Rocker 2 122 vs. SFB vs. Volkl one

DIPED_IN_SAUCE

DIPED_IN_SAUCE

Member
I'm debating between these 3 skis. About me:

5'6 120 pounds.

Washington- ride crystal baker and alpy

I mostly ski trees and tighter/ more technical runs.

Occasionally hit some cliff/ booters

I'd be skiing powder 80% of the time on these, I have a two ski quiver now.

Advise appreciated, +k for help.
 
I can only speak for the bacons it they are great. Really playful and actually float well for the narrow waist. If they are going to be your dedicated pow.ski though I would look at the opus which is wider.
 
172 bacons are at the top of my head. Even for someone who mostly skis tighter stuff and is a twig you would go 178? Also to whoever was saying these are different skis, the bacons are a bit of a stand out but all the skis are designed to do pretty much the same thing. Just saying the 122's in a 170 are only 115 in the waist, and have less rocker then the bacons. Thanks for the feedback guys.
 
I'm 5'5" but have 30lbs more than you... For a dedicated powder ski you should have no problem at all to handle the Opus 178.

About the other skis, I don't like the rocker profile of the vokl one, think it's too much and too long...

rocker2 I'd look at the 180 but it's also 115...

I'd really consider the Opus 178, find a demo in this size and give it a try, you won't regret
 
Of those 3 the rocker 122 is certainly the most playfull. It has a really low swing weight so is good for tight trees.

The vockl will be the best at higher speed stuff but not as playfull as the others.

The sfb is pretty heavy and not a lot of life. I personally would not put it up against the other two, the opus will be better but yeah a 178 may be too big at your size.
 
I own the bacons and completely disagree with you. They're super playful, I use them for my park skis and the weight is no where near heavy. If you wanted to talk about their lack of durability, that's where I find their weak point.
 
Have you tried the others to compare. The bacons feel ok if you have not skied much else, but if your testing a few skis at once you really notice how heavy and unplayfull the bacons feel.

I have freinds who have the bacons and liek them, but then when they test other skis against them they all say the same thing I noticed.
 
I'm almost the exact same size as you OP, I would of all of then the 122s in a 170 would be a good choice, for tighter terrain (which I ski a lot as well) you wouldn't benefit from the 180. The bacons would be a good option aswell in the 172, just less float and less stable then the 122s. Have you considered the rocker 2 108s in a 174? Little bit extra length but lighter then both those other skis.
 
I have, I just think that they are less of a powder ski then the 122's. even though they are the same width as the bacons, they have a lot less surface area and less rocker. I'm going to a two ski quiver and need something for powder to compliment my 90 wasted skis.
 
I've done some more research and I'm definitely leaning towered the rocker 2 122's in a 170. Anyone know a place i could get last years model for cheep? Level 9 has them but only in a 180, evo/backcontry are sold out.

Thanks for the help guys.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top