Update: 2015-2016 Salomon Rocker2 108

Will Brown reviews the Salomon Rocker2 108 for Blister Gear Review

2015-2016 Salomon Rocker2 108

Ski: 2015-2016 Salomon Rocker2 108, 190cm

Dimensions (mm): 137-111-130

(Note: The 182cm, 174cm, and 166cm models are all 108mm underfoot, with narrower tip and tail dimensions in the shorter lengths)

Actual Tip-to-Tail Length (straight tape pull): 188.9cm

Blister’s Measured Weight per Ski: 2159 & 2349 grams

Sidecut Radius: 19.7 meters

Boots / Bindings: Salomon Falcon Pro CS / Marker Jester Demo (DIN at 10)

Mount Location: “Recommended” (-3 from center)

Test Location: Taos Ski Valley; Alta Ski Area, Summit County, CO

Days Skied: 9 total

[Editor’s Note: Our review was conducted on the 12/13 Rocker2 108, which was not changed for 13/14, 14/15, or 15/16 except for the graphics.]

Since posting my 2nd Look of the Salomon Rocker2 108, which adds to what Jason Hutchins has already said about the ski in his review, I’ve put three more days on the ski in powder and largely soft, fresh conditions (instead of giving the ski back to Jason). The 108’s powder performance was one area still left to look at upon posting my first review, so it’ll be the main focus of this Update.

Powder Performance

Christmas Day brought 9-10” of super light snow to Taos, and I was eager to get the 108s in some real powder.

One thing I wasn’t sure about with this ski was if the more-forward mount point and a less than stiff shovel (which also doesn’t have much splay in the rocker profile) would cause tip dive. In my experience so far, it hasn’t.

Making some untracked turns down Zagava and Powderhorn Bowl at slow and moderate speeds, I assumed the same more-centered, light stance that I found the ski responds to best. At no point did I feel like I needed to get in the back seat to help the shovels track through the powder. Now, the snow that morning was very light, so much of the time the tips of the 108s stayed totally submerged—they were not planing on top of the snow much at all—which was also the case with the Armada TST that same morning. (The TST has much more splay in its tip rocker). Still, the skis did very well and provided a totally sufficient amount of float for the conditions.

Salomon Rocker2 108, Blister Gear Review

Will Brown, Supreme Area, Alta

Skiing at Alta Ski Area in the end of a storm cycle this past week, several BLISTER reviewers were exploring terrain off the Wildcat lift. Conditions were a little tricky. Roughly 10” of light snow sat on top of fairly big, firm moguls. This wasn’t dust on crust, but you definitely had to be on your toes—there was no being sure if you were going to bust through a patch of fresh, or get jarred by a firm ridge underneath it. In fresh pockets around trees, the 108s again floated well, and I was able to take lines as confidently and smoothly as Marshal Olson, who was on a pair of DPS Lotus 138s. Again at times the shovels remained primarily under the snow surface, but they never dove on me. In those fresh conditions, the ski had the same intuitive feel that it has on hardpack: it feels free to pivot and smear, but does so in a very predictable and stable way that’s easy to control and direct.

Chopped / Soft Snow Performance

In much more chopped but still soft conditions in steep terrain off Alta’s Supreme Lift, the 108s again remained nice and stable as long as I was able to maintain a balanced stance (not pressing the shovels too heavily and throwing the tails out). Super quick, pivoted turns were also easy through narrow chokes and lines between trees. If you do ski a lot of low-angle trees or glades when it snows, this will be a great ski for it. It’s just as comfortable in tight spots as it is in more open terrain making fast turns, so long as the conditions aren’t too cruddy and firm. In fact, the stable, comfortable feeling of the 108 in fresh pow only increased as I was able to pick up speed.

Really the only thing the 108 demands in powder or chop, as it does on groomers, is that you remain relatively centered and balanced. I realized this fully after skiing 10″ of firmed up, dense, week old powder in Lorelei trees at Taos. The snow was heavier and more chopped up than the light, fresh powder I had been in previously, so staying centered on the ski was a little trickier. Taking smooth, controlled, deliberate lines wasn’t a problem. But if I did get pitched forward or backward abruptly while making fast, very aggressive turns down the steep terrain, the skis didn’t to a whole lot to stabilize/correct the ride. I wouldn’t say the 108 has a particularly small “sweet spot” in this way, but it does have its limitations in more demanding powder conditions. It’s not a heavier, true powder ski, after all (for that take a look at the Rocker2 115). Again if you can remain more or less centered over the ski it will provide some nice float and stability, and more often than not this isn’t hard to do.

