Trees
The following day, I brought the Rocker2 115 out for a mellower line down Calverts ridge in search of leftovers. We arrived at our destination and were pleasantly surprised to find an unaffected patch of fresh snow. I dove right in, making a couple big turns that quickly gave way to some slashing and slarving down the lower section. The 115 handled it all perfectly.
At the bottom of Calverts is a dense, medium-to-low-angle treed area that I was able to navigate with ease. The 115s were very easy to steer through the tight trees, and if I started gaining too much speed, I could easily shut the skis down with a quick slash.
On another day, I ventured farther into some north-facing chutes, and the 115s stomped the 12-foot entrance. Once in the chute, I could engage the tails to slarve short-radius turns with ease in the 6” of fresh, but where it had sloughed out, the 115s were less comfortable.
After setting off a small slab of storm snow, the firm bed surface was not fun on the 115s, and, while manageable, there is a lot of tail to bring around to make short-radius turns or jump turns. I would undoubtedly prefer a narrower ski if I was expecting to encounter scraped off or chalky conditions—not what the 115 was made for.
Resort Pow
When the resort opened the new Casper chair on December 6th, I was excited to push the Rocker2 115s a little harder, and they did not disappoint. Due to the low, early December snowpack, there were myriad features in the Moran Woods that do not typically show under deeper coverage, and the 107” of untouched snow that had already fallen at the high elevations made for some amazing cowboy powder.
Through the first few runs of untracked snow, I made medium-to-fast GS turns in the 6″ from the past night with ease. In the open, I could go as fast as I cared to without losing stability, as long as I was centered over the ski.
Airs & Landings
These skis were great for airing off the 5-to-10-foot rocks into the fresh untouched pow. The skis are light and very manageable in the air, and they practically begged to be thrown sideways into huge steezed-out shiftys. When necessary, mid-air balance adjustments required minimal effort.
One of the things this ski does best is stomp landings. The tail is not very rockered (only 23cm), which provides a super stable, balanced platform for landing. On the 115, it was easy to regain a neutral stance whether I landed forward or back. When I did land a lot farther back, of course, the ski could take off if I didn’t make a concerted effort to return to center.
Resort Chop
Later in the day when the open areas were cut up, I could still drive the ski with a balanced stance, and it handled the chop well. Although the tips are very light, they did not get deflected by the afternoon crud. I could plow through the chop with confidence. I am guessing this may be due to the more subtle profile of the tip rocker, which extends 49 cm, but the splay is less than that of, say, the Moment Bibby Pro or the BD Amperage. Overall, I found the 115 to be more stable, slightly more directional, and able to charge a bit harder than the Amperage.
When I took the Rocker2 115 down the newly graded and cleared Sun Dog trail under the Casper chair, I felt the same stability that Will Brown had talked about. While laying the ski on edge in GS- and SG-sized turns, the 115s blew through the small crud piles on the groomer. I found that they could hold an edge well, but they are not true carvers at all—again, not exactly what the ski was designed for.
Those Tails
When the runouts started getting flatter and firmer, I had to be wary of the tails. It felt like there was more material back there than I wanted for steering through the developing troughs. If I wasn’t on the ski and steering precisely, the stiffer tails would buck me on the firmer bumps. I noticed this again on the firm runout of the return from the sidecountry a week later after the upper mountain opened up.
Pillows
After the Tram opened up the Jackson Hole sidecountry, I found where the Rocker2 115 truly excels: pillows.
The 115 stomps landings and willingly permits last-minute balance adjustments. Plus, the ease with which you can steer the ski in short spaces allows for minute modifications to your route, an essential part of bigger pillow lines. The ability to either speed through an open runout or shut it down immediately in front of a patch of trees completes the package.
In short, I have never liked a ski more for pillows. The 115 is better than the BD Amperage (a ski with the same waist, but more rocker than the 115), my 190cm Lotus 120, the 193 Atomic Automatic, or anything narrower I have skied on. The only caveat is that if I landed very far back, the ski would take off and leave me stuck in the backseat for the consecutive air, but that will be true of most skis that aren’t noodles.
Bottom Line
The Rocker2 115 is balanced and easy to steer, handles well at slow speeds, yet is still able to charge fairly hard. It likes to slash and slarve. It is excellent in the air, and it stomps landings. It’s a great powder tool that a broad range of skiers will enjoy.
