 Poster: A snowHead
|
OK, it's now the newest fashion for many "all mountain" skis to have elongated raised tips, so called early rise (or tip rocker). And some skis have rockered tail also (not that I understand the point of rockered tail). And just about half (in some brand, ALL) of the skis coming to the market have various amount of rocker somewhere!
Am I the only one who think this make ski length entirely confusing, or at least not telling the WHOLE story?
A casual browse of the brands & models shows different rocker length, which resulted in different contact length of the camber part of the ski. Hence the generic statement of "going a little longer" with rocker'ed skis. Still, it doesn't really tell how one ski of a said OVERALL length compare with another if they have different amount of rocker.
I would naively think the running length (or contact length?), the part of ski under the camber, would be a more precise measurement of how the ski would perform on hard snow, in addition to the overall length which is more relevant on powder?
I don't see ANY ski manufacturer even list the camber length of their ski. I wonder why
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
With most of the skis in question, there's normally some clue as to how much rocker there is. So it'll tell you how much rise there is compared with length. The skis i've got have Early Rise™ Tip 20cm x 4mm, so for the front 20cm, there is 4mm rocker. It's not a massive rise, but enough to help out in crud and variable snow. One thing to bear in mind is that when the ski is over on edge, the rocker very much becomes part of the traditional cambered edge again as the weight of the skier in a turn forces the ski into a natural rocker shape anyway, so you don't lose any grip there. Only way you'll lose any kind of grip is with a tapered tip along with the rocker, when the nose of the ski tapers away from the edge much earlier in the ski. This, of course, helps when skiing in soft snow or powder as it's easier for the nose of the ski to punch through the force of resistance (snow) in front of it.
Rocker at the back is helpful when skiing switch.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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?
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
Dot. sits back and starts on a fresh bowl of popcorn 
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
|
shoogly, yup
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Question was NOT about WHETHER to rocker or not.
Question was what's the effective (or equivalent) length of a ski with rocker.
I suppose the same question could be (and was) asked about the effective length of twin tip. But at least there, the length of the rounded tail doesn't vary quite as much as the amount of rocker.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
if it helps i ski a 172cm in a normal piste ski, on a dynastar outland 80 rocker ski 177cm
|
|
|
|
|
|
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: |
| if it helps i ski a 172cm in a normal piste ski, on a dynastar outland 80 rocker ski 177cm |
Age old adage ......................................... SIZE matters!! A few years back 172cms was considered a Mini-ski!!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
theskibob,
I am however 3 foot tall 
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
abc,
| Quote: |
Am I the only one who think this make ski length entirely confusing, or at least not telling the WHOLE story?
|
I have been saying for ages that the length of rocker style skis, is not really being document correctly by ski makers. I really good example is the new 2013 Movement Jam piste ski which I skied last week. Next season it has early rise tip rocker and comes in 164, 173 and 182 lengths, this seasons ski has no tip rocker and comes in lengths 164 173 and 182 with the same carve radius and dimensions 
Do they feel different YES, the new tip profile makes skiing broken snow easier with less deflection, off piste they rise quicker and the tips float better, however the turn radius on piste when its hard or on packed powder is much tighter than reported but if you tip the skis further over onto their edge you engaged more ski and the turn radius is more like the old ski. As shoogly, says
Why have Movemet not increased the length of the skis to accomodate the new early rise tips, my guess and I do not know for a fact is that the majority of ski outlets selling the skis do not have the first idea about rocker and how a ski performs, so ski makers keep it simple and less confusing for the majority.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
shoogly,
| Quote: |
One thing to bear in mind is that when the ski is over on edge, the rocker very much becomes part of the traditional cambered edge again as the weight of the skier in a turn forces the ski into a natural rocker shape anyway, so you don't lose any grip there.
|
agree and correct, the pic below is of me on one of the biggest tip and tail rocker skis the flyswatters conditons last week late afternoon soft on piste, note that the full length of the ski is working on the downhill ski.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
livetoski, slightly off-topic, but what goggles are you wearing?
