or Connect
EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › General Skiing Discussion › Implications of modern ski design?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Implications of modern ski design?

post #1 of 81
Thread Starter 
By "modern" ski design, I mean fully rockered or reverse camber designs. IMO the debate is done - and when the dust finishes settling, the vast majority of recreational ski will fit this description. Classic cambered shaped skis will largely be a thing of the past. I'm sure some folks will disagree. The next few years will tell the tale one way or another. 

Assuming the trend continues, a few interesting things happen...because full reverse and rockered skis do not need a ton of power to bend them into their basic turning shape. They are already there. Or most of the way there. In addition, these skis also tend to run "fatter" - even as they evolve from creatures of powder to all mountain use.

A few seasons of family experience with reverse camber and rockered skis makes me think a few bits of "common wisdom" may need some revisiting. 

Ski stiffness: We usually think of "expert" skis as relatively stiff and highly cambered. And there are reasons for that given how regular shaped skis behave. Especially on groomers. But this is not the case with more modern skis. Watching some pretty darn good skiers on EP Pros and Hell Bents makes me wonder if (to a point) tomorrow's expert skis will be relatively soft - allowing a skier to manage a range of radii with relatively subtle movements. Whereas, relatively, stiffer skis will allow people to get a feel for carving because such skis will be more amenable to locking in a carve & letting someone just cruise it.

Boot stiffness: Again, there is no longer the same need to power through the tips. So what is the point of a boot whose primary mission is to push all that power to the tips to it can be applied to flexing the entire ski? Rolling a modern ski engages an edge already in (or partially in) its turning shape. And it engages that edge much closer to the skier. Sometimes right under foot.  So there's an argument to be made for softer boots - maybe with a greater stance range - oriented toward facilitating position changes rather than "driving". 

Bindings: This has been discussed a bit before even in the context of conventional fatter skis... Dropping skinnier skis allows more degrees of freedom in design. And at a minimum allows a more stable interface to evolve by widening the platform and the screw pattern. Why not just drop everything shy of 90 mm or so? And this of course leads to the question of the boot/binding interface - and what that would look like if freed from the past - & how wide it should be...

I'm not sure where things will really land. I'm not saying that all expert skis will end up being total noodles. Nor am I saying that everyone will be skiing in 4E width tennis shoes. But I'm pretty convinced that the design trend in ski "shape" has implications not only for technique,  but for a variety of aspects of ski design/construction. And for other related pieces of equipment like boots & bindings.

I think we'll see some interesting changes in equipment the next few years -- and  in our assumptions about what represents "expert" or "enthusiast" level equipment. Heck - many  assumptions about "beginner" equipment & instruction may get turned on their heads.

Crazy? Or not crazy? Other implications I missed?

[flame retardant suit mode  ]...
post #2 of 81
When they are faster through the gates of various distances, and when they are better in bumps and in the park (and when Elvis is skiing on them)  they will be the primary ski design and no longer a niche product.   For soft deep powder I can see a lot of demand.  But, what if people turn away from powder skiing in droves?  What's in now is often out ten years from now.  It all works in cycles.  Racing in the 60s, freestyle in the 70s, racing in the 80s, powder in the 90s. park and pipe and powder currently.  Who's to say what the preferred 2020 skiing will be?
post #3 of 81
I see the “new skis” having several impacts and essentially making skiing more like snowboarding. I think the bottom line is that they can eliminate the need to carve a turn in order to be maneuverable in most conditions, and therefore have a much shorter learning curve. Like snowboarding, this could give a big boost to skier numbers, as more people can take it up and get to a moderately proficient level more quickly and easily.
 
I also think the positive is a big negative in many ways. Like snowboards, rockered skis allow marginally skilled skiers to get down steep slopes and funky snow conditions more or less in control by side slipping or doing large smear turns, which IMO messes up a huge amount of skiable snow for the rest of us. Like snow boarders, I am starting to see fat rockered hacks on slopes they really have no business being on because they cannot come close to “skiing” it.  An intermediate skier cannot easily sideslip in any condition (much less deep snow) on traditional skis, so they stay away from deep powder and steep areas until they can actually make turns. With fat rockers you can just slip the areas you can’t handle, but IMO you mess you the snow in the process.
 
