or Connect
EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › General Skiing Discussion › I heard you can't ski IN the pow with fat/rocker
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

I heard you can't ski IN the pow with fat/rocker

post #1 of 46
Thread Starter 

 

Let's give it a shot anyhow. Some great pre-season stoke.

 

 

 

post #2 of 46
Just stay out of my *ahem* I mean, the pow. Problem solved. ;)" title=";)" class="bbcode_smiley" />



5678

Edit: can't see the vid. Fing Adobe - Apple holy war
Edited by Que - 9/27/10 at 10:38pm
post #3 of 46
Quote:
Originally Posted by ecimmortal View Post

 

Let's give it a shot anyhow. Some great pre-season stoke.

 

 

 


dude that video is a fake. trust me! 

post #4 of 46

Good one.

post #5 of 46

bizzare footage!

post #6 of 46

saw that on TGR, love the goat-face.....  Pole mounted with entension for camera, very cool. I have seenthis setup at JH.

post #7 of 46

really nice. love following the moose. once followed a weasel in fresh snow; poor little fellah didn't get it that as long as he moved downhill I could keep up with him. nice footy. so much for not getting face shots on fat, RR skis, eh?

post #8 of 46

Yeah, but fat skis don't allow you to carve through the powder, and through the base, to the grass and rocks below!

post #9 of 46

I love the wrist cam viewpoint. Have you tried any other lenses though? A bit of a wider angle may help you get the picture you want a bit more... although you'd greatly distort the background.

post #10 of 46
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by ScubaSkier View Post

I love the wrist cam viewpoint. Have you tried any other lenses though? A bit of a wider angle may help you get the picture you want a bit more... although you'd greatly distort the background.



Not my video. It's Ian Provo.

 

http://www.ianprovo.com/

post #11 of 46
Quote:
Originally Posted by ScubaSkier View Post

I love the wrist cam viewpoint. Have you tried any other lenses though? A bit of a wider angle may help you get the picture you want a bit more... although you'd greatly distort the background.



Wow, great footage...loved the camera angles.  Using it on the wrist is a great idea. 

 

Most of the helmet cams have fixed lenses and pre-set exposures. 

 

I was there that same day, but couldn't get into the great stuff skiing with my 7-year old.  Both kids got to ski some pow on the trails off Dreamscape and Dreamcatcher, though.  Last year was weird, with the bulk of the great snow coming at the end of the season.

post #12 of 46

One more to show just how unfun those fatties make it...  Yup, totally "ON", not "IN".  

 

 

post #13 of 46


ITs not on the wrist, it's on the ski pole with an extension and mounting bracket, that's how the shots are looking somewhat down and slightly in front.
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by quant2325 View Post





Wow, great footage...loved the camera angles.  Using it on the wrist is a great idea. 

 

Most of the helmet cams have fixed lenses and pre-set exposures. 

 

I was there that same day, but couldn't get into the great stuff skiing with my 7-year old.  Both kids got to ski some pow on the trails off Dreamscape and Dreamcatcher, though.  Last year was weird, with the bulk of the great snow coming at the end of the season.

post #14 of 46


yeah, the other thing I noticed is that these guys obviously have no skills, the skis are making it all possible.......
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Do Work View Post

One more to show just how unfun those fatties make it...  Yup, totally "ON", not "IN".  

 

 

post #15 of 46
Quote:
Originally Posted by Do Work View Post

One more to show just how unfun those fatties make it...  Yup, totally "ON", not "IN".  

 

 


Not sure exactly your POV on this, but the skis you are admiring are roughly 4 years back and not all that wide, certainly not rockered. Rohner skis for Dynastar and rides models I have in my "conservative" quiver, I think he's on the Huge Trouble or similar, judging by the inlaid tip protector seen when he unweights and comes out of the snow. I'm thinking those red and white skis are the Mantra at a whopping 95mm.  If so those are the fattest of the three skiers skis. In the tram car you see a lot of 90 to 100mm, cambered skis.One guy loading the tram seems to have some homegrown at around 140mm waist, but he's the only one with major fatness that I can spot. As you say, doesn't seem to be holding them back. Hey, it's all in good fun. Of course the fact that the tram was decommissioned at the end of that year tells someone in the know the date of the film, and by extrapolating, the widths of skis available at the time.

post #16 of 46

What skis was that guy on?

post #17 of 46
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by tromano View Post

What skis was that guy on?



