'10 Volkl Gotamas

Saw a pair of 09/10 Gotamas at a ski shop in Gresham, OR (across from Freddie's). Only had a chance to look at it briefly, but came away with following impressions:

* Rockered

* New lengths (I was looking at a 186) 

* New tip/tail shape

* Big Buddah artwork, but muted and tasteful

* Brass plate riveted on tail etched with ski length

(I submitted a similar post a few minutes ago, but it failed to appear in the forum. So, if this ends up as a double post, that's why!)

Yes

SJ

Rockered, 

Slow Rise in the tip and or tail,

or

Continuous Reverse Camber?

Is it the Kuro's narrower counter-part? 

I think Volkl refers  to it as "extended tip profile" or something like that, I have the book at work. I will say it skis sweet. 

Quote:

Originally Posted by Philpug 

 

I think Volkl refers  to it as "extended tip profile" or something like that, I have the book at work. I will say it skis sweet. 

I'm sure it does ski sweet. 

I guess my question is? What's the profile base-to-base? Like the Kuro... one continuous reverse camber? As a goat, that'd be a great all-mountain ski. 

I would be very saddened to hear it's just bent to be called a rocker. I hate bent skis that consist of two straight profiles with one kink. 

Sorry, I'm going kind of off topic. Phil can you tell me about the kid's Goat when you get a chance to look at the book? Thanks, it would be greatly appreciated.

Continuous reverse camber.

SJ

I thought I read somewhere it was only tip rocker, but dont quote me on that. It will be interesting to see how it skis. Loved how the gots skied, adding rocker would be awesome.

Quote:

Originally Posted by wizard 

 

I thought I read somewhere it was only tip rocker,(1) but dont quote me on that. It will be interesting to see how it skis. Loved how the gots, adding rocker would be awesome (2)

(1) It's not only tip it's full rocker although fairly minimal.

(2) Uhhhhh...................not so much

SJ

Thanks SJ. That's what I imagined after the Kuro was introduced and loved. 

Thank Gawd they didn't follow K2's technique. 

A simple and subtle reverse-camber is what I want on all my soft-snow skis.  

And, I can't wait until these terms are understood industry-wide. 

Quote:

Originally Posted by turnfarmer 

 

Sorry, I'm going kind of off topic. Phil can you tell me about the kid's Goat when you get a chance to look at the book? Thanks, it would be greatly appreciated.

No camber either way would be sweet, thanks. 

It's definately not reverse camber, it's rocker. Tip and tail, lot's of tip/ only a little tail. It's not Hellbent, but it is at least an inch of splay at the shovel, probably 1/2" at the tail.

The kid's Gotama is also rockered... maybe cool, maybe the worst thing ever for eliminating skill in young skiers. Cool if it's a 'quiver ski'... horrible as an everyday ski for kids.

I'm a little confused. I thought reverse camber = rocker? Maybe there should be sticky with some definitions of some of the different terms, esp now that we're seeing all sort of combinations of reverse camber, reverse sidecut, etc...

Reverse camber is the opposite of camber, a smooth consistant arc or 'leaf spring' shape.

Rocker/ Early rise/ Hybrid camber are all variations of 'bent'.  

I 2nd that confusion - I thought reverse camber = fully rockered.

It will be interesting to see whether the industry is willing to standardize and/or at least demystify this whole rocker terminology confusion.  Like what the hell does K2's "20/40 rocker" mean (they make no effort to explain it on their website).  Salomon partially explains their "Rocker 720 MM" (but by how much is the tip bent up and what about the rest of the ski?).  Rossignol shows nice top and side views of how they've manipulated the sidecut/camber of the Caballero, but leave any quantitative info to your imagination (i.e. how long/high are the rockered areas, how long is the cambered area, etc.?).

Yeah how the ski performs is all that matters, but us gear-weanies need know what we need to know or we get...

AFAIK tip AND tail rocker (or fully rockered)  = reverse camber.

Not sure you can have traditional camber on a ski with a rockered tip and tail.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Magnus_CA 

  

Not sure you can have traditional camber on a ski with a rockered tip and tail.

