EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › Ski Gear Discussion › A credible rockered carver?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

A credible rockered carver?

Poll Results: Is it possible to design and build a credible rockered carving ski?

 
  • 75% (12)
    Possible
  • 25% (4)
    Unpossible
16 Total Votes  
post #1 of 28
Thread Starter 
I really enjoyed playing around on rockered skis last year. And I hope to spend over half my skis days on them this season. I'm definitely part of the "they are more versatile than you think" crowd. But clearly the current generation has its limits. Or maybe I should say it is focused on a particular use/design center.

Nonetheless, after talking with people who have skied Hell Bents on groomers, watching the park/hardpack skiing in Idea, and watching Pollards specific comments on sidecut here



I've started to believe that you could apply these concepts toward building a ski with very interesting and credible frontside characteristics. What do you think?

I'll hold off on my specific thoughts until I am duly roasted...
post #2 of 28
post #3 of 28
my JONG question of the day is:

what's the difference between "rocker" and "reverse camber"?

are they the same thing (they seem like they are, especially after watching that Line/Pollard video).

I mean when I look at my Spats they certainly appear to be "rockered" at the tips and tail.

Then again, don't most skis have some slight bit of rocker regardless (usually at the tip in most cases)?

I have a clear visual of what "rocker" means (imagining a ski as a rocking chair so if you put it on the ground it can rock back and forth).

So, does reverse camber refer to if you have the ski rockered evenly from tip to tail (knowing that you can have a ski that's only rockered at either the tip or the tail)? And does "rocker" merely denote if the ski is curved more than usual, either at the tip, the tail or both?

The main reason that I ask is that it seems like the term "rocker" is the hip catchphrase these days (didn't hear it used too much until the last few months).

I guess another way to phrase my question is: "is rocker the new way of saying reverse camber?"
post #4 of 28
Thread Starter 
For purposes of this discussion, let's pretend they are the same - just not worth getting into as the discussion of specific ski design elements is likely to speak for itself.

For purposes of other discussions, most folks seem to consider "reverse camber" to include no flat spot under the foot - just a curve from end to end. e.g Praxis or Spat. And rocker to include a "flat" spot for some distance underfoot with pretty much what Pollard calls "early rise" at one or both ends. e.g. Pontoon, Hell Bent, EP Pro, etc. I'm not sure why line just does not call the EP Pro rockered. But back on point...

FWIW, in addition to the Bro Rocker noted above - things like Hell bents, 08 Seths, EP Pros, Moment Melees, some proto Praxi seen in pix, rumored Rossis, etc. all seem to have at least some characteristics that are taking them in the direction of carving capable rockered skis. But I'm not sure how deep into the design carving has penetrated. I'm talking about a rockered ski that would not have to make any apologies wrt to carving solid, variable radius turns... Maybe set the bar really high and say that it'd be something that the EC carving types could love? Maybe some of these guys are almost there? Maybe not yet?

In all honesty, I'm pretty excited about where these skis are now, but a few things got me wondering how far you could push it.
post #5 of 28
thanks SD...that seems to make sense.

though i would "argue" that my Spats do have a "flat" spot, right under the boot mount (the "flat" spot is about as long as a standard boot sole, which is nowhere near 100cm, that's for sure. More like 35cm). Not much good for carving, which is why I think we've seen this progression of "rockered" skis, engineers trying more or less to make a carving capable reverse camber ski.

I will say this: Pollard makes riding those look easy. Plus he has a real snowboardy style (half the time he's skiing it looks like he's on a board).



I guess the next question would be how much of an "early rise" does it have to have to be considered "rockered" (for example, I have some Lib Tech NAS which are incredibly twinned. The overall length is 188, but the running length is 150, thus there is 38cm of "rise" between the tips and tails combined).
post #6 of 28
Traditionally, camber has been about pressure distribution. More camber has generated greater tip and tail pressure hence a more traditional "feel" on hard surfaces. This has been experimented with for a couple of years and is available currently in at least a minimal sense in the Palmer P-02. Below is a phrase from my review of the P-02 that describes their application of the concept.

