or Connect
EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › Ski Gear Discussion › 2012 skis and gear.....a (pre) preview.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

2012 skis and gear.....a (pre) preview. - Page 2

post #31 of 187

Is Nordica making any changes to the Doberman lineup?  Interesting how they are adding the EDT to the Firearrow lineup.

post #32 of 187
Quote:
Originally Posted by SierraJim View Post

The 2oon looks from a distance much like a Kuro but with (I think) an even longer straight section. As to the why...........while it is a powder specific ski, pushback from consumers was indicating that perhaps it was too much. This impression is permeating the entire industry to some level or other. Hence you are seeing rocker toned down in rise and run, big tapers going away, tip rocker only far outweighing tip and tail rocker and full reverse skis are almost completely moribund. The industry is not doing this blindly. The consumer feedback over the last few years and particularly the last year was indicating that rocker is most acceptable in smaller doses, carefully applied. At this point there is absolutely zero trend toward full house rocker/reverse applications in mainstream or even semi-mainstream models.

 

This deal is nowhere near sorted out yet.

 

SJ


Based on the comments in this thread it seems like brands are bringing their skis "more towards the middle" -- does this mean consumers end up with most skis in a given category being almost the same from most of the big brands? Not that this is a bad thing (especially if it helps most skiers get on something that is right for them), but it is potentially less interesting.

post #33 of 187

going toward the middle after testing the extremes is a chance to refine rocker and camber design. it will be very interesting as some of the companies dial their design to perfection.

post #34 of 187
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by SkiNut View Post

Is Nordica making any changes to the Doberman lineup?  Interesting how they are adding the EDT to the Firearrow lineup.


Most of the Dobie ski lineup remains the same. The addition of the EDT carbon layup on the Firearrow is one model only.

 

SJ

post #35 of 187
Quote:
Originally Posted by davluri View Post

going toward the middle after testing the extremes is a chance to refine rocker and camber design. it will be very interesting as some of the companies dial their design to perfection.

Looks like saner heads are prevailing here, and rocker/camber will be optimized for the masses and to make more $$s.

 

Bushwacker is not going to like this trend.

 

What you gonna do?
 

post #36 of 187
Thread Starter 


 

Quote:
Originally Posted by TallSkinnyGuy View Post

Based on the comments in this thread it seems like brands are bringing their skis "more towards the middle" -- does this mean consumers end up with most skis in a given category being almost the same from most of the big brands? Not that this is a bad thing (especially if it helps most skiers get on something that is right for them), but it is potentially less interesting.


The industry as a whole always has the goal of producing the most sale able product. The marketing guys and the product managers were not born yesterday nor were they born at night. And BTW and FWIW.....yes.....they know how to ski. Even better than most of the gods of internet skiing.............eek.gif  (like......way better).

 

These folks know that success springs from saleable products not from extreme designs. Hence they are building groomer skis with very minuscule rockers rather than scaled down Hellbents for the mass market that comprises 90% of all sales. Even the remaining 10% is being toned down in the application of rocker tech. The Pon2oon, Rocker2, new Gotama, etc are all indications that the manufacturers have realized that the marketability and in fact the skiability of the more extreme examples are definitively limited. Hence......less weird stuff and less chance of a consumer making a mistake on a product that is driven by hype rather than reality.

 

If that is not interesting enough for somebody, there are always the garage brands that can't compete in the normal spectrum anyway. For them, the extreme fringes of design are the open door to a tiny slice of the market. There is always somebody willing to buy that sort of thing.

 

SJ

post #37 of 187

@ SierraJim   Just curious what your personal preference is when it comes to rocker. I remeber you saying that you really loved the old rockerless Gotamas, have you had a chance to ski the new models? Do you like it with rocker? How much tip rocker would you say is ideal?

 

 

 

 

post #38 of 187
Quote:
Originally Posted by RockSlide View Post

@ SierraJim   Just curious what your personal preference is when it comes to rocker. I remeber you saying that you really loved the old rockerless Gotamas, have you had a chance to ski the new models? Do you like it with rocker? How much tip rocker would you say is ideal?


