If you're already really good, you can ski just about anything in just about any conditions.  No question.

Me, personally -- when it starts getting icy, I'm not even really happy with something 78 or 82mm wide.  I can't imagine something 100+ would be much fun, at least if I wanted to do anything other than skid helplessly.  Maybe on a particularly crappy day this year I'll take out the fattest thing I can find in our rental shop, just for kicks.  (Not sure if we'll have the new Mantra/Katana.)

I'm skeptical about how easy it would be to learn on a really wide, soft, and potentially rockered/RC ski.  Especially in, um, firmer conditions like you get all the time in the East and Midwest.

for me, he said a lot with: "the positive is a big negative..."  it will f-up more snow more faster.


What you said could be thought elitest, like having the righteous acess has to be earned by skillful skiing.

Edited by davluri - 10/8/09 at 12:19am

Even after living in the PNW, getting trapped on the groomers occasionally, still liking bumps, learning POW on 205s, being almost a senior [ but not yet],  and ...oh yea, owning a pair of Hexcel  Comps [and trashing them after only one season], and...... most importantly, having skied with Spindrift. HE HAS A POINT. Wide, rockered, skis and softer boots can make skiing more fun. After watching him Blow down a tough black diamond mogul run during a great spring skiing day on Hellbents, repeatedly, with a huge smile on his face is proof positive. these are not called fun shapes for nothing. After all having fun is the bottom line.

Now is this really the future? sure, for some. However the immediate future lies with the great MORF . All things are a part of the big black hole. Ideas get gobbled up and are spit back out as hybrid technology. What we get are  Rosy S7, Atomic Bent Chestler, 4FRNT CRJ, Armada JJ, ect. That is the now.

I love big rockered skis for soft snow. But on hard snow, there are better options. In moguls, there are better options.

Quick notes about things I've seen in Europe to add to the discussion:

1. In Tignes, bluebird conditions last December, three days after the last snow, I saw a guy coming from a groomed black up to the lift line sporting a pair of Pontoons. And I thought I was a bit out of place on my P-100s. He was obviously on the hunt for powder, but he didn't seem to have any problems on the groomers along the way.

2. Fall Line magazine (I know it's just for UK skiers, but few of them ski outside of France, let alone Europe in general) named the K2 Kung Fujas as its ski of the year, saying it was good at everything. I know it's not a full-out water ski, but I was still shocked to see a 95-mm waisted ski with visible, though small, rocker get that award from a magazine focused on skiing the Alps.

3. In the four European resorts I've been to so far, I've always been able to find at least a couple of shops displaying a pair of fat boys (usually Pontoons) in their windows. But, to be fair, the resorts I've been to are known for their off-piste terrain.


I'm not saying there's a mass trend towards obesity, and most people still spend their time carving around on groomers, but not everyone on this side of the pond goes around on SL skis all the time.

Edited by CerebralVortex - 10/8/09 at 5:33am

Before getting too carried away with what, say, senior folks "within the industry" are skiing, look at something like the HellBent.  In terms of skiing firmsnow, it is basically a short, very wide ski with no camber but traditional sidecut, with what you can call either early rise or rockered tips and tails attached to make soft snow easier to ski/land in.  SOME types of things in the park can also be easier with that type of shovel/tail.  And, similar to someone skidding around on hockey inline skates on wet pavement, you can ski a short wide ski on groomed or even icy snow and have fun, IF you already know how to ski.

 

But,  if you want good performance on set up firm snow, to be able to truly lay down deep carves, etc. you'll want a different ski.  If you want good "pop" in the park and a good pipe ski you will also want a different ski.    If you want to have fun on groomers with a rain crust that hasn't been tilled in, you'll have to have a different ski. 

 

Even niche ski manufacturers aimed at the younger, athletic, freeride and park, crowd are not moving away from camber and sidecut for the majority of their line.  There is a reason for this.

 

 

 

I skied Tignes for six seasons in the 80s.  At least then, you could easily find untracked three days after the last snow if you were with someone who knew where to go and were willing to hike for the goods. 

It is certainly elitist.  Everyone pays the same for their lift ticket, so they all have a right to the powder, it's just that snowboards and the new fat rockers have expanded the terrain in which marginally skilled skiers can feel comfortable in powder.

Last season from the chair I saw two boarders get first tracks on a very sweet steep 25 yd. wide 150 yd. long shot I was intending to ski.  Over 15" new that morning.  He made 3  huge smear traverses linked by hop turns.  She did a straight sideslip the entire drop, punctuated by traverses back and forth. Between the two of them they made 3 lame turns, but managed to completely trash the entire shot.  Once they got below it they made some turns on the flatter part of the run.  A skier of their caliber would have never attempted that on traditional skis, but with the new fat twin tips and rockers I am seeing the same kind of thing from marginally skilled skiers who want to say they "skied" the black diamond run.

