EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › Ski Gear Discussion › seeking smaller, rocker or early rise ski
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

seeking smaller, rocker or early rise ski

post #1 of 16
Thread Starter 
I am about 164 cm, and a "big" guy.  I have 156 im monster 72, which sometimes seem too small and definitely not wide enough.  Also have 168 elan 888's, and these tire me out, carve good, but want to go straightline too much.  My area does not have much demos, but have had a chance to ski 2 Icelantics.  A danolle, which I hated, and the oracle which I liked better than my elan.  Seemed to be easier to turn.  Not sure if the model I tried was a 165 or a 175 tho.

So I think I want a ski that has a smaller turn radius, and is a rocker or at least early rise, and is no bigger than a 175 (and only it is rockered, or early rise).  And say 90 - 115 underfoot.  What are my options? 
post #2 of 16
Rossi S7 is rocker tip and tail, camber underfoot and 110mm in a 176. The 176 skis about like a 160 so should be about right.

SJ
post #3 of 16
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by SierraJim View Post

Rossi S7 is rocker tip and tail, camber underfoot and 110mm in a 176. The 176 skis about like a 160 so should be about right.

SJ
 

Thanks Jim.
Anybody have any other suggestions??  I know at least the keeper by Icelantic might fit.  No volkl's or fischer's or ??? that are rockered, dont have a huge turn radius and would be in my size??
post #4 of 16
 The K2 Seth's I forget what they are called now (ObSethed?) are pretty much what you are asking for. I skied them in the 190 and 180 and they kicked ass. They basically only have a little bit of rocker but it would definitely be all you need to charge in pow. They were probably about 100-110 underfoot and definitely had normal camber underfoot. 

When I tried them it was mainly on groomers and I was surprised how well they skied. As a comparison I was skiing on the hellbents which are a wider, softer and more rockered version and they felt like I was sliding around on 150's! The Seths however were surprisingly good turners and felt like I was getting the full length of the ski out of them. Unfortunately I did not get to try them in pow/crud but you can tell just by the shape and flex that they are going to kill it in that stuff. Only downside was the weight and graphics. Really the weight doesn't matter THAT much in this type of ski. 
post #5 of 16
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by lluttrell View Post

 The K2 Seth's I forget what they are called now (ObSethed?) are pretty much what you are asking for. I skied them in the 190 and 180 and they kicked ass. They basically only have a little bit of rocker but it would definitely be all you need to charge in pow. They were probably about 100-110 underfoot and definitely had normal camber underfoot. 

When I tried them it was mainly on groomers and I was surprised how well they skied. As a comparison I was skiing on the hellbents which are a wider, softer and more rockered version and they felt like I was sliding around on 150's! The Seths however were surprisingly good turners and felt like I was getting the full length of the ski out of them. Unfortunately I did not get to try them in pow/crud but you can tell just by the shape and flex that they are going to kill it in that stuff. Only downside was the weight and graphics. Really the weight doesn't matter THAT much in this type of ski. 
 


Hi, thanks llutrel.
They look like they might have a bigger turn radius than what I am looking for.  They look similiar to my 888's, but wider.
post #6 of 16
Scott P4
http://www.scottusa.com/us_en/product/7734/41959/p4
i believe these are early rise and cambered underfoot
171 has a radius of 19, 106 underfoot.
I run a 181 and love them in tahoe so far. Fast and burly. My riding has progressed A LOT since I got these. 
post #7 of 16
2011 Scott Dozer or Mega Dozer
Volkl Gotama
Rossignol S3 or S7 (SJ already mentioned this one)

You mention being a 'big guy', but you seem to prefer very short skis, I assume you value extreme quickness and turning ease to stability... is this correct?
post #8 of 16
 176 Katana? my 183cm ski shorter than my 165 SL skis......
post #9 of 16
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Whiteroom View Post

2011 Scott Dozer or Mega Dozer
Volkl Gotama
Rossignol S3 or S7 (SJ already mentioned this one)

You mention being a 'big guy', but you seem to prefer very short skis, I assume you value extreme quickness and turning ease to stability... is this correct?
 

Absolutely!    I own a elan 888 168 (like I said I am about 164 cm) and it skis kind of "big".  The 156 k2 is too small. And too narrow in the waist, but I have found it doesnt tire me out like the 888 does.  Definitely want something that is easy to turn, and I dont ski very fast so "skiing at speed" is not a issue. I dont have a chance to demo skis much, but demo'ed a icelantic oracle which was nicer than my elan 888.  But there wasnt a shaman, keeper, or pilgram available to try.  Nor are their volkl or rossignals to demo.  None of my skis were demod before I bought them, and frankly if I paid the $40 a pair to try skis from the local shop... well I wouldn't even have a chance because they dont have anything for someone 164 cm tall, all their rocker demos are for people 6 feet tall or taller.
post #10 of 16

"Scott P4
http://www.scottusa.com/us_en/product/7734/41959/p4
i believe these are early rise and cambered underfoot "

 

the scott p4 is a good ski, but very traditional and quite stiff - a good ski. it has no early rise in the tip. scott billed it as such, but it's misleading at best to say the tip is early rise.

post #11 of 16
Quote:
Originally Posted by powderturns View Post

"Scott P4
http://www.scottusa.com/us_en/product/7734/41959/p4

i believe these are early rise and cambered underfoot th_dunno-1%5B1%5D.gif"

the scott p4 is a good ski, but very traditional and quite stiff - a good ski. it has no early rise in the tip. scott billed it as such, but it's misleading at best to say the tip is early rise.

I believe this thread is 2 years old. Great first post.
post #12 of 16

thanks.  considering the lack of information generally about this ski, I wanted to do everything I could to help.

post #13 of 16

Research the Coax. I skied it on steep deep crud at Alta and groomed at Snowbasinlast week. This ski holds and edge and carves like an 88 and is very quick edge to edge. 105 under foot early rise,  camber under foot with no rise in the tail. No metal with a even flex.

Nice in the bumps. Did not get in the trees. Go 183. I skied the 174 which was WAY easy to turn quick. I have it if interested.

post #14 of 16
Quote:
Originally Posted by gmartini View Post

Research the Coax. I skied it on steep deep crud at Alta and groomed at Snowbasinlast week. This ski holds and edge and carves like an 88 and is very quick edge to edge. 105 under foot early rise,  camber under foot with no rise in the tail. No metal with a even flex.

Nice in the bumps. Did not get in the trees. Go 183. I skied the 174 which was WAY easy to turn quick. I have it if interested.


You should research how old this thread is.

 

post #15 of 16

we're trying to have a serious conversation here.

post #16 of 16

A serious conversation about what?

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 › seeking smaller, rocker or early rise ski