New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

pow skis.. - Page 2

post #31 of 58
Quote:
Originally Posted by Whiteroom View Post
We could also turn this question on it's head and ask:

What benefit is there for on-piste skiers in reverse camber skis?

I can't think of an answer to that question.
Turning it on its head the way you did is the wrong framing if you are scratching your head about the "conventional wisdom". It makes it too easy to retreat to your comfort zone. It makes it too easy to say "I can't think of an answer to that question".

The other framing, if you ponder the question the right way, is more liberating in terms of what you are likely to explore.
post #32 of 58
Quote:
Originally Posted by Whiteroom View Post
He should buy my Chevy Tahoe... but he's asking about something different.

I dunno, 91 underfoot, I have ripped it up with these skis in pow. Sure, 115 underfoot is nice in blower, but these get it done.

Also, to me, these deals are all better than Goats for $550:


PSA: Some pretty damn decent prices on Head skis
SkiUniverse - never bought or heard anything about them...

http://stores.channeladvisor.com/ski...0-%20199%20cm/


After the 18% live.com discount (follow link in another thread)

Mojo 90 193 $261.24 -->$214.22

Supermojo 103 193 $280.20-->$229.76

Supermojo 105 191 $449.78-->$368.82 (ok not as good)

Scott Punishers 191 $290.46 -->$238.17
post #33 of 58
Quote:
Originally Posted by Finndog View Post
I am waiting to see the new markers that have a wider toe and heel pad for better connectivity between boot and binding on wider skis. The concept makes sense. Any info?
The snotty douchebag in me wants to respond that they're called the Jester. The 12-DIN version is the Baron, I think, and is coming out this year, but there's plenty of experience on the Jester. They seem fine.


Quote:
Originally Posted by comprex View Post
All right, huge rocker and big sidecut.

I can make that for dirt cheap by screwing eyebolts into the tip and tail of an SCX or XP100 and tensioning piano wire in between.

?How has that improved the SCX or XP100 beyond a hypothetical ski with the same waist, and less rocker and less sidecut?
For powder purposes? It's more likely to plane and less prone to dive.
post #34 of 58
Quote:
Originally Posted by Canyons View Post
I dunno, 91 underfoot, I have ripped it up with these skis in pow. Sure, 115 underfoot is nice in blower, but these get it done.

Also, to me, these deals are all better than Goats for $550:
The Schmidts you are selling are 89mm underfoot (122-89-112 26.8m radius to be exact), let's just say I'm intimately familiar with the design criteria for that particular ski.

As for the benefits of reverse camber for recreational skis...

Enlighten me, O' peddler of 'great deals'.

Once again, can skis with negative camber carve? Sure. Tip them onto their edges far enough to engage the sidecut and they will carve. Once the edges are engaged they will behave just like any other ski with sidecut (minus some rebound), it's what happens before the ski edges engage that is the elephant in the bedroom. Ever ski a bent ski? There is a reason people warranty bent skis. They handle like cr*p.
post #35 of 58
Quote:
Originally Posted by alpinedad View Post
For powder purposes? It's more likely to plane and less prone to dive.
we aren't talking about powder performance. We are talking about whether or not "Rocker in one form or another will find it's way into most, if not all recreational skis".

I suppose a definition of 'recreational' would be in order. Do we mean 'any non-race ski' or do we mean 'skis for the masses'? I'm not completely sure.

There are rumors of WC skiers skiing fast on reverse camber race skis. I don't doubt it, I just don't think it's gonna be something that on-piste intermediate skiers will benefit from, but what do I know. I just work in a ski shop, I couldn't possibly know as much as someone who occasionally reads TGR.
post #36 of 58
Quote:
Originally Posted by Whiteroom View Post
we aren't talking about powder performance.
Sorry, my bad.

I must've gotten confused by
THE TITLE OF THIS THREAD.
post #37 of 58
Quote:
Originally Posted by Whiteroom View Post
we aren't talking about powder performance. We are talking about whether or not "Rocker in one form or another will find it's way into most, if not all recreational skis".

I suppose a definition of 'recreational' would be in order. Do we mean 'any non-race ski' or do we mean 'skis for the masses'? I'm not completely sure.

There are rumors of WC skiers skiing fast on reverse camber race skis. I don't doubt it, I just don't think it's gonna be something that on-piste intermediate skiers will benefit from, but what do I know. I just work in a ski shop, I couldn't possibly know as much as someone who occasionally reads TGR.

