EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › Ski Gear Discussion › Pow ski trade off between fresh and crud?..
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Pow ski trade off between fresh and crud?.. - Page 2

post #31 of 58

Love my Blizzard Titan Agros, was perfect for Tahoe, it will get used in NZ in a few months time, but I can't seen myself using it in Oz this season (and I spend most of my time in the backcountry).

post #32 of 58

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Vinski View Post

 


Yeah, I'm certainly not looking at all these skis expecting them to be especially dynamic and responsiveon the groomers. I am looking for something that is soft snow oriented, but I want it to be more focussed on charging crud rather than crazy floaty.


 

 

 Yeah.  I guess the point that I was trying to convey was that volkl took a pretty good all-around ski, imo (the '09 goat) and by making it fully rockered, took away a lot of the engery that it had and made it a more soft-snow specific ski.  So much so that I thought the wider, almost zero camber, less-sidecut HT actually skied the groomers better and more dynamically.  The HT is by *no* means a groomer ski, but I felt that it was actually more versatile than the '10 goat.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Vinski View Post

 


Definitely keen to hear more of how you found the HT jaobrien6.

 

 

Here's the link to my original review: www.epicski.com/forum/thread/83003/long-review-of-a-bunch-of-2010-skis#post_1085205

 

Since then, I only had 1 day on them and it was a spring day that started with manky crud and ended with sloppy slush.  The morning especially had some difficult snow that I've struggled with in the past, but the HT's responded exceptionally well.  I tried a run in the same conditions on a friend's prophet 90's and had much more trouble with that snow, they were much more hooky and would get caught up in the really heavy crud.  Later in the day, when it was turning to slush, the HT's still did very well.  Really, the only thing I haven't had them in yet is powder, but I'd be surprised if they don't do that very well.  They probably won't be quite as surfy feeling as some of the rocker or long tip rise skis, but with a 140 tip, a 115 waist, and basically zero camber, I can't imagine that I'm going to be disappointed.

post #33 of 58
Thread Starter 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Taxman View Post

Love my Blizzard Titan Agros, was perfect for Tahoe, it will get used in NZ in a few months time, but I can't seen myself using it in Oz this season (and I spend most of my time in the backcountry).



 

Yeah fair call - I probably wouldn't be looking to use it much in Oz - unless it had REALLY snowed recently. But it sounds like NZ would be prime terrain and conditions for the Argos!

post #34 of 58
Thread Starter 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by jaobrien6 View Post

 

 

 Yeah.  I guess the point that I was trying to convey was that volkl took a pretty good all-around ski, imo (the '09 goat) and by making it fully rockered, took away a lot of the engery that it had and made it a more soft-snow specific ski.  So much so that I thought the wider, almost zero camber, less-sidecut HT actually skied the groomers better and more dynamically.  The HT is by *no* means a groomer ski, but I felt that it was actually more versatile than the '10 goat.

 

 

Here's the link to my original review: www.epicski.com/forum/thread/83003/long-review-of-a-bunch-of-2010-skis#post_1085205

 

Since then, I only had 1 day on them and it was a spring day that started with manky crud and ended with sloppy slush.  The morning especially had some difficult snow that I've struggled with in the past, but the HT's responded exceptionally well.  I tried a run in the same conditions on a friend's prophet 90's and had much more trouble with that snow, they were much more hooky and would get caught up in the really heavy crud.  Later in the day, when it was turning to slush, the HT's still did very well.  Really, the only thing I haven't had them in yet is powder, but I'd be surprised if they don't do that very well.  They probably won't be quite as surfy feeling as some of the rocker or long tip rise skis, but with a 140 tip, a 115 waist, and basically zero camber, I can't imagine that I'm going to be disappointed.


Yeah - I take your point - it sounds like Volkl have made quite a significant change to the orientation and 'positioning' of this ski. I mentioned this in another thread but it makes me wonder if there is now MORE overlap between the Katana and Gotama? Are they cannibalising their market with these two skis having such a similar orientation now? Or are they significantly different enough that they'll attract differentc consumers?

 

IAC, given the HT is considerably wider, better on groomers and a crud-buster - do you think there is anything that the '10 Goat might do better than the HT? (I mean maybe the Goat now could have a different feel in pow, and as you mentioned the HT wont be as 'surfy' as rockered/reverse skis but is quite a bit wider...)

