EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › Ski Gear Discussion › Head Rock'n'Roll 95 vs. Head Venturi 95
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Head Rock'n'Roll 95 vs. Head Venturi 95

post #1 of 21
Thread Starter 

Hi everyone.

Searching for a 50/50 ski to handle soft groomers and not-so-deep days off piste, I ran into some good deals on 2013 Head Rock’n’Rolls 94 (180) and 2014 Head Venturis 95 (181 or 191). I am a strong intermediate to early advanced, 6’1/175.

The RNR got a lot of praise on Epic and some other web sites. I know that the Venturi is a direct descendant of the RNR in the Head powder lineage, but it seems that Head made some tweaks to an otherwise excellent design to make it ski differently.

I would pull the trigger on the RNRs, but need to know first if I would be missing a better all-around tool for the job.  If anyone got to try the two skis back-to-back, I would appreciate any feedback.

post #2 of 21

I have not been on either of those skis but I heard great things about the Venturi during ski testing.  Hopefully this bump will get some activity for you. 

post #3 of 21
At your weight, either will work. The RnR was a very good ski that was graphically impaired.
Edited by markojp - 11/1/14 at 9:27am
post #4 of 21

I have not skied the RocknRolls, but I've demoed the Venturi 95.  Nice ski.  I'm 5'9.5" & 180# to 185# advanced level and demoed the Venturi 95 in a 181cm.  For an upper intermediate / early advanced skier of average build (body type) who is skiing fresh snow, these skis are a nice choice.

 

I'm definitely favoring the 181 over the 191 for the OP.  When I demoed the Venturi 95, I ended up having the Head rep move the binding back about 1.5 to 3 cm and I liked the ski much better that way (I'm a uni-directional skier).  The Head rep told me of a really good skier that has the RocknRolls and moved his binding back a few cm.  So if the OP is also a uni-directional skier (does not ski switch or rails), then he may want to consider moving his bindings back a bit when he has them mounted.  (Don't have a recommendation for exactly how far back the OP should go.)

post #5 of 21

I demoed the 191 Venturi in late July on firm(ish) groomers with some softening snow on the lower slopes.  I was impressed (I'm 6'4" and 210).  I own the old Mojo 94 in 187 (a forebear to the RnR, with metal in the layup and without any early rise) and have read good things about the RnR; most people love it, although the topsheet design gets a mention in every review.  Compared with the Mojo, which is a relatively heavy ski, the Venturi has really gone on a diet to remove weight - especially from the tip / tail. I was surprised to see it was a 191cm ski when I handed it back, as it felt a bit shorter than that.  

 

For your stated purpose I don't think you can make a bad choice with any of the skis you mention, just as long as you're ok with the topsheet graphics on the RnR.

 

Here are my notes from the demo.

 

Head Venturi – 140-95-126 in 191cm with a radius of 18m

 

This is a twin tip with traditional camber underfoot (60% of the ski) and early rise in both tip and tail (the remaining 40%).  The layup is wood core + fibreglass in a sandwich cap construction.  There’s no metal in the ski, but there are dampening layers of rubber throughout.  All models in the range feature Head’s TTS (Tip and Tail Stabiliser System) which is a distinctively patterned plastic inlay with an exoskeleton of raised ridges designed to control twisting and flapping at the tips without the ski needing to be too thick or too heavy at the extremities.  TTS also continues the use of rubber to dampen vibration and calm down the tip flap that many early rise and rockered skis can suffer.  The TTS ridges, in conjunction with the topsheet design, give the ski a distinctive art deco look.  For a relatively large ski these were lighter than expected, both in hand and on your feet.  TTS has to go a long way towards explaining this lightness.

 

Backcountry.com says “The first thing you, and everyone else, will notice when checking out the Head Venturi 95 Ski is the space-age-looking plastic thingy at the tip and tail. If you want to drop some knowledge on the clowns that are giving you a hard time for skiing on kitchen utensils, tell them it's an elastomeric stabilizing inlay with a glass fibre exoskeleton, designed to dampen the vibration found in rockered tips and tails while increasing torsional strength and reducing swing weight. If you want them to understand what that means, sit them down and have them watch while you rip the headwall of the off-the-summit groomer, duck into the trees and surf through your favourite powder stash, and poke out a steezy spin over the cat track at the bottom of the hill.”

