Free 2-Day Shipping on orders over $50*
Memorial Day SaleMemorial Day Sale
Detail Pics

Description

Powder days are for business and pleasure.

You believe the best powder days are for both business and pleasure; the Salomon Rocker2 122 is an extension of the same school of thought. The subtle Twin Rocker and Full Woodcore make this fat ski super playful and responsive so you can tackle deep powder fields and natural features with clean, fluid lines.

  • The playful Twin Rocker uses a long, low rocker shape at the tip and tail to maximize your ability to surf, spin, pivot, and float like a cork in the deep stuff, and it maintains a long contact zone on edge so you can get back to the lift
  • A Full Woodcore from tail to tip makes this ski super stable and responsive, giving you the necessary confidence to push the envelope
  • The Edgy Monocoque structure provides precision edge grip and efficiently transfers energy from skier to snow, making this ski feel like an extension of your body
  • Honey comb structure in the tip and tail makes the rockered extremities light as a feather so you can spin like a top with less inertia
  • Total Edge Reinforcement incorporates fiber reinforcement directly on the edges for increased durability and edge grip
  • Thicker edges increase shock resistance and durability so you can don't have to worry about hammering your edges when you throw down a park lap at the end of the day
  • Edge Free tip and tail further reduces swing weight and ensures you will never hook a tip again
  • 142mm in the tip, 122mm underfoot, and 132mm at the tail mean this ski has been fattened up to slaughter the deepest days of the season

Share your thoughts

What do you think of the

Salomon Rocker 2 122 Ski

? Share a...

No file chosen

Rather attach a photo from another website?

Rather attach a photo from your computer?

  • Product review:
  • Share a video
  • Share a photo

How familiar are you with the product?(optional)

Invalid filetype.

Save

Here's what others have to say...

Does anyone have any insight on how the...

Peska

Member since 
Posted on

Does anyone have any insight on how the 180's ride like? I noticed they are a 115mm waist with a 20.3m turn radius. Do these compare to the JJ's at all? Automatics? Ride short? How would the 115 hold up on some hardpack? Trees? Thanks!

Jeff

Member since 
Best Answer Responded on

These will ride more like the Atomic bent chetlers. If you are looking for a ski to ski it all in the rocker 2 line up, a better choice would be the rocker 2 115 as they are a little narrower but will still provide the float that you want. The only difference between the 122 and 115 is that the 115 has a flatter stiffer tail. Compared to the JJ, they are completely different as the JJ has tapered tips and tails making the effective edge much shorter than what the ski actually is. Also the JJ's turning radius is much shorter making it easier to ski tight trees. The JJ would be a better resort ski in my opinion.

hey guys, i got my 192's mounted at the...

Evan Schock

Member since 
Posted on

hey guys, i got my 192's mounted at the recommended Salomon line and they ride great there, its always weird looking at them tho because they seem like theres so little shovel for a 192... im 6' and 175 and love the way they feel but wonder if it would have been a better charger mounted a little further back... and also im not sure where that recommended line is in regard to cm forward or back.

Jeff

Member since 
Responded on

I'm pretty sure the recommended line is -3 but not positive and mounting position is mainly preference. If you are more into freestyle with switch skiing and spins then center mounting it would be a good idea but if you are more of a hard charger then -3 to -4 would be appropriate for what you ski. If you do both then -1 to -2 would be ideal for that.

Hi i Just bought Rocker 2 122 184cm and i...

Piotr

Member since 
Posted on

Hi i Just bought Rocker 2 122 184cm and i would like to know how i can mount the bindings.. I just moved from rocker 2 115 wchich i bought too short i think. I have mounted bindings in recommended -6 cm and sometimes like wet snow i had to balance the weight to back to avoid divingto front. That ski have different tail shape but still i dont know is recommended -3cm in rocker2 122 right position for me. I am 178cm height (5,8) and 85kg weight. I will mont guardian 16 bindings. Dont land switch and dont ski in woods to much.

Cameron Wilkins

Member since 
Responded on

Hey Piotr, i would go with the reccomendation and mount them at -3cm.

4 5

graham

Member since 

I am 6' 150lb. I bought the 180, but i probably should have gone longer. This ski does extremely well in untouched snow. you can make almost any turn shape you want, and you never have to worry about sinking in. I have used them for touring, and even if they aren't ideal, they work. they are definatly much lighter than most skis of this width. i only wish these were stiffer. In chopped up snow they aren't very stable due to the softer tail. they can ski big mountain terrain very well, and you can ski fast, but they can feel a little unstable at speed. all in all, they are a great powder ski, and there are no real problems with it.

I'm an advanced skier. I'm 5'11, 200 pounds...

kdtp402725

Member since 
Posted on

I'm an advanced skier. I'm 5'11, 200 pounds and 54 years old. Live in Winter Park part time. Looking for some good powder skis for the area. Are the Salomon Rockers the right ones for me and the area? What length would you recommend? What bindings would work with these?

