Member of the Month

KilaTsunami
October, 2024

Online

Welcome to the Newschoolers forums! You may read the forums as a guest, however you must be a registered member to post. Register to become a member today!

RENO ROCKER IN SMALLER SIZES!

profile picture
masta_LE3B
Posts: 3397 - Karma: 62
ok people, moment told me that they would consider making reno rockers in smaller sizes if there was enough demand, so all you smaller people who would want rockers tell moment about it, i figured 171 would be a good size but ya whatever works for you!


thanks for the help,
bobby

info@momentskis.com is there email
or link80 is lukes NS acount name and he is part of moment










DO IT!!!

Feb 20 2008 1:30PM
0 0
profile picture
dave44
Posts: 11052 - Karma: 113
eh, no.

176/178.

171 = too small. you would need to be like 5'3 to ski those normally



Feb 20 2008 1:40PM
0 0
profile picture
masta_LE3B
Posts: 3397 - Karma: 62
what if i was 5' 4"? but i guess they should go 171, 176, 181 so that like one for everyone! yay
Feb 20 2008 1:42PM
0 0
profile picture
dave44
Posts: 11052 - Karma: 113
^ How old are you? Perhaps you should think about other people.

You realize that molds cost $$$$ right? 178 is fine. If you need anything shorter you shouldn't be skiing on rockered skis. Go figure... how many would need 171 rockers? If there's no demand for 171 rockers, it's simply a waste of money.

In fact, what Moment really need are longer rockers, rather than shorter. A 181 and 188 would be real fine. And a 178 would be nice for the shorties.
Feb 20 2008 1:47PM
0 0
profile picture
masta_LE3B
Posts: 3397 - Karma: 62
exactly why i made this thread, so that if there is enough demand moment will know, but if not, oh well, but you tell them about taller skis!
Feb 20 2008 1:49PM
0 0
profile picture
OLDFRED
Posts: 194 - Karma: 9

totally agree on this...I'm 5'11 bought 179 hellies and though they are great and all but I should have bought the 189s..just increases the surface underfoot when you're on piste and added flotation off piste..

Rockered skis should be bought 10cm longer than what you would normally buy for a regular cambered size ski for your height/weight.

Feb 20 2008 2:08PM
0 0
profile picture
masta_LE3B
Posts: 3397 - Karma: 62
so are you sayin that if i would normaly go with a 171 i should go with a 181? but id be using it as a park ski, and a 181 park seems a little long as a park ski for a person my size
Feb 20 2008 2:28PM
0 0
profile picture
McSlay
Posts: 651 - Karma: 1,182
i would love the reno rocker in smaller sizes mayb 165 that'd be sick
Feb 20 2008 3:28PM
0 0
profile picture
PacificRimJob
Posts: 24725 - Karma: 29,944

The rockers ski like a 156 or 166 on the groomers... they have waaay less contact with the snow because of the rocker. For that reason, and that reason alone, means that you should rethink your ideas.

a 171 rocker would be like a junior/females ski. and most females I know would be happy on the rockers as they are. There is no real demand for it.

If youre 5'4 and weigh over 110 lbs, i'm sure you'll be just fine on the reno rockers as they are at this time. The End.

Feb 20 2008 5:01PM
0 0
profile picture
FreestyleSkier89
Posts: 644 - Karma: 49
176 or 178
Feb 20 2008 5:17PM
0 0
profile picture
yeahitsdave
Posts: 1315 - Karma: 10
188. but im 6'5
Feb 20 2008 8:04PM
0 0
profile picture
steezyjibber
Posts: 15967 - Karma: 11,026
YES 171-174
Feb 20 2008 8:06PM
0 0
profile picture
eheath
Posts: 61588 - Karma: 122,914
178 is 4 cm bigger than your range, do you realize how much 4cm is? it is nothing.
Feb 20 2008 8:17PM
0 0
profile picture
t_rob
Posts: 6433 - Karma: 11,458
thing this is if a 178 was made then the 181 would have to too beacsue it's just too close together, especially if we're talking symetrical. So either 181 and nothing else or 178/186.
Feb 20 2008 8:20PM
0 0
profile picture
steezyjibber
Posts: 15967 - Karma: 11,026
meh