Sure you can. See S7, Praxis' optional cambers, etc, etc, etc. There are heeps of skis with trad camber underfoot and tip/tail rocker. 

I'm all confused now... SJ said the new goat was reverse camber, and Whiteroom claims otherwise. Both are usually valuable opinions. Hmmmm. 

THIS THREAD IS WORTHLESS WITHOUT PICS!!!

I did the shop inspection thing with the new goats today. Nice & interesting looking skis. Call them what you will - reverse camber, continuous curve rocker, fully rockered, whatever... - they are full reverse camber. Very similar philosophy to Kuros. Very subtle & continuous rise. No real flat spot. They look to me like they will play very nicely as an all mountain ski - & probably, again like the Kuro, be pretty happy busting though cutup & variable snow. But should be more hardpack friendly. The two guys I talked with really liked how they skied this week under mixed conditions. They felt the one limit was that like the Kuro, the ski wanted to carve GS scale turns vs being easily pushed into smaller carved turns. 

I'm already in serious need of an intervention, so I'm trying hard not to use that very tempting store credit I have...

Although both the shop I guys I chatted with  felt the new goat was one of their top 2-3 picks for next year - both felt the Bent Chetler (which interestingly did not look that exciting to me when I ssw a pair a month or two ago...) was their personal #1 pick out of the skis they played with this week.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Whiteroom 

 

 

The kid's Gotama is also rockered... maybe cool, maybe the worst thing ever for eliminating skill in young skiers. Cool if it's a 'quiver ski'... horrible as an everyday ski for kids.

I'm glad to hear the kid's goat is more than just an artistic imitation.

This comment quoted above is the sort of backward looking statement that truly depresses me about ski land. Especially when coming from people who can claim industry credibility. What is it that you and some others do not get about the evolving "skill" set that is appropriate for progressive/modern ski designs? It is like you guys want to make life suck for young new skiers by firmly tethering their skill development to an archaic platform. "Yes Johnny, you can drive a car someday, but not until you master that horse drawn buggy parked over there". Or, viewed another way, if you go back to what little Internet history exists wrt to the straight/shaped ski discussion - it is almost the exact same head-in-the-sand combined with chest-beating foolishness.

Props to Volkl for building the kind of ski kids SHOULD be starting on. One that will encourage them to develop a robust skill set. What a shame that so many kids are still being started on equipment (and with instruction) that will limit them on the skis that they will end up on in a few very short years. Too bad we are not seeing fleets of mini-Hell Bents and Mini EP Pros or Bacons yet...

After skiing the '10 Gotama last week @ Mammoth, I have to say it skied nicely but is not a game changer or world beater in any sense except possibly marketing. The conditions were perfect for this type of ski. 8" of new over another 8-10" of light day old crud made a pretty realistic test of common off trail conditions. While the 186 Got handled the soft crud nicely, it was no better than a herd of other skis in the same width/length range. Out on the groomers (covered with wind blown chop) the new Got was not as good as the current one is, and again, not as good as other skis in the width range. Other skis in this width range that were as good or better than the new Got included Tip rockered skis, no camber skis, and traditional cambered skis.

This ski will sell but not because it is demonstrably better than anything else.

SJ

Quote:

Originally Posted by samurai 

 

THIS THREAD IS WORTHLESS WITHOUT PICS!!!

Here are some pics of the 09 and 10 models side-by-side. The pics are sorta lame, but they're better than imagination. 09 model shown is a 190. 10 model is a 186.

Topsheets and overall shape change:

Bases:

Camber (new ones on top):

Comparing tail camber:

Comparing tip camber:

New mounting marks (sorry, forgot to properly line up 09 model next to 10 model)

Quote:

Originally Posted by spindrift 

 

I'm glad to hear the kid's goat is more than just an artistic imitation.

