EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › Member Gear Reviews › 2010 Review Pt 2: K2 Sidestash, Blizzard Atlas/Answer, Magnum and Supersonic, Elan 888, Dyna* 4x4,
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

2010 Review Pt 2: K2 Sidestash, Blizzard Atlas/Answer, Magnum and Supersonic, Elan 888, Dyna* 4x4, - Page 2

post #31 of 46

dawg, how does the rocker profile on the Answer compare to the different K2 skis?  Is it similar to the 10/20 profile form K2?  Is it just tip rocker with a tail kick?

post #32 of 46

Scott, here's my list so far for fresh,broken and trees: (no order)

 

1- Icelantic Soft Nomad

2- Elan 1010

3- HB

4- Answer (not sure of quickness)

5- Icelantic Rocker  TBA

6- jj's

 

 


Edited by Finndog - 4/20/2009 at 03:57 pm GMT
post #33 of 46
Thread Starter 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by BigLineSeeker View Post

dawg, how does the rocker profile on the Answer compare to the different K2 skis?  Is it similar to the 10/20 profile form K2?  Is it just tip rocker with a tail kick?


Good question! The tip engagement felt different on the answer, like the ski wanted to find that tip edge contact point earlier and hook up the edge as soon as if found that contact point. The K2's both felt softer and smear-y, like they really wanted to tip a ways before getting that edge engaged, and even when it was there, it wasn't in the sense that the Answer was.  Comparatively speaking, the Answer felt more "traditional" than the K2's, in that it just felt like a bit shorter ski when up on edge with the shorter contact length, but still had a contact point forward that wanted to engage.  The K2's felt a bit washy, but they probably released in the soft snow easier than the Answer, which was stiff in comparison. I talked with a guy on the new Answer at Squaw (same day I was on the 1010's) and he was saying the same things: darn near a hero ski for a good skier in deeper and variable snow, but a strong ski nonetheless. 

post #34 of 46
Thread Starter 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Finndog View Post

Scott, here's my list so far for fresh,broken and trees: (no order)

 

1- Icelantic Soft Nomad

2- Elan 1010

3- HB

4- Answer (not sure of quickness)

5- Icelantic Rocker  TBA

6- jj's

 

 


Edited by Finndog - 4/20/2009 at 03:57 pm GMT

 

 


Looks like a fine list.  Be sure and report what you find.  Out of that list, I have only skied the 1010, HB, and Answer, and they are all fairly different.  I could see heavier skiers overpowering the 1010, but it is a great ski for my weight. The Answer wants/needs speed.  When I get back in early May, I will get some video of me skiing spring corn on the 1010 and post it. 

post #35 of 46
Dawgcatching.  Reading your thread and, what ski is the Huge you refer to.  Sorry if I missed something or just don't understand the lingo.  Was interested in Demoing the K2 Sidestash this year. Have never been on a rocker ski so sort of curious.  Liked your reviews
post #36 of 46
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pete No. Idaho View Post

Dawgcatching.  Reading your thread and, what ski is the Huge you refer to.  Sorry if I missed something or just don't understand the lingo.  Was interested in Demoing the K2 Sidestash this year. Have never been on a rocker ski so sort of curious.  Liked your reviews
I think he meant the Dynastar Huge Trouble.
post #37 of 46
I'm sure that Scott was referring to the Huge Trouble. RE: the sidestash, it's not really a rocker ski. It has a very modest early rise tip but conventional camber and shape otherwise. If you want a sampling of the rocker ski thing....that's about like dipping your pinkie toe in the water.

SJ
post #38 of 46
Thanks SJ.  When I  do go demo  what would you recommend I try?  The 2 skis that looked like maybe's to me were the K2 Sidestash and the Rossignol S7,  thats just from reading articles etc. and I have NO experience with rockers.  Schweitzer usually has a demo day relatively early in the season and thought I woould try if there is any powder.  Me., advanced intermediate (?) (labels) 67 yrs, 194lbs, 38 yrs skiing, try to ski off piste as much as possible, probably aroound 80% the last 2 years.  Powder up here runs 3 to 8 inches most of the time with occasional 12-20 inches.  thanks
Quote:
Originally Posted by SierraJim View Post

I'm sure that Scott was referring to the Huge Trouble. RE: the sidestash, it's not really a rocker ski. It has a very modest early rise tip but conventional camber and shape otherwise. If you want a sampling of the rocker ski thing....that's about like dipping your pinkie toe in the water.

