EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › Ski Gear Discussion › Rocker – yes. But camber, flat or reverse under foot?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Rocker – yes. But camber, flat or reverse under foot?

post #1 of 26
Thread Starter 

 

I’m looking for a 108-115mm width ski which will be the ‘fat’ ski to complement my current go-to 2011 Atomic Crimson Ti’s (88mm wide, early rise but not true rocker, I ski 171cm length). I am 43 years old, 5’7” 158lb.  Level 7/8 skier.  My idea of a good day’s skiing these days usually involves 10-minute slack-country hikes for a run of fresh (6-18”, never deeper) then tracked out / mixed the rest of the way back to the lift. It is for this application that I am looking for a new ski. I’m very happy with the Crimsons in lesser conditions (and pull out an old 70mm pair if the zipper line is calling…).  I’m energetic but not very tall or heavy and not looking for a ‘big mountain’ ski. Given that my fresh tracks are usually earned after a walk, my inclination is to put in a few turns rather than any ambition to rip the slope in 3. But one of the things I am looking forward to in a new ski is playing with some new bigger turn shapes rather than just powder 8s.

 

One more thing: I try to ski Colorado or Utah one week each year but can only bring one ski so need some versatility in case I will be spending most of my time in the deep dark woods if my timing isn’t so great snow-wise. Oh, yes, a few groomers with my wife too (but can probably manage that on anything...) If there’s nothing going on but the bumps – I’ll rent.

 

Rocker – yes. But camber, flat or reverse under foot? What are the main implications of these variations, and which might suit me best? I am also wondering how much influence this might have on choice of length of ski.  I’m guessing I’ll go somewhere between 179 and 186 long (but the big numbers still seem foreign after years on about 163’s!). Is 186 “too big” for a ski with camber? Is 179 “too small” for a full reverse camber ski?

 

Any specific ski suggestions would also be welcome.

post #2 of 26

I've skied a few rocker and early rise skis, and I need at least a little camber.  Full rocker skis are almost unworkable on any kind of slightly firm snow, even easy groomers.  I haven't tried it, but I think a full camber ski would be pretty scary on a narrow traverse.  A little camber doesn't seem to hurt deep snow performance, but it makes the ski way more versatile.    

Probably the more accurately you can stay in the center of your skis, the less camber you'll need.  Go longer than you would with a full camber ski.

 

BK

post #3 of 26

The first ski that popped into my head is the new Line (because I like Line skis) Sir Francis Bacon in the 178 length. You could probably handle the 184's with no problems, but they'd be overkill for the conditions you mentioned and a bit long for the trees.

 

They've actually narrowed it down to 108 mm this year and reduced the tip and tail rocker a bit, as well as reducing the early taper a bit to give more effective edge for when you need your edges. But, they've still got enough width, early rise, and early taper (very important in my opinion) to keep you happy.

 

I've got the old SFB's (115 mm and 182 cm), and they're more than I need for the conditions you mentioned; I'm 5'9" and 170 lbs. They're great for deep days and plenty of fun to ski in anything soft, but they're overkill most of the time for me. In fact, the dimensions for the new Pollard Opus are nearly the same as the old Bacon, and that's designed for the deep stuff. That's why I like the look of the new Bacons with their narrower waist and longer effective edge for regular soft conditions. If I had to choose now, I'd take the smaller dimensions.

 

 

With other brands, I'd look for something similar. For the conditions you mentioned, I don't think you'll need a huge amount of rocker or early taper/reverse sidecut. The S7, Bent Chetler, Obsethed, and other similar sticks would be great deep skis for you, but they would be overkill most of the time for what you desribed. But, the Atomic Blog might be worth a look in the 177. The Kung Fujas are narrower than you mentioned, but they might work well for you too.


