EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › Ski Gear Discussion › Where is ski construction heading??? ROCKER or ???
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Where is ski construction heading??? ROCKER or ??? - Page 3

post #61 of 88

Lighter isn't ALWAYS better.....ya still gotta be able to ski'um.

 

And that, after all, is part of the point isn't it? If you can't "ski'um" or you can't "get'um" to work, then you won't "like-um".

 

post #62 of 88

I went to Marmot basin on the weekend with my Mythic Riders and S7's because I didn't know what conditions i would really expect. 

 

Saturday i was using my Mythic Riders all day, there was 9cm of fresh snow, the ski's did well, sunk and plowed through everything.  Had a great time, didn't really need any floatation.

 

The next day was a 30cm dump  I was working so bloody hard with the mythic's, bouncing around and maintaining balance.  By noon i said forget it, and took out my S7's.  I was leaning forwards, backwards sliding around on top of the snow, short turns, long turns, jumping off stuff effortlessly all afternoon.  I just couldn't believe the difference that a rockered ski makes in deeper snow, it was just astounding.

 

I don't think i want to ski anything other than a rockered ski on more than 6cm of snow anymore, it's just to much work for my old age.  I'm 29 lol.

post #63 of 88
Quote:
Originally Posted by huhh View Post

I went to Marmot basin on the weekend with my Mythic Riders and S7's...  I just couldn't believe the difference that a rockered ski makes in deeper snow, it was just astounding.



Was it the rocker or the 2cm difference in width?

post #64 of 88
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stikki View Post



Was it the rocker or the 2cm difference in width?


Both. 

 

post #65 of 88
The rocker defiantly helped keep my tips up on top of the snow and the extra width underfoot stopped me from sinking. To me nothing beats a wide rockered ski in powder, it just makes skiing deep snow more enjoyable and a lot less work.
post #66 of 88
Quote:
Originally Posted by spindrift View Post



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.

 

 

Huh????  a sub 100 non rockered ski isn't an all around recreational ski?  am I reading that correctly? If so,  I think that comment is just silly.   
 

 

post #67 of 88
Quote:
Originally Posted by markojp View Post


U, if what you say is true, then why is it that all the clinicians/examiners on our hill are skiing early rise skis for their daily ride?



'cause inducing a golf cart to turn on skis with upper body rotation, foot twisting, and heel shoving is hard work?  Switching to incognito ski blades reduces the effort required to shoulder one's way down the bunny slope.

 

 

post #68 of 88
Quote:
Originally Posted by pdiddy View Post

Huh????  a sub 100 non rockered ski isn't an all around recreational ski?  am I reading that correctly? If so,  I think that comment is just silly.   
 

 


 

So much to respond to and so little time and patience...

 

In a nutshell, yes. I'm not quibbling about a few mm here and there. But that is the basic picture of reality for all around skiing for most skiers in most places. Folks dropping big bucks on narrower conventional skis for general use this year will feel sad in the wallet in the next year or two when they figure out what they've done (or what has been done to them). Hence my observation that especially at this moment I'd pick my retailers carefully. Obviously you are welcome to disagree or think my view is silly. Time will tell.

 

Regarding the NZ comments earlier. Four seasons or so years ago I was just about laughed out of NZ for skiing on Pontoons. Last few times I visited, my fat rockered skis were not noteworthy in any way. At least not in the Wanaka area. In fact last time I was there my 115 wide skis were middle of the pack. What do you suppose Kingswood's biggest sellers are? Or which skis their designers & employees ski on? I'm gonna guess the Rocketype is right up there.

post #69 of 88
Quote:
Originally Posted by spindrift 

So much to respond to and so little time and patience...

 

In a nutshell, yes. I'm not quibbling about a few mm here and there. But that is the basic picture of reality for all around skiing for most skiers in most places. Folks dropping big bucks on narrower conventional skis for general use this year will feel sad in the wallet in the next year or two when they figure out what they've done (or what has been done to them). Hence my observation that especially at this moment I'd pick my retailers carefully. Obviously you are welcome to disagree or think my view is silly. Time will tell.

