EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › Ski Gear Discussion › Hate every rockered ski I've tried - is my balance off?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Hate every rockered ski I've tried - is my balance off?

post #1 of 29
Thread Starter 

 

When I got onto the Elan Spire, it felt like there was a plate digging into the snow about 8  inches in front of my toes.  

 

The Lord and the S3 were just no fun either.   

 

Is my balance too far forward?

post #2 of 29

what size skis do you have?

rockered ski's effect edge is shorter than a traditional ski.  so you'd want to be on one slightly longer than traditional.

post #3 of 29
Quote:
Originally Posted by cantunamunch View Post

 

When I got onto the Elan Spire, it felt like there was a plate digging into the snow about 8  inches in front of my toes.  

 

The Lord and the S3 were just no fun either.   

 

Is my balance too far forward?

How big are you, what sizes did you try.

 

If you sized like you would a frontside care you failed before you walked out of the demo center.
 

post #4 of 29
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by KingLuis View Post

what size skis do you have?

rockered ski's effect edge is shorter than a traditional ski.  so you'd want to be on one slightly longer than traditional.



Thanks for the response, KL,  I skied the largest size the rep had, in the mid -180cm range.

 

This did not feel like a short ski problem.   I've skied skis down to 120cm long.

 

This felt like someone had bolted a plate across the ski that would dig in and brake as soon as I tried to engage a toeside edge.

 

As an owner of the old 999 and 888, I felt this was a very rude thing for Elan to do to an otherwise nice ski.

 

post #5 of 29
Quote:
Originally Posted by cantunamunch View Post

 

As an owner of the old 999 and 888, I felt this was a very rude thing for Elan to do to an otherwise nice ski.

 



LOL biggrin.gif

post #6 of 29

Would help if you played show and tell with your weight, level, whether this was on groomed or powder, and the mounting points (line?) Understanding that you may be the only person in the known universe who has apparent tip fold issues with rockers, and that all three of these skis are well regarded by a range of skiers. The S3 is nearly a cult object, in fact.

 

So kinda interesting actually. All three skis are fairly soft. Predict you use serious tip pressure, ski mainly crud and groomed, and weigh 220+. If yes, consider something with some beef in it before giving up on rocker. 

post #7 of 29

Skis that are mentioned here have rocker AND dual camber!!!! I love rockered skis, but very much dislike dual camber! IMO dual camber works only for soft skis or in much longer length (up to 20 extra cm). I do not find it versatile at all. My very favorite ski is Head Jimmy 110 which are rocker, but becames camberless after you load the ski.

 

Also, IMO rocker does call for somewhat forward stance.

post #8 of 29
Quote:
Originally Posted by stroller View Post

Skis that are mentioned here have rocker AND dual camber!!!! I love rockered skis, but very much dislike dual camber! IMO dual camber works only for soft skis or in much longer length (up to 20 extra cm). I do not find it versatile at all. My very favorite ski is Head Jimmy 110 which are rocker, but becames camberless after you load the ski.

 

Also, IMO rocker does call for somewhat forward stance.


I'm not sure I agree?..... I also have the Jimi and it is a cambered ski with an early rise tip??

 

As for being forward... Once again???  I find that you need to be well balanced on a rockered board niether too far forward or back... Equal weight on both feet and dont "try" to turn them too hard.

 

Start off with some slow skidded turns, slowly moving your COM up and down to feel how the skis want to turn..... then start playing with that.

 

Every time I change from my Jimis back to my Magfires I feel like I have to re-learn how to ski for 5mins or so just to get my balance nailed on that particular ski.

 

At the end of the day.... Rocker may not be for you!

post #9 of 29
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by beyond View Post

Would help if you played show and tell with your weight, level, whether this was on groomed or powder, and the mounting points (line?) Understanding that you may be the only person in the known universe who has apparent tip fold issues with rockers, and that all three of these skis are well regarded by a range of skiers. The S3 is nearly a cult object, in fact.

 

6' 215, fairly strong carver.      Random crud, frozen corn, soft-ish bumps and softpack (not groomed with plenty of manmade on it).    No real hardpack available.

 

I am fully aware that these are highly regarded.     I have been prepared to believe that my boots  put me too far forward since the start of the thread.

 

post #10 of 29
Thread Starter 


 

Quote:
Originally Posted by ramzee View Post

At the end of the day.... Rocker may not be for you!


 

This too I am prepared to believe.

post #11 of 29

If I were you I would try to find a very stiff rockered ski and ski it in somewhat largish turns before giving up on them.

post #12 of 29
Quote:
Originally Posted by cantunamunch View Post

Is my balance too far forward?



It may be that you are trying to drive the skis way too hard. With a normal cambered ski you have a feel of pressure all the way to the tip but with tip rocker it can feel like nothing is there. Therefore to try and get that familiar feeling of pressure out to the tips you drive the tips even harder but it never creates push back because the ski is already in reverse camber. That's one of the drawbacks of tip rocker, they can feel a bit disconnected up front.

