or Connect
EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › Ski Gear Discussion › Rocker, early rise, reverse camber is all the same let stop calling it different things
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Rocker, early rise, reverse camber is all the same let stop calling it different things

there is absolutely no difference between these term. If you think there is a difference define in mathematically quantive terms where early rise becomes rocker or reverse camber becomes rocker, or where reverse camber becomes full rocker.

bet ya can nt.

we should settle on one term(my personal choice rocker) and start defining rocker like we define sidecut by number ala K2 style

examples

rocker ski one  - in tip 1 cm of rise over 30cm of skis

rocker ski two - in the tip .5 cm of rise over 100 cm

rocker ski three - 2 cm of rise over 15 cm of ski

so yeah define using concrete terms when one of the choice marketing words becomes the other.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Josh Matta

define in mathematically quantive terms

bet ya can nt.

Math isn't my strong suit, but here goes:

If 'marketing rocker' like Nordica's "full cam camRock" mean no actual rocker, or "some 'rocker' means camber" and some reverse camber (complete opposite of camber) is called 'rocker' or 'full rocker' then:

X=Y and Y=Z but   X =/=Z

where X is camber, Y is rocker and Z is reverse camber

do I win something?

All I know is my Steadfasts have early-rise tips, my Patrons have rocker, and my Katanas have reverse-camber.

I agree on the reverse camber and rocker being the same but early rise is...just. the. tip.

I think the word police are too busy dealing with "sidecountry" to handle rocker

Quote:
Originally Posted by oldgoat

I think the word police are too busy dealing with "sidecountry" to handle rocker

The word police are multidimensional beings. They are not bound by such simple limitations.

Since a ski can have both rocker and camber, then doesn't a ski with reverse camber mean a ski with no camber?

Ah, the quaint three dimensional beings in universe 42 are at it again.  We Who Exist Beyond All side with Mr Matta on this one. "Negative camber" or reverse camber"" would mean camber less than zero. That's a rare species, mainly made by Volkl and a couple of indies, where the rocker is a single ellipse front to back, such that there is no point on the onloaded ski that's even flat. So the ski will want to return to a single pivot point every chance it has. Originally, that's what "rocker" meant, since it came from boards and boats.

We approve of collapsing all terms into "rocker," which can then be reduced to a simple grunt. In our sublime beyondness, we find "early rise" to cause what you earthlings call "laughter," although even We are impressed with the Moment company for coining "dirty mustache rocker." (Which we thought was limited to human adult films made in the 70's, when all cultural evolution peaked.)

Keep up the fine work, Epic!

Edited by beyond - 1/19/14 at 6:29pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by beyond

Ah, the quaint three dimensional beings in universe 42 are at it again.

What is 6 times nine????

Rocker = general catch all term that in casual use includes reverse camber.

Reverse camber = "continuous curve" (maybe flat-ish underfoot)

There are actually a decent number of reverse camber skis out there, even now. IIRC, off the top of my head, Praxis, Volkl, ON3P, 4FRNT, Volkl, and DPS all have one or more reverse camber models at the moment.

Best general summary I have seen: http://blistergearreview.com/features/rocker-101

Let me Xerox you a Kleenex. Love how you are creating some interesting and controversial topics, Josh. Kudos

Oh, and they are not the same thing.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Philpug
Oh, and they are not the same thing.

Yes, but whether or not you can tell the difference between them and that they are not the same thing, when skiing, depends on the skier, apparently.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Josh Matta

there is absolutely no difference between these term. If you think there is a difference define in mathematically quantive terms where early rise becomes rocker or reverse camber becomes rocker, or where reverse camber becomes full rocker.

bet ya can nt.

we should settle on one term(my personal choice rocker) and start defining rocker like we define sidecut by number ala K2 style

examples

rocker ski one  - in tip 1 cm of rise over 30cm of skis

rocker ski two - in the tip .5 cm of rise over 100 cm

rocker ski three - 2 cm of rise over 15 cm of ski

so yeah define using concrete terms when one of the choice marketing words becomes the other.

There is difference for me between those terms...but the problem is that they can mean anything! A tip rocker at Rossignol will not be the same for Volkl...

I totally agree with your suggestion!

Quote:
Originally Posted by Josh Matta

examples

rocker ski one  - in tip 1 cm of rise over 30cm of skis

rocker ski two - in the tip .5 cm of rise over 100 cm

rocker ski three - 2 cm of rise over 15 cm of ski

so yeah define using concrete terms when one of the choice marketing words becomes the other.