 

Regarding the NZ comments earlier. Four seasons or so years ago I was just about laughed out of NZ for skiing on Pontoons. Last few times I visited, my fat rockered skis were not noteworthy in any way. At least not in the Wanaka area. In fact last time I was there my 115 wide skis were middle of the pack. What do you suppose Kingswood's biggest sellers are? Or which skis their designers & employees ski on? I'm gonna guess the Rocketype is right up there.



Again, that my work fine out where you are but not here in New England most of the time. The narrow conventional works very well here, most of the time....

 

 

 

post #70 of 88

All I know, is that if I wasn't doing so much backcountry and was confined to resorts, I'd be on my GS race skis or dynastar troublemakers, depending how much zooming vs. bumping I'd want to do. When there's a lack of snow (right now), and I'm staying inbounds (rare occassions), thats what I reach for.

 

So... for out here, right now, the average recreational skier is much better off with something around 80mm underfoot, not 100mm underfoot with rocker. Last year, I rarely spent a day away from my 115mm rockered ski, but last year was exceptional. Pick the ski for the conditions, don't pick the ski because of a dogmatic principle.

post #71 of 88
Quote:
Originally Posted by spindrift View Post


 

So much to respond to and so little time and patience...

 

In a nutshell, yes. I'm not quibbling about a few mm here and there. But that is the basic picture of reality for all around skiing for most skiers in most places. Folks dropping big bucks on narrower conventional skis for general use this year will feel sad in the wallet in the next year or two when they figure out what they've done (or what has been done to them). Hence my observation that especially at this moment I'd pick my retailers carefully. Obviously you are welcome to disagree or think my view is silly. Time will tell.

 

Regarding the NZ comments earlier. Four seasons or so years ago I was just about laughed out of NZ for skiing on Pontoons. Last few times I visited, my fat rockered skis were not noteworthy in any way. At least not in the Wanaka area. In fact last time I was there my 115 wide skis were middle of the pack. What do you suppose Kingswood's biggest sellers are? Or which skis their designers & employees ski on? I'm gonna guess the Rocketype is right up there.


Yes I absolutely think your view is silly.  

 

post #72 of 88



 

Quote:
Originally Posted by spindrift View Post

Regarding the NZ comments earlier. Four seasons or so years ago I was just about laughed out of NZ for skiing on Pontoons. Last few times I visited, my fat rockered skis were not noteworthy in any way. At least not in the Wanaka area. In fact last time I was there my 115 wide skis were middle of the pack. What do you suppose Kingswood's biggest sellers are? Or which skis their designers & employees ski on? I'm gonna guess the Rocketype is right up there.



Kingswood is a local company which makes custom made skis to order so of course they are going to be skiing those down there as they are promoting their product. Small company and a niche market but they still do skis under 100mm too.

South Island skiing is pretty much the only place to get untracked 4+ inches of newish snow reliably here (still season dependant) to ski consistently if you go for a walk uphill or have access to a helicopter. If anywhere those reasons are appropriate enough to opt for wider skis but by far the vast majority of skiiers around Wanaka would only ski on the 4 ski fields in Central Otago there and at piste levels only. Even off piste at the ski field heights the days after a new snow fall here you can usually use piste skis just fine as the depth isn't that massive and the snow settles onto a heavier base. 

Based on that (guessing here but looking at what's in the shops) less than 20% of skis sold here would be over 90mm and we are a season ahead of you in skis so it doesn't look like shops here are completely following the Northern Hemisphere purchasing trait market and sub 100mm skis are going to be obsoleted as you suggested. The main skis types promoted here are the RTMs, Amphibios, Rossi Exp 83 types, K2 Rictors etc especially in the North Island as even though the skiing is more limited to mostly the 2 bigger skifields there it's the biggest market to buy skis by far. So ultimately yes rocker/early rise is here to stay as that's all you can pretty much get now, but I don't think sub 100mm skis are finished just yet.

 


Edited by snala - 12/20/11 at 11:51am
post #73 of 88

While a lot of personal preferences have been stated, no one has answered the original question. To review............the question was "where is ski construction heading....???"

