 Poster: A snowHead
|
Rocker and waist, whats it all about.
Is 80mm classed as all mountain, or a fat piste ski
do you need rocker, yes or no.
Discuss nicely and sensibly 
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
Timbobaggins, its an ever changing dynamic, some skis are getting thinner again now as refinement in shape means the waist doesn't need to be as thick for similar float which gains performance in hardpack snow. Then you have all sorts of crazy bends going on in for example the S7.
Basically rocker means the curl for the tip starts earlier (early rise) and last longer to the extreme where it literally goes up from flat rather than the ski being cambered. It can be on the front and back of the ski and very often is different in each direction. Contrary to some peoples opinion tail rocker isn't just for skiing backwards. You end up with a much more 'surfy' feeling ski when they are fully rockered. In general though it's similar to getting a speedboat on plane and prevents the ski tips from diving. As more of the ski is off the snow they tend to ski like a shorter ski on piste unless you are at big edge angles (really leaning over). On the whole easier to pivot and harder to sink.
Waist is about increasing the surface area of the ski, wider waist demands a wider ski overall for the same sidecut. More float in powder. Bigger waists require more force for an equivalent edge angle so are a bit harder to ski on firm snow and take more time to change from one edge to another. I personally wouldn't ski lower than 100mm these days as it makes a great ski for all conditions.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
|
80mm is basically a piste ski, apart from for midgets.
Rocker should not be a need - that would suggest you need to improve technique - but it is a massive advantage in pretty much all offpiste conditions. Can't see myself ever buying a non-piste ski without it. It allows the ski to plane up in powder (avoids tip dive and completely changes the feel - forget bouncing around, just surf!!), and ride up over funky crusts/bumps/other people's tracks/etc rather than be deflected or jolted so much. Comes in different amounts, subtler 'early rise' more more firm snow/all mountain skis, or deep full rockers for getting your surf on. Skis can either be fully rockered over the whole length for ultimate 'pivotability', have a normal-cambered mid-section for versatility, or a flat section for 'somewhere in between.'
meh has pretty much covered the rest.
Last edited by Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see? on Mon 17-09-12 21:25; edited 2 times in total
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
The 2 above have basically got it covered - for a non lightweight male anything under 90mm is basically a piste ski 90-110ish true rather than aspirational all mountain, 115+ pow.
Rocker is just about fun though I can see the case for a bit of rocker in a piste ski for easy initiation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
|
|
|
|
|
^^love it! 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
|
| Quote: |
late afternoon about a foot of slush, SURF was up and it was brill, almost everyone else had gone to the bar as they just sunk and could not move
|
 love spring!!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
livetoski,
| Quote: |
some guy said wow Pingu skis, mmm wonder who that could have been.
|
rob@rar?
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
| Pedantica wrote: |
livetoski,
| Quote: |
some guy said wow Pingu skis, mmm wonder who that could have been.
|
rob@rar? |
Good Lord no. I just said they were scary looking!
|
|
|
|
|
|
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
|
rob@rar, well he was stood next to you at the time 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
livetoski,
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
Personally think K2 had the best way of explaining ski catogories with the "frontside" or "backside" skis. front side skis such as explorers sal enduros etc are mainly designed for piste but will cope with some off the side soft stuff if taken, backside such as obsethed shogun etc are designed to perform in the soft snow...
All-mountain skis (as most people call them) are really a bit mis-leading but then would give enough off piste performance for most people so guess thats why the name has stuck. but the ski is mainly designed as piste skis. (and work bloody well on them too!)
and after skiing rockered skis for the last 3 years then going back to something true cambered the other day in the dome i really did miss the rocker, just makes things more fun I think!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
I havent skied a rockered ski yet but i have skied (?) my seth vicious 98 mm waist skis in all conditions from shite to worse, moguls to waist deep powder and they ski like on rails on the hardpack. I cant see me skiing anything less as i cant see any benefit in doing so. Unless you are after a slalom ski or other specific. Many people are still wary of these "fatter"skis and their perfomance on piste but they really should take them out and see for themselves. Ive added a 105 waisted obsethed for this season so the rocker shall be interesting. Anything more would be possibly unuseable for me as I dont need anymore float in powder and their quickness from edge to edge in short turns may be compromised. Some maintain that your technique should come first before you take the easy option of the "fatties". I agree, but its foremost about enjoyment and if your not smiling then youre doing something wrong.
Regard powder,.. id rather be in it than surfing on top of it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
|
Pingu vid = amazing. Haven't laughed that hard in the morning for a while!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
Thanks all for replies, i understand it a bit more now. So if i wanted a do it all ski that will do 50/50 on off piste i should be looking at a 90-100mm waist ski.
Reason i ask is i have bought a pair of Outland 80's in the Decathlon sale, these are described as a 50/50 ski by Dynastar, but from what i am getting from above, the 80mm waist is probablt too narrow
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
|
Timbobaggins, Afraid so I would reckon that the Outland 80's are much more piste than off piste the tip is also not to wide at 120'ish they would be OK for your occasional venture off piste and getting used to off piste, if you were in anything deeper than say between your boot and knee then especially at slower speeds they maybe a little difficult, the Outland also has a pretty small turn radius so again off piste could be a difficulty.