OK - we get it. You live and ski in the hell that is the East Coast. You like short little super-sidecut skis to weave in and out of the herds of gapers crowding the ice sheet you call a hill.

Now what was everybody besides Whiteroom talking about again? Oh yeah - powder skis!
post #38 of 58
Quote:
Originally Posted by mudfoot View Post


FWIW, my problem with rocker is that it is designed to keep the skis continually on or close to the surface of deep snow, making them easy to manuver, but that is usually exactly where I don't want to be in the deep stuff. Yeah you can ski fast and turn on a dime in powder and funky snow, but IMHO you sacrifice some sweetness to get that.
Um, my friend, it seems that you have no direct experience with these skis if you think they keep you skimming across the surface of powder and not in it.

Last season I experienced my first knee to waist deep turns, and I did so on Spatulas. I didn't skim across the surface, but was unable to submarine the tips either. On powder, in trees, it is a better design than conventional cambered skis with sidecut. One doesn't miss out on the face shots, or the feeling of the snow cooling one's thighs, one only spends less time bottoming out on the hard snow underneath the fluff.

The Spatula is the most pronounced of the reverse/reverse designs, and much has been learned since it's advent. A pro-skier who posts on TGR, who has skied all manner of the reverse/rockered skis, wrote a review on the PM Gear Lhasa Pows (Brockers) which suggested they have hit the best balance between powder and trail pack capability, yet. If I won the lottery I'd have a pair, but quick.

Of course, one need not ski such new designs to love their powder experience, but I'll bear witness, there is certainly no loss of enjoyment in powder from using them either, actually, quite the contrary is my experience.
post #39 of 58
Hey Jer & Alpinedad, learn2reid (you can use my crib notes, pay attention to the Bold and Red). Post #9 from this thread:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Finndog View Post
thanks and I should have clarified the total usage, first off, yes the rocker is a "must" to consider when looking at pow skis, but once you get off pow and need to be on some groomed and all, the rocker is problematic.

I ended up getting the Gots for 530 shipped. I ended up deciding to get them because I really wanted to ski them for a while. It should be a versitile ski for Steamboat, powder, trees, crud and groomed soft snow. If its a real dump, i have my Shamans.

So the skis were purchased, we aren't talking about ANYTHING worth while after this...


...oh, but wait, there is this:


Spindrift (post #16),
"I agree with mudfoot that we are early in the life-cycle of rockered skis. And many experiments will wash out. However, I'm pretty convinced of what the outcome will be. Rocker in one for or another will make its way into the design of most, if not all, recreational skis. So while there's little doubt the designs will get better and better. I don't see any reason to wait to start having more fun with them.


Spindrift,

"This is running decently far afield, but hey, it's summer....

You assume that rockered designs can't carve. I disagree. I'm pretty convinced that as the relationship between "rocker" and sidecut becomes better understood, that rockered skis with excellent carving characteristics will evolve. Heck, even today, skis Hell Bents carve decently under an amazingly broad range of conditions.

Spindrift (post #19),

" Just for fun: can you provide a coherent rationale for why rocker is not compatible with carving under most conditions? Remember, the entire mission of the combo of conventional camber and sidecut is to allow the skier to force a ski into a decambered shape "

Illiteratedad (post #36)... here's an idea, read the damn thread posts (35) instead of just the title before posting then you won't make yourself look Jer-tarded,

"Sorry, my bad.

I must've gotten confused by
THE TITLE OF THIS THREAD."
post #40 of 58
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jer View Post
OK - we get it. You live and ski in the hell that is the East Coast. You like short little super-sidecut skis to weave in and out of the herds of gapers crowding the ice sheet you call a hill.

For clarity, I want to interject that: I like long walks on tropical beaches, I like Chesapeake bay Retrievers, I like medium rare cheddar cheeseburgers, i like to sit and watch the sunset...

Now what was everybody besides Whiteroom talking about again? Oh yeah - powder skis!
No, dumbass, Finndog wanted to discuss the Volkl Gotama (which he purchased) as a good soft-ish day ski for Steamboat. The thread then wandered off into recommendations for skis he wasn't asking about... Rocker of course came up, then a new twist appeared:

Will Rocker become a part of most if not all recreational skis in the future?

so if you had read anything other than the title, you would realize that the thread drifted a long time ago and is no longer even remotely about 'powder Skis'... which it wasn't about from post #1, but hey, thanks for joining in anyway.
post #41 of 58
Quote:
Originally Posted by volantaddict View Post
Um, my friend, it seems that you have no direct experience with these skis if you think they keep you skimming across the surface of powder and not in it. . . .

