or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Rocker in the Bumps?

post #1 of 13
Thread Starter 
The pros and cons of rocker for powder, crud,and hard pack have been discussed ad infinitum in many other threads, but I would like to know your experiences and thoughts on skiing bumps of all kinds with tip and full rocker.  In my mind, regardless of where you like to ski, a true all-mountain ski needs to be bump proficient.

I can see rocking the deep stuff, but for a day that will include a substantial number of bump runs on harder snow, what would I be gaining or losing if I go to an every day ski with rocker?
post #2 of 13
 Most rockered skis are huge. Huge skis are not great for bumps. That said, my first demo of the S7 was on rock hard icy bumps and they were way less unskiable than I expected (how's that for an endorsement!). Now owning the S7 and Katana, I'd say that they are not much better or worse than cambered skis of their size. If they were totally hopeless, that would be a deal breaker for me as I always have to ski bumps to get to and from the pow and other untracked snow. I would not choose to ski them if I planned on skiing hard bumps all day though. No thanks. I'd run my MX78s.
post #3 of 13
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by epic View Post

 Most rockered skis are huge.

 
Yes, but the trend definitely has rocker creeping down to narrower and narrower skis, as the "all-mountain" skis seem to be getting fatter and fatter.  So, assuming you have a fat powder specific ski, does it make sense to have a little rocker in your every day drivers?
post #4 of 13
 I will have some rocker in my narrower ski next year. I still don't think I'll want it every day. I guess it depends on what your daily driver is driving on.
post #5 of 13
The s7 on 4 inches of pow in the bumps is some of the most fun bump skiing I've experienced this season.... K2 Obsethed in a close second.  When there is no pow on the bumps you won't see me even think about using those ski's in them.
post #6 of 13
 Bumpfreaq to the white courtesy phone...
post #7 of 13
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cphillips View Post

The s7 on 4 inches of pow in the bumps is some of the most fun bump skiing I've experienced this season..

Quote:
Originally Posted by spindrift View Post

 Bumpfreaq to the white courtesy phone...
Well, I'll put forth the limited info that I have.  My big skis are Bluehouse Maestros.  They're very similar to the S7s dimensionally.  They've got a good amount of early rise in the tip and the tail with camber under foot.  I haven't skied them that much but I have taken them into both soft and firm bumps.  In firm I was definitely wishing I was on different skis.  They were manageble but just felt too big to me....like I wasn't tipping them enough for the edge to engage powerfully.  I was doing a lot of sliding when I wanted to be carving.... felt like I was tripping over them or about to.

In pow bumps (about four inches over a soft base at Mary Jane) they made my jaw drop.  I just pointed them down and they snaked the zipper with minimal effort on my part.  One of those 'I just have to think about a turn and the ski is already half way through it' kind of sensations.  In nice soft conditions I would not hesitate to take these out to hit bumps and trees all day long.  On a firm day where my destination is soft snow in the trees I might very well take them out even if I had to run some bumps on the way back to the lift.... but if there was an option to skip the bumps and hit a groomer I'd probably do that.  These boards are kinda fun on the corduroy too!

I'd blame much of the difficulties I found on the skill level of the pilot rather than the potential of the ski.

Mudfoot, I really appreciate the detail you put into your ski reviews/comments.  Sorry this pales in comparison  Hope it helps a bit anyway.
post #8 of 13
Thread Starter 
I appreciate all of your comments, but you seem to be talking about the big (115 mm waist) powder boards.  I am trying to figure out if something like the Koomback (105mm) with a little tip rocker really makes sense as an everyday ski.  At this point, I am a slave to the carve, and do not mind cutting up bumps all day on my 84mm waisted M:EXs, which are an excellent bump/carver/crud every day ski when I am not on my fat "powder" skis. 

Is rocker a useless addition to an every day all mountain ski? If I add rocker can I go fatter for my every day ski?  I keep hearing about all of the new turn options afforded by rocker skis.  Apparently, none of those work in the bumps without a 4" powder cushion facilitator.
Edited by mudfoot - 3/23/10 at 10:06am
post #9 of 13
 To me 105 might as well be 115. That's all I have experience with, maybe a narrower rockered ski is the best thing ever in bumps, but I'm not going to guess.
post #10 of 13
Personally, I think the only point in rocker is for a ski that will be used in powder.