 

So far I have previewed all or part of 6-8 of the 12 ski brands that we represent @ StartHaus. The brand and product managers consider the world markets as well as national markets. Regional variations also have play. In the US for example, the western market makes a lot of noise and is the glam market these days. However, there are more skis sold in the East and Midwest and those markets get their fair play as well. Here is what the guys that build our toys are up to.......

 

Construction:

 

The increased marketing of "slackcountry" gear is generating some lighter skis such as this year's Nordica "sidecountry" collection. There is a trend toward lighter cores without going all the way in the direction of the DPS "Pure" or the Goodes for example(s). Metal is being removed or minimized in many offerings but still maintained in many others. There are some interesting applications of dampening being applied in some wider, rockered skis.

 

Design:

 

Full rocker as properly defined is almost dead already. Volkl still has it this year and I haven't seen their 2013's yet so I don't know if they are expanding the concept or not. The manufacturers that I have previewed so far are not running out of their shoes to chase the full rocker concept. Tip rise is certainly the direction for most brands in skis under 100mm or so with minimal applications in the narrower widths. Tip and tail rise are common above 100mm but far less so in the narrower widths. There are some mild variations of five point design coming from an unexpected direction and some intriguing developments in hard snow models coming from the usual suspects but also from another (rather) unexpected source.

 

FTMP, the ski manufacturers seem to be well aware that Squaw Valley is not the center of the universe and while there is a lot that will serve that market niche, that is not all they are building. They are keeping the broader market concept firmly in mind as well.

 

SJ

post #74 of 88
Quote:
Originally Posted by SierraJim View Post

 

FTMP, the ski manufacturers seem to be well aware that Squaw Valley is not the center of the universe and while there is a lot that will serve that market niche, that is not all they are building. They are keeping the broader market concept firmly in mind as well.

 

SJ



Doubt that most locals in Squaw buy skis at retail, either....probably good to focus on working stiffs who can actually afford new skis, but have more limited skiing days.  Thanks SJ for the update! 

post #75 of 88
Quote:
Originally Posted by dawgcatching View Post



Doubt that most locals in Squaw buy skis at retail, either....probably good to focus on working stiffs who can actually afford new skis, but have more limited skiing days.  Thanks SJ for the update! 



Scott; you are 1000% correct. The population @ SV on a typical Wednesday is probably 50% folks that are "connected". Naturally, the problem that we encounter is the the other 50% think that they are in that corner of the sandbox too. Thus, when they come in to see us they say......"Oh yeah....I ski everything at Squaw". After talking to them, we get a better handle on that and sometimes we'll hand 'em a Blizzi Cochise or somesuch......but a lot of times we'll hand 'em a Legend 94 or Experience 88 or something in that realm. I know from our past conversations that you do the same. Fortunately, the manufacturers are are not buying into the lunatic fringe as being the mainstream because after all, we (and ultimately.......they) are the ones that have to face the customer a couple of ski days after the sale.

 

SJ

post #76 of 88

All I know is I demoed a bunch of rockered 85+mm skis last week in very cold and hard groomed conditions. Yes these are the intended conditions for the skis but that is exactly what I wanted, to see how they reacted to that kind of terrain. And yes they are skiable, some better than others...but I can tell you I ended the day on a pair of Fischer Progressors with 75mm underfoot and I swear I felt like a huge weight was lifted from my shoulders. The speed, the grip, I felt like a jolt of electricity run trough by body during those last few runs how much I was ripping.  So although I liked the fatter rockers on the hardpack and would be able to get by on them once in a while if I were to purchase them, in no way shape or form can they outperform a carver in these conditions.  So like many said, everything has it's intended use. But if you ski mainly cold grippy hard packs in the North East, I can't see how a fatter rockered ski can be best.

post #77 of 88

More on some of the meat later, but can you guys please stop confusing people by mixing up reverse camber and "full rocker"?

 

Among those people who have been skiing these skis for years, and the people designing these skis, the term "full rocker" is not equivalent to reverse camber. Using those as precise synonyms is just confusing people for no good reason. What you call "tip + tail rise" is "rocker" or  "full rocker". Or at least a subset thereof.

