EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › Ski Gear Discussion › How to ski rockered skis
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

How to ski rockered skis

post #1 of 21
Thread Starter 

I skied a pair of Atomic Theory's yesterday at Loon Mtn in NH. It was 85 deg, blue ski and melting like crazy. The conditions were mashed potato snow and some slush. Really fun day when on the right ski. I tried several skis, but spent the afternoon on a pair of 186 cm Theory's. They are an early rise ski or slightly rockered. They have about a 20 m side cut. They are a relatively soft ski and 95 mm under foot. I have skied them before on packed snow and would describe them as soft, absorbing, stable, and like wide GS turns.

 

Their width was great for the conditions and they were pretty stable. To turn them I did the usual press on the tips and roll them over. They didn't really respond too well and felt less stable. They really didn't want their tips in the crud. So I tried leaning back a bit on them and they actually felt better. We were skiing pretty fast and leaning back was a little risky, but more comfortable feeling. Next I centered my weight more and tried pulling up with my toes and pressing down with my heels. Amazingly, they became really easy to turn and very stable. I usually have my weight slightly on my shins, but putting my weight slightly on my calves made the skis really comfortable and they pivoted effortlessly by pushing down on my heels and pulling up on my toes and then rolling them slightly.

 

Is that the key to rocker skis, keep the tips "floating" a bit and turn them from the middle of the ski?

 

post #2 of 21
Quote:
Originally Posted by bttocs View Post

I skied a pair of Atomic Theory's yesterday at Loon Mtn in NH. It was 85 deg, blue ski and melting like crazy. The conditions were mashed potato snow and some slush. Really fun day when on the right ski. I tried several skis, but spent the afternoon on a pair of 186 cm Theory's. They are an early rise ski or slightly rockered. They have about a 20 m side cut. They are a relatively soft ski and 95 mm under foot. I have skied them before on packed snow and would describe them as soft, absorbing, stable, and like wide GS turns.

 

Their width was great for the conditions and they were pretty stable. To turn them I did the usual press on the tips and roll them over. They didn't really respond too well and felt less stable. They really didn't want their tips in the crud. So I tried leaning back a bit on them and they actually felt better. We were skiing pretty fast and leaning back was a little risky, but more comfortable feeling. Next I centered my weight more and tried pulling up with my toes and pressing down with my heels. Amazingly, they became really easy to turn and very stable. I usually have my weight slightly on my shins, but putting my weight slightly on my calves made the skis really comfortable and they pivoted effortlessly by pushing down on my heels and pulling up on my toes and then rolling them slightly.

 

Is that the key to rocker skis, keep the tips "floating" a bit and turn them from the middle of the ski?

 

I don't know the answer to your question, but you are going to get owned in bumps and steeps if you sit back on any ski, rockered or not. Did you check your mounting position?  
 

 

post #3 of 21

for what is worth...I tend to ski my 185 JJs in a centered position in almost every condition (including crud), although I recall that it took a few hours to get used to skiing this type of ski.  On groomers I tend to angulate a bit more, but once over, the skis hook up nicely.  In powder, I can ski them very much like I might ski a GS ski on hard pack - very fast and powerful feeling.  But with the rocker, I can also smear the turns and have some fun as well with a different style of skiing, but a centered position is need for that as well.  Rockered skis also pivot nicely, which gives options in trees and bumps. 

 

What you might be experiencing is sense that the front end is short, which in a way it is because of the rocker.

post #4 of 21
Are rockered skis really essential? For years good and great skiers tore up the whole mountain with out rocker, all the sales guys are pushing rocker skis on to folk that can't use a carving ski correctly in the shops I've been in, I've not skied on any rockers and I can't see I ever would unless there's one mega deep dump, I've handled boot deep powder and crud on traditional cambered skis and had a lot of fun, so....... Are they really needed?
post #5 of 21
Quote:
Originally Posted by rossymcg View Post

Are rockered skis really essential? 

Of course, they're not essential; they just make the experience of skiing soft and deep snow less difficult, less fatiguing, and a hell of a lot more fun.

