or Connect
EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › Ski Gear Discussion › Explosive vrs Pocket Rocket. Help please!
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Explosive vrs Pocket Rocket. Help please!

post #1 of 35
Thread Starter 
Looking to buy a ski for powder, crud etc. Explosives and pocket Rockets both look to be good. Will have to buy them without demoing them in about a 165cms length.

Currently have a pair of G4's that I love but which are too long and need to be replaced. I think I would like something that is a little easier in the deeper snow.

Has anyone tried them both and can give me some pointers?

Thanks
in advance for your help
post #2 of 35
Post edited for mis-information (see following posts below)...

The PR is definitely easy once you find the sweet spot. Many riders mount the bindings a couple of cm back from the centre mark for better off-piste performance but I haven't found this to be necessary.

Haven't ridden the Explosive.

[ March 24, 2003, 09:06 AM: Message edited by: Warren ]
post #3 of 35
I just went through this dilemma this weekend but I had skied the Pocket Rockets this year and the Explosivs a couple year ago (I have been told they are pretty much still the same ski).

I had both in my hands at the 50% sale and had to make a decision. After taking into consideration the important things like which ski's graphics will make me look the most like a fool I had to decide which best fit my skiing.

In my opinion the Explosivs are more stable at high speeds in crud and easy to turn in powder & crud. The Pocket Rockets were even easier to turn and adequately stable for the speeds I go (and I do ski fast). I went with the PRs because I ski mainly at Bridger Bowl which is full of narrow, steep chutes and few opportunities for mach speeds in crud. If I mainly skied a resort like Big Sky with more open spaces I would have gone with the Explosivs.
post #4 of 35
Quote:
Originally posted by Warren:
If you're looking for something a little "easier" than the G4, stay away from the Explosives. It is stiffer and more unforgiving.
What?

I have both of these skis, and have many days on them both. The G4 is stiffer, has a tail that loves to be loaded and springs back, and punishes the lazy. The Explosive is one of the best skis that I have ever skied. It has a huge sweet spot, it is not as stiff, and is so unforgiving, I find myself doing things on it that I have never been able to do on other skis (1080's included). See my review in the pile of reviews in the review area for more.

http://www.epicski.com/cgi-bin/ultim...c;f=7;t=000403

I have also skied the Pocket Rocket. The ski is probably really good in powder, but is not so good on hard pack, bumps and the other stuff that we do encounter on the slopes throughout the day. I can take my Explosives places that I would opt to go get a beer and quit for the day if I owned PRs. The [b]ONLY[/b} thing that the PR's have over the Explosives is weight!
post #5 of 35
Warren:> ...If you're looking for something a little "easier" than the G4, stay away from the Explosives. It is stiffer and more unforgiving...

Warren, you've got things backwards, mate. I own and ski a 190 Explosiv, a 188 G4, and a 184 10ex. I owned the Explosiv for the past 4 seasons, and last season bought the g4 specifically to have something stiffer than either the 10ex or Explosiv. Both are wonderful skis, but its not even a close call about their relative stiffness.

That being said, Twynam's question is very difficult to answer because he didn't give us his weight, and how/where he likes to ski. For all levels of skiers, weight makes all the difference in the world in what ski they should be on, particularly for soft snow skis.

Finally, one last comment to Twynam: Not to sound harsh, but a search on "Explosiv" in this forum turned up 40 hits, and a search on (Pocket or Rocket or PR) turned up 50 hits. If you do the same thing over on powdermag.com, you will undoubtedly turn up two or three times that amount of information.

The PR and Explosiv are probably the two most discussed fat skis in the history of skiing, and there is a huge ammt of information already available on them with just the click of your mouse. If you had done this, you would have immediately learned that there is a huge difference between the PR and Explosiv, and been able to move on from that in your search for more detailed info. By not at least attempting to get the basic info for youself first, before you first ask a question, you are effectively asking others to either rewrite what they have already written, or do your work (ie, searches) for you, and that isn't exactly a great way to come across. I'm sure it was unintentional, but ... Just a suggestion ...

Tom / PM

PS (in edit) - I hadn't seen AltaSkier's post when I was composing this message. His comments are right on the mark. By the way, in the thread he refers to, my detailed comparison of the Explosiv vs the g4 appears right above his review.

