Where is ski construction heading??? ROCKER or ???

Quote:

Originally Posted by wildcat hank 

Will rocker in next couple of years be the only kind of skis. I hear that they tried GS rockers in South America this summer. they got faster times with the rockers . So where is it only?

 

How wide or narrow will ski be in the future???

 

I think Rocker is here to stay and wide (100 and up) will be the only thing we will be able to pay.  

 

Rental fleet are already starting to change to rockers.  

PSIA is ready aboard and work out the new way kids are using this new tool.  Its still new just not fresh out of the wrap.

 

So where are we going???

 

Hank

you really think all skis will be 100mm plus?

i think your way off. I think the skis of the future will be 65-140mm just like we have now with most people buying 80-100 mm skis because thats what works for most people.

Rocker going mainstream is new, rocker as ski idea is 10 years old now its just everyone was so stupid to realize its benefits and now people are too stupid to realize its limitations.

Quote:

Originally Posted by BushwackerinPA 


its just everyone was so stupid to realize its benefits and now people are too stupid to realize its limitations.

Classic!

My 2cents.  Rocker is peaked, and will likley fall by the wayside.  Early rise however is likely to be the new go.

But whatever the future holds, one thing is for sure, you cant predict it based on what you see today.  Snow boarding is a classic example, 20 years ago people predicted that by now, know one would be skiing anymore.  Well that clearly hasnt happened.  Snowboarding exploded because, lets face it, it was fun, and in 2-3 days you could be an expert.  So people loved it, especially young men.  Advance to today, now you can go out, buy some fatties, and in a few days you can ski down stuff that only a few years ago you couldnt.  So like boarding, fatties are fun, and hey, they make you an "expert" in a few days.

Of course as boarding progressed, and people started to understand more, the real pros started to show, and no longer could you board for a few days and be considered an expert....it now took work and dediction to be good, most were stuck in mediocrity.....the fun ended and they moved onto other things.  I expect the same outcome with fatties.  In a few years people will see that just getting down a black run doesnt make you an expert any more then falling off an 80ft cliff and landing on your head makes you an extreme skier.  When that happens, and people understand what is going on, things will tone down and skis that are more versatile and perform in the conditions people actually do ski, not the conditions they want to ski....will prevail.  At the moment a lot of what is driving the sales volume of fat skis is image and what is considered cool....when that changes, and it will (it wasnt that long ago that the longer you skis the cooler you were...then it was the shorter and more extreme the side cut...then it was how high you were stacked....dont forget flouro, strectch pants, the list goes on)....I suspect you will see a predictable shift.

I think we'll start seeing some more radical designs (like the BBR and DPS Spoon) based on the ease of manipulating carbon lay-up and CAD.  But mostly, they'll be slight modifications to the rocker/camber profile...based on what they want they've learned from previous models and what they want the performance aspect of that particular ski...

And whatever it is that the mfg's do decide to design/enhance/use...it is certain to be a must-have "game changer!"

-Smarty

Widest I'm going is my Supershape Titans!  I don't care what people think.  I like my skis like my women, skinny and fast!!  =D

A friend was out on groomed snow with his new Mantras. He said the tip was hooky and he would have to get used to it.  my theory: the tip rocker (very low rise design which is used on mid-fats) configures the forebody of the ski in an arc and if that arc grips the snow (packed snow), you have a long section of edge gripping into the turn, that edge contact and grip determined by the shape built into the forebody of the ski.

With a conventional camber ski, you can bend the ski how you chose, and get a variable amount of grip for turn initiation, shaping the front of the ski with the pressure and angles you put into it.

I like BWPA's comment about how people will react after actually skiing some rocker for a while, as it reflects what I have been anticipating for a while now regarding performance results.

Quote:

Originally Posted by davluri 

A friend was out on groomed snow with his new Mantras. He said the tip was hooky and he would have to get used to it.  my theory: the tip rocker (very low rise design which is used on mid-fats) configures the forebody of the ski in an arc and if that arc grips the snow (packed snow), you have a long section of edge gripping into the turn, that edge contact and grip determined by the shape built into the forebody of the ski.