You might want to check out this thread in which this topic was covered thoroughly:

http://www.epicski.com/forum/thread/96322/what-s-with-all-this-rocker-s-t

You will find that the opinion of SJ and a number of others is that rocker is just one part of the equation and there is no "ideal" amount of rocker.

post #39 of 187

I agree with the sell-ability & marketing part of SJ's comments. Spot on observation. However, I also agree with TSG. There was some incredibly innovative work done on the "fringe" over the past ten years. As the designs are being mainstreamed, they are being watered down. As far as I can tell this is because manufacturers are now doing a ton more conventional marketing & the feedback they are getting from the mainstream community includes input from many folks who can not really grasp the newer designs (i.e. get 100 "experienced" skiers to fill out cards & most will favor the things most in their existing comfort zone). So the manufacturers water the designs down. 

 

Simply put, it is easier to to "dumb down" rocker designs than it is to move the market forward over the short term. Customers will see benefits. Just not what they might have. OTOH, without some willingness to adjust their technique and mindset a bit, I guess they'd have seen no benefit from more progressive designs...

 

Personally, I'm a bit sad to see this. Forward movement will happen. But in the short term, we'll see lots of mediocrity. A few months ago I spoke with someone responsible for several ski brands and his take was that it'll take 5 years for the market to get comfortable with rocker & to accept modern designs (many of which he thought would still fall to the more conservative end of the spectrum than where I think it'll settle, fwiw). I'd rather see real innovation.

 

For now, some of us will need to count on the more innovative big players and the indies with guts. Informed people willing to use that extra bit of knowledge, bet on their beliefs, & build what they want to ski.

 

 

BTW - SJ, why do you think the Rocker2 represents moving toward the middle of the road? Yeah, it has sidecut, camber, etc -- but it has significant tip+tail rocker, sections without edges, etc... The first hand feedback I have heard was glowing --- in that the claim is that it felt almost Spatula-esqe in how it skied soft snow (this from someone who gets to ski virtually everything). And if you look at the videos of folks skiing them, they are clearly designed to optimize butters & spins. 

post #40 of 187


 

Quote:
Originally Posted by TallSkinnyGuy View Post



Quote:
Originally Posted by RockSlide View Post

@ SierraJim   Just curious what your personal preference is when it comes to rocker. I remeber you saying that you really loved the old rockerless Gotamas, have you had a chance to ski the new models? Do you like it with rocker? How much tip rocker would you say is ideal?


You might want to check out this thread in which this topic was covered thoroughly:

http://www.epicski.com/forum/thread/96322/what-s-with-all-this-rocker-s-t

You will find that the opinion of SJ and a number of others is that rocker is just one part of the equation and there is no "ideal" amount of rocker.


Cool, reading that thread forthright.

post #41 of 187

To the extent that new ski designs create new ways to ski, they progress an aspect of the sport (by looking at new movements).

 

But much of the sport is the same as ever was: terrain, conditions, line; and for this part of the sport, you need a ski that is capable in everything you come across in a day's skiing. I think rocker and camber and sidecut will be optimized for very wide performance characteristics. Those features which directly limit what a ski can do within its niche will probably be evolved out ....again. Those qualities in a ski that make it perform well in adverse conditions will be used for increasing versatility.

 

For many skiers, the Spatula was pretty unappealing for all its shortcomings, even on a typical powder day. It represented to me a ski on the fringe.

post #42 of 187
Quote:
Originally Posted by davluri View Post

To the extent that new ski designs create new ways to ski, they progress an aspect of the sport (by looking at new movements).

 

But much of the sport is the same as ever was: terrain, conditions, line; and for this part of the sport, you need a ski that is capable in everything you come across in a day's skiing. I think rocker and camber and sidecut will be optimized for very wide performance characteristics. Those features which directly limit what a ski can do within its niche will probably be evolved out ....again. Those qualities in a ski that make it perform well in adverse conditions will be used for increasing versatility.

 

For many skiers, the Spatula was pretty unappealing for all its shortcomings, even on a typical powder day. It represented to me a ski on the fringe.