[ March 24, 2003, 08:21 AM: Message edited by: PhysicsMan ]
post #6 of 35
Sorry guys - fair enough, my bad. I just saw a topsheet graphic. I confused the Explosive with the Atomic EX.

Still, the PR's are the skis that "help define me as a person".

I think I need to do some more re-evaluating in a couple of weeks and obviously expell the excess gas that's gathered in my grey matter. Brain fart anyone?
post #7 of 35
Warren

Qoute: "Still, the PR's are the skis that "help define me as a person".

Are you saying that your self image is that of " a fat noodle?"

LOL

CalG
post #8 of 35
BAHAHA! CalG you kill me.

When I saw the topsheet of the Explosive with the wizard motif,
I was just thinking about that line in Fight Club: "What kind of dining set defines me as a person?" when I was writing.
post #9 of 35
Only 19 min to go on an E-bay auction for some 165cm Explosiv
Cheap thrills at a $150 bid.

With binders!

CalG
post #10 of 35
Personally, I would go in early for beers if I had the Explosivs. At Bridger you need to scrounge around for the soft stuff after the initial wave of powder skiers have trashed most of the mountain. The soft stuff can be found on the sides of runs, in between trees & bushes..... and requires lots of skiing in tight quarters. The PRs are much easier to turn in tight quarters and at 47 I appreciate the help.
post #11 of 35
Thread Starter 
Thanks guys for your help.

I had looked up the other reviews but none gave me a direct comparison and I am grateful for your comments.

Rio as someone also in the 'prime of life' who wants to use the skis in tight conditions and not often big open bowls (although they hopefuly might get some of that as well)I think the Pocket Rockets might be the goer.
post #12 of 35
Quote:
Originally posted by PhysicsMan:
Warren:> ..Finally, one last comment to Twynam: Not to sound harsh, but a search on "Explosiv" in this forum turned up 40 hits, and a search on (Pocket or Rocket or PR) turned up 50 hits. If you do the same thing over on powdermag.com, you will undoubtedly turn up two or three times that amount of information.

The PR and Explosiv are probably the two most discussed fat skis in the history of skiing, and there is a huge ammt of information already available on them with just the click of your mouse. If you had done this, you would have immediately learned that there is a huge difference between the PR and Explosiv, and been able to move on from that in your search for more detailed info. By not at least attempting to get the basic info for youself first, before you first ask a question, you are effectively asking others to either rewrite what they have already written, or do your work (ie, searches) for you, and that isn't exactly a great way to come across. I'm sure it was unintentional, but ... Just a suggestion ...

Tom / PM
Wow Physicsman, that's just way outta line for you. Anyone who's been around this forum a while (and I know you have) knows that most every question has already been asked in one form or another and if everyone did thorough seaches, this board would be close to D-E-A-D. Has someone really asked for a comparison of an explosiv to a PR?? It's a great question because they're both classic powder skis but for very different reasons. If you and Altaskier understood this, you would most probably have given much less biased review of the skis in question rather than the old "Dodge makes much better trucks than Ford" arguement
post #13 of 35
Explosive. Wider, stiffer (my pref), wooden core (my pref again), holds its own on hardpack.

YA
post #14 of 35
Quote:
Originally posted by Cheap seats:
If you and Altaskier understood this, you would most probably have given much less biased review of the skis in question rather than the old "Dodge makes much better trucks than Ford" arguement
Hey Seats...

What review of mine did you read? Aparently you did not get it. I gave my OPINIONS on the skis, I did in no place state that I was giving FACTS. Big difference. When I skied the PR's, I felt that they did not hold up under MY feet on the hard snow, a place where the Explosives took in stride. You may have had a different experience. Neither ski was designed for hard snow, but one does a better job at it, for me. In no place was this a discussion of Ford v. Dodge, or a Volkl v. Salomon. Funny thing, I think both companys make very good skis, I even own a set from both companys. There were no biases in my review above, cover the topsheets of both, you will get the same review. I even believe that the Pocket Rocket set the standard for fat skis, but again. I'm biased.