Edited by CerebralVortex - 8/26/11 at 5:23am
post #4 of 26

Rossi S3 (98 underfoot). Remember, lighter skiers get more flotation from a narrower ski than a big guy.  A 98 waist for you is equivalent to a 114 for a fellow who weights 190 lbs.  S3 has rocker tip and tail, camber underfoot, and is VERY versatile (great in powder and trees, good on bumps, more than decent on groomers).  Light and playful, but very stable, dependable and user friendly. Excellent choice for your size and weight.  Skis short due to rocker, so 177 length would be perfect for you. Only go up to the 188 length if you want to sacrifice nimbleness and versatility for very-long-turn stability and facility in snow over 18 inches deep.  Good luck!

post #5 of 26

Regarding your camber question, I suspect you'll want something very mildly cambered or flat. Substantial stiff camber sort of undoes much of what you are trying to get with rocker. Full reverse camber introduces other issues to varying degrees.

 

It is not worth a large debate here - but the float vs width thing misses much of the picture in terms of modern ski design and handling. You are probably looking in the right width range. I would not go below 105. And you might even consider going up to the low 120s depending on the design you settle on.

 

Depending on the design, something around 180 or so will likely be your sweet spot. This may sound long to you, but the modern designs are, as a rule, very nimble for their lengths. However, the "right" length will be very model dependent. 

 
Given everything you've said, I'd take a serious look at the Praxis BC (recently reviewed by a Kiwi over at TGR). Maybe the Praxis Concept which is a bit more out there on the design curve - but my go-to ski & probably what I'd take to the South Island if I were carrying only one pair. DPS 112RP might be in your zone. Salomon Rocker 2 is likely a super great choice - the 180 w/ the waist step down to 115 could be a great ski for what you describe, and it skis crazy light. The 184 could be a great choice as it is so nimble (but it steps up in width, which you may or may not prefer). Armada JJ should be a contender.   If you are a K2 person, look at the Obsethed. Maybe something like the 4FRNT YLE. etc. You might check out the ON3P lineup as well.
 
If you want to support the NZ home team, the Kingswood SMB and Rocketype both look like they are well thought out - at least from what is on the site - and are likely worth investigating. The Kingswoods I've seen have been nice looking skis (no shortage of them at TC...). Certainly worth checking out. 
 
Anyway, the bottom line is tip+tail rocker, some element of early taper, flat to modest camber. And no less than 105 at the waist. 
 
Oh, one thing is probably worth mentioning because it comes up often when my friends who have been life long skiers try fully rockered skis: if you are really into "popping" out of your turns, most modern rockered designs reduce or even eliminate this feeling. Many have short, or no,  camber zones. Many have short sidecut zones. Most have some early taper which smooths out how the ski rolls and hooks up - and how it releases. So, be forewarned that depending on where you go along the design curve, you may well end up giving up some of the "pop" turn exit that  a ski with stiff camber all the way out to a square tail gives you. I think what you get in exchange is well worth it - but this is worth thinking about.

Edited by spindrift - 8/26/11 at 10:20am
post #6 of 26

First things first. I think that you've got your length parameters right -- on the high side with more rocker, on the low side with more camber. (And add the K2 factor -- if you go that route, size down.)

 

The need for versatility when traveling suggests that some camber and sidecut under foot is a really good idea.

 

In this category, I think you really can't go wrong with a DPS Wailer 112RP.  Choosing between 178cm and 184cm would be difficult, although your affinity for slackcountry hikes might suggest shorter and therefore lighter.  The PM Gear Lhasa Pow, or the Praxis Freeride, Concept, or Backcountry might be other good boutique options.

 

Among larger manufacturers, the Blizzard Cochise and Bonafide are getting absolute raves, and I'm hearing good things about Elan's Spire and Olympus Mons as well.

 

And of course, since you're in New Zealand, I'd consider going local with the Kingswood Rocketype.

post #7 of 26

I know you are looking a bit wider but word is the Line Prophet 98 has a new early rise and construction, so that may be worth at least trying.  

post #8 of 26

IIRC the Prophet 98 is really a bit over 100, but is "named" so as not to scare people. biggrin.gif

 

That said, the Opus is more likely the design point for this discussion.