Quote:
Dynamic Power Distribution = Very low profile tip with a unique camber profile that causes the tip splay to peel back from the normal contact point when the ski is decambered. Result = ski intiates from the normal contact point, then the pressure causes the tip to splay back, reducing to tendancy of the tip to "dig" and oversteer.


Palmer is playing with some more dramatic versions of the concept. How well it works will remain to be seen.

BTW...This is not a totally new thought.

This concept was quietly evidenced by a prominent Pro Racer on the western Peugot tour, many years ago. As the ruts got deeper his Hexcels lost their camber and even bent into reverse camber and stayed there. At the end of his run through the field, the skis were often unuseable on flat snow. His wife at the time occasionally used his flattened out race skis as powder skis.

SJ
post #7 of 28
Does a comparison to a hockey skate make any sense?

Generally speaking, a defenseman has a flat(ter) blade underfoot than a forward, which, I am told, makes the skate more stable and easier to skate backward on---compared to the more 'rounded' (rockered) profile favored by an offensive player who may require a more agile skate at the expense of some stability.

However---a skate blade does not flex anything like a ski---if at all, so maybe the comparison is not very valid.

my .02
post #8 of 28
Thread Starter 
SierraJim - I'm talking about a design that is indeed at home on flat hard snow.

I believe this is terribly new. And interesting. And I don't think I'm doing or even proposing any real inventing here. More "sniffing the breeze" as I look at some of the newer skis and try to read between the lines of design and marketing spew and posts here and at TGR. And then speculate on where this could end up. I do not, have any real knowledge of how far any manufacturers have really pushed this so far. I'm just pretty sure we have not seen the end of this, IMO important, evolutionary branch. Which is part of why I think this is an interesting discussion.

The Palmer stuff sounds fascinating. I'll be curious where they take it. But is sounds like a different approach than a ski with rocker at its core (so to speak). Some aspects of this could make sense in the kind of thing I'm asking about though...

FWIW - I'm not going to quibble over a residual mm or two, but I am referring specifically to skis with "virtually" no camber at all in the neutral state.
post #9 of 28
apparantly Rossi has a new ski coming in January that has a cable which allows you to rocker/de-camber/reverse camber the ski as you see fit. So you can loosed the cable for hard snow ripping and then tighten it for pow.
post #10 of 28
The Palmers are quite at home on hard snow which would have contradicted conventional thinking from a couple of years ago. I spoke with the US PM from Palmer a coupe of weeks ago and they are playing in that sandbox as experimental concepts. How far they are going with it is........probably pretty far (but they aren't planning to take it out there overnight)

SJ
post #11 of 28
It might be possible to make a rockered carver. But why would you want one?
post #12 of 28
I've never actually skied the Hellbent, but that's easily the softest ski I've ever hand flexed. They make Pocket Rockets look like Explosivs. I can't see how the combination of rocker and ultra soft flex would work on any kind of remotely hard snow. But I may be totally wrong...

Personally, I'm with tromano on this one.
post #13 of 28
Ultra soft would not work at all. The concept of a rockered groomer ski would also not work for someone who skis with their feet under them (like most mid level skiers) I suspect that it will never get too much further than where the Palmer concept is right now......but ya never know.

I'd agree that it's an iffy answer to a question that isn't being asked.

SJ
post #14 of 28
Thread Starter 
So you are saying that if it could be done, no one would want a more predictable ski? Or one less prone to edge catch or hooking in slush, cutup, mank? Maybe one that is easier to transition under control between skidding and carving? Less prone to diving if you do take it off piste in soft/heavy/crusty snow? Maybe bumps? I wonder...

My thinking is that maybe you start with a ski that is somewhat fatter - because you can. Not super fat, but remember, you have no need to decamber the ski, so some of the pressure distribution and time things might change what people think of as a reasonable waist in this game. Maybe?