 

My (admittedly limited) experience with tip and full rockered skis on hard snow it that you need to detune the rocker or they are very sketchy.  If you lay the ski on edge you suddenly have an extra 15-35 cm of tip engaging.  In soft snow its not a problem, but if you have sharp edges on hard snow it is hard to modulate the initiation of a turn.

This season will answer the threads basic question for me, as I bought a pair of 183 TST's (lots of tip rocker).  After looking at them (still haven't skied this season) I was a bit skeptical about the rave reviews I have read regarding their hard snow performance, so I picked up a new pair of last seasons 185 Movement Sources at a great price. Similar in shape to a Sultan 94 (just a bit more shape 135/94/121) and a much more lively ski (lighter/no metal). I expect to use it more as my daily driver, as the extreme tip rocker of the TST has me thinking it will be more for days that are 2-6 inches of fresh and any deeper I will just ride my Lhasa Pows, as they are so fun in pow.

More diversity of design and construction.

as a bit of an aside, i wonder how many boarders, once they get older and wary of falling, will start moving over to skiing?...i was speaking with a chap yesterday (he's now 50) who is a pretty good boarder but when he does fall says it can hurt alot more than via when you do from skiing....said basically 'how many older people in their 50s-70s do you see boarding (aside from image and taking it up when it was a fad) vs still skiing at those ages?

thoughts

Quote:

Originally Posted by Skidude72 

Classic!

 

 

My 2cents.  Rocker is peaked, and will likley fall by the wayside.  Early rise however is likely to be the new go.

 

 

But whatever the future holds, one thing is for sure, you cant predict it based on what you see today.  Snow boarding is a classic example, 20 years ago people predicted that by now, know one would be skiing anymore.  Well that clearly hasnt happened.  Snowboarding exploded because, lets face it, it was fun, and in 2-3 days you could be an expert.  So people loved it, especially young men.  Advance to today, now you can go out, buy some fatties, and in a few days you can ski down stuff that only a few years ago you couldnt.  So like boarding, fatties are fun, and hey, they make you an "expert" in a few days.

 

Of course as boarding progressed, and people started to understand more, the real pros started to show, and no longer could you board for a few days and be considered an expert....it now took work and dediction to be good, most were stuck in mediocrity.....the fun ended and they moved onto other things.  I expect the same outcome with fatties.  In a few years people will see that just getting down a black run doesnt make you an expert any more then falling off an 80ft cliff and landing on your head makes you an extreme skier.  When that happens, and people understand what is going on, things will tone down and skis that are more versatile and perform in the conditions people actually do ski, not the conditions they want to ski....will prevail.  At the moment a lot of what is driving the sales volume of fat skis is image and what is considered cool....when that changes, and it will (it wasnt that long ago that the longer you skis the cooler you were...then it was the shorter and more extreme the side cut...then it was how high you were stacked....dont forget flouro, strectch pants, the list goes on)....I suspect you will see a predictable shift.

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by BushwackerinPA 

 

 

Rocker going mainstream is new, rocker as ski idea is 10 years old now its just everyone was so stupid to realize its benefits and now people are too stupid to realize its limitations.

Quote of the week BWPA 

Makes sense with rentals though. Majority renting are probably beginners/intermediates? Having rocker/early rise will make pivoting and sliding easier as a way to survive getting down a slope over proper technique. Proper technique while it feels awesome when you do it and less tiring I guess than being in the back seat for example, IMO skiing properly is still harder work than not as you need to combine balance, pressure your edges, decide on turn shape, watch the terrain and have a reasonable standard of fitness to get the best out of it. It takes experience and commitment to get better to which a lot of people these days seem not to be bothered about....unfortunately.

Not saying it's right, rocker just means more people will ski and think they are achieving = FUN?. It sells skis and probably is making people ski more overall which is good as more will stick at it ultimately.

Quote:

Originally Posted by tromano 

More diversity of design and construction.

In one sense yes.

