186 Rocker Review Thread

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ChowdahRidah

What flex were the Rockers you were skiing on? Will they be available in all the PM Gear flexes? What are the pros and cons in getting this ski in a stiffer flex?

---

Mine are fairly stiff as they were made with 188 cores with a spliced in stringer to add width. Id probably put them around a 6 or so on marshals scale.

Since this ski pretty much has no camber (1-3mm) and has a little tip rocker, there is much less detriment or even change in feel from going stiffer.

Going stiffer you have a heavier ski that will ski about a ski 1 or so flex number less on a traditionally cambered ski. The tips will also be more stable as they will have a tendancy to flap around less. The stiffer you go, the more surfy the ski will feel if you're skiing at slower speeds and arent actually bending the tips a lot.

Im not sure what Pat is planning for flexes, but Id say we really only need to make these in stiff and extra stiff, ie ~6 and ~8+ on marshals scale.

I suppose he could also make a soft version to save even more weight but id bet youd lose some versatility on hardpack.

The only place I see a stiffer 186 making a dif is on ice - and they do ski ice, as Idris demonstated skiing some boilerplate in Courmayeur as few weeks ago quite beautifully on them. We were on the grooms from lift to lift to make our way to the top which had just opened and he totally blew my mind on the icy runs. The pair he skied and that I skied at Revy have stiffness underfoot with a soft tip. Tom has a completely embarrassing shot of me hucking a ledge off the top off Courmayeur on the 183s that really illustrates the float of the rockers. It was a small 10- 12 foot drop that had two or three feet of absolute blown-down cake in the lz. When I landed on the 183s, my skis sank and stuck and I double ejected straight out of my skis. After picking up my stuff and hiking back up, I shot pics of Tom doing the same air on the rockers and he barely sank at all and skied out of it with ease in that mank.

I'm going to mix it up once we start pressing them and will prolly rocker the tips and tails much more on a pair or two as well, making them more pow specific. We know they work as they have been made so far, so we'll make some more changes on the fly (our typical MO) to see what happens with some additional changes. But more than anything, we wanted to make a one ski quiver rocker that slays pow and grooms - and we've done that. Now we'll also see what some other minor changes do to the way these ski and fuck around on them for a while, share them and report back here.

Ya boys. Its THE ski. The one ski quiver. What you guys started out as and continue to accomplish.

a little bump because i let p_mcposer borrow my setup

hoping he'll post a few impressions to add some more feedback so its not just overly biased people like me and splat ;)

I also plan to ski Mammoth or Kirkwierd this week, so I'll get someone out them as well.

SO STOKED!!!


Very cool you keep everyone in the loop here.

Skier
5'11, 160, decent tailgunnin' steeze, better than average skier, but not a super ripper like most of the colorado maggots
Favorite skis: Spats and Public Enemies
Not-So Favorite Skis: Line Motherships

Location \ Snow Conditions
Loveland 9" fresh, crud, tracked pow, ice, and avi debris

I skied these in Pechelman's spare boots which didn't fit as well as i'd like and caused me some pretty intense foot pain.

Hard Snow performance
Can't really comment due to lack of hard snow other than windbuffed ice, which was randomly encountered. They sucked at hitting avi debris in flat light, but I think most skis do. :D

Tracked Pow & Crud
These things cut like spats do through this stuff but feel much more "lively." No deflection and very little tip floppines. I could definitely get my ghetto sloppy version of a carve on in this snow.

Pow
Had some runs early on lower angle pow, and then later on OTR and Avi Bowl. There were very few true "untracked" pow runs, but where there were these things ripped and made me feel confident which i don't always feel on these runs. I did manage to dive the tips when I tried, but only at slower speeds. Once the tips dive they pretty much zoom off in whatever random direction they feel like. At speed it wasn't an issue.

Final comments on the initial review
They were fun to ski. I skied my spats in the afternoon as a comparison. The spats turn a lot easier and faster, but the bros are soooo much lighter and I felt a lot more confident getting forward on the bros and more able to stay out of the backseat which is a big issue I have with the way I ski pow. I think that if these skis were mounted a little bit further forward it may have made skiing bumped up pow a little easier for me than it was. I would be curious to see if the suggestions Pechelman made regarding tip profile and/or tip rocker would make them as turny as spats without sacrificing the carvibility.

I apologize that I do not have very strong analytical skills, if anyone has a specific question, shoot.

oh my gawwwwwwwwwwwwwwd. i know what i'm buying next year. why exactly do most PM gear skis not have a full twin?

because skiing switch is stupid
just ask marshaLOLson ;)

sounds like you had a good time out there today P :)

2nd on the diving of the tips at slow speeds
they need at least a little speed (as do most skis)

sorry about the boots too
maybe try them again if ya want by putting your liners in my shells

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lax

oh my gawwwwwwwwwwwwwwd. i know what i'm buying next year. why exactly do most PM gear skis not have a full twin?

---

Because they're more big mountain/all mountain.
We make them flat-tailed for a European guide who skis them.
The Bros like big mountain skiing.
It's what they were designed for.
That's why we wanted the rockers to ski well on ice.
It won't always be powder.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by splat

But it was in Revelstoke that they got the ultimate test and I creamed my jeans.