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
|
rob@rar, they are Demon ones spherical lens, they are same as electric or is it spy brand but half the price, plug over lol
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
|
livetoski, thanks, do you stock them? I have a new helmet and my current goggles don't fit well with them, so something which is a bit squarer along the top of the frame might be better.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
|
rob@rar, my dragon goggles are quite flat along the top... Worth a look.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
|
shoogly, thanks, I think I might have an old pair of Dragon goggles kicking around somewhere. I'll see if I can dig them out.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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?
|
|
At 6'1" and 86kg I just buy the longest length they make and don't worry about it! Unless the rocker is pretty extreme I don't think it makes much difference to the effective running length. Especially on the very subtle rocker you see now on many all-mountain and even some dedicated piste carvers. Twin-tips always ski a fair bit shorter than flat tails, but that's different because the rear tip is properly off the ground throughout the turn - so you know they're going to ski about 5 cm shorter. I was mostly skiing on 184 Line SFBs this season, which have both tip and tail rocker. But when skiing on piste (especially soft piste) they seem to ski full length similar to my non-rockered Line Prophets, which are a fraction longer at 186. It might be a different story on a rock hard piste, but then I wouldn't be using a fat rockered ski then anyway.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
| Quote: |
It might be a different story on a rock hard piste, but then I wouldn't be using a fat rockered ski then anyway.
|
In an ideal world that has no ski carrage charges, no one in their right mind would be skiing rock hard piste on fat rockered skis. Everyone would buy a few skis and use the appropriate one for the day's condition.
One can even go so far to look at the weather and choose the more appropriate skis for the duration of one's holiday. Note I said "more appropriate", not just "appropriate". Because if there's a storm predicted half way through a 1 week holiday, it becomes a compromise which condition to focus on. Hence, a ski that has a large capability range would be quite desirable.
More over, the current fashion is in adding rocker to non-powder-specific skis to make them more powder friendly. So these skis are fully expected to be used on piste a fair amount. That's why the effective length on piste become relevant. Unfortunately, many ski manufacturers are rather vague at that.
Again, in an ideal world, one should only buy ski after trying them out on snow and under the range of condition one is expecting to use them. But in the not so ideal world, many of us will be buying skis without trying them out, or at least not tried in all the condition expected to use the ski. That neccesitate a bit of infering of its performance from how it's constructed, its width, shape and ... length in both soft and hard snow!
Especially in this early incarnation of rockered skis on the market, there's yet no standard of how much rocker different manufacturers add on. One is left to guess (or measure, I suppose) the amount of rocker and hard snow length that's left.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
^
Agree with all of that.
I like to have the faith that a ski can take me pretty much anywhere I dare to go. And bearing in mind a ski isn't loaded on a turning edge all or even most of the time, if I had to trust in a ski to the point my safety depended on it, say for holding all its edge on a sketchy, icy traverse above something I really didn't want to go down, putting faith in one that had its tip and tail edges pointing up and away from the snow would be a bit too scary.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
[quote="abc"]
| Quote: |
there's yet no standard of how much rocker different manufacturers add on. One is left to guess (or measure, I suppose) the amount of rocker and hard snow length that's left. |
There isn't even a standard as to how different manufacturers define the simple length of a ski without any rocker. Not all XX cm skis actually measure XX cm in real life. Some measure true tip-tail, others don't.
Rocker does further complicate things, but I haven't seen any piste-oriented rockered skis that have anything more than a bit of 'marketing' early rise to make the initiation a tad easier. I doubt most people would even notice it when skiing and I very much doubt you would need a longer ski to compensate. And if you did need them to be longer then the manufacturer would probably make them in longer lengths anyway - like the Volkl Code for example.
I think you're looking too deeply into an issue that isn't really there. When comparing skis, particularly piste skis, there are far more critical design parameters to consider ahead of rocker. Like how stiff they are in torsion and beam (no true standards there either).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I'm not looking at 'piste' skis that goes off-piste occasionally.