However, the truth is that for most skiers most places, rockered skis north of 90 or maybe even 100 wide should be the norm.  And my guess is that they will be.

With 4 active skiers, we have a whole lot of skis in the household - every single ski in use this season has tip+tail rocker, with the narrowest being 105 wide. And the narrowest "daily driver" being 115 wide. I suspect that the "new black" in terms of recreational skis will be rockered with a width between 100 and 115. 

The notion that a sub-100 non-rockered ski can in any way shape or form be considered an all around recreational ski today is just silly. Modern designs are in a whole different league across a range of conditions. If I had to go back to an old school carver like a Head Supershape (which I got stuck skiing for a day last summer), I'd quit the sport.  The understanding of these key design factors is one of my key litmus tests for retailers, instructors, manufacturers, etc... As the buying public becomes more informed, my suspicion is that, one way or another, we'll quickly see fewer "holdouts". That said, I use my buying dollars to reward the folks who "get it" today.

Quote:

Originally Posted by spindrift 

In one sense yes.

 

However, the truth is that for most skiers most places, rockered skis north of 90 or maybe even 100 wide should be the norm.  And my guess is that they will be.

 

With 4 active skiers, we have a whole lot of skis in the household - every single ski in use this season has tip+tail rocker, with the narrowest being 105 wide. And the narrowest "daily driver" being 115 wide. I suspect that the "new black" in terms of recreational skis will be rockered with a width between 100 and 115. 

 

The notion that a sub-100 non-rockered ski can in any way shape or form be considered an all around recreational ski today is just silly. Modern designs are in a whole different league across a range of conditions. If I had to go back to an old school carver like a Head Supershape (which I got stuck skiing for a day last summer), I'd quit the sport.  The understanding of these key design factors is one of my key litmus tests for retailers, instructors, manufacturers, etc... As the buying public becomes more informed, my suspicion is that, one way or another, we'll quickly see fewer "holdouts". That said, I use my buying dollars to reward the folks who "get it" today.

 

 

In New England, most seasons, that's absurd...and this December, how's that working for you out there?

Not that you won't see people out on them in totally inappropriate conditions. Like most things in life, they are good for what they're good for. Not the holy grail and not a one ski "quiver".

Quote:

Originally Posted by wildcat hank 

I like the way this thread is going.

 

Full rocker skis might have started the whole thing but the mods that will take hold and be around for sometime now.   Kids (teens to early 20's) are jumping on some form of rocker ( not full ) as never nevers and are ski stuff that would have if they had started on full camber ski in just one day.  

 

When shape skis first started (Elan SCX's) they were laughed at.  now can you go to a ski shop and find a straight ski with the exception of mogul skis. No.   this will be the cast in the next few year for rocker mean early rise to full.  Its going to happen in Race ski too. 

 

Watch the mirco ski comany's they are biting at the heels of the big guys.  So the bigs will be changing.   Look at Line they are an mirco ski who now has a sizeable market share.  They don't want make a carving ski. 

 

It'll happen with race skis when and if the FIS says so...I wouldn't hold my breath.....

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rossi Smash 

In New England, most seasons, that's absurd...and this December, how's that working for you out there?

 

Not that you won't see people out on them in totally inappropriate conditions. Like most things in life, they are good for what they're good for. Not the holy grail and not a one ski "quiver".

 

Completely agree RS. Depends where you ski and sounds like up North there at the mo it wouldn't ideally be on +100mm skis even out West?.

You try supporting the below logic and your 115 daily driver over here and you'd get laughed off the mountains, and probably run over by people skiing Supershape style skis. No way a +100mm is more fun or versatile than a narrower carver orientated ski over here unless you own a helicopter. Horses for courses.

Originally Posted by spindrift 

However, the truth is that for most skiers most places, rockered skis north of 90 or maybe even 100 wide should be the norm.  And my guess is that they will be.

With 4 active skiers, we have a whole lot of skis in the household - every single ski in use this season has tip+tail rocker, with the narrowest being 105 wide. And the narrowest "daily driver" being 115 wide. I suspect that the "new black" in terms of recreational skis will be rockered with a width between 100 and 115. 

