or Connect
EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › Ski Gear Discussion › Should some rocker (early rise) in a ski really have to suggest it should be longer?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Should some rocker (early rise) in a ski really have to suggest it should be longer? - Page 2

post #31 of 55

Fair warning: If you guys think I'm an opinionated blabbermouth now, wait till I get me some race sticks!:words:

post #32 of 55

Short skis are easier to turn.

Short skis are easier to pressure the edges and can hold better on ice.

Rockered tips and tails effectively make skis shorter.

 

The tradeoff is diminished stability and performance at high speeds.

 

So for aging skiers (like me) who aren't as comfortable going fast or developing skiers who also aren't comfortable going fast, these designs fit perfectly. That is a huge market segment that the ski companies are filling the demand.

 

Good!

 

Eric

post #33 of 55
Quote:
Originally Posted by eleeski View Post
 

Short skis are easier to turn. Often true. 

Short skis are easier to pressure the edges and can hold better on ice. False. You mean, "pressure the tips," which is true. This means they will initiate more easily. It does not mean they will hold better on ice once you're into the turn, or GS skis would be a problem on ice. The pressure you put on the middle of the ski will be the same, long or short. 

 

Rockered tips and tails effectively make skis shorter. True.

 

The tradeoff is diminished stability and performance at high speeds. True

 

So for aging skiers (like me) who aren't as comfortable going fast or developing skiers who also aren't comfortable going fast, these designs fit perfectly. Well, until aging or developing skiers get going fast by mistake (happens) and discover your tradeoff. Which is why as skiers improve, instructors usually encourage them to go onto longer skis...

post #34 of 55
I would say its a huge mistake to assume that rocker diminishes stability and control at speed. That has more to do with ski construction than rocker profile. That's about as stereotypical as saying "wider skis don't do well on hard snow". If you wanted to prove both of those wrong you could take the Blizzard Bodacious for a lap.
post #35 of 55

I do think that short skis are capable of better edge holding. Slalom skis are able to turn tighter than GS skis - suggesting that the shorter slalom skis are able to hold better. As a result of better edge pressure.

 

When going too fast, there are many ways to slow down. A pure technical carve is perhaps the least effective. A hockey stop works a lot better if you can get there quickly and in control - something a short ski will help with.

 

I will concede that to claim that short skis or rocker diminishes stability is a bit over generalized. There are well designed short or rockered skis that work well at fairly high speeds. But all downhill skis are long and unrockered. So there is a limit (probably out of my skillset though).

 

Eric

post #36 of 55

You are limited to how much into-the-snow force you can apply with any consistency by your weight.  That force divided by the area of contact of your ski with the snow will be the pressure applied.  Shorter ski = less length and therefore less area and more pressure.  A 165 cm ski will hold an edge on boiler plate better than a 208 cm ski.  It's simple physics, and backed up by my experience.

 

You can increase your lateral forces by simply turning harder or skiing faster,  but the only way to increase the into-the-snow force is to have more weight.

 

In the old days there was a trade off because short skis were not stable at speed due to vibrations;  a 215 cm SG ski had a higher speed limit than a 205 cm SG ski (I decided to get 208s despite losing a little grip on ice due to having less pressure than a 205 would in order to gain a bit more high speed stability).  A modern racing ski or race cheater ski, even at 165 cm can have a speed limit that is high enough that you do not need any extra length at the speeds that you can reach on most hills.  Although the extra length helps with control when things get a little rough, it's not needed to keep the skis from vibrating off your boots without Marker Comp 30s.

post #37 of 55
Thread Starter 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ghost View Post
 

You are limited to how much into-the-snow force you can apply with any consistency by your weight.  That force divided by the area of contact of your ski with the snow will be the pressure applied.  Shorter ski = less length and therefore less area and more pressure.  A 165 cm ski will hold an edge on boiler plate better than a 208 cm ski.  It's simple physics, and backed up by my experience.

.

My curiosity is sparked now. What I state here is not dictation but is as much question as it is thought.