171-174
Feb 20 2008 8:21PM
0 0
profile picture
eheath
Posts: 61588 - Karma: 122,914
vag.
Feb 20 2008 8:26PM
0 0
profile picture
attitashfreestyle29
Posts: 3070 - Karma: 209
if there's a 176 5cm isn't gonna make a big difference
Feb 20 2008 8:40PM
0 0
profile picture
PBraunstein
Posts: 1448 - Karma: 3,804
i havent actually seen the moment rockers.. but i didnt think they were reverse cambered like eps and bents... i thought they were just rockered... the reason why our bents and eps ski so short on the groomers is because they are reverse cambered... i feel like just a straight up tip rockered park ski (like im pretty sure the reno rocker is) would ski a lot more like a normal ski... i say 177
Feb 20 2008 9:08PM
0 0
profile picture
Caveman.
Posts: 9067 - Karma: 330
the difference between a 171 and a 178 is nothing, especially in a rockered ski
Feb 20 2008 9:16PM
0 0
profile picture
bret
Posts: 2845 - Karma: 833
yeah but these are park skis. they're not for carving. they're for buttering and spinning. a kid that's 5'4 110 will probably SKI the 181 fine but he sure won't be much good at park. it's hard to do a 270 with a ski that's 6 inches above your head.

in short, who gives a shit about carving? it's a park ski, it can ride short and still perform well in the park. they should make a smaller size for the homies.


Feb 20 2008 9:16PM
0 0
profile picture
eheath
Posts: 61588 - Karma: 122,914
Eps and bents are rockered. ARGs are reverse camber.

Rockered = early rise = has either regular camber or no camber for about 100cm

reverse camber = whole ski is reverse camber except like 40cm underfoot.
Feb 20 2008 9:19PM
0 0
profile picture
Caveman.
Posts: 9067 - Karma: 330
bahahaha people who can actually ski, believe it or not, you have to ski to get to the park even if you are a park rat
Feb 20 2008 9:20PM
0 0
profile picture
quebecfreestyler
Posts: 13040 - Karma: 1,419
that's why I dont ski park much with the 181.
Feb 20 2008 10:08PM
0 0
profile picture
funk.
Posts: 2679 - Karma: 33
there is definitely talk of a 176 ski.  ced wants it but it just means that they have to buy a new mold which costs money.
Feb 20 2008 10:09PM
0 0
profile picture
masta_LE3B
Posts: 3397 - Karma: 62
but thats only a 5 cm difference? iduno though proggress is proggress, maybey eventually thele have a bunch o sizes
Feb 20 2008 10:26PM
0 0
profile picture
quebecfreestyler
Posts: 13040 - Karma: 1,419
let's see, I'm gonna make teh same comment I made on the moment cult and say, a 171 jib you have around 140 cm of surface area once you take the tip and tails out. they ski real short in case you didnt know. I ride them cause they are stuiill stable enought and  less catchy then the 181 on rails.
lets say you rocker them enought to feel the rcoker. you now have around 100 cm of base that will touch the snow when you are not skiing powder, maybe less.

you'll have something just as stable as a pair of fat skiboards.

Now, should moment make more sizes of the rocker?? maybe,  but definatly not a 171 unless they are made for mini sized (below 5 feet) skiers. 

let's say they make a 176 a 181 and a 186 rocker, that would make more sense. the 5 cm difference could make a difference when spinning onto rails.  Would there be enougth demand for such skis for a small company as moment? that's where you guyz come into play

I'm pretty sure if you guyz interest is real and that tehre is more then people wanting those skiss and who  wouldnt mind preordering them, maybe they could try to work it out for you.
Feb 21 2008 7:23AM
0 0
profile picture
PacificRimJob
Posts: 24725 - Karma: 29,944
Who said anything about carving? I sure as hell didnt...