The true measure and impact of ski design innovation is whether it unlocks a certain kind of skiing to an average Joe skier.  Shaped skis brought carving to the masses, mid-fat skis allowed average Joe to ski off-trailwith confidence, and I am convinced that rocker will let average Joe ski powder snow.    These are real innovations and they are here to stay.  Another often overlooked innovation of the last few years is the creation of the specialized skis and the wide acceptance of having a quiver.   Five years ago only complete fools had a second pair of skis, nowadays even a rather cheap gentleman who I know has a second pair of fatties.  I think quivers make radical designs a lot more practical.  Otherwise everyone out West will be on a Mantra or LegendPro and everyone in the East will be on AC30 :-)

post #43 of 187
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by spindrift View Post

BTW - SJ, why do you think the Rocker2 represents moving toward the middle of the road? Yeah, it has sidecut, camber, etc -- but it has significant tip+tail rocker, sections without edges, etc... The first hand feedback I have heard was glowing --- in that the claim is that it felt almost Spatula-esqe in how it skied soft snow (this from someone who gets to ski virtually everything). And if you look at the videos of folks skiing them, they are clearly designed to optimize butters & spins. 


I like the design of the R2 a lot and have great hopes for it. I think it is middle of the road when compared to what it might have been or say like what the old Pontoon was. Salomon could have gone full RC or even R/R yet they chose not to. Instead, they took some of the more dramatic elements of powder tech, toned them down, and combined them with some conventional wisdom. Hopefully they'll hit closer to the market 10 ring than they might have done had they gone wildly progressive or absurdly wide.

 

SJ

post #44 of 187

Interesting. I guess I'm not so inclined to lump quite so many things together based on being wider and rockered. For example, the Hellbent (either gen) was never meant to compete with the Pontoon. Nor were skis like the EP Pro from Line. Those skis had a very different mission in life - with big relatively symmetrical surface area platforms on the ends & sidecut in the middle. And a definite bias toward buttering. While more in the SFB & ObSethed width zones - the Rocker2 is clearly meant to be an evolutionary step in terms of the symmetrical butterable play ski with usable surface area out on the ends. (while I have little info, on first impression from videos the Opus seems to have a similar place in the world -- do you have info on that one?).

 

Also, I understand why some skis like the Rocker2, Bent Chetler, etc,  have more camber - but personally I wish we were seeing less of it for normal skiers & skiing.

 

BTW - I never understood people using the Hellbent as a directional pure powder ski. Lots of people obviously bought it for such use - but for someone who wanted to ski powder in one direction, the Pontoon (and several other rockered more uni-directional skis) made for a much better choice. In fact IMO the current Pontoon is still a darn impressive design for that (esp with the minor flex tweaks), but I digress...

 

Disclaimer: FWIW, I make no claim to being good enough to use skis like the Hellbent to their potential. Not even close. But I know people who do.

post #45 of 187


 

Quote:
Originally Posted by spindrift View Post


 

BTW - I never understood people using the Hellbent as a directional pure powder ski. Lots of people obviously bought it for such use



Dood, because of the sic graphix bro.

post #46 of 187
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by spindrift View Post

BTW - I never understood people using the Hellbent as a directional pure powder ski. Lots of people obviously bought it for such use - but for someone who wanted to ski powder in one direction, the Pontoon (and several other rockered more uni-directional skis) made for a much better choice. In fact IMO the current Pontoon is still a darn impressive design for that (esp with the minor flex tweaks), but I digress...

 

 


I think when considering the general market, you are a little too focused upon your own prism. I don't disagree that the Pontoon was a better powder ski than the 'Bent nor that 'Toon is still very good in its intended role but I keep in mind that they were both pretty good at the time. I reflect upon the time when we sold both skis. The Joe Average skier that buys stuff just wasn't seeing the world through your eyes. He wanted to get something to go along with his BanditXX or his Legend 8000 or whatever and the Pontoon looked and skied so weird to him that that the "Bent" was the more comfortable choice. For the skier that buys the newest and bestest powder ski that comes out every 6 months, the more fringe oriented designs have appeal. Unfortunately, the industry can't throw huge R&D budgets and lots of SKUs at small slices of the market.

 

SJ

post #47 of 187

I've heard from a credible source that elan has a new ski... the amphibio

 

rockered outside edge, cambered inside edge. 

 

my credible source said it skied amazingly. I'm really curious, anyone have any further intel? 

post #48 of 187

Hey Look - I know how to use Google. wink.gif

 

 

Anyhow, thanks for the heads up.  Interesting stuff.  Elan has always been a technology leader.

post #49 of 187
Quote:
Originally Posted by Noodler View Post

Hey Look - I know how to use Google. wink.gif

 

 

Anyhow, thanks for the heads up.  Interesting stuff.  Elan has always been a technology leader.