All and all, I continue to be impressed with how well the 108 does in every condition as an all-mountain “one-ski quiver,” and that definitely includes powder. If it snows a foot or more, of course I would be most happy taking out a more dedicated powder ski (especially if I’m really trying to charge once things get trenched/chopped up), but I could still have a whole lot of fun on the 108 if it were my only ski.

 

51 Comments

  1. Gary January 3, 2013 Reply

    Thanks for your reviews. They really are the best out there. Im wondering if any of you guys have ever skied/tested the Icelantic Shaman. I was at Alta for this same storm on the Shaman. I liked it espesially by mid morning when the area started getting skied out. Just wondering if any one had tested it and what your thoughts might me.

    Thanks

    • Will Brown January 6, 2013 Reply

      Hi Gary,

      Thanks for reading. I have spent some time on the Shaman. It’s aggressive sidecut and traditional camber let it (as I’m sure you’re found) rail and carve on groomers extremely well. In that respect its practically a proportionally wider race ski. At the same time the huge shovel lets the ski float very well, so for going from soft chop and powder to groomers it’s great. I did find the Shaman fairly limited in that the aggressive sidecut makes scrubbed, fast long radius turns difficult to hold on line (which a rockered ski with a straighter shape would allow more willingly). It’s not, in other words, a good big mountain/crud ski, nor is it for someone looking to do any tricking around the mountain. If you’re just looking to cruise fresh powder and then carve things up in the afternoon, it’s s good ski to do those two things. Those are my thoughts in a nutshell.

      Cheers,

      WB

  2. Angus January 7, 2013 Reply

    Hi Guys

    Great review as ever, thanks a lot. One thing I was hoping your update might do is compare the Rocker 2 to the Line SFB. Any thoughts?

  3. Valerie January 7, 2013 Reply

    Can you pls compare Rocker 108 and 115? T

    • Will Brown January 11, 2013 Reply

      Hi Valerie,

      In the first part of my response to Nick below, I’ve highlighted the key differences I see between the two. Let me know if you have other, more specific questions that aren’t answered there. They’re two very versatile skis respectively, but the 115 is more of a dedicated, more directional powder ski to start, so it favors a more specific area of skiing in general.

      WB

  4. Nick January 10, 2013 Reply

    Really interested in this and the 115. Really don’t need the tail rocker of this ski, so I was thinking about the 115. I ski fast and hard, but still love to jib around. I need something that can really hold an edge. I was also looking at the 186 automatics. What would you recommend? I’m 5’10 and would go 188 for the 115 and possibly 190, but most likely 184 in the 108.
    Love your site, keep the reviews coming!

    • Will Brown January 11, 2013 Reply

      Hey Nick,

      Are you looking for a one ski quiver or more of a versatile, 2nd powder ski? That’s the big difference from the 108 to 115 in my mind.

      I see the 108 as primarily a kick ass one ski quiver for someone looking to do everything including, quite importantly, really jibbing around. As I said to John below, it’s not an incredible floaty pow ski, nor is it a ripping carver, but it balances both well and will handle flips and spins too. On the other hand – the 115 is first a directional powder/friendlier big mountain ski, but one that does great on hardpack provided you have just a little soft snow to edge into. On the 108, I’m carving up groomers (forward and switch), throwing the edge out in surf turns, doing nose butters and tail presses. On the 115, I’m probably staying out of bumps and railing big GS turns down groomers (it will hold an edge a little better than the 108 given more effective edge in the tail), and will be taking faster, more aggressive lines on powder days than I would on the 108.

      John, below, made some comments about his experience on the 182cm 108 – which has a narrower width than the 190 I reviewed – but our findings seem mostly consistent.

      If you are looking for more of a powder ski, let me know what your height and weight is, as well as the kind of terrain and conditions you’ll be skiing. That’ll help me determine if the Automatic seems like something you should consider over the 115 or not. I don’t see the Automatic and 108 in the same class of ski.

      Cheers,

      Will

      • Joe Parisi November 18, 2015 Reply

        Hi Will,
        I realize that this is a little late to comment on your article, but I am very interested in the Solomon Rocker 2 108 as my next ski, and you seem to really understand the ski. I am 18 years old, 5’8″, and ~145 lbs. I currently ski the 164 Line Blends (100 underfoot, camber) and was wondering if the 174 or the 182 would be right for me. Also, do you think that putting touring bindings on the skis would be practical for this pair of skis or if it will alter its performance in any way? If you could get back to me, that’d be great.