 

On 2-25, we had 30" of fresh snow at my hill.  I hit it with my fully cambered, 82mm underfoot skis and had an absolute blast...face shots galore and waves of snow flying over my head!  That said, I know the floaty nimbleness of a rockered ski would have made it even more fun.  

 

As to the OP's observation, I had a similar issue.  I demoed a 4FRNT Turbo at 104 underfoot in 175 and 2 days later a 4FRNT Cody at 100 underfoot in 179.  I had to struggle to find low-angle patches of 10-12" of powder for the Turbo day, but on the Cody day, there had been 13" overnight and another 7" throughout the day.

Despite the extra 1-1/2 inch length of the Cody, it had more tip dive than I would've thought and certainly more than the Turbo, despite being longer.  I figured the 4mm waist width wasn't that significant.  Admittedly, there was deeper soft snow for the Cody also, but the Turbo rose up better at low speeds than the Cody at higher speeds.  Like the OP, I also found myself compensating by riding back just a bit, not to any ludicrous degree, of course, but just a wee bit back nonetheless to keep the tips riding mostly at an upward angle. 

 

I lOVED the ski, tho, and I'm on the pre-order list to buy it when it comes out in September.  However, I sensed what Dawg questioned above: it "looked" like the bindings were a bit on the forward side (I didn't measure anything) of things.  The shop guy said it was mounted at the factory recommended point, so I intend to mount it back some when I get it.  I don't wanna mess up the otherwise awesome dynamics of the ski, tho, so I'm wondering if anyone has any suggestions as to a reasonable starting point for how far back to mount them from the factory recommendation...or if I should at all, for that matter. 
 

 

post #6 of 21

I have TST's 183 length with demo bindings and will be testing different binding positions in a couple of weeks.Reason being I felt as if there was not quite enough in front at the factory setting

 

Will post results.


 

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Skierish View Post

Of course, they're not essential; they just make the experience of skiing soft and deep snow less difficult, less fatiguing, and a hell of a lot more fun.

 

On 2-25, we had 30" of fresh snow at my hill.  I hit it with my fully cambered, 82mm underfoot skis and had an absolute blast...face shots galore and waves of snow flying over my head!  That said, I know the floaty nimbleness of a rockered ski would have made it even more fun.  

 

As to the OP's observation, I had a similar issue.  I demoed a 4FRNT Turbo at 104 underfoot in 175 and 2 days later a 4FRNT Cody at 100 underfoot in 179.  I had to struggle to find low-angle patches of 10-12" of powder for the Turbo day, but on the Cody day, there had been 13" overnight and another 7" throughout the day.

Despite the extra 1-1/2 inch length of the Cody, it had more tip dive than I would've thought and certainly more than the Turbo, despite being longer.  I figured the 4mm waist width wasn't that significant.  Admittedly, there was deeper soft snow for the Cody also, but the Turbo rose up better at low speeds than the Cody at higher speeds.  Like the OP, I also found myself compensating by riding back just a bit, not to any ludicrous degree, of course, but just a wee bit back nonetheless to keep the tips riding mostly at an upward angle. 

 

I lOVED the ski, tho, and I'm on the pre-order list to buy it when it comes out in September.  However, I sensed what Dawg questioned above: it "looked" like the bindings were a bit on the forward side (I didn't measure anything) of things.  The shop guy said it was mounted at the factory recommended point, so I intend to mount it back some when I get it.  I don't wanna mess up the otherwise awesome dynamics of the ski, tho, so I'm wondering if anyone has any suggestions as to a reasonable starting point for how far back to mount them from the factory recommendation...or if I should at all, for that matter. 
 

 



 

post #7 of 21
Thread Starter 

The skis were owned by a friend, and he was on my Ullr's Chariots. He has a size 10 boot and I have a size 12. I should also mention I am 6'4" and 250 lbs. I think if anything I was mounted a little bit back on the ski since I just moved the heel binding to fit my bigger boot. I think part of what I was experiencing is "big guy" on a soft ski, especially in soft lumpy East Coast Crud (mashed potatoes). The other part is these are GS side cuts and I wanted to turn them like a slalom ski. On this ski in packed conditions I can easily make slalom turns by unweighting and pivoting the ski, then setting the edges. In the crud they didn't want to pivot until I made the tips float just a little by being centered and "pulling" up on them with my toes. I wasn't really leaning back on them, just wasn't pressing on the tips like I usually do, so really I was centered. I should also add this was not on the steeps, but on more fast medium pitch runs.