Experts will enjoy this ski for how well rounded it is in soft snow. It is not the traditional hard-charging ski that the most aggressive, straight, fast skiers will love, but I highly recommend this ski for everybody else.
Intermediate skiers will also like this ski for its ease of steering in fresh snow, but may want to switch to something with a softer tail for the days in between storms. I would hesitate to recommend the Rocker2 115 as a one-ski quiver, but it could certainly be a fantastic second ski for those deeper days.
NEXT PAGE: ROCKER PROFILE PICS
Thanks for the great review! So it sounds like the R2 115 is not quite the high speed AK charger that Salomon is marketing it as. I guess I’m not surprised to hear that since the turning radius on the 188 is only 21m. Just wondering if you’ve had a chance to ski the R2 122 in the 192cm, I wonder if it would be just as, or more capable of charging since the are a little longer and have a 26m turning radius. I guess I’ll be the first to ask how they compare to the Squad 7 in terms of charging/crud busting.
Thanks!
Murray,
I would certainly agree with your first assessment. While you can ski the R2 115 hard and fast, there are certainly skis out there that are made for skiing harder and faster, always compromises to weigh. I would love to try this ski mounted further back in a 193-195 length. That may be closer to the AK charger you are wondering about.
As far as the R2 122, I have not had a chance to get on it. It does have a longer turn radius, but also has more rocker in the tail, so I’m not sure how much harder charging it is with the extra 5 meters.
I also have not skied the Squad 7, although Andrew Gregovich has just gotten on our pair of R2 115s and has also skied the Squad 7, so he will be able to offer a better opinion on the comparison between those two.
Ryan said – “I had to lean back quite a bit to keep the 115s charging in the denser snow.”
I skied these a 1/2 day here in AK in the exact snow your describe + a little funk on the top. Backseat is what I recall too. If you have to do that on a rockered ski something isn’t quite right. My Atomic Big Daddy’s would destroy in those same conditions.
Interesting comments about the back seat. I’ve been taking the Rocker2 115’s out in Tahoe’s finest Sierra Cement and haven’t experienced that at all. You have to be centered for sure, but I never felt the need to lean back. I’m 5′ 11″ / 170 pounds with the 188, mounted on the line.
As per Murray’s comment above, I don’t think Salomon has been marketing this ski as the ultimate charger – it’s more so a powder ski that can also rip pretty hard and bust through chop when you ask it to. IMO if it charged any harder / was any stiffer it wouldn’t be nearly as fun in deep snow.
seriously good reviews guys! I am considering the rocker2 115 for a 2 ski quiver,I am a progressing intermeadiate 5’9″ and,wait for it, 240lbs. I ski a 185 scimitar right now and want to add something a little bigger for off piste,chop,powder post storm conditions at our mountain in Fernie,bc.I ski every weekend so conditions are variable to say the least. Iam also considering the bibby pro 190, Automatic 193, AKJJ ,any thoughts or advise as I know my substantial weight,I am fairly athletic/pwerfully built but just alittle soft round the edges, throws an anomoly into the equation
Many thanks
Chris
I can’t help you with your query about the R115 but I hope you don’t mind me jumping in to give you some thoughts on the AKJJ. Blister have published a very thorough review on it and whilst it is a great ski in consistent conditions, as they say, I have found it doesn’t perform as well in variable snow conditions. I didn’t experience the issues with the shovels folding so much but rather with both the tip and tail of the ski lacking support and strength when trying to scrub speed or when keeping an even pressure through my feet and trying to push through variable, chopped, heavy snow. Ultimately, I thinl the guys at Blister nailed it with the assessment that the AK transitions away from the stiffness underfoot too quickly(mentioned in the Jaguar Shark review). For your weight it sounds like the Bibby is going to offer you the most support but it depends whether you want the tip and tail rocker of the bibby or the tip rocker and early rise tail of the 115.
For reference I’m 6ft 185 and I’ve been using the AKJJ in various conditions from a few FWQ comps to general day to day skiing, not just a dedicated pow setup. I’ve also spoken to a few people who ski on the bibby and their sentiments are all the same as what the guys at Blister say about it. The 115 I’ve only handled so can’t compare directly.
David.
Thanks for your opinions on the ski’s I listed. I have been leaning towards the Bibby but unfortunately I
can’t demo it in town but I can demo the automatics and rocker 2 so I think this will turn into a process of
elimination and then possibly a leap of faith !!!