Seems that every person that I have ever met who skis Pocket Rockets fights tooth and nail that it is the best ski ever made. I personally don't think it holds up. But I've said it before, and I'll say it again, I LIKE STIFF SKIS. Just because somebody doesn't like a particular piece of equipment doesn't necessarly mean that somebody else won't. Make your own decisions. [img]graemlins/thumbsup.gif[/img]

Now, where is that picture of Calvin peeing on Salomon skis for my JEEP window?
post #15 of 35
Quote:
Originally posted by AltaSkier:
Now, where is that picture of Calvin peeing on Salomon skis for my JEEP window?
Here ya go...

post #16 of 35
I own the PRs and don't think they are the best ski ever made. I think last year's Viper X PPS are the best ski ever made.
post #17 of 35
Hahaha, Warren & Altaskier, thanks for the laugh! I really miss Calvin & Hobbs on lazy sunday mornings.

As for "what review did I read?":
Quote:
Originally posted by AltaSkier:
[b]I can take my Explosives places that I would opt to go get a beer and quit for the day if I owned PRs. The ONLY[/b} thing that the PR's have over the Explosives is weight!
If a ski is making decisions for where you feel comfortable skiing, perhaps you've opted to get a beer and quit for the day quite a lot? Personally, I don't ski PR's because they don't fit my style... but I know a few people that don't seem to have any problem being competent on them, including on eastern hardpack.

I just thought a good pros 'n cons comparison of any 2 skis ever asked about would be nice, but perhaps this forum should be retitled, "BEST SKIS FOR A BADASS SKIER" [img]smile.gif[/img]
post #18 of 35
Yes Cheap, I do let my skis make my decisions for me when I'm skiing. I am by no means a bad ass skier, and spend most of my time in the lodge drinking beer and hitting on middle age women.

Again, the review was only my opinions, and I have been proven wrong.
post #19 of 35
Come on Alta just say it, you know you want to: "The Pocket Rocket blows". Let them fight tooth and nail to defend it.

By the way, I'm not weighing in here on either side, only had one run on groomed with the blue popsicle sticks. Based on that run I'm with Alta but it's hardly a fair assesment.

If you love a ski then say it, if you hated it there's nothing wrong in saying that either.

The last time this happened was with the Saloman Pilot arguments..

After skiing with Alta I would put him in the bad ass skier category by the way....
post #20 of 35
Quote:
Originally posted by AltaSkier:
I am by no means a bad ass skier, and spend most of my time in the lodge drinking beer and hitting on middle age women.
I Too spend most of my time in the lodge drinking beer and hitting on middle age women... Isn't this what skiing is really all about?
post #21 of 35
The good old Pocket Rocket seems to bring out the best in folks! It comes as no surprise that this was the ski to provoke the response of "use the search function...that's why it is there!" I do agree with that comment, though.

Twynam,

You have been given a bunch of good advice, yet much of it is biased by personal preference (I am about to throw mine in). The PR has certainly stirred up the pot over the past couple of seasons. Many hard-core or larger rippers slam the PR for being the "blue noodle" and just way too soft to be considered a big mountain ski. If I were over 200 lbs. and straightlined AK bowls all day (wouldn't that be nice), I would have to agree with the proposed reasoning. The PR is a great back-country, powder and jib/park ski. I bet that it out sells most other 90-mm waisted skis. In my opinion, Salomon did us all a favor by putting out the PR and selling the idea of short, somewhat soft, fat skis for off-piste skiing. I say that if PR is too "weak" for you, step up to a Big Daddy or 195-cm XXX. After all, it is nice to have choices.

I ride a 184 REX as my all-mtn. stick and really like the power and stiff flex most of the time. A few months ago, I bought a 175 PR for powder and back-country jibs. I feared that it would be too soft compared to my REX's. I soon found out that I love the PR in the powder, especially in tight trees. I laughed at how easy and fun they are when used in ideal conditions. In heavy snow and crud, they can get pushed around, as others have mentioned. I only weigh 175 lbs, but in the soft stuff, they straight-line just fine for me! Anyhow, some hate 'em; others have an alternative view. In a 165-cm length, it is a toss up. If you get the PR's and decide they aren't for you, I'm sure some 55-year old lawyer/doctor/executive would love to score a used pair at a reduced price. [img]graemlins/evilgrin.gif[/img]

After a couple of days on the PR's, I was convinced that they were the perfect powder ski. Then I tried a Seth Pistol...and that comes much closer to perfection for me. But then again, Seth must be a p*ssy for skiing such a soft ski! BTW, I now own a pair of these, too.
post #22 of 35
Quote:
Originally posted by Cheap seats:
...Anyone who's been around this forum a while (and I know you have) knows that most every question has already been asked in one form or another and if everyone did thorough seaches, this board would be close to D-E-A-D. ...
I understand what you are saying, and yes, I could have simply decided not to respond to his question. However, my agrument is this:

1) Twynam actually might not have known how just how frequently these two skis have been discussed, so pointing this out (and how to get to this information) is appropriate.

