What's With All This Rocker S**T? - Page 6

So who has a video of someone really slaying some groomers?

Sorry, don't have any vids from steeper terrain with Kalle (guy in vid) but he skied this 

on them, a bit steeper than 35 though. Late spring in Sweden = hardpack.

Belive me, Hendryx skis does'nt obey the laws of physics, they just kick ass on groomers. The 917 holds an edge equally to my WC GS-skis and are more fun, even though they are 97 UF and fully rockered. But I have skied that suits me better off piste...

Bob

Yeah, I saw that aswell, not so strange since it is'nt steep enough to get the all the force needed, they are quite big (155-127-150) and I'm not saying they're the best skis for groomers out there, but for a fully rockered, 127UF, ski, they're pretty damn good

BTW I'm not affiliated with them in any way (ride for another brand, so I'm biased to something else), just think they make killer skis for a certain type of condition. There is more vids, pics and thoughts of the skis on their website if someone is interested. They're pretty unusal in nort-america from what I know

EDIT

And since World-cup racers use it and/or is in the development of skis with rocker, my bet is that some rocker-profiles is actually really good for groomers. Will try to demo a friends rockered GS-skis this winter

Define "slaying"? Nonetheless, there are videos around.

Here's K2's marketing bit for their relatively conventional "speed rocker":

And here's a link posted here some time ago by fuscopd of (I believe) himself on Kuros on a groomer:

Not sure what you'll think of 'em, but there they are...

Quote:

Originally Posted by spindrift 

Yeah - but I was pointing out that the notion of a ski that could be flipped from camber to reverse had been explored...

 

Wasn't Shane McConkey doing this with metal wire to forcibly reverse camber the ski and ultimately his sponsors decided they should make him a production ski before he cut his leg off?

Jarle, cool video!

This definitely seems like a topic that is split into two groups. I love fat rockered skis for everything (except hard groomers and training). However, I am 22, and the skinniest ski I have ridden is 72mm. I grew up with fat skis and rocker just seems like a refinement of fatties. Sure you lose some hard snow performance, but you gain so much more in stability, landings, and fun times.

I think for some older folk, accepting change with rocker skis would be like asking me to go back and ride a 65mm ski, just not gonna happen.

You could be right there FoG.

Us old dudes like to feel what's going on right where the tip of the ski first interacts with the snow and sort of expand everything from there.  A clean cut from the get go is what I'm looking for on hardpack, and a smooth engagement is what I'm seeking in the deep.  Still, I would be quite willing to give any of these new heavily rockered extremely fat skis a try,  I'm pretty sure in the deep with a decisive skier, they would hook up just fine,  and it would be nice to have an easy pivot option available (not so available on long skinny stiff skis that require getting them out of the deep snow to pivot).  On hardpack, I think they would come in second rate, but their advantage in the deep could easily overide that aspect if priorities were deep snow ubber alles. 

They just don't demo them too often around my neck of the woods, and I can't afford to pay just to try 'em out. 

I'm not so sure i buy the "older folk" thought.

If it helps make good skiing easier, some

guy with nutcracker knees is going to dive into it.

My local shop just got the new Bent-Chetlers in today.  The graphics alone on that ski made me a believer in Rocker. That thing is cool!

Quote:

Originally Posted by FujativeOCR 

My local shop just got the new Bent-Chetlers in today.  The graphics alone on that ski made me a believer in Rocker. That thing is cool!

Really?  I think those look like a 7 year old ate his art project then had the runs over a pair of powder skis.

Quote:

Originally Posted by guroo270 

Really?  I think those look like a 7 year old ate his art project then had the runs over a pair of powder skis.

Exactly!  And who woulda thunk it would turn out so well!

edit:  bite my tongue.

well, I for one bought a pair of obsetheds as a 1 ski quiver, but I ski backcountry all day every day in Alta and really only ever get on hardpack to get back to the liftline or for a traverse.  I'm SIKED to try them out. 

As somebody who tries to avoid hardpack, I think that rocker (in most of its forms) is a useful evolution of ski technology.  It makes sense for the type of skiing I do, thus, I see no reason to call it a "fad."  If you told someone 20 years ago that guys would hop around the back country on skis that are 110+ underfoot, they would think you're crazy, but today, big pow skis are just another part of the larger ski market.  I DO however agree that it is silly to promote rocker as a general ski (as K2 is doing).  Of course, this is really just speculation until I actually hit the slopes in december.

sharpedges, based on your comments over some amount of time, I feel compelled to ask if you have spent any amount of time on rockered skis? Do you define "good" skiing by technique refined for one particular design point, or by results? Across what range of conditions? What, precisely, is "wrong" about a ski designed to engage without requiring camber?