  5. John January 11, 2013 Reply

    To chime in on the excellent reviews, I have the 108 in the 182 length. I skied it for the first time today in about 14″-24″ of fresh powder over a hard icy base. This is my first rockered ski, although I had demo’d the Opus in similar conditions prior to buying the 108. I am 5’9″, 155 lbs and ski 90+ days a year in Mammoth, where I live.
    I thought the Opus was amazing and couldn’t shut up about it to anyone who would listen. There was no adjustment period for me and I was able glide over the top of the snow without really changing my style of skiing.
    The 108 sunk in more, and the first run in the trees I found myself in the back seat trying to keep the tips above the snow. It took me a couple of runs to realize I was skiing it wrong. As strange as it sounds, this ski comes alive when you stop trying. If you stay centered and let the ski take you down the hill the float improves considerably. It still does not float on top like the Opus, but it is more nimble and turns so easily that it makes up for it. The feeling is that the tips are slightly buried, but it doesn’t really matter that much. That is the trade-off I expected between the 108 and a fatter powder ski.
    The forward mounting is weird at first and if you hit a deep section at speed you have to resist falling forward, but even that is just part of getting used to the ski. It absolutely rules on tracked-out, slightly firmed-up powder. Where the Opus felt a bit harsh, and maybe a little too wide, the 108 was smooth and effortless. Steep chutes that used to be work for me on my cambered skis were so easy and relaxed because I could turn or scrub speed whenever I wanted. I hit the icy bottom a lot, but the short cambered section underfoot bit in and felt solid.
    One last thing: I hiked over the top of Lincoln Mountain to find a steep 40 foot section of hard wind blown snow and exposed rocks before the deep snow started. The first turn sent me cartwheeling down the hill for my worst fall of the year. I have never fallen in this section, so on the next run I went back up to see what happened. The tips of the skis flapped up and down and chattered like mad and it was hard to hold an edge to get down to the goods. Once I got there though, I was very happy.

    • Will Brown January 11, 2013 Reply

      Hi John,

      Thanks for weighing in. I think you’re absolutely right – the 108 does do impressively well across the board but the one thing the ski really demands is that you stay balanced. Pressure your cuffs too much on hardpack, and you’ll lose some edge grip, too much in powder, and you can compromise the float of the shovels. It’s not an incredible floaty pow ski, nor is it a ripping carver, but it balances both very, very well in my book while remaining light and trickable. Thanks for reading!

      WB

  6. Angus January 13, 2013 Reply

    Does anyone have any thoughts on the 182cm 108 vs the Line SFB? They both seem to have very similar attributes based on your reviews. The SFB does however have a wider tip & tail and therefore a considerably shorter turn radius and maybe better float? Also wondering how they compare on the playful to charging spectrum and on quickness edge to edge where the SFB is pretty legendary. Thanks for any thoughts….

  7. Angus January 13, 2013 Reply

    Just noticed your answer to a similar question hiding under Jason Hutchins’ initial review of the ski. Question answered – thanks. If anyone else is interested in the SFB vs 108 comparison take a look under the initial review. Sorry about the duplicate questions!

  8. Marcus January 14, 2013 Reply

    Hi Will!

    First of all – thanks for all the great reviews, I really appreciate the work you guys do.

    I’m wondering how you would compare the R2 108 (in 190) to the Rossignol Scimitar? I totally agree with Jonathan’s comparision of the Scimitar/S3/E98 – the Scimitar is pretty serious for such a “simple” ski.

    I’m looking to expand my quiver with a really playful pivoty-smeary-jibby-tree-ski. Mostly for low angle skiing in variable snow.

    Could the 108 be a good addition to the Scimitar or will it be too much overlap?

    • Will Brown January 17, 2013 Reply

      Hey Marcus,

      As for a comparison between the two – the 190 108’s 111mm waist comes in handy when you’re skiing fast through chop in open terrain, and hitting cliffs/drops into deeper snow, though it is also pretty quick in trees. At 98mm, the Scimitar will feel a little quicker and lighter in bumps & tight spots, and will do better on very hard snow and groomers, though it doesn’t handle powder, chop, and cliffs as well. I could see someone using the Scimitar for super hardpack bump and groomer/park days (bringing out the 108s when things get soft), but there is definitely going to be some overlap between the two. At the end of the day they’re both great one ski quivers that do well in trees (the Scimitar a little better), they just have slightly different strengths in other areas as I’ve described.