 

Almost forgot, the S7 should probably be on the evaluation list as it is a category icon.


Edited by spindrift - 8/26/11 at 10:33am
post #9 of 26
Thread Starter 

I appreciate all the suggestions - lots of food for thought. The search is officially ON. Some of you have read my mind re the local hand-made Kingswood skis - but Rocketype (115mm width camber/rocker) is only available in 186 length so sits right at the upper end of my thinking. In my heart I know it's overkill. In my other heart it's hard not to want to support the only ski-maker in the Southern Hemisphere, just back in action after earthquake destruction (working out of a shipping container currently) and only 4 miles from my front door.... 

post #10 of 26

you've received some pretty great advice already. You could take a look at Rossignol S3, Line Sir Francis Bacon, K2 Kung Fujas and looking at the specs of DPS Wailer 112RP those as well.

Never heard of Praxis and Kingswood, but will those manufacturers out right away! (European you know). But a local ski, yeah what could beat those. Got to support the local biz for sure.

post #11 of 26

Hi, so you are about the same weight, height, and ability as myself.  I've got a four ski quiver going right now with an 88mm for hard pack days a pair of Praxis Protest for powder, Praxis Backcountry for, well, backcountry, and an Elan Olympus for mixed resort days in the Tahoe area.  After skiing the reverse - reverse Protests a bunch last year you definitely want something with a more traditional shape as the reverse sidecut was brutally tedious outside of deep pow.

 

I can't speak more highly than either the Elan or Praxis Backcountry.  They both are very light, lively, stable skis that just rip the whole mountain.  I used to race GS and Super G and find both skis incredibly locked in when I need it but also fun and springy in the trees and powder bowls.  Either would be money very well spent.  My Praxis are 180 and my Elan's are 183.  Praxis is also doing their pre-season sale and if you enter Facebook on checkout they knock off another 10% bringing the price down to $550 or something for a bomber, hand-made, carbon layup bad boy.

 

Hope this helps.

post #12 of 26

Line Sir Francis Bacon does look pretty sweet. I'm planning on picking up a pair for my all mountain, daily driver for the skinny ski in my two ski quiver. Everybodies writing off full rocker here but I don't agree. Hasn't anybody here skied Gotamas or S6's (Sickle)? Both killer all mountain skis, not too fat and can hold up in pow and all over. The key is the amount of rocker and the flex of the ski. Just something to consider.

post #13 of 26

Not sure if it has been mentioned, but if you can search out some 186_191 PM Gear Lhasa Pows, you will be a very happy camper. Your welcome.

post #14 of 26

I had a pair of 189 Kung Fujas last year and was severely underwhelmed by them. 

If I was looking at a pow ski with some camber, in a shorter length I would look at:

 

174 Sidestash

174 Rossignol Sickle

178 Bluehouse Maestro

174 Armada TST or 175 JJ

179 BRO Fat

171 Atomic Access

 

I think with the exception of the 175 JJ all of the skis I listed could become a daily driver ski for you.

post #15 of 26

Kastle BMX108

Salomon Czar @111 underfoot

 

Two more choices for you. Personally, I like a little camber underfoot myself. 

post #16 of 26
Quote:
Originally Posted by skinom View Post

Everybodies writing off full rocker here but I don't agree. Hasn't anybody here skied Gotamas or S6's (Sickle)? Both killer all mountain skis, not too fat and can hold up in pow and all over. 


And neither is a full reverse camber ski -- both combine rockered tip and tail with zero or minimal camber in the body and under foot.

post #17 of 26
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDad View Post


And neither is a full reverse camber ski -- both combine rockered tip and tail with zero or minimal camber in the body and under foot.


I skied the Gotamas a bunch of times at least 12 days on them.   Super fun ski.   

 

post #18 of 26
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDad View Post


And neither is a full reverse camber ski -- both combine rockered tip and tail with zero or minimal camber in the body and under foot.


