Rocker vs. Normal?

N

no_knees

Member
Greetings everyone,

A friend and I are thinking of starting a ski company and i just have some questions for you, the market.

Rocker

vs. normal skis? what size dimensions?(length, side cut etc.) Basically

I am just curious what you as the consumer, would buy? If you could

design a ski what would it look like?
 
there arnt to many mid wide 100 mm waste (sp) with a rocker i think that would be sick

just curious what are you going to use as a ski press
 
my perfect ski would be 142-112-140 and 180cm with a small amount of rocker on both tips and with a soft flex.. mounted -2.. so really just a tweak of the Line Elizabeth..
 
dude no offense but asking newschoolers for advice on ur new ski company makes me think that i would never by skis from u, not because ns cant help, because it can, it just shows ur lack of knowledge and commitment, if i was really starting a ski company which i have thought about, i already have all the knowledge. the only knowledge i would want to gain would be like polling issues, ie how much do u want and can spend, where u live etc, demographic type questions not design and concept questions. u should have a handle on that type of stuff if ur really serious. just my thought
 
if you read the thread he wanted to know what kind of skis we would be interested in no specifics giving the measurements are just giving him an idea
 
brmn = ---karma

btw if you want my opinion, normal is better for park, and i've never even seen pow in my life so i wouldn't know bout that.

i also like like slitly higher tips and tails than normal, symetrical skis, a choice of lenghs and lots of pop.
 
If you could do like an all mountain rocker like 95 underfoot that would be sick!!!! or maybe like earlyrise not fully rockerd that would be cool too.
 
why would anyone want rocker for anything other than pow? doesnt rocker and early rise mess up the pop without like 3 inches of snow? i mean presses and stuff but it makes nooo sense.....

maybe the kid with the 98 underfoot statement is from the midwest but for me my all mountain ski will never be under 110 under foot.

the elizabeths are such a great ski, i almost made the mistake of getting hellbents in the 189 length. i think im going to stay with the lizzies for as long as there around and maybe have some SFB for my bc jumps and shiat.
 
i am east coast, but 98-105 is an all around ski size for me..... 98 underfoot is perfect for me for park and deeper snow..... i have really big skis as well, but they sit in the closet more than anything else, even during my 4 years out west...... i want an all around fun ski that can be worn anytime, anyday.... 110 underfoot is too big on rails, for me atleast
 
ya but wouldnt you say adding rocker makes it NOT an all around ski? i learned my lesson from the badasses with the fullface so im not saying DONT do it, but im wondering as to why you would?
 
just something new i guess, there has never been a ski like this, so i'd like to try it. my skiing changes depending on the skis i am on, and i think skis like this would make a lot of things differnt, and more fun. i want a rockered ski, but 122 on the hellbents is too much ski for me....... i am now not too sure why i want it, i guees you want what you cant have
 
you are aware (im about 98% sure about this statement) that you cant pop on rocker'd skis without like 3-4 inches of snow right?
 
i have heard this, but i got buddies riding hellbents in the park on the east coast everyday, they dont seem to have a problem with it, so i am not worried about it, if the hellbent was 112 underfoot, i might have em, if they were 102 underfoot, i would have em
 
ive been riding rockered park skis for the past few weeks, and they are disgusting. they ski alot different than a normal ski, but they are still very easy to ski. great switch too.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top