 

Heck, some of the people who introduced the term rocker did so to distinguish their flat or micro-camber midsections from full reverse camber designs. 

 

While I'd probably quibble over a couple of nerdier definitional points if I were having a beer with MO, this about as good a piece as I've seen and is worth a read: http://blistergearreview.com/articles/rocker-101

post #78 of 88
Quote:
Originally Posted by spindrift View Post

More on some of the meat later, but can you guys please stop confusing people by mixing up reverse camber and "full rocker"?

 

Among those people who have been skiing these skis for years, and the people designing these skis, the term "full rocker" is not equivalent to reverse camber. Using those as precise synonyms is just confusing people for no good reason. What you call "tip + tail rise" is "rocker" or  "full rocker". Or at least a subset thereof.

 

Heck, some of the people who introduced the term rocker did so to distinguish their flat or micro-camber midsections from full reverse camber designs. 

 

While I'd probably quibble over a couple of nerdier definitional points if I were having a beer with MO, this about as good a piece as I've seen and is worth a read: http://blistergearreview.com/articles/rocker-101

nice read, pretty much explained what i thought about rocker and reverse camber.  Which is limited to the tip and tail with a flat or regular camber section underfoot, while a reverse camber ski is the entire length of the ski, like the opposite of a regular camber ski. 

 

Would be interesting to ski a reverse camber ski in some bottomless snow, must be stupid easy.
 

 

post #79 of 88

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by huhh View Post

I went to Marmot basin on the weekend with my Mythic Riders and S7's...  I just couldn't believe the difference that a rockered ski makes in deeper snow, it was just astounding.

Was it the rocker or the 2cm difference in width?

 

 

Well, both and somethin else.  Mythic is a GREAT ski, but powder skiing was not its forte, too stiff. S7 is much softer, and thus skis powder much better.  I don't argue with the benefits of rocker in powder (and in all 3D snow).  In fact both of my quiver skis this year are rockered. On a hardpack rocker is not helpful so much, the game there is to make it not to interfere with the ski performance too much.  I heard vaguely or rockered GS skis, but never saw them, maybe an interesting concept.     Obviously I subscribe to the idea of rockered skis for the West coast.  On the East coast, I'd imagine traditional carvers would work a lot better. Heck, traditional carvers work a lot better on the snow that we have at Squaw now.  

 

post #80 of 88
Quote:
Originally Posted by spindrift View Post

More on some of the meat later, but can you guys please stop confusing people by mixing up reverse camber and "full rocker"?

 

Among those people who have been skiing these skis for years, and the people designing these skis, the term "full rocker" is not equivalent to reverse camber. Using those as precise synonyms is just confusing people for no good reason. What you call "tip + tail rise" is "rocker" or  "full rocker". Or at least a subset thereof.

 

Heck, some of the people who introduced the term rocker did so to distinguish their flat or micro-camber midsections from full reverse camber designs. 

 

While I'd probably quibble over a couple of nerdier definitional points if I were having a beer with MO, this about as good a piece as I've seen and is worth a read: http://blistergearreview.com/articles/rocker-101

 

Interesting but this is one guys view of what the meaning of "is"................is. I have been skiing on these skis since their inception and regularly ski on 50+ variants per year. I am also in contact with almost every major brand product manager in the industry. Marshall Olsen and Spindrift notwithstanding, most ski engineers and designers define a continuous reverse camber ski as full rocker. They define a ski with tip and tail rise with camber as just that and do not refer to that design as full rocker. Marketers occasionally go a little overboard with whatever terminology they think will sell product and the term "rocker" is often as much misused as Kleenex when applied to tissue and Parabolic when applied to skis. Referring to a rise/camber/rise ski as "full rocker" is grossly inaccurate and far more confusing than simply referring to it for what it really is........tip and tail rise. Folks that sell skis for a living understand this distinction.

 

So.......let's not let our personal opinions/agendas interfere with the facts. I'll report what the industry as a whole is saying and working on. If I have a quibble with their terminology I'll say so but when I have an opinion, I don't state it as fact.

 

SJ

post #81 of 88
Quote:
Originally Posted by spindrift View Post

More on some of the meat later, but can you guys please stop confusing people by mixing up reverse camber and "full rocker"?

