or Connect
EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › Ski Gear Discussion › What's With All This Rocker S**T?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

What's With All This Rocker S**T? - Page 8

post #211 of 477

Sounds like Head is doing some changes similar to Dynastar. The Carlos being kinda' like the Sixth Sense Huge.

 

Like Dynastar, head has been producing heavy stiff charger type powder skis, evolving out of their race ski construction, the Legend Pro Rider for Dynastar, the Jimi for Head.

 

Now, the SSH is not only wider than the LPR, but softer flexing and flat in camber, partially cap construction, lots of fun and way easy in powder. I'm guessing the Carlos is softer, more floaty and slarvy than the Jimi, like the SSH. Go for the fatter more modern more fun ski! no question.

 

(I doubt Head would make any ski that's too soft, just as SSH is still the stiffest ski at the wide end of the shop wall, at least until the Carlos.)

 

Those little trips across groomer to get to the real stuff are nothing, not a factor in your choice, drop it out of the equation. You do change out the fatter (125) ski for your crud buster sooner and more often, however.

post #212 of 477
Quote:
Originally Posted by spindrift View Post

Heh, not that you need comments from my end of the peanut gallery - but I don't think you'd go wrong either way.  

 

One thing I'm curious about is the radius on both of those. I like soft snow skis that are not hooky & a fat radius helps with that. But at the same time, if you are going to be on groomers on a sidecut ski - 32 seems pretty wide. Do you know the specific reasoning for not compromising a bit more?


Personally, I find my 188 Bros (99mm waist, 40m radius) just fine on groomers.  For those of us (including probably everyone on this thread, including you) who grew up learning to carve on straight skis, it's easy enough to carve those turns during limited groomer periods that it shouldn't really enter the equation.

post #213 of 477
Quote:
Originally Posted by AlpineAmbitions View Post
A lot of wise stuff

Totally missed this at first and I could'nt agree more.

 

Sooo, all those who thinks all rockers sucks on hardpack should go to the gym and spend more time skiing 
 

Oh, and early rise on SG/DH and speedskiing skis helps getting a little bit air under the skis to reduce friction

post #214 of 477

It all sound interesting. I ski mostly groomers in the East and am not real sure about using rocker as an everyday ski. Wouldn't tip rocker make for a bumpier ride in the kind of lumpy crud that forms about noon on the pistes? Instead of blasting through it, I get the impression that the early rise in the front of the ski would push the front of the ski upward and give you a  jarring ride.

 

I don't have the best technique but what works for me is keeping pressure forward to keep the tip down and blastring through the crud. If I get a little back, the tips will bash around. I would thin that rocker would make this even worse.    

post #215 of 477

Lame thread needs more rocker shit goat fornicate pov stoke

post #216 of 477

Nice, sfb.  What's the track?

post #217 of 477
Quote:
Originally Posted by MojoMan View Post

It all sound interesting. I ski mostly groomers in the East and am not real sure about using rocker as an everyday ski. Wouldn't tip rocker make for a bumpier ride in the kind of lumpy crud that forms about noon on the pistes? Instead of blasting through it, I get the impression that the early rise in the front of the ski would push the front of the ski upward and give you a  jarring ride.

 

I don't have the best technique but what works for me is keeping pressure forward to keep the tip down and blastring through the crud. If I get a little back, the tips will bash around. I would thin that rocker would make this even worse.    


if your choosing a rockered ski back east your honeslty going to avoid most piste at all cost. In fact true mpguls are much more fun than the push piled granular groomers on rockered skis. If I know this is what I am going to be skiing I am on my non rockered 8.7s, I imagine the new slightly rockered 8.7 and other skis of the ilk are just as good though.

 

with that said some rockered ski actually ski normal crud much better, My katanas make chopped snow feel like powder, they also cut though heavy slush with so much easy its like cheating.

post #218 of 477

public enemy & cypress hill

not sure if the dps138's, pm gear lhasa pows, bd mega watts or volkel katanas the crew was riding that day made it more fun but i sure as hell don't remember anybody saying well that sucked at the end of the day

post #219 of 477
Quote:
Originally Posted by skifishbum View Post

public enemy & cypress hill


I was thinking that was Chuck D, but the subject matter seemed outside his usual scope.

post #220 of 477
Quote:
Originally Posted by BushwackerinPA View Post
 I imagine the new slightly rockered 8.7 and other skis of the ilk are just as good though.

Did not know that new 8.7 has slight rocker. Confirm? Marketing rocker or real? 
 

post #221 of 477
Quote:
Originally Posted by beyond View Post



Did not know that new 8.7 has slight rocker. Confirm? Marketing rocker or real? 
 

 

its has an early rise tip, when the skis are pressed together the tips splay apart alittle. The new one is MEGA stiff though, and I really liked mine better. I am strong but not particularly heavy and really stiff skis can own me well unless I am out at snowbird or on GS skis of some sort.