Many thanks for your comments
Chris
My only gripe is it is too short, all else sounds cool, if it where in a 195 cm I would be interested.
Been sinking more time into this site than I care to admit trying to settle on a new pair of 115+ skis to pick up end of season. A testament to how excellent a resource you guys have put together. Addiction! The skis I’m considering: Bibby, Rocker2 115, Automatic, Shiro, Squad 7 and Gunsmoke. All skis in 184 to 190 lengths. They’ll supplement my abused 2008 Gotamas (pre-rocker).
I’m 5’11”, 155 and an aggressive skier that skis 80% resort, 20% backcountry around the world. No plans to mount AT bindings though. Usually seeking out snow, which means I find myself skiing trees and chop more often than not. Big open lines when they’re not bumped out. Stay away from hardpack and stiff bumps. Ability to ski crud & chop is paramount, but want to avoid that hefty, planky feeling that often accompanies crud busters. I still like some of that snappy playfulness that I found the Cochise I demo’ed last month lost to dampness.
Generally, would you say the following is a fair characterization?
Crud & Chop:
Shiro –> Gunsmoke –> Automatic –> R2 115 –> Bibby –> Squad 7
Trees & Turnability:
Squad 7 –> Shiro –> Bibby –> Gunsmoke –> R2 115–> Automatic
Playfulness/Poppiness:
Squad 7 –> R2 115 –> Bibby –> Automatic –> Gunsmoke –> Shiro
Groomers/Hardpack:
Gunsmoke –> Automatic –> R2 115 –> Squad 7 –> Bibby –> Shiro
Float: I assume they all float great in less than a foot, which is 95% of what I ski anyway.
Can you compare the r115 with 12/13 influemce 115? Specially on how they compare with regards to stiffness and handling days following storms on tracked pow… I believe they both do this better than the Automatic
Thanks for the excellent review. Just a few comments.
Review:
“This ski is not a traditional, damp, stiff, charging beast”
“I had the most fun skiing the 115 at medium to lower speeds in tighter situations, pillow zones, and mini golf lines. They made short, quick, low-angle farmed turns well and were easy to steer and make quick directional changes simply by running bases flat.”
I have never seen where Salomon ever marketed this ski as a hard charger, and the fact that it has no metal would exclude it from that category, but is the very reason for its quick and nimble character.
Review:
“I noticed that I had to lean back a bit to maintain stability and control, and keep the tips riding on the surface.”
“I had to lean back quite a bit to keep the 115s charging in the denser snow.”
“There is a lot of tail to bring around to make short-radius turns or jump turns.”
I believe all this is due to a simple error by Salomon in determining the correct factory mount location (also on the Q-98 & 105). DesertSnowJunkies.com has recommended mounting 2cm aft of the factory line, and Salomon indeed moved it back nearly 2cm for this year’s 14/15 model.
Someone above suggest that this years Solomon moved the mounting mid point back 2cm. I just bout a pair on 2013-2014 Q115 168cm and will be mounting in the next few days. Can any one confirm this is the case. Should I move the mount back 2cm? Any suggestions.
used my (now gone) 12/13 r2 115 mounted at recommended line and I found it to be good where it was, can’t imagine moving it 2cm back, looks like there would be a lot of tip and no tail! btw mine was 178 but I guess it would be the same for other sizes
Gary,
I think you should definitely move them back to avoid the problems mentioned in the review. Salomon actually moved the factory line back for the new 14/15 model. I would normally say 2cm back, but for the shorter 168cm size maybe just 1.5cm would be appropriate.
See my complete review at http://www.desertsnowjunkies.com/salomon-q-series-review/
Spent the last two days trying to find out the proper place to mount my 13/14 Q115. After much badgering Salomon finally let me download their 14/15 shop Manuel. The Recomended mount point for the 14/15 is exactly where the Recomended mount point is on the 13/14 ski. I will mount them on the line and see how that works out.
Gary,
First, you don’t need Salomon’s permission to download their manuals. Can be easily accessed by anyone online:
http://www.salomoncertification.com/manuals/SPM_14_EN_BINDING_WEB_FIN_Rev_04.pdf
http://www.salomoncertification.com/manuals/Shop_Practices_Manual_2014_15.pdf
They are not the same. For the 14/15 models they moved the factory recommended line back almost 1cm on the 178cm length and 2cm back on the 188cm length.