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? - Page 3

post #61 of 81
Quote:
Originally Posted by crgildart View Post

But, what if people turn away from powder skiing in droves?  What's in now is often out ten years from now. 
 

I'm really really really hoping this happens. Soon. Really. Seriously.

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'.
 

I easily could have skied my Praxis Powders everyday I skied Bohemia (an area in MI) last season.


I have to say I can't see traditional sidecut and at least some camber going away for groomer zooming any time soon.

I have however been a big proponent of soft boots for the past 15 or so years.
post #62 of 81
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jer View Post

I easily could have skied my Praxis Powders everyday I skied Bohemia (an area in MI) last season.

 

GOOD EXAMPLE!!!

Yup, ....  Bohemia is just a typical midwestern ski area....  Small, flat, groomed, and not much natural snow....
post #63 of 81
Quote:
Originally Posted by U.P. Racer View Post

GOOD EXAMPLE!!!

Yup, ....  Bohemia is just a typical midwestern ski area....  Small, flat, groomed, and not much natural snow....
 

I stand by my post. He did say "ski in Michigan". Bohemia is in Michigan.

I think Spin's going a bit overboard on the reverse/reverse revolution thing, but I also think WR's going a bit overboard on the "everything east of CO is boilerplate" thing. You don't need five feet of fresh to have fun on reverse camber or reverse/reverse skis.
post #64 of 81
I think we all have way too much time on our hands

The general hypothise of this thread is idiotic, and although a lot of people have beat arround the bush saying so:

Just let it die!
post #65 of 81
Thread Starter 
As I said before, let's keep "reverse sidecut" out of the discussion... I don't know of anyone pitching it as a design element for an all-around ski. It just muddies the conversation.

'course in powder, it sure is sweet...
post #66 of 81
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jer View Post




I stand by my post. He did say "ski in Michigan". Bohemia is in Michigan.

I think Spin's going a bit overboard on the reverse/reverse revolution thing, but I also think WR's going a bit overboard on the "everything east of CO is boilerplate" thing. You don't need five feet of fresh to have fun on reverse camber or reverse/reverse skis.

I agree, you are correct on both counts.
post #67 of 81
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Altaman View Post

The general hypothise of this thread is idiotic, and although a lot of people have beat arround the bush saying so:
 


I could simply state that your point of view is idiotic - without any rational discussion. Then we'd have a nice circular "idiotic" vs. "idiotic" thing going.  

But maybe you are right. So, why specifically do you believe this is "idiotic"? Does it violate your ski "religion"? Can you not get your head around a fatter ski that can carve more easily than some might think? Perhaps you prefer a ski that has catchy edges & tips - and hooks up unpredictably and falls apart in heavy or layered snow?  Is it sacrilege to think a ski that can smear and slide in ways that blend with carving could add to someone's technique quiver? And fun?

Or maybe I'm being presumptuous & you have lots of real world experience with these skis & can speak to their shortcomings? Do tell...

OK  - all poking aside. Can you provide a substantive reason why this is "idiotic"? 
Edited by spindrift - 10/9/09 at 6:18pm
post #68 of 81
Quote:
Originally Posted by spindrift View Post





I could simply state that your point of view is idiotic - without any rational discussion. Then we'd have a nice circular "idiotic" vs. "idiotic" thing going.  

But maybe you are right. So, why specifically do you believe this is "idiotic"? Does it violate your ski "religion"? Can you not get your head around a fatter ski that can carve more easily than some might think? Perhaps you prefer a ski that has catchy edges & tips - and hooks up unpredictably and falls apart in heavy or layered snow?  Is it sacrilege to think a ski that can smear and slide in ways that blend with carving could add to someone's technique quiver? And fun?

Or maybe I'm being presumptuous & you have lots of real world experience with these skis & can speak to their shortcomings? Do tell...

OK  - all poking aside. Can you provide a substantive reason why this is "idiotic"? 

 

Ok, this will be my only resoponse.

The vast majority say there is no one ski for all conditions.

If I said you could have an unlimited choice of 10 skis, free, no cost, are you saying all you would pick the same ski, or same type of ski?????????
post #69 of 81
Does anyone think that rockered skis in a 75mm to 80mm width might make a good beginner ski? Would the rocker help them initiate a turn further down on the ski where I presume beginners typically try and turn from and make it easier for them to turn? Would a rockered design work for an advanced or expert level carver for groomed run skiing? I don't know the answers but it seems like this could be another potential branch in ski evolution. Personally I don't think really wide skis are good for beginners due to the need to get the ski up on edge (from my experience the first time I tried to ski my Icelantic Nomads on groomed runs after doing ok on bump runs) but maybe the rocker design has some merit for narrower skis.
post #70 of 81
 The reason why traditional sidecuts have gotten deeper is because they make it easier plain and simple. A beginner skier does not need reverse anything when learning how to ski.
post #71 of 81
OK, just thought someone would have mentioned this already.

