EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › Member Gear Reviews › Rocker 2 -- AKA Rocker 2 122 (w/ minor Bonafide comparison)
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Rocker 2 -- AKA Rocker 2 122 (w/ minor Bonafide comparison)

post #1 of 3
Thread Starter 

Product: Rocker 2 (2011), same as Rocker 2 122 but with slightly different graphics

Length Tested: 180cm

Dimensions/Turn Radius: 139 - 115 - 129, 20.3 m radius

Camber: Rocker - Camber - Rocker

Binding: Marker Barons, small, 2013

Mount point: +35 (as marked) close to mid-way between "progressive" and "free-ride" lines.


Environment & Conditions:

Location of Test: Davos, Switzerland-- Parsenn and Jakobshorn

Number of Runs: 2 days

Snow Conditions: Crud, re-freeze, boot-top powder both fresh and skied out

Demo or Own: Own


Tester Info:

Age: 30

Height/Weight: 5' 10", 135 lbs as I entered the world.

Ski Days/Season: Variable, 15+

Years Skiing: 25

Aggressiveness: Aggressive, fast, enjoys popping off natural jumps

Current Quiver: Blizzard Bonafide @ 180cm w/ Marker Griffons

Home Area: Tirol (mainly Hochzillertal/Fugen)

Preferred Terrain : Off-piste, trees, powder


Background: I've been skiing on 180cm Bones the past season, and they've treated me super well in the variable conditions we get in Tirol, Austria (and even the ultra-firm, wind-blown fells in Finland I took them out on a few days). They're great for in-the-fall-line charging, and provide a super stable/speedlimitless platform for railing turns and landing small kickers. Since I try my best to never ski groomers, and given the wide-open terrain, I've never yearned for anything narrower. But there have been times when I wanted something more playful (at my weight), slarvy, and pivotable in tight trees and deeper pow. The Bones ski fine in any depth that I've taken them in (including an epic 3' dump, totally fresh and unskied lines), but they simply want to charge, and require a locked-in, aggressive, well-controlled technique for someone my weight in deeper conditions, particularly if there's a breakable crust or a few inches over that kind of thing. And for me they proper work in properly tight, steep trees. That's also because I chose the 180 length with the intent in mind that these would be the chargers given the terrain here.


So the Rocker 2 was chosen as a pow-day plaything, with a bias towards trees and tight places. I debated between the 180 length (which is actually 115 in the waist, unlike the moniker implies in the recent "122" name) and the 184 length which is the full 122 waist. Ultimately, I decided that given my weight-- and good balance (I was a competitive gymnast as a youth)-- the 115 waist would float me more than adequately, the swing weight and general weight would be kept down, and I already have the Bones for any serious, locked-in charging (really, in any depth snow). Oh, and I want to take them to Gulmarg later this year, visa pending...


I had three days in Davos in mid December to try them out. The first day I was out on my Bones, and the next two days I was out on the Rocker 2s. For those not familiar with the ski, it's got a pretty significant rocker in tips and tails, and a good amount of taper in a 5-point design, but not as aggressive as the Armada JJ, with progressively stiffer flex from tips (pretty soft) to under the boot (stiff enough). Actual running edge is VERY short on a flat surface, but the length of the ski can engage in soft snow/on edge except in fully hard conditions. I was debating between these skis, DPS 112 hybrids, and 183cm Bent Chetlers. Here are my early thoughts...


Skied these as they came from the factory (neither sharpened nor checked side/base bevels, nor for a flat base; didn't hot wax them), but with a slight detune down to the tapered part of tips and tails. There's actually NO edge in much of the tips.


Piste: The effective edge is very short, and it shows. There is a slight camber, and these can be skied on relatively hard pistes fine-- but why do that? I never felt out of control, but I spent very little time on the pistes, and the skis definitely chattered if I tried to really lock the edges in for a medium length turn. At around their natural side-cut radius, if up on edge, they can lay down tracks. I think the tips probably bounced, but I don't look at my tips so I don't know. I definitely didn't feel the chatter, which is all I care about. And I never got them up to full speed charging on the pistes like I have with my Bones... I bet they have a real speed limit here. What I will note is that when I hit a few really small natural kickers with hard/piste landings-- the landings felt squirrelly, like the skis wanted to move in any direction possible that wasn't under me, notably out to the sides. By contrast, the Bones on these conditions lock in and rail. I have not found a speedlimit on the Bones, and once the edges are set at a high angle (tune: 1 base, 3 side bevel) I feel supremely confident. Also, hard-surface landings on the Bones are super stable. Bottom line: The Rocker 2 manages on the piste, but it just isn't that fun, so I wouldn't bother. Put two inches of fresh snow, ungroomed, over the piste and the Rocker 2s though are fantastic though, skimming and surfy.