I can certainly understand the physics of more pressure over a shorter area thing. It basically is saying that all the weight is more concentrated to a smaller area so the pressure is then greater in that area vs if it where spread out. But the gross pressure applied would still be exactly the same would it not? Leverage also plays its part here. less pressure through more area has assistance of leverage. Less pressure with leverage can do more work per amount of pressure applied. With all that said, I am not so sure the shorter ski holds any better for the reason we are thinking it does and possibly it has far more to do with the fact that we simply balance better and have better control over the shorter ski when on ice.   If balance, swing weight, and control are lined up well, the force is still the same via a given skier whether more concentrated or more spread out. Its just harder to get that done with more length so we then slip and slide more. The end result is the same where as the shorter ski holds us better on ice but perhaps its not for the reason we think. Again, not dictation by me here but simply more thought and question.  

post #38 of 55

In my experience, shorter skis hold better on ice (the stuff you can see through), boiler plate (snow scraped off repeatedly to resemble ice) and very hard snow (stuff you can stomp around on without leaving boot prints), whether carving a clean arc or not; if the ski can easily cut a groove in the snow, longer skis will hold better (all other things being equal, which they never are so you have to extrapolate-interpolate a bit).   No doubt, there is some hardness of snow (I'm guessing just a liittle harder than hero snow) where the difference is negligible.

post #39 of 55
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ghost View Post
 

In my experience, shorter skis hold better on ice (the stuff you can see through), boiler plate (snow scraped off repeatedly to resemble ice) and very hard snow (stuff you can stomp around on without leaving boot prints), whether carving a clean arc or not; if the ski can easily cut a groove in the snow, longer skis will hold better (all other things being equal, which they never are so you have to extrapolate-interpolate a bit).   No doubt, there is some hardness of snow (I'm guessing just a liittle harder than hero snow) where the difference is negligible.


I don't doubt they do. I've never skied on anything but whatever ski I owned at the times I was on icy terrain so I never personally compared the result with multiple pairs of skis and thus the only thing I do know about is limited to the ski I am on at the time. That said, I believe from your experience you found shorter holds better. Its just that the reason why may not be what we (you) thought. But I could be wrong. But fwiw I do enjoy talking physics of things even though not educated in the higher sense of it. Its just imo really interesting and curious and I enjoy understanding whatvere amounts of it I do and quite frankly in layman's terms.......its very cool :)


Edited by rollin - 12/9/15 at 5:27pm
post #40 of 55

Update: Looking at the two brands I can get a "deal" on; Salomon & Dynastar. From what I can divine, the closest thing Salomon has to what I'm looking for is the X-RACE + RACE PLATE XX. 15M in a 170cm, which is what I'd probably go for. Marketed as an innovative, any turn shape performance machine. The marketing hype is solid, but I get the impression that the ski; not so much. I could be wrong, but it doesn't seem to me that Salomon is very well known for their race offerings. Conclusion without a demo; meh.

 

For Dynastar, I thought the OMEGLASS SPEED TI FLUID X (SPX 12) and OMEGLASS PRO R21 RACING, both in a 168cm look interesting. Identical dimensions, 14M sidecut. The biggest difference I see is the race plate on the PRO R21, and the Pro designation vs the Expert designation for the Speed TI. Seems to me that Dynastar is more well thought of in racing circles, but maybe not the first brand name that comes to mind. Conclusion without a demo; the PRO R21 is dead-sexeh!

 

Being a level infinity expert, the PRO R21's PRO designation is appealing, but almost nothing available in the way of reviews except one by Buck Latta at last year's SIA, which was positive, but no comparison to anything else in the category. Not much available on the X-Race either, and the few I watched/read all had a pretty glowing industry shill feel to them, with one possible exception which basically said if you're looking for real race performance, look elsewhere.

 

Must go shop/demo hunting now to prevent an expensive mistake. Maybe I can find a review comparison over on TGR... (heh, I made teh funneh)

post #41 of 55
Thread Starter 

I thought to bump this thread as I was thinking of something. uh,oh Rollin is thinking :)

There is something I cant seem to get past that I brought up already.

