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.

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?

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. 
 

 

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!
 

 

^^^^ 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.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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!
 

 

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

 

 

"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.

 

 

 

 

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

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