      I guess I’m a little confused by your question – when you ask “Could the 108 be a good addition to the Scimitar”, is that because you already own the Scimitar but you’re looking for a ski that’s mainly better in trees? Just want to make sure I’m clear…

      WB

      • Marcus January 21, 2013 Reply

        Hi Will! Thanks for the reply. I wouldn’t say I’m looking for a tree specific ski, but I’d like to add something less directional and more surfy (loose) compared to the Scimitar.

        My Scimitars are mounted at “0” and they’re great all-round but also pretty traditional. To me they have a getting-the-job-done-mentality (more effective than fun).

        I remember riding the first Bent Chetler and they just put a smile on my face. I really liked that surfy feel, but they were a bit too short and a little too wide for my needs.

        If the R2 108 (in 190) is anything like a tall and skinny Bent I’d be more than happy with it.

        One last thing: Would you say that the 108 is more versatile but less playful compared to the Line SFB or Opus?

        /M

        • Will Brown January 21, 2013 Reply

          Hi Marcus,

          I haven’t skied the Scimitar for a while now, but I do think that the 108 mounted at factory recommended (-3 from center) will feel looser and more surfy than the Scimitar mounted at “0” (it’s camber profile also makes it feel like it has more effective edge than the 108). Unless you’re trying to rage through crud and hard chop, I’ve found it really hard not to have fun playing around on this ski.

          As for the Opus/SFB, I haven’t skied either of those, but below is what Jason had to say when he was asked about the same comparison in his review of the SFB. I’ll just say that while he describes the 108 as more directional of the two, I’d still consider it a very playful, “bi-directional” ski.
          Jason’s comments: “I will definitely say the SFB and Rocker2 108 should appeal to the same audience. They do feel quite different on snow however. The SFB feels very symmetric both in flex and shape. The Bacon unquestionably turns your resort into your terrain park. It is happy to go in any direction either on the snow or twirling through the air, and provides just enough progression in the flex to feel comfortable ripping around the resort.

          The Rocker2 also likes to hit and trick every bump on the mountain, but in contrast to the SFB has more of a directional feel to it. The Rocker2 has quite a bit of tip taper, therefore shortening the effective edge/sidecut length, and providing more surface area through the shovels. While I certainly don’t want to put the Rocker2 in the “pin-tailed” class, you can feel some characteristics (easy-to-ski, turny, smear friendly) of that sort of design while skiing this ski. The bonus of the Rocker2 is that while offering the above attributes, it maintains a fairly traditional feeling tail that you can trust. It doesn’t have the negative attributes associated with a pin-tailed shape, so you can ollie off the tails, feel balanced in the air, and have a stable platform for stomping those airs. The shorter sidecut length also helps give that big 190cm ski a 19.7 meter turn radius, making it handle like a much shorter ski at slower speeds and in tight places.”

          Hope this helps!

          WB

  9. Dave January 20, 2013 Reply

    Has anyone tried mounting these at a more traditional -4 or even -5 mount? I am running at the recommended line (-3) and find the ski has too much tail, not enough tip for my ‘old school’ style.

    • Hey, Dave – my first couple of days on the 108, I didn’t feel like they had too much tail. But my last two days on them, I did feel that way a bit. Next time I’m out on these (this week), I’ll move back a bit and check in.

  10. James February 7, 2013 Reply

    Hi Will,

    Great review, pretty stoked to get a demo on a pair of these. What’s your thoughts on the length required for the shorter among us? I’m 5’7″ (170cm) but feeling split between the 166 and 174 for a one ski quiver in the Alps. Recently been on the 172cm cham 87 which felt pretty great but felt like they had a lot of swing weight, though I know they are pretty heavy compared to the 108’s.

  11. John February 8, 2013 Reply

    Having spent a lot of time now on the 182 length on mostly hardpack/ icy conditions, I can say that this ski
    is freaking awesome. Now that I know where the edge is I have had no trouble going out and having fun on just about anything. Solid ice is not so great of course, but that is not what it’s for.
    We haven’t had any significant new snowfall in Mammoth for 6 weeks. Today we got 2 measly inches fresh over heinous, bone shaking, icy bumps and I still had a blast. Really good on groomers too.
    Not that he (James) asked me, but I would go longer . I’m barely 5′-9″ and could easily ski the 190. As was mentioned before, these ski short.