 

But - If rocker (or perhaps better called a gentle "early rise" on front side bias skis) is of course more the norm for many skis now suggests that skis are skiing shorter than why is it hard to find frontside skis with rocker in exceedingly longer lengths.  There are plenty of tall and heavier skiers. And without even having to be much over 6 foot and/or over 200 lbs to be considered taller and heavier there are tons of such skiers. With this logic an advanced skier of 6' and 200lb (not overly tall nor overly heavy) would have to be in a length not even offered by most makers. And those taller and heavier than that even longer. But as mentioned , many makers stopping at low to mid 180's.

But this logic would imply skis are needed to easily be offered 10cm longer and in the 190's. There would certainly be enough such sized skiers in the market to purchase the skis. The skier size mentioned is far from uncommon. If the longer ski due to rocker is so very correct than why not offer the longer lengths? it seems whats being offered is not quite fitting for the logic of an early rise ski needing to be longer. Would not they then be selling ski lengths to better match this logic?

 

Another thing I already brought up that has to do with the above. Its also something no on really had an answer for.  What about a specific ski like the volkl all mt frontt side RTM series (fully rockered) ? wouldn't that then have to be offered in very long lengths? I mean that's a lot of rocker to compensate for via length.

post #42 of 55
This thread is easily disproven with a pair of snowblades. 
post #43 of 55
Quote:
Originally Posted by rollin View Post
 

I thought to bump this thread as I was thinking of something. uh,oh Rollin is thinking :)

There is something I cant seem to get past that I brought up already.

 

But - If rocker (or perhaps better called a gentle "early rise" on front side bias skis) is of course more the norm for many skis now suggests that skis are skiing shorter than why is it hard to find frontside skis with rocker in exceedingly longer lengths.  There are plenty of tall and heavier skiers. And without even having to be much over 6 foot and/or over 200 lbs to be considered taller and heavier there are tons of such skiers. With this logic an advanced skier of 6' and 200lb (not overly tall nor overly heavy) would have to be in a length not even offered by most makers. And those taller and heavier than that even longer. But as mentioned , many makers stopping at low to mid 180's.

But this logic would imply skis are needed to easily be offered 10cm longer and in the 190's. There would certainly be enough such sized skiers in the market to purchase the skis. The skier size mentioned is far from uncommon. If the longer ski due to rocker is so very correct than why not offer the longer lengths? it seems whats being offered is not quite fitting for the logic of an early rise ski needing to be longer. Would not they then be selling ski lengths to better match this logic?

 

Another thing I already brought up that has to do with the above. Its also something no on really had an answer for.  What about a specific ski like the volkl all mt frontt side RTM series (fully rockered) ? wouldn't that then have to be offered in very long lengths? I mean that's a lot of rocker to compensate for via length.

The only skis I know of that still come in the long lengths are freeride skis. I haven't seen any other type of ski in the 190's in a few winters.

post #44 of 55
Quote:
Originally Posted by rollin View Post

I thought to bump this thread as I was thinking of something. uh,oh Rollin is thinking smile.gif
There is something I cant seem to get past that I brought up already.

But - If rocker (or perhaps better called a gentle "early rise" on front side bias skis) is of course more the norm for many skis now suggests that skis are skiing shorter than why is it hard to find frontside skis with rocker in exceedingly longer lengths.  There are plenty of tall and heavier skiers. And without even having to be much over 6 foot and/or over 200 lbs to be considered taller and heavier there are tons of such skiers. With this logic an advanced skier of 6' and 200lb (not overly tall nor overly heavy) would have to be in a length not even offered by most makers. And those taller and heavier than that even longer. But as mentioned , many makers stopping at low to mid 180's.
But this logic would imply skis are needed to easily be offered 10cm longer and in the 190's. There would certainly be enough such sized skiers in the market to purchase the skis. The skier size mentioned is far from uncommon. If the longer ski due to rocker is so very correct than why not offer the longer lengths? it seems whats being offered is not quite fitting for the logic of an early rise ski needing to be longer. Would not they then be selling ski lengths to better match this logic?