"Modern" ski design, is just like "old" ski design. The skis (over the last 40 years or so) for the public (recreational) usually evolve out of models designed for professionals.

20 - 30 years ago, I saw a lot of people skiing on long racing skis, because they (both the skis and the people using them) were "cool", not because most of those people could actually use them. They simply were in over their heads, mainly due to marketing.

Side note: 20+ years ago, the word "carving" wasn't a frequently heard word. Why did it take a change in ski design to allow people to be able to carve? Good skiers back then could carve on any ski.

Now, because of marketing, a lot of people are on skis that, IMO, really aren't the best for them. They see someone in a movie or magazine photo on those boards, and those are the ones they get. There are still a lot of ego-based skiers out there.

As for what's suitable, maybe the ski companies (who don't make much money on beginners) should get a group of non-skiers together and see who learns best on what.

Today's rockered designs have evolved out of park and big mountain riding. Sure, there are a lot of people in the parks, but the majority  of the people, recreational types, at the majority of ski areas, are on green and blue runs. Remember, they are there on vacation with their families.

As for the big mountain end, other than a very few select areas with lifts, most areas don't have that type of terrain (unless you go sidecountry). And most people can't afford a helicopter.

I still ski old school (gasp!). After 37 years, what works best for me in 90% of conditions is a 200 cm, very stiff, slalom racing ski. I do not (yet) ski in the parks. With over 30 pair of skis, I am now looking for something that I can use on deep powder days (actually, a rarity in Colorado, especially if you can only ski on weekends).

Last closing weekend Mary Jane got dumped on. I skied one day in knee to waist deep snow. The skinny skis didn't cut it, so I wound up on a pair of Volkl Vertigo G30 188 cm - the fattest I own (105 - 69 - 92). Those Volkl's just ripped through everything like crazy - trees, steeps, cliffs (we don't have too many of those), and even bumps while they were still around. The even worked great in knee deep crud later in the day.

But don't get me wrong, when I have the chance to ski places like Jackson or AK, you can be sure I'll be on something more modern.

Best wishes to all,
A White Raven
post #72 of 81
Quote:
Originally Posted by WhiteRaven View Post

Side note: 20+ years ago, the word "carving" wasn't a frequently heard word. Why did it take a change in ski design to allow people to be able to carve? Good skiers back then could carve on any ski.

This is very very untrue. The absolute elite level skiers were lucky to arc a few clean carves in the sub-40 meter range per season. The skis required a combination of sequential pressure and edging that was way beyond what even excellent skiers were capable of. They could ski, sure. They were skilled, they ripped... they just didn't carve turns very often... but they did ski bumps a lot better.
post #73 of 81
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jer View Post

I stand by my post. He did say "ski in Michigan". Bohemia is in Michigan.

I think Spin's going a bit overboard on the reverse/reverse revolution thing, but I also think WR's going a bit overboard on the "everything east of CO is boilerplate" thing. You don't need five feet of fresh to have fun on reverse camber or reverse/reverse skis.

Jer, I own skis that are 120mm, 108mm, 107mm, 101mm, 88mm underfoot and 4 sets of race skis. I'll probably end up with something like the S7 195 this season. Trust me, i know all about skiing fat skis in the east, I tell people all the time that fat and especially 'fun-shape' skis probably make a bigger impact here on 6" to 12" days because you really need to stay up on the surface because the base usually sucks. I know this.

I'm not saying it doesn't snow here... I wouldn't live here if that was the case. It snows here in Northern Vermont as much as it does in Colorado, it's just that the weather is worse so the snow doesn't build up nearly as much.

As for skiing your Praxis "every day that I skied at Bohemia last season..." well, that's great, but by chance did you just go to Bohemia when the conditions warranted skiing that particular ski? I'm curious.

Here's a quick story about how skiing can be in New England though:

About 8 or 9 years ago there was a father skiing with his daughter and her fiance, I can't remember the exact specifics but the fiance ended up on a trail called Angel Street which was closed due to icy conditions. really icy, like shiny like a mirror icy. The real deal boiler plate. He lost an edge and accelerated down the steep slope, was thrown over a knoll and broke his neck on impact. The father tried to help him by removing his skis so he could hike down to him. He apparently knew the slope was way too dangerous with his skis on. He also slipped and was thrown off the same knoll, he died on impact. The daughter, in a panic attempted to help and slid, breaking her leg and knocking herself unconscious. Ski patrol noticed them because of the two pairs of skis and no skiers at the top of a closed trail...

