or Connect
EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › General Skiing Discussion › Why you should care what others ski
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Why you should care what others ski - Page 6

post #151 of 162
Quote:
Originally Posted by east or bust View Post
 

It seems like the ski type in question here is not anything of the all mountain breed, where "tip rocker" is desired. My understanding is we are talking about piste specific skis.

 

Tip rocker in piste skis is a marketing ploy, a gimmick, and anyone seriously discounting skis based on it is hurting their selection of great skis. 

 

 

 

Piste is not the same as "ice". Even an on-piste oriented ski that is not an ice specialist benefits from modern design elements. If I were buying an all-around piste ski, I'd want tip rocker and a shade of tail rocker. Yes, it'd be weaker on ice. But better, or at least as good, on perfect groomers - and far better in slush. Or any fresh cutup, chop, crud, etc...

post #152 of 162
Quote:
Originally Posted by east or bust View Post

It seems like the ski type in question here is not anything of the all mountain breed, where "tip rocker" is desired. My understanding is we are talking about piste specific skis.

Tip rocker in piste skis is a marketing ploy, a gimmick, and anyone seriously discounting skis based on it is hurting their selection of great skis. 

Rossignol uses this "technology" in their Pursuit piste line and in some of their race skis IIRC. I owned the Pursuit HP through the last two seasons and I think anyone would be hard pressed to call out any kind of performance difference to similar ski in a full camber build. 

The specific term that Rossi uses is Power Turn Rocker: "This ski has high traditional camber for 90% of its length, delivering power as well as excellent snowfeel and grip on the piste. A slight rocker over the remaining 10%, at the tip, makes turn initiation easier and more controllable."

I can tell you that 10% rocker at the tip was just tip, no rocker.

Read the whole thread, then the context of the all mountain ski comments will be more apparent. As some of have said several times already, NO ONE here is trying to convince Ghost or Oldschool to ski on anything other than what they're currently on. Their choices would be pretty much my own if I were doing laps in Ontario. There's not a ski I currently own that I'd consider ideal for Ontario or the upper Midwest.
post #153 of 162
Quote:
Originally Posted by east or bust View Post
 

It seems like the ski type in question here is not anything of the all mountain breed, where "tip rocker" is desired. My understanding is we are talking about piste specific skis.

 

Tip rocker in piste skis is a marketing ploy, a gimmick, and anyone seriously discounting skis based on it is hurting their selection of great skis. 

 

Rossignol uses this "technology" in their Pursuit piste line and in some of their race skis IIRC. I owned the Pursuit HP through the last two seasons and I think anyone would be hard pressed to call out any kind of performance difference to similar ski in a full camber build. 

 

The specific term that Rossi uses is Power Turn Rocker: "This ski has high traditional camber for 90% of its length, delivering power as well as excellent snowfeel and grip on the piste. A slight rocker over the remaining 10%, at the tip, makes turn initiation easier and more controllable."

 

I can tell you that 10% rocker at the tip was just tip, no rocker.

 

I don't agree. Look at the appended pics of my 2011-12 Rossi GS skis. These are "piste skis" if any are. There is enough early rise here that I can DEFINITELY feel the difference in delayed engagement vs. an un-rockered ski. Not saying I dislike it. Just saying that it's really there and it really makes a difference (for better or worse) and is not just marketing. 

 

LEAD Technologies Inc. V1.01

 

 

LEAD Technologies Inc. V1.01

post #154 of 162
Quote:
Originally Posted by spindrift View Post

 

Piste is not the same as "ice". 

 

Well, you're not wrong. But you may not be right either. :D  It depends.

 

I know I am schizophrenic on this topic. Sometimes I really identify with @Ghost. Other times not. This is one of the moments when I do.

 

The thing is, if you're one of the MANY MANY MANY people who more or less spend their entire skiing lives at small low-elevation east or midwest hills, skiing only during pre-arranged times, "piste" mostly IS the same as "ice". I know it's hard to fathom, but I speak truth here, or something close to it. In my case for example, I ski ten Wednesday nights in a row at a smallish local mountain (still not small by midwest standards, at 1,200' vertical). Typically on 8 of those 10 nights, the whole thing is basically a big cue ball of manmade snow Masonite. Folks like you would take one run and pack it in. "Why would anyone want to ski on this?" you'd ask. On one of the nights we might have some soft natural snow and a few bumps on some of the runs. On another it might be warm enough to have softened up a bit here and there. Or not. :dunno And even on those two outlier nights, the predominant surface, where the sodium lights are close enough together actually to SEE, is likely to be refrozen manmade hardpack. Now, I'm fortunate and/or motivated enough to be able to ski elsewhere and at other times. So those ten nights are not my whole ski life. I get a few good soft snow days in here and there. But many people don't. For them, yes, piste == ice. 

