Why Fat Rockered Skis Suck!!

Post your questions/comments about Gear here

Why Fat Rockered Skis Suck!!

Postby jbotti » Sat Mar 27, 2021 6:38 pm

I just finished skiing 4 days with Harald at my home mountain in Montana. We got 50" of snow over 4 days and yes my legs are shot! The first day we had 16" of fresh overnight. We both decided to go wide and I whipped out my 2 pairs of Rev 105s that I hardly ever ski because we never get dumps this big (until this year where we have had some crazy stretches of fresh snow with 1-2 foot dumps occurring often). Conditions were much more challenging than we expected as it had been warm and we had hard sun baked bumps underneath and often you couldn't really tell what was beneath the pow. The one thing that was very evident on the Revs is that they did not want to come up and out of the pow and it was requiring huge energy to flex massively to get the skis to come up. After 4 runs on our ridge we both grabbed thinner skis. I grabbed my Kastle MX 88s and Harald grabbed my Head Monster 88s and we went back up to the ridge. Wow, a game changer and very enlightening. Harald was telling me to ski a tighter line, kind of like a zipper bump line. The move was to get early high C engagement and then big ski bend into the apex of the turn and done properly, huge rebound which was popping the skis right out of the pow. Now to say that I could not get the Rev 105s to do this probably will surprise no one. But Harald could not no matter how hard he tried. As soon as I started to ski this way I was first blown away that I could do it but then I was blown away with the Kastles. My first day on them had been in similar conditions and clearly what separates theses skis (and the monster 88s, the old RNRs) is that they will bend and they will give great rebound when driven properly. This is the PMTS way of skiing black and double black terrain. And if Harald can't do it on a fat rockered ski, I feel confident saying that on one on this forum can.

Day three brought another 16" after we had had a measly 10" on day two. I decided after our first several runs on the ridge to try my Liberty V92s and see how they performed. Well they engaged the high C nicely. They bent nicely into the apex, but there was no rebound. no pop out of the pow. Harald watched me on two runs and said I was skiing correctly but that the skis just won't perform.

Now not everyone can or wants to ski this way and I found those liberty's to be a very fun and user friendly ski until I started to attempt these types of turns.

I also firmly believe that fat rockered skis have enabled many people to ski terrain and conditions that they would not have been able to without these advancements (and thats a good thing except when they are stealing my pow :D :D ). And 5 years ago I couldn't make these turns so a little rocker and a fatter ski in deeper stuff seemed to help. Clearly now it is not and is actually making things harder.

If you have the BPSRT and you can ski it in black and double black terrain and in challenging conditions, thinner with camber is the only way to go. BTW Max says the RNR makes this turn great. I will take mine out and test them next decent sized dump we get. I should also mention that half way through day 3 with the 16" HH switched to my 176 Blossom White Outs and he was even happier than he was skiing the Monster 88s (so clearly this ski works great off piste and in fresh snow with these type of turns.)
Balance: Essential in skiing and in life!
User avatar
jbotti
 
Posts: 2184
Joined: Fri Nov 28, 2003 10:05 am

Re: Why Fat Rockered Skis Suck!!

Postby Max_501 » Sun Mar 28, 2021 7:12 am

John, congratz on attaining PMTS Black Level off piste skiing! The turn you are describing isn't possible until you not only own each of the Essentials but have them working together in a synergistic fashion with very little thought (there just isn't time to think about the Essentials in a 1-2-3 fashion when skiing at this level) and combine them with the physical rewards of plenty of dryland physical training (biking, hiking, hitting the gym, etc). It takes a lot of hard work to get there but it's so worth it!

jbotti wrote:BTW Max says the RNR makes this turn great.


IMO the RNR is the Swiss Army knife of expert level all mountain skiing. Does everything but with a focus on off piste ripping. I have yet to find anything that can replace it 100%. And the graphics on the bases rock!

Image
User avatar
Max_501
 
Posts: 4124
Joined: Thu Mar 10, 2005 7:39 pm

Re: Why Fat Rockered Skis Suck!!

Postby h.harb » Mon Mar 29, 2021 8:45 am

Haven't skied the RNR for some time but it was always a go to ski. I hated the REV 105. The thing is heavy, and doesn't want to come out of the snow. If I really worked hard at retracting and flexing it did some turns I wanted, but not an easy flowing effort the way I like to ski powder. My TT80s are better powder skis, lol.
User avatar
h.harb
 
Posts: 7047
Joined: Sat Feb 03, 2007 2:08 pm
Location: Dumont, Colorado

Re: Why Fat Rockered Skis Suck!!

Postby Gene P » Mon Mar 29, 2021 11:12 am

Nice post Jbotti. I have ‘collectors item’ Monster 78 and „newer“ 88 (!) in my bag when conditions are right. These skis just ski! Never had the RˋN R - but seems highly endorsed by all the credible sources . Too bad, HEAD is tone deaf. Great to hear HH skiing again :)
Gene P
 
Posts: 15
Joined: Sat Nov 04, 2006 3:46 am
Location: Swiss Alps

Re: Why Fat Rockered Skis Suck!!

Postby njdiver85 » Mon Mar 29, 2021 11:51 am

Great posts, Jbotti. Wondering if you've every skied the Monster 88x, which has just a single layer of titanal I believe? I've been in search of a wide ski to complement my supershape speeds, and 88 under foot is the widest I think I'd ever want to go. Also, and this applies to both the MX88's and the Monster 88's, would you ski them in the roughly same length as one's Supershape Speed, or go a little longer?
njdiver85
 
Posts: 37
Joined: Wed Dec 09, 2015 1:05 pm

Re: Why Fat Rockered Skis Suck!!