The Spatula is the most pronounced of the reverse/reverse designs, and much has been learned since it's advent. . .

Of course, one need not ski such new designs to love their powder experience, but I'll bear witness, there is certainly no loss of enjoyment in powder from using them either, actually, quite the contrary is my experience.
VA, I admit that my personal experience is limited is using rockered skis, but as I have often noted in other threads, the main reason I like deep snow is becasue of my size and the ability to control speed by varying tip pressure, which doesn't seem to work from my experience with them. For the record, I didn't say that they keep you skimming on the surface, just that they felt like they were trying to go up whenever I tried to steer them down, which is what they are designed to do.

I will certainly be trying some other rockered models ths season, but my impression at this point is that they disturbed my experience of the 3-dimensional quality of the snow in a way I didn't like. Perhaps it is just that I'm an old dog that doesn't see the need to learn a new trick (yet). I've spent years tuning into the feel of the tips of my skis in powder and crud, and now they've gone and virtually taken it away, or at least made it unrecognizable to me. I respect your opinion on the subject, so more testing is definitely required. I haven't given up on "rocking" yet, but at this point in my life I take powder skiing very seriously, so change ain't going to come unless it feels right.
post #42 of 58
Quote:
Originally Posted by Whiteroom View Post
Hey Jer & Alpinedad, learn2reid (you can use my crib notes, pay attention to the Bold and Red). Post #9 from this thread:



So the skis were purchased, we aren't talking about ANYTHING worth while after this...


...oh, but wait, there is this:


Spindrift (post #16),
"I agree with mudfoot that we are early in the life-cycle of rockered skis. And many experiments will wash out. However, I'm pretty convinced of what the outcome will be. Rocker in one for or another will make its way into the design of most, if not all, recreational skis. So while there's little doubt the designs will get better and better. I don't see any reason to wait to start having more fun with them.


Spindrift,

"This is running decently far afield, but hey, it's summer....

You assume that rockered designs can't carve. I disagree. I'm pretty convinced that as the relationship between "rocker" and sidecut becomes better understood, that rockered skis with excellent carving characteristics will evolve. Heck, even today, skis Hell Bents carve decently under an amazingly broad range of conditions.

Spindrift (post #19),

" Just for fun: can you provide a coherent rationale for why rocker is not compatible with carving under most conditions? Remember, the entire mission of the combo of conventional camber and sidecut is to allow the skier to force a ski into a decambered shape "

Illiteratedad (post #36)... here's an idea, read the damn thread posts (35) instead of just the title before posting then you won't make yourself look Jer-tarded,

"Sorry, my bad.

I must've gotten confused by
THE TITLE OF THIS THREAD."
Quote:
Originally Posted by Whiteroom View Post
No, dumbass, Finndog wanted to discuss the Volkl Gotama (which he purchased) as a good soft-ish day ski for Steamboat. The thread then wandered off into recommendations for skis he wasn't asking about... Rocker of course came up, then a new twist appeared:

Will Rocker become a part of most if not all recreational skis in the future?

so if you had read anything other than the title, you would realize that the thread drifted a long time ago and is no longer even remotely about 'powder Skis'... which it wasn't about from post #1, but hey, thanks for joining in anyway.
Nice long multiple diatribes.

Summer's pretty long, huh?
post #43 of 58
Yes.

It's also raining a lot here.
post #44 of 58

Watea 94?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Finndog View Post
I ended up getting the Gots for 530 shipped. I ended up deciding to get them because I really wanted to ski them for a while. It should be a versitile ski for Steamboat, powder, trees, crud and groomed soft snow. If its a real dump, i have my Shamans. llasa Pows, were tempting (and still are)... it's all a learning experience.
I think I remember reading a post you made during the last season that described the Watea 94 as the perfect everyday ski for Steamboat with 110+ for big dumps (and something in the 70s when it was all skied out)...did you get the Gots to fill the quiver between everyday and big dumps, or to replace the 94s? Has your opinion of hte 94 changed or do you still consider it a very good ski to handle all softer/non-boilerplate snow conditions (up to about 2 feet fresh if I remember correctly?