---

SKiing in jeans kills it.

bump for Pat

did you ever measure where yours are mounted?

has anyone tried these with tele bindings?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sharcsplean

has anyone tried these with tele bindings?

---

heh

Rontele may get the chance one of these days
we were just talking about that this morning

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pechelman

heh

Rontele may get the chance one of these days
we were just talking about that this morning

---

but who will actually drop a knee?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pechelman

bump for Pat

did you ever measure where yours are mounted?

---

bcl is 1040 off the tip, but I'm not sure that's matching my boot.
I just keep throwing them on and skiing them...
Still have to move them around.
My time skiing is so limited, I'm not paying much attention.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pechelman

heh

Rontele may get the chance one of these days
we were just talking about that this morning

---

doitdoitdoitdoitdoitdoitdoitdoitdoit[/enabling]

poop ghost, ill drop so much knee.

pechelman - just talked to marshal.

Make sure he gets his feet on those babies.

sure thing

they have dynafits on them though, so i am somewhat worried he will exploderize them :p

Let him put his own bindings on....

bump for two quick questions.

In turns of pivotness / ease of sliding the tails where do the Rockers fall if:
5= stiff 188 bro
10= Spats.

Where do these fall in terms of feels like skiing a traditional ski in powder
1= Spat
5= Hellbentish ski
10= 188 Bro

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by XtrPickels

bump for two quick questions.

In turns of pivotness / ease of sliding the tails where do the Rockers fall if:
5= stiff 188 bro
10= Spats.

Where do these fall in terms of feels like skiing a traditional ski in powder
1= Spat
5= Hellbentish ski
10= 188 Bro

---

Doooood.....
You must be psychic, Rob. We just finished a bunch.
And we did a bunch of fiddlin around.
We did reverse camber, flat and positive, noodle to I beam, all glass and a few glass/carbons.
We milled a new mold, rockered the tip up a bit more (looks nice), used the core pechelman designed for it (did the protos with 188 and 192 cores), put metal in the base in the tips and tails, and threw the 192 FKNA tops on them because we thought the Rossi S7 top was so cool. ;) Ya hear that, coreshot?

Been bustin nuts to get them done for OR.
The whole crew disappeared New Years Eve and never came back. :FIREdevil
(Pokey called yesterday to see how pissed I was, but didn't dare show up)
Luckily, dk_alsakan and TeleRob showed up and saved our butts. Super props to those two dudes.

pickles - TH came over to do a vid on us and I mentioned you and the green machine you scored for us. I don't know if it made the cut, but I was thinkin of you, mang.

edit: here's a few really rough pics prior to finishing.....

we didn't want anyone to know we added fiber optic headlights for nite skiing, but wtf, may as well show them off here....;)

http://www.tetongravity.com/forums/a...4&d=1200871707

http://www.tetongravity.com/forums/a...5&d=1200871707

http://www.tetongravity.com/forums/a...6&d=1200871707

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by XtrPickels

bump for two quick questions.

In turns of pivotness / ease of sliding the tails where do the Rockers fall if:
5= stiff 188 bro
10= Spats.

Where do these fall in terms of feels like skiing a traditional ski in powder
1= Spat
5= Hellbentish ski
10= 188 Bro

---

Pivotyness
Not having been on a 188stiff bro, but a 186 LP which is kinda similar and having been on spats, I can say that

Pivotyness = 7ish
Sliding Tails = 8ish

As far as feeling like a traditional ski in pow and feeling alive while still being surfy and not that dead spat feel...Id say quite confidently its pretty much a 8-9. I have not been on a hellbent style ski. The closest ive come is a 192 Bro with lots of tip rocker.

If you can, Id look for yossarian and upallnight's review of the dp120- when it first came out and how they compared it to the spatula. Those might help shed some additional light as we have very similar designs.

Where the rocker and dp120 differ however is;
More effective edge
More sidecut, especially in the tip
Narrower waist
Heavier\"More Durable" construction (probably a bit less power but more dampness)
Cheaper cost

Overall though, the rocker makes more compromises to work pretty damned well on ice\firm whilst giving up very little in the soft\pow.



and pat
those look secsi with the 192 topsheet :D
that rocker\tip looks dialed too

pat
Gimme a call or an e-mail when you get back in town after OR. I'm solidly in line.

That's hawt.

gang
ster

pechelman - showed the ski to a friend who's a big time/ big name/ big mountain guy at OR and he suggested softening the tails (this was the I beam model) to allow the tails to sink as the rocker lifts.

Whaddaya think of that?

Splat,

That would be my recommendation too based upon my experience on the 192s; don't know if mine are super stiffs, but there sure feel like it when I flex them. They are mounted at 1075 and I have to ski them very centered in less than perfect powder to keep the tips up. This also might be a result of my skinny ass not having enough mass to bend them properly. Having the Rocker do everything that Pechelman has experienced and still being able to drive forward in powder without any possibly of tip dive or spearing would be the ticket, at least for me.

