^^^you could also say some lucky bastard on this forum will get a smokin deal on skis.
Printable View
^^^you could also say some lucky bastard on this forum will get a smokin deal on skis.
Been on these and the Praxis Protests for the Past 2 weeks every day from 830 in the morning till 430 in the afternoon. To say the least I am beat. Huge fan of the Praxis and in Deep pow they are roughly the same. My Protests are as close to dead center as possible and the Rocker2's are mounted dead center. The only real difference is one the Protests take a Beating way better. Talk about a beast of a ski. I have one edge compression on the Rocker2 but while its ugly I cant feel it. Very impressed with both skis in their own right if there is a lot of groomed runs between pow stashes like on my home mountain then the rocker2 would be my ski of choice because the are fun to carve on and popping of travese walls and all is an easy way to burn time between pow turns. In longer pow runs with less traversing I would always take the Protest.
The rocker2 is pretty much a perfect resort pow ski for deep days. and even in gunk its decent. Have not had many bad days though because Europe has been going off!! Real super hero snow.
Salomon made a really good ski in the Rocker2. One of the real fun things about it is how aggressively it wants to pop. Spending more time in the air and then balls deep is really fun. Dead center it does tip dive sometimes but not becuase of the ski more because I am not standing completely neutral. It wants to be pushed and is unforgiving as soon as you get back seat. Stay center and dont ski like a Gaper and it rewards you. One time in the morning in some heavier snow it tip dived on me multiple times but my legs were shot from skiing deep blower 9 days in a row. I have been on several skis this year already from atomic and elan and I am not going to lie its getting to the point where the designs are getting so good you are just nit picking. That is how I feel about the Rocker2. In every sense of the work its pretty darned perfect. Maybe a touch less rocker in the tail for bigger landings but besides that very cool ski.
Why would you always choose Protests over rockers for longer pow runs?!
I finally skied my Rocker 2's in Jackson during their last storm and was blown away by how easy and fun it was in every scenario. I really thought it shined in the chopped up powder; tip and tail rocker just sails over inconsistent snow. I never experienced any tip dive or chatter. Its definitely light and poppy enough to blast through trees easily. I was shocked that a ski that size is so easy to ski. Its even kinda fun on groomers. Agreed, its the perfect resort powder ski.Quote:
Originally Posted by sqikunst
For people who have never been on a Protest it is a hard thing to describe...
Its the best ski I have ever been on. It does have weak spots but it was made in a the length it deserved to be made in. Skis just as snappy and fluidly in a 196 length through trees which most other skis and companies achieve only in lengths 185 and below. The rocker2 is the closest any other ski has come for me that I have tried. The Bent Chetler is also a very good example of a ski that comes close but because of the more aggressive tail rocker in the Bent Chetler. The Protest has the perfect amount for tail rocker for skiing trees going big and stomping one or the other big drop. I have always been on long skis and boards (I'm 6'2"). I started skiing three years ago on a pair of 178 salomon guns and the very next year I got a pair of 191 shoguns which was the best thing I ever did. The shogun is a hard(er) ski to ski in trees then for example the 192 rocker2 or the 196 protest so when I got the Protests skiing trees was a breeze. I try and tell everyone I know that Pow skis should be the same size as them, If not even a little longer. If Salomon made the Rocker2 in a 198 I would sell the 192 in an instant and get it. I dont throw 720s off forty foot cliffs. Its also not about a dick waving contest in the lift line. They just straight up work better. I see it this way the nose on my Rocker2 is shorter than the nose on the OG fischer Watea 101 182cm because of the center mount and large amount of rocker. So if we are all moving towards a center mount why keep the skis the same length as 5 years ago. A long tail does not make the ski any unwieldier than a short tail on the contrary it makes dumping speed and coming clean out of a super g turn easier. It also means a more balanced swing weight. One reason for the disappointment that Salomon has decided to make the Rocker2 115mm a 188. Thats where I stand on ski design in general. Why make the OPUS only in a 192 next year its also a center mount make it longer and they will follow.
my two cents on the Rocker2 122mm and some other ski designs.
I'll chime in.
