EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › Ski Gear Discussion › Am I getting the right size Pocket Rocket?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Am I getting the right size Pocket Rocket?

post #1 of 22
Thread Starter 
I realize that the size question has a lot to do with personal preference. I also know that I have the tendency to rag on folks going too short for their size. However, I appeal to the masses for some insight on the Pocket Rockets sizing. I measure in at 170 lbs. and 5'8". I ride my REX in a 184 and 1080's in a 181. I just ordered a pair of PR's in a 175. I tried the 185 PR a couple of seasons ago, but on a bad knee. They felt a bit too big for that kind of ski. I want to use the PR's for trees pow and the park, so I think that I went with the right size. I also don't want another ski like the REX I already have in a 184, so I went a little shorter in the PR. Bottom line is that I have never been on the 175, but thought it should be a ton of fun. Am I about to be proven correct or sorely dissapointed?

[ February 10, 2003, 05:18 PM: Message edited by: Bandit Man ]
post #2 of 22
I think you are in fine shape. I am an agressive skier 5'8" 150 lb. and have the 175's. They're perfect. Furthermore, my son (17) is an even more agressive skier (starting to be able to hang with some big time skiers) 5'10" 175lbs. and feels the same way.

Caution: With the soft tail (I think that's the reason) the PR's make you initially feel like you need to stay more forward. With time, though (1-2 weeks) I found myself feeling like I was much more centered and that this feeling of balanced even carried over to other skis.
post #3 of 22
I'm 180 and ride the 175 PR. It's a GREAT ski and the PERFECT size. You will be surprised with it's versatility and performance. I ski mostly trees and through fairy tight (where a much smaller turn radius is required) rocks and find that the PR is unbeatable. I too have the 184 REX and use that for bigger mountain skiing and skiing at higher speeds because of it's stiffness and of course length. You'll love the PR, try it at speeds as well, don't limit it to tree skiing, you will be surprised----it's fairly stable. No worries, you made the right decision.
post #4 of 22
In response to SI's comment, it will make you feel like that. Also keep in mind that the PR is perhaps mounted more toward the center, adding to that feeling.
post #5 of 22
I tested both lengths and much preferred the 175. It was much more fun, turned easier, could make quicker turns or longer turns, didn't really see any downside. The 185 was a longer radius turner and it was tough for me to get those through the trees. I'm 5'11, 165.
post #6 of 22
Thread Starter 
Thanks for the input. You have put my mind at ease. I'm looking forward to mounting those up and looking for some pow!
post #7 of 22
Should have waited and gone for the B3 Banditman!
post #8 of 22
Bandit, I'm the same size as you, and I ski the 185's. I personally wouldn't want the 175's.... I skied the 184 10.EX all last year and the 185 PR skis much shorter than the 10.EX.

I know you know your stuff, but remember that the PR is more center mounted and the giant tail twin both combine to make them ski a lot shorter than it appears. For trees, the 175 will probably be fine. But the 185's are still *very* quick. Quickness is never an issue for me, stability and bump clumsiness are the only knocks against the ski IMO.

Lars, the Pocket Rockets and B3 aren't even in the same category. The Rossi Scratch BC is its Rossi counterpart.
post #9 of 22
Thread Starter 

Your points are ones that I considered and caused me to worry. I figured that the turned up tail and centered mount point would make it a very short skiing ski. Again, it is my bad for not demoing the PR more recently. I must admit that this was an impulse buy at a great price, so even if I went a bit too short, they are bound to be something quite different from the rest of my quiver.


The B3 would have been great, but I think that I am after something more along the lines of the PR or Scratch BC. I will definitely have to try the B3 in the near future, though. The funny thing is, I am contemplating selling my XX's, as they are not getting skied much these days. That would leave the median waist size of my remaining skis to be 85-mm! I guess I have caught the fat bug!
post #10 of 22
Bandit Man, The Pocket Rocket has a pretty soft tail. It's easy to get in the back seat on it. You really have to stay forward to keep balance on it . One saving grace is the mounting point is a little more forward than regular skis which helps.

Matter, The sratch B.C. might be twin tip like the P.R. but really skis totally different. The Scratch is heavier and stiffer and easier to stay balanced on than the Pocket Rocket. The B3 almost falls into the same catagory due to the more pronounced turned up tail. In fact, if you put the B3 and the Pocket Rocket side by side you'll see they're real close to being the same in the tail.