My read over time, especially given your stated bias toward 65mm skis, is that you are simply reposting **** kool aid... Please tell me I'm wrong & that you have actually used the skis under discussion enough to have some knowledge about the topic.....

spindrift,

No I am not regurgitating kool aid.  I don't push any organization's agenda here.  That organization would probably prefer it if I kept my mouth shut over here.

By the time I read your post, I had already edited mine out because sometimes it accomplishes no good to point out errors in this crazy world.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jarle 

Rocker is here to stay, no matter what some might think, even for harpack skis.

 

........................... Ok, there are better skis to tour on if it's harpack (non 3D-snow) but usually I don't tour to ski crappy snow.

 

Sure a rockered ski helps a not so good skier to ski lines he or she probably could'nt ski on cambered skis. But skiers with good technique are always going to be better the ones without it.

 

Damn those young whippersnappers and their rockers

"...skiers with good technique are always going to be better  than the one without ....   

Lots of talk here, some real pronounced prejudices and in cement opinions.  Jarle brings some good points into the discussion.  However, I am one of the old guys and have been reading about rocker, reviewing BWPA's videos and went all over the net to read reviews etc..   Some pretty hot skiers on rockers.  Sort of decided on Rossi S7's for me.   Went to a show, put the S7 down on the floor, stood in the binding and visualized myself in several different snow elements.   Bought the S7 from philpug here on Epic and can't wait to ski them.Can old guys change, ski better and still have good technique - yep.  I am 100% convinced and confident that these rockers will be awesome off piste, cat skiing and at Kicking Horse, Whitewater, the trees at Red, stashes at Silver, EOB at Lookout and anywhere else they carry me.

Thanks everyone and Jarle, Bushwacker et al.
 

Quote:

Originally Posted by sharpedges 

spindrift,

 

No I am not regurgitating kool aid.  I don't push any organization's agenda here.  That organization would probably prefer it if I kept my mouth shut over here.

 

By the time I read your post, I had already edited mine out because sometimes it accomplishes no good to point out errors in this crazy world.

The fundamental question stands: what is your experience on these skis? Which ones? How much time? With who (in terms of could they show you anything about the skis)?

This will be my fifth season using rockered skis. The past two seasons representing decently north of 150 on-snow days, were  exclusively on rockered skis. Never say never, but odds are I'll never use another pair of conventionally cambered skis again (voluntarily anyway). I am well aware of my limitations as a skier. But I am also well aware of how these skis behave. I also know some pretty well regarded skiers who have made this shift as well - going on 5 seasons of using these skis exclusively - and by choice. If you have never even tried these skis (trying to use the kind of technique they are designed for), how can you possibly critique them with any credibility?

No no no!  You guys have it all wrong.  Snow Skates are the next big thing.  What's that?  Can't get enough float, not long enough, can't move any load out to the front to start a turn?  Stop trying to rationalize it.  Have you been skiing the last few years, 100 + days a year, on snow skates?  No?  Well then your opinion is totally invalid.

BTW full sized station wagons are the best handling cars for fast driving on twisty roads.  I've put over a million miles on them.  If you haven't, then sorry but you can't argue otherwise. 

Honestly, rockered skis are common enough that there is no reason for someone to speculate when they can try a few rockered skis and have some real experience to base their opinions on. I mean how seriously would you take someone discussing sidecut today if they had never used a ski with sidecut?

Yeah, someone with the right engineering insights could scope it out without playing with them. But this is a case where experience seems to work against a lot of folks. One example being the projection of how a fat stiff conventional ski handles to a similarly waisted rockered ski. You could do that if all things were equal - but they are not equal...

But anyway, it is moot. After all, rocker is here to stay 

Now some posters are stretching the supremacy of rocker into a universal panacea. You just can't claim they do everything better. That wouldn't be so. For example, young skiers like to huck a lot. There are some landings that work better with a big stiff tail on the ski so you can lay back enough when you stomp it not to knee yourself in the face. That's a tradeoff you wouldn't at first recognize.

I'm really not dissing the rocker design, I just think it is  possible to over 'claim' what they are good at.

I bought the S.S. Huge last year and I don't have one instant of buyer's remorse, by the way, even after reading all these very persuasive arguments.

Quote:

Originally Posted by davluri 

Now some posters are stretching the supremacy of rocker into a universal panacea. You just can't claim they do everything better. That wouldn't be so. For example, young skiers like to huck a lot. There are some landings that work better with a big stiff tail on the ski so you can lay back enough when you stomp it not to knee yourself in the face. That's a tradeoff you wouldn't at first recognize.

