or Connect
EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › Ski Gear Discussion › 2016-2017 Skis - Anyone notice that it seems like Rocker is more subtle ?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

2016-2017 Skis - Anyone notice that it seems like Rocker is more subtle ?

post #1 of 16
Thread Starter 

Looking at some of the new 2016-2017 ski gear guides / reviews, does it appear that tip rocker is getting much more subtle, almost going towards more traditional camber further forward, and flatter tails ? So is tip and tail rocker going out of fashion ? Industry just changing things up to sell something 'new' ?  Skiers not liking some of the tip chatter you get with more rocker  especially when in curd  -  honestly, if you're resort skiing, than it's always crud and rarely powder anyway ? Industry actually improving rocker / camber ratio based on experience ?

post #2 of 16

What categories or models are you looking at? Or do you think it is a generic trend?

 

For sure designs have gotten more subtle and arguably sophisticated vs 5 years ago. But both tip and tail rocker seem pretty common for the top skis in the categories I tend to look at...

post #3 of 16
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by spindrift View Post
 

What categories or models are you looking at? Or do you think it is a generic trend?

 

For sure designs have gotten more subtle and arguably sophisticated vs 5 years ago. But both tip and tail rocker seem pretty common for the top skis in the categories I tend to look at...

Noticed  some of the All Mountain and Powder skis 100+ are still using tip rocker, but they are using less tip rocker - I guess I could give specific examples, but I don't recall exactly and am wondering if others are possibly noticing this as a trend.

post #4 of 16
I think rocker is slowly becoming part of tuning a ski in terms of the old detune of yesteryear. Base bevel with just a touch of tip rocker can make for a very predictable and tame yet agressive ski.

Camber, well you need it.

The knowledge on how much is required is finally coming to terms.

Best of all worlds.
post #5 of 16
Why do you need camber?
post #6 of 16
Think of camber as a pre-load to further enhance the skis bite.
post #7 of 16
Yes, I know that's the common wisdom, but volkl in the katana does really well on edge hold with full rocker.

Ski design is pretty subtle nowadays
post #8 of 16
Often lost in the confusion of pure grip with actual handling is that non-cambered or negatively cambered skis don't absorb shocks and vibrations as well; the force is not mitigated by a preloaded spring pushing against it. So non/neg skis can simultaneously feel harsh and greasy - for reasons given above - on packed snow. Powder, different story...
post #9 of 16
Quote:
Originally Posted by rod9301 View Post

Yes, I know that's the common wisdom, but volkl in the katana does really well on edge hold with full rocker.

Ski design is pretty subtle nowadays

While they may hold an edge well may be true, on really hard pack or ice I suspect not so great of a performance or we would be seeing fully rockered skis on an ice injected GS course.

Slight variation......Rockered skis don't edge as well as chambered skis, ice just proves it wink.gifrolleyes.gif
post #10 of 16
Just to be fair, for me a true all around ski would have chamber underfoot (I ski a lot of ice and hard pack) with a touch of tip rocker, ease of turn in and quicker response in about a 80-85 underfoot with a 180 length and a variable radius (part of tip rocker) from 17-25m, with a GS ski flex.

Best of all worlds, master of none, but gets the job done.
post #11 of 16

I'll have to agree with post #4. They are finally figuring this rocker thing out.

post #12 of 16
Quote:
Originally Posted by rod9301 View Post

Yes, I know that's the common wisdom, but volkl in the katana does really well on edge hold with full rocker.

Ski design is pretty subtle nowadays

 

Do you guys think that camber underfoot permits a wider range of radiuses while carving?

 

I.e., on edge but little Pressure, very large radius;  more Pressure, shorter radius;  hammer the Pressure, shortest possible radius for that ski?

 

Full rocker (no camber underfoot) would have a narrower range of radiuses while carving?

 

I.e., "no go straight on edge" (get an edge lock in the trees like my buddy and hit a tree); less Pressure, it still turns rocker-tight;  more Pressure tighter still.

 

P.S. Still love my 195cm Super 7's in powder.  They hurt inside of my ankles like any wide ski on hard snow.  But tip and tail rocker great for pivot turns in the trees.  Narrow waist ski best for hard snow for me.

post #13 of 16

Rocker-camber-rocker, with rocker dialed in, in many variations, to meet other variables harmoniously (flex, turn radius and sidecut shape, camber, construction, intended use and behavior of ski, intended skier segment, etc.): I thought that made the most sense for skis, from my limited experience.