I was thinking about PM you about this as I also recall reading a comparision you made of the Watea 84 & 94, but couldn't seem to find it with a search...I know you got rid of the 84s, but are there any conditions you would prefer the 84s over the 94s? I recall that you actually thought the wider 94s carved harder snow better than the 84s, but don't remember if you discussed mogul performance. Feel free to PM me if this is too far off topic...thanks Matt
post #45 of 58
Thread Starter 
WOW! A lot of activity here...

1st off, Whiteroom, I am with ya' bro. Jer, why so cranky my friend? Where's the love?

2nd, Alpinedad, no, these are new for this season. The Jesters may have that now but these are a different binding.

3rd. MeFree, I am gear-whore. I am always trying new stuff. The 94's? I am keeping them (for now) they are a fantastic ski and really are a great all mountain western ski. They rip groomed and loose, float well with good pop and energy, light underfoot. I went to the Goats as I want more float and a bit more ummph. I have Shamans for real dumps and they are a very fun ski. (many better pow skis but just a lot of fun)
post #46 of 58
Quote:
Originally Posted by mudfoot View Post
VA, I admit that my personal experience is limited is using rockered skis, but as I have often noted in other threads, the main reason I like deep snow is becasue of my size and the ability to control speed by varying tip pressure, which doesn't seem to work from my experience with them. For the record, I didn't say that they keep you skimming on the surface, just that they felt like they were trying to go up whenever I tried to steer them down, which is what they are designed to do.

I will certainly be trying some other rockered models ths season, but my impression at this point is that they disturbed my experience of the 3-dimensional quality of the snow in a way I didn't like. Perhaps it is just that I'm an old dog that doesn't see the need to learn a new trick (yet). I've spent years tuning into the feel of the tips of my skis in powder and crud, and now they've gone and virtually taken it away, or at least made it unrecognizable to me. I respect your opinion on the subject, so more testing is definitely required. I haven't given up on "rocking" yet, but at this point in my life I take powder skiing very seriously, so change ain't going to come unless it feels right.
Fair enough. If you want to ski in powder using tip pressure, the Spatulas would be the least favorable ski you could click into, but from what I've been reading about some of the newer models, the "up-planing" is not so dramatic in the hybridized, rocker type skis, such as the Lahsa Pow (which I obviously have a pronounced interest in). Of course, new tricks are an acquired taste, and certainly not necessary for fun in the fluff.

That said, I hope you can make it up to the Bowl this year, it'd be cool to meet you, and I'm sure the old crowd would be glad to see you back for a visit.
post #47 of 58
Quote:
Originally Posted by Finndog View Post
WOW! A lot of activity here...

2nd, Alpinedad, no, these are new for this season. The Jesters may have that now but these are a different binding.

3rd. MeFree, I am gear-whore. I am always trying new stuff. The 94's? I am keeping them (for now) they are a fantastic ski and really are a great all mountain western ski. They rip groomed and loose, float well with good pop and energy, light underfoot. I went to the Goats as I want more float and a bit more ummph. I have Shamans for real dumps and they are a very fun ski. (many better pow skis but just a lot of fun)
wide bindings- Are you talking about the Marker Griffon, the 12 din version of the Jester that is new for '09 or something else? These are suppose to be for skis wider than 76 mm (similar to Dukes but without AT) and some feel they help with power transfer to the edges, but I haven't skied them.

Watea 84- any thoughts compared to 94s?
post #48 of 58
A good pair of GS race skis with a 65mm waist would be perfect. Why be on the snow when you can be in it?


(This is for Spindrift - see his post in the Eastern Ice ski thread.)
post #49 of 58

The Bird, the Hole, and the Bowl!

[quote=volantaddict;938718]Fair enough. If you want to ski in powder using tip pressure, the Spatulas would be the least favorable ski you could click into, but from what I've been reading about some of the newer models, the "up-planing" is not so dramatic in the hybridized, rocker type skis, such as the Lahsa Pow (which I obviously have a pronounced interest in). Of course, new tricks are an acquired taste, and certainly not necessary for fun in the fluff.

That said, I hope you can make it up to the Bowl this year, it'd be cool to meet you, and I'm sure the old crowd would be glad to see you back for a visit. [/QUOTE

VA: Nothing would please me more than to be making some powder turns at Snow Bowl this winter. I know you had a great snow year last season, but it was also so good in Colorado that we couldn't justify leaving. The wife and I are about due for a dose of Missoula with its good people and good skiing. Hope to finally get to meet and make some turns with you this year.

