New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Rocker 101 - Page 5

post #121 of 147
Quote:
Originally Posted by ecimmortal View Post

What's sad is the implementation of rocker on ski's on fronstside ski's that are jammed into the "all mountain" category. Ski's that really won't benefit from it too much, and where it has probably been implemented poorly.


Agree that blindly splicing rocker onto a 87 mm ski probably is a bad idea. But IMO there are several cases now where an early rise/"resort rocker" seems to have seriously helped the "all" in all mountain. Wondering if the older categories are falling apart. I'm seeing a lot of 78-88 mm skis now with early rise that basically are opening up soft snow domains like trees to people who formerly just used them to crush crud. They're not really frontside skis anymore. But they don't seem to necessarily lose a bunch of carving performance if you know how to carve. Or care to. Maybe we're moving away from the frontside/backside or narrow/wide dichotomies. Hell, some racing skis now have early rise. YMMV, obviously. 

 

post #122 of 147
Quote:
Originally Posted by msolson View Post

your request, basically on all levels, is closer to fruition than you might think ;)



by this ^^^ i mean that DPS already does this.  

 

2 constructions (pure carbon - light) + (hybrid - mid weight, damp ride) and the pure carbon is offered in 2 stiffness packages (flex 2/medium and flex 3/stiff).  the flex 3 skis were not offered for 2011/12 as it is getting a redesign.  

 

so basically there is a heavier/damper category (hybrid), a light/damp but reactive/mid-stiff category (pure flex 2), and a light/very damp/pretty stiff category (pure flex 3) offered in basically all models, with the pure flex 3 only being offered in the longer lengths on the "free ride" models.  i think its cool that the skier can really tune in the ride they want with the dampness and weight they want.  

 

cheers.

 

 

post #123 of 147
Quote:
Originally Posted by beyond View Post

Agree that blindly splicing rocker onto a 87 mm ski probably is a bad idea. But IMO there are several cases now where an early rise/"resort rocker" seems to have seriously helped the "all" in all mountain. Wondering if the older categories are falling apart. I'm seeing a lot of 78-88 mm skis now with early rise that basically are opening up soft snow domains like trees to people who formerly just used them to crush crud. They're not really frontside skis anymore. But they don't seem to necessarily lose a bunch of carving performance if you know how to carve. Or care to. Maybe we're moving away from the frontside/backside or narrow/wide dichotomies. Hell, some racing skis now have early rise. YMMV, obviously. 

 


It may be more of the case that people looking for an "all mountain" ski are really looking for a groomer ski. But can't/won't admit that that is the kind of skiing the primarily do. I know what sacrifices I am making when it comes to rocker/early rise. Some people may not be expecting that a sacrifice has to be made. Or are unwilling to change their skiing to adapt.

 

I know I can't ski my Vicik the same way I ski a Caylor. Both will work for whatever I need them for. But both are stronger in different areas.

 

 

 

post #124 of 147

curious what names or numerals will be attached. I always liked the Mercedes system, descriptive of engine size, luxury level, performance category. no nonsense. DPS 112-P3....have to work SL in there somehowbiggrin.gif

 

I hope the honest, straight forward technical descriptive approach to labeling works, goes with the cosmetics of DPS and the notion of building a set of skis with a set of definable traits.
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by msolson View Post

by this ^^^ i mean that DPS already does this.  

 

2 constructions (pure carbon - light) + (hybrid - mid weight, damp ride) and the pure carbon is offered in 2 stiffness packages (flex 2/medium and flex 3/stiff).  the flex 3 skis were not offered for 2011/12 as it is getting a redesign.  

 

so basically there is a heavier/damper category (hybrid), a light/damp but reactive/mid-stiff category (pure flex 2), and a light/very damp/pretty stiff category (pure flex 3) offered in basically all models, with the pure flex 3 only being offered in the longer lengths on the "free ride" models.  i think its cool that the skier can really tune in the ride they want with the dampness and weight they want.  

 

cheers.