Crud/re-freeze: This surprised me a bit, because the camber and quick pivoting made crud much more manageable than I would have expected when I used the proto-bumps/surface to pick a smart line over and through. But it was definitely not in a charging manner. And the transition at speed from fresh powder to harder, cut up stuff was definitely jarring and a bit unsettling, particularly when crossing other lines or traverse routes. I recall one particular natural kicker I took at speed, where the landing was into fresh, followed by unexpectedly hard, cut-up that I charged right over. There was a disheartening moment of, "Oh crap, I'm gonna lose it." I didn't, and I rode right over it, but it bounced me around and it didn't feel good. In softer crud, the skies felt great-- surfing over lines at full speed, or making lots of turns. The Bones are totally different in this regard: While the rockers were fine for lots of turns across the fall line in crud, the Bones felt too grabby/planky for that kind of approach, and unsettled. The Bones, however, would crush right through the hard crud if I pointed them down the fall line in big radius turns, treating the crud as piste. Bottom line: Steep crud is fine on both skis, but the Rockers want to make lots of turns to avoid chatter, and feel surfy enough that they don't feel hooky and likely to catch an edge; the Bones lock in too much for this type of approach on this stuff (inspiring a lack of confidence), whereas if you just point them down and charge a full speed they crush right through (inspiring full confidence). Funny how the same skier can feel like he needs to take totally opposite approaches to feel confident in the same types of conditions on two skis. 


Powder: OK-- this is what these skis are for! Holy crap. Fun. Fun. Fun. That's the best way to describe it. It took me half a day to really dial in the feel coming from the Bones to the Rocker 2s, but once I did a stupid grin spread across my face. Actually, the first couple runs made me worried I'd may a mistake in size or type of ski-- where the Bones like a neutral stance, it turns out I CAN work the tips at speed. Well, the Rocker 2 doesn't like that approach at all, and the sweet spot stance-wise is definitely much smaller and even more upright. And while there's a good amount of rocker in the tails, the mount point is so far forward that after realizing I couldn't punch the tips I ended up riding too far in the backseat... and the substantial tail length made itself known. Didn't feel good. But, like I said, once I dialed in the stance, I felt a bit superman-ish on these skis in soft powder. They float incredibly well, they're surfy, and they are super, super forgiving for any turn size and any amount of railing vs slarving in the soft stuff. The base coverage in the snow wasn't very good, but we had 6 inches to knee-height fresh powder and while my buddies were hitting rocks in places (woman on a 69mm waist ski, not sure how she manages to stay with us; guy on Cochise) I was skimming right up over them-- skiing by far the fastest of the bunch, and the most confident in being able to make immediate turn-shape changes, respond to extremely variable terrain (lots of divots, small streams, natural bumps, boulders to avoid/jib off of), and shut down all that speed in an instant. It's hard to describe the feeling of a proper, held, slarve at full speed in soft powder to anyone who hasn't felt it; I definitely hadn't quite felt it before. It's definitely magic. And it let me move through the trees with so much more speed because I could throw the skis sideways without even thinking, drop speed and then return to straight in a single surfy move, and bounce off small pillows and other features without worrying about the tightness of the space. Unlike on hard surfaces, landing in powder is a dream-- they keep me up, stay right underfoot, and are ready to either straight line afterwards or pivot and slarve.