 

EDIT: I know we have played this ping-pong match before, spindrift. But if you keep serving, I'll probably keep returning. ;)

post #155 of 162

  +1 ^^^  I skied a south facing icy hill (actually 2 hills if I count Marshall mountain which I skied, though much less frequently) with man-made here in the northwest for 25 years (believe it or not, it's true! :ski), so to me a firm and/or icy surface was, and still is to a degree, on piste skiing. Now when I encounter a groomer in "good" (read: soft) conditions it feels like a powder day to me :D! I have yet to try the new race stocks with tip rocker, but I am somewhat dubious...perhaps any misgivings I may have will be assuaged :dunno

 

  Any extra credit for using the word "assuaged" in a sentence?? :)

 

  P.s. LOTS of emoticons, I know :rolleyes

 

    zenny


Edited by zentune - 5/21/14 at 7:37pm
post #156 of 162
Originally Posted by qcanoe View Post
 

 

I don't agree. Look at the appended pics of my 2011-12 Rossi GS skis. These are "piste skis" if any are. There is enough early rise here that I can DEFINITELY feel the difference in delayed engagement vs. an un-rockered ski. Not saying I dislike it. Just saying that it's really there and it really makes a difference (for better or worse) and is not just marketing. 

 

LEAD Technologies Inc. V1.01

 

 

LEAD Technologies Inc. V1.01

Woah, thanks for those pics. 

 

I can tell you right now that is significantly more tip than was on the Pursuits. Perhaps they dialed it back for 2012-13 or actually built in more for their race skis.

 

Shame I can't check since I no longer have them. When I sold them I took a lot of pictures, I'll try to see if I have any decambered pics.

post #157 of 162

The Pursuit's really are a poster child for 'marketing rocker'.

post #158 of 162
Quote:
Originally Posted by anachronism View Post

HOWEVER, this is exactly why ski manufacturers are moving the widest part of the ski further back, to match up with the base contact area. Almost all 5 point skis have the widest part of the ski, tip and tail, at the point where the base contacts the snow.  Guess what? You get your ski tip back! I have noticed this trend carrying over to narrower skis- manufacturers recognize that the ski is much more predictable and drivable when the wide part of the ski lines up with the part that is touching the snow at the beginning of one's turn.

Now we're getting somewhere. Shorter ski with it's 'tip' at the camber point on piste, longer ski with its tip out of the snow off piste. This belongs on narrower skis. That's why skis aren't just getting fatter and fatter at this point. And why camber is shrinking rather than rocker is growing.

You don't need all that much camber unless you design the ski to need all that camber by placing its tip engagement at the end of the ski, which of course has the effect of getting developing skiers to buy skis short. And that kills them in 3D snow, leading to terminal skill development plateaus. How many people here learned to ski off piste on short fully cambered parabolic skis? It is fine to go back to 200cm+ GS days, but today a 6' 180lb male might start on a sub 160cm parabolic ski. That snow better be smooth if that guy wants to be out of the snowplow that he is using to deal with a complete lack of fore/aft balance in 3D snow.

Why not start them on a longer camrock design and teach pivoting and spin control (yes, park type skills) rather than camber control in a wedge?

Isn't the broader goal to maximize length without the ski skiing 'long'?
post #159 of 162
Quote:
Originally Posted by fatbob View Post
 

 

 

 

Leads to the obvious question as to why have rocker at all? In 2D snow the tip forward of the contact point isn't really doing anything BUT only if you are really technically precise, otherwise it is there to smooth the entry into contact where things are less precise. I've never really skied "piste rocker" but on a rockered snowboard it is noticeably easier to avoid catching an edge so I'm guessing the piste rocker avoids hook up until the edge is properly engaged when the skier goes in tip heavy.

 

But I guess the real reason for "piste rocker" is that a lot of snow isn't 2D for long and soon gets cut up, softened, redistributed and rocker tips do engage in all of that increasing the engaged edge and providing more stability and "punch".  

 

So are the reasons for avoiding "piste rocker" that you like tips hooking up early and your typical snow conditions don't really soften off? 