 

 



 

post #125 of 147
Quote:
Originally Posted by ecimmortal View Post

I know what sacrifices I am making when it comes to rocker/early rise. 

 

 



i think a lot of this ^^^ is because more "all mountain" skis with rocker are just the normal old ski with a bend tossed in to make in more marketing cool, rather than a ground-up redesign of a ski that incorporates a flex pattern and sidecut profile changes to maximize the edge grip. 

post #126 of 147

Praxis offers a drawing of each model on their web site that shows in scale the camber profile (side view, as if skis together and shot from the side at the sidewall) This should be a standard practice, IMO. you can compare where the rocker starts, how the bend is formed, what camber is under the boot. in this drawing you can see the difference between an S7 and a Bentchettler and a Kuro for example, at a glance. If I had the time, I'd go to a shop, photo each rockered ski model from the side, and get Midwest Pete to put it all together in a graphic chart.

 

Tip rocker has the property of riding up (planing) in the snow. Fun in powder. However, in crud, this means the ski will ride up over the crud, producing a lot of turbulence. Is this a fundamental performance characteristic or can it be mitigated with construction? I'd like to see a film comparison of the S7 and Super S7 on cut up set up powder and see if the added metal and damping reduces this substantially.

 

In a way, the K2 Pontoon did more to hurt the perceived versatility of the rocker design than any other ski or review. As soon as the snow sets up into chunks and trenches the ski flaps like a clown shoe. You see it and it doesn't look fun. Only skiers under 40 can even tolerate the rough ride in their joints, IMO.

 

How about companies that have made their fortune manufacturing overseas the last 10 years, coming back to the country that prepared their mind for that success,  makes their lives enjoyable and fulfilling, and building a manufacturing facility there. And their government tax them fairly, even favorably.

 

 

 

post #127 of 147
Quote:
Originally Posted by msolson View Post

by this ^^^ i mean that DPS already does this.  

 

2 constructions (pure carbon - light) + (hybrid - mid weight, damp ride) and the pure carbon is offered in 2 stiffness packages (flex 2/medium and flex 3/stiff).  the flex 3 skis were not offered for 2011/12 as it is getting a redesign.  

 

so basically there is a heavier/damper category (hybrid), a light/damp but reactive/mid-stiff category (pure flex 2), and a light/very damp/pretty stiff category (pure flex 3) offered in basically all models, with the pure flex 3 only being offered in the longer lengths on the "free ride" models.  i think its cool that the skier can really tune in the ride they want with the dampness and weight they want.  

 

cheers.

 

 


As a point of reference, I skied and reviewed both the Pure and Hybrid Yvette, in identical lengths (though not the same binding system) 

2012 DPS Yvette 112RP Hybrid

2012 DPS Yvette 112RP  Pure

 

post #128 of 147


 

Any thoughts on this?    Put another way, will having a relatively soft rocker underfoot tend to pull binding  toe and heelpiece apart when skied on hard surfaces?  enough to pre-release?

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by cantunamunch View Post

 

Talking of tweaking stiffness, would a softer rockered section underfoot keep the ski within the  forward pressure spring performance range of  all current bindings?    Especially with larger boots?

 

(Assuming no plate, bindings mounted directly to ski)



 

post #129 of 147

second query. must be serious.

a cambered ski will constrict the binding when flexed, whereas a reverse cambered ski will expand the binding when the ski is flexed. Is that the construction issue?

 

part of this is the question of flex and spring in general for a ski that is preflexed. there is less shock absorption, less rebound, less lively flex overall. some people report that after a day of hard skiing variable powder conditions, they are really beat up from lack of shock absorption and lively rebound.

post #130 of 147
Quote:
Originally Posted by cantunamunch View Post

 

Any thoughts on this?    Put another way, will having a relatively soft rocker underfoot tend to pull binding  toe and heelpiece apart when skied on hard surfaces?  enough to pre-release?