SJ


 
post #39 of 46
I think that for 3-8 inches of snow, skis this big are little overkill. But for 12-20 they are a great tool to have. I skied about a dozen or so last year and so, I'd suggest the following progression.

Sidestash............very modest tip rocker
Solly Czar............a little more tip rocker
Blizzi Answer.......modest tip and tail rocker, flat underfoot.
S7..................... significant tip and tail plus semi reverse sidecut.

This way you will start with something that will feel relatively normal. Then, you'll move gradually into more and more rocker etc. There are dozens of options and variations out there and you could drive yourself crazy worrying about the minutiae of all this stuff. After skiing those four, you'll have an idea of how much rocker etc. that you want. If you only want to do three, then I'd drop the Czar or the Sidestash.

SJ
post #40 of 46
Thanks.  You're right of course, I use my Snoops for the normal 3-6 inches we have a lot up here.  Would save this new ski for over 8 inches.  Thankyou, that gives me a good starting point.

Quote:
Originally Posted by SierraJim View Post

I think that for 3-8 inches of snow, skis this big are little overkill. But for 12-20 they are a great tool to have. I skied about a dozen or so last year and so, I'd suggest the following progression.

Sidestash............very modest tip rocker
Solly Czar............a little more tip rocker
Blizzi Answer.......modest tip and tail rocker, flat underfoot.
S7..................... significant tip and tail plus semi reverse sidecut.

This way you will start with something that will feel relatively normal. Then, you'll move gradually into more and more rocker etc. There are dozens of options and variations out there and you could drive yourself crazy worrying about the minutiae of all this stuff. After skiing those four, you'll have an idea of how much rocker etc. that you want. If you only want to do three, then I'd drop the Czar or the Sidestash.

SJ
 
post #41 of 46
Quote:
Originally Posted by dawgcatching View Post


Blizzard Answer IQ 180cm: a new ski for this coming year, 110mm underfoot, tip riser, variable sidecut:  This ski was a real eye-opener.  Not only was it nearly as good as the Atlas when getting onto edge, but it made quick work of the junky off-piste snow.  You could ski it all day on a primarily new snow and crud day and really like it.  Also, it was quite nimble for what it was, and a pretty decent carver.  I couldn’t say that the other tip-rockered skis I tried were really even decent carvers.  For a primarily off-piste ski with stability and versatility, it would be a great choice.   Again, very GS, big turn in terms of feel and flex; not really a ski that liked to change edges quickly. It also didn’t like higher edge angles on groomers (I lost my trust in the ski, it wanted to slide) but who cares?   If you bought this ski to ski groomers, you are in idiot.  I liked it; not sure I would trade my Huge Trouble for it, but I thought it to be one of the best wide skis I have tried.   All of the above skis have a somewhat similar feel: fairly stiff, more GS-like rather than quick and energetic: must be a Blizzard design.  It could also be that I am a lightweight, but I do like the stability and sense of confidence that these skis give you. 


This makes me wonder what the vision is for this ski. Usually rockering a ski makes it more manuverable in the snow and alowing a more slarvy feel. But in this case the ski is still stiff and more of a long turner. It makes me wonder why they woudl bother with adding rocker to such a ski. I am sort of curious now so I may have to try and find these for a demo.
post #42 of 46
Quote:
Originally Posted by tromano View Post

Quote:


This makes me wonder what the vision is for this ski. Usually rockering a ski makes it more manuverable in the snow and alowing a more slarvy feel. But in this case the ski is still stiff and more of a long turner. It makes me wonder why they woudl bother with adding rocker to such a ski. I am sort of curious now so I may have to try and find these for a demo.
 
I don't mean to speak for Scott, but my impression is pretty close to opposite of his. I think there may be couple of reasons. I think one factor is skier's weight. Scott is fairly light, I am fairly heavy. For me, the ski would bend nicely in most any snow conditions. The Answer is not really stiff (about like say a P-100) but it is fairly heavy. That could be part of the feel that Scott comments on.

However, I think there may be something else factoring in as well. The test skis were factory tuned way too flat to be very nimble feeling in mixed snow. This factor affected my impressions of the Argos and the Atlas which didn't feel like they would "flow"" well between turns. Later, my impression changed completely after I had skied some that I tuned myself. The Answer I skied did not have that feeling but had probably been retuned. I skied the Answer back to back with the '10 Gotama and preferred the Answer by quite a bit.