What if your left and right skis have different amounts? Average them?

Why feed an old troll?

I love my reverse rocker Nordica Fire Arrows.

Did I get it right?

Quote:
Originally Posted by HRPufnStf

I love my reverse rocker Nordica Fire Arrows.

Did I get it right?

guess so but  some folks also call it the reverse reverse camber...

Quote:
Originally Posted by mogsie

guess so but  some folks also call it the reverse reverse camber...

No ,it's called obverse rocker.

^^^^^ Can't you get anything right? It's "Obtuse rocker."

Quote:
Originally Posted by beyond

^^^^^ Can't you get anything right? It's "Obtuse rocker."

Obtuse! ok, now I understand!

Describing a ski using any of the terms really tells one very little about the ski.

What I want to know these days is if there is camber under foot. Or is it flat. What is the length of the cambered/flat section.

Then I want to know how much splay is in the tip/tail. Just saying rockered or early rise tells me nothing.

You can tell me your ski is rockered or reverse camber if you truly have a full arc.

But in all reality I either want to see a CAD or profile pic to see if I have any interest in the profile. All talk is just marketing speak meant for people who need to be sold on a product.

What I want to know: why some skis don't technically have rocker/early rise yet ski like they do (tip getting out of the way) yet others have rocker/early rise, but ski firm and don't have a tip that gets out of the way when it needs to.  Is this another example of a catch phrase trumping engineering? After all, there is more than a few ways to make a ski perform a certain way.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gibmon323

just. the. tip.

Three most dangerous words in the English language right there.

ahh the result of a bad snow week......

Quote:
Originally Posted by beyond

^^^^^ Can't you get anything right? It's "Obtuse rocker."

Quote:
Originally Posted by dawgcatching

What I want to know: why some skis don't technically have rocker/early rise yet ski like they do (tip getting out of the way) yet others have rocker/early rise, but ski firm and don't have a tip that gets out of the way when it needs to.  Is this another example of a catch phrase trumping engineering? After all, there is more than a few ways to make a ski perform a certain way.

^^^^ This.

IMO part of the issue is that AFAIK rocker was originally intended for skis running at or near flat, in powder deep enough to cover the entire top. Rocker allowed the ski to come up easier, and to retain the stability of a longer running length without being ponderous in a submerged turn.

Then, one step removed from original purpose: Rocker seemed to make initiation and finish "easier" when the ski wasn't covered with snow. In reality, that was mostly attributable to shorter running lengths, not the curve itself, except for full rocker curves that made pivoting silly simple.

Then, two steps removed from original purpose: The shorter running length permitted - or necessitated - a stiffer flex.

Then, three steps removed from original purpose: The camber curve could be mated with the contact point for the sidecut in various ways to change handling during turns. As with any other tip curve over the last 2,000 years. The mating of the camber curvature, sidecut, flex, and tip shape produced all kinds of options. Just as with any other tip curve or the past 2,000 years.

Then, four steps removed from original purpose: Josh's types become normative, so what's newsworthy is a new model over 80 mm without rocker. Soon, that'll be any new model, period, including WC skis.

TBA: Fifth step, in which we stop blathering about rocker as if it's something special, assume it as we used to assume "traditional" tips or tails, and move on. Josh's types are lost except to archeologists of the internet, which was abandoned after all newborns by law received their occipital interface plug.

One unintended result of rocker skis is that with minimal tip contact with the snow while skating on a skiway cat track, it is way less effort and so they skate way better than non-rocker skis. So if going to Revelstoke bring or rent rocker skis.

Quote:
Originally Posted by DanoT

One unintended result of rocker skis is that with minimal tip contact with the snow while skating on a skiway cat track, it is way less effort and so they skate way better than non-rocker skis. So if going to Revelstoke bring or rent rocker skis.

They skate shorter, yes.   I was even able to double-push on a pair of Rocker 2 90s.       The problem?   I have to double push constantly to go as fast as I would when single-pushing my GSD2s

Quote:
Originally Posted by GarryZ

No ,it's called obverse rocker.

In my opinion, a lot of these skis that bend the wrong way (don't want to say "reverse camber" and upset Josh) actually have PERverse camber.

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 › Rocker, early rise, reverse camber is all the same let stop calling it different things