or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

'10 Volkl Gotamas - Page 2

post #31 of 32

The kid Goat is an interesting concept.


My first reaction is that kids have so much of a lower weight to surface area ratio that any kids' ski is a cheater.  (Look for my "approximate float index" post on TGR a few years ago.)  So why would they need rocker?


But when I think about it more, my mind goes to Shane McConkey's theory behind reverse camber, as set forth in the Mental Floss screed.  His idea was that in soft snow, a skier has to decamber a normal-cambered ski to get it to float effectively.  That requires exertion of force generated by weight or speed.  By definition, that's going to be harder for a kid to do than an adult -- even more so in light of the lower weight to surface area ratio. 


Maybe that's one of the reasons why kids seem to have a more difficult time in powder than adults?  And because reverse camber is effectively pre-decambering, perhaps kids will benefit even more from reverse camber than adults?


Anyway, Jim, if you have a pair of demos that one of my kids can try on an appropriate weekend next season, I will guarantee you a jointly-written review.  ;-)

post #32 of 32


Originally Posted by SLANE View Post


I was wondering what this "new skill set" is and how it is better than the "old skill set".


I feel that I ski with a very modern (unless modern means wearing baggy pants and skiing in the back seat straight with an occasional tail washout) style and I find a rockered ski to be pretty useless unless you are in uncut snow or low density crud.  Most kids only have one ski so it would appear that you feel rockers are the paramount of versatility. Can you fill me in on what I am missing?


My main complaint with rockered skis is performance on firm snow or heavy crud or variable snow or bumps (or 90% of what I ski).  I like my ski tips to act as a shock absorber.  When I hit a lump at speed, the tip contacts first and dampens the blow by decambering and flexing, in so doing, lessens the blow I must absorb with my legs.  The faster you go and the rougher the terrain the more dampening you need.  DH ski racers meet this need for dampening by using long long skis w/ chamber.  DH bike racers use long travel forks. IMO a large component of modern style is speed.  If you are to ski fast on a non-uniform snow surface, dynamically and in control, I feel that dampening is very important.  This being said, the rockered skis I have skied offer little or no dampening at speed because they are already decambered and flexed.  They actually feel much like a snowler blade on any sort of firm ish or lumpy conditions (yes, I admit I tried them once).  Every imperfection in the snow surface is not dampened by the tips it is transferred right into my legs. When straight line a chute (I think that is part of the new school way of skiing) and hit the traverse track and lumpy crud below at speed I want all the dampening I can get.  Why then are rockered skis better for the "NEW and improved" way of skiing?  Maybe I am in need of some enlightenment.  I just don't get it.


And saying that they in no way hinder your ability to carve but they don't allow you to drive from the tips of your skis seems to be a bit contradictory.  I'd like to see anyone carve up a GS race course well on any ski without pressuring the tip of the ski.  It may be possible in a nastar course but forget about it on a real course.     

Well said.


Basically, skis have camber for a reason.  And now they're discovering there's also a reason for building a ski with the reverse of classical camber.  This doesn't make cambered skis obsolete--which is what spindrift is suggesting is the case.  

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Ski Gear Discussion