2) If he did realize the huge amount of previous discussion that has taken place, and still asked his question (but not referred to being aware of this info), then I still think a gentle nudge to use the search function is in order (ie, "Not to sound harsh, but ...").

Many people on Epic invest a lot of their own time composing replies to people seeking information. This set of messages forms a tremendous resource for new people looking for such information. Unfortunately, if people keep asking the same questions over and over, without any attempt to see if this information already exists, eventually, the regular "answerers" will slowly burn out from having to say the same thing over and over and their contributions will lessen. I think we already see this happening with some of the previously prolific old-timers on Epic who now only post occasionally.

Quote:
Originally posted by Cheap seats:
...Has someone really asked for a comparison of an explosiv to a PR?? It's a great question because they're both classic powder skis but for very different reasons...
The Explosiv vs PR discussion has come up many times on powdermag.com, but over there, its often clouded by lots of horsing around about lengths of bodily parts, etc.. Personally, I think a direct comparison of these two skis is in the category of "which do you prefer, size 32 or size 36 pants?". Clearly there are both issues of preference, and issues of appropriateness (ie, skier's wt, ability, terrain) involved: Light skiers will probably prefer the PR and size 32 pants, whereas heavier skiers will probably prefer the Explosiv and size 36 pants.

They are both classic powder skis, not so much "for different reasons", but for different folks, different styles, and different terrain.

Quote:
Originally posted by Cheap seats:
...If you and Altaskier understood this, you would most probably have given much less biased review of the skis in question rather than the old "Dodge makes much better trucks than Ford" arguement...
What post of mine are you referring to? I have never skied the PR's, and unless I wrote something while in a stupor one day, I can't remember ever saying a single bad thing about them. The review of my own that I referred to was a comparison of g4's and Explosivs, not PR's and Explosivs. I have also posted a number of times with comments on (or comparisons between) 10ex's and g4's, short and long Explosivs, etc. I haven't tried PR's (or commented on them) because at 210+ lbs, from everything I've read, I doubt they would be a good ski for me, and if I did try them and not like them, my review would be virtually meaningless since they are really designed for lighter folks. That certainly doesn't make them bad in my book.

Tom / PM
post #23 of 35
Thread Starter 
Thanks for sticking up for me guys. For a bit of background, I am one of those middle aged women who likes drinking beer and being chased by middle aged men!

But I also like going out and skiing with these middle aged men and want the best ski that will enable me do this. I have been registered on this site for about 12 months and could not remember this comparison, and I had done a search albeit not on Powder.com.

I would like to thank the people who accepted my question for what it was but I guess the reactions from a couple of people may make me think twice before asking another question.
post #24 of 35
Twynam - I really don't want to ever inhibit anyone from asking questions. God knows, I love answering them. I just hate typing the same thing over and over again.

Thanks for letting us know that you are a woman. If you had said this right at the start of this discussion (and you are anywhere near normal weight), you would have probably seen a lot of folks immediately try to steer you towards the PR's.

In fact, I'm very surprised that you didn't see that there is an overwhelming concensus in favor of Explosivs for heavier folks and PR's for lighter folks when you were doing the searchs you said you did for info on Explosivs and PR's. This is mentioned in almost every discussion of each of these skis. Did you actually browse through any of the messages that you turned up, or did you just look at the thread titles? Titles can be misleading and that could have been your problem.

If it turns out you are a big gal (ie, 170'ish pounds), and you realized from your searches that you were probably right near the cross-over weight, then a great, discussion-provoking question would have been something along the lines of, "I'm a 170 lb advanced skier considering the Explosiv and PR for xyz snow conditions. From the searches that I've done, I realize that the PR will make tighter turns, but I'm not exactly sure what "tight" means, or blah, blah ...".

Anyway, I hope that you finally have your answer, albeit indirectly. Again, I do appologize if I came across as harsh. Because of the vast amount of discussion that has already taken place on each of these skis, and the fact that you made no reference to it, your initial question reminded me of the occasional high school kid who tries to get people on the internet to write his term paper for him instead of going to the library himself. I'm sure if we were having this discussion face-to-face it would have been obvious this wasn't your intent.