Another thing I already brought up that has to do with the above. Its also something no on really had an answer for.  What about a specific ski like the volkl all mt frontt side RTM series (fully rockered) ? wouldn't that then have to be offered in very long lengths? I mean that's a lot of rocker to compensate for via length.

Here's the problem: "rocker" means too many things. This tip (the Rocker2 100) has zero "splay", or early "rise".



The tip follows a consistent arc, just like a so called fully cambered ski. It's just a longer tip, with a different shape. But the ski is as "fully cambered" at the tip as so called carving skis, because, obviously, no ski can be all camber and arbitrary rules about tip length are there to be broken.

So. If the tip engages most of its length with moderate edge angle, and without the ski needing to be bent into various shapes, go ahead and ski it on the long side for you, because the rest of the shape will let you swing it like a short ski when you want. But look at the outside tip on the snow (soft groomer). What is the effective edge here?



And a good angle showing a relatively flat two footed weighted release. What's the "effective" edge here? These terms like rocker and effective edge poorly describe what is going on with the ski in all conditions (maybe true on a completely hard surface like ice, although why would that be the reference condition?) but it certainly is way more than 'rise before the tip' (or tail).


Edited by NayBreak - 1/4/16 at 10:43pm
post #45 of 55
By the way, here's the tail of the Rocker2 100.



Some early rise, or splay, or whatever you want to call it, before the actual tail tip. So that is a "rockered" tail, although I don't see the big impact on so called effective length if you put the ski up on edge or really do anything with it besides running flat on a hard surface (see pics above). Just means the ski is super happy surfing or drifting when you don't feel like carving it. Don't like surfier skis and you can get that same basic tip with different tails, starting with the Quest series.

But much like the term "rocker" is terribly non-descriptive, some people would call the Rocker2 100 a "twin tip" despite a complete lack of symmetry between tip and tail. The two ends of the ski are hardly twins, and how they interact goes way beyond their "upturned" shapes. Don't all skis have upturned tips? Don't a lot of "fully cambered" skis have at least slightly upturned tails to make them less hooky? Is that "rocker" and did it change effective length?
post #46 of 55
Now for more reference, here is the Rocker2 92.



Lots of splay, or early rise, tip and tail. Rockered. Quite a symmetrical ski, with a dead center mount or -2cm recommended for all mountain. Here it is on a soft groomer, moderate edge angle:



So what conclusions do we draw about effective edge? These are very different skis, with very different cambered lengths and tips/tails, but on a soft groomer, those differences don't really show up in the edge engaging. It's just not the meaningful characteristic of the ski, at least as long as your reference is edgeable soft snow, but they ski quite differently.

And then here is the new Enforcer.





Tip look familiar? Or do I see just a bit of splay before that familiar tip arc and length? Does that change effective length? Or is effective length effectively dead?

How about that tail? Almost seems flat, but yet there is a consistent low arc. Is that rocker?

The obvious idea here is that you don't have to ski a ski like this long, but you can and probably should because you are getting stability and float without sacrificing the willingness to make shorter radius turns. The extent to which "reduced hookiness" in tip and tail shape satisfy in carving is a personal thing, but looking at the cambered section of a ski as its effective length seems terribly outdated, unless of course you have an undesirable reference snow condition that is entirely two dimensional.
Edited by NayBreak - 1/4/16 at 11:33pm
post #47 of 55

@Naybreak, could you show us some photographs of the skis with the bases pressed together under the bindings?