 

The HT is appealing to me more and more at the mo - itching to demo - its too far away!

post #35 of 58

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Vinski View Post

Hi Skier219,

 

Yeah, definitely an interesting thought. The Mothership certainly seems like a charging ski from what i've read. Sounds like its really quite stiff, has no speed limit, makes mince meat of crud, and floats in the pow with their tip rocker. I'd be real keen to hear how you find them once you get a chance to try them out! Especially compared to the Katana. Sounds like the Motherships might punch crud and carve groomers better than the Kat (not that you'd necessarily get them for the latter..). My only reservation about them is to what extent would they would be maneuverable at slower speeds through trees?... I read one review when someone thought they were 'playful', and others where they are described as rocket ships!...

 

What didn't you like about the Katanas?

 

And what exactly do you mean by, 'the tips and tails might want to hang up on one another'?..

Cheers


I think the MS will be very maneuverable in trees -- they have a turning radius in the 24-26m range, which is short for beefy skis in this category (ie, Legend XXL gets up near 40m).  The twin tip has to help.

 

Katana was a surprisingly nice ski, but had somewhat of a floppy feel to it at high speed.  Not as bad as the K2 Obsethed or Hellbent, but still not as stable at speed as I'd like.  I absolutely don't want to sacrifice groomer or manky snow performance on what becomes my one-ski quiver when traveling west.  That ski has to be able to deal with junk snow, frozen crud, etc... and also tear it up on the way back to the lift.  Some wide skis in this range feel like clown shoes in anything other than powder and crud.

 

Through the years, I have noticed that some wide twin tip skis have a tendency to hang up tails on each other and terrain.  The more abrupt the tail shape, the more of an issue this can become.  I think this is the reason many hardcore skiers were sawing the tails off their Nordica Blowers up until Nordica made that change at the factory this year.

post #36 of 58

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Vinski View Post

 

Yeah - I take your point - it sounds like Volkl have made quite a significant change to the orientation and 'positioning' of this ski. I mentioned this in another thread but it makes me wonder if there is now MORE overlap between the Katana and Gotama? Are they cannibalising their market with these two skis having such a similar orientation now? Or are they significantly different enough that they'll attract differentc consumers? 


I think Volkl had a great line with the Mantra, Gotama and Katana.  The Goat was really a perfect fit for the niche it was in, a true all-mountain wide board that would work almost anywhere.  Unfortunately, rocker is the new wide, and every company is jumping on the band wagon.  IMO the Goats did not need any improvement, and as pointed out by a couple of the posters, adding rocker will actually make them less versatile.

 

The last ten years new models from all manufactures always seem to go the same route.  They come out with a good ski and then they keep making it a little wider and stiffer every successive year to "improve" what everybody already agreed was a great ski to start with, until nobody wants it any more.  Then they come out with a new model and start over.  Now we can add rocker to the list of "improvements" we will be seening in lots of great skis.
 

post #37 of 58

V -- Following some of the myriad of threads you got goin here, I think you would enjoy reading the TGR discussion on JJs and S7s in crud:

 

http://www.tetongravity.com/forums/showthread.php?t=154636&highlight=crud

 

Best,

 

Sully

post #38 of 58

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by mudfoot View Post

 

 and as pointed out by a couple of the posters, adding rocker will actually make them less versatile.


 


Folks keep saying things like this. I'd love to hear someone make a believable case for this statement. You may not like the way rockered skis handle. But that'd not the same as them being less versatile. As far as I can tell, the people saying this either have no significant experience with rockered skis or they ski them exactly as they would a stiff set of cambered race boards & then complain that the behavior is different. 

 

Will the new goat be huge improvement?  From what I've seen of them in action, I'm guessing yes. But since I have not tried them yet - the honest answer is "beats me". But if it is a less versatile ski, it is not just because rocker was added. 

 

I'm sure there will be a ton of playing around with rocker, RC, assorted hybrid/recurve designs, etc. before all the design trade offs are fully cataloged. But I'm also pretty sure that in a few years virtually every recreational ski on the market will incorporate some meaningful element of rocker in its design.

 

If anyone here is really nostalgic for the "old" goat design. Give me a yell & I'll make you a great deal on some 183 cm gold ones -   mounted on the rear line for 315 BSL with Z12s. Excellent condition. Including the little guys still attached. I'm done with non-rockered skis...


Edited by spindrift - 6/2/2009 at 09:55 pm GMT
post #39 of 58

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by spindrift View Post

 

You may not like the way rockered skis handle. But that'd not the same as them being less versatile.
 

 

Double rockered skis are easier to turn, or at least change their direction, and you can do more types of slide/smear manuvers on them than tradionally cambered skis, so I guess in that sense they are more versatile if that is what you are after in all condtions.  I think for me it comes down to the way they handle on hard snow.  IMO, and it is just an opinion, a doubled rockered ski has a bigger deficient on hard snow and bumps than a tradtionally cambered ski has in powder and crud. 

