 Poster: A snowHead
|
|
Having now tried out a few rockered skis, zags and black crows, I was wondering if they are going to become the standard design in the future or remain a specialist ski. I have mixed feelings, I do like the easy turning but am not entirely convinced that they are better all round.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
jbob, i am afraid thatI remain convinced that their benefits are more planted in the realm of marketing than engineering.
They more or less simply give the ski a shorter effective length.
And yes, I have now skied some and that did not alter my opinion one jot.
As a case in point, a number of manufacturers are now marketing race skis as race rockers, when in fact the skis have an entirely tradidional camber.
A scam by any other name?
|
|
|
|
|
|
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?
|
|
Offpiste it's great, on piste skis it's pointless and already being reduced on many models (back to being a normal ski). Agree with underanewname in cynicism.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
| Quote: |
| on piste skis it's pointless |
| Quote: |
| their benefits are more planted in the realm of marketing than engineering |
| Quote: |
| not entirely convinced that they are better all round. |
^ Disagree with all of the above....
Rocker works : but the effect is subtle. The problem is that many ski companies still don't know how to implement versatile rocker properly. K2 are one company that have nailed the concept of all-terrain "rocker" - which is basically a big shovel on the ski that starts further back. This makes turn initiation easier, while maintaining full edge contact during the actual turn itself.
This is an interesting video : the important thing to notice that 100% edge contact is maintained once the ski is fully engaged...
http://k2skis.com/rocker/all-terrain-rocker
History lesson - In year 2000 "carving" was the new marketing buzz word. The sales men tried to tell us that 160cm super side cut carvers were essential. Clearly that was not the case and such tools, whilst performing well on hard piste, are not proper all mountain skis. It took a while for designs to evolve, however 15 years later almost every ski still has an element of sidecut.
Similar statement's could be made about "rocker" and the marketing hype since 2010... Of course rocker wont apply to a GS race ski on icy piste... However for any true all mountain ski that will be used in variable snow the concept of rocker makes sense. Even on hard snow the rocker *can* make the turn initiation of a mid fat (say 80m++) ski easier (if it has been implemented properly).
Last edited by You need to Login to know who's really who. on Tue 15-01-13 9:32; edited 1 time in total
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
It works, it is here to stay and you will see a growth of it in the future.
I remember the first time I seen it a few years back at a test day for one of the Ski companies and everyone went “Another Gimick” after we had all skied them a few people were swayed. I was quite sceptical about the benefits of it for piste skiing other than giving you a better all mountain ski but having seen some of the research in relation to how it impacts turns I think we are going to see it around for quite some time.
Luckily if you don’t like it there are other options on the ski rack.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
whoa! that's wide 
Happy with my K2 all-mountain rocker, gimmick or otherwise.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Haggis_Trap wrote: |
| basically a big shovel on the ski that starts further back |
On most piste skis that's exactly what it is, and I fail to see why this is considered a rocker, which I thought was was supposed to be reverse camber, and not simply a tweak in the design of a completely 'normal' ski as we know them now.
Example:
If lay my 2010 Nordica Doberman Spitfire Pros next to my 2006 Movement Gladiators it's clear that the tip on the Movements starts to rise well before the tip on the Nordicas, however in 2006 the Movements were sold simply as 'off piste' skis and rockers were neither here nor there. They are not, I stress, reverse camber.
Now however I can look at any K2 or Salomon ski in a shop and be told it has a 'rocker' despite the fact that laid down flat they look more like Spitfires than Gladiators, and of course none of them looks anything like my 2013 WhiteDot Directors which really do look as if they're upside down.
I appreciate that technically the arguments are strong for putting a bit of reverse camber on all skis, but so far I've not really seen good results from it on piste skis.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
Haggis_Trap, what your images tell me is that a rocker is reverse camber which doesn't start in the middle of the ski...
Traditional camber looks nothing like that on race skis which look pretty much flat.
I'm not getting buried in technicalities, I see skis as people like to ski them, not as the scientists on epicski who like to dissect them.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
^ the point is that rocker / reverse camber can mean many very different things : and be applied to a ski in many different ways. the diagram above, pulled off google images, is clearly somewhat exaggerated to demonstrate the concepts.
clearly a full reverse camber ski will be very different to one with just tip rocker.
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
| Haggis_Trap wrote: |
| ^ the point is that rocker / reverse camber can mean many very different things : and be applied to a ski in many different ways. |
I do see what you mean but it just brings us back to marketing! I just don't believe a ski with a 10mm piste 'rocker' is a considerable advancement/difference over sticking the start of the tip further back (towards the toepiece). And when I see the blurb from Rossi and K2 about turning at slow and high speed etc I understand the theory, but I've yet to witness it executed well on a piste ski.
Off-piste I admit, it's brilliant, but if only because it's so easy to ski. On the downside, expect again to see a lot more ill-prepared and ill-equipped people getting stuck in the back country over the next few seasons (as when skis started getting wider).
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
Haggis_Trap,
Good diagram, very clear.
The red points show the point of contact on the snow with a unweighted ski.