Wally Phillips

Member since 
Groups:
Best Answer Responded on

Hey kdtp402725,

Thanks for the question. Knowing Winter Park and it's layout you could make it happen with the Rocker2 122 skis from Salomon as it is a good example of a powder niche ski, but the Rocker2 115 skis would be an option as well as it is a bit more directional and can run in a few more snow conditions other than pow.

If you go with the Rocker2 122, I'd say to go with either the 180cm or 184cm size. Choose the 180cm size if you love your shorter turns and the 184cm size will be a bit more versatile in the turn shape.

When it comes to bindings, just find a binding that has a DIN range where your personal DIN setting falls close to the middle of (example, if you're personal setting is an 8, you'll want a DIN range around 4-12). Also, make sure you find a binding with a 130mm brake width so that it'll fit on the ski.

docandmrsz403636

Member since 
Responded on

See my comment below. I recommend the 192 and would never ski it in any shorter length. It swings like a 180 with the stability of a 192 at speed.

5 5

hay1510459211

Member since 

I have been riding the 184 for a while now and it is my go to for the deep days. This is a very supportable and stable ski. The reduced swing weight in the tip and tail make it ideal for doing tricks in the deep stuff. A tapered tip allows for effortless butters and new school moves. Forward , backward, sideways and upside down this is the ski of the future...now!

Sizing questions again. I am 6' and 190#,...

Shane S

Member since 
Posted on

Sizing questions again. I am 6' and 190#, ski aggressive, airs, trees, no switch. Two years ago on Bentchetler 184, skied way to short for me, Last year Super 7 195, OK but not a playful, a bit heavy. Going Rocker 2 122. I don't need the big length for my ego (192) but I'm scared to get the 184 after my experience with the Bent's and having that rocker ski so much shorter. Thoughts. I'll mount 2.5 cm back as a like a traditional mounting.

Mark Parrett

Member since 
Groups:
Best Answer Responded on

If it was the flex and weight of the Super 7 that made it less fun for you, the Rocker 2 will ride like a totally different ski. It's softer underfoot than the Super and lighter as well, so I think you're safe going 192. If you ski enough trees that you really want to be able to whip your ski around in tight spots, the 184 Rocker2 will still float for you and will be more maneuverable. Based on your description though, I think you'll end up preferring the extra stability of the 192 as I wouldn't want to get aggressive or airborne on the 184 very often unless you are doing lots of spinny things in the air.

docandmrsz403636

Member since 
Responded on

I'm 5'10 150 lbs. I just got the Rocker 122 in the 192 length and I would never recommend anything shorter in this ski. Out west in deep pow it soared at high speed with NO issues. I just skiid it at Killington, Vt in tight woods and this ski turns on a dime...better than my K2 Revivals and Recoils at 174 cm or My Obseths at 178 cm. I'm so glad I got the 192's. I am thoroughly impressed at how easy this ski is to ski. I never got tired. They have such a light swing weight that the feel like nothing is on your feet but even in the chopped crud on edge they were incredibly stably at high speed. The soft tip and tail also made them easy to rip through bumps....This is an extremely forgiving ski.

I'm 5'6" and 145lbs. I rode the 180cm...

mbi2763616

Member since 
Posted on

I'm 5'6" and 145lbs. I rode the 180cm version and liked it very much. Very stable and foregiving ski in powder and varied conditons that I encounter here in the Cascades. I've been skiing the Czar for years and love them. The Rocker 2 180cm (115cm) is overall easier ski in powder and curd but I did notice it's not anywhere as "fast" as my Czar. Might have been the wax or lack of it. Can you comment on this? Is this a result of just a wider ski or and more rocker vs the Czar?

Wally Phillips

Member since 
Groups:
Best Answer Responded on

Hey mbi2763616,

Interesting thoughts that I think I can add some insight to. The Rocker2 122 does have a bit more surface area width than the Czar which can cause a bit more friction on the snow surface.

But, the bigger factor is that the Rocker2 122 has much more sidecut than the Czar. The sidecut of the Czar (44.7m radius) allowed skiers to let the turn run straighter for more speed while the Rocker2 122 wants to go a bit more across the hill, especially in the 180 size at just over a 20.3m radius.

mbi2763616

Member since 
Responded on

Interesting as the 180cm Rocker 2 is 115 under foot vs the 184cm at 122.
What is the actual effective edge area
of the 180cm?

Hoping to get some thoughts....looking for...

csap84891

Member since 
Posted on

Hoping to get some thoughts....looking for a new pow ski to replace the liberty double helix I've had for 2 1/2 seasons that finally died. I'd like to have a fairly stiff, rockered twintip that I can mount around +4 or 5. I do most of my skiing in the sidecountry and backcountry in CO, as well as inbounds in Vail. I'm 6 foot, 175 and a very aggressive skier, so I'm leaning towards a 192. I've been skiing between 185 and 190 for years, but I'm concerned that 192 would be too much ski, even mounted far forward. Any thoughts???