 

This comment quoted above is the sort of backward looking statement that truly depresses me about ski land. Especially when coming from people who can claim industry credibility. What is it that you and some others do not get about the evolving "skill" set that is appropriate for progressive/modern ski designs? It is like you guys want to make life suck for young new skiers by firmly tethering their skill development to an archaic platform. "Yes Johnny, you can drive a car someday, but not until you master that horse drawn buggy parked over there". Or, viewed another way, if you go back to what little Internet history exists wrt to the straight/shaped ski discussion - it is almost the exact same head-in-the-sand combined with chest-beating foolishness.

 

Props to Volkl for building the kind of ski kids SHOULD be starting on. One that will encourage them to develop a robust skill set. What a shame that so many kids are still being started on equipment (and with instruction) that will limit them on the skis that they will end up on in a few very short years. Too bad we are not seeing fleets of mini-Hell Bents and Mini EP Pros or Bacons yet...

That's an interesting perspective, but I can't say that I agree. Mind you, I'm not anti-rocker, although my soft snow weapon of choice is a traditional no-camber Dynastar Huge Trouble.

My kids have been in the Vail Development program for 6 years. My 10 year old now skis at level 8+.  I haven't seen a single kid in the program on bent-skis. I haven't seen a single instructor on bent-skis. The program is very well rounded and the kids work on all ski skills including carving, gates, crud, bumps, freestyle, powder, etc....

Time will tell if the program is being run by Luddites, but I have a hard time believing that learning to ski on bent skis will develop the same well-rounded skill set that traditional skis offer. I think someone with a strong traditional skill set could feel at home on bent skis pretty quickly, but I doubt the reverse is true.

Interestingly, the coaches of the freeride programs around Tahoe have a similar take at this point. They don't encourage the use of heavily rockered skis until the kids are well along in the program. A few of the mid teeners are buying skis with "rocker lite" such as the Obsethed for example, but those kids have all been racing since they were six or seven so their basics are pretty solidly set. None have gotten onto anything that was dramatically bent as of yet.

IAC, the mini Goat may not ruffle any feathers with the coaches b/c the rocker is so minimal that it probably won't do much either way.

We will have our annual spring meetings with the local teams starting in late March and we'll ask the question again. Generally, we'll carry whatever the coaches are asking us for.

SJ

So what you're saying is - they're too young to be a rocker?! (there's a bad joke there somewhere ;)

Quote:

Originally Posted by SierraJim 

 

...IAC, the mini Goat may not ruffle any feathers with the coaches b/c the rocker is so minimal that it probably won't do much either way...

 

 

SJ

It does not take much rocker to go a long way. A little high school trig/geometry will reveal that a total rocker rise of 1.5 to 3 cm  from center to effective end of rise can yield a pretty reasonable turn radius on a typical ski. Less for a kid ski - likely decently under an inch... And even a modest bit of overall rocker will change behavior in powder & on things like wind buff, breakable crust, slush,  non-supportive spring snow, etc. quite dramatically - for the better IMO... And it in no way prevents carving (other than, as a rule, attempting to drive through the tip is a futile exercise)

Quote:

Originally Posted by spindrift 

 

I'm glad to hear the kid's goat is more than just an artistic imitation.

 

This comment quoted above is the sort of backward looking statement that truly depresses me about ski land. Especially when coming from people who can claim industry credibility. What is it that you and some others do not get about the evolving "skill" set that is appropriate for progressive/modern ski designs? It is like you guys want to make life suck for young new skiers by firmly tethering their skill development to an archaic platform. "Yes Johnny, you can drive a car someday, but not until you master that horse drawn buggy parked over there". Or, viewed another way, if you go back to what little Internet history exists wrt to the straight/shaped ski discussion - it is almost the exact same head-in-the-sand combined with chest-beating foolishness.

 

Props to Volkl for building the kind of ski kids SHOULD be starting on. One that will encourage them to develop a robust skill set. What a shame that so many kids are still being started on equipment (and with instruction) that will limit them on the skis that they will end up on in a few very short years. Too bad we are not seeing fleets of mini-Hell Bents and Mini EP Pros or Bacons yet...

I was wondering what this "new skill set" is and how it is better than the "old skill set".