 

But I hit a few skis that changed that to "in general, with some exceptions, rocker-camber-rocker."  So I'm just suggesting folks might keep an open mind here, a bit.   :)

 

The main exceptions (besides pure powder skis) were the Volkl RTM 81 of a few years back with no camber; and the Volkl V Werks Katana 112, mentioned above.   I live in Colo,, so back East these may not work as well.  But here these carve/rail on groomers, even with the limited ice of late afternoons and some refreeze, while being versatile (bumps, powder, trees, steeps, etc.)  The RTM 81 had a wow factor to it, very manueverable, very good at switching from carve to smear on demand, when YOU wanted it to, not when the ski wanted to.   It was, for me, distinctly better, in terms of that "wow" factor, than previous RTMs and some of the current ones, as good as those skis still are.

 

(Possibly because of market expectations wanting "rocker-camber-rocker", Volkl has had to return to some camber to sell this ski.   To me, the no camber version was better, or at least had an extra "wow" factor.  And I love to carve, love gs race skis too.  

 

The second exception, the V-Werks Katana, is a pioneer construction and materials ski, and it is a breakthrough in performance and behavior, to me, and to many reviewers.  (Most noteably to me, BlisterGear,)  Again, back East, not sure.   But it is a light ski, able to backcountry some, that is damp, stable, and carves really well on groomers and some ice.  It does well in many variable and rough snow and terrain conditions that few skis I know of can match, where most skis would get tossed about much more.  (Like 2" dust on crust in moguls, for instance.)   Its predecessor Katana was a heavy charger ski, to many the best crud and variable buster made; I heard that a lot, from many super skiers (and reviews).   The new V-Werks version was meant to retain as much of that crudbusting, charger capability as possible, while solving the earlier ski's limitations: specifically, improved handling, maneuverability and speed in trees, good float, wider audience. (The old Katana was a crud ski, not a powder ski; the new one is for both, and more accessible.)


Edited by ski otter - 9/15/16 at 2:18pm
post #14 of 16
Quote:
Originally Posted by beyond View Post

Often lost in the confusion of pure grip with actual handling is that non-cambered or negatively cambered skis don't absorb shocks and vibrations as well; the force is not mitigated by a preloaded spring pushing against it. So non/neg skis can simultaneously feel harsh and greasy - for reasons given above - on packed snow. Powder, different story...

 

So how to reconcile this mostly true observation with my experience in a few cases?  Not sure.   Structural dudes may know.  Volkl engineers made breakthroughs.   Dunno.   

 

Both the older no camber RTM 81 and the new V Werks Katana are exceptional at absorbing shocks and vibrations.  Especially the Katana.  It not only is above average at this, it rises to the top.  (And it is not greasy-feeling that I can tell: it feels like a typical good Volkl carving edge mostly - but maybe not back East, on more ice.  And on run-outs, can't feel that "greasy" slip.)

 

I was told by folks I trust that the old Katana (with traditional camber), for instance, had a definite speed limit of about 40 mph, which is about all you'd want in a crud charging ski: in rough, or uneven and partly icy crud that's about all the speed most folks could handle anyway.  At speed, the things start to vibrate.  

 

But the new Katana has less of a speed limit in most cases, seems like - except maybe in the most gnarly crud the earlier Katana was so good at.   (The BlisterGear folks had a hard time believing this, that they could charge this ski in uneven and variable steeps, for instance; and were thus perfectly happy to test this over and over again, as they describe in their reviews of the things. Just how fast could they charge it on partly crud mogul steeps and big runoffs?  :D)   

 

Well, I am not an elite skier, and I can charge these no cambered things at speed just fine on slopes I can handle, especially the rough, crud and uneven ones that toss other skis.   They do better than all but a few cambered skis in terms of shocks and vibrations, seems like.   And do great on corduroy too.  

 

Sorry, @beyond , I don't really know why.  


Edited by ski otter - 9/15/16 at 2:26pm
post #15 of 16

This is often how ski technology goes. A new technology emerges, the industry goes to the extreme with it over the course of a few years, and then dials it back. Remember the sidecuts of the early 2000's? Sidecut came out in the late 90's, and it got to the extreme in the early 00's. Then it dialed back for the most part. We're going through that same process with rocker. The industry needs to find the limit of the technology, then fine tune it. You'll still find extreme examples out there, but most of the herd will gravitate back towards center. 

post #16 of 16

Movin' the mean, movin' the mean; rationality reigns supreme. 

 

 

...mostly. 

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 › 2016-2017 Skis - Anyone notice that it seems like Rocker is more subtle ?