 

edit realized I made a mistake. Blizzard now has a normal 8.7 like I own, and the Mpower which is a new binding system that is looks alot like the Volkl system on super speeds. The Mpower 8.7 are the ones I skied, and saw had some early rise to them. They were pre productions model and very well might have been an experiment, as they are not listed with rocker on the Blizzard website.

 


 

post #222 of 477

I was never a fan of fat skis untill I tried a pair of Line Motherships that have a mild rocker and are not too soft. If you are buying a rockered ski go 10cm longer as the 

tip is off the snow for quite a distance in firm icy conditions. After being on the Motherships I actually found I had a slightly improved ability when getting back on my racing

skis. So for me they had an ability to improve my skiing technique as I found I had the confidence to stay on top of them in the crud and powder better than my narrow skis.

post #223 of 477

New to this thread so I can't add much about whether rocker is s**t other than to say that a ski with some form of rocker is waaay better for me in deep powder, just about any amount of fresh snow, crud, etc. than what I call a "big-mountain wide-carver ski" (based on my experience with the '07/'08 unrockered Gotama's vs. the slightly tip/tail rockered '08/'09 obSetheds).  I also am looking forward to see what some slight tip rockering ("early rise"?) will do for a narrower, packed- to mixed-snow ski to help reduce the tip hookiness and improve the crudability of my Watea 84's - will do some demo'ing this year....

 

More importantly it is clear from this thread that we need the industry to come up with some standard way of measuring/advertising rockering.  In particular:

  1. What exactly does a 10/20 rocker mean (I know, I know it supposedly means that the tip or tail rockers up starting with 10mm rise tapering down over a 20cm run, but I, for the life of me, can't measure these numbers on a ski that claims this amount of rockering)?
  2. How is it measured - are the ski's uncompressed or compressed, where is the rise measured from, where does the "run" start, etc.?
  3. What good is saying 300mm of rocker if there is no rise value acompanying this?
  4. Marketing terms such as "Pop Rocker", "Powder Rocker" need to be accompanied by real numbers?
  5. What is early rise vs. slight rocker - again we need some numbers!

 

If we had some standardization about the measurement maybe we'd have a little bit more to go by when talking about the benefits/negatives of rockering (given that they vary with the amount and type of rocker) and certainly we could compare the stats of different rockered skis better.


Edited by ski-ra - 10/18/10 at 12:54pm
post #224 of 477
Quote:
Originally Posted by ski-ra View Post

New to this thread so I can't add much about whether rocker is s**t other than to say that a ski with some form of rocker is waaay better for me in deep powder, any amount of fresh snow, crud, etc. than what I call a "big-mountain wide-carver ski" (based on my experience with the '07/'08 unrockered Gotama's vs. the slightly tip/tail rockered '08/'09 obSetheds).  I also am looking forward to see what some slight tip rockering ("early rise"?) will do for a narrower, packed- to mixed-snow ski to help reduce the tip hookiness and improve the crudability of my Watea 84's - will do some demo'ing this year....

 

More importantly it is clear from this thread that we need the industry to come up with some standard way of measuring/advertising rockering.  In particular:

  1. What exactly does a 10/20 rocker mean (I know, I know it supposedly means that the tip or tail rockers up starting with 10mm rise tapering down over a 20cm run, but I, for the life of me, can't measure these numbers on a ski that claims this amount of rockering)?
  2. How is it measured - are the ski's uncompressed or compressed, where is the rise measured from, where does the "run" start, etc.?
  3. What good is saying 300mm of rocker if there is no rise value acompanying this?
  4. Marketing terms such as "Pop Rocker", "Powder Rocker" need to be accompanied by real numbers?
  5. What is early rise vs. slight rocker - again we need some numbers!

 

If we had some standardization about the measurement maybe we'd have a little bit more to go by when talking about the benefits/negatives of rockering (given that they vary with the amount and type of rocker) and certainly we could compare the stats of different rockered skis better.


you think about this way to much......

 

post #225 of 477

By both genetics and training I'm an engineer...my hard-wiring doesn't permit me to think any less about this...so have pity on me for I know not what I hath to do
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by BushwackerinPA View Post

you think about this way to much......

 

post #226 of 477


 

Quote:
Originally Posted by ski-ra View Post

By both genetics and training I'm an engineer...my hard-wiring doesn't permit me to think any less about this...so have pity on me for I know not what I hath to do
 


 

What you need to understand is that each ski is it's own unique thing... knowing exactly how much 'rocker' there is on a Volkl Gotama vs. a 4frnt VCT Turbo is meaningless. You want it to have meaning because of your engineer brain, but the Gotama is a Gotama and the VCT is a VCT. There are enough inherent differences that you will either like the ski or not like the ski, knowing the difference of only one element doesn't allow for useful analysis.
 