Get the PR's and I hope you have loads of fun on them.

Cheers,

Tom / PM
post #25 of 35
As a side note....
I remounted my 185 PRs 4 cm back from the boot center mark.

I should clarify that I have them mounted with free-heel bindings and I mount all my tele gear with boot center over ski center.

I'm 180 lbs. and 6'.

The ski center mark on the PRs is about 4 cm forward of their true ski center. Inspect the narrowest part of the ski in relation to their center mark. The center isn't over their narrowest part. Someone once told me that they are meant to be a forward skiing ski (whatever that means.) What I do know is that I could rip short radius turns with the original mounting position. But they lacked in their stability in steeper terrain because of that. Now that they're 4 cm back from their center mark I feel that they are a better big mountain ski; they're stable, fast and even better in the bumps than before.

Quote:
Thanks for sticking up for me guys. For a bit of background, I am one of those middle aged women who likes drinking beer and being chased by middle aged men!
Are you being chased because you're faster or just fast.
post #26 of 35
Quote:
Originally posted by PhysicsMan:
What post of mine are you referring to? I have never skied the PR's, and unless I wrote something while in a stupor one day, I can't remember ever saying a single bad thing about them. The review of my own that I referred to was a comparison of g4's and Explosivs, not PR's and Explosivs.
Tom / PM
Right. But this topic was entitled: "Explosives vs PR's, pls help"... So I would think the most appropriate answer would come from someone who's skied both skis and are able to make a tangible, discernable comparison between the two. However, it seems many people are comfortable giving advice about skis they've NEVER been on (and I'm not talking about Tom)

Quote:
Originally posted by Physicsman:
For all levels of skiers, weight makes all the difference in the world in what ski they should be on, particularly for soft snow skis.
If I listened to the advice of most people on this forum i'd have ended up on skis 20 cms too short and far too soft for my style of skiing. A light skier will probably be much happier on a longer, stiffer ski if their turn preferance is longer radius turns at faster speeds, whereas a heavy skier can get away with shorter, softer skis if their preferance is more on short radius turns at slower speeds.

Twynam, the best piece of advice I can give is to be very cautious about the advice you receive in this forum - just because it sounds well thought-out and tested, it doesn't mean it's all that applicable to yourself.
post #27 of 35
Quote:
Originally posted by Cheap seats:
...A light skier will probably be much happier on a longer, stiffer ski if their turn preferance is longer radius turns at faster speeds, whereas a heavy skier can get away with shorter, softer skis if their preferance is more on short radius turns at slower speeds...
You won't get any argument from me about that statement.

A preference for high speeds and big turns in open terrain definitely can overcome the correlation between stiffness and weight that I referred to. Don't forget I'm the guy with a 65 lb, 10 y.o. daughter who loves 165 cm Explosivs that are well over her head, "way too stiff" and "way too heavy" by any conventional wisdom. I probably should have said, "For all levels of skiers, weight is the single largest factor in what ski they should be on, particularly for soft snow skis, but between levels, skill, speed, and turn preferences also strongly influence the optimal flex."

Tom / PM
post #28 of 35
Just for the record, I have skied ALL the skis that I have reviewed, complained about, or raved about in this forum.

Another for the record, I am not a middle aged man.
post #29 of 35
I got to try the 185 PRs for a run while cat-skiing in BC in January. I was on my 2000 188 XXXs the whole 3 days except for the 1 PR run. I could ski'd the whole day on 'em but 1 run was enough. I was not impressed. They were way softer and didn't perform nearly as well in the trees with boot-top powder conditions. Don't know if I'd call 'em noodles.......well actually yes, I did refer to 'em as noodles. Every Salomon I've tried in the last 3 years has been a noodle. What are they doin' over there?
post #30 of 35
Thread Starter 
Guys, I just want to thank everyone who gave me help with this decision. I have just had a great time on my new, wait for it, .................................................. ...........Pocket rockets! Spent the last two days skiing on about 20cms of new snow, most in the backcountry and these were the best fun skis I have ever been on! The snow quality was a little variable albeit pretty good for the snow we get here, and they were fun.

Thanks for you help in my decision.
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 › Explosive vrs Pocket Rocket. Help please!