You used to have to pay years of dues to aquire the skills to ski deep powder on steep and tight shots, but now you can buy a pair of 125mm waisted rockers and smear your way through the deep stuff with minimal experience.  Obviously it is small percentage of skiers in that category, but unfortunately they are messing with a very precious commodity.

I just applaud the propensity toward reflection and analysis demonstrated by this post.

 I might be a little biased here. 

I have used a rockered ski for the last two seasons. I own the Praxis Powders, which are really a lot of fun in the right conditions. With the reverse sidecut, I suppose it is one of the least versatile rockered ski, but it is also the only rocker I have tried. Maybe this is why I can't see a rockered ski as a daily option. This opinion may also have to do with the fact that I haven't seen somebody ski a heavily rockered ski on hardpack and make it look good. While many can are better than average, I can't help but think that they would do it better, and have more fun on a traditional shape.

My daily ski is an old pair of explosivs. It is a classic design, and while the praxis are fun, if i am on serious terrain, the eplosivs are the skis I want on my feet. I guess I just trust them more....

I think i will get one more season out of the explosivs and then look for a replacement. I think i might be leaning towards a more conventional, and possibly skinner ski. 

Last year I felt that everyday skis were getting too wide. I thought that the superfat trend would die out and people would settle with a more conservative width. Maybe I am totally out of touch, but this is how I feel about the rockers too. I think that people will embrace these skis over the next couple of years, but then realize that they would be better served with a more conventional daily ski and a rockered ski for the really deep days.


There is a good chance that I will be totally wrong, though. Perhaps I should demo more before making any more predictions.

MF, I couldn't agree more; elistist R' us. I started skiing powder in Alta in 1975 on GS skis, so I know. I have more than once dropped into a long narrow chute with a blind roll-over entry only to discover at that instant that some ___#@^%___ had been there while I was hiking and sideslipped the entire chute (down to ice). No man, I agree with the pov, but I always catch sh%#@ for saying so.

Totally accurate. The test is a tough line with exposure on firm conditions. What do you trust in that situation. Still need a quiver, IMO, and it will have some trad camber and sidecut in there somewhere. 

My mantra for super fat rockers is the same as for snowboards, "If you can't arc it, park it!"

Elitests R' Us.

I was not focusing on rockered powder skis. And I'm not overly concerned about elitism vs the democratization of powder. At least not at the moment. Just about what "typical" recreational skis and skiing might look like in a few years.

To frame this a bit better - I'm talking about a ski that is rockered, but has sidecut.  That is probably between 100 and 115 (give or take)  at the waist. Is likely reverse cambered or perhaps rockered with a flat section underfoot. Maybe, just maybe, with a tiny bit of camber just underfoot -- the jury seems out on this... And it probably has "early taper" - which makes a ton of sense on rockered skis.

That's the kind of ski I'm thinking we'll see a ton of in a few years. I think it'd be pretty darn versatile. Very forgiving. With true all-mountain capability. Could still carve like crazy. Enough surface area to play well in soft snow and slush. Easy to slide/smear. Not hooky. At home under most conditions & for many uses...

So - ignoring stereotypes based on powder specific designs - does this ski seem "possible" or not? Probable or not? And if possible & probable - back to my initial speculation: what might that imply in terms of gear overall? 

Obviously I think we are heading down this road. But I get the sense I'm in the minority here. Maybe a very small one...

I don't think this is too unreasonable. K2 already has the Obsethed and Kung Fujas using rockered tips and tails with camber under foot, and those are 105 and 95, respectively. If they turn out to be big hits (especially the Kung Fujas), I wouldn't be surprized to see everyone else marketing similar skis in the next couple of years.

I just think you need to get out a bit more.

In my experience the typical recreational skier cannot carve a 80 mm waisted ski in most situations.  I consider myself an expert, and I have to make some serious adjustments to get my 101s on edge and carving in hard snow.  I just don't see recreational skiers on 100-115 waisted rockers "carving like crazy."  IMO, for most non-experts, once you get past a 90 mm waist it pretty much turns into a smear fest. Just like for 90% of snowboarders, wide does not lend itself to carving.  Like it or not, wide = slide.  I think the kind of skis you are talking about will be the death knell for intermediates having any interest in learning to carve because it will not be necessary any more.