 

 


From what I have seen core center even on softer ski's is still relatively stiff. A lot of the softness comes with how aggresively the core is profiled, and the composition of the layup.  I would assume if this issue exists it would have reared it's head. but doubtful. Most of the skiing action would work to put more pressure on the boot rather than less. If it's going excessively the other way you probably want to be popping out anyways.

 

post #131 of 147

that's likely true and would have come up with the Spatula which had pronounced reverse camber.  I actually saw a guy drop a 30 footer onto firm snow in a comp skiing Spatualas and both skis  bent straight up 90* just in front and behind the bindings, but the skis stayed on and he finished the last 1/4 mile of his run with two broken skis.

post #132 of 147
Quote:
Originally Posted by ecimmortal View Post

  I would assume if this issue exists it would have reared it's head. but doubtful.

 



I would not assume this.     We know that the bow effect exists; this is a subvariant thereof, a subvariant that would be hypothetically caused by skier flexion of the ski  instead of ski rebound /after/ skier flexion of the ski.  

 

I think your earlier statement of "still relatively stiff" is probably true and has therefore masked the possibility of pre-release.  

 

This would seem to set a lower limit on underfoot flex, especially on rockered skis that might get used for crossing the tops of hard moguls, for example.   Either that or binding manufacturers are out redesigning like /mad/  just to get a greater retention range, as a result of skis with underfoot rocker showing up.

 

TBH, I think I prefer the second option.   I'm not a fan of being limited to skis with an I-beam underfoot just in case.

post #133 of 147
Quote:
Originally Posted by cantunamunch View Post

I would not assume this.     We know that the bow effect exists; this is a subvariant thereof, a subvariant that would be hypothetically caused by skier flexion of the ski  instead of ski rebound /after/ skier flexion of the ski.  

 

I think your earlier statement of "still relatively stiff" is probably true and has therefore masked the possibility of pre-release.  

 

This would seem to set a lower limit on underfoot flex, especially on rockered skis that might get used for crossing the tops of hard moguls, for example.   Either that or binding manufacturers are out redesigning like /mad/  just to get a greater retention range, as a result of skis with underfoot rocker showing up.

 

TBH, I think I prefer the second option.   I'm not a fan of being limited to skis with an I-beam underfoot just in case.

I think you are trying to transpose your relative inexperience with a genre of ski's to the rest of the industry and the skiing public who are familiar with these designs. I can't see the benefit of any design floppy enough for this scenario to possible. 2 of the softer designs in the past few years have not seen this be an issue.

 

 

post #134 of 147

the EP PRO is one of the softest skis ever made (well give or take).  it is a fully rockered ski.  i have never once seen or heard of anyone having an issue as hypothesized above.  

 

only anecdotal evidence i have, sorry.  

post #135 of 147


I think you're trying to make an argument based on an assumption of my inexperience, which would both be false and misleading.   

 

Flex effects exist in skis.     We know they exist.     http://www.vermontskisafety.com/vsrfaq5.php

 

  Either  you are making the rocker stiff enough to NOT be flexed-to-flat under a skier or you're ignoring the problem.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by ecimmortal View Post

I think you are trying to transpose your relative inexperience with a genre of ski's to the rest of the industry and the skiing public who are familiar with these designs. I can't see the benefit of any design floppy enough for this scenario to possible. 2 of the softer designs in the past few years have not seen this be an issue.

 

 



 

post #136 of 147
Quote:
Originally Posted by cantunamunch View Post

I think you're trying to make an argument based on an assumption of my inexperience, which would both be false and misleading.   

 

Flex effects exist in skis.     We know they exist.     http://www.vermontskisafety.com/vsrfaq5.php

 

  Either  you are making the rocker stiff enough to NOT be flexed-to-flat under a skier or you're ignoring the problem.

 

 

As Marshall pointed out, and I eluded to. This is not an issue with the softest ski's around. If a ski like the EP pro doesn't have this problem then it's probably not really an issue.