 

@ Rollin, why do we need longer skis on the front side?  The front side skis don't need more float, and the other skis are wide enough to provide float.  Short skis can be perfectly stable at speed, and if you tip these over enough your are engaging the whole ski, albeit with less stress near the ends (of which I am not a fan).  All I can think of is smoothing out the (smaller) bumps. 

post #48 of 55
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ghost View Post

 

 

@ Rollin, why do we need longer skis on the front side?  The front side skis don't need more float, and the other skis are wide enough to provide float.  Short skis can be perfectly stable at speed, and if you tip these over enough your are engaging the whole ski, albeit with less stress near the ends (of which I am not a fan).  All I can think of is smoothing out the (smaller) bumps. 

And Is what I been trying to determine. Yet all the suggested norm is implying and suggesting to all when purchasing skis with early rise to make sure you go longer. And I am saying that I pose question to that logic due to reasons already mentioned earlier.

 

Even "neybreak" detailed explanation (and thank you "neybreak" for the efforts putting that all together) still leaves me with some question..

 

And giving such suggestion to one who is not of advanced skill sets may prove more a liability than an asset. One does not ski flat most the time , and even with early rise imo still has to work a longer ski leverage, still has longer edge when rolled. All things imo that still lead to less forgiveness and more chance to hook and fail. This whole process or logic is interesting to me and I am a bit unsettled as to just what may be so correct or not even though its widely suggested and recommended.

post #49 of 55

^^^^ You're mistaken about two facts, and making two incorrect assumptions. The mistaken facts: First, you're agreeing with Ghost about his incorrect assumption. Float is primarily contributed by width, not length. Do the math. Or use Physicman's calculator to determine surface area, play around with the width and the length, then divide by weight. That'll give you a loose proxy for float. A few mm change in width has a much impact as several cm of length. 

 

 Second, running length is the relevant measurement of a ski's performance on packed snow, not total length. And if you buy a rockered ski of a given length, it will have a shorter running length than the same total length ski without rocker. So we recommend getting a longer ski to adjust the running length back to what it would be without the rocker. Which is why we tend to perceive rockered skis as easier to turn on groomers; they're several cm's shorter than we think. Again, just do the math, maybe with ruler and your skis on a rug.  

 

The incorrect assumptions: First, that you work the entire edge, tip to tail, when you "roll" on edge. Unless you're a racer, or a really good skier deliberately trying to utilize the entire edge, and are waaay over, you're only using the middle 2/3 to 3/4 of the ski. Go study slow motion videos. Most recreational skiers seldom get past 20-25 degrees. Even racers do not use the very tip of the ski; the curvature doesn't allow it. This is indeed why modern racing skis often have rocker.

 

Second, that the ski's length offers leverage that resists turning. The ski's total length creates inertia around your axis of rotation. So a longer ski has more mass further away from the axis, more inertia. More force to move it, all other things like tip design equal. Leverage, on the other hand, will be influenced by width, we've have a lot of threads about this, one I recall has some very nice diagrams. This is why a wider ski can feel "slower" edge to edge; it takes a bit more force to create the same edge angle in the same length of time. The only time leverage might come into play with ski length is if you bury the tip into a bump, say, and your fulcrum is the contact point of the ski just behind it. 

 

Finally, you're correct that a longer ski - let's assume you mean running length - is less forgiving if you define forgiving as meaning more inertia. Slightly tougher to change course. But that same inertia also creates more stability at speed. Which is a very good thing for most lower level skiers when you hit some crud or irregularity. Or sit back reflexively on ice.

 

And "hooking" refers to a tip's tendency to engage with soft snow and begin to turn, requiring a correction from the pilot. It's not relevant for groomers unless you're hitting deep crud at decent speed. It's also more influenced by the flex, and the shape of the tip laterally, say a bullet nose vs a blunt nose, than by a small change in the amount of early rise. 

 

 

Out. 

post #50 of 55
Thread Starter 

Beyond, thanks for your post.

fwiw I don't really misunderstand some of the things you mentioned to quite that degree. Non the less, good explanations.