IAC, Demo one...........I think you'll be surprised.

SJ
post #43 of 46
Quote:
Originally Posted by tromano View Post

Quote:


This makes me wonder what the vision is for this ski. Usually rockering a ski makes it more manuverable in the snow and alowing a more slarvy feel. But in this case the ski is still stiff and more of a long turner. It makes me wonder why they woudl bother with adding rocker to such a ski. I am sort of curious now so I may have to try and find these for a demo.
 

It has become pretty clear that reverse camber variations can be applied across a range of sidecut designs. Putting just early rise on the front (aka tip rocker)  on a relatively conventional ski can, at least theoretically, have a few benefits. The obvious one is helping it plane up faster in powder. Another is that the ski is likely less hooky in soft or layered snow. Of course that is also influenced by whether or not the ski has early taper...

 

That said, I don't see any compelling reason to use a ski with just early rise in the tip. Especially the ones where the rocker is so limited that folks are referring to it as "marketing"  rocker. The more I've used reverse cambered and fully rockered skis, the less interested I am in ever using a "conventional" cambered ski again - with or without early rise in the tip. Even on groomers, most days I can have more fun on an EP Pro than I'd have on any conventional ski (although obviously given the subjective definition of "fun", YMMV). And there's every reason to believe newer designs will result in even more versatile skis.

 

If you think about it, a well designed fully rockered ski will carve just great under most circumstances - and be more easily managed under many circumstances. So why take halfway steps with a band aid style tip modification applied to a core design that is the root of the issue you are trying to mitigate in the first place?  So what if  fully rockered sksi don't ski exactly like conventional shaped skis? Shaped skis didn't  ski exactly like straight skis...

 

(BTW - I understand why mountaineering ski aficionados want flatter squared off tails. But that's a discussion of a different set of trade offs than most of us are making.)

post #44 of 46
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by tromano View Post

Quote:


This makes me wonder what the vision is for this ski. Usually rockering a ski makes it more manuverable in the snow and alowing a more slarvy feel. But in this case the ski is still stiff and more of a long turner. It makes me wonder why they woudl bother with adding rocker to such a ski. I am sort of curious now so I may have to try and find these for a demo.
 
The rocker really allowed it to pop out of the wet snow and release a bit easier. That was pretty much the extent of it, as it didn't have the vague, not-responsive feel that many rockers had when the snow wasn't deep or heavy.  With that said, I was in a whole lot of pain that day from the screws that had recently been removed from my tibia, and therefore wasn't skiing anywhere as aggressively as normal.  I am a pretty decent skier, but was really struggling that day, so it might have had something to do with it.  Still, I had quite a positive impression of that ski.  I am sure to get more time on it this winter, in better conditions, with my leg at 100%
post #45 of 46
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by dawgcatching View Post

 


Looks like a fine list.  Be sure and report what you find.  Out of that list, I have only skied the 1010, HB, and Answer, and they are all fairly different.  I could see heavier skiers overpowering the 1010, but it is a great ski for my weight. The Answer wants/needs speed.  When I get back in early May, I will get some video of me skiing spring corn on the 1010 and post it. 

That is, unless I stay injured, which is what happened.  My last day on the 1010 was the last day of the season for me.  Hopefully full strength going forward though, lots of video to follow this winter!
post #46 of 46
f/u on earlier post-

Rockers- well, it still seems to be a confusing issue for many. to be clear, I love the playfullnes of the HB, the 20/40 no camber set up is fun and I do like the no camber for pow/soft.  You don't need a 20/40 as that's pretty hefty rocker but it was fun in manked up heavier powder/ broken and wet loose stuff. I skied the Nomad SFT which is not rockered and has some camber and I really loved that ski so my current mindset is I don't need a rocker tip/tail but it does make pow/broken easier and will allow access to low angle pow when others can't get in; you can get more untracked. For this season, I picked up 4x4's due to Dawgs and Mikes suggestions for eastcoast hardpack and carving days.  The HB's will stay up at Steamboat for big dumps and I will most likely travel with Icelantic Pilgrims (90) and the Icelantic Nomand SFT's (146-111-136). If the conditions don't look too great, I will just grab a SFT and the 4x4's.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Member Gear Reviews
EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › Member Gear Reviews › 2010 Review Pt 2: K2 Sidestash, Blizzard Atlas/Answer, Magnum and Supersonic, Elan 888, Dyna* 4x4,