So yeah, we have powder days, we also have hardpack days that can and do kill people.

Around here edge grip matters.
post #74 of 81
Thread Starter 
It sounds to me as though not entering closed areas matters more than edges if you get my drift. I mean, we could discuss people dying in avys in permanently closed areas out west - and try to tie that back to ski design... Not much point though (even though it's been tried...).

For most recreational skiers and even serious enthusiasts, skiing true blue ice is not a day to day thing. As far as I can tell anyway. At least in my world, true powder days beat ice days by at least 10 to one. But really, for most people, neither is an everyday event.

I'd imagine most people's skis - both OSQs and quivers - should centered around "average". And be able to serve in other conditions as appropriate.

It seems pretty clear to me that the newer rockered designs will shine in this regard... Hence my initial assumption (or at least hope) that this discussion would be more about the implications of an inevitable shift rather than whether or not it will happen. Clearly not everyone here shares my assumption in this regard. 
Edited by spindrift - 10/11/09 at 12:01pm
post #75 of 81
Quote:
Originally Posted by spindrift View Post

It sounds to me as though not entering closed areas matters more than edges if you get my drift. I mean, we could discuss people dying in avys in permanently closed areas out west - and try to tie that back to ski design... Not much point though (even though it's been tried...).

For most recreational skiers and even serious enthusiasts, skiing true blue ice is not a day to day thing. As far as I can tell anyway. At least in my world, true powder days beat ice days by at least 10 to one. But really, for most people, neither is an everyday event.
 
 Spindrift, I'm completely open to the idea that a slightly rockered ski for recreational skiers may become a very popular thing. The point of your original post, not "what is best for experts in powder/ big mountain environments" or "what do racers want in a salted race course", but what will the next 5 to 10 years worth of everyday recreation skis look like, will they have traditional camber or will they evolve into something very different?

I can see why early rise/ rocker/ RC would help make a ski easier to smear and push till it's on edge, then the sidecut would kick in and allow a controlled turn. Take what many skiers are 'trying to do' with their gear now... they just don't realize they are doing it. Most skiers think they are carving when they aren't. The gear you are envisioning would work with what many recreational skiers are doing, it wouldn't force them to 'improve', it would work with them and allow (possibly) for them to enjoy their time on the hill more. If the gear isn't fighting their actions and punishing their mistakes they may enjoy the sport more, if they enjoy the sport more they may participate more, if they participate more they will improve. I get it.

... I'm just thinking that 95mm underfoot is too wide for a lot of skiers (especially those who are vertically challenged) in many places that don't get a lot of natural snow. Many skiers don't plan their days around snow conditions, they go skiing when they can and they get what get. This sometimes (at least where I grew up skiing) means rock hard snow.

... I'm also thinking that I know a couple of pretty darn talented skiers who love skiing groomers, they love to arc turns as much as (or more than) they like skiing powder. They ski narrower skis with camber because they are twitchy, hooky and grabby. In their hands that twitchy-ness is responsiveness. That hooky-ness is the edges engaging and pulling the ski into a powerful carve, and the grabby-ness is the edges biting into the snow as the edge slices a clean arc across the hill. Skiing, for many, is a performance sport... hell for some it's performance art. This is a group that will never, ever give up the feel of loading a ski up during the decamber phase of a turn and the feel of rebound as the ski is released at turn completion and the ski re-cambers itself, accelerating the skier down the fall line.

I know what you are saying Spin, I get it, I really do. I don't think you are too far from where things may go, I just disagree (a little) on who will benefit and how wide the skis will be.
post #76 of 81
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jer View Post

ski Praxis everyday anywhere...
 

Most good skiers, present company included,, can ski a fat reverse/rockered ski on just about any mid west or east coast run and "survive".  I could probably even look fairly good on most of the runs, but I'd ather be on something in the 60s or 70s 95% of the time in those regions.
post #77 of 81
If ski manufacturers drive the move to R/R skis for intermediates on up, the U.S. Ski Technique and teaching methods would have to be totally revised. Not much side-slipping in the instructing regimine for the last decades (though it was an important part of technique in the 50's thru 70's), and it would again be the basis of technique with the new gear. Sooooo, new gear, old methods, without the hooking up. Funny twist. Saw Deep; the new R/R powder gear has changed the look of skiing, new methods are now in full bloom, no doubt.
Edited by davluri - 10/12/09 at 9:39am
post #78 of 81
Quote:
Originally Posted by Whiteroom View Post

As for skiing your Praxis "every day that I skied at Bohemia last season..." well, that's great, but by chance did you just go to Bohemia when the conditions warranted skiing that particular ski? I'm curious.


