overall it just wasn't for me. I like a fwdish stance where I can drive the skis to make them turn and behave. The "flicking from the ball of your foot" is something I just haven't mastered, I suspect. I like being able to stand up in turn transitions and on run outs. I like feeling like I don't always have to be turning--that was how I felt on the gotamas I demoed. I like the feel of plowing through crud and cut up snow, and I haven't really figured out how to do that on a fully rockered ski.

I saw a dude today on a pair of 196 volkl twos. Given the trouble I've been having liking my protests (8" overnight and 15" in 24 hours at Stevens and I still reached for my gambits), I'm wondering if a fully rockered ski might be more my jam for a deep day ride...I love the big shark nose/pin tail on the gambit. The two (and the Kuro FTM) have a similar sidecut. Burly, stable, big-ish radius. I guess you never know til you try, but is there anyone out there with some reps on any/all of the above mentioned rides? I really thought the protest was going to end my search for a deep day stick, but I'm probably going to sell them soon, and I'm wondering if I need a change to get the sort of ride I'm looking for -- unsinkable, nimble in trees and stable in chop and crud, but fat enough to have as a quiver ski in addition to the gambits.

Or should I just say that the billy goat will float enough and go buy a pair of those?

[whatsupdoc]

Nothing to add other than that's a sick quiver.

[TahoeJ]

I'm confused. You already have the BG or not?

[Chugachjed]

I'm selling a sweet pair of PM gear splatulas cheap.

[greasyslope]

Chicken - What is disappointing about your Protests? Not nimble enough in trees? I have some older 196's, and I love them, but while I find them nimble for their size, I would not call them nimble overall.

I do not have much experience with fully rockered skis, but I think it would make for a nimbler ride. I guess you could add some variety to your quiver.

[shroom]

do you really not float well enough on the gambits? as you know i'm a fair amount bigger than you on a 108-waisted metal ski skiing similarly and have no complaints being on it over our recent snow binge.

im just bitter you didnt call me to blow off work today. you taint.

ski ya sunday?

[Dry]

And here I am thinking the Concept is twice the ski a 138 is @ Crystal all week. Then I skied my GPO yesterday and thought the Concept sucked.

[stuckathuntermtn]

I have absolutely no firsthand experience, but I'm going to say it anyway:
It sounds like you're looking for a Blizzard. Or maybe Katana. Or maybe an S7 (rimshot).

[SupreChicken]

I don't currently own the billy goat, but I will soon. The list in the op is not my current quiver...just a list of the skis I've tried and really liked.

Shroom. Fuck. I'm sorry. Didn't know I could blow work off until late last night. Weak, I know.

GS - I find I really can't ski them forward in anything variable. In pow? I can do whatever I want and they're great. They stomp everything. Absurdly stable platform. They are plenty nimble enough in 3d snow. No problem making tirns in tight spaces. i have really enjoyed the tree runs ive gotten. In variable (where everyone seems to love them), I really have to ski super centered. A little like the struggle I had on the renegade. If I drive the tips on a firm patch they just don't behave predictably. Maybe it's just pilot error, but my balance point feels odd and I feel like I'm forcing the skis to turn. I don't want to have to try to over muscle a 196 fatty.

Is it the mount? Am I too far fwd at 105 cm from the tip? Could it be that the stack height of the sollyfits are making it weird?

Or is my busted ass style just only suited to a fat shovel moustachioed pintail?

[SupreChicken]

And this may be a bit weak, but hours of centered skiing is draining my legs really quickly. The gambits are way less tiring to ski...

[wildmanwillie]

All I have to contribute is that I agree skiing from a centered stance does take more work. When I ski my protests Im feeling it at the end of the day. I think when you're able to really drive the ski through the ball of your foot you're able to relax more. When you're skiing from a more centered stance every little bump and variation in the snow requires input, opposed to just driving the shovels through it with a forward stance. Sometimes that translates to a more fun ride, other times I wish I could just slam my shins into my boot tongue and mash through everything.

My 2 cents

[Mudfoot]

All I have to contribute is that I agree skiing from a centered stance does take more work. When I ski my protests Im feeling it at the end of the day. I think when you're able to really drive the ski through the ball of your foot you're able to relax more. When you're skiing from a more centered stance every little bump and variation in the snow requires input, opposed to just driving the shovels through it with a forward stance. Sometimes that translates to a more fun ride, other times I wish I could just slam my shins into my boot tongue and mash through everything.

My 2 cents

I do not have Protests, but I agree with Willie about a centered stance taking more work. I like a long mellow flexing ski that allows me to get on it early and relax through the turn rolling back to use the whole ski. I feel the tips are smoothing things out before I get there. My experience has been that more rocker = less relaxation. What you gain in mobility you lose in smoothness. For my money I'll take something with a consistent flex and low rise that basically skis like a non-rockered ski, but it initiates easier and has a higher cheat factor because of the increased smearability. I can dance in the bumps or crud with a full rocker ski, but it is more intense mentally and physically because you cannot relax. As a lazy skier who does not want to use any more energy or attention than absolutely necessary, full rockered skis are too much work unless I'm in the really deep stuff.

