EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › Ski Gear Discussion › Opinions? Does a wider but yet rockered ski make up for a larger turn radius, ie cut of the ski?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Opinions? Does a wider but yet rockered ski make up for a larger turn radius, ie cut of the ski?

post #1 of 20
Thread Starter 
Hi everyone,

First time poster!

I am level 7-9 (7 right now, 9 two years ago) skier that is 6'2, 170lbs. I am currently still riding 170mm 1080 spaceframes from 2005-2006 - about 80mm underfoot. I spend most of my time in the bowls ect, off of the groom. Bottom line, I want a fat ski to rip fast and deep, but dont really want to sacrafice turning fast when I want to. 

I am looking to move to the 2010 Vokyl Gotama - 178mm.  

I am a little skeptical of the Gotama's turn radius, as being able to turn quickly has always given me a level of confidence whether in trees, moguls, or even steeps. 

Obviously, there is no measurement that will tell you how quickly a ski will turn when you take into consideration the new rockered technology. Some say this rockered tech, it is just for powder, but I am really convinced (and what Volkl says) that the rocker technology makes it easier to get from edge to edge - and the reason why a ski like the Gotama gets such great reviews. You have this fat ski, with a big turn radius, but the rocker technology makes it easier to turn, and therefore the turn radius # is essentially innacurrate. Anyone understand what I am getting at? Thoughts? Does the rockered technology make this 106mm ski turn more like a 85ish-90mm type ski?

Do I have this right? An friend has skiied the new Gotama's and he says that it will be as versitile as a non-rockered 85mm underfoot ski with a small turn radius that I am looking for. 

PS: I dont want to hear that rockered is only for powder (what I thought recently) because it sounds like its definitely not. 

Thanks yall! Happy skiiing. 
post #2 of 20
I hope Bushwackerinpa (Level III PSIA instructor) will answer this, because he will allay all your concerns about that ski.  He turns like a fiend on a 183 2010 Gotama, woods or groomers.
post #3 of 20
Just demo the skis. Rockered skis have a different feel than conventional skis and you won't know if you like them or what size you want until you demo. Rockered or not, the turn you can make on a ski in 3D snow have basicly nothing to do with the sidecut radius listed on the ski. On 2d snow (groomers) the radius is the maximum turn size your can carve and you can always felx the ski agressively and carve a smaller turn.
post #4 of 20
Thread Starter 
 
JamesJ: Just curious if Bushwackerinpa is a really big guy? 

tromano: I am going back and forth with demoing, or just going for it. I hate to spend the first day or two on a trip getting to know my new skiis. I am in Chicago for now, if I can buy em and try em in Michigan before I head out, I think it will make the most of my next trip out west. 

I know what the smart thing to do is, but I am not sure I am going to do it. Plus the ski shop said they would exchange them (shocked me) if I made a case for why I really did not like them. 
post #5 of 20
Quote:
Originally Posted by colinel View Post

JamesJ: Just curious if Bushwackerinpa is a really big guy?
post #6 of 20
Thread Starter 
 lol. gotta watch that wording. 
post #7 of 20
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jamesj View Post

I hope Bushwackerinpa (Level III PSIA instructor) will answer this, because he will allay all your concerns about that ski.  He turns like a fiend on a 183 2010 Gotama, woods or groomers.

those were actually 2010 katana sadly Epic has decided to keep them. I should take them and sned him a check for them ;).

FYI dont bother with gotama the katana skis better EVERYWHERE imo than the Gotama, the extra metal makes its bust though weird snow and slay groomers where the demo Gotama from the stowe toys felt kinda of sucky on groomer while not being as wide so its lose float in trees. the katanas combination of 111 underfoot, rocker, and metal make for one of the best all around skis I have ever been on. Simply put easier to turn in powder than my thugs, bust crud and weird wind scraped snow better than my midfats, skis bumps super quick, makes great turns on soft groomers, and even GS turns on hard to icey groomers.

I would go 183cm personally with the katana, its feel like its 2 feet long till its on edge and even when on edge its feels short. Also bigger skis = more float = which equal faster turning in powder.

I am 5'11 and sadly shrinking down damn do stuff to 160lb but a L9 + on a good day L9 - on a bad day. the 183cm are super simply to ski on and thats the reason I want them.

If your out west for sure get the 183 cm Katana if not the 190cm even as a level 7.
post #8 of 20
Quote:
Originally Posted by BushwackerinPA View Post

If your out west for sure get the 183 cm Katana if not the 190cm even as a level 7.

PBA, this sentence doesn't seem quite right? 
post #9 of 20
Quote:
Originally Posted by comprex View Post




PBA, this sentence doesn't seem quite right? 
 

anyone could handle the 183cm I level one could handle it in powder.....