Armada JJ

post #18 of 46

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by davluri View Post

Not sure exactly your POV on this, but the skis you are admiring are roughly 4 years back and not all that wide, certainly not rockered. Rohner skis for Dynastar and rides models I have in my "conservative" quiver, I think he's on the Huge Trouble or similar, judging by the inlaid tip protector seen when he unweights and comes out of the snow. I'm thinking those red and white skis are the Mantra at a whopping 95mm.  If so those are the fattest of the three skiers skis. In the tram car you see a lot of 90 to 100mm, cambered skis.One guy loading the tram seems to have some homegrown at around 140mm waist, but he's the only one with major fatness that I can spot. As you say, doesn't seem to be holding them back. Hey, it's all in good fun. Of course the fact that the tram was decommissioned at the end of that year tells someone in the know the date of the film, and by extrapolating, the widths of skis available at the time

 

Perhaps not very fat by today's standards, but they were considered so back then (four years ago), and I guarantee, if you look back to posts on this site around when that movie came out, there were people saying they preferred skiing in the snow and not on it, and how fat skis were cheater skis for people who needed to buy a turn.

post #19 of 46
Quote:
Originally Posted by volantaddict View Post

 

 

 

Perhaps not superfat by today's standards, but they were considered so back then (five years ago), and I guarantee, if you look back to posts on this site around when that movie came out, there were people saying they preferred skiing in the snow and not on it, and how fat skis were cheater skis for people who needed to buy a turn.



yes, totally, but someone was using this clip to support his theory about todays skis being so much fun in powder. funny he picked a clip with fairly traditional skis of average width, around 100mm, skis. I think anyhow. Some of the skis were hard to see. Eric Rohner was sponsored then, and already by Dynastar I believe, so that's one I.D. made. T, what guy do you mean of the three?

 

VA, I remember that thread and those comments. I would prefer that I had not used the term "buy a turn" for rockered skis in the last couple days. Just being a dick, and it's just not the point. I never felt that a fat ski was too easy, however, then or now.

 

If you are "in and on" a lot of deep snow you'll appreciate that those guys are skiing on about 100mm + / - of ski, enought ski to push some snow around dynamically, creating every variation on lift and float and pressure. 

 

 

post #20 of 46
Quote:
Originally Posted by davluri View Post


yes, totally, but someone was using this clip to support his theory about todays skis being so much fun in powder. funny he picked a clip with fairly traditional skis of average width, around 100mm, skis. I think anyhow. Some of the skis were hard to see. Eric Rohner was sponsored then, and already by Dynastar I believe, so that's one I.D. made. T, what guy do you mean of the three?

 

VA, I remember that thread and those comments. I would prefer that I had not used the term "buy a turn" for rockered skis in the last couple days. Just being a dick, and it's just not the point. I never felt that a fat ski was too easy, however, then or now.

 

If you are "in and on" a lot of deep snow you'll appreciate that those guys are skiing on about 100mm + / - of ski, enought ski to push some snow around dynamically, creating every variation on lift and float and pressure. 

 

 


 

Dude, I'm really getting sick of you grasping at the most minute straws you can find, hoping to uncover a random minute detail that makes you feel like you're on top or something.  It's sad. I feel like we agree on a lot of things but it's like you are trying so hard to find an enemy in me and be a jerk to me over something as stupid as whether or not rocker works that you can't even look at something objectively.  This e-tickle fight is rediculous, as we share more than you think.  All my wider boards are between 100-112mm and I think it's the perfect range for me in powder- much like your own Dynas!  I also enjoy the feel of a cambered or flat ski and prefer it to a full rockered board in anything but the deepest untouched fresh- our opinions differ only in that I see and can recognize a practical application for rocker- and you apparently hate it although you've never tried it, which just makes me scratch my head and wonder.          