 

Among those people who have been skiing these skis for years, and the people designing these skis, the term "full rocker" is not equivalent to reverse camber. Using those as precise synonyms is just confusing people for no good reason. What you call "tip + tail rise" is "rocker" or  "full rocker". Or at least a subset thereof.

 

Heck, some of the people who introduced the term rocker did so to distinguish their flat or micro-camber midsections from full reverse camber designs. 

 

While I'd probably quibble over a couple of nerdier definitional points if I were having a beer with MO, this about as good a piece as I've seen and is worth a read: http://blistergearreview.com/articles/rocker-101


  All I know is according to the current manufacturer definition,  http://volkl.com/ski/skiis/models/RTM%2077    Example many of the Volkl line up are full rockered, gotama and most of the front side ski's are full rockered.    Now there is early rise (aka front rocker, like the Mantra) and or tail rocker  or both with regular camber (example Salomon Shogun).    The Volkl website had a diagram and a video on each ski.     K2 also has some excellent diagrams,.   It appears that different terms are used for marketing but that's about it.   

 

post #82 of 88
Quote:
Originally Posted by SierraJim View Post

 

So.......let's not let our personal opinions/agendas interfere with the facts. I'll report what the industry as a whole is saying and working on. If I have a quibble with their terminology I'll say so but when I have an opinion, I don't state it as fact.

 

 

 

I agree. Data and facts are good. The two earliest entities I know of to use the term rocker wrt skis were DPS and K2. Both used, and continue to use it, to apply to skis that are not full reverse camber. Care to offer any contrary evidence? (and IIRC  the term was used early on on the context of Armada's elf shoe tech description -- but I won't swear to that)

 

While the vocabulary is still sorting itself out a bit, I'm pretty sure that Marshall's piece captures industry norm rather well. It certainly matches other credible pieces I've seen (and since I've used non-rockered skis maybe 2-3 times in about my last 250 or so days of skiing, one might guess it is a topic of interest to me...).

 

For any nerdy types with too much time on their hands, the history of this topic here, at TGR and on the web as a whole is arguably interesting in the context of this thread. Obvious search terms might include Spatula, Pontoon, reverse camber, rocker, reverse sidecut, early taper, five point, etc., etc...

 

 

 

 

 

post #83 of 88
Quote:
Originally Posted by spindrift View Post

 

I agree. Data and facts are good. The two earliest entities I know of to use the term rocker wrt skis were DPS and K2. Both used, and continue to use it, to apply to skis that are not full reverse camber. Care to offer any contrary evidence? (and IIRC  the term was used early on on the context of Armada's elf shoe tech description -- but I won't swear to that)

 


Of course not......you make my point perfectly. The term "Rocker" is currently applied to everything including skis like the K2 Rictor which has a barely visible tip rise. To use the same term to define a ski with notable tip and tail let alone a continuous rocker is silly..........they are not remotely the same. You are succumbing to the marketing world just like the rest. "Full rocker" applies perfectly to a ski like a Volkl Gotama, "tip and tail rise" applies perfectly to a ski like a Blizzi Bonafide, "tip rise" applies perfectly to a ski like a K2 Hardside. The fact that marketing types tend to refer to all these skis as "rockered" has absolutely no bearing on the question of "where is ski construction (design) going". Marketing types FTMP don't have much say in that.....they just name it after it's done and they use the newest or coolest buzzwords going. "Rocker" is currently the cool term but it is applied inappropriately every day. Reverse camber may have the same meaning as full rocker but it is simply not widely used and neither of those terms accurately describe a rise/camber/rise ski as well as saying...........well.........rise/camber/rise.

 

SJ

 

post #84 of 88
Quote:
Originally Posted by SierraJim View Post


Marketing types FTMP don't have much say in that.....they just name it after it's done and they use the newest or coolest buzzwords going. "Rocker" is currently the cool term but it is applied inappropriately every day. Reverse camber may have the same meaning as full rocker but it is simply not widely used and neither of those terms accurately describe a rise/camber/rise ski as well as saying...........well.........rise/camber/rise.