Me 6'6" 180 lbs naked, 27yo, pretty good skier.
Skis I loved and have skied a ton (5/5): 190 Explosivs, 191 Goliaths, 192 Atomic Atlas, 183 Gotama (black w/bamboo sidewalls).
Skis I thought were pretty cool (4/5): 192 Lotus 138 r2 f2, Scott P4
Skis I thought were ok (3/5): 191 Lhasa Pow, 188 Coomba, 189 Lib Tech NAS pow
Skis I didn't like much(2/5): 189 K2 Made N AK,
Ski I really didn't like(1/5): 186 Rossi B2
I really like my 192 Rocker2s. I feel like they live up to the hype. They ski pow very well and ski firm/hard snow really well too. I have not skied them on ice much, but in everything else they are fantastic. In anything other than very hard/refrozen snow when a narrow ski is clearly superior, I will ski them.
I mounted them at -1.5cm from true center. I would go with -3cm if I were to do it over, but I'm not sure if it matters enough to remount. All I know is that this ski seems to want me to get low, with a wide stance (like you are doing squats), and charge.
High points: they carve way better than I expected, and are much more damp and stable than the soft tips and tails suggest. The more than 2/3 of the ski that is solid wood core and not honeycomb construction is confidence inspiring. They will rail turns at high speed and smash through variable snow with ease. Very stable underfoot.
It is very easy to turn them. Due to the tip and tail rocker they ski quite short, but the camber underfoot and damp beefy wood core allow for you to relax in that shorter running length. I find their radius to be perfect and pivoty/slarvy action in tight trees is a snap at both fast and slow speeds.
The soft tails (which I thought I would dislike because they would "wash out") are great. If I land in the backseat the tails flex and decrease soften the strain on my body on landing. On a ski with stiffer tails I could expect a bruised big toe and strained shin muscles if I landed in the backseat, or got back on the tails of the ski to charge over chunder/bumps. I am so glad I don't have to deal with that anymore.
Qualities that could be good or bad: The 192 is 11.2lbs. I have the metal 916s on them, so the setup isn't light. This can be an advantage or a disadvantage depending on the situation (nice for crushing variable liftserv stuff, heavy on the bootpack/skintrack). Also apparently the ski shines when mounted close to true center. This could throw people off if they are used to driving the front of a traditionally mounted ski (RP112, Atomic Atlas, XXL, Goliath, Sidestash ect). But if you can adapt, you might find this mount point preferable to a directionally ski mounted at, say -8cm from true center.
I've skied this ski a lot now. I really like (love?) it. So playful, yet down to get rad when you want to straight line. The sidecut/radius is absolutely spot on. They added 10mm of width to the footprint of the standard big mountain charger and tapered the tips and tails to coordinate with the rocker to minimize hook/drag. IMO the tip rocker starts at the perfect point and has the perfect combo of gradual, medium height splay.
The only change I would consider is shifting the initiation point of the tail rocker further back toward the tails of the ski by about 8cm to give the ski more running length, and moving the recommended mount point back maybe 3cm (which last time I checked was -2cm from true center according to Townsend, Douglas, Abma). But, the short running length that the tail rocker creates makes the ski extremely maneuverable, so who knows if the added tail contact would be an improvement or not. Overall, great job Salomon.
Quickie initial review of the 184cm:
Me: 5-9 165lbs. Reformed east coaster skiing Cascade concrete. I'm not the best skier on the mountain. Competent but maybe not pretty.
Other skis I've ridden recently:
184cm DPS Wailer 112 Pure. My daily driver, Love this ski, wanted something that could detatch a bit easier in powder and slarve
186 Ski Logik Howitzer. Not bad, these just wanted to go fast, but not as fun as the wailers
178 Line Prophet 115. Wasn't in love, sketchy on anything harder
Skied at alpental in some DEEP powder. I really liked the way the Salomon Rocker2 skied. Really easy to get going sideways once you get moving and was FUN. However, it felt like it skied way shorter than the DPS wailer in the same length and wanted to do shorter turns, even with the supposed longer radius. Could be a bad or good thing. Perhaps because of the lower rocker it also felt the tips dove a bit more, but that wasn't as big an issue. Like I said though, I really like the way it handled in powder and that awesome surfy feeling. The Rockers also seemed to be begging me to try bigger and bigger drops.