Every ski area has limited steeps and powder, and I believe with the new skis we will see it clogged and used up by marginally skilled skiers that are just getting down it without really “skiing” in much greater numbers. Of course, all of this presupposes that you agree with my definition of “skiing.”  A handful of skiers smearing their big turns can wipe out a huge amount of powder in one run.  I am sure they are having fun, but it doesn't leave much for the rest of us.  There is no doubt that rockered skis are here to stay for the foreseable future, and I will certainly be using them, but sliding them sideways for extended distances does not yet fit into my definition of "skiing." 
post #4 of 81
Your theory is dependent on the fact that it snows frequently.  In most areas that is not the case.  The vast majority of recreational skiers spend most of their time on firm groomers & bumps.  It is true that the ski manufacturers & marketeers would have you believe that every ski holiday is spent floating through untracked sparkling fields of feather light powder, but it just ain't reality!  It is a disservice to the average skier/consumer to have them believe that rockered skis are ideal tools for the conditions that they are likely to encounter.  I am not saying that the fat rockered technology doesn't have its place.  The fact is, putting learning skiers on this technology will impede their progress to one day safely enjoy those pristine ungroomed slopes.
It will be interesting to watch what happens with gear in the next decade.  The last one was certainly a re:evolution.

JF
post #5 of 81
Quote:
Originally Posted by 4ster View Post

The vast majority of recreational skiers spend most of their time on firm groomers & bumps. 
JF
 The other side of my complaint is that we can now look forward to hearing more of that disconcerting sound of fat rockers (formerly just snowboarders) slidding down the hardpack with a very loose contol behind us on the groomed runs. 
post #6 of 81
Quote:
Originally Posted by mudfoot View Post

The other side of my complaint is that we can now look forward to hearing more of that disconcerting sound of fat rockers (formerly just snowboarders) slidding down the hardpack with a very loose contol behind us on the groomed runs. 
 


Mudfoot, you were posting your initial post at the same time as I was.  You said about everything that I didn't. 

It will be fun to hear from the Loveland skiers when they get back from riding the WROD the first day.  I'm sure, as was the case last year. that there will be many stories of the *"knee waisters" pivoting out of control on their twin tip rockers.

JF
*Knee waister = One who wears their pants so low, they think their waist is actually somewhere around their knees.
post #7 of 81
We in North America only represent a part of skiing, and a minority of the ski buyers in the world.  The European skier is more race oriented, and that is still the corporate center of most major ski companies and design.  The corporations will build what the market will purchase with the least amount of redesign or retooling.  Profit uber all!  What % of the alternative shaped skis are being sold in the non North American markets, think that will tell the tale of change.

There is definitely a place for the alternative shaped skis, they are not going a way, too much fun; but do you really think that they will take over the world market? 
post #8 of 81
My own observations from the environs of Lak Tayhooee would be something like this.......

Storm Day........You see more and more versions of rocker with the milder ones dominant.
Day After..........You still see them but in smaller numbers
2 days after.......Notsomuch
3 days after.......Gone

This comes from my observations made while skiing Tahoe resorts and typical Tahoe snow conditions during the '08-9 season.

Of course this could change, but in the very near future it probably won't. The reasons are varied but in general, the ski manufacturers are not breaking records in R&D for mid-width expert level, rockered skis. Some companies are dabbling in this sort of concept for beginner skis (where it makes some sense) but even there, acceptance is questionable at this time. What possibly may happen first is a proliferation of "marketing" (ie: invisible) rocker.

At this point, the ski companies are saying......................."weelllllll.....here it is if you want it" This approach will not convert the market instantly because the commitment is vague. OTH, if the companies make a full commitment, then the conversion might work. One possiblity that has some legs is that a major manufacturer (like K2) might take their whole middle collection and apply some level or other of rocker to it and just say something to the effect of...."this is better....and this is what you are getting" It would take a major supplier with enormous market share to drive it, but it could happen.