 

I guess its also about where the widest points of the skis are. A 5 point ski where the widest portion is drawn back in considerably from the tip for a much larger shovel vs a ski whos widest point is somewhat much more nearer the tip.  But just as a generality, with the midski being slimmest and at some point on the outer limits being the widest (hence a shaped ski) would not the wider contact point be on or in the snow when even minimal (within reason) roll takes place simply due to the hourglass (for lack of a better term) shape? I suppose the more significant amount rocker (more generously turned upwards) would require more roll for the widest point to then come into ground contact but significant rocker wouldn't then really not be on a frontside ski anyway. And then ski flex (softer or stiffer) would also cause the widest point to contact the snow at different amount of roll depending how much or easily the ski bends (or not).

But even on harpack piste with any kind of deeper snow (whether it be heavy/wet or fresh) or non icy anything with just a couple or so inches that can be penetrated should be enough to cause snow contact with the widest portion of the ski with minimal roll.  But I guess if I'm wrong then my biggest flaw here is that the amount of roll required for contact is a far more significant amount of roll than I think. And that is something you did mention.

post #51 of 55

I guess it depends on how you ski.  If you pivot to a steering angle and smear, longer is harder to turn, but if you tip and engage the tips the longer ski gives you more leverage when you control the forces at the tip. 

 

Both rollin and I realize that an increase in width does more to increase area than an increase in length. A 210 cm ski still has more float than a 180 cm ski OF THE SAME WIDTH; point was the ski doesn't need more float, so no need to make it longer.

 

Perhaps it is a wrong assumption that purchasers of these rockered front side skis know how to put them up on an edge angle high enough to engage the ski to its widest points.  Seems pretty easy for me to do though.

 

Five point design is wasted on hard snow, and only makes things worse there.  In soft snow it adds some length and with it a little bit of extra leverage, without that extra length and leverage coming with a ton of force and thus not being too difficult for some skiers to handle. 

post #52 of 55
Thread Starter 

fwiw, I just layed down a pair of Rossi experience 80 skis on a flat surface. This ski is an early rise frontside ski and in line with whats being discussed here. Let me say that with such skis and similar ones the early rise is barely much at all. But none the less does exist. So with that, I pushed the ski flat (decamber) and you can notice the early rise just barely. Its actually more like you can feel less tension when flicking the tip vs actually seeing the early rise. But when rolled even just a tad (a fingertip worth) the edge is very much in contact with the flat surface basically all the way to the shovel and the pressure (tension) is certain there.  Certainly well past the point where the early rise starts. So I am just not seeing anything telling me that early rise is not allowing the edge to engage well up the length of the ski. (minus the shovel of course) . And this was done on a flat low profile carpet. So imo even a half inch of snow or hardpack barely soft enough to allow a small amount of penetration should engage the edge far up the ski. Its not like the ski had to be rolled significantly at all.

 

Perhaps a more soft snow dominant ski where rocker is much more significant would offer different results. But for the type of skis I am discussing it still seems to me that once the ski is in a carved turn even a low angle one (or just slightly rolled) , the whole edge (or nearly most of it) is still engaged well past the point of early rise. And this was on a flat surface without any penetration into what would normally be some snow.  So I unfortunately still question if the logic in the topic is so correct. Sure, when skiing flat , and also in turn initiation the ski skis a tad shorter I assume,  but as I've mentioned it seems one is still skiing the length of the ski while turning which is where we/most spend most the time anyway. One still has to control the basic length of the ski. Adding a few inches due to this logic (which i question) may be putting some skiers in lengths too long for their ability because they still will be skiing the length most the time.

post #53 of 55

Interesting topic.  I had full rocker, partial rocker, and now I am back to traditional shapes more or less for my front side ski (has early rise in the tip, but hardly noticeable.  I think less camber/flat underfoot and early rise in tip and tail are the perfect ski for the general skiing public because most people really do not carve.  They are easy to turn and probably feel like they have great hold on the "ice" because the camber does not have to reversed by skier actions.  I think that is why people rave about these skis and call them great carvers.  They are great turners, not carvers.  