But at the end of the day, I have not skied the Outland, so maybe talking out my bottom 
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
Timbobaggins, yes and no, the waist width is probably not an issue people skied off piste on skinnier skis after all and a few years ago 80mm would have been mid-fat! A generally wider ski will be easier as it floats more but is not essential. With that ski the length you bought is probably more critical.
Take a look at this thread from '09:
http://snowheads.com/ski-forum/viewtopic.php?t=51704
If you're doing 50/50 on-piste to off-piste they should be a good compromise.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
it depends on your standard of skiing off piste and also your stlye of skiing . if you are starting to venture off piste more and that is the reason you are looking at a 50/50 ski, then you will get more out of a wider ski underfoot. Yes people skied as I did off piste on very long thin skiis ( not very well) but you didnt see that many as compared with today off the piste. This is because it required a skillset. Today the off piste is where many want to go and do go. This is primarily down to the wider ski making it more accessible as it is easier.
As my mum says.. "long and thin goes right in, but short and thick does the trick" ...
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
| Timbobaggins wrote: |
| Rocker and waist, whats it all about. |
It's all compromise. By and large;
Thin and no rocker = easier to ski on piste/harder to ski off piste, than fat and rocker
Fat and rocker = harder to ski on piste/easier to ski off piste, than thin and no rocker.
Anything in between is a variation on a theme.
So all mountain skis are just hard to ski well anywhere
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Only skied fully rockered skis once and have mixed feelings. It wasn't a powder day and the snow was a bit mixed. They were great in the trees turned on a sixpence, and fine in the chobble but not really any better than my regular skis. On the piste I didn't like them at all, they seemed to have multiple turning radius and I didn't really get used to them. Will have another shot this season.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| limegreen1 wrote: |
As my mum says.. "long and thin goes right in, but short and thick does the trick" ... |
Hilarious
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
|
| Timbobaggins wrote: |
Thanks all for replies, i understand it a bit more now. So if i wanted a do it all ski that will do 50/50 on off piste i should be looking at a 90-100mm waist ski.
Reason i ask is i have bought a pair of Outland 80's in the Decathlon sale, these are described as a 50/50 ski by Dynastar, but from what i am getting from above, the 80mm waist is probablt too narrow |
Sound like one half of a great quiver
They will be fine offpiste, if you have the skills to match. In fact, if you're only just getting into offpiste, the way they'll make you learn the skills is probably a good thing. IMO, they won't be as fun in really deep snow though, you'll have to work more, and you won't get that awesome floaty surfy feeling.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sorry to hijack thread but im in a similar position with regard to rockers.... ive done mainly piste skiing but have ventured off piste a little. Im booked up to go skiing again january and i would like to venture off piste some more... can anyone recommend a good 'introduction-to-rocker' ski that i could hire??? I'm 6' and 14.7 stone, 93kg
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
| Quote: |
Regard powder,.. id rather be in it than surfing on top of it.
|
I see/hear this a lot, but don't really understand it. On a genuinely deep day, nothing will keep you 'on the surface.' A la:
POV POWDER EDIT 11/12 ST. ANTON!
|
|
|
|
|
|
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
|
| limegreen1 wrote: |
| Regard powder,.. id rather be in it than surfing on top of it. |
This is an oft used cliche but being "on" powder isn't the same as being on a groomer - it's 3D - you dip in and out as you want depending on what you do with the skis. My view is that if a rocker fat ski can make a 5-6 inch day feel bottomless then I'd take it over something that is going to allow me in the powder so much that I'm crunching hardpack below. Obviously if you're somewhere like Japan getiing snowfall in feet of fluff then it doesn't really matter.
Last edited by And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports. on Tue 18-09-12 22:52; edited 1 time in total
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| fatbob wrote: |
| being "on" powder isn't the same as being an a groomer - it's 3D - you dip in and out as you want depending on what you do with the skis. My view is that if a rocker fat ski can make a 5-6 inch day feel bottomless then I'd take in over something that is going to allow me in the powder so much that I'm crunching hardpack below. |
This, oh so very much.
Has anyone ever met any snowboarders who went back to skis because all that tedious surfiness in powder was beginning to bore them?
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
Quite a few on Hokkaido 
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
Really? They floated too much in that snow, and wanted to sink more?  Or did they find they wanted something more floaty for low angle really deep soft powder, and skis seemed more appropriate?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
|
Nah snowboarders go back to skis becos it ain't the 90s and boards aren't coolio anymore. Plus they are functionally limited. Given you can now replicate the surfy feeling in powder on skis there isn't as much point unless you're Xavier De La Rue and determined to make icy suicide couloirs as hard as possible because your balls are so big.
Last edited by Poster: A snowHead on Wed 19-09-12 21:57; edited 1 time in total
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
|
Sure, but I bet not a one of the converts thought "yeah brah, we're gonna get so bogged down in deep pow on our new skinny sticks, its gonna be awesome being in the pow instead of on it". Functionally limited, though? don't quite see that one meself.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
|
|
functionally limited = not very good at traverses/flats and splitboards still aren't as usable as skis with touring bindings
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
|
Right, so when I asked about snowboarders who "went back to skis because all that tedious surfiness in powder was beginning to bore them", the answer is "people change for other reasons". A simple "no" would have also sufficed
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Another point is that with a bit of rocker you can get away with a stiffer ski in powder (without tip dive), which is then better for variable/tracked/funky stuff on non-pow days.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
+ 1
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
|
clarky999, bleh, just get a longer ski or go faster. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