I was just basically stating that taking a ski like that and giving it like 50cm of contact with the snow would make it practically reverse camber.. which is a bitch if you want to try and turn at all. that is, if they made it with the same tip-tail rise as the 181's. They would probably need to make a whole new ski design to make it work... I think.. Then again, you do make a valid point with his height and all.. (how the old is that kid though?.. No offense of course if you're just short, dude)

I think a mid 170's size like a 176 would probably be good, and to add to that, and like people have already said, perhaps a 186 rather than a 181.. (but then again, the 181 is pretty damn perfect and you already have the mold for it made.. so why not continue it)

This ski is all the rage though.. prepare for world domination in the buttering dept, Moment...
Feb 21 2008 8:12AM
0 0
profile picture
P-JO
Posts: 6853 - Karma: 75
Someone should take a legit survey.  I bet theres more demand for a 186+ rocker... but thats just me speaking mostly..hah
Feb 21 2008 9:54AM
0 0
profile picture
quebecfreestyler
Posts: 13040 - Karma: 1,419
yea you summed it up pretty well. 
 
I dont think there is a point in a rockered ski shorter then 18.  Longuer could be usefull for anyone over 5 10.

Unless people would make enought demand to make it worthy wich I doubt I dont think there is a point in making a shorter rocker. then again I,ve been wrong in the past and will be wrong again at some point that's foir sure so what do I know :)
Feb 21 2008 12:27PM
0 0
profile picture
masta_LE3B
Posts: 3397 - Karma: 62
ya, i get what u guys are saying, but would a 15 year old kid whos 5' 4" be able to pull 9's and 450's on skis that are 181? and id by them as a pure park ski, i mean sure id use them in powder and stuff but i want a really progressivve park ski
Feb 21 2008 7:55PM
0 0
profile picture
quebecfreestyler
Posts: 13040 - Karma: 1,419
sounds to me that the 171  jibs are what you are looking for.
Spinning a lot and landing on hard packed park jump landings isnt what the rockered park skis are made for. Rockered skis are  not as stable on landings and are/should be used for a different approach to aprk skiing where instead of doing big technical tricks you'll do more basics tricks deifferently and do differenct vairations of these tricks to make them more technically impressive.

EX: nose utter 270 onto a down rail would be easier to do with rockered park skis while a corked 9 over a 90 footer will be easier on a shorter regular camber pure park ski.


hope that helps you understand what rockered park skis are made for.  Pep and Andy didnt do cab 10 with the hell bents because they didnt want to do them, it's also because they probably wouldnt have been abkle to do decent ones with those skis. They chose to take a different aproach with different skis and do stuff  other riders wouldnt do with their regular skis.
Feb 21 2008 8:11PM
0 0
profile picture
JGP.
Posts: 2785 - Karma: 474
it would make zero financial sense to make a rocker that small. contrary to what some of you guys think, most skiers are normal sized people. maybe you are 5'4" but most men are 5'8" on the short side, 5'10" to 6'2" is becoming more normal.  I am 16 years old, 6'2", and a ton of good skiers coming up in this generation are bigger guys. i find it frustrating that with a 29.5 boot even 181 park skis, when centermounted, feel like snowblades.  if anything, make a 186-188 rocker.  I would buy that in a second.  I would also like a 186-188 jib.  would buy that too. people have got to start realizing that the younger generation is full of bigger guys who need longer skis. 181's barely reach my nose, and when your center mounting a symmetrical ski the tip becomes so short its ridiculous.  I hope some ski company starts to realize this and accommodate the growing amount of tall guys with big feet.
Feb 21 2008 8:32PM
0 0
profile picture
Klick_2_klaim
Posts: 3396 - Karma: 25
so I dont really agree with that.
Im 5 11 as well, and im in heart with the 181 rocker... thats my regular sized ski, i wouldnt change the size.

maybe in a hellbent, but personally I wouldnt buy that ski, so I cant really comment. I guess im less disagreeing with you, than I am not agreeing in actual fact. But that is ok.

a smaller sized, narrower rocker would be more what a smaller rider would need. 171 at 90 underfoot would be a completely different kind of ski.
Feb 21 2008 9:17PM
0 0
profile picture
amo
Posts: 6709 - Karma: 1,248
a 178 would be so wonderful for us shorties. Go for it Moment!

and yes, i know how old this thread is
Sep 17 2008 3:52PM
0 0
All times are Eastern (-5)