 

post #227 of 477
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tyson Rockwood View Post

What you need to understand is that each ski is it's own unique thing... knowing exactly how much 'rocker' there is on a Volkl Gotama vs. a 4frnt VCT Turbo is meaningless. You want it to have meaning because of your engineer brain, but the Gotama is a Gotama and the VCT is a VCT. There are enough inherent differences that you will either like the ski or not like the ski, knowing the difference of only one element doesn't allow for useful analysis.
 


I'm an engineer too.  This view you post may be true to some extent, but it's also worthless in being able to ascertain which skis to consider for possible demo/purchase.  Ski-Ra is absolutely correct that the marketing terms really need to be accompanied by some kind of industry standard for measuring and expressing ski rocker profiles (most likely a generally agreed upon de facto standard, nothing from any regulatory body).

post #228 of 477
Quote:
Originally Posted by Noodler View Post


I'm an engineer too.  This view you post may be true to some extent, but it's also worthless in being able to ascertain which skis to consider for possible demo/purchase.  Ski-Ra is absolutely correct that the marketing terms really need to be accompanied by some kind of industry standard for measuring and expressing ski rocker profiles (most likely a generally agreed upon de facto standard, nothing from any regulatory body).



I think the idea is you have to trust the marketers and swallow whatever swill they give you; not figure things out for yourself with actual facts.  The plan is to obfuscate and confuse so you can sell sizzle as steak.  Let follow/lead the lemmings be their only option.

post #229 of 477

Indeed (assuming your comment was meant to be sarcastic)
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ghost View Post

I think the idea is you have to trust the marketers and swallow whatever swill they give you; not figure things out for yourself with actual facts.  The plan is to obfuscate and confuse so you can sell sizzle as steak.  Let follow/lead the lemmings be their only option.

post #230 of 477

Why are engineers so hard headed when it comes to recognizing the TRUTH when it doesn't jive with what they would like the 'truth' to be? Is it all the diesel fumes and Klickety-Klacking of steel wheels on railroad ties?

 

 

It's like being happy that boot manufacturers now post Last Width... cool, you can compare boots without trying them on... or not. The width says nothing about instep height, the shape of the last, the heel hold, how the boot cuff fits your leg, how the hinge point of the boot works with your ankle, whether the stated flex (not standardized) works for you, etc., etc., etc.

 

There are a dozen different ways to 'rocker' a ski, take a look at a Surface 3stage ski compared to a Volkl Gotama, if there was a measurement  you read about, it would mean NOTHING, because the Volkl is a gradual curve over the length of the ski and the Surface is a hinge point like the ski was stuck in a door jam (and it's stiff as a board). A measurement based on mm of rise vs. cm of running length is meaningless. It's like comparing the turn radius (remember 5 years ago when that was the hot stat to demand?) for an intermediate ski to the TR of a racestock SL ski... they are different skis, knowing the TR tells you ABSOLUTELY NOTHING useful. Most people eventually figured that out and calmed down about it, rocker is the 'new toy' to geek-out about... same thing, knowing a stat for rocker profile for a Sultan 94 vs a Volkl Katana is pointless. They are different enough that gnashing your teeth over 'The Evil Marketers keeping info from you' is paralyzing your ability to make a rational decision, not a lack of helpful  information. 

 

Most skis do not exist with and without rocker, so if a ski sounds interesting to you but you want to what, buy it without ever seeing it? Then trust the reviews knowing the ski reviewed is the version with whatever camber profile you'll get. Read the reviews, trust your instincts... or never buy something you haven't skied, in which case you KNOW what you're getting so who cares what an arbitrary measurement says?

 

Put the conductors hat away and use some common sense.

post #231 of 477
Quote:
Originally Posted by Noodler View Post
  Ski-Ra is absolutely correct that the marketing terms really need to be accompanied by some kind of industry standard for measuring and expressing ski rocker profiles (most likely a generally agreed upon de facto standard, nothing from any regulatory body).


 

Do you mean the same way ski flex is standardized?

Or torsional rigidity?

Or early taper of sidecut?

Or Dampness/ Liveliness?

 

Yeah, knowing camber profile sure would help.

 

By the way, I think mm of rise / cm of running length is the de-facto 'standardized' way to measure rocker... just have to figure out where the tips start and where the traditional contact points would have been... and if the ski should be de-cambered or not...

post #232 of 477

I do agree that no one should 'Market' anything... nothing should be bought or sold... we should barter goods and services in exchange for the vegetables we grow or pelts we trap.

post #233 of 477
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tyson Rockwood View Post


 

What you need to understand is that each ski is it's own unique thing... knowing exactly how much 'rocker' there is on a Volkl Gotama vs. a 4frnt VCT Turbo is meaningless. You want it to have meaning because of your engineer brain, but the Gotama is a Gotama and the VCT is a VCT. There are enough inherent differences that you will either like the ski or not like the ski, knowing the difference of only one element doesn't allow for useful analysis.
 