At most, I'm looking at 50/50 use skis. And that 50% of piste use are at least soft piste 50% of the time  (And if I could help it, it'll probably be more like 60~70% off-piste and only 30~40% groomed piste)
That said, off-piste doesn't equals powder. In fact, one must be contend with crud, slush and the blasted moguls! I already tried a ski with tip rocker and found it cut through crud and slush just fine. No chance to test it on moguls so I had to kind of guess. Probably a disadvantage, would be my guess.
Still, that left the up to 40% it'll be used on piste, sometimes hard, refrozen crud the consistancy of coral reef! So I'd rather not lose too much effective running length to the "rockers". (also, I'm a lightweight. So my skis will range from only 155-165cm. Limited length to start with for them to mess with adding rocker)
I'm in the perculier situation that my hard piste skiing are mostly local. So I can pick the ideal ski for the day after all. I already got a piste ski that works pretty well on both hard and soft piste, including moguls. And it really don't need rockers anyway. Sadly, we don't get the bottomless 3 feet feathery powder! I can ski a few inches of fresh snow with that piste ski fine too, as long as it's not too much snow or too chopped up (or settled, dense white goo).
It's my travel ski that I'm comtemplating changing. So I prefer a ski that don't require me to take a seperate piste ski because is does hard snow so poorly. (I have a pair of do-everything travel ski from about 4-5 years ago. But I'm a different skier now than before. I ski faster and moved onto steeper terrain over these few years so the ski that was right then is not quite up to the job any more)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Quote: |
Question was NOT about WHETHER to rocker or not.
Question was what's the effective (or equivalent) length of a ski with rocker.
|
Yeah i got that, sorry for the short reply but my poorly made point was that with so much marketing jargon around no wonder there is no way to compare specs between manufacturers. do you have a early rise rocker, flow line rocker, blah blah rocker.
a bit of tip rise seems to help in variables but when you watch how flappy most rockered skis are i am not sure it makes much odds what the exact dimensions, sidecut etc is
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
| shoogly wrote: |
| when the ski is over on edge, the rocker very much becomes part of the traditional cambered edge again as the weight of the skier in a turn forces the ski into a natural rocker shape anyway, so you don't lose any grip there. |
and:
| shoogly wrote: |
| Only way you'll lose any kind of grip is with a tapered tip along with the rocker, when the nose of the ski tapers away from the edge much earlier in the ski. |
abc, I'd say the crux of the problem is the amount of piste skiing you plan to do, and the ski performance you expect in that environment. shoogly's second point is important if you want a ski with any piste performance, and for me would outweigh considerations regarding length. Add in the issue of getting the appropriate flex & side-cut\shape I'd think that worrying about a few cm at either end isn't the key issue - other than the way ski length will influence those other variables*.
In terms of an off-piste \ powder ski, 'effective length' or 'edge' is neither here of there - the whole ski is acting in the snow.
* Given the way my gear purchasing went last year I'm not sure I'm qualified to comment, but has caused me to ponder the subject at length
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| AndAnotherThing.. wrote: |
| In terms of an off-piste \ powder ski, 'effective length' or 'edge' is neither here of there - the whole ski is acting in the snow. |
I can see that the ski is always in the snow if you only ever ski powder but as 'off piste' isn't always like that, surely there ought to be caveats that skyward facing banana profiled cambers are not ideal all-rounders. Powder makes steep slopes (avalanche risks excepted) forgiving and much, much easier whereas the challenging bits of off-piste skiing are sometimes about survival whilst hoping that your edges aren't going to slide away from the crappy unpowdery snow you suddenly found yourself on.