Edited by mudfoot - 10/9/09 at 8:31am

does anyone ski both a traditional 100mm and a rockered/reverse ski in powder?  If so, do you develp 'bad' habits on the R/R's and find it hard to ride the trad skis? We adjust between conditions. Can we as easily adjust between radically different skis? As most of my skiing still requires fairly conventional technique, I don't want to pick up bad, lazy, habits.

Strangely, snowboarders are one of the few user groups on the mountain that you'll routinely see carving.  Even more so for snowboard instructors, who, unlike the "average" ski instructor, both can carve, and are required to show dynamic carving to get their full cert. 

But, while snowboards lend themselves better to carving on non-cambered shapes due to the weight distribution along the running surface, for carving snowboarders still prefer camber. 

Width does not preclude carving, though it is also true, on skis particularly but snowboards also, that a wider ski can initially be harder to get on edge. 

Again, looking at the feedback from the freeride and park user groups, not just racers, camber's needed to make a ski perform well in firm conditions.  That's why the niche companies focused on those user groups have camber and traditional sidecut present in most of their shapes.

A couple quick comments:

I'm no park guy, but I've been told that part of why the park folks are largely sticking with camber in one form or another is that it plays better for specific moves riding on tips/tails on rails & boxes. Sort of like pre-flexing a steel beam so that when load is applied it goes level. Apparently full decamber is not always a happy thing... Nonetheless, skis like Armada's Alphas & some others are still playing with hybridization & incorporate rocker and early taper. 

As for carving "fat" skis. I find rolling a fat rockered ski over to be quite a different thing than rolling over a stiff cambered ski. A reverse or rockered ski (with sidecut) just has to be rolled. A fat stiff cambered ski has to be rolled and decambered concurrently. A bit of a simplification, but I think accurate enough for discussion purposes.

I'm not saying there's no niche where "real" camber is good. Just that time will show that those niches are relatively narrow in the context of recreational skiing...

Edited by spindrift - 10/9/09 at 11:51am

Performance, function, utility aside - you have to look at how the industry pushes new product. How many of you gear heads look at skis in the lift lines and chuckle when you see someone on a pair of skis with pointy tips. I have plenty of pointy tipped fat skis in the quiver that kill it, but they sure look funny in the lift line next to a brand new pair of fat skis with snub noses. Rockered technology is certainly more than just cosmetics, but from a ski companies perspective, if it takes off, it will certainly make people want to buy new skis. Nobody wants to be chuckled at in the lift line with their old pointy skis. As much as we hate it, this sport has become more about fashion than function.

Last year, I regularly switched among 188 PM Gear Bro Models (99mm waist), 191 Scott P4s (108mm waist), and 195 Praxis Powders.  (This year, the P4s will be replaced by 190 Moment Rubies (112mm waist).) 

I didn't find that any adjustment to technique was necessary.  It's more a question of remembering to dial back aggressiveness when on conventional skis, especially in trees and other situations where I need to be able to turn or stop quickly.

I can't tell you about the adjustment from a R/R ski, but I tend to think it would be significant.  My own experience after a very long stretch of powder skiing last season is this.  I had been skiing on a tip rockered 102mm waisted ski for about a month & had to race in a couple of days.  I decided I had better get some runs on the race boards.  I was all over the place!  I couldn't get the right pressure to the tip of the ski for initiation, my timing & tempo were way off.  I used to have the same issue switching from a snowboard to skis.  After about 4 runs it began to come together, & luckily I had some time the next day to get a little more dialed.  I didn't have a great race, but held my own.  I rationalized that skiing powder is way more fun & healthier anyway .
JF
EDIT:  I definitley picked up lazy habits, but I don't know how bad they were.

Not trying to start a fight here, but... I'd pretty much say the opposite.  In fact, our snowboard instructors are constantly complaining about how many boarders they see just sideslipping down everything.  Maybe we're seeing different populations of snowboarders and ski instructors.  (To be fair, a fairly large chunk of the boarders at Wachusett are there just for the terrain park, and so probably aren't even *trying* to carve as they lap the park and the trails that connect to it all day.)


What skis (on the market today) do you think would be closest to this?  (Someone else mentioned the K2 Obsethed and Kung Fuja above?)  What you're describing is so different from anything I've skied in Eastern conditions that I'd like to try it myself.

why are we still talking about this?

To boost our post counts & keep you entertained ?

I'm willing to change the subject though.

Have you seen the webcams from Red Lodge?
 

I think if I was skiing there today, I would want to be on a fat, rockered ski so I didn't sink in too deep & damage myself.

JF

Because there's not enough snow yet.

Because this stuff is just rippling into the broad market. And clearly there is still discussion to be had. At least I think there is.

If you don't want to play, go ride your bike