    • Will Brown February 19, 2013 Reply

      Couldn’t agree more, John. It’s nice to hear that you feel that way about the 182cm, because the 190cm I’ve skied is markedly wider, so it’s a bit of a different ski than the rest of the lengths. I’ve not been one to like softer, more playful skis because of how it limits their ability to charge (which I really want to be able to do), but I don’t care about the extent to which the 108 does that, because it’s just so damn fun everywhere else.

      Happy shredding!

      Will

  12. James February 11, 2013 Reply

    Thanks for the advice John.
    Forgot to add that I’m about 165lbs fully geared up with backpack etc.

    • Will Brown February 19, 2013 Reply

      Hi James,

      John is right on. I would definitely go longer with this ski. The 190 is one of the the easiest, “shortest” 190cm skis I’ve been on. You won’t notice the extra length in the swing weight, and will appreciate having a little more material under you in soft snow and chop.

      Cheers,

      WB

      • James February 21, 2013 Reply

        Thanks for the advice guys, I would never have though about the 190 as even a possibility as they’re a good 8 inches taller than me, feels a bit like going back in time with skis that long! Going to have to get a demo on them to see what how they ride.

        Cheers,
        James

        • Will Brown February 21, 2013 Reply

          Hey James,

          I just want to clarify about my suggestion. As I mentioned, “I would definitely go longer with this ski. The 190 is one of the the easiest, “shortest” 190cm skis I’VE been on.”

          I’m 6’2″ – I’m not suggesting you, at 5’7′, go with the 190cm, but that you should consider going with or trying a longer length with the 108 than you normally used to. I’m not saying you should go with the 190 thats half a foot taller than you – that might be too much ski. If you’re used to the 172cm cham 87, but say it skis heavy, it makes sense to still try the longer 174cm Rocker 2, as it skis quite short and easily for its length.

          In any case, let us know what you find!

          WB

  13. Scott V. February 19, 2013 Reply

    great review(s). I purchased this ski on Jason’s original review in a 190cm. I am glad I did, because I didn’t quite grasp what he said about the forward mounting position.
    I hammered 3 days in Telluride in wind-blown, powder and hardpack ,and I freaking love these skis. I can assure you that they can handle steep, vw sized bumps with no problem. The extra length is in the tail so they don’t ski long in the bumps. I haven’t, ironically, had a chance to ski them in big powder yet, as we’ve had just a mediocre season. The only time I felt the length was skating on the flats.
    Skiing this past weekend through some chop, I was having a blast on these making effortless turns in trees at low and high speeds on transitional snow. My buddy came up and said he felt the snow sucked, and I just turned and laughed cause I was slicing and dicing on these skis.
    Thanks for the great reviews…I’m looking forward to skiing them in Silverton in the next few weeks in (hopefully) a foot of fresh.

  14. Valerie February 21, 2013 Reply

    174 will be too short for you on this ski. I usially ski 170cm to up to 176cm at absolute max. For 108 I am most comfortable on 182cm and 174 feel like skates even at moderate speeds

  15. Matty February 23, 2013 Reply

    Wow, great review. Any thoughts on how these compare to the Icelantic Nomad RKR?

    Also the stock weight on the Salomon’s seems higher than others in this 100-110 category. Was this a problem at all?

    • Will Brown March 10, 2013 Reply

      Hey Matty,

      That’s a good point about the Nomad RKR. Its a ski I didn’t care a thing about until they “RKR’ed” it. Unfortunately I haven’t skied it, but we plan to for 13/14. If Jason or I end up reviewing it, then the 108 certainly seems like it should be a good ski to compare to. Thanks for reading!

      As as this review should communicate, the 108 feels pretty damn light, especially in the air. I never found the ski’s weight to be a problem, but if anything, the lighter feel is part of what limits the skis performance in chop/crud.

      Will

  16. Sean March 3, 2013 Reply

    I’ve been skiing the Rocker2 108 (190) as my all around ski in the PNW (Stevens Pass primarily) after moving down from skiing an Atomic Bent Chetler (183) as my only pair of skis. I’m 6’0″/185lbs. I have to say that it is the most confidence inspiring, fun ski I have been on in the heavy, mixed up, slashed apart mank that we get to ski in the PNW two-three days after the storms. In the bumps I’d rather be airing over the top than even trying to turn between them, the ski is SUPER fun. I love the heck out of it. Buttery, but stable, lively yet damp. It’s a ski of so many contradictory feelings that it seems perfect. I can go 40 mph down a groomer charging turns, then stand up a little and turn the ski completely sideways and lean over and do handslide butters off features. This ski is seriously ready for whatever. I’ve even had it in the deeper stuff (8-10″ of Cascade sticky stuff) and it still charges. So much fun.