BUT I didn't love them the say way as the wailers. It's hard to explain, perhaps it was the short feeling, but halfway through the day I wanted to switch back. The rockers are (obviously) a way heavier ski than the dps's and took more out of my legs. Didn't feel like the rockers floated any better than the wailers. My ultimate powder ski would be something like the rocker2, but with the weight of a dps wailer and a bit longer radius. Is that ski out there? Maybe I should try some 4frnt renegades...
Fondled the 184 Rocker 2 122 14/15 in the shop today and tought it felt a little stiffer and with less tail rocker than the 12/13 model which I looked at 2 years ago. I also thought the camber looked pretty large. Is this just my imagination or can anyone verify if any changes has been made?? Thinking of picking up a pair of 184 13/14 as a one ski quiver..
I can't verify whether there has been a change or not, but I demoed the 184 2 winters ago and thought they were a fun ski, especially in the pow, but I found the speed limit was far too low for me, especially as a one ski quiver. As soon as I got out of the untracked I questioned the stability. Now to be fair, my top skis (I wish I hadn't sold them) where Line Motherships, stiff chargers. If you've skied them, you'll know what im talking about. I currently have coreupt slashers which are medium stiff with a big rocker that i really enjoy and have some megawatts on the way.
I might be able to weigh in soon-- if we get snow in Tirol anytime this winter. Didn't really last winter.Quote:
Originally Posted by theViking
I had the original version/graphics (ostensibly no changes) in 180 mounted with Barons, which I loved as a welterweight (though definitely found a speed limit on deep, cut-up, two-day-old crud or hard groomers back to the chair; also heavy doing 1000-heigh meters on skins). I had some tip-dive on a single super heavy/deep day, and one over the handle bars in Gulmarg's woods. One of the skis catastrophically delaminated* over the summer. The replacements, 14/15 models, are being re-mounted tomorrow with the same Barons.
It's hard to say based on a quick unmounted fondle if the rocker/camber or stiffness really changed since I'm familiar with the old ones only as mounted these days. I'll try to chime back in once I get to ski them.
For reference: I'm 140lbs on a heavy day. Other skis are 180cm Bonafides, which have zero (not even a hint) of a speed limit on the nastiest, re-frozen, 18-inch deep-trench-laced stuff, groomers, whatever. But the Bones needed speed to get fun for me-- and I found myself always gravitating towards the fall-line to get energy out of them (kind of a "point them and they will deliver" sensation). The R2s are so much more fun in powder, but if it's not soft they have a limit. Skis I hated: Cham 97 HM-- like two different skis grafted together, with a nothing-pintail (design I don't like) and a weird, floppy BBR tip that I liked neither in powder or groomers.
*It's worth noting that Salomon replaced these very, very quickly and with zero hassle whatsoever once I got the process started.
<p>
Gotta do an eleven year bump. Scored some cheap perfect condition OG 122s in the 180 whatever size. With some minty sth16 nonetheless! Anyway ski is a fucking riot. Has some heft but not so much to not be playful, so so much more enjoyable than 2024 reckoner 122. What a day<br />
</p>
<p>
</p>
So what was the outcome for Dalton? Looks like his case made it all the way to the Mass. state supreme court (if I was looking up the right case, Gary Lafond?) but I wasn't going to set up free trials to review old case law to go further.
I nominate the Rocker 2 122 be inducted into the TGR Hall of Fame. It was a different era on this forum for sure, but we had inside beta on the design of this ski and Cody graciously helped with mount point recommendations. Most shops sold out early and for good reason. Sure, they delaminated after a few seasons and the tips got spongy, but the skis ripped and led the charge with many big and small manufacturers following with their own big ski designs.
One of the last updates in the other thread indicated that he had settled up with Salomon. All of that feels like a long time ago now. That was one of the first threads I followed here as a young lurker. SQuote:
Originally Posted by DoubleBogey