 

I'm really not dissing the rocker design, I just think it is  possible to over 'claim' what they are good at.

I bought the S.S. Huge last year and I don't have one instant of buyer's remorse, by the way, even after reading all these very persuasive arguments.

I think it's wrong to just say rocker like they're all the same. It's like saying that all skis with sidecut are the same. Different rockers for different purposes. They don't do everything better, I have yet to see a SL-ski with rocker, but who knows.

I'm pretty young (23) and like drops as much as I like rocker. I ride with the belief that you're always supposed to stay centered and in a good position, so backslapping, landing in the backseat, hip/backchecking is not stomping for me. Flat landings or not, I would never jump off anything thinking "I don't think I could stomp this on my feet". Ok, I would if it was very high (or higher than) for my own capability, but I would still jump off it with the intend to stomp it.

Look at skiers like Sage, Jon Larsson, Hoji etc, they all ride fullrockers and huck big stuff. Of course a traditional tail supports better if you land far back, but there is tailrockers for that aswell, like the new obsethed (high tiprocker and low tailrocker) and who accuses Seth for not going big?

The new PSIA magazine 32 degrees just arrived.  Article on Rocker.  Basically says that it will make it easier for anyone to ski, is being introduced into rental gear (early rise on a mid 70's waist) and basically the article has nothing negative to say about it, it is the next major change in ski design after shaped skis.

Writer says it makes it easier to learn, less falling down, crossing tips, etc. in the early stages.  Gets more skiers higher up the mountain (and thus threatens to lose higher level lessons.)

No criticism of them not being able to carve, mostly about how it helps to curve the tip up a bit.

Where did camber on skis come from in the first place if it apparently makes everything harder?  Why does it even exist?

Quote:

Originally Posted by SkiMangoJazz 

 

Writer says it makes it easier to learn, less falling down, crossing tips, etc. in the early stages. ... No criticism of them not being able to carve, mostly about how it helps to curve the tip up a bit.

Hmm, sounds like shorter skis. But then that discussion has been done to death here.

It's not evil or bad, it's just the way it is: Manufacturers and resellers are always going to want/need something new to help move new product. And the resorts and their ski schools want something to provide a more successful/pleasurable skiing experience, thus enhancing customer retention. I guess rocker may provide all that, albeit on the groomed largely by some clever legerdemain.

As do many others I know from personal experience loose boots can make it seemingly impossible to control/turn the skis, and for a beginner lacking skills anyway that can sum up to a really frustrating and negative experience:  Screw it - that's it - I'm done with this s#*t!

Everyone who gets beyond that quickly learns (or is at least told) the most important thing to focus on initially is getting boots that fit, so they're comfortable *and* snug. Once chasing the dragon even someone who can't really afford it may shell out hundreds of dollars for good boots, custom insoles and tweaking with a pro, but that's not going to happen with the rental market, where fit is typically sacrificed for comfort.

Maybe the air bladder to snug up boots for beginners is really the silver bullet the industry needs to focus on? Then keep people on shorter skis to start learning, be it via rocker or not. Could that be a recipe for success?

Quote:

Originally Posted by FujativeOCR 

Where did camber on skis come from in the first place if it apparently makes everything harder?  Why does it even exist?

It makes high performance firm/ mixed condition skis ski better at speed by distributing the skiers weight/pressure along the entire length of the ski. Notice how the primary 'selling feature' of rocker is "it makes it easier to pivot", "more maneuverable" and "you are less likely to hook a tip and cross your skis" ?? 'Easy' and 'Maneuverable' are contrary to 'Stable' and 'Solid'.

Rocker is cool, in the correct context, just like super-sidecut was cool, in the correct context. We dropped sub-17m turn radii from powder skis, we'll be dropping rocker form firm snow skis, just wait. If you only ski when it's mostly soft, well enjoy the fat rockered revolution. If you have to ski firm snow, or gasp, like to carve fast on firm groomers, you probably should just skip this off-shoot of ski evolution, that is unless it's designeed into the ski from the start, like Palmer skis' FLF Klothoid design.

Quote:

Originally Posted by FujativeOCR 

Where did camber on skis come from in the first place if it apparently makes everything harder?  Why does it even exist?

Just because a ski is rockered does'nt mean they don't have camber. The GS skis I talked abou has plenty of camber but a slightly rockered/early rise tip. SG and DH skis otoh has almost zero camber and slight tiprocker.