I understand what you're saying, but the pintail design of the 186 tail might sink enough due to it's narrow nature and still be stiff enough for good rearward landing support. We're skiing a Heinz 57 variety pack of rockers the next couple days; soft, stiff, reverse, flat and positive. I think we'll get some good evaluations from a variety of skiers.

Bump to encourage tele mounting pechelman's rockers.
And letting me try them.

Overlooked how much pintail they have. Even with a stiff tail they should float with those dimensions. Want me to test a pair on the sand here in Saudi?:D

Kidding aside I'm really looking forward to putting a pair through their paces.

Holy shit. 3 different flexes in Soli Sunday pow today.

fuckkkkkk................what a day.

Yo, Watards - sfb now has a couple proto 186 rockers at the shop.
One pair are noodles (xclnt in pow) and another original rockers protos.
I had to take the stiffs with me for further testing. ;)

i just love further testing :)

Will there be a commercial model avail for purchase this season if the new testing goes well?

available now from what i understand
email or PM pat about placing an order

quantities i think are very very limited

I'm probably the least techy ski tech out there so I'm just gonna say
These skis FKNA kick ass
Upon further testing I'll try and elaberate
Splat sorry for hoarding that pair, I had a vision and they spoke to me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pechelman

available now from what i understand
email or PM pat about placing an order

quantities i think are very very limited

---

Not quite yet. We made 4 pairs or so for testing. skifishbum got to test some.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by skifishbum

I'm probably the least techy ski tech out there so I'm just gonna say
These skis FKNA kick ass
Upon further testing I'll try and elaberate
Splat sorry for hoarding that pair, I had a vision and they spoke to me.

---

I'm guessing he liked 'em. BTW, skifishbum, thanks for the bluebird tour.

Pat's in Vegas right now at SIA. He'll be there for much of the week.

Once he gets back we'll begin pressing skis. We need to do a couple of other lay up ideas before production.

It will probably be at least 3 weeks after that before they would possibly ship.

Haven't decided on a price yet, but it will be closer to the high end PM Gear skis (think 192's).

That's where we are right now with that ski.

Stoked there is so much interest.

From the above, I'd guess that I just skied the noodles yesterday at Soli. Brown 192 FKNA topsheets. HO LEE FUUUUUUUUCK.

I'm 5'10", 180 lbs, good skier. I really like to go fast, but have never been able to really fly in pow. I've skied 100 days on a first gen 188 Bro stiff, 2 days on 192 stiffs, 15 days on Ninthward THA, and no previous time on any rockered or reverse sidecut ski. Soli reported 6" at 6am, and it probably snowed 2-3"/hr until noon. Honeycomb was amazing, we skied 6 untracked runs before anyone else realized it was open. This was about as light blower as I've ever skied. Less than 2' on the ground and we were hitting bottom a bit, whether we had 100 or 136 underfoot.

The BROckers fucking roooooool. On my first run I was perfectly comfortable taking Honeycomb from the Powderhorn gate in about 5 turns. The skis were stable, effortless, floaty, perfect. No tip dive (they weren't on top, but I never got the 'boat anchor' effect), no hookiness.

I thought a bunch about this thread and what I would change if I could, but there isn't much. I'm not positive they need as much sidecut as they have underfoot. It wasn't an issue, but I would be interested to see what a slightly larger radius would do. The tip rocker was absolutely perfect. Tail rocker was fine, I might flatten it out just a hair. A couple landings i felt the wheelie effect, like I was rolling backwards. For the conditions and the terrain (somewhat tight trees, perfect for GS turns, just wide enough I never really had to speed check) they were pretty much the ideal ski.

My last two runs Infantile Egomaniac and I switched, and I tried his 185 Praxis. The BROcker was my first rockered ski, the Praxis in the afternoon my first reverse-reverse. I felt there was a slightly more difficult learning curve for the Praxis. They skied a bunch shorter. I did have a problem with tip dive in the same conditions on the same run. The praxis were a bit more stable feeling in chopped pow. I didn't think the Praxis were much more pivoty than the BROcker. The BROcker had an enormous advantage on the way back to the lift. The sidecut and flat underfoot made it feel like a short carving ski on hardpack, while the praxis were pivoty, squirrely, and somewhat painful to keep on edge.

I really do think this ski is a winner. The 186 felt absolutely ideal for the conditions. I think I'd probably want a bit larger version for wide-open pow fields or some more open inbounds areas (backside at alta would be a good place for a 196). Now I want to try them in slightly more varied conditions to assess their performance as an all-mountain almost-every-day type of ski, because the only thing we skied yesterday was the kind of blower I can usually only dream about.

This might be the most thought-out gear review I've posted, but I'm sure its still lacking. Any questions, please go ahead and ask.

awesome!

thanks for your time spent typing that out and glad you enjoyed them :)

did you happen to encounter any breakable crusts?
any idea where they were mounted?
how would you compare the flex to other skis? (ie marshals scale)
edit: we're thinking about beefing up the production cores a tad, so as specific as you can get would be helpful on the flex.