I'm on K2 Rictors which are fantastic!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Quote: |
History lesson - In year 2000 "carving" was the new marketing buzz word.
|
Elan SCX came out in 1993 --- carving was a buzzword a long time before 2000.
Rocker is not the new carve.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
^ for sure : decent skiers could happily "carve turns" on 205cm straight skis all through the 1970s and 80s.
Circa 1999/2000 is when the ski companies and marketing men really started to sell the concept of side cut and hijacked the term "carving ski". Up until then the vast majority were still skiing on longer straight skis.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
Well twenty years on people still ask for 'paraboliques' [carving skis] on a daily basis, as if we were just catching up with the trend...
Ok, by 'people' I mean exclusively the French! 
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
|
So what so what do you think of Elan's Amphibios idea?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
| Quote: |
| Well twenty years on people still ask for 'paraboliques' [carving skis] on a daily basis, as if we were just catching up with the trend... |
^ that is because most skiers are clueless punters...
Last edited by Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person on Tue 15-01-13 10:39; edited 1 time in total
|
|
|
|
|
|
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?
|
I still find it hilarious seeing full on rockers being skied by folks who are exclusively on piste.
Mind you, seeing full on crevasse rescue gear around Morzine is quite funny too.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
|
^ yip : skiing narrow super sidecut piste 'carving' skis in variable snow off piste is pretty dumb too.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
They already are standard for offpiste and versatility (for pure piste I'm also sceptical). No downsides at all offpiste - you don't lose any contact length as you're in the snow rather than on it, though some types of rocker work better than others in some conditions. I really can't see why you'd want an all mountain ski without at least tip rocker?
under a new name, curious which rockered skis you've tried (and in which conditions)? I seem to remember it took 5 years of you disliking 'fat' skis, and using race skis everywhere before you found a fatter ski that clicked with you (which ironically now has tip rocker).
The main advantage to my mind is with rocker you've no need of a soft ski thats easy to de-camber in pow to avoid tip dive, you've already got that shape, so you can ski something much stiffer that works better in other conditions, and at higher speeds.
Last edited by Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do. on Tue 15-01-13 10:58; edited 2 times in total
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
|
Haggis_Trap, +1
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
problem is that rocker gets applied to everything from a slightly early rise tip to full on DPS-style bananas. no wonder punters are confused
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I still think that the "marketing" problem is the term "rocker" rather than anything to do with the skis themselves.
As Haggis_Trap, has clearly pointed out above the term rocker can mean a whole range of different things from a tiny amount of early rise to HUGE tip and tail rise.
On any shape/size of ski you have got to look at a whole range of things not just the rocker, early rise, camber!
I recently tested some of the Liberty Double Helix with its new tip and tail rocker, if you looked at the specs then they were the same as other models I have skied, but in reality the were totally different, it comes down to the flex pattern stiffness and the materials used as well.
| Quote: |
I still find it hilarious seeing full on rockers being skied by folks who are exclusively on piste.
|
WHY ??? If your having fun skiing well, why not, I would happily ski the most crazy tip and tail rocker (Movement Flyswatter) all day on piste, OK so I go off piste as well but as long as its not super ice hard then they are just fun to be on.
The other big plus is that when it gets really warm and the snow is just slush then a fat rocker ski makes it great fun on piste, and in these types of conditions a pure piste ski can be a nightmare 
|
|
|
|
|
|
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: |
problem is that rocker gets applied to everything from a slightly early rise tip to full on DPS-style bananas. no wonder punters are confused
|
Which just confirms the point that there is some pretty fraudulent marketing going on.
Skis have had varying degrees of camber for ages. Skis biased to off-piste/all mpountain tend not to have had exaggerated cambers because of tip dive. Rocker is only "new" if it means reverse camber otherwise it is marketing fluff
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
^ the "carving revolution" circa 1999/2000 was marketing driven fluff too...
however skis have slowly been getting better over the last decade. only 12 years ago the Salomon X-Scream was considered to be a state of the art off piste weapon.
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
|
Is rocker the new soft shell?
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
| jedster wrote: |
| Which just confirms the point that there is some pretty fraudulent marketing going on. |
Someone notify the Rocker terminology licensing authority!
Oh wait, there's no standard definition of what rocker is? Then how can any usage of it be fraudulent?
| jedster wrote: |
| Skis have had varying degrees of camber for ages. Skis biased to off-piste/all mpountain tend not to have had exaggerated cambers because of tip dive. Rocker is only "new" if it means reverse camber otherwise it is marketing fluff |
Subtle or flat camber is not quite the same as an early rise tip or tail, despite the geometric similarities. Just out of interest though, do you have any examples of 10+ year old skis that have, say, 30% of the ski's length in front of or behind the camber contact points?
Oh, and "rocker" ain't new even if it is talking about a full reverse camber! The spatula is a good 12 years old.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| altis wrote: |
| Is rocker the new soft shell? |
It might even be the new flex.
'What do you mean you'll only ski in a boot with a flex of 113 sir, given that there's no standardised measurement of flex and all that...?'
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
| Haggis_Trap wrote: |
It took a while for designs to evolve, however 15 years later almost every ski still has an element of sidecut.
|
> well yes, but almost all skis had sidecuts before carvers (for example my 1958 skis which I still have on my wall).