Dynastar Fusion revisited? Let's do EVERYTHING and put it all in one ski. Amphibio, will it also be a good waterski? I hope Elan is right here, their fusion series has been stale.

post #50 of 187
Quote:
Originally Posted by spindrift View Post
Also, I understand why some skis like the Rocker2, Bent Chetler, etc,  have more camber - but personally I wish we were seeing less of it for normal skiers & skiing.


Hmmm. By "normal skiers and skiing," do you mean people who ski on lift served terrain? Because they constitute the large majority of tickets sold, and IME, on groomers, even with soft snow, camberless skis are about as exciting as my elderly aunt's meatloaf. A move toward the middle not eq a move toward mediocrity. Or an economically driven sell out. It may be more like this: We pushed the envelope with rocker, and it pushed back.

 

Just like there can be too much width, there can be such as thing as (gasp) too much rocker, or too little rebound from zero camber. And how many skiers will actually want to deal with full reverse sidecut on icy settled or suncups, or all that other stuff that characterizes real backcountry much of the time, let alone on hardpacked lift-served? While I agree that indies should get  recognition for their manic innovation (see photo over at TGR of Praxis' "Wavy Gravy," with magnetraction baseseek.gif ) it may only work well for a tiny fraction of the skiing population.

 

Even among the hardcore, Praxis and all the others make a lot of more traditional designs like the Backcountry that keep them afloat (we hope). Or take PM Gear as an example of a decently successful indie with honestly conservative designs. Their best seller, the Lhasa Pow, has what Pat describes as "workaday" rocker. Meaning mild in front, milder in back, traditional camber. Mine felt a lot like a traditional non-rockered fat that came up a bit easier. Then factor in their 183's and 188's, also sell well, and don't even have real tail rocker. By contrast, how many Splatulas will they actually sell? 

post #51 of 187
Quote:
Originally Posted by beyond View Post


Hmmm. By "normal skiers and skiing," do you mean people who ski on lift served terrain? Because they constitute the large majority of tickets sold, and IME, on groomers, even with soft snow, camberless skis are about as exciting as my elderly aunt's meatloaf. A move toward the middle not eq a move toward mediocrity. Or an economically driven sell out. It may be more like this: We pushed the envelope with rocker, and it pushed back.

 

Just like there can be too much width, there can be such as thing as (gasp) too much rocker, or too little rebound from zero camber. And how many skiers will actually want to deal with full reverse sidecut on icy settled or suncups, or all that other stuff that characterizes real backcountry much of the time, let alone on hardpacked lift-served? While I agree that indies should get  recognition for their manic innovation (see photo over at TGR of Praxis' "Wavy Gravy," with magnetraction baseseek.gif ) it may only work well for a tiny fraction of the skiing population.

 

Even among the hardcore, Praxis and all the others make a lot of more traditional designs like the Backcountry that keep them afloat (we hope). Or take PM Gear as an example of a decently successful indie with honestly conservative designs. Their best seller, the Lhasa Pow, has what Pat describes as "workaday" rocker. Meaning mild in front, milder in back, traditional camber. Mine felt a lot like a traditional non-rockered fat that came up a bit easier. Then factor in their 183's and 188's, also sell well, and don't even have real tail rocker. By contrast, how many Splatulas will they actually sell? 



Yes. I mean inbounds skiers who ski mostly groomed snow. 

 

No. I do not think everyone should be on Spats. The beauty of what has happened the past few years is that people have been teasing apart what is beneficial under varying circumstances. My view is that most skiers are better served by more progressive skis than most majors are mainstreaming at this point.

 

Funny you mention the Praxis BC as being relatively traditional. In a sense the fact you refer to it that way tells us how far we've come. It has tip & tail rocker in reasonable degrees. Well considered early taper. And modest camber. IMO it is a great example of a ski that would serve many people well as an all around ski. In fact IMO it is the ski the Gotama should have become (not that I dislike the current goat -- just that the Praxis BC is more the spiritual successor to the old goat from my POV). It is almost too bad Keith called it the BC! [SPAM] use code "EPIC" for 10% off...[/SPAM]

 

Speaking of Praxis, it is worth mentioning that wavy camber thing. That kind of development is not random -- but derived from thinking about a desired handling outcome under a range of snow conditions. And designed in the context of the entire ski shape. The prototype will be subject to a fair bit of assessment (at the level a tiny company can do this). It'll be interesting to see what Keith thinks when it is all said and done. The Concept that shipped is pretty evolved from the first protos...