 

No. Most of the time I use a pair of beat up ARVs. If I could have one ski for Bohemia it would be a softer JJ in a 185. I brought the Praxis along on opening day just because I never skied them and wanted to see what they were like. I ended up having a blast and taking them with every other time (and usually skiing them at least a little). Believe it or not, conditions have pretty much warranted that ski at least for the past two years. I never said that a 195 Praxis Powder is my ideal ski for a place like Bohemia - just that it is easily skiable at a place like that.

The closest I came to hard snow last year was when I was at Silverton during a really dry warm streatch. The only skis I had with me at the time were the Praxis Powders. Did I wish I would have brought a pair of normal skis? Yeah - but I managed with the r/r's. I can't imagine the groomer I couldn't handle (and actually have a lot of fun on) with an r/r ski.

Remember - I wasn't saying that freakskis are what's going to be on every body's feet in ten years. But I've gotta agree with Spin that the average skier's exposure to soft snow way more than likely vasty surpasses their exposure to a steep icy race course. As far as your story - I've had several near-death experiences with slides-for-life when I was younger. I don't ski that stuff now. For me it's exactly the same as turning away from a slope after I've determined that the snowpack is unstable. If I'm going to look for something for that kind of "snow" I'll go to a climbing store and buy some crampons.

To me - the freakski revolution is the same as snowboarding. It's all about what you're looking for.How many snowboarders do you know who seek out huge moguls and rock-hard snow? I see the allure of racing and skiing hard snow - I used to race a long time ago. But I don't anymore - it's way more fun (for me, at least) to ski soft snow.
post #79 of 81
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jer View Post




No. Most of the time I use a pair of beat up ARVs. If I could have one ski for Bohemia it would be a softer JJ in a 185. I brought the Praxis along on opening day just because I never skied them and wanted to see what they were like. I ended up having a blast and taking them with every other time (and usually skiing them at least a little). Believe it or not, conditions have pretty much warranted that ski at least for the past two years. I never said that a 195 Praxis Powder is my ideal ski for a place like Bohemia - just that it is easily skiable at a place like that...
 


Bohemia again is not the "typical" resort for that big slice of country...or for that matter Colorado as most people experience Colorado resorts.  And the words I'd emphasize are "easily skiable." 

In both my old and new locales, I'm near a great range of biking, from unpaved roads to pretty gnarly, all with easy access.  You can have fun riding off pavement, over all of this, with a DH race bike...it is "easily ridable" with that type bike.  But in many cases you will have less fun than someone with a more suitable bike, and you will soon sell the DH bike.  A fully-rigid bike likewise might not leave you in your happy place, though much of the terrain is "easily doable" on even a bmx bike.  There's an analogy in there somewhere.
post #80 of 81
Quote:
Originally Posted by CTKook View Post

In both my old and new locales, I'm near a great range of biking, from unpaved roads to pretty gnarly, all with easy access.  You can have fun riding off pavement, over all of this, with a DH race bike...it is "easily ridable" with that type bike.  But in many cases you will have less fun than someone with a more suitable bike, and you will soon sell the DH bike.  A fully-rigid bike likewise might not leave you in your happy place, though much of the terrain is "easily doable" on even a bmx bike.  There's an analogy in there somewhere.

 

That's a good anaolgy, and one I agree with....BUT - I used to ride my DH bike on pavement all the time: off retaining walls, stair gaps, roofs - all things that would destroy a suitable road bike.
My analogy is this: traditional skis will always be a good bet on groomed runs/hard snow/moguls at Midwest and Eastern resorts. However, I think a lot of skiers at those resorts are looking at the snow in a different way. I will never be able to out sprint a guy on a road bike while riding my DH bike - however, the guy on the road bike will land in the hospital if he drops off a roof onto cement. I will never be able to acually carve a turn on my Praxis, but doing a high-speed ass-slide on a groomer is arguably just as fun.

Again - I'm not saying every ski is going to be reverse-cambered in ten years, just like guys in the TDF aren't going to be riding Demo 9's any time soon.
post #81 of 81
Hunh. My new rig is a 120 flex AT boot with dynafit manaslus, both for strictly off-piste. The soft, full rockered stuff is fun and all, but if you expect to encounter sketchy hard glacier ice, windblown and powder all in one tour, a ski/boot combo with holding and driving capabilities is my pick.
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?