 

The "loose" feel of double rocker does not translate into control for me, but then everyone is not after or needs the same level of control.  Maybe I'm just not good enough at it because I haven't spent enough time trying to figure out how to make rockered skis satisfactorily do what I want in all conditions.

 

As Spindrift points out, the jury is still out on the final "best" combination of rocker, camber and sidecut.  Rocker is the current big thing and every company is scrambling to add it to more skis.  I'm just not ready to completely abandon the soild carve of more traditional boards yet.  On a powder day, sure, but not for my everyday skis.

 

post #40 of 58

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by spindrift View Post

 


Folks keep saying things like this. I'd love to hear someone make a believable case for this statement. You may not like the way rockered skis handle. But that'd not the same as them being less versatile. As far as I can tell, the people saying this either have no significant experience with rockered skis or they ski them exactly as they would a stiff set of cambered race boards & then complain that the behavior is different. 

 

Will the new goat be huge improvement?  From what I've seen of them in action, I'm guessing yes. But since I have not tried them yet - the honest answer is "beats me". But if it is a less versatile ski, it is not just because rocker was added. 

 

I'm sure there will be a ton of playing around with rocker, RC, assorted hybrid/recurve designs, etc. before all the design trade offs are fully cataloged. But I'm also pretty sure that in a few years virtually every recreational ski on the market will incorporate some meaningful element of rocker in its design.

 

If anyone here is really nostalgic for the "old" goat design. Give me a yell & I'll make you a great deal on some 183 cm gold ones -   mounted on the rear line for 315 BSL with Z12s. Excellent condition. Including the little guys still attached. I'm done with non-rockered skis...


Edited by spindrift - 6/2/2009 at 09:55 pm GMT



 

aren't you getting tired of this, yet? i am...

post #41 of 58

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by lukc View Post

 



 

aren't you getting tired of this, yet? i am...


Yes. I imagine I'd feel similarly chatting here

post #42 of 58

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by spindrift View Post

 


Yes. I imagine I'd feel similarly chatting here



 

touché

post #43 of 58
Thread Starter 

Ha ha the good ole rocker versatility debate!

While we're here I may as well chime in with my 2 cents on whether the earth is flat or not.. :)

 

I think rocker/RC/hybrid designs definitely have a massive future in the rec ski market. Having said that I don't think they are likely to replace traditional cambered skis completely..

 

As far as groomer performance goes a rockered/RC ski is never going to be as good as an equivalent cambered ski (wait for it) - in making dynamic, high speed turns, with high edge angle. And this is purely physics - Rockered = less running length and less capacity to maintain stability through dynamic pure carves. I mean no rockered/RC ski will ever be used (regulations aside) as a ski of choice in any form or racing - SL, GS, Downhill. So as long as there are folks who want to ski "dynamically" when it hasn't snowed in a while, cambered skis will have a place in the rec ski world. Perhaps a diminishing one, but a place nevertheless. If manufacturers one day prove this wrong and make rockered skis out perform cambered skis on ice - then awesome!

 

Having said all that, I am super excited to experience the rockered ski world, and I think its great for skiing generally!

 

On a final, and possibly controversial note it would seem; if "versatile" is  - doing lots of things very well, rather than a few things exceptionally well, then surely the new Goat with rocker is more specialised and thus now does a few things exceptionally well. Whereas, previously, it was still very good in soft snow, but equally competent on firmer snow; and now perhaps not so much - therefore more specialised and less 'versatile'. You say 'potayto', I say 'potarto'.. :)

 

Thanks everyone for all your posts and links to other forums, etc - always good to hear it.

Cheers,

Vin

 

 

post #44 of 58

As far as the rockered debate goes - I have to tel you guys I saw a pair of ski sthis year and could not believe my eyes. Reverse camber slalom skis - they were Fischers - I saw a former National Champion on them at the Sugar Slalom. So maybe there is more to come.

post #45 of 58

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by epic View Post

As far as the rockered debate goes - I have to tel you guys I saw a pair of ski sthis year and could not believe my eyes. Reverse camber slalom skis - they were Fischers - I saw a former National Champion on them at the Sugar Slalom. So maybe there is more to come.



 

are you sure he hadn't just taken them for a quick bump run?

post #46 of 58

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by lukc View Post

 



 

are you sure he hadn't just taken them for a quick bump run?


Yep, very sure. I do have one Blizzard Mag SL with a "rockered tip" though...

post #47 of 58

 

I have been thinking about the comments here and the predictions about rocker being a major part of the future of ski design, including recreational skis, and it scares me. First, I think it is likely because fat skis and rocker make the learning curve shorter and eliminate the need to learn how to carve a turn, which is something only a small percentage of skiers actually do well anyway. This is one of the reasons snowboards have become so popular, they are easier to use in all most conditions, especially deep or funky snow because you can slide them sideways straight down the slope, something that is very difficult on traditional skis.
 