    • Will Brown March 10, 2013 Reply

      Hey Sean,

      Thanks for the input. Obviously I couldn’t agree more. The 108 isn’t the burliest thing out there, it’s definitely not the best on hard snow, but you can still find a way to have a TON of fun in those conditions and in anything else, it seems. I say it in the review, but the 187cm Moment Belafonte is still one of my favorite one ski quivers. Granted, it can rage a whole lot harder than the 108 in variable crud and weird, demanding conditions (it’s not really even a relevant comparison). However, I still feel like I can do enough charging on the 108 to get my fix, and then be able to do all sorts of stuff – spins, butters, tail presses – that I wouldn’t think about trying on the Bela.

      Cheers,

      Will

      • John March 11, 2013 Reply

        Will,
        It’s funny you should mention the Belefonte. I demo’d that ski and was so put off by the heavy, dull feeling that I bought the 108 without even trying it first. I was glad I tried it because it really helped me identify what I wanted in a ski. I can see how it would rip the open terrain though.

  17. MikeT March 4, 2013 Reply

    Has anyone mounted the rocker 2 108 at a -4 or -5? I demo’d the 108 in 182cm and felt really far forward at the -3 line recomended line.

    • Will Brown March 10, 2013 Reply

      Hi Mike,

      -4 might be a reasonable thing to try, but I never did during testing. The 108’s shape and camber profile is definitely tweaked to a more centered mount, and for a more upright stance. I’m not sure what -5 or beyond that would do, but I think you’d only be able to make this ski feel more directional to a certain point before a much more rearward mount really started to affect it’s performance in a significant way (honestly I can’t imagine how). If you want a more directional, but still light and fun all-mountain ski, maybe take a look at the Armada TST. Hope this helps!

      WB

  18. Jim March 9, 2013 Reply

    Hey’
    Just picked up a pair of these and wanted to knowif I should mount them true center or -1 or -2 back? I primarily ski the east coast (60% park and 40% all mountain). I also want to take these skis out west and wasn’t sure if mounting the skis true center or near to true center will decrease their preformance in deeper and lighter snow.

    • Will Brown March 10, 2013 Reply

      Hi Jim,

      Yep, it seems like there’s a good chance that a more forward mount would make it harder to keep the tips planing and tracking well in powder. I think -2 could be ok if you wanted to get an even more balanced feel out of the ski, but I’d worry about going with a full center mount, or even -1. I can’t be sure, but that’s my feeling. For what it’s worth, at -3, the 108 feels nice and balanced, and skis switch very well – better than I initially expected, actually.

      Let us know what you decide and how it plays out.

      Cheers,

      Will

  19. Hakon April 19, 2013 Reply

    Hi.

    I tested out the 108’s 174cm in Whistler last weekend. I have previously been used to K2 extremes, but I am moving further out into backcountry skiing and need more floatation in powder. I found the skies to be excellent in most regards. They were real easy to maneuvre through forest, skiing groomers quite fast (not getting the best top speed though), jumping up and over stuff and even skiing switch. I also tried a couple of drops.

    Snow condition was varied with a lot of hardpacked snow, some icy patches and a day with light dust-on-crust. I did not get to test them in real powder though.

    I am 180cm and 70kg and like skiing varied conditions, but am planning trip to more “powdery” area next year and look for a ski that I can use more in that respect. The “Norwegian” skiing conditions normally do not include many powder days so I would like a ski that is still useful here.

    What are your thoughts on the 108’s compared to others like the Sir Francis Bacon or Armada JJ’s, would you recommend I get the 108’s or should I try something else?

  20. Patrick September 27, 2013 Reply

    Hi Will,

    Another great review btw, you guys at Blister do it right. I take to heart what you guys say more than any other reviews out there, hands down. Keep up the solid work!

    I mainly ski Alta/The Bird and am looking for a ski to pair with my Bent Chetlers for the “less deep days” and as a daily driver. Id like a ski that can rip/charge but is still playfull at the same time and is in the 108-112 range width wise. Would you say that this would be a good option? Im an agressive skier and weigh 158ish at 5’8″.