 

The skis in the video are absolutely wide boards by this site's standards (and the op's- **grumpy old fart**!), and I think everyone can agree that the 100mm+ class of skis is in fact "wide".  

 

They are skiing awesomely- no, EPICLY "in" pow.  

 

What in God's name could possibly be your point???

 

Lighten up Francis!   Sheesh!  

post #21 of 46

^^actually I screwed up, Grumpy old fart was the OP of the other thread.  My bad.  

 

post #22 of 46

There is no point, not of mine. Those guys are skiing powder without the benefit of the skis being discussed in this thread.  If that film shows anything, it's that you can do a lot in powder with a 100mm cambered ski.

I base that on the fact that today a fat ski, referred to in this thread, has to be115mm + waisted or so, which is a whole step above the 95's to 100's in this second film piece.

No arguement offered, I swear.

 

 

post #23 of 46

I always have to laugh at the in-versus-on argument against fat skis or rockered skis, because I've ridden my Spatulas in deep powder and been up to my waist.

 

Oh and Davluri, I wasn't referring to anything you said specifically; before anyone said that rockered skis were buying a turn here on epic (and before you began to post here), there were people saying that fat skis in general were cheater skis, even when 94mm waists (like the Mantra or Machete FB) were considered super fat. Before that it was side-cut that was the bought turn. Glen Plake correctly pointed out that you can buy skis that make skiing powder easy, but you can't just buy a ski that make moguls easy.

 

I would really love to try out a pair of Lhasas, JJs, or S7s and see what all the hype is about. There are some very respectable elite skiers who have had great things to say (as well as photos of them killing it on rockers) about the skis produced by this trend, in fact, elite skiers have been involved in designing them. I don't think it's just a gimmick anymore than side-cut was a gimmick.

 

I recall a couple years back when Hop, a long time maggot showed the quiver of experimental variations of rockered Made'nAKs, and , as I recall. Apparently he was spancered and a tester for K2. Some had rocker tips but not tails, some were both tip and tail, neutral camber with rocker tip, etc. K2 was certainly finding out what worked. Though I think it's crazy how many models they are pumping out, apparently many of which ski very well.

 

A friend of mine who works up at Snowbowl, skis 120 plus days a year, and who is a very strong skier, just picked up a pair of the K2 Hardsides (tip rocker) last year, and absolutely loves them. He's a guy who likes stiff destroyer type skis like Stokli DP Pros and Volkl G4s.

 

I really think there must be something to the the other elevated tipped skis, I know I'm amazed every time I get to ride my Spats at how very good they are, until I hit the out run that is.

post #24 of 46
Quote:
Originally Posted by davluri View Post

 

I base that on the OPINION that today a fat ski, referred to in this thread, has to be115mm + waisted or so, which is a whole step above the 95's to 100's in this second film piece.

No arguement offered, I swear.

 

 


 

 

Just wanted to fix that part for you, since you seem to be confusing opinion for fact.  I feel like anything 100+ is "fat", (ESPECIALLY for this site) but I also recognize that this is simply my own identification and so I can't blame others for categorizing it differently.  To each his own.  I have no idea where you ski, but if you ever find yourself at Magic on a pow day, I'd be happy to let you try to rockered boards for a few runs.  Even if you hate them, I'd feel like I did my part in trying to get you to give something new a shot.  You never know, you just might like them!   

  

 

VA, I heart you and your sense-talking. 

 

  
 

post #25 of 46
Quote:
Originally Posted by Finndog View Post


yeah, the other thing I noticed is that these guys obviously have no skills, the skis are making it all possible.......
 


 


The skis make the speed possible.  A narrow ski would be deeper in the snow and cause the skier to bog down.  I wouldn't say that they are skiing on the snow, but they are much closer to the surface.  Wider, reverse camber skis would ski even higher - I would think.

 

From what I have seen, reverse camber skis turn easily and have tremendous float.  Here in the East they are exceptional in the woods.  They also perform well with thin cover.