Quote:

Originally Posted by spindrift 

In one sense yes.

 

However, the truth is that for most skiers most places, rockered skis north of 90 or maybe even 100 wide should be the norm.  And my guess is that they will be.

 

With 4 active skiers, we have a whole lot of skis in the household - every single ski in use this season has tip+tail rocker, with the narrowest being 105 wide. And the narrowest "daily driver" being 115 wide. I suspect that the "new black" in terms of recreational skis will be rockered with a width between 100 and 115. 

 

The notion that a sub-100 non-rockered ski can in any way shape or form be considered an all around recreational ski today is just silly. Modern designs are in a whole different league across a range of conditions. If I had to go back to an old school carver like a Head Supershape (which I got stuck skiing for a day last summer), I'd quit the sport.  The understanding of these key design factors is one of my key litmus tests for retailers, instructors, manufacturers, etc... As the buying public becomes more informed, my suspicion is that, one way or another, we'll quickly see fewer "holdouts". That said, I use my buying dollars to reward the folks who "get it" today.

 

 

You know, I think if you are doing nothign but freeride in a place where the nsow tends to be pretty good then that may be true. But there is more to skiing than just that aspect and other skis do have a place for other types of skiing.

It doesn't sound like many of you "nay" sayers out there have tried any of the newer rocker designs. I do agree that the ski of the future is going to be made with varying degrees of tip AND tail rocker with regular camber in the middle. Tips and tail will also have reverse sidecut. These skis are super easy in turn initiation and pick up he carve in the fall-line. Anyone who thinks they are hooky is just skiing them incorrectly ( in other words they are using the same range of fore/aft movement they use on their shaped skis). Icelantic makes an early rise tip and tail with camber that is 118 under foot and has a tun radius of 13+ in a 169 and progressively a little more than that in the 179, and 189. Line's Opus makes just about any turn shape in any of it's lengths. The new rockers give the benefits of a short ski in turn initiation and the benefits of a longer ski through the fall line. They also ski the daylights out of crud and powder. They DO make skiing more fun, especially in the trees, and they do absolutely fine on Eastern hard pack. Don't disrespect them until you have tried a few different designs and seen it for yourself. BTW, try to find a demo under 110 under foot at Jay Peak - good luck. 

Quote:

Originally Posted by dante19 It doesn't sound like many of you "nay" sayers out there have tried any of the newer rocker designs. I do agree that the ski of the future is going to be made with varying degrees of tip AND tail rocker with regular camber in the middle. Tips and tail will also have reverse sidecut. These skis are super easy in turn initiation and pick up he carve in the fall-line. Anyone who thinks they are hooky is just skiing them incorrectly ( in other words they are using the same range of fore/aft movement they use on their shaped skis). Icelantic makes an early rise tip and tail with camber that is 118 under foot and has a tun radius of 13+ in a 169 and progressively a little more than that in the 179, and 189. Line's Opus makes just about any turn shape in any of it's lengths. The new rockers give the benefits of a short ski in turn initiation and the benefits of a longer ski through the fall line. They also ski the daylights out of crud and powder. They DO make skiing more fun, especially in the trees, and they do absolutely fine on Eastern hard pack. Don't disrespect them until you have tried a few different designs and seen it for yourself. BTW, try to find a demo under 110 under foot at Jay Peak - good luck. 

You go ahead and ski a 118 underfoot on eastern hardpack. It's the wrong tool for the job....

Just because that's all they have to demo only means that's what they are TRYING TO SELL...

You are so wrong. Have you tried Icelantic's Keeper or Line's Mr. Pollard's Opus, or Rossi's S7? I could go on and on. Unless you are familiar with the new breed of combined rocker and camber with sidecut, you really don't have a basis for evaluation. You can have an opinion, but it is not completely informed. This reminds me so much of the discussions when shaped skis came out. Like it or not, skis are getting wider. Solomon does not make a ski less than 80 under foot, and K2, an eastern ski leader, has filled its showcase with rockers. To say it's the wrong tool for the job, is like saying a screwdriver is the wrong tool for the job because it is a Phillip's head - there are other kinds. We all know how difficult it is to find one ski that does everything. The new rocker skis come just as close to bridging that gap as their narrower, non-rockered cousins.

