Why don't all ski builders list this detail?

TC...because some people are only interested in what color they are.....

Because then they'd have to stick to them.  If they don't list them publicly then people won't notice <quality> variance from them.

Because with that information, what exactly do you know about how the skis will perform on snow that:  140-115-120  22.8m turn radius, tip and tail rocker  don't ???

Let me answer for you: absolutely NOTHING.

That's why.

4 out of 5 posters on Epicski are paralyzed by information overload... and they still can't get it even CLOSE to right. "Should I buy a Mantra or a Gotama..."  they are nothing alike. You shouldn't be grouping them together at all. More info will make people more stupid-er.

I just lost my longish post due to the F'ing links opening in the same window...


Anyways, whiteroom nailed it, too much info for the masses. Scott @ ON3P (iggyskier) is just catering to his target market with that info.

I gather that you'd advocate manufacturers not bother to disclose sidecut dimensions because it would be too confusing to some people?

There is a world of difference in what "minirocker" ala last year's Obsethed implies vs the kind of tip rocker found on a Megawatt implies. It is like the difference between a 30 meter siidecut radius and  a 15 meter sidecut radius.

In one sense you are right, that the fine details do not matter. I mean, would 99% of the skiers out there be able to tell if they are on an 18 meter sidecut ski vs a 21 meter sidecut ski in a blind test under random snow conditions and terrain? I doubt it. I would not be surprised if I could not. OTOH, can people grasp and notice the difference between a slalom sidecut, an "all around" sidecut and a bit mountain sidecut? Heck yes. 

A we move toward a world where virtually all skis will have some level of rocker incorporated in their design, it'll be mighty useful for folks to have some sense of the scale of that rocker in terms of both length and rise - and whether it is tip only or tip+tail, and whether it is relatively symmetrical or not.

My bet is that the real answer to the OP's question is that rocker is new enough that the skis it appeared on were well understood within their (limited, as noted above) target market. And only now are folks like iggyskier at ON3P, Keith at Praxis, etc., and some bigger companies like K2,  Line, Armada, Volkl, etc. releasing significant lines of skis with different rocker characteristics. So we are seeing them start to try to provide descriptions of rocker profiles in their skis - ranging from Keith's fairly generic verbal specs to some of the others providing the kind of length/rise info iggyskier and K2 do.

Edited by spindrift - 8/2/2009 at 03:01 pm GMT
Edited by spindrift - 8/2/2009 at 03:04 pm GMT

I kind of agree with both of you. Some of it is just technical jargon that many skiers can't understand or comprehend. While for some of us, me in particular, have the knowledge of the skis we've liked in the past and tend to enjoy the feel of similar lengths and sidecuts along with turn radius. So, these numbers are quite important when it comes to deciding what new skis to demo or if you are considering renting on a trip.

Also, like it or not, we all tend to lean towards skis that have attractive graphics. After all, we have to look at themin lift lines and on chairs.

So, I guess I'd tend to want to know as much information about a ski and it's dimensions as possible. What all that means to me is up to me to decide what's important and what's not.

TMI strikes again.  There was a day, not so long ago, when you would see some ads in the magazines, walk into a shop, flex some skis, look at the side cut, and buy a pair.  We obsessive types might go back a few times and fondle the contenders.  (Or skied the ones they gave me for free) 

This has gotten nuts!  Was going to buy a new pair last year, and started to demo, and demo, and demo.....  Skied at least 8 pairs could have been very happy with, but got stuck in the paralysis through analysis syndrome.  The more research I did the more confused I got.  After reading about all the skis since the snow melted have finally figured it all out.

This fall will go to the tent sale and buy the red ones.  Blue one and black one can be good, but red ones are always the best.

I don't think Scott's target market is the typical Epic Ski info overloaded buyer.
Rather from reading what he posted up on those Billy Goats, I am thinking poor man's Lhasa Pows and I would buy a pair if my quiver didn't cover what these bring to the game.
I really appreciate all the info he posted on on his products and I can't wait for some gear reviews on his skis this winter. I wish all manufacturers were as clear in their specs as ON3P is.

1) No, his target market is the TGR "Dude, I'm so fricken' Gnarcore I need hand made powder skis (made in someone's Mom's garage), 'cause, like, I'm a sick, badass eSkier!!!!"

2) So the PRICE TAG is what is catching your attention... most manufacturers supply that.

3) So, you want reviews and real-world (as if TGR is 'real-world') comments. Shocking.


You know what? On second thought you are all correct, manufacturer's should supply extensive specs for all their skis. It makes eSkiing much more enjoyable.

so Whiteroom has some sort of issue today...

Wow. Whoa. Take a deep breath. Ever even seen an ON3P ski? On the hill? The ON3P posse was pounding the crap out of their designs in my neighborhood last year. I'm pretty sure that what they are doing is more relevant to the future of recreational skiing than most of what most of the the old guard companies are doing - I mean who really needs anther half mm tweak on an old already irrelevant design predicated on salted/injected conditions?

Every community has its quirks, but before you go slamming TGR, maybe consider the number of ski industry execs, designers, team riders, companies, etc. who monitor & post there (and NS). I'm pretty sure that the numbers are substantially larger than they are here. And that's just the overt ones. 