I feel that I ski with a very modern (unless modern means wearing baggy pants and skiing in the back seat straight with an occasional tail washout) style and I find a rockered ski to be pretty useless unless you are in uncut snow or low density crud.  Most kids only have one ski so it would appear that you feel rockers are the paramount of versatility. Can you fill me in on what I am missing?

My main complaint with rockered skis is performance on firm snow or heavy crud or variable snow or bumps (or 90% of what I ski).  I like my ski tips to act as a shock absorber.  When I hit a lump at speed, the tip contacts first and dampens the blow by decambering and flexing, in so doing, lessens the blow I must absorb with my legs.  The faster you go and the rougher the terrain the more dampening you need.  DH ski racers meet this need for dampening by using long long skis w/ chamber.  DH bike racers use long travel forks. IMO a large component of modern style is speed.  If you are to ski fast on a non-uniform snow surface, dynamically and in control, I feel that dampening is very important.  This being said, the rockered skis I have skied offer little or no dampening at speed because they are already decambered and flexed.  They actually feel much like a snowler blade on any sort of firm ish or lumpy conditions (yes, I admit I tried them once).  Every imperfection in the snow surface is not dampened by the tips it is transferred right into my legs. When straight line a chute (I think that is part of the new school way of skiing) and hit the traverse track and lumpy crud below at speed I want all the dampening I can get.  Why then are rockered skis better for the "NEW and improved" way of skiing?  Maybe I am in need of some enlightenment.  I just don't get it.

And saying that they in no way hinder your ability to carve but they don't allow you to drive from the tips of your skis seems to be a bit contradictory.  I'd like to see anyone carve up a GS race course well on any ski without pressuring the tip of the ski.  It may be possible in a nastar course but forget about it on a real course.     

I checked out the '10 Gotama's in the shop today. When comparing lengths I put the 178 '10's against the 176 '09's and noticed that the '10's were a lot longer than just 2cm. It was probably closer to 5-6cm's longer. Without a tape measure, I'd say they appear to closer to the true advertised length now.

The flex is significantly stiffer overall & it is a continuous low rise tip to tail rocker (less rise than kuro). It will definitely be on my demo list. 

Quote:

Originally Posted by SierraJim 

 

After skiing the '10 Gotama last week @ Mammoth, I have to say it skied nicely but is not a game changer or world beater in any sense except possibly marketing. Out on the groomers (covered with wind blown chop) the new Got was not as good as the current one is, and again, not as good as other skis in the width range. Other skis in this width range that were as good or better than the new Got included Tip rockered skis, no camber skis, and traditional cambered skis.

 

This ski will sell but not because it is demonstrably better than anything else.

 

SJ

I just love the ski industry.  Now I'll be able to pick up a pair of obsolete Goats for a price I can live with.

My burgeoning quiver of bottom feeder detritus just keeps growing.

Quote:

Originally Posted by SierraJim 

After skiing the '10 Gotama last week @ Mammoth, I have to say it skied nicely but is not a game changer or world beater in any sense except possibly marketing. The conditions were perfect for this type of ski. 8" of new over another 8-10" of light day old crud made a pretty realistic test of common off trail conditions. While the 186 Got handled the soft crud nicely, it was no better than a herd of other skis in the same width/length range. Out on the groomers (covered with wind blown chop) the new Got was not as good as the current one is, and again, not as good as other skis in the width range. Other skis in this width range that were as good or better than the new Got included Tip rockered skis, no camber skis, and traditional cambered skis.

 

This ski will sell but not because it is demonstrably better than anything else.

 

SJ

Hi SJ,

Any chance you can compare this to some examples of other skis in that width range?

E.g what about vs the Katana (obviously a bit wider ski) - but it seems like perhaps an odd overlap for Volkl by giving the Gotama rocker (more soft snow oriented than previously) with the Katana being designed more for that purpose?... Speaking of marketing - are they cannibalising their market?...

Any other comparisons? HT (clearly a fair bit wider), P4, Mothership, Head Jimi, others?

Always enjoy reading your reviews!

Cheers,

Vin