  21. Will Brown October 4, 2013 Reply

    Hey Patrick,

    I certainly would. The 108 is decidedly playful, but it can handle chop at high speeds very well considering this. If you want the option to open things up, but don’t want so dedicated a charging ski that you lose all playful qualities, I think the 108 is a great option.

    Cheers,

    WB

    • Patrick October 4, 2013 Reply

      Hey thanks Will!

      I do question the size though…..I have heard they ski quite short? I was looking at the 182 length but am worried it will be to short for my 5’8″ 155 size. But I am quite hesitant about going to the 190, thats a pretty good step up.

      Thoughts?

      • Will Brown October 12, 2013 Reply

        Hi Patrick,

        The 108 does ski very short for its size. The 190 is the “shortest” 190cm ski I think I’ve ever been on. But even so, I do worry that it might still be a little long for you. The trouble is that the shorter versions of the ski (182 included) are markedly narrower than the 190cm version I reviewed (which is actually 111mm underfoot, not 108), and COULD ski differently. In other words I have to be careful recommending that shorter size with full confidence – I’m not personally sure that the 182cm size will feel the same for you as the 190cm did for me. However, another one of our readers, John, is just about your same height and weight has the 182. See his comments above made on Jan 11th, 2013 and Feb 8th, 2013. It sounds like John feels the same way about the 182 I do about the 190, so that may be of some encouragement in considering the 182.

        But….John says he thinks he could ski the 190, though he owns the 182, so it sounds to me like you could probably go with either size, depending on the kind of skiing you’d want to do. If you want to ski a lot of bumps with this ski, then the 182 would make more sense. If you really wanted to maximize high speed stability in chop, then the 190 would be preferable. I hope this doesn’t make things more complicated, and that John’s .02 helps to clear things up.

        Will B

        • John December 14, 2013 Reply

          Hi Will,
          At 5′-9″, 155 lbs. I’m very happy with the 182 length. I could ski the 190, but I wouldn’t sacrifice any of the incredible agility and quickness of this ski just to be able to bust some more crud. I have a different ski for that (which I never use).

          John

  22. J Bones October 5, 2013 Reply

    This question was touched on, but not very clear. I have the 98mm Scimitar, so would the 190, 111mm Rocker 2 be too much overlap for a 2 ski quiver if I want my second ski to be my resort pow ski? The Scimitar is my low snow spring ski, so now I want a good resort pow ski, and not sure if the rocker 2 122, or 108 would be a more practical choice for my second ski. My home resort has more low angled playful terrain then charging steeps.

    • Will Brown October 12, 2013 Reply

      Hey J Bones,

      Another reader, Marcus, asked a similar question above, so take a look at my response there. I guess the biggest difference, thanks to the 111mm width of the 190cm 108, would be in their bump performance. If you’re skiing a lot of bumps on the Scimitar, then having the 108s wouldn’t make that ski obsolete. You could still have the Scimitar for very firm hardpack/bump days, and bring out the 108 when its a little softer or on full pow days, when they would certainly be more floaty and fun.

      But if you’re not skiing many bumps in the first place (which is when you would likely prefer being on the Scimitar) you wouldn’t have as much a need for the Scmitars anymore, because the 108 is similar enough to them in other firm conditions. And in that case, I would go with a more dedicated powder ski.

      I hope that’s clear.

      Best,

      Will

  23. Gabe May 17, 2014 Reply

    Hey guys, great reviews as always. Hope you can help me decide on a soft snow/tree ski for next season. I’m a true intermediate so just getting into the good stuff but I’m fairly athletic so next season I’ll be skiing lots of trees, etc. I live in the east but ski west 2-3 weeks per year. Trying to decide between:

    Salomon Rocker2 108
    Rossi Soul 7
    Line Sir Francis Bacon

    I’m 5’11” 180 and a true intermediate who wants to tackle more of the mountain next year, please help!

    • Will Brown September 11, 2014 Reply

      Hi Gabe,

      Those are all good potential choices. I haven’t skied the Soul 7 or the Bacon (yet), but my hunch would be that the Soul 7 would be a little easier to ski and feel a little lighter, while the Bacon should be a bit more stable when things are firm (thanks to more effective edge, primarily). The Rocker2 is the most soft snow oriented of the bunch, and I don’t think it’s something I’d recommend as an all-mountain ski on the east coast. Check out Jason Hutchin’s review of the 190cm SFB for some more comparisons between those 3 skis – he’s in a better position than I am to help you out, I think.