Postby jbotti » Mon Mar 29, 2021 12:56 pm

I am definitely skiing my 88s (Head and Kastle) longer than I ski my slalom carvers (which I ski at 170cm) At any speed in black and double black terrain, length helps a ton. One of the reasons I like my Kastle's so much vs the Monster 88s is because I am skiing 180cm vs 177.

I have never skied the Monster 88x or Monster 83X.
Balance: Essential in skiing and in life!
User avatar
jbotti
 
Posts: 2184
Joined: Fri Nov 28, 2003 10:05 am

Re: Why Fat Rockered Skis Suck!!

Postby spinbackwards » Mon Feb 28, 2022 9:54 am

jbotti wrote:I just finished skiing 4 days with Harald at my home mountain in Montana. We got 50" of snow over 4 days and yes my legs are shot! The first day we had 16" of fresh overnight. We both decided to go wide and I whipped out my 2 pairs of Rev 105s that I hardly ever ski because we never get dumps this big (until this year where we have had some crazy stretches of fresh snow with 1-2 foot dumps occurring often). Conditions were much more challenging than we expected as it had been warm and we had hard sun baked bumps underneath and often you couldn't really tell what was beneath the pow. The one thing that was very evident on the Revs is that they did not want to come up and out of the pow and it was requiring huge energy to flex massively to get the skis to come up. After 4 runs on our ridge we both grabbed thinner skis. I grabbed my Kastle MX 88s and Harald grabbed my Head Monster 88s and we went back up to the ridge. Wow, a game changer and very enlightening. Harald was telling me to ski a tighter line, kind of like a zipper bump line. The move was to get early high C engagement and then big ski bend into the apex of the turn and done properly, huge rebound which was popping the skis right out of the pow. Now to say that I could not get the Rev 105s to do this probably will surprise no one. But Harald could not no matter how hard he tried. As soon as I started to ski this way I was first blown away that I could do it but then I was blown away with the Kastles. My first day on them had been in similar conditions and clearly what separates theses skis (and the monster 88s, the old RNRs) is that they will bend and they will give great rebound when driven properly. This is the PMTS way of skiing black and double black terrain. And if Harald can't do it on a fat rockered ski, I feel confident saying that on one on this forum can.

Day three brought another 16" after we had had a measly 10" on day two. I decided after our first several runs on the ridge to try my Liberty V92s and see how they performed. Well they engaged the high C nicely. They bent nicely into the apex, but there was no rebound. no pop out of the pow. Harald watched me on two runs and said I was skiing correctly but that the skis just won't perform.

Now not everyone can or wants to ski this way and I found those liberty's to be a very fun and user friendly ski until I started to attempt these types of turns.

I also firmly believe that fat rockered skis have enabled many people to ski terrain and conditions that they would not have been able to without these advancements (and thats a good thing except when they are stealing my pow :D :D ). And 5 years ago I couldn't make these turns so a little rocker and a fatter ski in deeper stuff seemed to help. Clearly now it is not and is actually making things harder.

If you have the BPSRT and you can ski it in black and double black terrain and in challenging conditions, thinner with camber is the only way to go. BTW Max says the RNR makes this turn great. I will take mine out and test them next decent sized dump we get. I should also mention that half way through day 3 with the 16" HH switched to my 176 Blossom White Outs and he was even happier than he was skiing the Monster 88s (so clearly this ski works great off piste and in fresh snow with these type of turns.)


Here at the Beav the skis vary by skier. The tourists mostly have skinnier, what looks like camber skis. Rare to find a bro type or local skier with skinnier (< 90 under foot), camber ski. I guess, for the same old reasons we typed about years ago. And I guess, I don't know bc I've never tried them, the rocker skis make skiing easier? For me when I watch skiers on them I think skiing would be harder.

I'm grateful I have my skis, I really enjoy them. Some days when I'm out there it feels like a dream, I'm having so much fun.

The only fat ski I ever longed for was the RNR. I missed out on that one, never scored. Each time I read about them from the trustworthy sources here I'm like, "Dang. How did I miss that ski?!
spinbackwards
 
Posts: 15
Joined: Sun Feb 27, 2022 8:43 am
Location: Eagle, CO

Re: Why Fat Rockered Skis Suck!!

Postby B.Mulligan » Fri Mar 04, 2022 8:46 am

I keep coming back to narrower skis for all but the deepest snow-and in bounds, even almost deepest snow. Recently I had half a day on some wider skis-J Ski Hotshot-in 16 inches of new, dense snow. The problem I have is these skis fly through this snow, barely submerging, and I like using porpoising and sinking into snow as part of the speed control experience in deep snow. And it feels good, too. Once its tracked out, the bigger skis pay fewer and fewer dividends.
B.Mulligan
 
Posts: 104
Joined: Tue Sep 16, 2014 8:45 am

Re: Why Fat Rockered Skis Suck!!

Postby spinbackwards » Thu Dec 29, 2022 11:05 pm

Howdy everyone,

I'm grateful for the site.

Epic conditions at The Beav! I was on my Venturi's today, had a ball. Love that ski. The early rise makes the day go by fast. I was thinking, "What am I gonna do when I wear these out"? I can probably get 2 more years out of 'em, since I don't ski 'em that much. So as I get older (I'm 63) I do have appreciation for any ski that makes the day easier. Been eyeing the early rise tech. So far haven't seen anything I look twice at. But I figure if it happens I'll read about it here - I keep checking to see if Botti has found the next RNR!

Happy turns!
spinbackwards
 
Posts: 15
Joined: Sun Feb 27, 2022 8:43 am
Location: Eagle, CO


Return to Gear

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 9 guests