Super wide skis with rockered tips are the rage for powder skiing right now. I am on a 6-7 yr. old pair of Volkl Explosivs in the CMH edition. They are yellow with "CMH Heli Skiing" on the tails and a helicopter on the front. In 200+ days of skiing I have beaten all the camber out and put enough nicks on the topsheets that they are (apparently) not theft bait any longer. As far as I can tell they are just as good a ski today as when new. After talking to folks who rave about rockered superfats I decided to look on CMH's site and see what they are providing for their clients today. It is the Atomic Sugar Daddy, although the ones made for CMH are called Heli Daddy.
http://www.canadianmountainholidays.com/heli-skiing/preparation
They have a 99 mm waist and very similar dimensions to my Explosivs. This raises the question, If rockered tips and 120+ waists are so good, why isn't CMH using them? As for me, why would I bother with a Sugar Daddy which has very similar characteristics as my Explosiv? IMHO the SD is probably a lesser ski. How do I know? They don't say Volkl on the topskins (strong personal bias).

My guess is that CMH wants to provide a mainstream ski, and they might expect that hardcore skiers will bring their own powder-specialty boards. The wider rockered / reverse camber / reverse sidecut skis are still somewhat outside the mainstream in my opinion, just based on who I see skiing them in comparison to the wider majority of skiers on traditional skis. Perhaps CMH will switch when these powder-specialty skis become more widespread.

It's true that most "locals" at places like Alta and Snowbird use powder-specialty skis, but my observation is that the vast majority of visitors / vacationers do not. CMH may see a similar breakdown among their clients.

I haven't demoed very many powder-specialty skis, but my limited impression is that they take some adjusting to, and a change in technique (to really take advantage of the benefits). Maybe someone with more experience can comment better.

yeah I wouldnt read into that to much, I dont even agree with 120mm plus reverse for all powder days.

My point in the original thread was the explosiv you have are too short. Most people grown up size use those in a 180 or a 190. They measure short and I felt the 190s i used were fun crud skis that were ok in powder.

You should really look at something like a 183 Gotama, 179 seth, 183 Atomic Pimp, or 182 Fisher 101. All of the above would ski non powder nearly as well as your explosiv and would ski powder much better.


also on the atomic dont get those skis, tail is too stiff and the beta construction isnt supple enough to ski off trail easily.

I've got a question. Don't mean to hijack this thread, but could someone explain "rockered" skis to me. I'm not sure that I really understand what they are. Maybe I do and just don't know it....

Put your skis base to base. They will touch just forward of the tail and just behind the point where the tips curve apart. Do the same thing with a rockered tip ski and they will touch about 18" behind the tips, which will splay apart as much as 4". The purpose is to encourage the tips to rise to the surface in deep snow and allow the skis to plane on top of the powder, no matter how deep or soft. The term comes from the resemblance to the rocker on a rocking chair. I think that is a great idea but I am worried about the versatility. I realize that I can't expect the ski to do it all, but I'd like to feel that;

1. I can get back to the lift, or get to powder safely on average groomed conditions.

2. I can vary speed and turn radius at will & whim, as I can do on my CMHs.

Thanks Denis!

The term "rocker" is most often used in the context of boats, when talking about the keel. Usually, you hear it in the context of canoes and kayaks. A good flat water boat, which is optimized for straight line speed and tracking, will have a straight keel with no rocker. On the other hand, a whitewater boat will have a lot of rocker (like a banana) because you want it to turn easily and spin on a dime. There are all kinds of hull designs in between the two extremes, with various forms of rocker. The shape of the hull (V, rounded, flat) also factors in.

I have seen the same trends showing up in skiing, namely, different styles and combinations of camber, rocker, and tip shapes. It's cool to see all the innovation and new ideas. The main purpose in skiing is powder performance, trying to improve the way the skis float and turn in deep snow. The powder-specialty skis focus on this, usually at the expense of groomer performance -- you'll see people on these skis heading back to the lift, and it looks like they are about to self-destruct, the way the skis are flapping and flopping around (plus they are going a million miles per hour). Some of the newer designs are more like hybrids, with at least some priority placed on all-mountain ability. Those skis tend to have zero camber, a traditional sidecut in the middle, and limit the rocker to the very tips and tails.

Denis or BW,

What do you know about DPS Skis? I saw a lot of people at Pow Mow with these. The ones I saw were mounted with AT bindings. He said the model he was skiing was 138mm underfoot and 202cm long. He said they were coming out with longer skis in 2010.

I have skied the 138 the one that mimics the tabla rasa. Really well made skis and super light. The 138 is overkill for around here, but at pow mow they would rock on flat deep runs.

The 120 in a 178 or 190 would be decent powder ski for you and wouldnt suck at touring locally.