I've got S3's for deeper snow, and tried the S7 as well. No way do those ski as well as a decent carving orientated ski on harder snow. They are adequate but not first choice.

Soloman make an Enduro in 73 and 75 so do still do skis under 80mm. Most manufacturers still do but it's up to your retailers what they spec and based on North America's terrain it makes sense to market a bit wider especially after what happened last year. In NZ they target under 90mm as that suits 90% of the time here.

Personally I've also tried 2012 Mantras, Experience 98's etc too and while pretty good are still not quite the same thing as a sub 90mm carver is on hardpack. They are a compromise in the middle to cover the most bases for most people and actually do it pretty well. You still notice the extra width transition wise and also just having a bigger ski on your feet too though is slightly less dynamic. It's like driving a Sports utility instead of a sports car or wearing good running shoes compared to 5 fingers. We have got away from rocker here and got into width which I'm not sure is what the OP intended?

So obviously ski what you like but saying 100+mm is it from now on is a pretty wide generalisation based on the snow and terrain that's around the world.

Just like 120+ are here to stay for the right conditions I personally don't think everyone is just going to give up on sub 100mm skis either. There is a need and a want for them.

Quote:

Originally Posted by dante19 You are so wrong. Have you tried Icelantic's Keeper or Line's Mr. Pollard's Opus, or Rossi's S7? I could go on and on. Unless you are familiar with the new breed of combined rocker and camber with sidecut, you really don't have a basis for evaluation. You can have an opinion, but it is not completely informed. This reminds me so much of the discussions when shaped skis came out. Like it or not, skis are getting wider. Solomon does not make a ski less than 80 under foot, and K2, an eastern ski leader, has filled its showcase with rockers. To say it's the wrong tool for the job, is like saying a screwdriver is the wrong tool for the job because it is a Phillip's head - there are other kinds. We all know how difficult it is to find one ski that does everything. The new rocker skis come just as close to bridging that gap as their narrower, non-rockered cousins.

You can ski anything you like. You don't know what I have skied on. You have an opion as do I.

Right now marketing is selling an image that just does not jive with where a lot of people ski. I'll be on skis from 65mm to maybe 81mm for the short term as we have NO SNOW here. YES if you've got some soft snow, the more the better, those skis can be great fun. But sorry, not even close to a daily in most places. Can you? Sure, but why would you?

The fact that you keep bringing up wider skis being strongly promoted does not make your case. K2 the "eastern leader"? More like they are the WalMart of skis.

And again, why would you even want one ski to do everything? It's not going to happen unless you face the same conditions everyday.

Quote:

Originally Posted by dawgcatching 

On a similar note: what is "rocker"? That term is thrown around all over the place, but it seems that a "rocker" should look like a rocking chair, which most "rockered" skis don't.  There are true rockered designs; low bent tip and tail with camber underfoot; early rise; designs made to imitate early rise, and a bunch more ideas and designs as well.  Seems like rocker is a pretty generic term to describe designs that really don't have too much in common.

Yep. Rocker is just one design element. Rocker comes in "fun shapes" and "all moutnain skis" and "big mountain chargers" and etc...

Quote:

Originally Posted by dante19 

You are so wrong. Have you tried Icelantic's Keeper or Line's Mr. Pollard's Opus, or Rossi's S7? I could go on and on. Unless you are familiar with the new breed of combined rocker and camber with sidecut, you really don't have a basis for evaluation. You can have an opinion, but it is not completely informed. This reminds me so much of the discussions when shaped skis came out. Like it or not, skis are getting wider. Solomon does not make a ski less than 80 under foot, and K2, an eastern ski leader, has filled its showcase with rockers. To say it's the wrong tool for the job, is like saying a screwdriver is the wrong tool for the job because it is a Phillip's head - there are other kinds. We all know how difficult it is to find one ski that does everything. The new rocker skis come just as close to bridging that gap as their narrower, non-rockered cousins.

