or Connect
EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › Ski Gear Discussion › Pocket Rocket or Atomic R:EX?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Pocket Rocket or Atomic R:EX?

post #1 of 15
Thread Starter 
I'm narrowed down my choices to the above 2 skis and I'm going to start to look for some deals at the ski sales and swaps that are coming up over the next couple months. I'm a high level intermediate and my main mountain is Whistler. I put in about 50-60 days a season and ski about 80% off piste. I'm a lightweight 145 lbs and ski fairly agressively. Any comments or advice on either of thiese 2 skis would be appreciated. My main ski is the Xscream series, which I find is not quite wide enough when plowing through the open bowls.
post #2 of 15
The question is are you planning to do Super G turns or slalom turns in the wide open bowls? If you are planning on Super G turn go with the R:ex. If you are planning to turn a lot go with the Pocket Rockets.
post #3 of 15
The turn radius of the pocket rocket is a little shorter than the EX but I don't think that is a huge issue. They both have relatively small turning radius for a fat ski. For you I would suggest the pocket rocket due to it's flex. You are relatively light and I think the soft flex of the pocket rocket would be a little better for you. It also has a 90mm waist compared to the 83mm of the EX so it is a little better of a pow ski since you already have the excreams for the harder days. The EX is a little better in the heavy crud but the Pocket rockes is killer in the pow. Just my two cents.
post #4 of 15
For pow get Pocket Rocket, if you get EX you might start leaving your other skis at home like I did.

I would not worry about turn radius too much, EX works great (for me) in Jay Peak glades. Flex and wider waist would be the biggest difference I think for you. I am 190 and love 10EX in all conditions.
post #5 of 15
Thread Starter 
I like to ski the trees as well, so I was a bit worried that the R:ex might be too much to handle in tight spots. I've demo'ed the PR's under hard pack condition and was amazed by how quick and light it was for such a fat ski and how well it could carve on the groomers. I haven't tried the R:ex but have heard nothing good comments about it from people who use it as their day to day ski here at Whistler.

[ September 13, 2002, 09:05 AM: Message edited by: wizard ]
post #6 of 15
So which ski does better in tight tree situations with powder? R:EX or PR?

[ November 07, 2002, 11:30 AM: Message edited by: Mountainman ]
post #7 of 15
post #8 of 15
In the typically lighter snowpack of the rockies the PR is the better choice for powder in tight places(trees), but in the maritime powder at whistler there will be times when the PR will get bounced around by denser powder/crud. The REX can handle higher moisture content snow more reliably. At 145 lbs. don't go longer than 177cm. in the REX unless you ski really fast.
post #9 of 15
As alluded to earlier, they are at differing ends of the spectrum. My 10EX (191) is right up there with the G4 as a fat GS board that rips on the groomed and in difficult conditions. Length is a huge component of how the 10EX/REX skis. The bigger ones are a beast in tight spots. They were born to run in the wide open spaces.

From my experience with the PR, and since you already ride an X-Scream, the PR might be the way to go. The PR has that softer Sollie feel, where a more relaxed technique works best. I would not recommend going with the REX without demoing first. Lots of folks have found out that it was a bit more ski than they were led to believe by the mag reviews.

[ November 09, 2002, 10:58 PM: Message edited by: Bandit Man ]
post #10 of 15
I think Bandit man has the right idea about the fact you should:
"Try'em before you buy'em!"

If not possible, I think the PR may be the better choice, but to demo first is the best choice !
post #11 of 15
Bandit - take a 190-ish 10ex and g4 and do side by side flexing in the store. The g4 is considerably stiffer and likes even longer turns in soft snow. On real hardpack, the difference in carved turn shape is less pronounced, but IMHO, the g4 feels more beefy and more at home (but who would use it for those conditions?). Of course you can skid/pivot either of them around, and in moguls the smaller swing weight (and softer flex) of the 10ex pays off. Personally (ie, at 210 lbs, the other end of the spectrum from Wizard), I find that the 10ex turns almost too fast for me in soft snow.

Tom / PM
post #12 of 15

I wish that I could speak to having my 10EX's in really deep snow last year, but it just never happened. I have heard from others that the sidecut on the 10EX/REX can be a bit much in the truly deep. I can't wait to find out first hand, though. At 170 lbs, my 191 10EX borders on too big at times. I have even contemplated going to the 184 myself, or even to a more forgiving fat board all together.

[ November 11, 2002, 11:55 AM: Message edited by: Bandit Man ]
post #13 of 15
BanditMan - The critical importance of the skier's weight relative to the longitudinal stiffness of the ski is something that *very* few people appreciate (or even think about) when they are recommending a ski to others, and our discussion of this is an excellent example. You (@ 170 lbs) find the 191 10ex borderline long/stiff, and I (at 210) find the 184 borderline short/soft.

This hugely important difference between skis doesn't show up as much on hardpack or in deep consistent powder, but can make the world of difference in inconsistent snow (eg, tracked pow, cut up slop, etc.).

BTW, as I have mentioned in previous posts, in truly soft snow, the sidecut is much less important than the flex and distribution of base area along the length, since you are turning on your bases and not on your edges. In deep consistent pow, wou almost could replace your ski with three square paddles of appropriate sizes (ie, corresponding to the forebody, mid and aft base areas) connected by a spring and hardly notice the difference. [img]smile.gif[/img]

Tom / PM
post #14 of 15
Thread Starter 
Good points about the weight vs flex. In my case I have to be careful about ski recommendations as most skiers tend to be quite a bit heavier than me. What works great for a heavier skier may be a brute of a ski for lighter skier. Luckily for me they do vary the flex based on the length of the ski. The R:ex this year comes in a 168 which is still a stiff ski but softer than the 190. I am definitely going to demo first.
post #15 of 15
: Sorry PhysicsMan I'm gonna have to beg to differ. If you grab a 190ish ski in the Rex and the G4 you will find that they are fairly similar in flex, I would go so far as to say the same. I think a better perspective for you and others would be to flex all of the fatties in the 80 to 90 mm waist width category. Inspired, a noodle. Pocket Rocket, very forgiving. Bandit XXX, also forgiving. Rex and G4? Stout GS machines. I owned the 10ex the first year it came out and I skiid the G4 last year and found them to be very similar. If you add up the differences between shovel and waste, and waste and tail you will find there is a 1mm difference between the two. Turn radius is almost identical, feel under foot is almost identical -although the Rex is lighter. This year I will be riding the 191 Rex. I will agree with you about flex. Smaller skiers need not apply, especially for the longer lengths in either of these skis unless you have unusual physical strength and technical ability. I'm 6'3, 235 and like the feel of a substantial ski under foot. Either of these are the ticket for crud, fluff, or STOP THE RIDE MOMMA WE'RE MOVEN TOO FAST skiing. As for the original question, I would definately recomend the Pocket Rocket. You did say intermediate skier. The Rex could hand you a piece of bitter humble pie where as the PR is a mindless kick in the pants.

English majors need not reply, I can't even spell owe cay.
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 › Pocket Rocket or Atomic R:EX?