 

Another thing to check is if these were all demo skis and you are running some sort of delta angle much different than that found on standard demo bindings you could experience some weighting and balance issues.

post #13 of 29
Quote:
Originally Posted by cantunamunch View Post


 



When I got onto the Elan Spire, it felt like there was a plate digging into the snow about 8  inches in front of my toes.  



 



The Lord and the S3 were just no fun either.   



 



Is my balance too far forward?




 



I have a few pair of rockered skis which I only pull out on a fresh powder day as frankly, I prefer a traditional camber ski on a hard pack day. My everyday skis are 178-184 and my rockered skis are 190 and 196, so perhaps that is another reason I don't need them as daily drivers as they are just big skis for float.
That said, maybe like myself you should try a pair on a powder day and see what you think as that is where a rockered ski will shine IMO.
post #14 of 29


 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Stikki View Post



Quote:
Originally Posted by cantunamunch View Post

Is my balance too far forward?



It may be that you are trying to drive the skis way too hard. With a normal cambered ski you have a feel of pressure all the way to the tip but with tip rocker it can feel like nothing is there. Therefore to try and get that familiar feeling of pressure out to the tips you drive the tips even harder but it never creates push back because the ski is already in reverse camber. That's one of the drawbacks of tip rocker, they can feel a bit disconnected up front.

 

Another thing to check is if these were all demo skis and you are running some sort of delta angle much different than that found on standard demo bindings you could experience some weighting and balance issues.


This is exactly what I felt when skiing my Head Peak Flowrides......I was so used to my Watea and Progressors that I would put the head's on edge and waited for the front edges to grab and it did not happen.....felt just like stikki said - "disconnected"

 

post #15 of 29

There is a pretty big range of rockered skis out there. So it is hard to generalize. But Stikki may well be on to an issue. Most of the true modern rocker designs hook up at a very different place than a conventional ski. Either under foot or much closer to your foot. In addition, many are mounted relatively forward/center. If you really get out there & "drive the tips", many of these skis will not play so well. Because the part of the ski out near the front that you are trying to engage will never touch the snow until a large edge angle is already in play. I make no pretense of being a great skier --- but at least for me, using rockered skis on hard snow, I tend to visualize knifing the edge of the ski into the snow just in front of my toes. Keeps my balance more "centered" wrt the part of the ski being pressured. Seems to work for me...

post #16 of 29

Maybe you should try a more traditional cambered and sidecut model of rockered pow ski. 

 

I just got a pair of PM Gear 183 FAT Carbon BROs and am quite pleased with the melding of regular ski on-piste manners with pow performance akin to that which one would expect from a 110 underfoot rockered ski.  Before I rode them I thought you seriously had to make pretty big sacrifices on the groomed to sloat, slash and pivot like that.  Not so.  I was easily able to smoothly initiate turns even at speed on hardpack as well as make quick, fun slash turns in fresh snow like a hot knife through butter.  I strongly urge you to try a ski like that.  If not a FAT BRO, then definitely a fat, tip rockered regular sidecut and cambered ski.  Double cambered rockered skis are not for everyone for sure. 

post #17 of 29

HMM,  There's a reason why so many folks still call them cheater skis... They are stupid easy to ski, centered and balanced is the ticket, Don't try to drive the tips!  I love them.

post #18 of 29

It sounds like you might be attempting to heavily load the tips, but without video, we're guessing.

 

Even modern carvers work best when you ski them centered rather than levered forward. The shovel will engage just fine if you stand in the middle and roll them onto their edges.

 

Even after skiing rockered and early rise skis all morning one day (13" fresh, 30" in the previous 3 days), I didn't have any problem stepping back onto my own Mantras, which have a conventional camber and sidecut with an underfoot width of 96mm. All worked best from the middle.

 

At your weight, you might consider trying a pair of Volkl Katanas in 190 or 197. I spent a day on a pair of 183s, but I only weigh 165 lb. I liked them, but they do demand some power (at my weight, at least). They require a bit more focus to put on edge than a narrower ski, but they didn't feel particularly "disconnected."

post #19 of 29

I think I have a handle on what rocker does for snow with depth...

but other than that, for someone who knows how to turn a ski, I'm not sure rocker solves anything for skiing on conditions other than POW.

Less skilled skiers might find pivoting easier on difficult terrain (for them); but that may prove to be a crutch towards further improvement.

On groomed there seems no real advantage, cause sacrificing stability is a disadvantage.

In crud and other varied conditions, a ski needs to offer deflection resistance in a predictable manner - not sure how easily rocker can do that and retain good characteristics in more even conditions. And loosing more predictable edge  and edge control certainly is no need.

Rocker may help in some conditions, but I don't see it as 'All Mountain', one ski quiver.

Certainly not enough that a Ski Company should put rocker in the vast majority of its designs... K2 for one, not sure how many others...

I'll be at Mammoth this coming wkend, No pow expected, but I will do one day of 'demo' specifically to give rocker a good and broad test - and just assume I would like it in pow...