I have skied the Keeper and the S7. Both rock at a skiing weird 3d snow but with flaws. The S7 feels like shit on on a high edge angle on hard snow, but does rock off trail especially in manky snow. The keeper i Have tried has to much camber for EC tree skiing out west, maybe better.

Who cares what Salomon and K2 are doing.  And whats makes K2 and eastern ski? quite frankly I think they suck at hardpack but some of the skis do do quite well at eastern tree skiing.

I own(ed) more rockered skis on here than most. Right now I have 3 pairs of some sort of rockered ski, and I am naysayer simply because they do not hook up on hard snow all that well. They can do pretty well under the feet of skilled skier but they are far from perfect.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Skidude72 

Classic!

 

 

My 2cents.  Rocker is peaked, and will likley fall by the wayside.  Early rise however is likely to be the new go.

thanks!

but rockered and early rise are the same thing. I dare you to define the difference of when 'early rise" becomes "rocker"

Quote:

Originally Posted by Flyboy22 

Widest I'm going is my Supershape Titans!  I don't care what people think.  I like my skis like my women, skinny and fast!!  =D

your just as bad as the rockered all the time people but the other way around. 

Quote:

Originally Posted by spindrift 

In one sense yes.

 

However, the truth is that for most skiers most places, rockered skis north of 90 or maybe even 100 wide should be the norm.  And my guess is that they will be.

 

With 4 active skiers, we have a whole lot of skis in the household - every single ski in use this season has tip+tail rocker, with the narrowest being 105 wide. And the narrowest "daily driver" being 115 wide. I suspect that the "new black" in terms of recreational skis will be rockered with a width between 100 and 115. 

 

The notion that a sub-100 non-rockered ski can in any way shape or form be considered an all around recreational ski today is just silly. Modern designs are in a whole different league across a range of conditions. If I had to go back to an old school carver like a Head Supershape (which I got stuck skiing for a day last summer), I'd quit the sport.  The understanding of these key design factors is one of my key litmus tests for retailers, instructors, manufacturers, etc... As the buying public becomes more informed, my suspicion is that, one way or another, we'll quickly see fewer "holdouts". That said, I use my buying dollars to reward the folks who "get it" today.

 

 

Maritime snowpack and relatively high moisture content makes using a 100'ish ski the 'normal' option in the PNW. Out here, sure. In the East and Midwest, not so much. I ski 98 for the daily 'no new snow in a longtime' ride, and 118 for new snow. For touring, there's also the up to deal with. Wide skins and skis = a bunch more weight. The optimum compromise seems to be 95-105.

The straw man in the whole conversation though is the term 'rocker'. There's no standard design that can be associated with the word. Are we talking cambered with early rise? Flat? Reverse camber? S7, or E88. How about the Blizzard Bodacious and something like a Benchetler? What we're seeing is a boom in ski designs that will suit different geographic regions, skier ability, skier weights, etc... Given how the Rossi E98 performs on hardpack, it's not surprising to hear that the powers that be are experimenting with early rise (or is it rocker?) tips on GS skis, though I don't think we're going to see 98 underfoot in a full on race ski. I also agree with those who are asking the nay sayers to give them a try before slagging them. Green eggs and ham, that sort of thing.

Quote:

Originally Posted by dawgcatching 

On a similar note: what is "rocker"? That term is thrown around all over the place, but it seems that a "rocker" should look like a rocking chair, which most "rockered" skis don't.  There are true rockered designs; low bent tip and tail with camber underfoot; early rise; designs made to imitate early rise, and a bunch more ideas and designs as well.  Seems like rocker is a pretty generic term to describe designs that really don't have too much in common.

rocker is a great term

There is no difference between 'rocker","early rise","reverse camber" they are all just markets terms for a skis camber that splays the tip and/or the tail.