Rocker is making its way into the mainstream. In a few years, it'll be taken for granted. Which community dove in first - and provided feedback - both conceptual and in response to early protos and production runs? And spawned/supported several manufacturers still selling skis today? 

I enjoy both communities, but honestly - if you want real reviews of modern designs, TGR is one of the best sources on the net.  Doubt it? Just go check out the history of reviews and discussions of Spats, Pontoons, Praxis, ARGs, DP Lotus - and their assorted cousins and progeny. Tie that in to the lines you see for this year and 10/11. And what you are seeing on the hill.



Edited by spindrift - 8/2/2009 at 05:51 pm GMT

I like TGR, a lot. It makes me laugh.

There is quite a bit of valid, useful info there... and when someone says something that is completely stupid, they are told so. Quickly. In no uncertain terms.

There is also plenty of chest-thumping, dick-waving, gnarcore-ness. No?




*by the way, I don't care. I'm not 'angry', or annoyed, or disgruntled... a bit bored, maybe, but not angry or annoyed.

Honestly, I'd rather know  a bit more detail about flex than optimal turn radius in millimeters.

Just because most people wouldn't get any additional insight out of the in-depth info doesn't mean it shouldn't be available.

I think tip-to-tail measurement is very useful information, I'd rather decide for myself how a ski will perform rather than a company arbitrarily assigning a length. K2 is probably the worst offender of this. For example, a 179 Hellbent actually measures 187.5cm. With all the different shapes skis have now, length isn't a good indicator of how "big" it will ski (S7, Lhasa, Billy Goat come to mind), which is why effective edge is important. Same with different types of rocker, Megawatt/Hellbent rocker is completely different than Czar rocker. So if I know the actual length of the ski, the amount tip/tail rocker, effective edge length, I can take a pretty good stab at how a certain ski will perform on hard and soft snow... without even looking at it. I wouldn't mind seeing weights either, very useful for figuring out a touring rig.

Do they need to print all that on the ski itself? Of course not. Do the vast majority of skiers need/want/understand that info? Of course not. Would it be easy for manufacturers to have that information available in the back of their product brochure or website? Absolutely.

Mostly though, it just makes eSkiing more fun.

Quote:

a little over 10 years ago no one really talked about ski dimensions (tip/waist/tail) now its one of the #1 ways most folks narrow their search criteria...rise/rocker length and amount of rise tells you a lot about how a ski is going to work and it'll help those with an understanding of the measurements evaluate a ski and its characteristics.  Sure, there are lots of folks who get stymied on the shop floor trying to decide between 76mm waists and 80mm waists...and there will be just as many people baffled by rise/rocker dimensions but that doesn't mean the info shouldn't be published.  Just because some folks will be confused doesn't mean we should all have to live with no more information than the lowest common denomenator can comprehend. 

Any less 'core than me is a gaper. Anyone claiming to be more 'core than me is a weenie-waver.

Because if they did post sufficient detail, the customers wouldn't feel obliged to give the ski store an extra $1000. per pair of skis, to deal with these mysterious things..

I'd like to see more manufacturers include running length especially now most skis seem to have some kind of twin tip. Some kind of standardised way of comparing flex would also be good even if it’s not perfect. Eg. soft BROs are probably still stiffer than many skis on the market but there really is no way to compare.
 

A load of specs gives the impression of attention to detail, that the people making it know their stuff and went through some lengths to tweak it just right and that what is written on the site is not just written by the marketing dept (whether this is correct or not!). Whether people are interested in all of them depends on who the customer is. For a website though, I'd have all that detailed info in a 'specs' tab or something just like car and camera manufacturers do, this way you don't overwhelm people for whom it doesn’t mean much but the people that want the info can still easily find it.

Good suggestion. I will see if I can have out web guy update all the descriptions with flex information in the next few days.

The whole point of including the rocker data was because just saying rockered tip and tail tells you very little about the rocker.  It could be hardly anything at all, or it could be huge and hellbent-like.  We just wanted to list it so those who were interested in knowing what rocker they were getting can tell very easily.  Not everyone needs all that information, and I expect most will only read part of it, but we wanted it out there so the people who do want that info can find it.

Oh and whiteroom - we are out of the garage, and it wasn't my mom's .


Edited by iggyskier - 8/8/2009 at 08:25 am GMT

Hey Iggy,

While we're praising you for the attention to and sharing of details, could you post the weight on the Billy Goats please?  Specifically, I want to buy some 176s for my wife.  She loved the S7 last spring at a demo, both the playfulness and the light feel. 

I think the BGs will be very similar and I'd rather buy from you!  I just want to make sure they're not in a different weight range.

Thanks and good luck this year!

P.S.  Any way we can buy in PTD and pick up in person to save on shipping and enjoy OR sales tax?

As most of my skis at AT, weight is important.  And tuning details, how hard would it be to print recommended base and side bevels on the ski?

Just found some of the weight info for the protos, probably a little off for this year's skis...Didn't have the Billy Goat though...

http://oldschool.tetongravity.com/forums/showthread.php?t=136144&page=9

"Very tempting. Any chance you'll publish weights, or would feel comfortable estimating?