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
|
moffatross, there's definitely value in some amount of rocker off piste. I've got a pair of Whitedot Directors sitting here you'd be welcome to take if you've got another trip on the go.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
| moffatross wrote: |
| but as 'off piste' isn't always like that, surely there ought to be caveats that skyward facing banana profiled cambers are not ideal all-rounders. |
Yes, absolutely.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| moffatross wrote: |
| AndAnotherThing.. wrote: |
| In terms of an off-piste \ powder ski, 'effective length' or 'edge' is neither here of there - the whole ski is acting in the snow. |
I can see that the ski is always in the snow if you only ever ski powder but as 'off piste' isn't always like that, surely there ought to be caveats that skyward facing banana profiled cambers are not ideal all-rounders. Powder makes steep slopes (avalanche risks excepted) forgiving and much, much easier whereas the challenging bits of off-piste skiing are sometimes about survival whilst hoping that your edges aren't going to slide away from the crappy unpowdery snow you suddenly found yourself on. |
Apart from pure untouched hardpack or ice, I find rocker a significant benefit in ALL offpiste conditions. Powder is far from the only 3D snow condition, anything variable/cruddy/cut up/crusty/slushy/etc is easier and more fun with rocker. Steep smooth couloir entrances are one of the (pretty few, in my expeince, so far) where rocker isn't advantageous, but depending on the amount isn't neccessarily a disadvantage either - other characteristics like (tortional) stiffness and sidecut have just as much impact (unless we're talking about massive full rocker over the whole ski lenght).
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
OP, for what it's worth, some manufacturers do list all the info.
I have a pair of these in 190 length (although from the year when the graphics were still sexy) and find them brilliant everywhere apart from super hard frozen stuff, and super steep couloir entrances. I bought them intending them to be purely for powder, but was/am amazed by their versatility. I seem to use them more and more these days.
Was in the PdS the other week, blue skis and really hot everyday. Took my midfats out the first two days, which on paper should have been ideal (they were) for the conditions. Took the Bibbys out the third day for shits and giggles, and ended up using them every other day too as they were so fun. Skiing the majority of the time onpiste (with parents), deep slush and big moguls, with lovely corn for the first hour, and occasionally some re-frozen crud/mank. Not that the midfats were bad (they weren't, they were brilliant), just enjoyed the way the big skis felt.
Sure you don't get the traditional 'load and rebound' when carving, but the surfy, floaty, water ski feel is very addictive too.
Last edited by You know it makes sense. on Sat 7-04-12 13:39; edited 1 time in total
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
Alans deep bath, thanks. Travelling imminently for a trip to the Arlberg but if we get to ski deep freshies on home mountains again this season (not totally impossible), I'd like that. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
| clarky999 wrote: |
OP, for what it's worth, some manufacturers do list all the info.
I have a pair of these in 190 length (although from the year when the graphics were still sexy) and find them brilliant everywhere apart from super hard frozen stuff, and super steep couloir entrances. I bought them intending them to be purely for powder, but was/am amazed by their versatility. I seem to use them more and more these days. |
OK, there's lot of numbers listed. And I can even guess what some of those number refers to. But if they're putting a "shape" on the same page, is it that much trouble to illustrate which number refer to which part of that shape??? (like typically on a bike geometry pix)
(Bikes too, like skis, aren't just geometrical shape, the material and construction matters to the end product's ride characteristic. But doesn't seem to deter bike manufacturers to list their geometry, unlike ski manufacturers)
| Quote: |
| Sure you don't get the traditional 'load and rebound' when carving. |
But why is that? The Bibby does have traditional camber underfoot...
I would have expected they should ski quite like traditional skis on hard piste! (and was told by ski shop guys as so)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
| abc wrote: |
| clarky999 wrote: |
OP, for what it's worth, some manufacturers do list all the info.
I have a pair of these in 190 length (although from the year when the graphics were still sexy) and find them brilliant everywhere apart from super hard frozen stuff, and super steep couloir entrances. I bought them intending them to be purely for powder, but was/am amazed by their versatility. I seem to use them more and more these days. |
OK, there's lot of numbers listed. And I can even guess what some of those number refers to. But if they're putting a "shape" on the same page, is it that much trouble to illustrate which number refer to which part of that shape??? (like typically on a bike geometry pix)
(Bikes too, like skis, aren't just geometrical shape, the material and construction matters to the end product's ride characteristic. But doesn't seem to deter bike manufacturers to list their geometry, unlike ski manufacturers)
| Quote: |
| Sure you don't get the traditional 'load and rebound' when carving. |
But why is that? The Bibby does have traditional camber underfoot...