My 3 cents.

[grinch]

love my protests. every ski I buy now I use the protest as a measuring stick to some degree. any turn shape in the soft and blast thru crud/chop seems to be the consensus. initially they scared the piss out of me on anything without loose snow though. they just want to rail big huge fast turns. I couldn't get the tails to release consistently. I detuned the tails a fair bit(not far up just round) and know i'll take them out almost anyday. so stable, amazing how they don't deflect in chop and I can rail big turns or break them loose if slope gets crowded or down thru moguls. maybe the og's with more tail rocker would work but I'd hate to give up mine. I'm mounted -1 from dimple but I always thought on the dimple might be cool. they seem to float or bust thru anything. reminds me of my old dynamic vr27 gs's but they float and slarve at will. no speed limit
edit; sorry no help on the fully rockered, I don't really get those. maybe with some sidecut but wouldn't they suffer from lack of pop? I just got some deathwishes(moustache) and I think that makes more sence. huuuge sweet spot. pop or pivot

[Two06]

STOP THE OBSESSION!

[userA]

praxis RX
B

[pfluffenmeister]

i was very skeptical regarding the rev/rev trend.

but i picked up a 192 lotus 138 (rocker 2) and looked at it for a season.
then traded it for a 202 lotus 138 rocker 2 and looked at those for a season.

the 192s had a round flex.
the 202s hand flexed like I-beams, stiff as fuck (and weigh in at ~4.25# / ski).
the rocker 2 has a short length of straight edge from the toe back (it might even have ~1mm of sidecut).
tip rocker starting @ the toe with initial low rise ramping up to what i thought was alot of rocker; modest tail rocker.
i figured the extra length and uber-stiffness would be a good thing in a r/r ski.
the effective edge is super short and the ski is already "decambered", so long and stiff should be good.

however, i still skeptical; i like tail, will that reversed tail be dependable?

taking them out of the car the guy parked next to me was eyeballing them i told him that i hope i love them or hate them as i'm pretty covered on pow sticks.


love 'em. (but still need more time on them)


i have 2 days on them in knee deep pow & wind affected pow; set up with Plums and Maestrale RSs.
i was amazed at how stable at speed they were, i was charging harder on the 138s + Tech then i was on a 120Spoon + Alpine. [scratches head]
you could rail big GS turns in pow; load and pop turns on the uber stiff platform; throw 'em sideways to scrub speed.
i found myself diving through very small openings between trees knowing i could keep on charging or shut it down fast.

as long as the snow was 3d they were grand.
even on groomers one can skid turn.
cat tracks weren't alot of fun, way more work than a ski with standard sidecut and a couple of times i got the 'ol skis going in opposite directions thing.

quiver thing for sure, but i was very pleasantly surprised.
you should buy auvgeek's 202s.

[Bandit Man]

I'll chime in...

I started with Spatulas way back when, then moved to Praxis Powder Boards. Produced unparalled smeariness in fresh, untracked/semi-tracked snow. Sucked on groomers and produced wheelies and bucking bronco effects when snow turned to crud. Moved on to Volkl Kuro. Better performance on groomed snow, but a lot of ski to throw around in tight space. Finally ended up with Volkl Shiro (193). As smeary as the others listed, but more bearable when things get tracked out. Still get the bucking bronco effect in uneven, cutup stuff, but to a lesser degree.

Continuous rocker is best for freshies, but loses out when things get tracked out. Shiros come out when it's deep and fresh. Squad 7's and Cochise come out when it is deep but lousy snow.

[Beyond]

My experience has been that more rocker = less relaxation. What you gain in mobility you lose in smoothness...As a lazy skier who does not want to use any more energy or attention than absolutely necessary, full rockered skis are too much work unless I'm in the really deep stuff.

This ^^^. I've skied the fully rockered Katana and Goat, and owned the Cochise, which is zero camber. IMO they're superb in deep pow. But they seem to have a lot smaller fore-aft sweet spot, want that centered stance, and transmit a lot more shock in rough or variable snow. Which makes sense, because one of the functions of camber is to act as a spring.

[shroom]

i agree with pfluff's take on the 202's, though they were not ideal for some of the tighter trees at stevens. literally the only ski i remember getting bucked on (those tails!) when backseat.

[pfluffenmeister]

^^^ RE: tight spaces agreed.
my last run @ Silverton earlier in the season had a tight chute to access the goods.
it wasn't too much wider than the 202s and hadn't been skied all season up to that point.

it was a little dicey, i was third down (not counting the guide "Fabio") the two that went before me had to stop mid way down to allow sluff to run off (i had too as well); i don't like too much side slipping, but my legs were a little juiced for the ol' jump turn in deep, super wind affected conditions.

at any rate, the open untouched bowl below the tight entry was awesome

[auvgeek]

^^Then don't get backseat!

[saxon]

I love my Lotus 138's in any untouched snow that I can sink a few cms into, but if it's tracked out then they are way too much of a handful for me. They're manageable on groomers, but riding chopped up refrozen crud on my 138's is one of the few aspects of skiing where I'd rather take my skis off and walk. There are several people on this forum that have better luck in-bounds with the 138's, though. I also own fully rockered Gotamas and they are nothing like the 138's.