 

Anyway - back to the main point - to reiterate: while lots of folks here have preferences based on long term experience & muscle memory, I suspect most skiers - especially new ones -  would be well served by skis that are on average more progressive than the big guys are rolling out in volume. Things like the S3, S7, Praxis BC (or even Concept), DPS 112RP, Bent Chetler, Obsethed, maybe some of the new Volkls, etc. should be the conceptual center of what is being rolled out IMO. (with a bias toward the more modest or flat end of the camber spectrum, but hey, that's just me... smile.gif )

 

Visual aid for Praxis BC (sorry - not a 2012 thing, but relevant to the discussion IMO)

Backcountry_4c15b4e6e3fcd_400x400.png

post #52 of 187
Quote:
Originally Posted by spindrift View Post

 I suspect most skiers - especially new ones -  would be well served by skis that are on average more progressive than the big guys are rolling out in volume. Things like the S3, S7, Praxis BC (or even Concept), DPS 112RP, Bent Chetler, Obsethed, maybe some of the new Volkls, etc. should be the conceptual center of what is being rolled out IMO. (with a bias toward the more modest or flat end of the camber spectrum, but hey, that's just me... smile.gif )

 


OK, yep "traditional" for indies has come to mean moderate rocker, mild camber. (My thrust was to contrast actual higher sales indie skis with popular conception of indies as fire-breathing, out on the fringe skis.) But what I cannot see, in a million years, is routinely using most of the ski you mention ^^^^ on hardpack groomers. And whether you personally ski on scratchy groomers or not, most skiers do, most of the time. Go check out Valley Run at Squaw at 4 pm on a Saturday if you want a glimpse of what 3/4 of the skiing public skis on 3/4 of the time. Then try it on a Bent, or a BC, and report back on how the experience would be for the average intermediate. eek.gif Or check out the guy's thread from the ski hill in Ohio, looks to be about 300 feet of vert from the pics, who's trying to decide if he wants a Blackeye or a Crimson. You want to - with a straight face - say he'd be "better served" with a S7? How would he be better served? (Yep, the Atomics both utilize "adaptive rocker" this year. That doesn't make them 115 wide, or having rocker extending back 30 cm. The debate here isn't about whether rocker has proved to be a useful alternative. It has. It's about whether everything's going to hell cuz rocker is getting scaled back a bit, and made more suitable for varied conditions, rather than pushed into Brave New Worlds.

 

Yeah yeah, you personally can ski most or all of those on icy hardpack and survive. Or even do OK.  I can ski my Rossi 7S's sitting in the basement in a foot of fresh pow. Did for years. Does that make it optimal for me if I lived near Big Sky? And what do either of our experiences have to do with the average skier who wants to Z-turn his way down a badly groomed blue and feel like a hero while the ski helps him stay upright? 

 

Gawd, how many times do we have to have the same posts over and over and over before someone will blink and say, "Hmmm. Maybe low camber fat rockers are not the answer to all humankinds' ills"? Maybe there are different tools in the carpenter's belt for a reason??? Beating_A_Dead_Horse_by_livius.gif

 

 

PS: The new Praxis ski I'm referring to is not the Concept. It was said to have wavy BASES. Pic of Keith on it. 

post #53 of 187
Quote:
Originally Posted by SierraJim View Post

I think when considering the general market, you are a little too focused upon your own prism. I don't disagree that the Pontoon was a better powder ski than the 'Bent nor that 'Toon is still very good in its intended role but I keep in mind that they were both pretty good at the time. I reflect upon the time when we sold both skis. The Joe Average skier that buys stuff just wasn't seeing the world through your eyes. He wanted to get something to go along with his BanditXX or his Legend 8000 or whatever and the Pontoon looked and skied so weird to him that that the "Bent" was the more comfortable choice. For the skier that buys the newest and bestest powder ski that comes out every 6 months, the more fringe oriented designs have appeal. Unfortunately, the industry can't throw huge R&D budgets and lots of SKUs at small slices of the market.

 

SJ


 

I agree with some of what you say. But I think it was, and is,  the industry's job to educate people. And, not surprisingly, I think my "prism" is substantially less biased than that of many in the industry. 