 

SJ

 



Seen at REI today on pretty much all of their skis: a sticker saying "Ask About Rocker Technology".  This includes the Rictor and Aftershock. It also includes the Kendo, which I don't believe has any sort of early rise. I am sure the guys working the REI ski section (who were repairing mountain bikes the week before, and selling women's baselayers the week before that) are qualified to answer these questions.  Perhaps they should have a sticker noting saying "ask why your skis are obsolete after 2 seasons and your skis are no longer functional". 

 

IMO, actual improvements in ski design, whether they be rockered, full reverse camber, early rise tip and tail, or full traditional camber (with new layups not previously used) are much more interesting than a generic term that is a catch-all phrase for "new and improved".  New designs are great; the breadth of ways to attack a problem happening now are mind-blowing.  There are so many ways to skin a cat, as they say. 

post #85 of 88
Quote:
Originally Posted by spindrift View Post

 

I agree. Data and facts are good. The two earliest entities I know of to use the term rocker wrt skis were DPS and K2. Both used, and continue to use it, to apply to skis that are not full reverse camber. Care to offer any contrary evidence? (and IIRC  the term was used early on on the context of Armada's elf shoe tech description -- but I won't swear to that)

 

While the vocabulary is still sorting itself out a bit, I'm pretty sure that Marshall's piece captures industry norm rather well. It certainly matches other credible pieces I've seen (and since I've used non-rockered skis maybe 2-3 times in about my last 250 or so days of skiing, one might guess it is a topic of interest to me...).

 

For any nerdy types with too much time on their hands, the history of this topic here, at TGR and on the web as a whole is arguably interesting in the context of this thread. Obvious search terms might include Spatula, Pontoon, reverse camber, rocker, reverse sidecut, early taper, five point, etc., etc...

 

 

 

 

 

REVERSE CAMBER AND FULL ROCKER ARE THE SAME

K2 has rockered ski's but none that I could find (2012) are or say full rockered, they use the term all terrain rocker,to describe early rise or rocker in tip and tail, they use the term Powder rocker, which is rocker in the front and early rise in the back and regular camber underfoot.  http://k2skis.com/skis/twin-tips/hellbent.  .   Volkl, does have all types of rockered ski's including a complete line of FULL Rockered ski's which are clearly described on text and diagram AND in video as "full rockered is a continuous bend from tip to tail".    here is a link,  to what Volkl describes as a full rockered ski, also check out the front side skis' which have video's, in case you just don't believe the diagrams. .  http://volkl.com/ski/skiis/models/kuro

Here is another link that on EVO, that describes rocker http://www.evo.com/rocker-guide-what-is-rocker-and-why-does-it-matter.aspx

 

 

 

What is Rocker? There are three ingredients ski / snowboard shape:

 

Camber – Camber is the traditional shape for skis and snowboards. Camber is a slight arching upward curve with the bend or curve upward in the middle. A good example of camber is the Burton Custom Snowboard. Camber provides excellent turn initiation and handling on on-piste slopes.

  Diagram Depicts a Ski or Snowboard with Camber

Rocker – Rocker (also called reverse-camber) is just as it sounds – camber turned upside down. This term is borrowed from watersports where rocker is common. A good example of a ski that has Rocker in the tip and tail is the Volkl Gotama Skis. Rocker skis and snowboards offer superior float in the powder and are now used all over the mountain.  Rocker is no longer just for powder.

  Diagram Depicts a Ski or Snowboard with

Flat – Flat is often found between the tip and the tail of the ski/snowboard.  It is horizontally level or even. The base is flat like a pancake. Completely flat technology can be found in the K2 Zero Snowboard.

  Diagram Depicts a Ski or Snowboard that is Flat

 But here is the best diagram I have seen on the net about rocker, 

 

 

1. Traditional Camber

The classic. For rebound, energy, and full-length edge pressure. Not dead yet.

3. Flat with Tip Rocker

Eases edge-to-edge transitions. Improves float. More responsive than full reverse camber.

5. Flat with Tip Rocker and Tail Rocker

Floaty. Smear-and-butter-friendly. More common in park and pow skis.