I see double rockered fat skis as being similar to snowboards in that they are much more difficult to use on edge than sliding or smearing. This makes them more easily maneuverable than cambered skis, but ultimately results in a very different technique that unfortunately deteriorates large swaths of good snow. Snowboards and skis sliding in any amount or direction cause groomed snow to melt and refreeze on a micro level resulting in icier slopes.  The fatter the ski the bigger the effect.  Why are intermediate runs always the worst snow quality?   Because all the bad skiers are sliding their skis around.   In deep snow the results are much broader. Instead of working powder turns with changing body position and ski angulation you can take rockered fat skis and smear a few turns over a wide area with only minimal change of body position and physical effort, thereby messing up a huge amount of snow. This is not how good skiers are using rockers, but unfortunately it is how I think the vast majority of skiers are (and will) be using rockered skis if snowboards are any indicator. Like snowboards, double rocker skis are pretty easy to use badly, so they are more attractive than cambered skis to the inexperienced and unfit. Let’s face it, skiing is not an easy sport, especially when you are learning and falling a lot.
 
What percentage of snowboarders actually carve the majority of their turns? Probably 5% from what I can tell. Once recreational skiers are using rocker skis we will be seeing our slopes smeared into a new type of ski medium. More versatile, definitely. Better quality turns and slopes? I guess we’ll have to wait and see, but the cynic in me says I don’t think so.
post #48 of 58

 I can understand your concern, but I don't think an intermediate skier would enjoy skiinga rockered or reverse-cambered ski on intermediate terrain at all. I think it can changethe game in some conditions and that's a good thing, but it has liabilities as well.

post #49 of 58

I'm not talking about major rocker, just enough to make pivoting and sliding easy without catching the edges.  Fat skis = better balance, and rocker eliminates the need to but them on edge.  Sounds like the intermediates dream come true.  The question is, are they "cheater" skis or the next real step forward in ski evolution.

post #50 of 58

Buttery sliding can be OK, but the G-forces of a carved turn are what really thrill me. Trying to get that from a fun-shaped ski is a little harder to do. I think there is room for traditional skis and fun shapes. I think I'll always have both. 

post #51 of 58
Thread Starter 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by epic View Post

As far as the rockered debate goes - I have to tel you guys I saw a pair of ski sthis year and could not believe my eyes. Reverse camber slalom skis - they were Fischers - I saw a former National Champion on them at the Sugar Slalom. So maybe there is more to come.



 

Wow!

They've gotta be kidding?

Can anyone fill me in as to why you'd do this to a ski that narrow?.... What benefits does it provde - maybe its an improvement if you're taking your SL ski into 12" of fresh or something?... I dont know?

post #52 of 58
Thread Starter 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by epic View Post

I think there is room for traditional skis and fun shapes. I think I'll always have both. 


My sentiments exactly!
 

Hence, my Contact 4x4's when it hasn't snowed in a while, and something wider with rocker, RC or no camber for the soft stuff.

post #53 of 58

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Vinski View Post

 



 

Wow!

They've gotta be kidding?

Can anyone fill me in as to why you'd do this to a ski that narrow?.... What benefits does it provde - maybe its an improvement if you're taking your SL ski into 12" of fresh or something?... I dont know?


I think it's more of a "because we can". The guy was racing SL on it.

post #54 of 58

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by epic View Post

 


I think it's more of a "because we can". The guy was racing SL on it.

 

If you look at many of the tip shapes used on new race skis, the technology is very similar in intent to rockered all-mountain skis, except that float is not considered. Most race skis have tips that begin to curve up before the widest point of the sidecut, enabling easy turn initiation, easy transition between pivot and carve, and a reduction in hookiness. In order to achieve these effects in a soft snow ski, there must be more area in front of where the tip curve begins, but the idea is the same.

 

post #55 of 58

With a conventional sidecut, I think the more salient conceptual paradigm is not "reverse camber," but "pre-decambered."

 

Theoretical benefits should include avoiding the need to decamber the ski, and making hooking tips and tails far less likely.

 

Theoretical disadvantages should include sacrificing "pop" and shock absorbtion.

post #56 of 58

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by D(C) View Post

 

 

If you look at many of the tip shapes used on new race skis, the technology is very similar in intent to rockered all-mountain skis, except that float is not considered. Most race skis have tips that begin to curve up before the widest point of the sidecut, enabling easy turn initiation, easy transition between pivot and carve, and a reduction in hookiness. In order to achieve these effects in a soft snow ski, there must be more area in front of where the tip curve begins, but the idea is the same.