 

Without poking around any further I expect this is an evolution of the old Head Rock and Roll – a great ski let down a little by some love-it-or-hate-it topsheet graphics.  The Venturi is the narrowest model in its range, and is designed to take the rockered, surfy look back down a notch in terms of waist width, delivering an all-round ski that is at home both on and off piste.

 

On the slopes it feels lightweight and flexible, without in any way being a noodle.  There’s a solid feel underfoot, providing a measure of stability and confidence, and at no stage did I feel any lack of support from the tail.  It’s a big looking ski, but it doesn’t feel all that large when skiing.  It’s also quite a damp ski, which is a marvel given the relatively light weight and with no metal in the construction – the TTS stuff must work.  

 

On the two runs I took on them I wasn't trying to drive them overly hard - that's not how I ski.  I suspect someone who really powers up a ski might find they need something a bit stiffer.

 

This is a wideish ski that carves well.  More of a versatile, do-everything, 50:50 ski than a softer snow specialist.  They’d be a great ski for overseas trips where you just have to deal with whatever conditions nature throws at you.  They’d also work well as a wider ski for local conditions.  The rep quoted me 191cm for this one, but it didn’t look or feel that big.  Perhaps it was the twin tip / early rise at both ends giving a shorter running length, in combination with the light weight extremities, but it felt more like a mid-180s ski. 

 

TWS (three word summary) – “wonderfully art deco”


Edited by sinbad7 - 11/3/14 at 3:03am
post #6 of 21
Thread Starter 

Well, thank you everyone. Seems like I cannot go wrong with either of the two models.

post #7 of 21

The turn radius changed a little.  The RnR has a 19.5m radius in 180, whereas the Venturi has a 16m radius in 181.  For my use for this ski, I'd prefer the longer one, which conveniently also happens to be the one I own. :)

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

The turn radius changed a little.  The RnR has a 19.5m radius in 180, whereas the Venturi has a 16m radius in 181.  For my use for this ski, I'd prefer the longer one, which conveniently also happens to be the one I own. :)

How realistic are these numbers?  I am under the impression that length, width, and turning radius are "guesstimates" that may be liberally interpreted at times in order to give the impression that a ski fits a particular niche, or that a ski has changed to reflect a model or year change.  Any thoughts?

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

How realistic are these numbers?  I am under the impression that length, width, and turning radius are "guesstimates" that may be liberally interpreted at times in order to give the impression that a ski fits a particular niche, or that a ski has changed to reflect a model or year change.  Any thoughts?

 

One of the shop guys who gets on tons of skis would probably have a better sense for this than I do.  I've just got 6 pairs of Head skis and find that the ones labeled with the bigger numbers like to make bigger turns.  I wouldn't notice if the 16m radius skis are really 17m, but can say they all feel like what you'd expect if the numbers were accurate.  My skis are all more or less conventional designs, though.  Maybe the trendier stuff is more subject to the whims of the folks in marketing.

post #10 of 21
Thread Starter 

Once again, thanks for all the advice. Pulled the trigger on 2012 RnRs (probably the last brand new pair left in the world).

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

Once again, thanks for all the advice. Pulled the trigger on 2012 RnRs (probably the last brand new pair left in the world).

 

Not the last, but you might be close.  Found a new pair myself a few days ago.

post #12 of 21

Getting pretty close to picking up a pair of the 191cm Venturi 95.  Already own the 191cm Head Boneshaker 125 and Inferno 104.  Would mount flat with some salomon STH16 steel's.  I'm thinking that I've got tons of big radius skis, nothing really that's under 22m.  I'd like something that can be bent into medium-short carved turns in variable snow, nothing in my current quiver can really be skied like that.

post #13 of 21
Quote:
Originally Posted by Highway Star View Post
 

Getting pretty close to picking up a pair of the 191cm Venturi 95.  Already own the 191cm Head Boneshaker 125 and Inferno 104.  Would mount flat with some salomon STH16 steel's.  I'm thinking that I've got tons of big radius skis, nothing really that's under 22m.  I'd like something that can be bent into medium-short carved turns in variable snow, nothing in my current quiver can really be skied like that.