This is largely the way the shaped ski revolution went. Within two years, every company had followed Elan and fully committed to shaped skis, it was off and running and you couldn't buy a straight ski (except for raceland).

Remains to be seen..................

SJ
Reply
post #9 of 81
Some skiers will not be interested in RR gear,others will go both ways. The pushers pack-out soft snow and scrap off marginal snowpacks. Whatever kind of equipment skiers use to mask the skills, it's still the skier.
post #10 of 81
Spin, I wonder if you're not projecting your own experience to the at-large skiing public.

I know that you and your family ski (mostly) in the Pacific Northwest and you ski (mostly) on new snow and softish snow.  For those conditions, rockered/reverse-cambered skis work well.  But do you ever actually spend very much time on groomed, hard snow with those skis?

The average skier (if there is such a critter) spends very little time on soft snow, crud, and powder.  I'm fairly sure that MOST skiers at US resorts never leave a groomed or bumped run.  In Europe, I think that percentage is probably even higher although my experience with European skiing is severely limited.

Do you REALLY feel that a rockered/reverse-cambered ski with a MINIMUM of 90mm underfoot is better for a groomed-run skier than a traditional design with less than 80mm underfoot?  My own experience when instructing lower-level skiers at my resort would suggest otherwise.

I also think it's interesting that a pretty high percentage of the niche builders of these non-traditional skis are niche players headquartered (to use the term loosely) in the western US.  The "big" ski manufacturers (mostly based in Europe) are certainly starting to include non-traditional models in their lineups, but I don't see much evidence that they're abandoning anything under 90mm.  I think you would have a very hard time selling a fat, rockered ski to an all-piste skier in St. Anton, for instance, and Europe is where a huge number of skis are sold every year. 

On the boot thing, I agree with you that as long as a boot model has significant LATERAL stiffness, the fore/aft stiffness is far less important.  It is, however, totally a matter of individual taste.

As for bindings, what I think you seem to be suggesting is that the ski public in general would be so much better off if those tunnel-visioned binding companies would just start making 130mm-wide binding platforms (and eliminate the models that would fit on a 65mm ski).  This one just circles back to my fundamental disagreement with you on which kind of ski is most appropriate for an intermediate skier who spends most or all of their time on groomed, hard-snow runs.  I completely fail to understand how a rockered design makes any sense at all for that skier.  Having the ski pre-bent into a turning shape just begs the question of why have any portion of ski AT ALL extending beyond the rocker point for that skier.
post #11 of 81
Spindrift,
   Do us all a favor and go ski in Michigan or New Hampshire or Pennsylvania, then start to speculate about 'future gear'.

I'm not saying you are way off base, just that you aren't seeing what is going on outside of the PNW. There are areas where lots of people ski on purely man-made snow. These folks will not benefit from rockered skis, there may be a place for 'GLM' style 'learner' skis that help never-ever skiers get a feel for the snow but I feel camber and sidecut won't disappear from firm snow skis for advanced and expert skiers. As for expert skis getting softer, once again, it's all a matter of intended use. A guy like Eric Pollard or Pep Fujas will be on soft surf-y skis but guys like ian McIntosh probably won't... ever.

Boots really need to see a re-do. The current situations sucks. They don't fit fit right initially, they're hard to put on and take off. They could be better for sure. I agree... up to a point. I think that softer boots will help some, stiff boots help others, I don't think boots will get a lot softer without a major shift like some form of exo-skeleton that they interface with, and I really don't see a new 'Nava' binding any time soon.

I don't see a problem with modern binding design. If boots get softer and skis get softer then why do we need a wider platform binding? For more torsional rigidity? Seems like two (or four) steps back and one (or half) a step forward to me.

... but I've been wrong before.
post #12 of 81
Even for, say, freeskiing comps or AK heli guides, traditional sidecut and camber aren't going to go away, at least for some conditions.

For the intermediate skier in the northeast, they definitely won't go away. 