 


Could you give some specific examples, links to web sites would be handy, because the race skis I see don't look that. I checked the Fischer, Volkl, Stoekly, Rossignol and Atomic sites and they have no mention about any reverse or pre- camber technology; I have to assume that means they are traditional camber on all their race products.

 

I do have a Stoeckli SG that, when held base to base without pressing them together, touch at a point an inch from the tail and about 10 inches from tip; they are touching for a bit , then separate slightly over about 6 inches until you get to the shovel where they look 'normal'. As far as I know only Stoeckli does that and just in their speed skis.
 

We (racers and coaches) have debated why and it may have to do with ease of turning by shortening the effect edge but we also contemplated that it was to 'soften' the entry of the ski to the snow when running flat. Relatively soft contact to the snow is what it is about in speed, at least in the flats. Another speculation was that they were playing with the FIS rules regarding radius.

 

Frankly the amount of 'reverse camber' at the tip was so minimal, that I didn't notice it until I had skied them a few times, put them base to base and thought I had bent them.

 

Back to pow and crud skis, my friends that ski reverse camber/pre decambered (MegaWatt, EHP 4FRNT) prefer to keep them on the soft and crud, they aren't jazzed about them on the hard pack. A common malady of something like the Spatula is tip splay; you are bombing down a cat track and the tips diverge leaving you flat on your face.

 

IMO, for skiing a wide range of snow from hard pack to pow, a 25m radius, standard camber ski with about 100mm under foot is going to be the most useful for the widest range of conditions.

 

Of course, I just got my third pair of Atomic Powder Plus (165 BC and 165 alpine, 180 (tbd)) to go next to my Elan Quad Ones (awesome from soft to crud to pow (161 - 121 - 141), 184cm, they track 20m radius turns on hard pack) and my quiver of Rossi B2s, XXs, K2 Fours, 7 pair of race skis (DH through SL), K2 Hippy Stinx (telemark) ... which is to say I tend to keep my skis and as time goes on they get more specific for the use. If I had to choose one pair I'd take the Hippy Stinx: twin tip, 20m or so radius, 95mm underfoot, 170cm. They float, turn, switch, carve, swish/slide and are durable. Then my second ski would be the Quad One for a real powder day.

 

But then, I don't have to choose just one, thank Ullr!

 

MR

post #57 of 58

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by MastersRacer View Post

 


Could you give some specific examples, links to web sites would be handy, because the race skis I see don't look that. I checked the Fischer, Volkl, Stoekly, Rossignol and Atomic sites and they have no mention about any reverse or pre- camber technology; I have to assume that means they are traditional camber on all their race products.

 

I'm not referring to camber - more referring to tip profile. Most newer race skis have an elongated sidecut that goes beyond where the tip starts turning up. The turned up part of the tip is the same length, but it starts "early" with respect to the sidecut of the ski. Rossignol has given this tip shape a name - Snub Nose (a flattened tip that continues to get wider until almost the end of the ski's material).

 

Compare that to older race skis with longer, pointy tips. The sidecut ends at a point where the skis are still in contact with the snow.
 

My point is that this tip profile is the hard-snow equivalent of tip rocker, eliminating the grabby feel of having the widest part of the ski within the contact length (which would dig in like a spoon). As a result, the tips do not engage as sharply but you drastically improve control.

post #58 of 58

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by D(C) View Post

 

 

I'm not referring to camber - more referring to tip profile. Most newer race skis have an elongated sidecut that goes beyond where the tip starts turning up. The turned up part of the tip is the same length, but it starts "early" with respect to the sidecut of the ski. Rossignol has given this tip shape a name - Snub Nose (a flattened tip that continues to get wider until almost the end of the ski's material).

 

Compare that to older race skis with longer, pointy tips. The sidecut ends at a point where the skis are still in contact with the snow.
 

My point is that this tip profile is the hard-snow equivalent of tip rocker, eliminating the grabby feel of having the widest part of the ski within the contact length (which would dig in like a spoon). As a result, the tips do not engage as sharply but you drastically improve control.


I see what you mean; the side cut is still flaring out where the tip starts so the widest point of the front of the ski is actually off the snow, when on a flat ski. Thanks for making that clear to me.

 

Is rocker intended to ease turn initiation (reduce 'grabbiness') or to improve keeping the tip of the ski up in powder without having to change your body position (sit back)? It seems the former might be a benefit of designing for the latter.

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 › Pow ski trade off between fresh and crud?..