I am actually not kidding. I would honestly love to teach a level 1 lesson in powder with both student and teacher on these. You could wedge turn them in powder they are that easy going.
post #10 of 20
Quote:
Originally Posted by BushwackerinPA View Post

anyone could handle the 183cm I level one could handle it in powder.....

I am actually not kidding. I would honestly love to teach a level 1 lesson in powder with both student and teacher on these. You could wedge turn them in powder they are that easy going.

  I don't doubt you.    That sentence is just unfortunately phrased enough so it could be read as:

"West - 183cm  Not West - 190cm. "
post #11 of 20
What rocker does in simplest terms is to pre-flex (bend) the ski when it is in 3-D snow. If you think back to "the day" most of us took our GS skis (softer flex and lower camber than our SL skis) out on powder days b/c they would flex better. Hence, they would turn us better when we were in deep snow. Note that I said "turn us". It is fundamental to understand that when properly used, a ski turns us, not the other way around. A rockered ski does this for us without additional skier weight, effort, or speed. Depending on the ski it does other things too, some positive, some negative but the biggie is........pre-flexed.

But..................................... 

Rocker has absolutely zero to do with edge to edge quickness. On consolidated surfaces, a rockered ski reduces surface and edge contact hence shortening the operative length of the ski. Because there is less ski in contact with the snow, they feel shorter and/or turn easier depending a bit on how you quantify that. You can turn a rockered ski (well...some anyway) far enough up on edge to get the tip and tail to contact the surface. However they will bear far less weight and hence less pressure than a conventional ski. So.....less pressure distribution to the tip and tail makes the ski feel shorter.

So.......................................

Will a 178 Gotama turn like a 178cm. 85mm ski? No. It will turn like a (~~)165-170 cm. 106mm ski.

SJ
post #12 of 20
Great explanation SJ
post #13 of 20
I would definitely not be frightened to go fairly long with the Gotamas.  There are a couple things going on with the rocker: In soft snow, they are already bent as you enter a turn so there is less effort and movement involved in getting them to turn. Less effort and movement = fast turns (if you want).  On hard snow. there is essentially a shorter ski on the snow between turns so, again, faster. Either way, the extra length just gives more float without the usual downsides. I am 5'8" and ski the 186 length and these things just flick turns as quick as my tired old neurons can fire.  They really are pretty unbelievable. And stable too.
   As far as Katanas go, I have owned the 183 and the 190 and think they are great in powder and soft snow, but only marginally better than the new 2010 Gotama. On hard snow, they still turn well, but they are A LOT of work. On the other hand, Katanas are also TANKS.  If you like the feeling of being able to just blast through whatever like a bulldozer, go for Katanas, there is no stopping them(sometimes literally ;), you cannot stop them!). If you like a light feeling but still stable ski - Gotama. 
  Either way, ALWAYS GO LONG WITH ROCKER.
post #14 of 20
Quote:
Originally Posted by SierraJim View Post


Rocker has absolutely zero to do with edge to edge quickness. 

I disagree with this part.

The camber of a conventional ski - especially a stiff one -  "fights" rolling the ski on edge. To get the ski on edge, you need to pump enough energy into the ski to deform it pretty substantially. With a rockered or fully reverse cambered ski like this year's goat, the structure of the ski does not fight rolling it edge to edge. At least to me, rolling this year's goat on edge feels at least as easy as doing the same to my once-upon-a-time conventional 76 or so skis (yes, you read that right...). And subjectively no slower... 

Without yielding to the temptation to play amateur engineer - my sense is that a fully rockered or reverse ski can roll as readily as a cambered ski a couple cm (give or take a bit) narrower. At least within the realm of typical widths today.

Also - to BWPA's point - I think the Katana vs goat discussion boils down to how you ski & what you want to do. The Katana is, in the realm of rc skis, a relatively conservative or "conventional" ski. It is rear mounted to accommodate a "driving" style. The goat seems designed to play better with a more centered mount & style. It seems to take to skiing switch pretty well, etc., etc. If you like one, you may not like the other so much. I did not even try to demo the Katana because of its rearward mount. 
post #15 of 20
 SJ well true that the physical quickness edge to cant be any quicker given the same waist width, what you do with after its on edge can be much quicker with RC ski. You can choose to pivot m slavre or even outright rail road track very small turns. Given just alittle bit of soft snow the Katana was easier and more fun to make short turns on than any ski I have ever owned. 

I also suspect that since the edge starts out small at one little point and grows, that the little edge with lots of pressure acts very much like magne traction and eats its way though harder snow. the katana has better edge grip than say my 192 snoops. .

Spindrift I felt like my thighs were burning skiing the new gotama, its also didnt have the edge grip that the katana has either, given stowe can range from sheer bullet proof to a couple feet of powder on the same day the katana hands down for here and for me.
post #16 of 20
Quote:

The camber of a conventional ski - especially a stiff one -  "fights" rolling the ski on edge. To get the ski on edge, you need to pump enough energy into the ski to deform it pretty substantially.