I've got nothing against rockered skis, it's just that because of my size I really enjoy the added deceleration assistance that the snow provides when it gets deep, and rocker seems to minimize that aspect of powder while maximizing others. Just my luck, they invent a new type of powder ski and it lacks the one thing I'm particularly interested in, but I'll definitely try and check out the Lasha Pow.
post #50 of 58
49 posts, he bought the skis before post #9... yet we keep blabbering. I love the Internetz.
post #51 of 58
51 posts, I can't even keep up. sweeeet.
post #52 of 58
Thread Starter 
summer's ending I can tell it in the post count!
post #53 of 58
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by MEfree30 View Post
wide bindings- Are you talking about the Marker Griffon, the 12 din version of the Jester that is new for '09 or something else? These are suppose to be for skis wider than 76 mm (similar to Dukes but without AT) and some feel they help with power transfer to the edges, but I haven't skied them.

Watea 84- any thoughts compared to 94s?
yes! thanks, That's them

94 vs. 84, that's a whole new thread. PM me if you want or start a new thread. essentially, 94= more float, more stability, faster ski, still good in bumps, overall, for western skiing, go 94, more groomed, less off-piste? 84. BUT theres a big difference between them
post #54 of 58

#54

Just fyi: The Griffon shares the 76mm min base width platform with the Jester, Duke and Barron.
post #55 of 58
Quote:
Originally Posted by Whiteroom View Post
Hey Jer & Alpinedad, learn2reid

...

Illiteratedad (post #36)... here's an idea, read the damn thread posts (35) instead of just the title before posting then you won't make yourself look Jer-tarded
Sorry for not hanging on every golden word you spew. I wasn't aware I was supposed to take notes. Perhaps next time, a graphical guide to your thread drift might be in order.

But in the meantime...

F.

U.

2.




On the plus side, congrats on becoming the first member of my ignore list on this forum.
post #56 of 58
Quote:
Originally Posted by mudfoot View Post

VA: Nothing would please me more than to be making some powder turns at Snow Bowl this winter. I know you had a great snow year last season, but it was also so good in Colorado that we couldn't justify leaving. The wife and I are about due for a dose of Missoula with its good people and good skiing. Hope to finally get to meet and make some turns with you this year.
Yeah it was not a year to want to waste a ski day driving. Hopefully we have another ridiculously good winter.

Quote:
Originally Posted by mudfoot
I've got nothing against rockered skis, it's just that because of my size I really enjoy the added deceleration assistance that the snow provides when it gets deep, and rocker seems to minimize that aspect of powder while maximizing others. Just my luck, they invent a new type of powder ski and it lacks the one thing I'm particularly interested in, but I'll definitely try and check out the Lasha Pow.
I'm a fairly big guy too (6'4" 190#), but learned that Spatulas are exceptional for speed control in tight, high consequence situations. It's just a matter of smearing (down the fall line with tips off center). The reverse camber prevents the tips from grabbing the snow and making you turn. I call them parachute turns, and use them for threading the needle between trees ~30-40" apart. Spatulas really encourage the crazy in me.

However, they certainly don't ski anything like conventional skis; I really don't like them much once the freshies are gone, and the outrun can be a pretty wild ride, even scary.
post #57 of 58
Quote:
Originally Posted by volantaddict View Post
I'm a fairly big guy too (6'4" 190#), but learned that Spatulas are exceptional for speed control in tight, high consequence situations. It's just a matter of smearing (down the fall line with tips off center). The reverse camber prevents the tips from grabbing the snow and making you turn. I call them parachute turns, and use them for threading the needle between trees ~30-40" apart. Spatulas really encourage the crazy in me.

However, they certainly don't ski anything like conventional skis; I really don't like them much once the freshies are gone, and the outrun can be a pretty wild ride, even scary.
I've heard that the Spats excell at scrubbing off speed in a hurry because of their reverse sidecut and camber. I am curious as to how the same manuver works with rockered skis that don't have reverse sidecut. Anyone have a comparison?
post #58 of 58
Not too surprising... Better than a cambered ski, worse than a reverse/reverse. The more "hybrid" "sidecuts" ski closer to reverse/reverse.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Ski Gear Discussion