 

In the case of the Pontoon - yes, it was different. And people thought it looked odd ( I was literally laughed at when I hauled a pair to NZ in 2007 ). But it did what it was meant to do. Well. And at 5 years old, it still is near the top of the heap for that. Even inbounds as a quiver ski. A lot of people may have chosen the HB because it had a more familiar shape - but that did not make it the right choice for many of them - especially if they mounted back... (btw, I like both of them)

 

I understand budgets and marketing. I am a fan of successful products. I'm happy that this year's crop, and the 2012 crop are bringing some beneficial movement. However, I think it is too conservative relative to what could be done. Just my .02...

post #54 of 187

Beyond-  

 

Most of the discussion here is not centered around the skis for an average intermediate...  In this age of quivers, optimized tools for different snow conditions are more of a norm than an anomaly.  Even if 3/4 of the public is and should be on carvers, the rest 1/4 has a voice, (and probably spends on ski gear as much as the remaining 3/4 do).   I also know plenty of people who spend as little time on groomers as possible, so they legitimately want designs that maximize their enjoyment in those conditions; these days at least 1/3 of them is on indie skis.  I think it pretty stupid to try to make a ski that would serve all 4/4 of the population- you will end up with something like a Recon, which serves no one well.  

 

That indies have been the epicenter of innovation is certainly a strike against the major companies who have been making skis either for groomer scratchers or for the guys on their freeride teams.  Neither of those categories appeals to me and my buddies as we don't care for scratchy groomers and we dont have the legs, the talent, and the resources that Cody Townsend, Dana Flahr, or Eric Pollard may have at their disposal.  The very existence of the indies points to underserved market, and these guys do not compete on price- they compete on image and more radical design innovation,  so Spindrift's point is well taken. 

 

 


 

Quote:
Originally Posted by beyond View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by spindrift View Post

 I suspect most skiers - especially new ones -  would be well served by skis that are on average more progressive than the big guys are rolling out in volume. Things like the S3, S7, Praxis BC (or even Concept), DPS 112RP, Bent Chetler, Obsethed, maybe some of the new Volkls, etc. should be the conceptual center of what is being rolled out IMO. (with a bias toward the more modest or flat end of the camber spectrum, but hey, that's just me... smile.gif )

 


OK, yep "traditional" for indies has come to mean moderate rocker, mild camber. (My thrust was to contrast actual higher sales indie skis with popular conception of indies as fire-breathing, out on the fringe skis.) But what I cannot see, in a million years, is routinely using most of the ski you mention ^^^^ on hardpack groomers. And whether you personally ski on scratchy groomers or not, most skiers do, most of the time. Go check out Valley Run at Squaw at 4 pm on a Saturday if you want a glimpse of what 3/4 of the skiing public skis on 3/4 of the time. Then try it on a Bent, or a BC, and report back on how the experience would be for the average intermediate. eek.gif Or check out the guy's thread from the ski hill in Ohio, looks to be about 300 feet of vert from the pics, who's trying to decide if he wants a Blackeye or a Crimson. You want to - with a straight face - say he'd be "better served" with a S7? How would he be better served? (Yep, the Atomics both utilize "adaptive rocker" this year. That doesn't make them 115 wide, or having rocker extending back 30 cm. The debate here isn't about whether rocker has proved to be a useful alternative. It has. It's about whether everything's going to hell cuz rocker is getting scaled back a bit, and made more suitable for varied conditions, rather than pushed into Brave New Worlds.

 

Yeah yeah, you personally can ski most or all of those on icy hardpack and survive. Or even do OK.  I can ski my Rossi 7S's sitting in the basement in a foot of fresh pow. Did for years. Does that make it optimal for me if I lived near Big Sky? And what do either of our experiences have to do with the average skier who wants to Z-turn his way down a badly groomed blue and feel like a hero while the ski helps him stay upright? 

 

Gawd, how many times do we have to have the same posts over and over and over before someone will blink and say, "Hmmm. Maybe low camber fat rockers are not the answer to all humankinds' ills"? Maybe there are different tools in the carpenter's belt for a reason??? Beating_A_Dead_Horse_by_livius.gif

 

 

PS: The new Praxis ski I'm referring to is not the Concept. It was said to have wavy BASES. Pic of Keith on it. 

post #55 of 187
Quote:
Originally Posted by nfp158 View Post



Quote:
Originally Posted by davluri View Post

going toward the middle after testing the extremes is a chance to refine rocker and camber design. it will be very interesting as some of the companies dial their design to perfection.