Next, extrapolating a bit from (or maybe reading into) what Pollard & others have said, you run a "flat" section underfoot (length TBD, but likely short...) -- and match up your rocker and sidecut so that two things hold true: 1) the rocker profile itself describes the range of radii you want to play with (literally) and 2) you tweak your sidecut so that as you tip the ski, you have a very even (call it flat) length of edge contacting the snow. And the outermost sections of contact at any given angle pre-scribe the radius the ski will track to under groomer conditions. Then, if you want to get really crazy, you could explore ways of damping, insuring dynamic fore/aft camber symmetry and so on. But for the moment, I'll stick with the basic concept. The bottom line - as you roll the ski, it is pre-cambered to the desired radius and evenly in contact with the snow. Or relatively evenly cut into the snow if it is in softer snow. As you roll it into the tighter part of the radius definition, the rest of the ski flexes to track -- and while I suspect this would make the scheme less than "perfect" my intuition is that it would work fine in practice.

Am I all wet? Am I missing something about how I'm visualizing the relationship between rocker and sidecut vs a traditional cambered ski needing a big tip out front to engage and pull the ski into negative camber???????

Anyway, I guess I'm claiming this is not about a question that "isn't being asked". I claim instead "the question" is always being asked: is it possible to build a "better" ski? The specific question I'm asking is whether or not this might have application to building a better "frontside" ski in addition to a "better" powder ski? I think is it worth asking. OTOH, maybe I'm just totally missing something in how I'm visualizing the way this could work. Or the kind of rocker needed over the length of the skis would make it have some weird characteristics I'm not foreseeing?

I think if I were a ski designer, I'd at least be exploring this just for fun...
post #15 of 28
I can't wait for these designs to simmer down. Praxis is headed in the right direction by keeping their reverse cambers subtle. K2 is off somewhere in space. I'm sure they're easy to ski, but is it really necessary to have the tip (hell bents) rockered so severely?

just a subtle reverse camber from tip to tail is my request... less so at the tail.

I'm talking pow, though. I have no desire for a reverse camber carving tool. I bent my G41s and they sucked without the tip in contact with the snow when transitioning from edge to edge. Reverse cambering your carving skis is just taking your edge off the snow.

I'm on the tromano boat as well, just furthering the request to keep the reverse cambers subtle.
post #16 of 28
Quote:
Originally Posted by tromano View Post
It might be possible to make a rockered carver. But why would you want one?
This is exactly what I wondered when I saw this thread. :
post #17 of 28
FWIW I voted for possible. PEs have about a 10cm long low rise tip.

It sounds to me like it will make skiing a groomer feel sort of like skiing a bump run on traditional skis because your contact length will be long in the turn and then short in transitions.
post #18 of 28
Quote:
Originally Posted by tromano View Post
It sounds to me like it will make skiing a groomer feel sort of like skiing a bump run on traditional skis because your contact length will be long in the turn and then short in transitions.
Which still begs the question, why? :

The
post #19 of 28
Quote:
Originally Posted by volantaddict View Post
Which still begs the question, why? :

The
Quote:
Originally Posted by volantaddict View Post
Which still begs the question, why? :

The purpose
Quote:
Originally Posted by volantaddict View Post
Which still begs the question, why? :

The purpose of
Quote:
Originally Posted by volantaddict View Post
Which still begs the question, why? :

The purpose of reverse
Quote:
Originally Posted by volantaddict View Post
Which still begs the question, why? :

The purpose of reverse camber
Quote:
Originally Posted by volantaddict View Post
Which still begs the question, why? :

The purpose of reverse camber was
Quote:
Originally Posted by volantaddict View Post
Which still begs the question, why? :

The purpose of reverse camber was to
dude, seriously?

by the way, did anybody read that link?
post #20 of 28
Quote:
Originally Posted by volantaddict View Post
Which still begs the question, why? :

The purpose of reverse camber was to
I am sure the guy who invented alchohol free beer was asked the same question.
post #21 of 28
It happens splitter. VA didn't do it intentionally. it's a keyboard thing. I've seen it many times, not only from VA.
post #22 of 28
Quote:
Originally Posted by splitter View Post
dude, seriously?

by the way, did anybody read that link?
I did, its cool stuff. But they are making a rockered ski for off trail, skiing in soft snow. The best carvers are made for groomed trials and skiing on hard snow.