I would have expected they should ski quite like traditional skis on hard piste! (and was told by ski shop guys as so) |
They used too, don't know why they don't anymore.
The Bibby grips and carves very well for it's size, but obviously not so well compared to a more appropriate tool. Of course you can load it up and release, but you have to work harder for less (of that sort of) response. Probably due to less contact area (due to taper and rocker), wider so harder to get/keep the grip to really load it (not an issue if the snow is soft, other than relatively to a skinnier ski) and generally a bit softer flexing/without metal.
The shop guys are right in that they ski well on hard pistes for skis of that size, but they aren't that much like a traditional ski in reality. They are good enough to actually enjoy skiing on (even hard) pistes (and great fun on slushy pistes), rather than just tolerable like some other fat skis, but that's just a bonus compared to performance on the terrain they're designed for.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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?
|
| clarky999 wrote: |
| abc wrote: |
| clarky999 wrote: |
| Sure you don't get the traditional 'load and rebound' when carving. |
But why is that? The Bibby does have traditional camber underfoot...
I would have expected they should ski quite like traditional skis on hard piste! (and was told by ski shop guys as so) |
They used too, don't know why they don't anymore.
|
Need a fresh tune? Or the camer losing its shape?
| Quote: |
The shop guys are right in that they ski well on hard pistes for skis of that size, but they aren't that much like a traditional ski in reality.
|
That's the part that intrigs me and bothers me a bit...
| Quote: |
They are good enough to actually enjoy skiing on (even hard) pistes (and great fun on slushy pistes), rather than just tolerable like some other fat skis
|
They being fat skis it's understandable it won't grip nearly as good as narrower skis. But the trend of adding rocker to narrower skis (e.g. 80mm waist) hints that one can have it both way, decent piste performace with better soft snow capability too.
I guess that's my main curiosity. Does it? Can one have the cake and eat it?
Sounds from your experience it does, even though not quite as good a cake as others?
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
if rocker is implemented properly them the tip of the ski is soft and effective edge length varies depending how much the ski is flexed. So in different sections of every turn the edge length touching snow varies.
might not be cool to big up big ski firms, but K2 have nailed the concept of 'versatile rocker' more than other brand.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
| abc wrote: |
| clarky999 wrote: |
| abc wrote: |
| clarky999 wrote: |
| Sure you don't get the traditional 'load and rebound' when carving. |
But why is that? The Bibby does have traditional camber underfoot...
I would have expected they should ski quite like traditional skis on hard piste! (and was told by ski shop guys as so) |
They used too, don't know why they don't anymore.
|
Need a fresh tune? Or the camer losing its shape? |
Sorry, meant their website used to have the numbers against a diagram of the ski to show how much was rockered/cambered and by how much.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
|
Haggis_Trap, Think DPS may have the edge in that department
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| carbon_copy wrote: |
| Haggis_Trap, Think DPS may have the edge in that department |
Not sure any of DPS's narrower/piste orientated skis have subtle rocker? I guess the 99 does now, but that's still not exactly a piste orientated shape still...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Haggis_Trap,
| Quote: |
if rocker is implemented properly them the tip of the ski is soft and effective edge length varies depending how much the ski is flexed. So in different sections of every turn the edge length touching snow varies.
|
OK so I am a little biased but from my recent ski test I would ski these every day regardless of conditions, and no the tip is not that soft although has a good rocker, they have a classic flat tail though which kicks ass on harder snow as well. size 141x 108 x 129 turn R 21 more stiff than medium flex they strike me as a classic all mountain ski that can handle almost everything that the mountain throws at you, OK Sat night gush over LOL.
Oh and PS if anyone can tell me how I took this photo I would be well impressed, please take note of perfect groomed piste before you answer, no photo shop promise.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
| livetoski wrote: |
| Oh and PS if anyone can tell me how I took this photo I would be well impressed, please take note of perfect groomed piste before you answer, no photo shop promise. |
Not sure I get the intricacy...
Early morning right after the piste was groomed?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Quote: |
size 141x 108 x 129 turn R 21 more stiff than medium flex
|
Sounds good!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