Edit:

just found this:

Some of these were measure with bindings. For the s916s, I used the weight 1460 grams. For the FKS 120, I used the weight 1050 grams. Not sure these are correct, but they are the only thing I have.

191cm Great Scott.
My pair, stiff flex, with s916
Average weight: 3971 grams per ski w/ s916
Average weight: 2511 grams per ski
Pair = 5.022 kg/pair or 11.07 lbs/pair.

I weighed one that was super stiff and it came in at 5.57 kg/pair, or 12.3 lbs/pair.

191cm Caylor.
My pair, medium flex (most were medium soft), with s916
Average weight: 3857 grams per ski w/ s916
Average weight: 2397 grams per ski
Pair = 4.8 kg/pair or 10.6 lbs/pair

191cm Wrenegade
My pair, stiff flex (most medium stiff), with s916
Average weight: 3760 grams per ski w/ s916
Average weight: 2300 grams per ski
Pair = 4.6 kg/pair or 10.15 lbs/pair

186cm Jeronimo
My pair, stiff flex (most medium), with s916
Average weight: 3804 grams per ski w/ s916
Average weight: 2344 grams per ski
Pair = 4.7 kg/pair or 10.23 lbs/pair

179 Blue Steele
My pair, stiff flex (most medium), with fks120
Average weight: 2815 grams per ski w/ fks120
Average weight: 1765 grams per ski
Pair = 3.5kg/pair or 7.7 lbs/pair

Hopefully these are accurate.

The weight on the skis will go up some when we go up from a 1.3mm thick edge and base material to 1.8mm. We will also be changing topsheets to something that will be screen printed instead of subliminated. But these will do for now. "

Weights are definitely important and as soon as I have them, I will update them.  Sorry I cannot really say much about them as of yet.  We changed a few things up, like thicker base material and edges, bit thinner core and a bit more glass, so we are not quite sure how much the weight will change. 

I definitely know if is something that people are going to want to know, though, so as soon as I have them I will get them up. 

If you like, I had two 186cm Billy Goat testers who spent time on the 188cm s7 too.  I will see if I can find out a weight comparison as well as how they felt they skied.  If I remember correctly, weights were comparable, if not lighter for the BG.  Do remember our skis measure tip to tail, not flat material length, so I am guessing a 186cm Billy Goat is a touch longer than a 188cm s7.  I will double check though.

As far as side/base bevel, most of our testers went either 1 side/1 base or 2 side/1 base.  I think both work fine, but go 1/2 on my personal pairs.

And Taxman - if you are interested in a more AT focused ski, we are working on a new Wrenegade BC version for next season.  We have a lot of work ahead to make sure it is ready to go, but it loses most of the twin for decreased weight and easier kick turns, has a bit smaller turning radius so when the snow gets nasty it is more manageable, and we are working on using a different composite layup to bring the weight down ever more.  Just on the drawing board right now, but hopefully testing goes well and there is enough interest to send it to production.

Added to say yup - just click pick up in Portland and there is no shipping cost. 

<<<Ski'd S7s for a few days last year, and would have bought a pair had I not stumbled on to ON3P. Had a brief email exchange with iggyskier re S7s and goats and ended up pre-ordereding the Billy Goats. No i did not demo,  sometimes you have take a leap of faith.  Im sure you cant go wrong with either.  Lately ive been very concerned with the loss of usa manufacturing, so I wanted to support a ON3P. 

Some say the S7's have a negative tendency to "slash" or splay too quickly out of the back of turns.  I kinda of like that. For my style, which is mostly inbounds, I think its a benefit, particularly in locals that have a tendency to bump up quickly after fresh.  

I made my decision to buy a brand new car without even driving it.  I didn't need statistics and techinical info ad naseum.  Heck, the salesman didn't even talk me in to it.  I walked in with a fair idea if my needs and thought the dealer offered several models that fit my criteria.  It was busy so I just skimmed the literature, looked at the pictures, options, and then looked closer at the cars in the showroom while waiting for service.  When a salesman approached me I asked what they had in stock that fit my requirements.  We walked outside and looked at about five different cars.  I picked the one that had no sun roof and the right rack for my $50.00 big ski box.  I said "let's write up this"one".  He said "how bout you drive it first.?"  I said" OK, but not necessary, since it's anew car if there's something wring with the way it drives I'm pretty sure you guys will fix it".


I will add that the main criteria that steered me towards the brand and models was experiences others have shared here and other forums Word Of Mouth, and seeing them perform well on slick mountain roads.
No regrets, but if I did I'd adjust and use it until I found something I liked better and trade.

I take pretty much the same approach I take with skis.  I look for skis that appear to fill a void in the quiver that are also within price restrictions.  If I see what looks like a good deal I'll buy it and ski it.  If it rides different than I expected it to I just get used to it or hang them up and try something else when  I find it.  It 'actually helps my skiing technique to have to learn to ski something that didn't feel as comfortable as I had expected it to initially.

The phrase stands true.  There are no bad skis....... we all know the rest..