 

For me at least, nothing comes close to a full cambered slalom ski for the groomers.  Granted, groomers in New England most times means nothing to sink into.  Rockered skis suck for this.  Ya, you can get them over on edge, but certain skis require a lot of edge angle.  In fairness, I own a 2014 Kendo, and the rise is subtle.  It is fairly stiff and the tail is flat.  It just holds. Great ski.   The other issue with rockered ski is the lack of pop.  They just feel a bit dead to me on true hardpack.  Need that launch into the other turn.

 

I like rockered in skis, don't get me wrong here.  But if you are looking for a carving ski, camber, short, relatively stiff are hard to beat.

 

Slight hijack.............When going slow because of too many people, and you can't carve, and you are on ice;  is it me or are slalom skis a nightmare?  I find the kendo is much better and easier to control in those conditions.  All I can guess is that the extreme sidecut and lack of flex make the slaloms not fun..... good time for flat under foot and rocker :)

 

Pete

post #54 of 55
Quote:
Originally Posted by peterk123 View Post

Slight hijack.............When going slow because of too many people, and you can't carve, and you are on ice;  is it me or are slalom skis a nightmare?  I find the kendo is much better and easier to control in those conditions.  All I can guess is that the extreme sidecut and lack of flex make the slaloms not fun..... good time for flat under foot and rocker :)

 

This makes all kind of sense.  True slalom skis are designed to carve the fastest line efficiently so as to maintain, not decrease, speed. They are not skid-friendly, which is really what one needs to do in order to slow down most efficiently.  I'll bet you are really skid-carving your Kendos -- much harder to do with a good slalom ski, which has -- as you say -- extreme sidecut, full-camber, and a stout flex. 

post #55 of 55
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ghost View Post

@Naybreak, could you show us some photographs of the skis with the bases pressed together under the bindings?

Sorry for the delayed response. I've done what is hopefully one better here with video, and I think this really shows what happens with a longer tip (not "rocker" as I pointed out above) vs. some early rise or splay ("rocker") that is taking running length of the ski out of the cambered arc.

This video is me pressing the skis together between the bindings and looking at tips and tails. With the Rocker2 100, notice the tip flexes on the ski that moves as I press it, but the contact point doesn't materially change. The tail has a small amount of rocker (splay) and you can see a bit more "opening up" as the ski flexes. The heavily rockered (splay) Rocker2 92 (second ski in the vid) shows a big change in edge contact, and I am not even able to fully compress those skis together with one hand as there is a too much brake interference and the short cambered section is likely stiffer.

I think this shows why the term "rocker" is so inadequate. A long tip on a consistent arc is not rockered. Flexing the ski doesn't materially change the contact point of the front of the ski, so arguably, that's a fully cambered front with a longer and differently shaped tip for soft snow. OK, not quite. I should have put LX82's (fully cambered) in the video, and compressing those skis between the bindings doesn't alter contact point at all...but it is very minimized in the Rocker2 100 tip because there is no splay. The Rocker2 92 behaves very differently, and it should come as no surprise that the Rocker2 100 is the far superior directional hard snow ski (not quicker) despite its extra width. You can ski that ski directionally with power (we are being relative here) without the tip quickly washing out whereas the 92 just goes "meh", but you can also back off, ski it centered, two footed, and turn it as you like. That's shape and mount point.

Again, I would not ski the Rocker2 100 longer because of rocker, I'd ski it longer because you'll get far better performance in powder and crud without the ski wanting to run away from you on groomers - that more centered mount shortens the front of the ski and increases tail length, which is then rockered at the tail so the tail doesn't feel long back there. Not easy to get into the backseat on a ski like this, because there really isn't a backseat. Backseats are for directional chargers.

From here, I think people can ask a different question, which is "Why would I need to be skiing shorter?". That's the better angle to come from. There used to be a good reason to ski short, and a lot of conventional wisdom was "ski the shortest ski you can". No. Ski the longest ski you can unless versatility has been reasoned out as a requirement (see: ice, running gates, etc.).
Edited by NayBreak - 1/20/16 at 1:51pm
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 › Should some rocker (early rise) in a ski really have to suggest it should be longer?