I'm ready to luv it and be proven wrong, again...

...but somehow I fear the 'rocker' bandwagon will be the same unsatisfying 'new-age' religion that 'freestyle' shorts were in the 70's...

honestly, at this point the skis I have are great! iff'n I'm having a tough time/not great run, it'll be me not the skis.

course on the commerce side, ski companies are having a tough time getting us to dump our current skis so that they can sell us something new. The 'replacement' market just isn;t enough to sustain what they all perceive as their needed 'growth' (or survival...)

 

 

 

post #20 of 29
Quote:
Originally Posted by Do Work View Post

Maybe you should try a more traditional cambered and sidecut model of rockered pow ski. 

 

I just got a pair of PM Gear 183 FAT Carbon BROs...

Should have thought of these, great call. Bros can be had quite stiff, have mild to moderate front rocker, very little to none in back depending on model, otherwise look and handle like a traditional fat ski, only easier in soft. Quite decent carving hardpack, even. 
 

post #21 of 29
Quote:
Originally Posted by moreoutdoor View Post

In crud and other varied conditions, a ski needs to offer deflection resistance in a predictable manner - not sure how easily rocker can do that and retain good characteristics in more even conditions. And loosing more predictable edge  and edge control certainly is no need.

 

This is the issue I have with them. I haven't skied any other rocker besides the ones I own, though, so I don't know if it's the particular ski (S7) or the overall design. If they run flat, they hang up on the crud (or, one ski hangs up, the other doesn't), but if I put them on edge, they turn too much. More length and/or more stiffness would help, but boy was it fun riding them through big bumps with 2 ft of fresh yesterday ... longer and stiffer might screw that up ...
 

post #22 of 29

IMHO the S7's have too much tip rise for crudded up conditions but rock in fresh for sure. 

post #23 of 29
Quote:

This is the issue I have with them. I haven't skied any other rocker besides the ones I own, though, so I don't know if it's the particular ski (S7) or the overall design. If they run flat, they hang up on the crud (or, one ski hangs up, the other doesn't), but if I put them on edge, they turn too much. More length and/or more stiffness would help, but boy was it fun riding them through big bumps with 2 ft of fresh yesterday ... longer and stiffer might screw that up ...
 

Me too! on the S110W in cut up, especially the turn too much. Concerned I got too short a ski or mounted too far forward. Thought i was going head over handlebars all the time, although didn't. Got them because the rep was they were good at so many things. This is not a fault of all rockers IMO though. Last year I skied the Line Pandora and the Head Jimi and they did not behave this way. They were both very stable in crud, especially the Jimi....
 

post #24 of 29

I had my s7s in 17" at vail yesterday. They are stupid fun in the deep stuff, tight trees and big marshmellow moguls

 

I have no problem carving them on groomed runs, although I'd much rather be on a more traditional ski.

 

Variable/crud performance is their kryptonite, IMO. Too soft in the tip with too much deflection. I moved the mount point from zero to -2, which helps a bit.

post #25 of 29
Quote:
Originally Posted by Finndog View Post

IMHO the S7's have too much tip rise for crudded up conditions but rock in fresh for sure. 


from riding the B-Squad for several seasons,  I know that Rossignol makes one of the best skis for crud bashing, smoothing out the worst of cut and chopped snow easily.

So if this ski doesn't do that, Rossignol made a decision to favor one performance characteristic over the other for the overall concept of the ski in its primary niche.

post #26 of 29



I have heard they putting on a layer of metal in them next season? this would help.

Quote:
Originally Posted by davluri View Post



Quote:
Originally Posted by Finndog View Post

IMHO the S7's have too much tip rise for crudded up conditions but rock in fresh for sure. 


from riding the B-Squad for several seasons,  I know that Rossignol makes one of the best skis for crud bashing, smoothing out the worst of cut and chopped snow easily.

So if this ski doesn't do that, Rossignol made a decision to favor one performance characteristic over the other for the overall concept of the ski in its primary niche.

post #27 of 29

What kind of boots are you using?  Forward lean?

post #28 of 29
Quote:
Originally Posted by Finndog View Post
I have heard they putting on a layer of metal in them next season? this would help.

Yep, 188 is getting some metal. Which may or may not be a good thing. If it makes the ski less playful, they've killed a golden goose to produce just one more of 6,739 models of beefy crud basher fats out there. Sigh...

post #29 of 29



TOTALLY AGREE!  I don't know if I would mess around with a well-accepted formula.

Quote:
Originally Posted by beyond View Post



Quote:
Originally Posted by Finndog View Post
I have heard they putting on a layer of metal in them next season? this would help.

Yep, 188 is getting some metal. Which may or may not be a good thing. If it makes the ski less playful, they've killed a golden goose to produce just one more of 6,739 models of beefy crud basher fats out there. Sigh...

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Ski Gear Discussion
EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › Ski Gear Discussion › Hate every rockered ski I've tried - is my balance off?