 

I do think this has something to do with the rocker on the ski and that these are a GS side cut and I was making the skis turn much shorter radius than their side cut. I could just "ride" their edges and make big radius turns by rolling them over and staying centered. I prefer to ski a little slower and make quicker turns. I was on my Chariots earlier in the day as well, and those are traditional camber and much stiffer and 15 m side cut, on those I just press on the front of my boot and roll them and the ski turns itself. They want to turn shorter arcs so I just "ride" their edges and I am making the turn I want without needing to pivot them. The chariots felt like they were on packed snow due to their stiffness and side cut. The theory's needed some powder 3D technique due to their softness, their side cut, and my weight.  So I am thinking it was not strictly a rocker ski characteristic, but a combination of several things. Once I got it dialed, I got that feeling of effortless relaxation and rhythm and that makes me love to ski.

post #8 of 21
Quote:
Originally Posted by Baldrick View Post

I have TST's 183 length with demo bindings and will be testing different binding positions in a couple of weeks.Reason being I felt as if there was not quite enough in front at the factory setting

 

Will post results.

 

Great!  I've skied the TST myself, and it didn't really do it for me personally, but a lot of people sure do like 'em.

I'd be interested in what you find, tho, so Thanks!
 

 

post #9 of 21
Quote:
Originally Posted by dawgcatching View Post

I don't know the answer to your question, but you are going to get owned in bumps and steeps if you sit back on any ski, rockered or not. Did you check your mounting position?  
 

 


^^^^ This. In fact, I've found that front rocker likes to be driven; skis also with rockered tails can be a different story, may like a more neutral stance. But neutral doesn't mean backseat. If you can feel the boots pressing your calves like that, either your mount is off or you're steering the tips from a backseat pivot. Which can work in some terrain for limited periods, but it'll make the skis unpredictable in rough snow and flat out of control in the steeps. Also can wipe out your quads pretty fast. I have a hunch based on my own experience that it's just a learning curve for rocker. The tips feel like they're not there at first. 

 

I'd add that it's tough to say for sure without seeing you ski, but I'm dubious about your opening "usual press on the tips and roll them over" for skiing bumps or any irregular terrain. Typically you want to initiate with the tips fairly unloaded (some instructors even teach by having you do hops right before you begin the turn), have your legs long and relaxed, then absorb the terrain, or sink, depending. So the loading occurs after intiation, and ideally the terrain helps. A video should show your head and chest moderately quiet, all the stuff happening below the waist. If you're loading your tips before you initiate (which is common), you may find the turn a lot of work, and you'll be too compact too soon, won't have much left to absorb terrain. 

 

Somebody who actually teaches may want to correct/help out on this. Just my.02.

 

post #10 of 21


A lot adds up here

Quote:
Originally Posted by bttocs View Post

It was 85 deg, blue ski and melting like crazy.

 

The conditions were mashed potato snow and some slush.


wow..EIGHTY FIVE DEGREES!!! eek.gif

 



Quote:
Originally Posted by bttocs View Post

The skis were owned by a friend, and he was on my Ullr's Chariots.

 

He has a size 10 boot and I have a size 12.

 

I should also mention I am 6'4" and 250 lbs.

 

I think if anything I was mounted a little bit back on the ski since I just moved the heel binding to fit my bigger boot.

 

I think part of what I was experiencing is "big guy" on a soft ski, especially in soft lumpy East Coast Crud (mashed potatoes).

 

I think you answered your own question in the bold above. 

 

You need more ski than the Theory...do not make a judgement fore or against early rise on this experience. 
 

 

post #11 of 21
Quote:
Originally Posted by Philpug View Post

You need more ski than the Theory...do not make a judgement fore or against early rise on this experience. 


Are you sure, or is that just your Theory???