 



Tyson YES !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

post #234 of 477

however we arrive at: a ski is more than the sum of its parts  we are doing well.

post #235 of 477

   Quote:

  Originally Posted by Tyson Rockwood View Post

  Why are engineers so hard headed when it comes to recognizing the TRUTH when it doesn't jive with what they would like the 'truth' to be? Is it all the  diesel fumes and Klickety-Klacking of steel wheels on railroad ties....  Put the conductors hat away and use some common sense. 

 

My! aren't we getting a little personal here (insulting I'd say) over what to some might be a reasonable question - if you don't like the question please criticize it but not the person (use common dignity if not sense)....  

 

Quote
Originally Posted by Tyson Rockwood View Post

There are a dozen different ways to 'rocker' a ski...they are different skis, knowing the TR tells you ABSOLUTELY NOTHING.... 

Good point (and I don't disagree that different skis with the same amount of rocker are still different skis).  Unfortunately many ski manufactuer's do publish rocker data but fail to tell you what it means (if it means anything at all beyond the hype - take the rockered-but-rockerless Solly Lords as an example) - more proof that it may be more about marketing than it is about providing useful information (and maybe even about being honest).  The reason for standards concerns lots of things and is due to the basic fact that, without them, the marketing bar lowers to the point where lies are the truth - need I remind you of the recent mortgage implosion as a perfect example.

 

Now back to the question at hand...what does published rocker data mean?

post #236 of 477


 

Quote:
Originally Posted by ski-ra View Post

 

Now back to the question at hand...what does published rocker data mean?



Next to nothing.

 

SJ

post #237 of 477
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tyson Rockwood View Post

What you need to understand is that each ski is it's own unique thing... knowing exactly how much 'rocker' there is on a Volkl Gotama vs. a 4frnt VCT Turbo is meaningless. You want it to have meaning because of your engineer brain, but the Gotama is a Gotama and the VCT is a VCT. There are enough inherent differences that you will either like the ski or not like the ski, knowing the difference of only one element doesn't allow for useful analysis.
 

 


More insults - I'll ignore them and address the comment....  The Gotama is essentialy a fully-rockered (aka reverse cambered) ski, so offereing much data about the rockering profile is fairly meaningless anyway unless you want to know the "rise" (but Volkl actually provides a good description of the rockering provided - an "elongated low profile reverse camber"...which is pretty accurate from what I've seen).  This tells me that the Gotama's edge grip probably comes from a ferocious torsional rigidity (it's a Volkl after all) to make up for it's reverse camber, which is something a 125lb'er like me would avoid anyway.  So what Volkl has told me is actually very meaningful and is all what I need to know about that ski!

post #238 of 477


Uh...SJ...wasn't that my original point?  Anyway, are you agreeing with my point or saying that even with "accurate" data it would be meaningless anyway (as some of the other posters are claiming)?
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by SierraJim View Post


 



Next to nothing.

 

SJ

post #239 of 477
Quote:
Originally Posted by ski-ra View Post


Uh...SJ...wasn't that my original point?  Anyway, are you agreeing with my point or saying that even with "accurate" data it would be meaningless anyway (as some of the other posters are claiming)?
 


 


Ummmmmmmmmmmm...............................................sure.

 

Meaning...........statistics, measurements, TR's etc. ad nauseum are basically worthless. The total experience is the operative thing and of course that will vary with the errrr.....experiencer.

 

SJ

post #240 of 477

So basically some of you are saying that it's pointless for the brands to publish ANYTHING at all about their skis other than a name and maybe their length.  Why bother since you can't tell ANYTHING about the ski.  All they should say is a bunch of marketing blabber and say please purchase or demo our skis.

 

Sorry guys, but you're wrong even if you can't wrap your feeble minds around engineering terms and stats (and yes I've devolved into insults also since that's where some of you have taken this thread).  If we actually had standardized meaningful data on skis we would see patterns and characteristics that would allow you to distinguish skis from each other without need to demo, but we don't have this data.  That's why I have always agreed that given the current situation we know relatively little about a ski without actually riding them.  That doesn't mean it's impossible, only that it's exceedingly difficult due to the lack of data.  I know we'll never have that data though and so I can live with your preconceived notions that skis are these magical mystical objects that can only be understood when they're under our feet.

 

What kills me in the end is that I know that the manufacturers actually do have a lot of this data.  Most of them are large companies that do employ ENGINEERS to build and design their skis.  They're not just guessing at their constructions and profiles - they do a lot of testing and they collect a lot of data.  They just don't share it with the public.

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 › What's With All This Rocker S**T?