 

 

post #137 of 147

mechanically analyzed, the forward pressure on several models of Looks on my skis is about 1/4" which probably exceeds the lengthening of the effective boot space caused by flex or straightening, in my un-engineered opinion.  binding pre-release not from some degree of twisting is usually a function of vibration and resonance more than simply opening up lengthwise, in my experience. my .02 into the ring. continue boys.

post #138 of 147

OK, that gives us something to work with.   1/4" is 6mm let us say.   Let us say the ski thickness is uniform underfoot.

 

The elongation-to-flat is going to go as     (2R*Asin(BSL/2R)) - BSL    where BSL is sole length and R is the camber radius of the bend underfoot.

 

Punching that into a spreadsheet for a worst-case scenario of a 350mm BSL....  27meter camber radius only gives us an elongation of 2 thousandths of a mm.   I don't start seeing problems until we get down to camber radii smaller than 2 meters.   At 1 meter underfoot camber radius the elongation is 2mm for a 350mm boot.

 

...and now we can guess why an EP pro doesn't have the problem when landing on flat surfaces.     Moguls might still be a different story.

 

We can also start seeing why counterflex on _any_  ski when bouncing out of a drainage ditch 3 feet across might cause release.

 

 

 

post #139 of 147
Quote:
Originally Posted by cantunamunch View Post

OK, that gives us something to work with.   1/4" is 6mm let us say.   Let us say the ski thickness is uniform underfoot.

 

The elongation-to-flat is going to go as     (2R*Asin(BSL/2R)) - BSL    where BSL is sole length and R is the camber radius of the bend underfoot.

 

Punching that into a spreadsheet for a worst-case scenario of a 350mm BSL....  27meter camber radius only gives us an elongation of 2 thousandths of a mm.   I don't start seeing problems until we get down to camber radii smaller than 2 meters.   At 1 meter underfoot camber radius the elongation is 2mm for a 350mm boot.

 

...and now we can guess why an EP pro doesn't have the problem when landing on flat surfaces.     Moguls might still be a different story.

 

 

 


If your skiing moguls excessively on an EP pro, then you're doing it wrong.

 

You don't use a hammer to sink wood screws do you. Though if you choose to ski some bumps I doubt you will go flying out of the bindings due to ski flex.

 

EP Pro's in action.

 

 

I will submit that I personally don't enjoy a fully rockered floppy ski, designs have seemed to evolved beyond that in any case. Not to many made in any case.

 

post #140 of 147



 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Finndog View Post

you can't even get them to agree on how to measure length let alone run/rise dims!  you are correct though.

 


I just put my new "189 cm" Icelantic Keepers up next to my "193 cm" Fischer Watea 101s and the Keepers stand about 2 cm longer.  Because of the Keepers tip and tail rocker and camber (the Wateas are flat camber), if you measured along the bottoms/running surface they would be even longer still.  So much for industry standards and the poor buyer's ability to quantitatively compare skis based on manufacturer's info.

post #141 of 147

Having skied tip and tail rockered carving skis (Palmer 155,163,171) for three seasons now, I thought I might add what I have found. Tip and tail rocker may be used to make skiing easier for beginners ala Rossi Avenger 74s, or may be on a cruising all mountain ski, or it it may be on a high end carving/race ski. Unfortunately it only works on race/carving skis if the camber/rocker is carefully integrated with the flex and sidecut design. When this is done well, you will have a ski that bends more easily, holds an edge better, and carves a smaller radius turns than a conventional camber ski. It needs very different input and and a much lighter touch. It will not be a ski to make you look good at PSIA clinics, but you can carve harder and faster with a lot less effort.

post #142 of 147
Quote:
Originally Posted by ecimmortal View Post

As Marshall pointed out, and I eluded to.

If you're not trying to run away from or escape from Marshal, I think you mean "allude" and not "elude." Otherwise you're confusing me while trying to act superior, which is really ironically sad.