I would like to know the relation between a ski with some reverse camber and skis in which the sidecut of the ski stops well before the end (the end section being straight). I have seen skis with the latter only (as far as I could tell) sometimes being called a rocker. Should we be distinguishing between these two things and if so what is the latter called?
Obviously a rocker will make turning easier since the tip is no longer carving on piste (and contributing less off piste) so is acting like a shorter ski, but does the ski still carve as well as an unrockered ski at speed (ie leaving tramlines)? I am assuming not, but am interested to know, not having tried them. The initiation of the carve is, after all, the critical bit. Just as with a soft ski, I assume they will not work as well on an icy piste since the ends are not contributing to the grip. Is there a downside to rockers off piste too?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
| Haggis_Trap wrote: |
^ the "carving revolution" circa 1999/2000 was marketing driven fluff too...
however skis have slowly been getting better over the last decade. only 12 years ago the Salomon X-Scream was considered to be a state of the art off piste weapon. |
I wish I still had mine. They were brilliant.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
| snowball wrote: |
| I would like to know the relation between a ski with some reverse camber and skis in which the sidecut of the ski stops well before the end (the end section being straight). I have seen skis with the latter only (as far as I could tell) sometimes being called a rocker. Should we be distinguishing between these two things and if so what is the latter called? |
I believe the term for sidecut stopping short of the tip (or tail) is called 'taper'. Certainly, that's what Praxis call it (and they're nice about listing lots of gear nerd numbers). I don't think there's necessarily much point having taper (or full reverse sidecut) without at least a bit of rocker, but I Am Not A Ski Designer. Taper works well with rocker, because it lets the designer control how much extra sidecut is engaged when the skiier puts the ski on edge. Rocker without taper can be 'hooky' if not well designed.
| snowball wrote: |
| Is there a downside to rockers off piste too? |
Steep icy couloirs will want lots of edge. Rockered skis tend to be long (so you can keep some effective edge) and that length can be a bit of a pain if you're touring and doing kick turns, for example. I think tail rockers probably have more downsides than tip rockers, but I can't really articulate them very well Lack of tail grip on harder snow and tight turns is one, being less forgiving of ending up in the backseat is another.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
snowball, i suspect that just as we saw with "modern" "carvers" the problem of people being unable to ski well will simply change.
With carver sthe near universal intermediate complaint (symptom) of being unable to cleanly and easily initiate the turn was shifted to an inability to manage and complete the turn.
That problem may well have existed, but it wasn't so obviously manifested.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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?
|
| Quote: |
I would like to know the relation between a ski with some reverse camber and skis in which the sidecut of the ski stops well before the end (the end section being straight). I have seen skis with the latter only (as far as I could tell) sometimes being called a rocker. Should we be distinguishing between these two things and if so what is the latter called?
|
It's called reverse sidecut. Traditionally you wanted a very big shovel up front to avoid tip dive on skinny cambered skis, but this also makes the skis 'hooky' - ie, want to make (smaller) turns when you don't. Normally skis with this are also rockered.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
| Quote: |
Obviously a rocker will make turning easier since the tip is no longer carving on piste (and contributing less off piste) so is acting like a shorter ski, but does the ski still carve as well as an unrockered ski at speed (ie leaving tramlines)? I am assuming not, but am interested to know, not having tried them.
|
Yes they can, although as the skis are generally fatter you need good snow conditions for the edge to grip. Once the ski is up on edge, the rockered portion often engages (remember cambered skis make the same 'rockered' shape in a carve). The big difference is, due to the lack of camber, you get less 'pop' out of the turn (as in when a cambered skis pops back to it's cambered shape).
However many skis have a cambered section underfoot with rocker only in the tip (or tip and tail), giving the best of both worlds.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
| Haggis_Trap wrote: |
| Even on hard snow the rocker *can* make the turn initiation of a mid fat (say 80m++) ski easier (if it has been implemented properly). |
Apart from the fact that the ski is effectively shorter, how does that work? Is the main width of the shovel "in front" of the contact point? And even if it is, how does it help with the turn?
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
As posted above:
So what so what do you think of Elan's Amphibios idea?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Megamum wrote: |
As posted above:
So what so what do you think of Elan's Amphibios idea? |
Got a set at work but not tried it yet, will get back to you if I (ever) do.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
albinomountainbadger, I shall be playing on mine at half term in Feb. Whether I ski well enough to notice I've no idea yet.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
| Megamum wrote: |
| So what so what do you think of Elan's Amphibios idea? |
Sounds awful to me, though they're not the only people using an asymmetric powder/piste design so maybe there is smething in it (the Dupraz D2 is an even stranger example; I'm sure there have been others that never made it past the prototype stage). The original advertising campaign was impressively daft, I recall.
I doubt it would work as well in 3d snow as an appropriately designed ski would, nor as well on piste as a proper pistey ski. So it has most of the disadvantages of existing "all mountain" skis, but in a more inconvenient-to-service package. I'd much rather have a quiver of 2 than a weird compromise.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
