or Connect
EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › Ski Gear Discussion › Rocking Chair Effect (Rocker)
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Rocking Chair Effect (Rocker)

post #1 of 5
Thread Starter 

I have never skied on this type of ski before. Is it something that takes getting used to? I am thinking of buying the new Kung Fujas but cannot make a decsion because I have never skied a rocker styled ski. Do they ski anything near to a normal bend ski? Thanks

post #2 of 5

You may need to get used to having less tail for completing turns but it's not too bad. If you do any hucking, the balance point is a bit different as well, preferring to stomp forward rather than on the tails. I actually prefer hucking on a rockered ski for that reason. In short,rockered tails are definitely worth a try and shouldn't be too bad to get used to.

post #3 of 5

If you ski with an agressive posture, you should be fine.  If you spend a lot of time over pressuring your tails to scrub speed, they will eat you.  Many companies are making boards that have tip rocker only and trad or twin tails, those may be more your speed.  Coomback or Sidestash are two such offerings from K2.

post #4 of 5

A rocker is not a rocker is not a rocker. 


Three simple examples...


Kung Fujas: Cambered Ski with early rise tip AND tail, think of the profile as a "wave" or a "w"


Rossi S7 (dramatic) or Volkl Gotama (subtle): No or reverse camber with the middle of the ski being the lowest point


Sidestash or Kastle MX98/108/128 or Atomic Atlas: Cambered with early rise tip and flat/traditional tail


Hiplains explains how they react

post #5 of 5

There are many discussions on this board going on concurrently regarding ski design, with width and especially length seeming to be of particular interest. ( 'Twas ever thus, 'Twill ever be? ;-) People acknowledge that rockered designs ski shorter when not fully engaged in powder, but it's not always clear just how much shorter.


Given that I was thinking about the minimal set of specs for a meaningful at-a-glance comparison between skis. I don't have any rockered skis, but I do have two that I measured just to present what I think that minimal set might be...


Make / Model Rossignol B3 Line Prophet 100
Year Made 2007 2010
Tip-Waist-Tail 120-83-110 134-100-125
Turning Radius 16 meters 17.2 meters
Advertised Length 168cm 179cm
Actual Tip-Tail Length  167cm 177cm
Running Length 144cm 149cm
Front Rise Length 14cm 14cm
Rear Rise Length 9cm 14cm
Front Rise Height 5cm 5cm
Rear Rise Height 2.5cm 5cm
Camber at Midpoint 4mm 1.5mm


To be clear with the ski on a flat surface the "Rise Length" was measured pulling twine from the front or back of the ski till it hit the contact point . The "Rise Height" is the height of the tip or tail off the flat surface. Some of the measurements were rounded off slightly.


This is an article that presents some measurements for a few rockered skis...

How Rocker Affects Ski Length


Couple of things...


To my understanding "Rocker" technically refers to a lack of camber underfoot, or more specifically reverse camber. All skis have turned up tips; many now have turned up tails. "Rocker" also seems to be used sometimes to describe tips and tails, but as per Phil's post might "early rise" be more appropriate? Or are "rockered tip" and "early rise tip" equally accepted at this point in time?


FWIW I measured two other older skis and they had the same "Front Rise Length" and "Front Rise Height" as the B3s and LP 100s above, so I guess for tips at least those two measurements might constitute "standard rise" or "traditional rise". (Extrapolating from a small set of data can be dangerous, but they are four skis from four different manufacturers spanning eight years.)

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 › Rocking Chair Effect (Rocker)