 

Sorry, I...I...I couldn't help myself.  devil.gif

 

post #12 of 21
Thread Starter 

Ok, OK, so I exaggerated on the temp, sue me.  I ski based on what the ski, terrain, and conditions demand. Pretty standard for a good skier. What I was describing was when I was trying to ski really fast on blue trails with lots of clumps and irregular terrain. I agree it is mostly the ski and my size. On the same ski and some smooth packed powder, I didn't notice the same behavoir. My buddy (165 lbs) was having a little trouble on a 175 cm atomic theory he was on earlier.

 

 

 

History for Plymouth, NH

Thursday, March 22, 2012 View Current Conditions
 
Thursday, March 22, 2012
« Previous Day JanuaryFebruaryMarchAprilMayJuneJulyAugustSeptemberOctoberNovemberDecember1234567891011121314151617181920212223242526272829303120122011201020092008200720062005  Next Day »
  Actual Average (KLCI) Record (KLCI)
Temperature
Mean Temperature 58 °F -  
Max Temperature 81 °F 43 °F 82 °F (2012)
Min Temperature 35 °F 23 °F 2 °F (1988)

 

post #13 of 21

^^^ I was t K-ton, 83 at the base on Weds. 

post #14 of 21
Quote:
Originally Posted by Skierish View Post

Of course, they're not essential; they just make the experience of skiing soft and deep snow less difficult, less fatiguing, and a hell of a lot more fun.

 

On 2-25, we had 30" of fresh snow at my hill.  I hit it with my fully cambered, 82mm underfoot skis and had an absolute blast...face shots galore and waves of snow flying over my head!  That said, I know the floaty nimbleness of a rockered ski would have made it even more fun.  

 

As to the OP's observation, I had a similar issue.  I demoed a 4FRNT Turbo at 104 underfoot in 175 and 2 days later a 4FRNT Cody at 100 underfoot in 179.  I had to struggle to find low-angle patches of 10-12" of powder for the Turbo day, but on the Cody day, there had been 13" overnight and another 7" throughout the day.

Despite the extra 1-1/2 inch length of the Cody, it had more tip dive than I would've thought and certainly more than the Turbo, despite being longer.  I figured the 4mm waist width wasn't that significant.  Admittedly, there was deeper soft snow for the Cody also, but the Turbo rose up better at low speeds than the Cody at higher speeds.  Like the OP, I also found myself compensating by riding back just a bit, not to any ludicrous degree, of course, but just a wee bit back nonetheless to keep the tips riding mostly at an upward angle. 

 

I lOVED the ski, tho, and I'm on the pre-order list to buy it when it comes out in September.  However, I sensed what Dawg questioned above: it "looked" like the bindings were a bit on the forward side (I didn't measure anything) of things.  The shop guy said it was mounted at the factory recommended point, so I intend to mount it back some when I get it.  I don't wanna mess up the otherwise awesome dynamics of the ski, tho, so I'm wondering if anyone has any suggestions as to a reasonable starting point for how far back to mount them from the factory recommendation...or if I should at all, for that matter. 
 

 


Many of the new-school geared rockered skis I have seen have really forward mounting points. I usually measure up against an Austrian ski in a similar length, and go for that approximate mount point. I was on a pair of Slicers that was at the forward mount point recently: It made the 181cm ski like a 160cm. Not really what I was looking for.  I bumped it back, beyond the recommend rear mount, and it was money. 

 

post #15 of 21
Quote:
Originally Posted by dawgcatching View Post

Many of the new-school geared rockered skis I have seen have really forward mounting points. I usually measure up against an Austrian ski in a similar length, and go for that approximate mount point. I was on a pair of Slicers that was at the forward mount point recently: It made the 181cm ski like a 160cm. Not really what I was looking for.  I bumped it back, beyond the recommend rear mount, and it was money. 

 

Yeah, the thought occurred to me that they may be aimed more toward the new-school, jib crowd.  Mounted almost the same as a full twin, but the tail is just a kicked-up 1/2-twin type.

I've also since realized if they were good to go with my weight tilted just a bit back, having my centered weight over a more rearward mount should rock.

I hadn't thought of laying 'em alongside a more traditionally mounted ski of similar length to help determine that approximate mount point, tho.  

Thanks for the tip, Dawg!
 