I skied my Volkl T50s till they had nearly 0 camber. They were great carvign skis, but didn't ski better that way on hard snow.
post #23 of 28
Quote:
Originally Posted by splitter View Post
dude, seriously?

by the way, did anybody read that link?
Oh God, not again. I don't know what I hit, but while I was typing I was thrown back three screens and decided not to bother begging the question further. The other night this happened and put up 13 of these fragmentary posts. Damn computers, where do they get off!
post #24 of 28
Quote:
Originally Posted by skier_j View Post
Does a comparison to a hockey skate make any sense?

Generally speaking, a defenseman has a flat(ter) blade underfoot than a forward, which, I am told, makes the skate more stable and easier to skate backward on---compared to the more 'rounded' (rockered) profile favored by an offensive player who may require a more agile skate at the expense of some stability.

However---a skate blade does not flex anything like a ski---if at all, so maybe the comparison is not very valid.

my .02

Actually! (I know this probably to do with much but just to keep going with the hockey skate reference)

I'm a canuck and I have been playing hockey all my life. Goaltender that is.

the blade on a goalie skate is completely and utterly flat, compared to the forward skates that have probably -0.5" "reverse" sidecut. If you put a goalie skate on edge without any movement you will not turn. A forward skate will cut instantly. If you put a goalie skate on edge while moving forward and then letting the skate go you can cut almost as tight a turn as with a forward skate but you can also do something they can't... accelerating!

I have a skating class at University (coaching) and the coach explained to us how a goalie can speed up while carving because of the nature of the skate with the same move you basically do in skiing.

I love Kinesiology :P
post #25 of 28
Thread Starter 
OK, so people are skeptical. Other than "that's not how it's been done", why? Tromano brings up some of the implications of the short base/flat running length. Is that a deal breaker? How often are folks on carvers running flat for any real distance? What would it take in terms of smoothness of engagement, radius variability, pivotability, etc. to motivate you to entertain such a notion? Heck - I'm just speculating, but I would not be surprised if a ski that initiated progressively out from center would offer fewer surprises in terms of when/how it hooked up (assuming it worked at all as a carver ). If someone built it, would you try it?

FWIW- I doodled around remembering some junior high geometry. I figured for ballparking purposes that a circular arc would be a good enough approximation of what might go on. Unless I goofed --- it looks like the rc/rocker rise from ski base to the end of the "business" part of the ski would something like 1.5 to 3 cm depending on radius, ski length, etc. That'd put the top of the business end of the rise at or below boot sole on a whole lot of binding configurations. Obviously there'd be some more true tip rise, but that sort of does not count for purposes of discussion.

If you think the idea is lame, why? (other than "that's not the way it's been done" )

I should probably mention that part of what got me thinking about this was talking to someone (described above) who really liked the handling of Hell Bents on groomers. Their observation was that they really liked the way the ski engaged into a carve because the ski was pre-decambered into a radius roughly the size they like --- so all they had to do was roll it over & it just took off (I think they may have used the term "rocketed") into the turn. I thought it was an interesting (and unprovoked) comment. And...
post #26 of 28
I think part of the resistance is that most folks try to visualize what is being described and have only a 'broken normal' ski as the visual they can come up with in ther minds experience.

Are these designs available to demo out there? I just might try some if they are.
post #27 of 28
I voted for possible.. I say this because the K2 seth has a sort of mini rockered tip and still skis great on groomers... they could easily mini rocker the back tip also.. they are never going to be the best race carvers but a rockered ski with piste ability is a possibility... 15-20cm rocker on either tip + 140-160cm of flat/slight camber would work alright on piste..
post #28 of 28
it doesn't make sense because a reverse camber would be taking effective edge off the snow, resulting in less stability.

I'm sure people enjoyed the hellbent on groomers. I have no doubt that they were surprised with how well it carved. That doesn't mean that there is some revolution happening to carving skis. If you're going to take the tip off the snow, why not just eliminate it all together? just put some hockey skates on and go carve it up.

a hockey skate is concave, reverse "camber" (for lack of a better word) and very unflexible. If you wanted to mimic that design for ice (which a skate carves quite nicely) that ski would be so unforgiving it would defeat it's own purpose.

I don't see it happening spindrift. If you do, get on some engineering software and draw us up a spec so we can visualize what the hell you're talking about.

This thread is useless without pics!
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 › A credible rockered carver?