The people who've opened minds to new ski shapes are owed huge thanks by the sport and by the people who can enjoy themselves moire, in the right conditions.  Very similar to modern suspensions and mtb or moto...but bmx riders don't use suspension even though the population overlap between them and mtb and moto is considerable (bmxers experimented with suspension and with gears, and both fell by the wayside).

The next big innovation for both racing and the average recreational skier will be variations on Lib Tech's "wavy" sidecut, which will make it easier for them to hold an edge on firm snow...but even Lib Tech's own athletes don't all like that for some uses.  Choices are good, take what youneed.
post #13 of 81
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stranger View Post

We in North America only represent a part of skiing, and a minority of the ski buyers in the world.  The European skier is more race oriented, and that is still the corporate center of most major ski companies and design.  The corporations will build what the market will purchase with the least amount of redesign or retooling.  Profit uber all!  What % of the alternative shaped skis are being sold in the non North American markets, think that will tell the tale of change.

There is definitely a place for the alternative shaped skis, they are not going a way, too much fun; but do you really think that they will take over the world market? 

Absolutely true. The economics of scale and sales will dictate how fast the companies would convert their lineups even if they decided that they should. Also true that the US market has always been prone to embracing concepts that appear to be "fringe" to the Euros. That's all good I guess, we laugh and ridicule them, they laugh and ridicule us. However, they build the skis so convincing them is a challenge. The Asian market in general also tends to embrace trendy ideas but the skiers there tend to be focused on things other than freerideland so it's tough to expect a lot of support from that market.

Remains to be seen........................

SJ
Reply
post #14 of 81
Quote:
Originally Posted by Whiteroom View Post

Spindrift,
   Do us all a favor and go ski in Michigan or New Hampshire or Pennsylvania, then start to speculate about 'future gear'.

 

Ackshully.....he doesn't even have to go that far. Lak Tayhoooeee would suffice. Last year from 12-26-08 to 2-5-09 we got very little new snow. Maybe a spit here or there but basically zip. I had my usual 30 pr. quiver available to me during that period and skied all of 'em at least once. How do 'ya think those rockered skis worked during that 6 week period????

Hint:...................notsogood.........or more pointedly.........purtydangsuckybad.

So.................taking over the market???.......I dunnoboutdat.

SJ
Reply
post #15 of 81
This group is in general a bunch of pretty compulsive people, including yours truly .  We lean towards the fanatics of the sport, we are the ones most likely to own a pair or more of silly skis.  The majority of us have a quiver of one extent or another.  Mine is probably smaller than most and can still dig up 5 pairs of functioning skis in the garage.

Wonder what percentage of skiers do own more than one pair of alpine skis?  Would guess that we, and our brothers and sisters, represent the minority of skis sold.  If this logic is valid the actual numbers of alternative shaped skis would be pretty minuscule.  Anybody out there involved with SIA have any data on this?
post #16 of 81
Thread Starter 
Lots of good points to discuss. Here's my quick (sort of) summary response...

Bob, whiteroom, et al, you are of course correct that I am projecting my experience and observations. Don't we all. But am I trying to do it without wearing blinders. And in a way consistent with my observations of "disruptive technologies" in other areas.

I think that anyone who questions the utility of rockered skis across a wide range of conditions just is not "getting them". This is not to say that everyone has to love them - especially if you've honed your skills on a different kind of ski. But I know people using HBs and EPs who outcarve the vast, vast majority of people (including racers) on "carving" skis on an average PNW day. And just plain murder it on deep or slushy days. And these skis give up nothing on perfect groomers in terms of what they can do (again, preference aside).  I'll grant that today's designs fall off on serious hardpack and icy bumps - which we in the PNW have less of than many places - but we are just at the beginning of a major design cycle & I'd be shocked if the designs don't become far more "all conditions" over the next few years. 

I do think fatter rockered skis (not necessarily 130 range) make sense for beginners. Why do you guys want newbs to suffer on intrinsically unstable & hooky platforms for many, many days before they feel a hint of comfort and competence. Why not start them on something they can stand on & can skid ala slarving - even on green groomers. And then let them incrementally add carving into their toolkit? How is this worse than the habits formed playing wedge games?