If by all mountain you mean no fresh snow on the hill, just groomers / bumps then don't bother as all the rocker will do is reduce you stabilty turning a 180cm ski into a 120cm snowblade.

But if by all mountain you mean 50% powder / 50% everything else then consider a ski with a bit of rocker like the czar and you can't go far wrong.
post #11 of 13
Quote:
Originally Posted by philm View Post

Personally, I think the only point in rocker is for a ski that will be used in powder.

If by all mountain you mean no fresh snow on the hill, just groomers / bumps then don't bother as all the rocker will do is reduce you stabilty turning a 180cm ski into a 120cm snowblade.

But if by all mountain you mean 50% powder / 50% everything else then consider a ski with a bit of rocker like the czar and you can't go far wrong.

so no fresh snow and in bumps. I guess I like snowblades.....skier on the left is me on 183cm Katanas.



the things is rockered doesnt reduce 180cm ski to a 120 cm ski, if that was the case why the hell wouldnt you just buy a 120cm ski? Rockered ski sizing its own deal to say go longer isnt always true, and to say even rockered ski shorter isnt all ways true. I see a rockered ski like the katana as way off get just as much ski as you need and never anymore. 

Back to OP, The S7 I didnt like to much in bumps, my katanas and "the ones" are alot better. Heck in slush bumps in less I wanted to just zipperline with no roundness Id choose the katana over anything else I have skied on. Rockered skis reward round lines and a very centered stance though you do not want to get back seat on them thats for sure.
post #12 of 13
It's not just rocker (or not); it's a bunch of different factors and the extent to which those factors affect performance, the degree of effect may vary.

For me, the 188 S7s were easier to manuver/faster in bumps than my 183 gotamas (2007, white model).  Perhaps it was due to the short cambered section, tighter TR, or tip/tial rise.  Very fun ski; more fun than my Gotamas, except at high speed.

For me, the 188 4FRNT CRJs (118 waist) were tougher than 183 Gotamas, despite tip/tail rise and short cambered section, and I felt this was almost exclusively due to the forward mount recommended by 4FRNT.   I believe in a 180 and/or with about a -3.5 mount, they would have been pretty close.  Liked this ski better than the S7; far better at speed, pretty close everywhere else except for the aforementioned mount issue.

For me, the 183 Gotamas are easier in bumps than a boatload of stiffer race carver/wide carvers/skinny midfats (70-82 waist) I've skied over the years, like Elan M666 (177s and 184s), Volkl AC50 (170s and 177s), Volkl AX3 (177s and 184s), Volkl Superspeed (175s).  I felt this was so due to softer flex and twin tips' ability to skid.  I feel this would be the case in hard bumps as well as soft bumps. 

Skiing with friends, who are roughly similar ability, I did not feel like my bump or hard snow skiing suffered in comparison,  while they were on skis like Dynastar 8000s, Volkl Mantras, Dynastar Contacts (68 or 72 mm), etc.  

The foregoing conclusions were drawn over the course of over 60 ski days, while skiing mostly soft snow (25-30% hardpack days) at Squaw, Aspen/Highlands, Big Sky, and Park City/Deer Valley.  But, some of them would still hold on harder snow. 

YMMV...
post #13 of 13
I skied the Coomback this year and liked it in a variety of conditions including bumps.  I didn't like it any better than my Gotoma (last years) that I was skiing that morning.  They are both 105mm and are both good everyday skis.

Quote:
Originally Posted by mudfoot View Post

I appreciate all of your comments, but you seem to be talking about the big (115 mm waist) powder boards.  I am trying to figure out if something like the Koomback (105mm) with a little tip rocker really makes sense as an everyday ski.  At this point, I am a slave to the carve, and do not mind cutting up bumps all day on my 84mm waisted M:EXs, which are an excellent bump/carver/crud every day ski when I am not on my fat "powder" skis. 

Is rocker a useless addition to an every day all mountain ski? If I add rocker can I go fatter for my every day ski?  I keep hearing about all of the new turn options afforded by rocker skis.  Apparently, none of those work in the bumps without a 4" powder cushion facilitator.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Ski Gear Discussion