The Gotama of the past two seasons was full reverse camber. I skied it a bunch... I think the middle may have been flattened this year (too lazy to double check) - so the above may well be true for the skis presently hitting the shelves.

 

The Sickle is, as I understand it, a renamed S6 & is heavily advertised by Rossignol as being full reverse camber. Last year's S6 production run had a reasonably catastrophic incorrect camber molding  problem & many or most were pulled from the shelves.

post #19 of 26

Thank you for the support spindrift, because both are branded as full rocker, no matter how subtle it may be. A minimal rockered ski throughout the whole length is still fully rockered even if its not hell bent rockered. As I mentioned in my first post the key was the amount of rocker that made it versatile. Once you get em on edge you still get plenty of effective edge.

 

Also I'll second Lhasa Pow's. Who ever recomended that knows whats up. I want to get a pair of those to throw some Dukes or Barons on for slackcountry and resort powder.

post #20 of 26
Quote:
Originally Posted by spindrift View Post

Oh, one thing is probably worth mentioning because it comes up often when my friends who have been life long skiers try fully rockered skis: if you are really into "popping" out of your turns, most modern rockered designs reduce or even eliminate this feeling. Many have short, or no,  camber zones. Many have short sidecut zones. Most have some early taper which smooths out how the ski rolls and hooks up - and how it releases. So, be forewarned that depending on where you go along the design curve, you may well end up giving up some of the "pop" turn exit that  a ski with stiff camber all the way out to a square tail gives you. I think what you get in exchange is well worth it - but this is worth thinking about.

Well put & nicely done Spinny.

icon14.gif

JF
 

 

 

post #21 of 26
Quote:
Originally Posted by zingaro3000 View Post

Hi, so you are about the same weight, height, and ability as myself.  I've got a four ski quiver going right now with an 88mm for hard pack days a pair of Praxis Protest for powder, Praxis Backcountry for, well, backcountry, and an Elan Olympus for mixed resort days in the Tahoe area.  After skiing the reverse - reverse Protests a bunch last year you definitely want something with a more traditional shape as the reverse sidecut was brutally tedious outside of deep pow.

 

I can't speak more highly than either the Elan or Praxis Backcountry.  They both are very light, lively, stable skis that just rip the whole mountain.  I used to race GS and Super G and find both skis incredibly locked in when I need it but also fun and springy in the trees and powder bowls.  Either would be money very well spent.  My Praxis are 180 and my Elan's are 183.  Praxis is also doing their pre-season sale and if you enter Facebook on checkout they knock off another 10% bringing the price down to $550 or something for a bomber, hand-made, carbon layup bad boy.

 

Hope this helps.


^^^^^ This.

 

post #22 of 26

Atomic Bent Chetler... 183cm

post #23 of 26

...there's so many great skis to choose from this year !!!! smile.gif

post #24 of 26

well i have the moment night train, which is 123 mm underfoot. it is rocker flat rocker, and skis good on piste, without sacrificing performance in off piste. i have skiied the bent chetler, which i dont think is as good off a ski for off piste skiing as the night train. btw the bent chetler has some camber. so if i were to recomend from my experience, id say go with flat. although i havnt tried full rocker before..

post #25 of 26

I have the Elan 1010 (now Olympus) and it just makes 3d snow stupid simple.  While i have seen very few on the hill,

anytime I talk to someone who does, they have pretty much the same reaction.

 

Dawgatching and Holiday really like this ski:

http://www.epicski.com/t/83357/review-2010-elan-1010-183cm

 

and Zman

http://www.epicski.com/t/90372/elan-1010-alu

 

 

post #26 of 26
Fwiw, my go to huckmonster has been the 188 BD megawatt...if is a reverse tip & flat mid/tail. It skis very short & on terra firma, at stupid fast, it gets wobbly. A little camber would be nice.
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 › Rocker – yes. But camber, flat or reverse under foot?