 

post #16 of 21


I got the TSTw 165 recently and absolutely love these in the powder. I have mine mounted standard center currently. 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Baldrick View Post

I have TST's 183 length with demo bindings and will be testing different binding positions in a couple of weeks.Reason being I felt as if there was not quite enough in front at the factory setting

 

Will post results.

 



 

post #17 of 21

"Many of the new-school geared rockered skis I have seen have really forward mounting points."

 

Twin tip skis often have two mounting points indicated. If you are skiing them in the park or switch the preferred mounting point is a couple centimeters forward of the uni-directional line.  My wife's Atomic Panics have a regular mount line and an additional forward "team" line.  My Icelantics have a "BC" (boot center) line and a more forward "CC" (cord center) for mounting tele bindings.  Once you enter the world of twin-tip and rockered skis mounting points becomes a new game, so make sure you and whoever mounts your bindings know what line they are looking at.

 

 

post #18 of 21
Thread Starter 

A little follow up on this thread. Dawg had it right when suggesting my technique of pulling up with my toes to turn the Atomic Theory's was needed due to a forward binding mounting position. I took a look at my friends skis again today and sure enough, there are basically three mounting points on this ski. Keep in mind these are twin tips, so there is a "centered" line, a line marked team about an inch or so back and then some small lines and one final large line about 1.5 inches back of the team line. His bindings were mounted for the team line. I think this is for the "freestyle" team meaning it is a more forward mounting line. It makes sense that the last line (most rearward) would be the standard mounting line. Another tidbit that indicates this is my friend was on his son's 175 cm Theory's while I was on his 186 Theory's. He weighs about 165 and was struggling with the 175 cm, in a similar manner that I was not very comfortable with the 185's. Both sets of skis were mounted the same by the same shop. My lighter friend can get away with the forward mount on the longer skis, but I could not at my weight and he could not on the shorter skis.

 

The snow's gone now back East, but I will try his skis again next year after he has the bindings remounted and it will be interesting to see if there is a big difference. I expect to see one.

post #19 of 21

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by rossymcg View Post

Are rockered skis really essential? For years good and great skiers tore up the whole mountain with out rocker, all the sales guys are pushing rocker skis on to folk that can't use a carving ski correctly in the shops I've been in, I've not skied on any rockers and I can't see I ever would unless there's one mega deep dump, I've handled boot deep powder and crud on traditional cambered skis and had a lot of fun, so....... Are they really needed?

 

Essential--of course not. But rocker does make a ski more versatile--skis shorter and more turny on groomed snow, longer with more float in the deep.  Rocker allows a ski to be stiff to handle high speed and still be easy to turn at lower speed. And yes people skied powder before wide, rockered skis, but for the most part they avoided sierra cement, mashed potatoes, (previously) breakable crust, a few inches of powder on top of bumps, and other difficult conditions that are a lot more skiable on wide rockered skis.   And I don't believe the OP was asking for advice on whether rockered skis were better or not--he actually tried them.

post #20 of 21

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by oldgoat View Post

 

 

Essential--of course not. But rocker does make a ski more versatile--skis shorter and more turny on groomed snow, longer with more float in the deep.  Rocker allows a ski to be stiff to handle high speed and still be easy to turn at lower speed. And yes people skied powder before wide, rockered skis, but for the most part they avoided sierra cement, mashed potatoes, (previously) breakable crust, a few inches of powder on top of bumps, and other difficult conditions that are a lot more skiable on wide rockered skis.   And I don't believe the OP was asking for advice on whether rockered skis were better or not--he actually tried them.

 

situation has changed now old goat, treated myself to a set of rockered skis, coreUPT slashers, fully rockered 113mm waist but i wont be using them on groomer days solo for powder

post #21 of 21

Conditions were not ideal for the TST's at WBC early April. No freshies and little crud. The slightly rearward shift did not change anything to speak of. The Magnum 7.6's  156cm were really great so stayed with them mostly for 7 days of great spring skiing

 

Looking forward to our NZ season to play with the TST's some more. It will be interesting to see how much overlap there is between these two very different skis in 3D snow

 

 

 

 

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 › How to ski rockered skis