Any of the three would be fun to own if you skied big mountains all the time.
post #11 of 22
Well, the BC was designed to be a PR clone. Rossi figured they'd improve on the design by fixing the public's main complaint about the PR, its softness.

Despite the fact that the PR and BC have identical dimensions, the PR carves much better. I can't be more descriptive, you just need to try both skis back to back. I didn't ski the BC on a really deep day, just 4 inches of fresh, so I'm not sure how it compares as a pure pow ski. But I've been told it doesn't float as well as the PR, but it might be slightly better for point and chuting. The Scratch is also kinda dead, more so than your typical Rossi.

Somewhere along the way, they lost what makes the PR a great ski. The Scratch construction sucks, and felt torsionally weak to me. Rossi needs to keep making their skis in ski factories instead of snowboard factories. I heard they were afraid of Dualtec being subjected to the park and park crowd. Its too bad, because the Dualtec stuff skis way better. Rivets on the tips worked for K2, maybe Rossi needs to rivet their sidewalls [img]tongue.gif[/img]

As far as the B3 goes, its turn radius is much longer than either the PR and BC. That alone puts it in a different category for me. The new B3, with less sidecut and more width, is more in the same category as the AK Launcher, point and chute landing gears. I'm one of the few people who really liked last years XXX update. A lot of people I know bitched about the new sidecut on it, but I liked it. Rossi listened I guess and reverted it back to the '00 XXX days but with more width.

I really want to ski that B2. I keep hearing mixed things about it, so I'm curious as hell. It took a lot of guts to change the XX that much. The XX was the best all around ski I've tried.
post #12 of 22
Someone posted a similar question at Powmag. I posted my thoughts on it there. http://forum.powdermag.com/cgi-bin/u...c;f=2;t=002037

I don't think you need to be concerned about going too short. The 165 felt great, and I never felt a hint of going into the backseat. I really doubt you'll miss the length of the 185.
post #13 of 22
I'm 5'11" 190 lbs. I have G3's in 177cm, 10EX's in 177cm, 10.20 widebody in 170cm, and have skied my son R11's in 170cm. He also has PR in 165cm, Atomic 9.12's in 140cm (SL race). He has just got Atomic twin tips in 150cm he is 15, 120lbs. 5'7". We got the R11's so he can grow into them or they will be my rock ski in a few years. We ski over 60 days a season, each.

Seems to me that a lot of you need to be on shorter skis. I have a buddy who is 6'1" 195lbs and he skis R9's in 170cm most of the time. We are ex-race team parents so we all ski well and ski the whole mountain and sometimes ski OB (out of bounds). Don't be afraid of going a bit shorter, with high end skis and good form you will be amazed at what these skis will do.
post #14 of 22
Don't be afraid of going a bit shorter, with high end skis and good form you will be amazed at what these skis will do.
I disagree with that statement in this case. The PR is usually bought as a powder ski. Go to short and you don't get enough float in powder.
post #15 of 22
Originally posted by Rio:
"The PR is usually bought as a powder ski. Go to short and you don't get enough float in powder."[/QB]
Short wide skis still "float", but you are limited to shorter turns. The reason why all the big mountain fats still come in long lengths (eg 195 Salomon AK Rocket, 195 XXX) is that the longer length is necessary for straightlines and big GS turns in deep snow. If you go short you feel like you're riding a teeter-todder.
post #16 of 22
Thread Starter 

I received the 175's in the mail today...

Do I mount them up or sell them and get the 185's?

My 1080's are 181's and they are silly easy to ski. A 185 PR is less than 2" longer.

I hate being "gear-obsessed"!
post #17 of 22
Well, they're not my skis, but I say mount 'em up! I'm 195 pounds and opted for the 185s purely to get the extra float for deep snow use - and they have plenty of it. When I was evaluating PRs and R:EXs I worked up a spreadsheet to approximate relative float based on ski surface area to my weight ratio. Plugging in your weight, you get as much, or a bit more, from the 175s as I do from the 185s. Plus, the people I talked to (including Peter Keelty of Tech Support for Skiers ) like the handling of the 175s (check the specs on differences in radius)...