Conclusion: The Rocker 2 is definitely a totally different ski than the Bones, as expected. For someone lightweight like me, the two make for a super 2-ski quiver, particularly at the sizes I chose. The Bones are fine for any piste, and any off-piste charging and locked-in turns. And don't get me wrong, they are super playful given their dimensions/build/metal. But they're a lot more work in super tight spaces. The Rocker 2, however, is just not very fun on piste, and not nearly as versatile. But in powder they are so much more fun and playful than anything I've been on. They slow me down a bit on big, steep, open, cruddy bowls, but speed me up in soft powder and steep/tight trees or other spaces (even open ones). They also-- because of their floatiness and surfiness-- turn even 2 inches of powder into feeling like a foot of it, even on piste. But then the Bones eat up that kind of thing too. In retrospect, I could definitely have gone with the 184 length at the full 122 underfoot, but I never felt like I needed any more float or stability, and given my weight and ownership of longer/stiffer Bones (relative to effective edge and range of offered sizes)... I'd re-buy the 180 length at 115 underfoot if I could do it all over again. That said, if I could re-do the purchase of the Bones, I'd probably consider the same length Kabookie if it really doesn't give up the stability I've come to trust (sometimes with my life, I guess), while making them a bit more playful in tighter spots. 


I'll ski the Bones when I have to; I'll ski the Rocker 2s every chance I can get.

post #2 of 3
Thread Starter 

If anyone is interested, the following is a (too long, and definitely boring for a general viewer... or my gf, or family, or my friends) mostly POV video of all three days on both sets of skis. I repeat, it's shaky footage, runs way too long to be interesting, and shot not to compare the skis but for me and my two buddies so we have something to look back at. So skip this if it makes you sick, or you have a hatred of extremely mediocre POV footage.


But hell, I'll offer it up so anyone interested can glean what they will from it-- whether that relates to how the two skis ski, or how BS my abilities are in order to judge the judge's opinions. The first couple minutes are on the Bones, the last couple minutes are on the Rocker 2s. Also, the dog wasn't mine, and I didn't realize it was chasing me until it passed me... and I thought I was about to be attacked by a wolf. Kick ass dog. And the only solid fall I had all day was from standing still, one ski sliding out to the side, and then... well...


post #3 of 3
Thread Starter 

Update: Gulmarg skiing/touring; Austria deep pow days and touring


Now that I have over 10 days on these skis, I'm in a better position to give a more rounded update. Since the previous review, I spent a week at Gulmarg skiing 2000m vertical runs in bottomless perfect powder, in thick chalky crust over powder, in trees; I've also had these out on bonafide powder days in Austria on fresh and cut up lines, as well as tours. 


And I'm only liking them more. I've never felt more confident on crusty snow as I did on one of my early runs from the top of Mount Apharwat-- over 13,000 feet, the last couple hundred we skinned over-- where the top 1/3 was heavily wind affected, chalky crust. The stuff one needs to stay perfectly balanced on, make sure the tips follow the tails, and ski technically well to avoid getting caught and tossed. I could tell I was cutting into the crust, but was stable enough to power right through/over it, and even hit a few kickers. On my Bones I think I would have had a harder time figuring out the fore-aft balance as the snow catchiness/drag changed-- but on the R2 I stayed centered and was able to work really effectively from the feet. 


On the deep fluffy stuff, and in the trees, well... kinda like magic. The faster I go, the more stable they feel. Not unlike the Bones are over harder tracked crud that results from 2 feet of pow getting skied and then refrozen. 


Over soft tracked I thought these would deflect and bounce too much, but I had none of that. 


What I'm coming to realize is that I think I'll end up skiing these FAR more often than my Bones (and/or I may try to sell my Bones for a Kabuki or something similar). They let me hunt for pow in tighter corners, and I think I ski more safely* on them-- because I'm more apt to ski "fun" as opposed to just pointing down and going as fast as possible.


*I'm probably less likely to end up in a fatal crash on the r2, but more likely to end up with small injuries-- because they inspire lots of jibbiness, popping off natural features, and generally bouncing down/over/through stuff that would otherwise be forbidding.


I think this might just be an underrated ski for the lighter folks out there. The 180 length is actually 115 underfoot, not 122, making these skis handle the groomed much more elegantly than one would expect, even over small afternoon bumps. And yet a light weight skier will need no more float than these provide for any depth snow, while these aren't anywhere as noodly or "funshaped" as a JJ, meaning we can rip on them. With a tiny bit of powder-- even a few inches-- they're surfy and fun and can rip big radius on piste without chattering. Yes, they chatter over ice if you really dig in when on old/hard pistes. And they're nowhere near as bomber as the Bones are shooting over the powder from previous days that has been skied with big ruts and then re-frozen hard. 

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Member Gear Reviews
EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › Member Gear Reviews › Rocker 2 -- AKA Rocker 2 122 (w/ minor Bonafide comparison)