      Will

  24. Matthew September 16, 2014 Reply

    I am looking at this ski along with the 4frnt devastator, i am 6’1″ 160lbs and usually ski 177s in my skis less than 90mm waist. So I think 182 or 184. I like to go fast, but really love technical stuff I hear this is a lighter swing weight than the 4frnt. I am just looking for a side by side comparison. Any help is appreciated

    • Will Brown September 28, 2014 Reply

      Hi Matthew,

      The 108 is definitely a lighter ski than the Devastator, and I see it as sitting in a bit of a different class. I haven’t skied it myself, but for example, Paul Forward, who weighs about 185, says that he doesn’t know of a ski that handles crud and variable conditions better than the 194cm Devastator (it weighs nearly 2,600 grams per ski – that’s damn heavy – where the 190cm Rocker2 108 is under 2,200 per ski). The Rocker2 108 doesn’t handle crud very well at all, in comparison, but its lighter weight has it’s advantages.

      Are you looking for a light, playful ski to spin/jib around the mountain and to ski with a balanced, light stance when conditions are soft? For that, the 108 makes sense. But if you’re looking for a ski with a playful side that is more capable of handling crud and nasty snow when skied aggressively, then the Devastator would get the nod.

      Hope this helps!

      Will

  25. Tim November 11, 2014 Reply

    Thank you fellas for all of your thorough reviews! You are the de-facto, non-biased, authority on ski reviews these days and clearly have a growing following – congrats.

    I’m currently in the market for a new ski, to replace my Soul 7 188’s, which I pulled out of last year. I’m a tele skier, skiing in T-Race boots and 22 Design Axl’s. I’m 6’2, 180 lbs.

    To date my all time favorite ski has been the original Rossignol S7 – 187, which proves to be a great ski for 90% of my days here in CO. Here’s a rough breakdown of where I spend my time – Vail 80% (bowls, side-country w/ some front side to get me to and fro), A-Basin 15% (Pali), Alta 5% (high T, main chute, Supreme) with a few days @ Aspen Highlands – skiing Highlands Bowl.

    My skiing could be described as – go anywhere and I am confident getting down just about anything. I traditionally like a more playful ski, but am looking for something a little more substantial busting through crud and chop than what I’ve been on. While I wouldn’t describe myself as a charger, I am able to ski w/ some of the best (tele and alpine) and can keep up (most of the time). Minimal air time and no switch skiing. My current targets are skis in the 185-190 length, waist width of 105-117, with a turn radius of 18-25 meters. I seem to gravitate towards a flatter tail which suits the tele turn better than something more fully rockered.

    My current skis for consideration are:

    Armada Nowalk – 189
    DPS Wailer 112 – 190
    Salomon 108 Rocker2 – 190
    Salomon Q-105 – 188
    Prior Husume – 188
    Movement Trust – 186

    In the past, skis I’ve demoed and liked are the Fatypus D-Sender ER184, Moment PB&J’s (too skinny). Last year the ski I liked the most, was the Armada Norwalk (demoed the 179 as the 189 wasn’t available).

    Would love to hear any thoughts on narrowing down the list and am open to suggestions outside of my current considerations. Obviously, demoing tele gear can be challenging, but hopefully what I’ve described, gives you a good picture.

    This ski would be my go to ski for most days, as I’d like to keep things on the simpler side.

    Thanks for any direction you can provide.

    Tim

  26. Henry May 10, 2015 Reply

    Hi Will,
    Thanks for the review. I’m planning on buying a pair of rocker108s but cannot decide between the 182 and 190 length. I am 177cm and 80kg. It will be my only ski in the alps for doing everything. I tempted to go for the 190 but worried it might feel slight to cumbersome for my size and weight. I skied the volkl Mantra in a 184 recently and found that to be a pretty perfect length for that ski. Any thoughts? Thanks.

  27. James December 29, 2015 Reply

    mounted these at -5cm from centre. (-2cm from factory recommended)

    Love them, doesn’t feel too far forward or back on the effective edge. Currently skiing them in st anton in the warm no snow end of dec 2015 we have, on man made piste snow, and zero off piste. Having a great time, they carve well but requires a little effort (expected – great for a ski this width tho), they love a long slarvery turn that are great fun, they are great for messing around and spinning them and skiing backwards, and have coped well with the old manly chopped up snow at the end of the day. It actually deals with this heavy piled snow really well.

    highly recommended and haven’t even tried them in powder which is what i bought them for.

Leave a reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*