Looks like saner heads are prevailing here, and rocker/camber will be optimized for the masses and to make more $$s.

 

Bushwacker is not going to like this trend.

 

What you gonna do?
 


I was ahead of the tread, read about the skis I have been raving about, most have been long but low rises.

 

My new potential favorite skis of all time is the Blizzard "the one"  which has very long and low rise rocker.

post #56 of 187
Quote:
Originally Posted by alexzn View Post

Beyond-  

 

Most of the discussion here is not centered around the skis for an average intermediate...  Perhaps, but the OP was talking about how rocker is being toned down in response to demand (or lack). And Spindrift, whose argument I was addressing, stated that intermediates would be better served by buying fat rockered skis.

 

In this age of quivers, optimized tools for different snow conditions are more of a norm than an anomaly. Completely disagree, most skiers only own one ski.  Again, the relatively few members of Epic who post on this topic (what, maybe 10 or 15?) are a small minority of a very biased small sample. 

 

Even if 3/4 of the public is and should be on carvers, the rest 1/4 has a voice, (and probably spends on ski gear as much as the remaining 3/4 do).  I pulled the 3/4 out of a hat, assume you are doing the same for who buys what. I notice that most of the TGR crowd is proud of never paying more than half of msrp. So who has more economic impact, the small percentage who seek deals on radical gear or the much larger percentage who pay 90% of retail?

 

I also know plenty of people who spend as little time on groomers as possible, so they legitimately want designs that maximize their enjoyment in those conditions; these days at least 1/3 of them is on indie skis. Of course. But do you truly think yo and your friends are representative of some groundswell? SJ and other folks who actually make a living selling skis think otherwise. So do I, and I have drunk deeply of the Kool Aid; I have owned Priors, Bros, 4FNTS, Liberties, DPS's, and am eying Folsoms. But I'm still upright and conscious and not chanting yet. Different tools for different places for me cuz I'm super fortunate to be able to own a bunch of skis. If I could only own one, it would not be a 110 mm 5 point rocker.

 

 I think it pretty stupid to try to make a ski that would serve all 4/4 of the population- you will end up with something like a Recon, which serves no one well. Yep, but no one here has been arguing that there be one ski (by one lucky maker?) to rule all. Different thread...

 

That indies have been the epicenter of innovation is certainly a strike against the major companies who have been making skis either for groomer scratchers or for the guys on their freeride teams. Well yes and no. You could argue that K2, Volant, and Volkl have been the biggest single sources of innovation too. Do a timeline. 

 

Neither of those categories appeals to me and my buddies as we don't care for scratchy groomers Nor would I take hardpack over a foot of fresh on a 40 degree slope. But guess what? Most skiers in fact have to deal with scratchy groomers because either they live in areas that only have scratchy groomers most of the time (skied Michigan or Connecticut or Virginia lately?) or they can't get to big mountains within a few days of a dump (so the lift served that their bindings allow is already crud and hardpack). 

 

The very existence of the indies points to underserved market, and these guys do not compete on price- they compete on image and more radical design innovation,  so Spindrift's point is well taken. Your conclusion does not follow from your premise. Yes, the existence of the indies points to a small but vocal market segment willing to take risks with new designs and sketchy manufacturing. Spindrift's arguments (there were several) do not appear to relate to this premise one way or the other. He was arguing (mainly) for rocker and low camber being a good thing for all, including intermediates, and for the trend away from extreme rocker being a mistake, far as I can follow

 

Fact is, you could argue that the "middle road" with design that SJ noted at the beginning will open up the minds of many more skiers than having to choose between hard core gnar and traditional. 

 

post #57 of 187

Id leave it to the retailers to decide where they get their income.  I suspect that you have a point there... although someone who buys three pairs of skis at a deep discount may still spend more on skis over the same time than a Joe consumer who buys an expensive ski once every five years... both are a legitimate market opportunity.  As for quivers- I have an acquaintance not to be named who seems to be the epitome of cheap.  He recently bought himself a pair of fat skis (of course on sale at a deep discount) but still he  bought a second ski. This is actually the first year when I see a lot of intermediates with quivers.  Good for the industry I suppose.