I know I'll be branded a heretic for this, but consider mounting them up with either Tyrolia Railflexes or Atomic Variazones. I wish I had. Consensus seems to be that going back a few cm (2 being the "rule of thumb") is way better for deep snow. I mounted mine back. While I've only had one day that made it worth taking them out so far, I liked the handling in deep snow - floated great, could stay forward & the tips never dove, plus they turned just great. Did not like the handling on the groomers or harder snow so much (and not just because they are fat - I could definitely feel the rearward position). Either of these bindings (mounted in the correct location) would let you set the bindings forward to be on the factory mount point for park/freestyle, maybe groomers, but take them back for deep snow use. They'd also let you play with just how far back you want them for deep snow.

post #18 of 22

Interesting point. I, my daughter, and son all originally had our PRs mounted 1.5-2 cm back. When we did a little check on getting the ball of foot on the midpoint of the running surface (at least one rule of thumb that's used in race rooms supposedly) it seemed that if we mounted the bindings and boot midsole to line up with the Salomon mounting mark we were pretty much right on. So when we remounted them with Freerides we moved them back up to there. I would say that overall we prefer them in the new position. I think it has taken a little change in balance for powder but all of us seemed to think it was better for all around skiing and that the adjustment for powder and crud wasn't very difficult.

However, I think your suggestion is a very good one. The "optimal" mounting point can depend on your boot size, skiing style, body build, ski characteristics, and other factors. Having a binding adjustable in the fore-aft directions is a great idea. It let's you explore and try to find the optimal mounting position as well as experiment with the effects of forward or backward postions in terms of the changes they require in your skiing. My (very limited) experience with more forward mounted skis suggest that over time it has helped me make some positive changes in my skiing.
post #19 of 22
Take a deep deep breath and RELAX B Man. They will be fine, and besides you need a short ski in your quiver. If they seem to be too short, then there are the B3's to get exceited about.

Yah, you are right to demo first, but you only had three length choices, the 165's [ too short ]the 175's, probably just right, and the 185's very close to the REX 184's and not that much different in length form the 1080's.Dimensionally, the 1080's and the REX's are fairly close.

The PR's have a wider profile, so I think, as others have said, you'll be just fine on the 175 PR's.

Besides, "variety is the spice of life," and that's what you are doing...aren't you? Spicing things up a notch ?
post #20 of 22
Thread Starter 

I actually found a shop in Orange County that had wide brakes for my 912 Ti's. I hope to have the 175 PR's mounted this weekend, and then it is off to Mammoth for a few days at the end of the week.

Wink, as you and others have mentioned, if I am going for something different than the rest of my quiver, this might be it. I have relaxed and figure that if I don't like the 175's, there is going to be a barely used pair for someone else who might. On the other hand, I might love them, in which case, go find your own! [img]graemlins/evilgrin.gif[/img]

Thanks again for all the insight and advice.
post #21 of 22
I had a chance to ski my 175's in all kinds of snow conditions the last couple days. In deep snow I really like the bindings 1 cm back, I could make short turns or long GS turns at speed, they felt just right. Even on the groomed they felt a little better 1 back. The tip has a tendency to come around a little quicker than I like when centered, especially if my weight is forward at all, almost a little hooky at times, I just felt I could let them run a little more comfortably 1 back and they were still very turny. On the steeps I liked them centered, I generally want them to come around a little quicker. I never tried 2 back because 1 felt just right. Either way they are a really fun ski, I was surprised at how good they were on hardpack. I'm glad I got the Atomic bindings though, the difference in settings is subltle but noticeable.
post #22 of 22
Thread Starter 
Well, I skied my 175-cm PR's over the past two days at Mammoth. The conditions were powder (3-6 inches on groomers; 6-24 inches on the steeps and in the trees) and soft crud as the slopes got skied out. I split the time on my REX's (184) and PR's. The PR's turned out to be a nice addition to my quiver. They are wonderfully fun in the trees, with much float and quick turning abilities. They are also lightning quick on the groomers, which was not something that I felt when I tried the 185. They were above average at speed, especially when the length is considered. They handled very well "straight-lining the last 300 ft. of Upper Dry Creek with mixed pow/crud. I have been skiing the '03 1080 most of this season, which is center mounted. Perhaps that is why the center mount on the PR felt just fine to me. No problems with getting in the back seat on the groomers or in the softer stuff. Last, for the younger crowd, these ripped in the park. I wouldn't want the 185, as the 175 was perfect for stomping big airs (30-40 foot tables) while still easy to spin. I will not be selling these anytime soon. Look for my 184 XX to be posted soon, though.
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 › Am I getting the right size Pocket Rocket?