I bought a pair of BillyGoats this year and in-bounds they're fantastic (as you seem to know). There is no situation where I would rather be on my Gotamas or Kendos. When I find untouched powder in-bounds I'd rather be on my 138's but the BG's ski enough like my 138's that I don't really care. And as soon as I hit the run-out it's back to awesome.

[Shorty_J]

I think there's a big difference between fully rockered and R/R skis. And I also agree with Mudfoot that more rocker = less relaxation PROVIDED you're not in 3D snow. In 3D snow R/R is awesome and I suspect anything fully rockered is going to be pretty fun. On firmer snow, edge contact is key.

I also think that on a fully rockered (camber) ski on anything other than powder, it's very easy to overdo the rocker. I've skied a number of fully rockered skis (Sickle's, Infidels, Spatulas) and you'd be surprised how much just a little bit too much rocker will fuck a ski up in that design. The Rossi Sickle has it nailed. It's not a stiff ski but it's not a noodle. It prefers a less traditional and more FWD mount but you can still drive the tips. I believe this is because the rocker profile is so minimal. On a similar design concept, the G3 Infidel has too much rocker and does not initiate or finish a turn as intuitively as the Sickle. It's not as loose as other skis in deeper snow, but it has no problem with float. But if you didn't like the Gotama, maybe I'm wrong... or maybe the Gotama doesn't nail the rocker profile... not sure.

I bought MVP's to replace my Sickle's (I think the OP has a pair of these, no?). I'm not sold on them either. I think that a lot of that ski looks great on paper, but I'm starting to lean more and more towards the opinion that there's nothing wrong with mustache camber, but you can't just throw rocker on any shaped ski all willy-nilly... it needs to match the sidecut and/or the camber of the ski. I think that whenever the camber profile of a ski (be it full reverse or normal camber or whatever) does not start and stop at the same relative positions as the sidecut, the skier doesn't always no how much of the edge is going to engage at any given time in different turn shapes, and that makes the ski a bit unpredictable. Another example of a ski I think is very well balanced in this regard is the Bluehouse Maestro. It has a short running length but the rocker starts right near where the short sidecut section stops and that makes it initiate a turn very intuitively and carve better than a 118mm waisted ski should.

I also think that powder skiing is not as well suited to a center-mounted, symmetrical sidecut ski as a traditional design. The only know I'll put on the Maestro is that I often wished for a bit more ski in front of my boot... be that more tip width and/or less tail length. But I also find you can't just move the mount point back on a more symmetrical sidecut profiled ski without messing with the ride. If you're charging all the time it's probably not an issue, but that's not how I ski these days.

All that said, from what I've seen of your posts and how you like to ski, I would suggest the Katana for you for a charger (which I have never skied, so take that for what it's worth). For a pure pow ski... I'm not sure I can help too much.

Sorry for the novel, but I've been thinking about this a lot lately so you get to be the victim of all that over-thinking.

Edit: maybe 191 Caylor as a powder ski? Modern mount point, lots of rocker, not a noodle. I've also never skied it.

[pfluffenmeister]

@ saxon: i liked my 138s in chopped up, knee deep, heavy pow, but would not like to try them on refrozen crud.

[SupreChicken]

Much as I would love to just snap up Auvgeek's gear (because I know how well he takes care of it), I'm having a hard time seeing the 202 L138 being the answer when I've already sold off my R1 192s and am not really liking the protest. These are really not devastatingly different rides.

More and more, I'm liking the design/concept of the cease and desist. Can't see that thing sinking and there is some sidecut that will probably make it feel more like a traditional ski.

@shorty. Thanks for the thoughtful response. It's helpful. I don't really need a charging ski. Day after storms, cut up pow, tree days...the 192 GPO is MONEY. That thing is just so, so dialed for that kind of day. I was thinking I needed a 193 MVP for park/bumps and an off chance hike...but in all honesty, the GPO can handle all that. I've started doing rails on them without issue. I'm also really enjoying my gambits for any fresh snow. Just looking for that deep day ride. They are a great ski, but they do not have that loose SURFY feel of the BG in pow. I want THAT. And I'm not really finding it with the Protest.

Maybe it's the BG. Maybe C and D. The Caylor has always intrigued me, but it really seems like a ski that requires a centered stance constantly. Though, I will say the dudes I see on it, rip. Maybe volkl two or three. Maybe I just don't need to have a superfat ski in the quiver. Shroom makes "less is more" look really good.

Maybe I'd love a cheap pair of bent chetlers.

Marshal has also chimed in suggesting the 197 120 spoon over email. The 189 was plenty of ski and actually kind of beat me up. I just don't see me throwing down that kind of coin for new sticks. Maybe I can demo some and push me into a purchase? (Still lurking out there, Marshal?)

I saw some 189 spoons with griffon demos on them sitting on the porch at Stevens this weekend for > 2 hours, NOT IN GEAR CHECK. I was tempted to grab them for a few runs. Not sure who has the responsibility for those right now, but I would fail them.

Any other thoughts?

Helping shroom mount up his own fucking skis tomorrow.