 Highway Star, sorry for the slight thread divergence...how do you like the Boneshakers?  I just picked up a pair, I thought they'd make a nice matching set with the Kiss of Death that I already own :eek

 

If nothing else they look scary in the garage and will probably frighten and confuse other skiers on the lift....

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

 Highway Star, sorry for the slight thread divergence...how do you like the Boneshakers?  I just picked up a pair, I thought they'd make a nice matching set with the Kiss of Death that I already own :eek

 

If nothing else they look scary in the garage and will probably frighten and confuse other skiers on the lift....

 

Nice!   I think they are great.  Got them about two years ago on the L9 deal for $199, I'm assuming you got them on the current ebay deal for $149?  Mine are mounted -1.5cm from the freeride line but I ski a 293mm boot sole full tilt, so my tibia is normally a bit further forward than someone with a bigger foot.  FKS bindings.  I find they are quick enough in tight trees, but very fast and stable due to the mild amount of rocker and full graphite sintered racing base.  Float pretty well.  They really like charging down something steep at 50mph, but always feel controllable.  Durable and well built.

post #15 of 21

Yup.  Except I'm in Canada so that's $200 Canadian Pesos even though the skis are in Canada (prices are listed in USD then converted).  Still, cheap enough that I'm not fretting about it.  The mild amount of rocker is what interests me most.  After a few attempts with funny looking banana shaped skis I'm not so keen on having a big plow up front (old S7 style) or a tail designed for going backwards in pow.  If I'm going backwards then something has gone horribly wrong....

post #16 of 21

Just ordered the 2014 191cm Head Venturi 95 from levelnine, they have them on sale for $242.10 through tomorrow. All 2015 and older Head is 10% off their normal prices.  Get the order up to $250 for free shipping.  Will report back when I get them.


Edited by Highway Star - 10/12/15 at 5:09am
post #17 of 21

My 191cm Venturi 95's came in.  Pretty similar to the inferno, but a bit lighter, softer, and clearly more sidecut.  I can't decide between mounting some STH16 Steels, Look ZR18's or buying some Tyrolia Attack 16's (lightest option and what the ski was presumably designed for). 

post #18 of 21

I have the Attaack's on two pair of skis and couldn't like them more. Probably my favorite ski binding ever. They are probably cheaper than the other two also. I don't think you could go wrong with these.

post #19 of 21

I have Tyrolia Attacks mounted on my Head Collective 105s.  LOVE 'EM.  Highly recommend.

 

EDIT: Those freeride Head skis are very sensitive to fore/aft binding position.  Might want to consider demo bindings to adjust.  I *think* the recommended mount point is too far forward IMHO, leaving A LOT of tail back there.  If no demo bindings, might wanna go back -1 or -2 on a 191 length.

post #20 of 21
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gunnerbob View Post

 

EDIT: Those freeride Head skis are very sensitive to fore/aft binding position.  Might want to consider demo bindings to adjust.  I *think* the recommended mount point is too far forward IMHO, leaving A LOT of tail back there.  If no demo bindings, might wanna go back -1 or -2 on a 191 length.

 

Yeah no kidding, my infernos are currently mounted -2cm from the farthest back line on the venturi's.  My Boneshakers are -0.5cm from that.

post #21 of 21
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gunnerbob View Post
 

I have Tyrolia Attacks mounted on my Head Collective 105s.  LOVE 'EM.  Highly recommend.

 

EDIT: Those freeride Head skis are very sensitive to fore/aft binding position.  Might want to consider demo bindings to adjust.  I *think* the recommended mount point is too far forward IMHO, leaving A LOT of tail back there.  If no demo bindings, might wanna go back -1 or -2 on a 191 length.

 

Hi

 

Don't mean to hijack the thread but what are your thoughts on the Collective 105's ? I have the Tyrolia Attacks on my Kastle BMX 98s and love them too. best binding I have ever used.

 

thanks

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 › Head Rock'n'Roll 95 vs. Head Venturi 95