Yes, there is a geographic & demographic issue. But that's no reason to close your eyes. This is classic "disruptive technology" territory. The rumor mill could be wrong - but the rumor mill seems to be indicating that K2 will have some element of rocker in their entire lineup next year. And, circumstantially, it seems that Volkl is dabbling with a significant leap (just by virtue of some of their designs this year - including the fairly significant change in the Katana). Line and Armada are marching down this road as well. (and yes, I know a number of these are siblings...) And the credible US based Indies are almost all focused on rockered skis. Heck, even Movement has an interesting model on the table this year - and word is that it is a shockingly good carver.

edit: Maybe I'm just plain wrong. It has happened once or twice before.  But my assumption is that this trend is unstoppable. The questions for me revolve around what it implies.
Edited by spindrift - 10/7/09 at 2:11pm
post #17 of 81
Quote:
Originally Posted by spindrift View Post

...
I do think fatter rockered skis (not necessarily 130 range) make sense for beginners. Why do you guys want newbs to suffer on intrinsically unstable & hooky platforms for many, many days before they feel a hint of comfort and competence. Why not start them on something they can stand on & can skid ala slarving - even on green groomers. And then let them incrementally add carving into their toolkit? How is this worse than the habits formed playing wedge games?...
 


The wedge games haven't been needed for a long time.  I agree that you could take an athletic beginner to the right terrain  and they'd have a ball, relatively speaking, with a ski with some combo of early rise, mild underfoot camber, etc. in, say, 95-ish at the waist.  Throw in the wavy sidecut while you're at it.

Or, for a situation where soemone is learning on truly consistently soft or mixed snow, full-on reverse camber and sidecut, or pull out the wooden water skis bought off ebay.

But, for a learning area in the Catskills, I think the current skis are pretty well evolved, though for an athletic beginner my own bias would be towards sitffer boots and skis than most would recommend. 
post #18 of 81
Well...wait a minute.  We already have quivers, aren't the New Thangs just another addition to the quiver?  As in, I have 12 pairs of race skis, I suppose it's possible that race skis could go in the rockered direction, but I don't see what good that would do.  In addition to my race boards, I also have stuff like mid-fats and wide fats that I use to powder and More Powder.  I can see myself getting a pair of rockered skis sometime soon...but that doesn't mean I have to chuck my race skis...does it?

post #19 of 81
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stranger View Post

We in North America only represent a part of skiing, and a minority of the ski buyers in the world.  The European skier is more race oriented, and that is still the corporate center of most major ski companies and design.  The corporations will build what the market will purchase with the least amount of redesign or retooling.  Profit uber all!  What % of the alternative shaped skis are being sold in the non North American markets, think that will tell the tale of change.

There is definitely a place for the alternative shaped skis, they are not going a way, too much fun; but do you really think that they will take over the world market? 

This is true. I was using mythic riders in the french alps in Feb and usually had the fattest skis in the lift queue at 88mm even on pow days. You would be very hard pressed to find anything over 100mm in the rental shops.

Part of this is due to the fact that euro resorts don't have avy controlled patrolled inbounds off piste skiing so the vast majority of people will not get off the groomed, the most they will have to deal with is some crud on a pow day before everything gets groomed again overnight.The other part of it is the snow. Ice, hardpack and variable conditions are normal and even off piste in the alps you could encounter all kinds of different conditions in one run. It's a different kind of skiing.

I think the extra width, rocker etc. will do more to hurt the majority of people's skiing over here than help it but the 'new technology' will help ski manufs shift skis and persuade people to buy. Despite the huge amount of euro ski brands they seem more focused on US conditions.
post #20 of 81
Besides the trend toward fat, the OP mentioned less stiff.  Does a trend toward a less stiff ski and boot require a concomitant trend toward fat & rockered skis?  With newer materials, can't a cambered ski be less stiff and more responsive?
post #21 of 81
Quote:
Originally Posted by SkiRacer55 View Post

Well...wait a minute.  We already have quivers, aren't the New Thangs just another addition to the quiver?  As in, I have 12 pairs of race skis, I suppose it's possible that race skis could go in the rockered direction, but I don't see what good that would do.  In addition to my race boards, I also have stuff like mid-fats and wide fats that I use to powder and More Powder.  I can see myself getting a pair of rockered skis sometime soon...but that doesn't mean I have to chuck my race skis...does it?