 

I just prefer having the "tip" in contact with the snow at initiation. When I purchased my first rockered ski, the lack of a tip (widest point up in the air and not contacting snow) made for a different turn feel, but the real reason I got turned off to full sidecut rockers skis is in 3d snow was the tip would grab at unexpected times causing a loss of control.  I seemed to have more trouble with this on rockers skis than full-camber powder ski (Atomic Sugar Daddy that I retired).

 

Going to 5 points, I found all of the no-catch powder experience I hoped I would get with rockered skis, but to my immense suprise, I also found a tip! Granted, the tip on skis with a 130 cm running length is pretty close in, but you can feel it and you can throw weight into that corner and drive the ski in a way that I couldn't quite do.

 

As to what benefit "piste rocker" has when the tip is tapered back, I would still expect it to be more forgiving in more cut up terrain and 1-3" type snow days.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by NayBreak View Post


Now we're getting somewhere. Shorter ski with it's 'tip' at the camber point on piste, longer ski with its tip out of the snow off piste. This belongs on narrower skis. That's why skis aren't just getting fatter and fatter at this point. And why camber is shrinking rather than rocker is growing.

You don't need all that much camber unless you design the ski to need all that camber by placing its tip engagement at the end of the ski, which of course has the effect of getting developing skiers to buy skis short. And that kills them in 3D snow, leading to terminal skill development plateaus. How many people here learned to ski off piste on short fully cambered parabolic skis? It is fine to go back to 200cm+ GS days, but today a 6' 180lb male might start on a sub 160cm parabolic ski. That snow better be smooth if that guy wants to be out of the snowplow that he is using to deal with a complete lack of fore/aft balance in 3D snow.

Why not start them on a longer camrock design and teach pivoting and spin control (yes, park type skills) rather than camber control in a wedge?

Isn't the broader goal to maximize length without the ski skiing 'long'?

 

 

I really think we will see a lot more of this type of stuff- it makes a much more versatile ski without giving up much at all. Imagine going back to 2005 (when Pocket Rockets roamed the earth) with any of the crop of modern 98-ish waist skis. Heads would explode.

 

The nice thing about those tapered tips is they are still user friendly (the aren't going to catch because they angle away from the snow) making for a more controllable ski, all without losing a tip that you can really throw weight into to engage that turn. In my eyes, this is what we are going to see the future look like.  I would be surprised in a few years if you could still even buy a ski where the widest part of the shovel was not at the base contact point.

post #160 of 162
Thread Starter 
Quote:

Originally Posted by anachronism View Post

snip

 

I just prefer having the "tip" in contact with the snow at initiation. W

 

 

snip

I prefer to have tip contacting the snow as much as possible.  It feels better to me.  I can certainly ski a rockered ski on the groomers and feel the edge latch onto the "rail" when the turn gets going, but unless your are quickly going from tight to tight radius, is too much like having the front end of your car or bike drift wide a little at the start of a turn.  I prefer to have the front end planted when I ski, more like tucking it in with trailing throttle but not to the point of over-steering.

post #161 of 162
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ghost View Post

I prefer to have tip contacting the snow as much as possible.  It feels better to me.  I can certainly ski a rockered ski on the groomers and feel the edge latch onto the "rail" when the turn gets going, but unless your are quickly going from tight to tight radius, is too much like having the front end of your car or bike drift wide a little at the start of a turn.  I prefer to have the front end planted when I ski, more like tucking it in with trailing throttle but not to the point of over-steering.

In powder a rocker is what you want it is more of a floating ski. Rockers are not the best for hard pack, but you can make them work. This is why I have both kinds of skis, carving and rocker. Although the basics are the same I ski some what different on rocker skis and carving skis, I feel mastering different techniques of skiing is important to me.
post #162 of 162
Quote:
Originally Posted by markojp View Post
 

The Pursuit's really are a poster child for 'marketing rocker'.

I am curious about the Rossi tips.  I can honestly say  that I never found Rossis to be to my liking.

 

At the shop they look more or less fully cambered, as in marketing rocker, but squeezing out the camber, the slight lift eases into a nice narrow splay that goes back not quite ten cm.

 

In dynamic carves linking them, the pop lifts you a bit while that tip becomes more like full rocker, once in the meat of the turn it matters not the tip is not engaged because the rest of the ski is in charge.

 

I do prefer a wee bit of tail rise to release the turn early, what can I say? I don't like to finish my turns? :dunno so maybe they aren't in the cards.

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: General Skiing Discussion
EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › General Skiing Discussion › Why you should care what others ski