 

But the real impact of a rocker design is that it unlocks the powder skiing for the average Joe.  That's a big deal.  Also, I think we are often mistaken when we pigeonhole a certain ski design.   My 75+ year old father loves his Solly Guns, he uses them to ski groomers in the Pacific Northwest and claims that they made skiing effortless for him.  Will a salesman recommend a ca. 100mm ski to him?  Not in a million years, so, go figure...  Same thing probably with rocker- it may work for a lot of people in a very unintended way, so we better experiment.  As to the original argument- I think an intermediate on a fat rockered ski would be very pleasantly surprised off-trail out West and may even think that she'd suddenly became a superhero...  And that's really the point of the new ski technology.       But you are right- someone who skis in MidWest should not be on a Pontoon.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by beyond View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by alexzn View Post

Beyond-  

 

Most of the discussion here is not centered around the skis for an average intermediate...  Perhaps, but the OP was talking about how rocker is being toned down in response to demand (or lack). And Spindrift, whose argument I was addressing, stated that intermediates would be better served by buying fat rockered skis.

 

In this age of quivers, optimized tools for different snow conditions are more of a norm than an anomaly. Completely disagree, most skiers only own one ski.  Again, the relatively few members of Epic who post on this topic (what, maybe 10 or 15?) are a small minority of a very biased small sample. 

 

Even if 3/4 of the public is and should be on carvers, the rest 1/4 has a voice, (and probably spends on ski gear as much as the remaining 3/4 do).  I pulled the 3/4 out of a hat, assume you are doing the same for who buys what. I notice that most of the TGR crowd is proud of never paying more than half of msrp. So who has more economic impact, the small percentage who seek deals on radical gear or the much larger percentage who pay 90% of retail?

 

I also know plenty of people who spend as little time on groomers as possible, so they legitimately want designs that maximize their enjoyment in those conditions; these days at least 1/3 of them is on indie skis. Of course. But do you truly think yo and your friends are representative of some groundswell? SJ and other folks who actually make a living selling skis think otherwise. So do I, and I have drunk deeply of the Kool Aid; I have owned Priors, Bros, 4FNTS, Liberties, DPS's, and am eying Folsoms. But I'm still upright and conscious and not chanting yet. Different tools for different places for me cuz I'm super fortunate to be able to own a bunch of skis. If I could only own one, it would not be a 110 mm 5 point rocker.

 

 I think it pretty stupid to try to make a ski that would serve all 4/4 of the population- you will end up with something like a Recon, which serves no one well. Yep, but no one here has been arguing that there be one ski (by one lucky maker?) to rule all. Different thread...

 

That indies have been the epicenter of innovation is certainly a strike against the major companies who have been making skis either for groomer scratchers or for the guys on their freeride teams. Well yes and no. You could argue that K2, Volant, and Volkl have been the biggest single sources of innovation too. Do a timeline. 

 

Neither of those categories appeals to me and my buddies as we don't care for scratchy groomers Nor would I take hardpack over a foot of fresh on a 40 degree slope. But guess what? Most skiers in fact have to deal with scratchy groomers because either they live in areas that only have scratchy groomers most of the time (skied Michigan or Connecticut or Virginia lately?) or they can't get to big mountains within a few days of a dump (so the lift served that their bindings allow is already crud and hardpack). 

 

The very existence of the indies points to underserved market, and these guys do not compete on price- they compete on image and more radical design innovation,  so Spindrift's point is well taken. Your conclusion does not follow from your premise. Yes, the existence of the indies points to a small but vocal market segment willing to take risks with new designs and sketchy manufacturing. Spindrift's arguments (there were several) do not appear to relate to this premise one way or the other. He was arguing (mainly) for rocker and low camber being a good thing for all, including intermediates, and for the trend away from extreme rocker being a mistake, far as I can follow. 

 

post #58 of 187

I skipped the last 10 or so posts, but any sign of a 190+ Nordica Radict?

post #59 of 187

Sollie had the BBR's at Alta today for demo. They do many things very, very well. They ski very fast, very well. I'll post a full review tomorrow if I can. Am having them mounted tonight- I bought a pair- and we really need to wait for the photos...

post #60 of 187

Will there be a wider Fire Arrow from Nordica.  I have found the 80 to cover more range of snow and slope conditions than any other ski I've owned.

 

I realize that the style of this ski -- big sidecut and all -- may not lend itself to going a lot wider, but still curious.

 

Thanks!

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 › 2012 skis and gear.....a (pre) preview.