I understand why you'd think that but IMO, you are mistaking decamber (which takes pressure) vs. rolling on edge (which doesn't). Or you might be confusing the steering phase of the turn (which is easier with tip rocker) with getting it on edge. Again, a feeling of easier turning but nothing to do with going from one edge to the other which is a simple physical limitation of width.

SJ
post #17 of 20
Quote:
Originally Posted by SierraJim View Post

I understand why you'd think that but IMO, you are mistaking decamber (which takes pressure) vs. rolling on edge (which doesn't). Or you might be confusing the steering phase of the turn (which is easier with tip rocker) with getting it on edge. Again, a feeling of easier turning but nothing to do with going from one edge to the other which is a simple physical limitation of width.

SJ
 

I'm pretty sure I am not mistaking anything for anything. Rolling a cambered ski on edge while maintaining full edge contact implies some amount of decambering. Rolling it enough to engage a typical turn implies a whole bunch of decambering. Decambering which "fights" the rolling action and redistributes that force as it is applied (there are other forces in play too - but that does not undo this particular bit of reality). That's just the way it is...the way those skis are designed to work. There is no escaping it. (and btw, the more you roll the ski, the "fatter" it gets - which is interesting in terms of resistance as well...)

The mechanics/physics of fully rockered and rc skis are different by design. That's the point. They perform better in the vast majority of general purpose recreational skiing applications (as long as you do not pretend they are just like conventional cambered shaped skis). This is why conventional cambered skis are about to go the way of the carrier pigeon and the dodo bird...
post #18 of 20
Quote:
This is why conventional cambered skis are about to go the way of the carrier pigeon and the dodo bird...

I have already seen the majority of the 2011 offerings. I've also skied on many back to back with their conventional counterparts. So far I'd say.......notsomuch.

There are a few offerings of tip rise skis in the mainstream widths and at least one of tip and tail rise, but the amount of rise is minor (in some cases practically invisible) and they are still in the vast minority. In the widths off 100mm and up, there are more than before but not a ton more and the the amount of the rise is generally not dramatic. In fact the vast majority of new "rocker" models are tip only with modest amounts of rise. FWIW...the Iconic K2 Pontoon has been mellowed with less rise in the tail than before and a much longer normal cambered section than before.

I'd say that if anything, the full reverse skis are not growing much in popularity at all and tip and tail rise skis are only growing a little. Tip only skis are growing moderately but sometimes with such low amounts of rise to make one question why bother???

So far......I'd say that the demise of the conventional ski is greatly exaggerated. Of course there's always 2012.....then 2013.......maybe it'll happen then.

SJ
post #19 of 20
 I hear what you are saying....

I too am especially puzzled by uber-micro tip only marketing rocker.

Did you mean to say sidecut when talking about the Pontoon? I'm not sure a 1-2mm gap on unskied skis qualifies as "camber". I think most would call it flat. Especially after a day or two of use... And the Pontoon certainly has enough rise to give up a bit on either end -- as long as they don't flatten the tail out too much, the change may make for a bit more platform. Hopefully without losing that slarvy thing.

One thing worth noting is that a little rise can go a long way. The current goat does not have a ton of rise (relative to things like the Pontoon). Nor do the other Volkl offerings. But what is there has a significant impact.

Still, I run into more and more folks who are making the transition away from cambered skis. And more and more folks who are now curious and interested in demo-ing various fully rockered skis. Whereas a couple years ago, the reaction was usually some form of hearty laughter.... Now, not so much.
post #20 of 20
What I meant to say about the 'toon was the "conventional" section. Or "middle" section or whatever....heck you know, that place between the ends. It is probably three times as long as before. I 'spose that it now comes closer in shape distribution to an S7. The tail is notably laid down but is far from flat.

I have talked to four product managers in the last month and three think that in the narrower waist widths (under say 98mm or so) that tip and tail let alone continuous rocker don't have a place except for beginner skis and/or park skis. The fourth one has a lineup of skis in 86mm and 97mm with tip and tail but very minor. I've skied them back to back against unrockered counterparts and sure enough.....minor rise creates minor results. Not all good, not all bad, just minor.

I think I've seen enough now to know that I just flat don't know what these guys are thinking. In fairness though, I don't think they do either. Some are staying mostly away or are taking a flyer in a position that doesn't matter. (one example of this is Volkl who is taking a throwaway model and giving it a very low continuous rocker) I have to think this is just a "me too" kinda deal as they are clearly not commited to the concept in this width category. I rather doubt that we'll hear much emphasis on this model from them.

SJ
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 › Opinions? Does a wider but yet rockered ski make up for a larger turn radius, ie cut of the ski?