In any case, rest assured that in my Little Black Book of EpicSki Personalities, you and Spindrift are shown next to this phrase:

"We Are Progressing Skiing By Spending Our Free Time Posting On Skiing Forums And Demanding That Everyone Ski The Latest Hyped Technology, While Also Issuing Putdowns Toward Anyone Who Dares To Ski Whatever Isn't Hyped Beyond Belief."

Most of this "progression" in skis happening today is hype, fueled by a significant segment of Yuppie Skiers With Disposable Income. The great majority of skiers posting on EpicSki would be better skiers through focused efforts at improved technique, not through buying and owning Cool Hyped Skis.
post #143 of 147
Quote:
Originally Posted by GrizzledVeteran View Post


If you're not trying to run away from or escape from Marshal, I think you mean "allude" and not "elude." Otherwise you're confusing me while trying to act superior, which is really ironically sad.
In any case, rest assured that in my Little Black Book of EpicSki Personalities, you and Spindrift are shown next to this phrase:
"We Are Progressing Skiing By Spending Our Free Time Posting On Skiing Forums And Demanding That Everyone Ski The Latest Hyped Technology, While Also Issuing Putdowns Toward Anyone Who Dares To Ski Whatever Isn't Hyped Beyond Belief."
Most of this "progression" in skis happening today is hype, fueled by a significant segment of Yuppie Skiers With Disposable Income. The great majority of skiers posting on EpicSki would be better skiers through focused efforts at improved technique, not through buying and owning Cool Hyped Skis.


Wow, impressive response by the grammar police. 41/2 months?

 

I don't care what people chose to ski. It makes no difference to me. But I will chime in when people make ridiculous statements about. Even in this thread I clearly point out that not all ski's are equal, and that people's needs/wants vary greatly.

 

I don't spend my time worrying about what's on other people's feet.

 

And as I have stated many times before. It's the skinny ski die hard's that feel compelled to make complaints about newer shapes, not the other way around.

 

post #144 of 147

THIS.
 

Quote:

Originally Posted by ecimmortal View Post

 

 It's the skinny ski die hard's that feel compelled to make complaints about newer shapes, not the other way around.

 



 

post #145 of 147

Like many others I've come across and read Brain Floss, but this found online today I'd never heard...

 

It started shortly after K2 began endorsing McConkey in 2004. The company brought him to Whistler, B.C., on a junket to ski with its retail partners. But rather than merely glad hand and promote K2's latest product line, McConkey wanted to sell an entirely new idea in ski design. He believed skis that curved up at the tips and tails— a design that would come to be known as "rocker"— made powder skiing much easier. So before he took to the slopes that day, he grabbed a piece of wire, ran it around the rivets in the tips of his K2 skis, and cinched it tight around the toe piece of his binding. The rigging pulled the tip skyward. On his makeshift skis, McConkey floated down the mountain.

 

http://www.businessweek.com/innovate/content/nov2009/id2009119_067359.htm

post #146 of 147
Quote:
Originally Posted by jc-ski View Post
 

Like many others I've come across and read Brain Floss, but this found online today I'd never heard...

 

It started shortly after K2 began endorsing McConkey in 2004. The company brought him to Whistler, B.C., on a junket to ski with its retail partners. But rather than merely glad hand and promote K2's latest product line, McConkey wanted to sell an entirely new idea in ski design. He believed skis that curved up at the tips and tails— a design that would come to be known as "rocker"— made powder skiing much easier. So before he took to the slopes that day, he grabbed a piece of wire, ran it around the rivets in the tips of his K2 skis, and cinched it tight around the toe piece of his binding. The rigging pulled the tip skyward. On his makeshift skis, McConkey floated down the mountain.

 

http://www.businessweek.com/innovate/content/nov2009/id2009119_067359.htm

does the fact that the article appears in bloomberg business week tell us anything?

post #147 of 147
Quote:
Originally Posted by oldgoat View Post
 

does the fact that the article appears in bloomberg business week tell us anything?

 

Sure, but that's really unrelated to the salient point: McConkey's rocker kludge.

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Ski Gear Discussion