Wally Phillips

Member since 
Groups:
Responded on

Hey csap84891,

Thanks for the question and I do believe that you are on the right track with the Rocker2 122. Whether you go with a 184 or 192 size on this ski depends on how much regular weight and swing weight matters to you. The 192 is pretty heavy and while it crushes big lines and can do drawn out singles with a decent amount of air, that's all you'll get. The 184 will give you another 1/2 to full rotation of spin and will be less weight on the up/side skinning.

That being said, the 192 will not be too much ski for you if crushing bigger lines is your goal as the amount of rocker incorporated will make the ski feel shorter than stated length while staying super stable.

5 5

Evan Schock

Member since 
  • Gender: Male
  • Familiarity: I've put it through the wringer

EDIT: i now own them and am in love... bomber

5 5

CPH

Member since 
  • Gender: Male
  • Familiarity: I've used it several times

I'm 5'10, 170 lbs. I got the 184 cm. I have skied them 4 times so far and I can't wait to take them out again.
This is the best, most playful , most enjoyable ski I have been on in powder. You can turn on a dime, float through powder, carve packed powder and pretty much do anything you want on this ski.
I had them mounted at -2.5cm and they look like they are really far forward but they ski very well at that position.

Which length is right for me? I am 5'11",...

Kettu

Member since 
Posted on

Which length is right for me? I am 5'11", 130 lbs, very good rider, and like skiing ridiculously tight trees. Stability at speed is not of much concern for me (I have the shoguns for that).

jamey parks

Member since 
Groups:
Responded on

I think the 184 will be just right.

Have 193 length with G3 Enxo telemark...

Otis

Member since 
Posted on

Have 193 length with G3 Enxo telemark bindings. Would appreciate any info on where to mount the bindings? center, front of center or back of center. Will be used to ski Whistler side-country. Thanks Otis

Cody Townsend

Member since 
Groups:
Best Answer Responded on

I mount mine boot center at dead center and would recommend anywhere from center to -3cm back of center. No further back though, it'll change how the ski moves quite drastically.

Hi, I want to get a pair of these skis for...

Belinda Simmons

Member since 
Posted on

Hi, I want to get a pair of these skis for my son. What bindings would you recommend for them and would you supply and fit them for me? belindaasimmons@gmail.com

Looking for some feedback on binding...

jayp179613

Member since 
Posted on

Looking for some feedback on binding mounting position on the Rocker 122. I would like to find a position that compliments tight tree lines and allows for switch landings yet I don't want to compromise the skis performance in open pow lines at Mach Luney! Suggestions? Keep in mind I am 5'11" 200lbs.

JCP

Member since 
Responded on

No further back than 2.5 cm back from center. I ended up mounting mine three times, from -5cm, -3.5cm, and -2.5cm. At -2.5cm, handles beautifully without any nose dive. Any further back and the skis just do not handle properly. Good luck.

5 5

step180332

Member since 
  • Gender: Male
  • Familiarity: I've put it through the wringer

Amazing! It is my go everywhere, do it all ski.

5 5

Skiwolfe

Member since 
Groups:
  • Gender: Male
  • Familiarity: I've used it several times

Got to ride these twice last season. They were mounted with the Guardian binder and it was one of the best days of touring I've ever had. Highly recommend these ski's.

Ripping Day in the BC
rian.mulli1928390

Member since 
Responded on

I think that's the only skiing picture I've ever seen that' s been angled to make it look LESS steep!

5 5

Greg Hill

Member since 
  • Gender: Male
  • Familiarity: I've used it several times

This ski was so much fun and so perfect for shredding powder down steep faces that once I skied it I knew I needed to ski it more often. This year I will be shredding this ski very often, buttery turns, stability at speed.... awesome

So amazing
Evan Schock

Member since 
Responded on

where do you have yours mounted Greg?

Hi, I'm about to buy this bad boy and I'm...

Mark

Member since 
Posted on

Hi, I'm about to buy this bad boy and I'm wondering if I should go for 184 or 192. I'll be using it in deep powder, forest and some heliskiing. I'm 6ft 170lbs, high skill, very good rider, agressive style. thanks for answers and have a nice day

Jason

Member since 
Responded on

I'm the exact same height/weight/ability as you and had this same question last season (same ski, diff graphics) and went with the 192, it was definitely the right decision.

Greg Hill

Member since 
Responded on

Mark,
I am the same size as you and like to ski recklessly fast, but I also like to whip the skis around when it gets tight in the trees or couloirs. So I would go with the 184, you get so much floatation and control that you don't need the extra length.

View all contributions... Be patient, it might take a while.