Certainly not..........although...........

BITD in the glory daze of Pro Ski Racing, there was the nationwide WPT and there were some regional tours mostly sponsored by Peugot. It was a reasonably big deal as the regional tour winner won a new car. In the Western tour there were some really good skiers evidenced by the fact that when the WPT came west the national guys didn't generally win over the locals.

So???????????

There was this local Tahoe guy who had been on the USST and raced Europa Cup and Euro FIS races for years. He retired from the international scene, got married etc. etc. But he still raced on the Peugot tour when he could. When he did, he often won no matter who was there.

He raced on Hexcels (really) and as the pro ruts got deeper and deeper he got faster and faster and faster. By the end of the finals, his skis would be rockered. They took the bend of the ruts and held it. He was really fast anyway but he always made the joke that his skis gave him an advantage when the ruts got deep.

So.....rockered race skis?........maybeso if you bring back the old pro tour format.......

Otherwise...........Nahhhhhh................

SJ
Reply
post #22 of 81
Quote:
Originally Posted by SierraJim View Post


He raced on Hexcels (really) and as the pro ruts got deeper and deeper he got faster and faster and faster. By the end of the finals, his skis would be rockered. They took the bend of the ruts and held it. He was really fast anyway but he always made the joke that his skis gave him an advantage when the ruts got deep.

So.....rockered race skis?........maybeso if you bring back the old pro tour format.......

Otherwise...........Nahhhhhh................

SJ
 

Oct 7, 2009

Hi SierraJim:

As I've asked in another thread, are "Rocker" skis the next big revolution/wave in ski design, EVEN FOR EAST COAST FIRM SNOW skiing?  I had picked bits and pieces of this up at a local ski gathering.  I didn't get the full story and I may be mistaken.  Anyway you would be able to elaborate?

Think snow,

CP
post #23 of 81
Quote:
Originally Posted by CharlieP View Post




........................ are "Rocker" skis the next big revolution/wave in ski design, EVEN FOR EAST COAST FIRM SNOW skiing? .....................

CP
 

For the conditions you describe.....unequivocally not.

SJ
Reply
post #24 of 81
Quote:
Originally Posted by spindrift View Post
 How is this worse than the habits formed playing wedge games?
 


Troll !!!  

Spindrift,  there's now lift serviced terrain open in the U.S. so there's no need to lob nuclear grenades to get your jollies.  Go skiing, not starting WW III.
post #25 of 81
Wow.........
Quote:
Originally Posted by SierraJim View Post




Certainly not..........although...........

BITD in the glory daze of Pro Ski Racing, there was the nationwide WPT and there were some regional tours mostly sponsored by Peugot. It was a reasonably big deal as the regional tour winner won a new car. In the Western tour there were some really good skiers evidenced by the fact that when the WPT came west the national guys didn't generally win over the locals.

So???????????

There was this local Tahoe guy who had been on the USST and raced Europa Cup and Euro FIS races for years. He retired from the international scene, got married etc. etc. But he still raced on the Peugot tour when he could. When he did, he often won no matter who was there.

He raced on Hexcels (really) and as the pro ruts got deeper and deeper he got faster and faster and faster. By the end of the finals, his skis would be rockered. They took the bend of the ruts and held it. He was really fast anyway but he always made the joke that his skis gave him an advantage when the ruts got deep.

So.....rockered race skis?........maybeso if you bring back the old pro tour format.......

Otherwise...........Nahhhhhh................

SJ

 
post #26 of 81
Quote:
Originally Posted by slider View Post


Wow.........

 

Total poach of Spin's thread but another Hexcel racer story.........

I was on sabbatical from one one of my ski industry jobs one year and was spending about 2 weeks in Mammoth camping in my truck and "just skiin' man".