 

I want pair.

post #26 of 46

One viewing of Swift, Silent Deep will remove any doubt that people could do some stunning things on some pretty old school equipment. My hat is off to them. I mean really - no joking at all. That's some serious skiing. I think the issue is precisely that modern skis do let you "buy a turn" in powder. And some new kinds of turns as well. And ones that demand less energy. With a much reduced learning curve.

 

For my .02:

 

1) Anyone who does not believe those guys did some serious powder skiing on narrow old school skis is in some strange form of denial.

 

2) Anyone who does not believe that you can do more things in powder - and more easily - on modern design skis (i.e. fatter & rockered) is equally in denial.

post #27 of 46



I was being sarcastic......  I am a firm believer in skiing what you like best but I also believe that good skills are going to make any skier better; much more than any ski. Those who discount the advantages that wider rockered (to any extent or incarnation) afford is beyond me (advantages like easy turning, float over thin cover, accessing low angle pow, etc. ability to modify speed land better, etc).  They won't make a bad skier good my any means, they may make it easier for a bad skier but it won't make them ski like these guys with skills...  that's my point.  I am pretty sure we're in the same camp here.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Paul Jones View Post




The skis make the speed possible.  A narrow ski would be deeper in the snow and cause the skier to bog down.  I wouldn't say that they are skiing on the snow, but they are much closer to the surface.  Wider, reverse camber skis would ski even higher - I would think.

 

From what I have seen, reverse camber skis turn easily and have tremendous float.  Here in the East they are exceptional in the woods.  They also perform well with thin cover.

 

I want pair.

post #28 of 46

Rocker Ski Technology: Changing the Heli-ski Experience

 

 

Quote:
Rocker technology has changed the skiing experience in powder forever. 
The concept of rocker on skis was first explained to me by Shane McConkey.  In his typical passionate tone, he explained that skiing powder is more similar to traveling through fluid.  Surfboards have had rocker for years, since they are designed for water.  He continued to explain how traditional camber skis do the opposite of what a powder skier wants.  Camber pushes the tips into the snow and forces a skier to sit back to get the tips to rise out of the snow.  This all made sense to me during that first fateful conversation with Shane, and it became more apparent as we began testing prototypes with rocker over five years ago.
post #29 of 46


 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Finndog View Post



I was being sarcastic......  I am a firm believer in skiing what you like best but I also believe that good skills are going to make any skier better; much more than any ski. Those who discount the advantages that wider rockered (to any extent or incarnation) afford is beyond me (advantages like easy turning, float over thin cover, accessing low angle pow, etc. ability to modify speed land better, etc).  They won't make a bad skier good my any means, they may make it easier for a bad skier but it won't make them ski like these guys with skills...  that's my point.  I am pretty sure we're in the same camp here.


 

 

Unfortunately, I simply do not have the athletic talent to ski like "these guys with skills," but I practice and focus to improve as much as I can -- and I have a lot of fun while doing that. If technologies (such as rocker) are introduced that enable me to handle certain snow conditions better with the skill that I have, those technologies are going to improve my enjoyment of the sport. Improving one's skills and utilizing new technologies are not mutually exclusive. I want both.
 

post #30 of 46
Quote:
Originally Posted by Do Work View Post




 

 

Just wanted to fix that part for you, since you seem to be confusing opinion for fact.  I feel like anything 100+ is "fat", (ESPECIALLY for this site) but I also recognize that this is simply my own identification and so I can't blame others for categorizing it differently.  To each his own.  I have no idea where you ski, but if you ever find yourself at Magic on a pow day, I'd be happy to let you try to rockered boards for a few runs.  Even if you hate them, I'd feel like I did my part in trying to get you to give something new a shot.  You never know, you just might like them!   

  

 

VA, I heart you and your sense-talking. 

 

  
 



That is an awesome sentiment. I plan on being pretty broke this winter, so no traveling away from Squaw, just hunker down and ski. But how cool is that? Thanksanother round here please, set one up for iron man.

If I had funds, I'd have the Bentchettler next BTW, based on the versatility of the hybrid rocker design and that being the stiffer of several brands.

Last year a buddy lost one of his Bents and I swear he was crushed.

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 › I heard you can't ski IN the pow with fat/rocker