Did you say the same thing about sidecut when it first came

Quote:

Originally Posted by davluri 

Now some posters are stretching the supremacy of rocker into a universal panacea. You just can't claim they do everything better. That wouldn't be so. For example, young skiers like to huck a lot. There are some landings that work better with a big stiff tail on the ski so you can lay back enough when you stomp it not to knee yourself in the face. That's a tradeoff you wouldn't at first recognize.

 

Meh, I see what you mean but I think you're overreacting.  I didn't see anyone on here saying that every ski no matter what it is would be better with rocker, as that's just not the case.  Another misnomer is that rocker makes a ski behave ilke total shit on the groomers, which is also really a misguided sentiment.   

Also, I huck a lot.  On a fresh day, I've already lined up the cliff bands in order in my mind and I'm fixated on hitting them all.  I really don't like a long tail on landings, and I really really try to stay neutral on the stomp.  My Billy Goats, for example, have more of a pintail design with tip/tail rocker so I can land neutral and the tail sinks, the tip rises and my momentum helps carry me out just a little bit easier.  My BROs- being traditional, are also very good at drops, but the overall shape of the ski planes similarly in that it just GOES.  I love them both, but the Billy Goats make it a smidge easier to stomp my landings and continuing to ski without missing a beat.  (This is simply the most literal comparison of a ski with full tip/tail rocker and one that has neither, and is o way supposed to categorize all skis with rocker fwiw.) 

Take the same skis on hardpack and the BROs shine, their long effective edge making the GS turns cake while the Billy Goats want to do tiny swishy turns and feel hooky and vauge.  They each have their uses and characteristics...  It's like having a jeep for off road and a ferrari for on the road- they aren't designed the same and it's not intelligent to expect them to behave the same.

As for the argument about people who haven't tried rocker...  I believe everyone is entitled to their opinion, but those who do not have direct experience with it should recognize that their point of view is completely unsubstantiated by actual experience and maybe take some people's word for it who have just a little bit more.  Just a suggestion.        

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jarle 

Just because a ski is rockered does'nt mean they don't have camber. The GS skis I talked abou has plenty of camber but a slightly rockered/early rise tip. SG and DH skis otoh has almost zero camber and slight tiprocker.

 

Did you say the same thing about sidecut when it first came

No I never did.  I was slow to join the shaped revolution, but only because I was a mogul skier at the time, and even now, mogul skis aren't particularly shapely.  Once the TenEighty, Pow'Air and Concept came out I made the switch.  However, my late entry isn't to say I couldn't see what they were obviously designed to do, that just wasn't what I was into at the time.  My only gripe with the original shaped skis...Ergos and SLX's, was they looked weird opposed to everything else out there.  Obviously we all got used to it.  The reverse camber and rocker looks weird and different too, unless you're thinking about what it's designed to do.  Still, it drives me nuts how some are promoting what a versatile tool it is. 

Tysons response is a wise one.

2010 Katanas have a small amt of tip rocker, and no tail rocker that I can see, and no camber.

I won't think that this small amt of rocker would make any skiing difference unless you weighed about 20 lbs.

I love the Katana but have never skied one without rocker to compare, while I didn't like the 2010 Gotama, which has much more tip and tail rocker, at all except in deep snow.

New is new, and doesn't necessarily mean better....better is better...

my $.02

I skied with a guy two years ago now at Alta skiing Pontoons. I had Public Enemies. Waist deep snow one morning  and he had no trouble at all handling it and I unfortnuately was floundering. It was my observation that having the tips up and out of the snow allowed him to ski in this deep snow effortlessly and at a pretty slow speed. He could ski through pretty tight trees etc no difficulty.

The impression made on me was the fat rocker is a great powder tool capable of ramping up an avarage skiers ability to ski deep snow in challenging terrain. I'm an older skier (55) and anything that will make things easier and allow me to ski more difficult conditions easier and with more confidence gathers my interests.

I've convinced myself these skis will only make powder days out west more enjoyable allowing me to ski better on more difficult terrain. Maybe I'm just too gutless to amp up the speed and try to blast through everything. Being able to dipsy do down the hill through the trees looked awful enticing to me and my ski partner that day on Pontoons was enjoying the day more than I was unfortunately.

I think I'm going to endulge myself and get a pair of Hellbents or something. .Unfortunately I've just learned I have to come up with some money by year end which might compromise my ability to buy new skis.  It's always something that gets in the way of acquiring new toys. Seems that way at least.

Quote:

Originally Posted by roundturns  .Unfortunately I've just learned I have to come up with some money by year end which might compromise my ability to buy new skis.  It's always something that gets in the way of acquiring new toys. Seems that way at least.

I've been learning that myself.  Don't buy a Volvo if you want expendable income.