So....one cold morning, I'm on 210 GS skis lapping chair 3 down to the gondola. I get passed by a flying ponytail about halfway down St. Anton. I think to meself.......buwlshiiite!! and pour on the burners. I hit the Gondy line in time to catch up w/said ponytail only to discover that she is skiing Hexcels. On the ride up, I ask why the topsheet of her skis look uhhhhh....lumpy. Turns out she was skiing her husbands' old skis (another pro racer and USST guy) and they had lead tape on the tip and tail with a Hexcel graphic sticker over the tape. She said she couldn't ski 'em without the lead tape.............She sure could ski 'em with the tape though.

OK end of poach and back to Spin's topic........

SJ
Reply
post #27 of 81
I am a big advocate of wide rockered skis.

As part of a quiver.

For a one-ski-quiver, I don't think they make sense.  There may be some rockered skis that are starting to get there, like the PM Gear Lhasa Pow, but they are inevitably about hanging in there until the good stuff hits.
post #28 of 81
 Totally intense...I'm a gear head, and I think that gear matters, but I also think that the truly great can ski on a pair of barrel staves and do Great Things...great story...



Quote:
Originally Posted by SierraJim View Post




Certainly not..........although...........

BITD in the glory daze of Pro Ski Racing, there was the nationwide WPT and there were some regional tours mostly sponsored by Peugot. It was a reasonably big deal as the regional tour winner won a new car. In the Western tour there were some really good skiers evidenced by the fact that when the WPT came west the national guys didn't generally win over the locals.

So???????????

There was this local Tahoe guy who had been on the USST and raced Europa Cup and Euro FIS races for years. He retired from the international scene, got married etc. etc. But he still raced on the Peugot tour when he could. When he did, he often won no matter who was there.

He raced on Hexcels (really) and as the pro ruts got deeper and deeper he got faster and faster and faster. By the end of the finals, his skis would be rockered. They took the bend of the ruts and held it. He was really fast anyway but he always made the joke that his skis gave him an advantage when the ruts got deep.

So.....rockered race skis?........maybeso if you bring back the old pro tour format.......

Otherwise...........Nahhhhhh................

SJ

 
post #29 of 81
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by sharpedges View Post


Troll !!!  

Spindrift,  there's now lift serviced terrain open in the U.S. so there's no need to lob nuclear grenades to get your jollies.  Go skiing, not starting WW III.
 

Not trolling at all. I'm totally serious. Although I was certainly aware we'd have some fun debate on the topic. I have no emotional stake in this - just an opinion born of observation and putting in probably north of a hundred days on this class of ski --- although admittedly the quality of my skiing does not correlate as much as I'd like with my quantity of skiing... Which, also admittedly, may influence my opinion... Oh well - my fun factor is right up there! How many days have you been out the past couple months? I've cleared day 7 for my season so far.

As for SJ's & others' take that fully rockered (and usually somewhat fatter) skis can't make for OSQs -- I'm just going to say that some of the senior folks at some of the biggest specialty ski sellers in the US are merrily (and sometimes seemingly quietly) skiing things like Hell Bents and EP Pros as one ski quivers (and heck, even I will agree to ignore the use of Pontoons as such). This includes at least one person I can think of in the NE. And these are folks who can ski literally any ski they want any day of the week. Obviously this is still a relatively small group, but clearly the jury is still out...
Edited by spindrift - 10/7/09 at 6:07pm
post #30 of 81
What he said: Just another arrow in the quiver, same concept of best ski for conditions. If you ski a lot of powder, how could you not have a pair, S-7s or Kuros, Praxis and the like.

It is  possible that skis from early rise and partial rocker to full rocker will become a majority of powder skis being made. I would favor keeping existing popular lines intact (Gotama > rockered tip and tail) and adding new models. Otherwise we may be losing our options.

Quote:
Originally Posted by SkiRacer55 View Post

Well...wait a minute.  We already have quivers, aren't the New Thangs just another addition to the quiver?  ......

Edited by davluri - 10/7/09 at 7:27pm
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: General Skiing Discussion
EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › General Skiing Discussion › Implications of modern ski design?