 

This is what I have always thought rocker was and is, but hey, believe what you want.  

2. Camber with Tip Rocker

Improves float, reduces tip catch. Camber helps on hardpack. Now showing up in new frontside skis.

4. Camber with Tip and Tail Rocker

Camber for hardpack. Rocker for freshies. Improves versatility of powder skis.

6. Full Rocker or Reverse Camber

Nimble maneuvering in the megadeep. Helps with pivoting turns. May struggle on firm snow.

 

 

 

 

post #86 of 88
Quote:
Originally Posted by dawgcatching View Post





Seen at REI today on pretty much all of their skis: a sticker saying "Ask About Rocker Technology".  This includes the Rictor and Aftershock. It also includes the Kendo, which I don't believe has any sort of early rise. I am sure the guys working the REI ski section (who were repairing mountain bikes the week before, and selling women's baselayers the week before that) are qualified to answer these questions.  Perhaps they should have a sticker noting saying "ask why your skis are obsolete after 2 seasons and your skis are no longer functional". 

 

IMO, actual improvements in ski design, whether they be rockered, full reverse camber, early rise tip and tail, or full traditional camber (with new layups not previously used) are much more interesting than a generic term that is a catch-all phrase for "new and improved".  New designs are great; the breadth of ways to attack a problem happening now are mind-blowing.  There are so many ways to skin a cat, as they say. 



Fischer has now introduced Nordic skis with "rocker camber" now as well.

post #87 of 88

Previously known as tip and tail rocker.
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by tromano View Post



Fischer has now introduced Nordic skis with "rocker camber" now as well.



 

post #88 of 88

FWIW, my article, "rocker 101", was an attempt to apply the same naming standards that is used in scientific method.  Ie, the first identified trait/species/etc, in which someone applies a name to, is therefore the archetype for that subset.  that is not a perfect practice, but it seems to work well for biologists and anthropologists.  

 

to the best of my knowledge:

 

"reverse camber" was coined re: the volant spatula in 2002.  as far as i know, there are only a few skis on the market that are truly reverse camber (volkl gotama, praxis pow).  the rossi sickle/u-rocker is pretty close as well.

"rocker" was coined re: the db tabla rasa in 2002.  this is now commonly referred to as "tip rocker".

"early rise" was coined re: the line prophet 130 in 2004, but is the same trait as "rocker/tip rocker" in the tabla rasa.

"fully rockered" was coined in 2005/2006 re: the Armada ARG, k2 Pontoon, dps lotus 138, all independently, and applied to skis that have tip and tail rocker, but do not have a continuous reverse camber like the spatula, and are either flat or have slight camber underfoot. because of this, shapes like the rossi s7, dps w112, armada JJ, etc all follow the same general shaping guidelines, just with more sidecut. 

 

IMO,  "reverse camber" is a special subset of a "fully rockered" ski (like how a square is a rectangle, but not all rectangles are squares), where the rocker lines meet at the same place underfoot.  but i don't think that "reverse camber" is the same thing as a "fully rockered" ski.  that would imply that all 3 skis of the skis that coined the term "fully rockered" are not, in fact, fully rockered at all, which to my scientific mind is crazy talk!  :D

 

i do liked the addition of "marketing rocker" :D  to the list above, because, well, 95% of the current skis on the market are "rockered" to such a minimal degree that any change in performance will be so minimal that one would argue there is not a lot being contributed there.  not sure where that became prevalent, but i am going to accuse the k2 "catch-free rocker" as being the first offender!  

 

maybe its just me, but i do not think of a rocking chair when i think of rocketed skis.  i think of a rockered sole of a hiking boot, and plenty of others think of a rockered boat hull.  

 

 

anyhow, i do think that these finer points of ski shaping are best discussed on a chair lift, or over a beer, so let me know next time someone is headed thru denver/colorado front range ;)  feel free to call me crazy, or delusional, or whatever!  no problem there, but the reasons i apply the terms above to those specific shapes is founded on some (however thin) manner or reason!

 

 

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Ski Gear Discussion
EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › Ski Gear Discussion › Where is ski construction heading??? ROCKER or ???